• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Supreme Court appears skeptical of Apple's arguments in App Store monopoly case

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
The trouble is, even if you manage to find a NOS 'genuine' battery, it will likely be 7 or 8 years old. Li-Ion cells of that age, regardless of how they have stored will likely be not much good at all.

I went through that exercise with 'genuine' IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad NOS batteries, and some Galaxy Note III batteries, only to find they had diminished capacity and a short life as they were already past their design life. Li-Ion deteriorates whether it is used or not.

The only Li-Ion cells I have had excellent long life with, have been the Japanese manufactured cells in Nikon and Canon cameras of around 10 years ago. They never seem to die.

I would think you would be better off with a recently manufactured clone.

I have a recent clone. The 8 y.o. one outperforms it. Typical of most battery clones.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
It used to be if we bought something it came without restrictions. I think the "you did not have to buy it" argument has outlived its usefulness. There are big issue with the right to repair. Just check the news for John Deere tractors. The digital world allows manufacturers to put all kinds of locks on their products and the DMCA makes picking these locks illegal, unless an exception is granted by the Library of Congress. Don't assume that because it was "that way" in the past that it will continue into the future. You may have noticed the Supreme Court recently overturned a long standing precedent about collecting sales tax because e-commerce made it obsolete.
 

Kyle / MrHeeHo

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
163
Likes
183
I'm not sure how the App Store can be considered a monopoly when the Play Store and other digital stores for apps exist. Maybe I'm missing here though
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
I'm not sure how the App Store can be considered a monopoly when the Play Store and other digital stores for apps exist. Maybe I'm missing here though

Easy, with an ios device everything must come from the App Store. With an Android device one may use the Play Store or side load apps from anywhere.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
If it's an issue then there is the option of just not buying Apple devices. There are plenty of Android alternatives, the only thing that will really take Apple notice is if people vote with their feet and go elsewhere to buy their devices. If their customers are happy to buy into their whole controlled ecosystem approach in spite of there being an alternative then why should they change? I'm the odd one out in our family as I use a Microsoft Surface Pro tablet and Android phone whereas the wife and kids are obsessed with Apple.
 

Shorty

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
171
Likes
269
It’s not only the fact Apple takes a percentage of all apps sold through its store. On top of that, the company demands 30% of, for instance, every newspaper or magazine sold for reading on an iPad. Is there anyone here who really thinks a publisher can afford to not use an Apple app if it wants to offer digital subscriptions to its newspapers or magazines? It may not be a monopoly, but it may be seen as abuse of a dominant market position.
 

JBH129

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
21
Likes
48
It’s not only the fact Apple takes a percentage of all apps sold through its store. On top of that, the company demands 30% of, for instance, every newspaper or magazine sold for reading on an iPad. Is there anyone here who really thinks a publisher can afford to not use an Apple app if it wants to offer digital subscriptions to its newspapers or magazines? It may not be a monopoly, but it may be seen as abuse of a dominant market position.

The 30% commission is only charged if purchased through the app or iTunes. For example, we are Audible subscribers and we pay outside of the app/iTunes so that Apple doesn’t get a cut. I assume many magazines/books subscribers do this.
 

Shorty

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
171
Likes
269
You may be right. I used to write for a newspaper and the 30%-story is what I was told...
Edit: so the 30% rule only applies to articles and single copies, bought through the app. Thanks for clearing that up!
 

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
Some clarifications for this thread.

1. Protecting the telecommunication network only applies to the use of the radio network and related software which the manufacturer will have to certify to before a carrier will allow it on the network. Apple or any Android phone manufacturer has to do this. This does not apply to the app level or the OS support for it which is like using a modem to connect to the IP network. This is easier to understand in a laptop with a built in wireless modem or a dongle. Only the wireless modem needs to be certified for protection of telecommunication networks not the software on the laptop. So, Apple is not required to certify or screen apps for that reason but it will be liable on its own if bugs in its own platform software allow an app to disrupt the network. So, this has nothing to do with App Store screening.

2. The monopoly in this case is not whether iPhones have a monopoly against other phones but rather if Apple itself has a monopoly in providing for apps on its device which it does. It is not illegal to have a monopoly despite common understanding of such in the general public. It is illegal to use such a position to the detriment of the consumer. So, if Amazon with a monopoly on book distribution squeezed the publishers to lower prices on books, it is not illegal. This is why Apple lost the case claiming its collusion with publishers was to increase competition and lower prices against a monopoly. It was colluding to have the effect of increasing prices to the buyer by squeezing Amazon out from publishers.

Not the App Store monopoly (which is legal) but the use of its position to result in higher prices on the iPhone (which is subject to anti-trust) is what was being claimed in the original case with buyers of iPhone as plaintiffs. Apple would find it hard to defend against that, so they are trying to say the consumers cannot bring the case but developers can. This is what was decided by the Supreme Court. There is no monopoly for developers since they are free to develop to any ecosystem or not and there is no separate condition of sale for them to require/demand alternates to App Store. That is what Apple is counting on.

iPhone buyers have a very strong case, since having bought the phone they are locked into that monopolistic practice. Just having bought the phone does not allow the manufacturer to submit the buyer to monopolistic practices within it. It is neither an implied nor explicit condition of sale and would not be allowed as such.

But then we are in such a precarious moment of history where separation of powers is only superficial and so a meeting of Tim Cook with the President and a quid pro quo agreement for Apple to make a public announcement of bringing jobs back to the US that plays well politically can very well change what the SC majority may decide on the actual case. So, not even the legal experts can predict what the outcome will be.
 
Last edited:

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
Haas anything happened with this in the year since the OP?
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,391
Location
Seattle Area
Haas anything happened with this in the year since the OP?
Yes. Apple lost the argument: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/13/...itrust-illinois-brick-supreme-court-case-loss

1573754989725.png


Once in a while, justice works. :)
 

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
Yes, but the case isn’t over on the lawsuit itself which will likely again head back to SC.

What is amazing is that 4 SC justices agreed with Apple on the standing of plaintiffs. The deciding votes on the actual case might not be so favorable to the consumer.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
In my heart I believe the plaintiffs are right. As a lawyer I see Apple taking a very expansive view of Illinois Brick.
 

TLEDDY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
631
Likes
858
Location
Central Florida
It's not all that portable is it Wombat?

View attachment 18131
I grew up with almost this exact phone! When you turned the crank, the operator would say ”Number please!”
My town (Mertzon, Texas) had less than 75 phones at the time. You might say ”23, please. ” Frequently, the operator
would say ”Mary is not there; she’s over at Gertrude’s - do you want me to ring there?”
 

Mashcky

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
121
Likes
144
Location
Burlington, Vermont
After a cursory glance at Illinois Brick I agree that Apple stance feels novel or at least extreme. The basic economic model I was taught for antitrust is that a defendant must exercise market power to increase their producer surplus (that is, decrease the value a consumer receives to increase profit earned). Apple’s position seems to suggest there is no amount of profit they can capture through a App transaction that would allow a consumer lawsuit in spite of the fact that their App Store tax increases prices for consumers and therefore causes some degree of damages.
 
Top Bottom