Apple Faces £1.5 Billion UK Lawsuit Over App Store 'Overcharging'

[I7guy]

I assumed you meant gasoline (as in oil) company but if by gas company you are talking about natural gas companies that is a very different situation as those are often given "natural monopoly" designations which can mean state and/or local governments have much more control of how they operate including price regulations/requirements, service regulations/requirements, etc.




I disagree but a product doesn't necessarily have to be labeled as "essential" or "critical" anyway.




There are a lot of things that people don't "need" but that doesn't make those products immune from competition laws, regulations, etc.




That's subjective. Just because you or someone else may view something as "overregulation" doesn't necessarily make it so.




According to Statcounter, iOS share has been over 50% in the UK many months over the past several years. Also, iOS users buy more apps/in-app products on average than Android users thereby potentially making Apple's share of the app store market much greater.

Yes, natural gas, cable, cellular spectrum, electricity are all monopolies. But people have been using the word “critical” or “important” to justify their thinking in regulating apple.

To me “critical” is life threatening. But I don’t believe a consumer lifestyle discretionary product with hundreds of competitors should be regulated.

And we will find out more as the doj lawsuit gets underway whether or not apple being in control of the app store is legal or not in the US.

 

[mrochester]

And the free market is when I can vote with my wallet and buy iPhone/iOS apps from the App Store, AltStore PAL, etc. but Apple is preventing that "free market solution" from existing outside the EU.




One doesn't necessarily need to have "72% market share" in the UK or elsewhere to be viewed as engaging in anticompetitive behavior, preventing a so-called free market from existing, etc.




A company doesn’t necessarily have to be labeled a monopoly to be in violation of competition laws. Also, what defines a monopoly can vary by jurisdiction. My point, again, was that just because iOS is Apple's property and Windows is Microsoft's property does not necessarily give either company free rein to do whatever they want.

That’s not a separate market outwith the device you choose to purchase.

A choice of iPhone/iPad is also a choice for the Apple App Store. They aren’t 2 separate choices.

That’s why the solution to not wanting to use the Apple App Store is to buy a different device.

 

[I7guy]

And the free market is when I can vote with my wallet and buy iPhone/iOS apps from the App Store, AltStore PAL, etc. but Apple is preventing that "free market solution" from existing outside the EU.

taking someone’s intellectual property and by law regulating it and giving it away for free is not creating a free market. It’s legal theft.

One doesn't necessarily need to have "72% market share" in the UK or elsewhere to be viewed as engaging in anticompetitive behavior, preventing a so-called free market from existing, etc.

Anticompetitive behavior is a finding, not a wet finger in the air.

A company doesn’t necessarily have to be labeled a monopoly to be in violation of competition laws.

Which apple has not.

Also, what defines a monopoly can vary by jurisdiction. My point, again, was that just because iOS is Apple's property and Windows is Microsoft's property does not necessarily give either company free rein to do whatever they want.

It also doesn’t mean apple has does anything illegal.

 

[surferfb]

Yes, so? That doesn't necessarily change the issue of Apple restricting where iOS app developers can sell their products, payment systems they can use, other potentially more favorable terms, etc.

Developers don't have a right to Apple's IP just because they want it. They are using another company's property to make money, Apple has a right to be compensated in a way they see fit for use of said property. If they don't want to use Apple's property they are free to develop for Apple's competitors, or make a web app, or make a free app and charge a subscription outside of the store.

The ultimate root cause is that Apple's customers, who are more likely to spend money on software, prefer Apple's approach. So rather developers doing the hard work to make an open approach more appealing, or just biting the bullet and making slightly less money than they would like, instead they are begging regulators to make a closed approach illegal.

 

[webkit]

Yes, natural gas, cable, cellular spectrum, electricity are all monopolies. But people have been using the word “critical” or “important” to justify their thinking in regulating apple.

To me “critical” is life threatening. But I don’t believe a consumer lifestyle discretionary product with hundreds of competitors should be regulated.

Again, this is subjective and not necessarily relevant to the broader issue. As far as "life threatening", a smartphone can have emergency SOS via satellite which can potentially help save a life, I guess that makes smartphones critical by your "definition"?

taking someone’s intellectual property and by law regulating it and giving it away for free is not creating a free market. It’s legal theft.

It is not "legal theft" as Apple's IP is not being stolen. If it was, Samsung or other companies could freely and legally install iOS on their devices for example. Getting access to iOS is not the same as getting ownership of iOS. Again, it's not "legal theft" as Apple retains ownership of its IP.

 

[webkit]

That’s not a separate market outwith the device you choose to purchase.

