Most of the document is about the complex procedural history of the case. The meat of the new decision is on page 20 onwards:
> Apple argues that it does not sell apps but rather sells
“software distribution services to developers.” In Apple’s
view, because it sells distribution services to app developers,
it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to app
purchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner
of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various
stores.” Apple’s analogy is unconvincing. In the case before
us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their
own “stores.” Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior
alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app
developers to sell through their own “stores,” Apple
specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to
sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.
...
> [W]e rest our analysis, as compelled by Hanover
Shoe, Illinois Brick, UtiliCorp, and Delaware Valley, on the
fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer,
on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a
distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to
purchasers through its App Store. Because Apple is a
distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue
Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to
monopolize the sale of iPhone apps.
> Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various stores.”
Sounds like a company store in a mining town. The company pays your pay checks, charges you high rent and high prices at the company store (Which is also the only store)
"iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple Inc over allegations that the company monopolized the market for iPhone apps by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, leading to higher prices, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday."
If this is deemed illegal then its going to get quite interesting on both the phones and game consoles. Welcome back Atari 2600.
> its going to get quite interesting on both the phones and game consoles
A key insight. Many companies sell products that in turn have marketplaces which they wring some control over.
Game consoles is indeed an interesting one, because it parallels so perfectly. If Apple must allow competitor markets within iOS, so must Sony and Microsoft. (Note that physical game sales also require paying a commission to the console maker, so it's a different market but the same business model.)
Or cable TV. Does Comcast have a monopoly on selling additional cable channels and pay-per-view through my Comcast set top box? How is that any different?
> If Apple must allow competitor markets within iOS, so must Sony and Microsoft.
Because pricing power is the test for market power, there's actually a more complete analysis that needs to be done than this kind of superficial similarity. As it's more common for people to have multiple consoles from different vendors than multiple cellphones from different app ecosystems, it is quite plausible that a console vendor might not have pricing power in games that they sell through their stores whereas Apple might have pricing power in the app store.
In the case of game sales, that's usually part of SDK licensing for the platform... Which may happen if Apple must open up the next series of iThings, the developer program licensing may well change, and prices may go up if you want to publish outside iStore.
MacD is a manufacturer, they're not obliged, actually cannot manufacture anyone else's products. A closer analogy would be if I opened a mall in your city, got the local council to agree that my mall was the only one allowed for the next 50 years and then allowed only MacD to open up shop, denying space to other burger joints even if they offered the same rent.
Still not true analogy as Apple don't prevent competitions inside the mall.
Anyway finding a physical world analogy will be though so maybe we should resign trying. (Fact that duplicatinga/delivering cost for digital product is close to zero is an example of why physical analogy will often fail)
There is no real world analogy because no brick and mortar company would get away with something like this.
A close analogy would be Apple owning every shopping mall in the world, charging shop owners annual rent AND taking 30% of their revenue. Also as part of their lease agreement, Apple forbids tenants from selling their products out of their own independent shop or even out of their own homes or websites. Could you imagine how much more expensive goods would be if shopping mall landlords took 30% off the top line of every tenant?
Of course you could say there's Google Play, but your Android app is a different product from your iPhone app. Also, Google Play conveniently has the exact same arrangement with the same 30% commission, so it's basically just a parallel universe where people are stuck in one or the other.
I don't know how they have gotten away with this for so long. Imagine if Microsoft took 30% of the revenue of every Windows app developer (of course beginning after their monopoly was already established)! They couldn't even get away with bundling a web browser into their operating system. What Apple is doing is far worse.
Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems and were leveraging that to win the browser wars. Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones and consequently cannot be using that monopoly as leverage. Monopolies aren’t even a problem in and of themselves, it’s leveraging them that’s generally illegal.
They have a monopoly on distribution of apps for iPhones. You literally aren't allowed to sell anywhere else and they are leveraging it for an outrageous 30%
Well if it's the leverage that's the problem, then we have a problem. Google and Apple are exerting the leverage of a monopoly (30% revenue tax) despite each not having a monopoly according to the classic definition, at least. It doesn't matter if each have 45% market or one has 90% if they're allowed to behave as if they each have 100%.
They do restrict competition in the app store. Especially if it competes with apple itself. They just banned app store app that tracked down lost airpod via realitive (Bluetooth?/WiFi?)signal strength for PR reasons.
Interesting. Is there a website with a database where people can claim which apps have been removed from the App Store just for historical sake, or to reference to?
