SCOTUS to decide if Anti-Trust Lawsuit vs Apple can proceed

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Sauce:
https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...one-86be8da9-2644-443b-9540-fd0d759a8436.html

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on an antitrust case alleging that Apple created a monopoly with its App Store, which makes Apple the exclusive distributor of apps for the iPhone and takes a cut of app sale prices.

Basically the challenge here is that Apple owns a monopoly on the iOS apps which allows Apple to charge higher than a competitive market would. However, right now this is just to see if the case can move forward. Apple had won summary judgment which was overturned. SCOTUS is going to decide whether the developers represent the first chain in the market, if they do they have standing to bring the case, if not then the consumers buying the app would have to be the ones filing.

Argument that might end up at trial seems weak to me. I don't think you can put Apple into a group by themselves as the market also has Android which you can develop for [which apps are owned by Google Play Store (are there any other mobile OS left? Windows shut down, BB doesn't support their OS anymore, Amazon shut down)]. Yes Apple does require exclusivity but that isn't necessarily a monopoly.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm interested to see how this goes. You could just as easily say that Sony has a monopoly because the Playstation Store is the exclusive distributor for apps on the PS4.

OP, you know the case name? I'm interested in seeing the rationale behind this in detail. This could destroy the walled garden approach entirely if it's what I have in my head.

 

[sub_thug]

Seems like a weak case against Apple. Apple can argue that there is no requirement for app developers to put their apps into the iOS space in order to access the market. Apple can also argue that these are service fees for third-party verification of the apps themselves, given their whole "walled garden" approach. Android doesn't do that kind of verification, so you can add whatever apps you want, but you may be downloading malware or flawed code.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

I'm interested to see how this goes. You could just as easily say that Sony has a monopoly because the Playstation Store is the exclusive distributor for apps on the PS4.

OP, you know the case name? I'm interested in seeing the rationale behind this in detail. This could destroy the walled garden approach entirely if it's what I have in my head.

Apple v. Pepper

Seems like a weak case against Apple. Apple can argue that there is no requirement for app developers to put their apps into the iOS space in order to access the market. Apple can also argue that these are service fees for third-party verification of the apps themselves, given their whole "walled garden" approach. Android doesn't do that kind of verification, so you can add whatever apps you want, but you may be downloading malware or flawed code.

Good point on walled garden. Yeah the third party thing is part of Apple's argument