A choice of iPhone/iPad is also a choice for the Apple App Store. They aren’t 2 separate choices.

That’s why the solution to not wanting to use the Apple App Store is to buy a different device.

Just because an alternative exists does not mean a company can engage in anticompetitive behavior, violate competition laws, etc. As far as "free market solutions", they can exist in multiple ways. Apple controls a significant part of the mobile OS/app market and Apple blocks free market competition in a significant portion of that market by not allow alternative iOS app stores outside the EU. The Android app access/app store market is much more of a free market than the restricted (except in the EU) iOS app access/app store market.

 

[webkit]

Developers don't have a right to Apple's IP just because they want it.

What "rights" or "access" they may have can depend on what local antitrust or competition laws, courts, etc. determine.

 

[mrochester]

Again, this is subjective and not necessarily relevant to the broader issue. As far as "life threatening", a smartphone can have emergency SOS via satellite which can potentially help save a life, I guess that makes smartphones critical by your "definition"?




It is not "legal theft" as Apple's IP is not being stolen. If it was, Samsung or other companies could freely and legally install iOS on their devices for example. Getting access to iOS is not the same as getting ownership of iOS. Again, it's not "legal theft" as Apple retains ownership of its IP.

I think broadly the point being made is that any software that runs on iOS makes use of Apple’s IP, and they charge for that use.

This is what the CTF is for. If the CTF is outlawed then Apple will need to come up with another charging mechanism for the use of its IP.

 

[I7guy]

Again, this is subjective and not necessarily relevant to the broader issue. As far as "life threatening", a smartphone can have emergency SOS via satellite which can potentially help save a life, I guess that makes smartphones critical by your "definition"?

Agree. Anticompetitive is subjective as well. (As evidenced by the fact the doj does not win 100% of its lawsuits) For example in the united states there has been no finding against the iOS App Store.

It is not "legal theft" as Apple's IP is not being stolen. If it was, Samsung or other companies could freely and legally install iOS on their devices for example. Getting access to iOS is not the same as getting ownership of iOS. Again, it's not "legal theft" as Apple retains ownership of its IP.

It is legal theft by every metric when regulations force a company to give away its ip for free.

I’m glad we’re back in the swing of a healthy debate on this topic.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is legal theft by every metric when regulations force a company to give away its ip for free.

It‘s not - access provisions are a remedy in antitrust law.
Decisions by courts of law have upheld that principle.

You have deemed smartphones at the same level as air, food and water, which is ludicrous.

No such essential life-or-death good (which would be ludicrous).

But I deem them indispensable „daily drivers“ for people.

 

[I7guy]

It‘s not - access provisions are a remedy in antitrust law.
Decisions by courts of law have upheld that principle.

There was no finding in the EU. Thus it is legal theft in the EU.

No such essential life-or-death good (which would be ludicrous).

But I deem them indispensable „daily drivers“ for people.

It’s not indispensable as some people don’t have phones, some people use flip phones. More convenient does not equal “indispensable “.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There was no finding in the EU. Thus it is legal theft in the EU.

The Digital Markets Act has been passed by a (more or less) democratically elected parliament.
It is in force, and some of Apple’s platforms have been designated core platform services according to it.

Therefore, there’s no theft.
The platform services have not been taken away from Apple either.
It’s just that certain legal access provisions and restrictions apply to what they do with it.
Property rights are rarely ever unlimited - that’s an established concept in law.

 

[mrochester]

The Digital Markets Act has been passed by a (more or less) democratically elected parliament.
It is in force, and some of Apple’s platforms have been designated core platform services according to it.

Therefore, there’s no theft.
The platform services have not been taken away from Apple either.
It’s just that certain legal access provisions and restrictions apply to what they do with it.
Property rights are rarely ever unlimited - that’s an established concept in law.

The DMA is the legal theft the poster is referring to.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s not indispensable as some people don’t have phones, some people use flip phones

…says the same (I7) guy that has gone on record saying…

It's essential to me as face time and iMessage is the way family keeps in contact.

But I enjoy using my iPhone such that a cell phone is mostly indispensable these days

…8 and 10 years ago.

And you know what? Today, 10 years later, most people would agree with you: That their smartphone has become mostly indispensable as their daily driver - and an essential tool for communication with their friends and family.

(And no, the fact that you can domany of the same things on a desktop computer don’t change that in any way)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That’s not the way the world works…the user will never take responsibility for their own security. When they inevitably end up scammed, they run to their politicians to “protect” them and fix the problem. The politician seeking reelection, money and power will find the path of least resistance to each and use the power of the office to make the constituent feel “safe” while lining their own pockets at the expense of actually doing anything useful for anyone but themselves. This is the way.

