How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
Here's my question - what is the lawsuit really about?
The article says
The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with whether to allow a 40-year-old legal doctrine to derail a class-action lawsuit arguing that Apple uses its monopoly control over the iPhone app market to overcharge customers for apps.
This implies that it's only about "gouging" and the use of monopoly to prevent another store from coming in to compete.
While I agree with JB that the presented president does not apply - I do think based solely on the quoted bit that Apple does have a monopoly and is possibly gouging. Of course the argument that Google charges the same amount really makes the gouging part hard to swallow.
Not really, one act of gouging does not stop another.
Perhaps not - but unless you're going to say that Google and Apple are colluding to make the price that high for the service - at least there's competition, and these two companies have found that the market is accepting of this price.
That's completely illogical. How would the market have any say (there is no competition, so there is no free market, so the entire basis of this concept does not exist here), and why is colluding necessary for two vendors to have matching prices when the prices are public?
None of that makes logical sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
Also very important.. Apple chooses what is sold. It's not like eBay or Etsy where anyone can sell anything. Or there are simple guidelines of what you can sell (no drugs, no body parts) that you self police and can get reported for. No, it's a store where the app makers submit a proposed app and Apple decides if the store will carry it, it is a curated store. That aspect alone, I think determines that Apple is the vendor in question.
Actually I'll disagree with you here - Let's use a swap meet instead, the host for the swap meet could set any rules they want for what's sold at the swap, that doesn't make the transaction between the buyer and the swap meet host, it could still easily be between the vendor and buyer.
Sure, but that's exactly the opposite of the case here. So this shows agreement with my point. Because Apple is doing nothing like this. The organizing of the swap meet does not control pricing, nor handle the transactions, not accept the payment, nor run a store.
So you see, if they DID do something like this - opposite to reality - then yes, things would be different. So since they are the opposite of this, then that's my point exactly.
My whole point was that Apple can and DOES choose what is sold.. perhaps they don't do the rest, but they definitely do that - they control what is and what is not sold.
Right, like a store. Because it is a store.
I do completely agree - Apple App Store is a store just like Walmart is - just because the devs set their price doesn't mean jack.
-
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
Also very important.. Apple chooses what is sold. It's not like eBay or Etsy where anyone can sell anything. Or there are simple guidelines of what you can sell (no drugs, no body parts) that you self police and can get reported for. No, it's a store where the app makers submit a proposed app and Apple decides if the store will carry it, it is a curated store. That aspect alone, I think determines that Apple is the vendor in question.
Actually I'll disagree with you here - Let's use a swap meet instead, the host for the swap meet could set any rules they want for what's sold at the swap, that doesn't make the transaction between the buyer and the swap meet host, it could still easily be between the vendor and buyer.
Sure, but that's exactly the opposite of the case here. So this shows agreement with my point. Because Apple is doing nothing like this. The organizing of the swap meet does not control pricing, nor handle the transactions, not accept the payment, nor run a store.
So you see, if they DID do something like this - opposite to reality - then yes, things would be different. So since they are the opposite of this, then that's my point exactly.
My whole point was that Apple can and DOES choose what is sold.. perhaps they don't do the rest, but they definitely do that - they control what is and what is not sold.
Right, like a store. Because it is a store.
I do completely agree - Apple App Store is a store just like Walmart is - just because the devs set their price doesn't mean jack.
And the devs only partially set their price. They are involved, but not in full control.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
to get into the weeds here - The app maker sets the price is probably completely true - and apple just takes 30% of whatever the app maker sets it at. Apple might also say, you can't sell an app for less than $0.99.
But as already mentioned - none of that matters - the transaction is completely between the user and apple, and the vendor might not even be aware that it happened other than apple giving them the money - apple's fee.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
-
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
to get into the weeds here - The app maker sets the price is probably completely true
Incorrect. They pick certain price points within a broader set as defined by Apple, and then modified by Apple.
So it's the opposite of completely true.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
Apple might also say, you can't sell an app for less than $0.99.
Right, so Apple does more to set the price than the app maker. Both initially by establishing the ranges and choices, and then by modifying it later on. Bottom line, Apple can either be seen as setting the price, or controlling the price setting. But the one thing you can't say is true is that the app maker sets the price themselves.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
But as already mentioned - none of that matters - the transaction is completely between the user and apple, and the vendor might not even be aware that it happened other than apple giving them the money - apple's fee.