McDonald's buys soda and resells it to customers. Apple does not buy apps and resell them to customers.
The current situation in the iOS ecosystem would be more like McDonald's forbidding you from bringing your own beverages into their restaurants, even if they don't sell the same beverage (or even a competitor of one they do sell) and you plan to buy their food.
Of course, restaurants can and do frown upon or even outright forbid the above behavior, but they also don't charge multiple hundreds of dollars for you to walk through the door.
I wouldn't really call that "buying". If Coca Cola operated by setting up shop inside a McDonald's and selling its soda, but had to give 30% of its earnings to McDonald's, most people wouldn't say that McDonald's buys the soda. I guess it could be interpreted that way, but it'd be a very weird way of doing so, and would be (IMO) an incorrect interpretation of the semantic relationship between the soda manufacturer and the restaurant.
To further demonstrate that semantic disconnect, the app developer is only paid when Apple receives a payment from the user for that app. Modeled in terms of McDonald's selling soda, it would be equivalent to McDonald's not paying Coca Cola until someone orders and pays for a fountain drink. AFAIK, this ain't the case.
In other words:
* McDonald's actually buys soda from Coca Cola, then resells it to customers
* Apple only facilitates the transfer of money (from user to developer) and application (from developer to user)
If anything, Apple is probably closer to an escrow than a retailer (another bad analogy, I know, but certainly better than any notion of Apple buying and reselling apps).
If we are trying to play the analogy game[1], I think the closest thing in US law would be automobiles. The manufacture cannot force you to buy gas at a certain place and cannot restrict 3rd parties from making parts, accessories, and tires.
Although I understand the 2600 / Nintendo argument, I think at this point forcing an opening in the stores will probably be the only way for independent software companies to survive long term. It will also lessen the power of Apple or Google to silence app developers.
I am really getting a bit sick of book and music authors being treated better than developers for the purpose of speech.
1) I tend to agree with jliptzin's "There is no real world analogy because no brick and mortar company would get away with something like this." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13398591
Apple could charge a licensing fee to developers that equals %30 of app revenues instead in exchange for permission & access to use the iOS SDK and get access to signing keys. If they use the app store, then that %30 is automatically collected for them.
I could see that as a result of a lawsuit forcing them out of the app store model.
If iPhones were open to third party software then restricting access to the official SDK would only cause others (e.g. Google, Mozilla, Canonical) to create competing ones.
And how would a monopoly on signing keys be any different than the original app store monopoly? That's effectively what the app store monopoly is.
Interestingly however, the plaintiffs don't allege anything about the practical impossibility of loading non-app-store apps.
(At least, not as far as is mentioned in this decision -- I haven't read the original case, only the summary discussed in this decision, but it seems fairly complete)
Instead, they point out (1) Apple's threat to ban apps that use other distribution channels from the app store, and (2) Apple's threat to void warranties of phones onto which apps have been sideloaded
So a monopoly on signing keys is actually different from what (the plaintiffs are claiming) is the problem with the app store monopoly.
"[T]he obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices"
Is that a joke?
I'd love to be able to sell iOS software directly to users. Even if there were no viable channels outside of the App Store having the choice would make me rest a lot easier.
But to state that "Apple's monopoly" has driven the price of software up is to be laughably out of touch with reality. Maybe this has to be argued from the point of view of the consumer and they thought "monopoly driving prices down" wouldn't be a very good case?
Prices could be lowered by a store that takes a smaller commission, while passing the same amount of money onto the developer. That would lower prices for consumers without hurting developers. Or there could be commission tiers that mean that the more successful the app the greater percentage the developer gets.
Wouldn't the developer still price to market in this case? It would be ideal that the decrease in commissions would be proportionate in developers' price points, but more than likely you're still paying .99-1.99 on average for the app. The developer is just making more in this case, not necessarily benefiting the consumer any more.
The separate stores should compete, as they are doing now. If one becomes more appealing, users and developers can switch. I think of the logic behind your argument as saying that Walgreens should be forced to let CVS use a portion of its stores to sell in (for free), even though there's a CVS across the street....there's nothing stopping anyone from going to shop across the street as it currently stands, just as there is no outside force stopping anyone from switching to an android to be able to download play store apps. These 2 year contracts are an impediment, but these are signed at the consumer's discretion.
Except that going across the street to CVS to get the exact same product at a better price is very different to switching from iPhone to Android. Apart from just the big outlay for new hardware, you have to figure out how to migrate from (e.g.) iCloud, what happens with your chats in iMessage with all your friends, the different way that Android actually works. Don't underestimate the degree to which small differences confuse non-techy users. Even just upgrading from one iPhone to another, or installing an iOS update, can be confusing.
