“The Supreme Court this week ruled in the Apple App Store antitrust case, and Apple lost. The court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed in a lower court,” Ben Lovejoy writes for 9oto5Mac. “The decision, however, was just a technical one. It didn’t address the merits of the antitrust lawsuit itself, but merely rejected Apple’s argument that the issue had nothing to do with consumers.”
This case may never make it to trial. Lovejoy writes. “Apple will not want its business model subjected to a court ruling. If a court rules that the plaintiffs are right, and Apple is acting as a monopoly, then there’s no telling where that may end. It would open the door to a government lawsuit that could ultimately determine how much commission Apple is allowed to charge.”
“Faced with that prospect, Apple may decide that the smarter move is to make the case go away by taking a small voluntary hit to its commission levels, and paying some modest amount in damages (that will be worth about half of nothing per consumer),” Lovejoy writes. “”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As per usual with class action lawsuits, to the lawyers go the spoils.
We think the ultimate ending to this legal challenge will be that developers will be able to take payments in their apps without being forced to give Apple a cut or as much of a cut as today.
Companies that currently are large enough to work around Apple and send users to their own sites for payment include Amazon and Netflix. Apple will likely need to end this practice and allow all developers to allow users to subscribe to services, buy ebooks, etc. within their apps without a 15%-30% fee. A smaller fee may be tenable, as Apple does have costs to run the App Store, of course. — MacDailyNews, May 13, 2019
SEE ALSO:
Morgan Stanley: App Store antitrust lawsuit to impact Apple stock price for years – May 15, 2019
Apple’s Supreme Court loss could change the way you buy apps – May 14, 2019
U.S. Supreme Court opens door for App Store lawsuit that Apple will likely win – May 14, 2019
Analyst: Apple investors ‘overreacting’ to U.S.-China trade war and Supreme Court App Store ruling – May 14, 2019
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh’s Apple App Store decision has ‘shaken up’ antitrust law – May 13, 2019
U.S. Supreme Court allows antitrust suit against Apple over App Store; AAPL slides 5% – May 13, 2019
Supreme Court rules against Apple in App Store antitrust case – May 13, 2019
Antitrust, the App Store, and Apple – November 27, 2018
Trump administration backs Apple in U.S. Supreme Court over App Store antitrust suit – November 26, 2018
Apple defends App Store fees in U.S. Supreme Court – November 26, 2018
Apple defends App Store fees as U.S. Supreme Court weighs consumer suit – November 23, 2018
Apple wants U.S. Supreme Court to undo previous decision regarding an antitrust suit – October 31, 2018
U.S. Supreme Court will decide if Apple’s App Store is an anti-competitive monopoly – June 19, 2018
U.S. Supreme Court to consider Apple appeal in antitrust suit over App Store prices – June 18, 2018
US DOJ sides with Apple over App Store antitrust allegations in Supreme Court brief – May 10, 2018
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple – January 13, 2017
Apple App Store antitrust complaint dismissed on procedural grounds by U.S. judge – August 16, 2013
Apple’s internal promo team created an image via its slick but unfeeling commercials of technological dominance and app and iOS perfection, rubbing it into the general population to irritate it. This is what big companies too full of themselves can’t help doing. Instead inject sime meekness and self-deprecation wrapped in humor. And Cook’s incessant, imprecise, diffused talking — like that of a politician or bookkeeper — does not invite adulation. Cook should announce significant developments only, leaning quotidian details and equivocations to oyhers.
Correcting the last sentence: “Cook should announce significant developments only, leaving quotidian details and equivocations to others.”