Yeah. Remove those crooks. Companies set policies, provide security, employ and supply. Citizens vote with their wallet and supply men power.

Let’s play.

 

[I7guy]

…says the same (I7) guy that has gone on record saying…


…8 and 10 years ago.

And you know what? Today, 10 years later, most people would agree with you: That their smartphone has become mostly indispensable as their daily driver - and an essential tool for communication with their friends and family.

(And no, the fact that you can domany of the same things on a desktop computer don’t change that in any way)

FaceTime can be used on a computer. Were you aware? And yes sms works with iMessage.

And smartphones still don’t rank anywhere near air, food and water.

 

[I7guy]

The Digital Markets Act has been passed by a (more or less) democratically elected parliament.
It is in force, and some of Apple’s platforms have been designated core platform services according to it.

Therefore, there’s no theft.
The platform services have not been taken away from Apple either.
It’s just that certain legal access provisions and restrictions apply to what they do with it.
Property rights are rarely ever unlimited - that’s an established concept in law.

There was a law much like a speeding, but much, much worse that was passed that allows legal theft aka Robin Hood, socialism however you want to say it.

But that is what it is.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There was a law much like a speeding, but much, much worse that was passed that allows legal theft aka Robin Hood, socialism however you want to say it.

But that is what it is.

Wow. The opinions are getting really extreme.

Anyway irrelevant opinion. It does not matter, EU is a democracy as it constituted by democracies (except for one country that I think it should not be there).

PS: UK no longer part of the EU anyway.

 

[I7guy]

Wow. The opinions are getting really extreme.

Anyway irrelevant opinion. It does not matter, EU is a democracy as it constituted by democracies (except for one country that I think it should not be there).

PS: UK no longer part of the EU anyway.

Another irrelevant opinion on top of many others. The eu being a democracy does not negate anything I said.

 

[webkit]

I think broadly the point being made is that any software that runs on iOS makes use of Apple’s IP, and they charge for that use.

It is legal theft by every metric when regulations force a company to give away its ip for free.

It's not "legal theft" (an oxymoron). Apple maintains ownership of iOS, the App Store, etc. but by restricting competition, choice, etc. is potentially violating antitrust or competition laws.

There are a variety of laws and regulations that may require a company to pay/spend more (minimum wages, meeting safety/emission requirements, etc.) and/or receive less (price controls, consumer protection laws, etc.) but that doesn’t make them "legal theft."

 

[surferfb]

It's not "legal theft" (an oxymoron). Apple maintains ownership of iOS, the App Store, etc. but by restricting competition, choice, etc. is potentially violating antitrust or competition laws.

There are a variety of laws and regulations that may require a company to pay/spend more (minimum wages, meeting safety/emission requirements, etc.) and/or receive less (price controls, consumer protection laws, etc.) but that doesn’t make them "legal theft."

The government is taking something that belongs to Apple and saying "you have to allow anyone who wants to use it without paying you for it." I'm pretty sure if the government passed a law saying you had to let anyone who asked to spend the night in your spare bedroom sleep there for free you'd feel like the government was legally taking something from you.

 

[I7guy]

It's not "legal theft" (an oxymoron). Apple maintains ownership of iOS, the App Store, etc. but by restricting competition, choice, etc. is potentially violating antitrust or competition laws.

It’s an oxymoron that apps retains control of the iPhone when the government literally forced them to provide “equal access”.

There are a variety of laws and regulations that may require a company to pay/spend more (minimum wages, meeting safety/emission requirements, etc.) and/or receive less (price controls, consumer protection laws, etc.) but that doesn’t make them "legal theft."

Is there a specific law that say the minimum wage for apple is dollars but for google it’s y dollars?

 

[webkit]

The government is taking something that belongs to Apple and saying "you have to allow anyone who wants to use it without paying you for it." I'm pretty sure if the government passed a law saying you had to let anyone who asked to spend the night in your spare bedroom sleep there for free you'd feel like the government was legally taking something from you.

Once again, it's not legal theft.

 

[webkit]

It’s an oxymoron that apps retains control of the iPhone when the government literally forced them to provide “equal access”.

Nonsense.

Is there a specific law that say the minimum wage for apple is dollars but for google it’s y dollars?

No, just as there aren't laws/regulations like the DMA which say Android can block alternative app stores while Apple can't.

 

[I7guy]

Nonsense.

Nonsense. I’ll see your nonsense and raise it one.

No, just as there aren't laws/regulations like the DMA which say Android can block alternative app stores while Apple can't.

point proven.