No-ones going to do that to get slightly cheaper apps (if they are actually cheaper, which I doubt, because I don't believe that the Google App Store is actually competing with the Apple App Store).
I'm starting an application... plan on having a website, ios and android version. If my cost is $2/month/user, and I want to make even $1 a user, then I have to charge more for the Apple/Android store versions, because they charge 30%.
Beyond this, if I charge more for the Apple app than the website or google versions, then Apple may choose to ban my app. This means, my website app may be more expensive (higher margins, sure) because of Apple.
With Android, I can always bypass the Play Store (like Amazon does).
"But to state that 'Apple's monopoly' has driven the price of software up is to be laughably out of touch with reality."
I reckon the rationale here is twofold:
* The currently-mandatory 30% fee would now be optional, as would be the flat developer fee (if it still exists; I haven't really looked into it in a long time)
* The availability of additional stores means the availability of different apps that might not be available on Apple's store, thus increasing competition and driving down prices through more typical supply/demand curves.
I think this will make iPorn a reality on iOS outside the browser... though seriously, I'd love to see an app store for only reviewed/paid apps with no spyware/adware guarantees. Facebook/LinkedIn wouldn't be available on it because of their spyware activities. That would mean actually higher-quality apps.
I don't know what is so funny about this. Their monopoly allows them to tax 30% of every sale. I am an app developer and I absolutely charge more to my end users because of that 30% - after all I have to pay for servers and employees and that number would absolutely be lower if not for the 30% tax.
It's laughable because the market for iOS apps has driven the price as low as it can go already. You cannot go lower. The average price for an app is FREE, and for the paid ones it's usually one or occasionally two dollars.
Sounds like whoever wrote it doesn't know too much about the App Store as a consumer or developer.
The truth is that as right now, ~78% of apps in the App Store are free to download/play. The remaining ~22% that are paid stack around the $0.99 price point, which is the lowest possible price tier for a paid app.
I don't see how this "monopoly" is raising prices...
Opening the store in a way like the one being described would result in malware and low quality apps. It'd add clutter and an incredible amount of noise (aka. Competition) hurting developers and consumer.
It's a lose lose situation IMO.
If you need proof just look at Android. Lots of stores, low quality apps, and a very fragmented way for developers to monetize.
Yes, because Apple Store is known for having such high quality apps[1] all around. There's definitely room for a mobile store than actually reviews every app, with a person running said app. Bans on spyware/adware, and only apps for purchase. An initial review could be as little as $50 to the developer, and update reviews paid out of the top of sales. Charging well below 30%.
There used to be a rule for the Mac App Store (I don't know if it is there anymore) that forbade developers from selling the same app at a lower price somewhere else. Wouldn't this be a case of anti-competitive price-fixing?
Walmart doesn't also have the ability to make buying the good from somewhere else inherently more difficult. It would be the equivalent of Walmart paying someone to stand in front of Target stores claiming to be an expert on the product you want to buy and saying "You know, the Target version of this product is very unsafe. You should really, really consider getting it from Walmart. I'm going to body block you from entering the store because I'm worried about you buying it from over there."
> Walmart doesn't also have the ability to make buying the good from somewhere else inherently more difficult.
Yes they can and do regularly. The extreme example is of course an exclusive contract where the vendor agrees to make it impossible to buy the good elsewhere.
I think there is a difference, though: I'd imagine Walmart would buy a certain amount of copies of your game, and they would negotiate their purchase price, squeezing you as much as they can. Then they would mark it up and sell it on their own. If they see that you are selling it for half the price on your website, then that gives them a stronger purchasing argument to lower your price.
Apple, on the other hand, is imposing restrictions on which price you must sell it to third parties, and, that, I think, is illegal.
When I worked at CompUSA 25 years ago, many software titles were sold on consignment -- they went back to the publisher. The store was really selling shelf space and got a lot of money for it.
No, Wal-Mart will demand with it's Buyer agreement that you not sell the software elsewhere for less, using language that will look remarkably like Apple's because again this is how store's work.
Yes, but they do that as a buyer: you have to sell to them at the most favorable price. Then they will sell it at whatever price they see fit. If they want to bundle it for free with a toaster, they do not force you to do the same. Apple, on the other hand, tells you: your sales price to a third party cannot be lower than my sales price to a third party.
