- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court rules
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:51 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:51 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
They have standing but they will probably lose the case if they sue Apple.
1
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:52 am to prplhze2000
quote:
They have standing but they will probably lose the case if they sue Apple.
I hope so. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on cellphones. That is ridiculous.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:55 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I have zero problems with this. He’s upholding the law, which is exactly what he’s supposed to do, regardless of what his political party values.
In his profession it’s important to not let politics play a role and he made the call he believes protects the constitution. I can respect that.
In his profession it’s important to not let politics play a role and he made the call he believes protects the constitution. I can respect that.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:01 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The case stems from a 2011 class-action suit by iPhone owners alleging that by taking a 30% cut of app sales, Apple has encouraged app developers to raise their prices in response. Consumers have been harmed by the practice, the suit claimed, because Apple does not allow customers to download apps from any other source other than the iTunes App Store.
Unlike Android, iOS customers can only get apps from that official source, which Apple says serves as kind of quality control to weed out security threats and apps that violate the company's terms of service.
Apple (AAPL) argued that the iPhone owners do not have the right to sue because Apple is an intermediary. But the Supreme Court held that iPhone owners have a "direct purchaser" relationship with Apple, and may sue under a precedent known as Illinois Brick. Had Apple been allowed to set the terms of the legal fight, the court said, it would have hindered the ability of consumers to seek relief from alleged monopolists.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:08 am to mtntiger
quote:
fricking Apple acts like it still owns the phone after you bought it.
It feels like they are just leasing you their technology even after you buy their phone which is bullshite.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:10 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It's not like Apple is the only one selling smartphones though. There are many other, better options out there. Couldn't people pissed about the app store just buy an Android phone instead?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:29 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Kavanaugh is going to push for free market enterprise, which this decision does. I’m a conservative, but those other conservative judges ruling in Apple’s favor are stupid. Being a conservative they should protect free economy, not big business monopolies like Apple
If Apple was basically only company selling phones (or dominating & controlling market) or maybe even only allowing their own Apps to be sold I could see as monopoly, but Android phones have more of the market. So is this ruling stating Apple App store that offers mostly 3rd party apps is creating a monopoly in phone ecosystem that runs 2nd place to Android in overall market and makes up less than 50% of this market?
Controlling the way to install apps especially when not limiting apps to only from their company and also not in control of overall market shouldn’t make them a monopoly and seems like it can be over applied and limit competition in the main market.
I thought Kav was wronged in confirmation process, but he wasn’t even close to being my first choice.He has been wrong more often than right so far, and this may be another if this is what ruling is stating.
Edit: this is about direct versus indirect standing not saying it’s a monopoly (at least not yet). Seems like this is more about App Store policy on what Apple’s cut is & possibilities of policy causing anti-trust issues alongside policy of not allowing apps to be installed in other ways, and that Apple has established consumers buying directly from them versus indirectly.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 11:51 am
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:52 am to TheAlmightySmash
quote:
The sarcasm is pretty easy to see considering it's exactly the opposite of protecting big business
You need to use your sarcasm font. Get with it.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:04 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
How dare auto-manufacturers build their high end vehicles with parts that can't be replaced with generics from AutoZone! They should be forced to make maintenance on their vehicles cheaper!
Your response makes no sense. If someone makes parts that fit the high end vehicle, the owner has the right to buy and install said parts.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:08 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Can someon explain how the app store is a monopoly? I don’t understand. I mean, I know that you can only use the app store through Apple in agreement with the terms and conditions. Doesn’t jail breaking kind of throw a wrench into it all?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Apple has monopolized everything regarding user consumption with their products for decades. This isn't new and it's not limited to the App Store. Apple's business model is predicated on giving its clients less choice, not more.
That's what is so appealing about Android for many: you can select the software/hardware features that you want all the way down to how your home screen looks and acts. I don't know how iPhone users look at the same dame grid of icons on your home screens year, after year, after year.
That's what is so appealing about Android for many: you can select the software/hardware features that you want all the way down to how your home screen looks and acts. I don't know how iPhone users look at the same dame grid of icons on your home screens year, after year, after year.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:20 pm to dallastigers
quote:
So is this ruling stating Apple App store that offers mostly 3rd party apps is creating a monopoly in phone ecosystem that runs 2nd place to Android in overall market and makes up less than 50% of this market?
