U.S. Supreme Court leans toward allowing Apple App Store antitrust suit

Apple has said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who sell the apps to consumers through the App Store.

If a developer wants $1 for their app they have to add Apple charge of 30% ($0.30) to it.

As Apple controls the selling of apps for Apple devices, developers have no choice but to pass Apple charges onto the customer.

By stopping developers selling their apps via any other source but the Apple store, Apple is monopolizing the Apple app market for iPhone software applications

Competing app stores should be allowed; there is no valid reason why Apple's store should have a monopoly.

The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases

The article is entirely about third-party software vendors being forced to sell their software through Apple's App Store. It has nothing to do with Apple selling its own software.

Developers want to be able to sell through other channels. If you buy a fridge you can buy food to put in it from anywhere; you aren't forced to buy your food from the fridge vendor at a 30% mark up. Why should phones be any different?

Scrote

Developers want to be able to sell through other channels. If you buy a fridge you can buy food to put in it from anywhere; you aren't forced to buy your food from the fridge vendor at a 30% mark up. Why should phones be any different?

That's not a very good analogy.

A better analogy is a if developer wants to sell games for the PS4, XBox, Switch etc., they have to go through Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. They cannot sell through any other channels. Why should selling apps for iOS be any different?

BTW I am a developer and I have apps on the App Store.

A better analogy is a if developer wants to sell games for the PS4, XBox, Switch etc., they have to go through Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. They cannot sell through any other channels.

Actually, they can sell thru other channels - they don't have to use the PS, XBox, or Nintendo marketplaces - they can sell thru GameStop, Walmart, Amazon, etc. And those other stores can have their own discounts separate from Sony, MS, or Nintendo.

Actually, they can sell thru other channels - they don't have to use the PS, XBox, or Nintendo marketplaces - they can sell thru GameStop, Walmart, Amazon, etc.

Actually, they do have to go through Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. And those companies will take their commission.

Actually, they can sell thru other channels - they don't have to use the PS, XBox, or Nintendo marketplaces - they can sell thru GameStop, Walmart, Amazon, etc.

Actually, they do have to go through Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. And those companies will take their commission.

They get a cut, or more specifically a license fee from the publisher (on the first-sale doctrine, but not on 2nd-hand sales and thereafter)

But they don't control those other stores - those other stores can set their own prices and discounts separate from the PS / Xbox / Nintendo e-Shop marketplaces

For games available in those other stores, consumers aren't forced to buy at PS / Xbox / Nintendo e-Shop marketplace prices

Also, Sony / Microsoft / Nintendo get a cut only when bought from their own stores

If bought from other stores (e.g. Amazon, GameStop), they don't get a cut

Remember, the license fee is cut from the publishers, not from those other stores