How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly
-
That article also points out that Apple hands the taxes before it goes to the app maker. That, at least in the US, makes Apple by law the vendor, not the app maker. Only the vendor with a customer sale is allowed to collect taxes.
-
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.
I feel that Apple bringing up the pricing is all misdirection. They are trying to get people to look at and discuss something unrelated in the hopes that they miss the core fact that Apple is running a traditional store and playing the vendor in every aspect, including all interfacing with the customer. To the customer, Apple is the sole vendor in play (and in reality, it is.)
On top of that, the license for the software in the store comes from Apple. So not only is Apple operating as the store (that alone makes it the vendor in question), but they are also playing the next tier up by representing the licensing of the product. So the EULA that you get, the one in which you are the customer, has Apple as the one providing the license.
-
@JaredBusch said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
It is not different. You are intentionally ignoring easily searched facts on how the app stores (Google and Apple) work.
This also ignores that Google has dozens of different "Play Store" competitors that can and do set different prices, sales, and have exclusive apps. That's completely different then the case with Apple's "App Store".
-
@coliver said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
@JaredBusch said in How Apple hopes to stop a customer lawsuit over its App Store monopoly:
It is not different. You are intentionally ignoring easily searched facts on how the app stores (Google and Apple) work.
This also ignores that Google has dozens of different "Play Store" competitors that can and do set different prices, sales, and have exclusive apps. That's completely different then the case with Apple's "App Store".
That is an entirely different point. Valid, but not the point.
-
@JaredBusch 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:
That's your opinion. I don't agree. Apple decides ultimately what I pay and charges me.
That is not how it works. The app maker sets the price. period. Apple does not "modify it" in any way. Apple makes no decisions on the cost of apps.
I agree with Scott - even agreeing with JB's above quoted statement - sure fine - the vendor sets the price, but I am Apple's customer, not that software maker's. or at minimum I'm both. My transaction is purely with Apple - my CC says so.
-
@JaredBusch 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:
but Apple charges me, Apple does the transaction,
Yes, Apple is the payment interface. for the seller.
This is no different than using Paypal to purchase my MangoCon ticket. Paypal is the payment interface.
It's totally different - because in your example, you're buying from MangoCon - the interface for the main purchase is MangoCon's, not Paypal's.. Also, the receipt says you purchased from MangoCon - not purchased from Paypal.
With apple - it's much more like the walmart example - you go to a store - Walmart (or Apple's App Store) and buy a product. Again the receipt says you paid Walmart/Apple - not the app developer.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
