How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be <=$5, or free to play.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

Developers love Apple because there is no piracy or competition from F-droid. Also the Apple clientele are proven to be bigger spenders.

I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted.

All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS"

If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

Setting aside the question of the impact of prices completely, the fact that Apple controls the sites that apps can link to should be abhorrent to anyone. At one point, they even tried to control what programming languages were used to write apps for iOS.

Your Spotify example is a good argument FOR Apple's model. In that case, consumers have a choice to either a) purchase a Spotify subscription via the web app, or b) purchase the subscription in app -- at a higher cost.

Some consumers still choose to purchase in app- for a variety of reasons: ease of use, speed, accessibility, streamlined with the rest of their Apple purchases, who knows. People choosing to overpay for Spotify shows the Apple ecosystem and model provides value to at least some consumers. Whether it is worth 30% is a different question.

How is it a problem for consumers if you can get a cheaper subscription to Spotify by buying it off the App Store?

Apple does not hold a monopoly, Android is the dominate platform. To use antitrust law you must first prove a monopoly exists, then prove the monopoly is being used in anti-competitive ways.

This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace.

Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%.

Think it’s better in brick and mortar land? Try again! Say you go buy a new TV from a major electronics store like Best Buy. Their effective margins are usually 50% or more. It gets even worse in other categories. Take shoes for example, in some cases 80% of the purchase price goes to the middleman.

Let’s also not forget that getting into the App Store, while us developers (myself included) whine about it like it’s the worst abuse, is far far easier than retailers like Amazon, Walmart, etc. Of course staying in the store is important too, talk to any businesses who were pulled due to low sales volume for their not even niche product. When has Apple really done that?

In conclusion, do I think what Apple is doing is fair, maybe, maybe not. I do however wish everyone would get out of their bubble though and realize as much as we like to complain, it’s really been a disruption to what was the status quo before.

> Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores

I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android.

As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry would love to see Apple lose though, don't let them.

The difference here is that the 30% cut is on everything digital sold through apple's payment system - including in app purchases. Amazon has removed in-app purchases from it's kindle and comixology apps because they'd owe a 30% cut to apple. Make whatever justifications for the app store purchases you want, it's the digital content from other stores (video, music, books, etc) that will bring about the anti-trust issues. Add to that the fact that apple is the only one restricting users to their app marketplace and you have the recipe for an antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft got hit with antitrust because they included internet explorer by default, how apple has only allowed one source for applications for ten years and never been challenged on it I will never know.

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

Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent".

I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing, but I do hope the court sees through that particular sham of an argument.

(Not a lawyer, so no idea if this is still controlling case law)

The full reasoning chain seems to be that Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (1968), in which the issue was USMC's leasing but refusal to sell machinery on which they had a monopoly, decided that being able to "pass along costs" was not a valid defense by a monopoly when sued by its direct customers.

Consequently, in Illinois Brick v Illinois (1977) the court decided that if a monopoly cannot use "they can pass along costs" as a defense from damages, then it follows that indirect purchasers (ie customers of customers) cannot use same offensively to sue a monopoly.

The intent is to prevent the complexity of calculating damages-once-removed, and putting the onus on the (simpler) damage calculation between direct monopoly and immediate customer.

If the Court upholds the prior decision, the plaintiffs will be denied standing. In that case, the appropriate legal challenge would either be an app seller suing Apple, or a customer suing an app seller (who could likely sue Apple in response).

If this is still case law, the only way I see this going another way is if the Court sees Apple's flat-30% as fundamentally different (and simpler) than the previously considered costs.

[1] Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/481/

[2] Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/720/

I think this is their argument ultimately:

Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.

I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be true of this case in that users shouldn't be the ones bringing cases but developers could by my read. But whatever we'll see what the court decides.

I think its good to force Apple to allow non-WebKit web engines on iOS. Right now Apple can forcefully cripple technologies like progressive web apps by not supporting the latest web technologies. This allows Apple to force companies to develop native applications.

Similarly, Apple has been slacking off on improving Webkit and making it as good as V8. By getting rid of Apple's monopoly on web engines, developers will be able to push websites to new levels that are currently hard to attain.

> I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything.

The nice thing about F-Droid is that the repository format is open. So you only need one "app-store" app installed (F-Droid), then add multiple app sources that are each controlled by some app curator. For example, the "F-Droid repo", the "Guardian Project repo", the "copperhead OS repo", the "micro G repo", etc etc. This allows for a unified user experience without centralising app execution power in the hands of one organisation.

If you've used GNU/Linux this is exactly how package repos work (and what F-Droid was inspired by), since several decades before the term "App Store" was invented.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that this will cause 5 app stores to be necessary?

Android pretty much only has 3 (Google Play, Amazon, & F-Droid), and the large majority never use anything other than Google Play.

> Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything.

Ideally what should happen is that someone makes a Store app that will install apps from arbitrary distribution services. Then there is still one interface for installing apps, but competition for distribution/payment/curation services.

You're really in favor of Apple controlling what software can and cannot be run on your computers for convenience sake? Android allows multiple app stores and multiple browser engines and it hasn't caused the problem you fear at all. I can't think of a major app that is not available in the Google Play store.

The rising tide lifts all technological boats, so it makes little since to compare today with historical water levels. Things can be overall cheaper compared to the past, but still anti-competitively hamstrung. If you can compare to costs of things in the past, you probably won't find any technology more expensive.

It’s a tricky claim to make for Apple.

But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc.

That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut.

I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has complete vertical integration. The 30% cut is a farce. But I’m not sure this is the best argument to end it.

> Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.