Correct, the app maker is not part of the transaction.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
to get into the weeds here - The app maker sets the price is probably completely true
Incorrect. They pick certain price points within a broader set as defined by Apple, and then modified by Apple.
So it's the opposite of completely true.
Are you sure? You think that an app set at $0.99 is set by the vendor at $0.69 and that apple is the one adding the $0.30 for the fee? that seems unlikely, though certainly possible.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
to get into the weeds here - The app maker sets the price is probably completely true
Incorrect. They pick certain price points within a broader set as defined by Apple, and then modified by Apple.
So it's the opposite of completely true.
Are you sure? You think that an app set at $0.99 is set by the vendor at $0.69 and that apple is the one adding the $0.30 for the fee? that seems unlikely, though certainly possible.
No, the app developer says I want to sell this for X, Apple says OKAY and takes 30% off of that sale each and every time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store? In those cases, when a store sells something on consignment, doesn't the buyer ultimately buy from the store, and not the consignee? I am asking because I have never been to a store like that.
It's definitely closer. I have shopped in consignment stores before - but a question I would have is - what about returns? I'm guessing most shops simply have a zero return policy to make it a non issue though.
Exactly, if Apple accepts returns, then Apple sets the final price, not the app maker. The app maker setting the price is a myth. They set the initial list price, but that's all. The full pricing package is a blend of the app makers initial setting and Apple's behaviour.
to get into the weeds here - The app maker sets the price is probably completely true
Incorrect. They pick certain price points within a broader set as defined by Apple, and then modified by Apple.
So it's the opposite of completely true.
Are you sure? You think that an app set at $0.99 is set by the vendor at $0.69 and that apple is the one adding the $0.30 for the fee? that seems unlikely, though certainly possible.
No, the app developer says I want to sell this for X, Apple says OKAY and takes 30% off of that sale each and every time.
yeah - that's exactly what I just said I thought the vendor does.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
-
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
Sure, but once we go into "they can just lie about it", the sky is the limit. They could claim that the customer doesn't exist, the app doesn't exist, heck, that Apple doesn't even exist.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
Sure, but once we go into "they can just lie about it", the sky is the limit. They could claim that the customer doesn't exist, the app doesn't exist, heck, that Apple doesn't even exist.
They are in fact claiming that the customer doesn't exist.
-
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
Sure, but once we go into "they can just lie about it", the sky is the limit. They could claim that the customer doesn't exist, the app doesn't exist, heck, that Apple doesn't even exist.
They are in fact claiming that the customer doesn't exist.
Yeah, which is what we are saying won't fly. It's so absurd to claim the transaction never happened. If they win, they are in for massive lawsuits of theft by stealing money from people that aren't their customers. Apple would have no recourse.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
Sure, but once we go into "they can just lie about it", the sky is the limit. They could claim that the customer doesn't exist, the app doesn't exist, heck, that Apple doesn't even exist.
They are in fact claiming that the customer doesn't exist.
Yeah, which is what we are saying won't fly. It's so absurd to claim the transaction never happened. If they win, they are in for massive lawsuits of theft by stealing money from people that aren't their customers. Apple would have no recourse.
Sadly, it did fly at lower courts though.
-
@Dashrender said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@scottalanmiller said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@Donahue said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
So apple is not operating like a swap meet, that has been established. It is operating like a consignment store?
No, it is operating like a normal store. There is no non-normal store involved here. Consignment is a swap meet with hired oversight. This is nothing like that. It's like Amazon or Walmart.
That is your position, and I agree. But if apple chose to take the position of a consignment store, would that change their options for defense? Do consignment stores offer any protections to them that regular stores don't have?
Apple can't just choose to defend themselves as something that they are not, though. The products there are not on consignment, so that would just land them in contempt of court.
Apple can choose to do whatever they want. It may not be legal or wise, but they could. I was just trying to explore that possibility.
Sure, but once we go into "they can just lie about it", the sky is the limit. They could claim that the customer doesn't exist, the app doesn't exist, heck, that Apple doesn't even exist.
They are in fact claiming that the customer doesn't exist.
Yeah, which is what we are saying won't fly. It's so absurd to claim the transaction never happened. If they win, they are in for massive lawsuits of theft by stealing money from people that aren't their customers. Apple would have no recourse.
Sadly, it did fly at lower courts though.
That's not very telling. That's like where intern judges work.