That's not forcing you to sell for free, that's preventing you from undercutting, they are completely different. What Apple is doing is exactly what Walmart does: you agree to not undercut the price here elsewhere.
Further, IOS developers use proprietary Apple technology to develop their apps... So with that in mind would Wal-Mart not be more guilty of anti-trust violations than Apple?
A lot depends on the market power. So for the Mac store it is a different story than for the iOS store as in the latter Apple has a very high market share.
There are also other considerations. A company may get away with demanding certain exclusivity rules for a few years but now we are getting to the point of 10 years so courts will look at the situation differently.
This is a good reason for Apple to avoid going further down market. With 43% market share [1] they're unlikely to be considered to have monopoly power by courts [2]:
>Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
>It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
When they're capturing over 90% of the profit in the smartphone industry there's no advantage to increasing market share, and some pretty big costs.
You're assuming the relevant market is smartphones but we're talking about app stores.
Suppose Walmart is the only retailer on the East Coast and Target is the only retailer on the West Coast. You're saying, isn't it great for Target that they only have 43% total market share so they can't be a monopoly. But they're clearly a monopoly on the West Coast, and it isn't practical for people on the West Coast to buy their merchandise from a Walmart in Boston or Atlanta, which implies they're different markets.
You can't buy an iOS app from Amazon or Google Play.
I can buy Candy Crush from Amazon and Google Play, isn't that the same thing? It won't run on my iPhone, but it's fundamentally the same app, isn't it?
I'm asking this genuinely, from a position of ignorance, interested in hearing an answer.
There is no problem with limiting software distribution channels for your own hardware in order to have a meaningful quality assurance.
What the DoJ should instead focus on is the crazy rules apple imposes in order to limit any competition. For example you can not publish apps that compete with their own stuff (that's why we don't have a real chrome or Firefox in iphone). Even more ridiculous is that you are not even allowed to mention apple competitors. Saying this app also support android wear will get you thrown out of the store.
I was working on a demo web app that does speech-to-text transcription. This requires that the browser support microphone access, which Safari doesn't. The site originally said that it worked in Chrome Firefox and Edge, but I finally got rid of that text and replaced it with feature detection at load-time because of how many times iPhone users reported it not working in Chrome or Firefox on their iPhone. (It works fine in Chrome and Firefox on Android.)
They have a complete vertical monopoly in a dominant (not lead) integration environment where migration to competitors is restrictive. Also, when I buy a toaster, I should be allowed to take it apart and replace the power cable if I so need/choose to. Apple is stopping me from doing the same with my iThing(tm), which is wrong.
In general, I'm just opposed to locked down platforms... I may never install a 3rd party build of anything on my phone, but I tend to buy phones that I could. I'm still pissed at Asus (and the FCC) for locking down my latest router (no tomato option).
Hence the (And the FCC) comment... there's a number of things that Asus could do. Certify third party firmware configs. Abstract the radio firmware interface to lock down certain bandwidth ranges, and signal power. I know it can take a while... still pissed about it.
I agree that apple is mean, but disagree they should be forced to open up their platform.
Let's not forgot that apple has tiny market share compared to google, they are only going after them because of their wealth.
2nd, let's not forget this was a completely natural monopoly. Apple didn't use the success of one thing to create a monopoly in another, iPhone was tiny when they introduced the app store. Is that the rule? If you're successful you have to share in that way?
Lastly, while I don't dream of ever having even a fraction of a fraction of the success apples had, it does suck to think that if you build something others want, others can sue you for access to the platform. Bullshit. If you don't like apples rules, don't play.
I think there are probably consumers who view the "monopoly" as a benefit. True or not, the perception can be that the iOS ecosystem is better of for it in terms of quality and security.
The monopoly is that phones have become so important for daily life that being able to install software on them is nearly a requirement for normal living.
It's like having two car manufacturers and they both recommend "approved" gas where they scrape 30% of the revenue as a tax. Anyone that wants to make their gas "approved" has to pay 30% of the revenue.
The difference between apple and google is that Google hides a little switch in the glove compartment that lets you use any gas if you want to. Apple on the other hand will void your warranty and try their hardest to break your car if you dare use unapproved gas or try to modify the car to use it
You could argue that you could just not drive a car if you didn't want to pay extra for approved gas...
The core issue is that Apple has created a marketplace for something so pervasive in daily life and has a complete monopoly on it. If the marketplace was smaller or phones less important consumers could easily say "I don't like the rules" and walk away
I think it's going to be extremely hard to prove that either customers or developers suffer because of the monopoly.