It's interesting because I imagine that'll be Apple's argument, and the natural counter-argument is that the $0.99 price is deceptive because of the "freemium" model of most apps.

Not sure how convincing they can make that argument, but it'll be interesting nonetheless. I imagine it'll involve putting an average "cost-per-app" including in-app purchases.

$0.99 or free with all the important features a $19.99 in app purchase each.

If you think the services the Apple app store provides are worth the price increase, then you as an individual consumer could choose to buy apps just from that store.

Or you could buy an app directly from the developer, whom you presumably trust (and even if you don't, the app is sandboxed, so the chances of something bad happening are pretty low).

Or you could buy the app from an alternative store that's more trustworthy than just "some east European dude from his basement", which would someone would almost certainly create if they had the option to.

Plus, Apple isn't just getting rid of the "worst offenders", it's also banning apps with content it dislikes, or that hurt its business model:

https://bgr.com/2018/05/25/steam-link-for-iphone-download-io...

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-...

And yet if an ISP blocked Netflix and made you buy from ISPFlix there'd be wailing and rending of garments.

I mean, you could just change ISP to ISP2 if you didn't like it.

> I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there.

But nobody is saying you can't or that it won't be curated or anything. The unfortunate part is some liking what ways others get their apps, not themselves. (granted I don't believe user freedom in this case should be government enforced, but we should all strive not to assume that our app retrieval methods are the best for others)

Yes, pretty much. Except vacuum cleaner manufacturers don't actually have that monopoly. You can easily buy substitute bags from another manufacturer for most popular vacuum cleaners.

Your vacuum manufacturer probably has a monopoly on vacuum bags for it's machine because it's niche enough for nobody else to care about making alternative bags. If someone decided that they wanted to, they could.

This isn't the case with the iPhone. It isn't niche and plenty of people want to build and be listed in alternatives, but they are prevented from doing so.

The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps“

I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.

I think it's strange since I can download software for MacOS anywhere. The only reason that it's accepted that you must use the App Store is because Apple was first to the smartphone scene.

Had Apple tried to force everyone into using a gatekeeping App Store after smartphones took hold, end users would've rejected it.

Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store.

It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.

No one has made a decision on that issue, and that's not what's being appealed. The question here is about who can sue, not whether there is an antitrust violation.

but don't they? i think a more apt analogy would be your trash can manufacturer having a monopoly on trash bags. You shouldn't really expect that to be the case at all.

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, and so pushing IE was anti-competitive. Apple isn’t anywhere near having a monopoly in phones, in the US or anywhere else.

It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.

In addition to the argument others are suggesting, that their market share isn't high enough to qualify, I believe they have also made legal arguments in the past about the sandboxed nature of their platform. I imagine they could also make a convincing argument that it's a feature they sell their customer- one that is at the core of why this requirement exists. They could probably also point to macOS, where they do not have the requirements and the technical environment is different, as support that it's platform-specific related to the sandbox.

I expect the substantial difference is that Microsoft's share of the PC market was far closer to a monopoly than Apple's share of the smartphone market is now (about 40% in the U.S.)

Microsoft only got in trouble because they started selling IE as a separate product, then later added it to Windows. If they had just included it as a native Windows "accessory" from the beginning like Minesweeper or Calculator for no extra charge then it would have been tougher to make a case against them.

I just downloaded Firefox and Chrome from App Store. Do I miss something?

Chrome is available on the App Store

IMHO, the reason some GPLed software is not allowed on iOS/tvOS is because RMS and others don't want their GPL code on iOS/tvOS.

In particular, the argument I've seen used in the past to contest GPL code in App Store apps is that Apple (as distributor) must distribute the source directly on the App Store, rather than the application or the App Store description having a link to the source via the developer's website or another third party site.

This isn't something Apple really cares about - but if someone says your app has a license violation, Apple will of course push dealing with said people onto you.

This has always stuck out to me as pedantic and hardly a violation of the spirit of the license. Such politics are what have and will continue to relegate the FSF to being a small social group rather than the originally intended purpose (whether you consider that a revolution, or a reversion back to software freedom)

In principle there's nothing stopping Android device manufacturers from respecting privacy by using AOSP without Google services. However in practice such devices have either been market failures, or are even worse from a privacy standpoint (i.e. infested with Chinese government spyware).

Yeah? Have you ever tried pushing your software during Windows Mobile era?

Presumably they'd be open to the same kind of suit, which IMHO is appropriate.

The issue at hand here is standing: do consumers have the right to sue for antitrust violations or is that limted to the app/game vendors who paid the markup most directly? The supreme court isn't going to decide on the merits of the specific case (because the original case in district court was thrown out due to standing -- this is the appeal of that decision) or whether or not Apple's 30% cut is appropriate.

I don't think that's a fair comparison, since I can buy hard copy games from a variety of stores in addition to buying digital games. I can't buy hard copy iPhone apps.

The Democrats have been the ones looking into tech companies for years (just do some searching and you'll find it's been going on for years). The only reasons Republicans would jump on this now is for political reasons.

To double down on this: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/wild-west-no-longer-h...

Any outcome would be tainted by the nakedly partisan motives. It would send a clear message to companies that they must bend to the administration's ideology.

Anyone who opposes the administration would be short-sighted to allow themselves to be used as puppets in this manner.

Speaking selfishly from the outside the short-term effects might not seem so bad, but the I wouldn't relish the long-term consequences.

Trump/GOP/conservatives aren't exactly pro-consumer. I would be surprised if they implemented regulations (e.g - GDPR like stuff) that would help the average person.

You're being downvoted but I agree with you even if it's slightly hypocritical coming from the Trump administration

Why does an online presence require an app? Most "online presences" still don't have them and do just fine.