Apple controls the contents of its store. They can approve or deny any app. And many apps are denied on the basis of competition against Apple’s apps or bc they represent things Apple doesn’t like. The Infowars App is one example, they have a different political affiliation than Apple, so Apple took them off Apple products. Apple controls the market, therefore it is not a free market. The App Store is basically it’s own economy since it is the exclusive provider of apps on Apple products
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:23 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
That's what is so appealing about Android for many
Or the fact that i can plug my phone into my PC and it opens like a flash-drive with Windows explorer.
Ill never say apple makes terrible products. They do not. Infact there are many times I'd recommend ISO over Android.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:43 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Apple's business model is predicated on giving its clients less choice, not more
But in the specific market say computers or cell phones it’s offering consumers in general a completely different choice while not being a monopoly over these markets.
Yes, their business practices have in long run limited them dominating and controlling the markets they enter, but at least with phones they have stayed competitive unlike the Mac back in the early days.
I also get that ruling is not officially ruling that App Store is a monopoly yet and more by limited how apps are installed that it’s not just indirectly selling apps to consumers as Apple claimed and therefore it can’t claim to be immune from these types of lawsuits over the apps, but in a given market I don’t think being a closed environment is always wrong especially in a competitive overall market of a type of product. It’s a choice that may or may not succeed.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:49 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
Kavanaugh is going to push for free market enterprise, which this decision does. I’m a conservative, but those other conservative judges ruling in Apple’s favor are stupid. Being a conservative they should protect free economy, not big business monopolies like Apple
Forcing a company to manufacture and develop a phone that supports installing other people's applications is not free market
If you don't like the way the Apple products work don't buy it.
You sound just a like a liberal who says that forcing people to pay high taxes to subsidize welfare is pro-freedom because then poor people have the freedom to buy more stuff. You're not a conservative, and neither is Brett "Patriot Act" Kavanaugh.
Next you'll be forcing cake shop owners to bake gay cakes to ensure there's a "free gay cake market"
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
When do we get to sue for planned obsolescence?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:03 pm to efrad
quote:
Forcing a company to manufacture and develop a phone that supports installing other people's applications is not free market
No one is asking Apple to support other people's apps. All they want is for Apple to not deny them the ability to use other people's apps on the hardware they've paid for. If that app breaks the hardware, Apple is not at fault.
Imagine Microsft saying anything you download to a Windows device has to be purchased from the Windows Store.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:13 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
No one is asking Apple to support other people's apps.
I never said "support other people's apps" I said "support installing other people's apps" which, despite similar wording, is something very different.
quote:
All they want is for Apple to not deny them the ability to use other people's apps on the hardware they've paid for. If that app breaks the hardware, Apple is not at fault.
Apple does this to protect their brand image, and they have every right to do with their phone platform as they wish. It is this clean image that has given them a reputation for being more secure and virus-free vs. Windows on the desktop market for example.
I have used iPhones since the very first one and I think it would be GREAT for me if the phones were more open. I would personally WELCOME opening the platform. But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that government forcing a business to bow to my desires is pro-freedom
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:17 pm to efrad
Point stands, obviously.
No one is asking them to "support installing other people's apps"...the hardware is already capable. They actively restrict it.
Windows was one example. Would love to see if you support a system where use of all products we buy are governed by the manufacturer.
No one is asking them to "support installing other people's apps"...the hardware is already capable. They actively restrict it.
Windows was one example. Would love to see if you support a system where use of all products we buy are governed by the manufacturer.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:22 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
No one is asking them to "support installing other people's apps"...the hardware is already capable. They actively restrict it.
It's their phone. They can implement whatever they want. If the hardware is already capable just wipe Apple's firmware off of it and install your own custom firmware. But you can't do that, because it's a hell of a lot more complex than "the hardware is already capable" due to security.
You are asking them to change under threat of government force. That's not freedom and I don't support that.
quote:
Windows was one example. Would love to see if you support a system where use of all products we buy are governed by the manufacturer.
I already said I don't support such systems and I want to see Apple change. But there's a difference between saying "I don't like such things" and "the government should step in and make Apple do what I want."
Same reason I don't support cake shops refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings but I also don't support government agencies shutting them down if they don't. I'll just take my money elsewhere if I don't like it
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 1:24 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News