The pricing point is clearly wrong. Most apps are priced ridiculously low for the value they offer. I don't see that Apple can be blamed for that.
The lock-in part is also wrong. Developers are free to develop apps for Android (or Windows, if they really want to). There are even cross-platform all-in-one dev kits. (Admittedly they're not great, but it's possible to use them to do some large percentage of the dev work on a cross-platform app and then fill in the native details later.)
There are certainly elements that suck. Discovery on the app store is awful, and continues to be awful. Too many apps are still abandonware, even after last year's clean out.
Ironically developers might benefit more from better curation. A smaller number of really solid, bug-free apps would be better than the current mess of "I have no idea if this is going to crash or not" free for all.
But that's not really an anti-trust issue.
I'll be very surprised if this case gets far. It's clearly on thinner ice than the Bell, IBM, and MS antitrust cases.
If anything there's a better case to be made for hauling Google in for its near-monopoly on ad sales and search, and its habit of screwing over site owners who rely on ad revenue.
>The core issue is that Apple has created a marketplace for something so pervasive in daily life and has a complete monopoly on it.
That is a natural monopoly and not unlawful. They do not use the store to leverage position in other markets, which is where antitrust comes into play.
They actively prevent developers from building their own app stores and competing with apple's own apps.
Bell telephone had a similar monopoly. They owned the phone lines and wouldn't allow any non-approved equipment connected.
Your view really depends on if you see the phone primarily as a platform for apps or as an "apple phone" with some apps as neat little add-ons.
Antitrust comes about when a company has a high enough market share AND uses this market share to bludgeon any competitions. Apple created a market, they own the method of distribution, and they actively use their position to prevent competition with their own products and stop alternative markets from forming. Much like Bell
> Antitrust comes about when a company has a high enough market share AND uses this market share to bludgeon any competitions.
I feel like only a non-elected, inner circle within Govt gets to decide what these condition will return today. Even if the whole country is split 50/50, its only their retval that matters.
In ideal society, a legal debate is nothing to be proud of. People's lives/properties depends on it.
It's not a "natural monopoly" when it is created by restrictive policies attached to another product; that's textbook monopolization by leveraging market power in one market to monoplize a different market which, as you note, is an antitrust violation.
I don't know if it's significant from a legal standpoint, but for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been a walled garden. Yet Apple still became the most profitable phone manufacturer, despite that. It's not like they took advantage of their position in the market to force some new anticompetitive/anti consumer behavior the same way Comcast might.
Most monopolies are only sued (or considered in anti-trust) when they are in a dominant position. In this case, there are two dominant phone platforms... Apple's iOS (iStore only), and Android (multiple phone vendors, Play Store and options to load whatever software a user wants).
In the Apple case, they've taken whatever legal means possible to stop side-loading and alternative stores, dropped apps that try to sell via other paths. They have a vertical stranglehold on the platform, and are in a dominant position.
They're in a dominant position on their platform, which makes since as it's their platform. What they're not is in a dominant position in their market.
If you try to define antitrust in terms of platforms instead of markets, then every company that has a platform is a monopoly. And that is, of course, quite absurd and renders the term "monopoly" meaningless. Which is why it's not actually interpreted that way.
Interesting. I wonder how this will turn out in the end...
Part of me feels like if Apple has to allow apps outside of the app store, maybe they can then void your warranty. Like if you open up your computer and start installing parts on your own...
If you install a virus, etc it should be the user's fault for using a non trusted store. Why should Apple have to support somthing they didn't authorize?
I haven't seen a antivirus app ever featured on iOS, but on my Android devices I have... I thought it was kinda funny to install a antivirus on a phone or tablet in the first place - but I guess they are just computers in the end still and more to worry about when you leave them wide app.
On Android phones you can just toggle a setting to allow apps from outside Google Play and then install whatever you want however you want. You can e.g. send your program over FTP or Bluetooth and click the APK file to install it. Or you can use F-Droid with a repository of your choice: https://f-droid.org/
Note that the permissions system, app signing (with any key as long as it's the same for subsequent versions of the app) and other safety features are built into the system so they still work the same - security it not dependent on the Play Store.
You can install other app stores on Android. Amazon for example has one you can install. I believe it requires enabling app side loading, but it is perfectly possible.
Adding to the existing responses, there's also F-Droid, which specializes in being an "app store" for free-and-open-source Android apps: https://f-droid.org/
just a guess... google does not hold a monopoly over app selling in the android program space. there's the amazon store and i'm pretty sure one of the chinese hardware android companies have one.
I wonder how bad this is going to get with the recently announced French report on flight MS80 being downed by faulty Apple equipment (battery fire from either iPad or iPhone 6S.) I smell lawyers. Lots of them.
It's related because it's Apple, and I can well imagine that a fire caused by a faulty iPhone battery, killing dozens of people and downing an airplane, is going to be a pretty costly lawsuit to fight/settle along with this anti-trust suit?
Apple has an higher revenue than the GDP of most countries, including some Western European ones, and an healthy profit margin. I think they can afford to fight two parallel lawsuits.
AFAIU antitrust lawsuit triggers when you break an implicit agreement with customers i.e. breaking trust. But thats not what happened here. App Store is sole distributor of apps. Customers knows this. Customers may even rely on it.
So what gives ? Specifically what can a business in general do to avoid such fate ?
> AFAIU antitrust lawsuit triggers when you break an implicit agreement with customers i.e. breaking trust.
Incorrect. Antitrust occurs when you violate the laws regulating use of market power, which have little to do with customer trust ("trust", in this sense, refers to a monopoly, not to consumer trust in the firm.)
Having multiple middlemen selling the same app to the same customer isn't an incentive for the developer to lower their prices. Given that app developers set their own prices, Apple's effect on prices with their store "monopoly" would be hard capped at 30%.
And unlike a traditional retail store, the whole process is exceptionally transparent — every developer pays the same 30%, every developer gets boned by the same restrictions.
Anyway, there is a competitor to the App Store, it's the Play Store and it's available to any consumer who wishes to shop there. Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly on app sales.
The thing is, the law doesn't concern itself with iOS app sales, but rather the overall market of app sales. Is the overall market of app sales healthy? Yes, it most certainly is.
The reality is Apple doesn't control the marketplace of mobile apps. They don't even have a majority of it. People are free to choose whatever handset they like. And they do.
Actually, the law defines monopoly or market power by whether a firm has pricing power (the ability to raise prices without sales moving to a competitor) for its goods. If non-iOS apps aren't competitors to which people move in response to price increases for iOS apps, then they wouldn't be the same market for anti-trust analysis.
To your first paragraph: Sure, the effect is hard-capped at 30%. How is that an argument that it's not a real problem?
If someone was cheating you for 30% of your bill on anything, wouldn't you complain?
To your second paragraph: transparency isn't what's being discussed here. The developers aren't suing Apple; end users are.
To your third paragraph: nobody is alleging that Apple has a monopoly on computer programs in general; the point is that they have a monopoly on distribution channels for -- specifically -- iOS apps.
My point about the 30% is that Apple is only liable for inflating prices at most 30%. Prices can't be three times higher than the market would have set because Apple doesn't set the final price.
Here's a question, if Apple ran the App Store for free (0% commission) would there be any case to answer? How about 1%? Why is 30% so unreasonable? Seems to be the fair market rate for store services, I'd argue.
Microsoft has a monopoly on distribution channels for Xbox games. (Including packaged game discs which just like their online store require their blessing and a license fee. The only difference in practice is method of data delivery and additional middlemen taking a further cut of sales.) Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft?
Why should the government of one country pick the business model Microsoft must use on their games console? For a country that seems to bleat "freedom" like a trademark, that's pretty authoritarian.
You should be thinking more about the freedom of consumers to buy goods in a robust and competitive marketplace than you should about the freedom of tycoons to vertically integrate in said marketplace.
Anti-trust law, particularly in the form of the Sherman Act, has been preventing certain types of business models - deemed anticompetitive - for many years. See for example United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc..
I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether those legal restrictions are philosophically compatible with some concept of freedom. Citing the best work of political science of the last 40 years,
Minister - We are discussing right and wrong.
Humphrey - You may be, Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time.
Most of the document is about the complex procedural history of the case. The meat of the new decision is on page 20 onwards:
> Apple argues that it does not sell apps but rather sells “software distribution services to developers.” In Apple’s view, because it sells distribution services to app developers, it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to app purchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various stores.” Apple’s analogy is unconvincing. In the case before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own “stores.” Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own “stores,” Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.
...
> [W]e rest our analysis, as compelled by Hanover Shoe, Illinois Brick, UtiliCorp, and Delaware Valley, on the fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer, on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to purchasers through its App Store. Because Apple is a distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the sale of iPhone apps.
(IANAL)