Home / Mac / A suit with a drop of pepper

A suit with a drop of pepper

Humanity is capable of many wonderful things, but sometimes the underlying amount of pig head just rises and tastes in your face. Fortunately, looking for such articles is very simple, I just wish it wasn't

So maybe some background.

There is currently a case that can rise before the US Supreme Court called Apple vs Pepper. Boiled down to the essence, it's about whether consumers of apps in the iOS App Store can delete Apple from Apple's practice in the IOS App Store. Previous cases similar have stated that they cannot, only those who are directly related to the sale (in this case the developers that Apple claims to be a reseller) can bring such a suit. The question raised by this case is: "Can consumers sue someone who supplies goods to them for anti-trust damage, even where they seek compensation based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense?"

Harrison McAvoy ignores the argument for the case in his article in (I am linking it as the basis for this article) Next web and instead says the Apple V Pepper case is about the freedom of developers and users of Apple's monopolistic practices with the IOS App Store . The problem is that his argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.

It's the usual "Apple is bad because you can't download apps" nonsense and "Apple is bad because their model is inflating prices" and "Apple will probably win the case in the Supreme Court because they're just wrong!" Instead of just admit that they will win the case because they are right and the law is on their side.

Mcavoy's argument is based on some stupid belief that Apple restricts iOS devices in the App Store, just about money. Apple makes a lot of money from apps that they do with most of their services, but the conveniently forgotten part of the argument is that Apple does not set the prices of apps in the iOS App Store (he pays the delivery service to it, but from the tone does not match). Developers set their own prices and Apple adds a 30% fee. This is how retail works and has almost always worked. Apple provides a mobile application platform that has managed to avoid most of the issues that other mobile platforms have (and still are) facing in terms of security and privacy. Never perfect, and there have been a number of mistakes, but there is a reason why the business market is using iOS far beyond iOS 'total market share.

McAVOY's argument goes down on this analogy. Go into some department store and pick up a shirt that is sold exclusively (there are many examples of this thing only) in that store. Go to the disk and claim that the "store" is overcharging and if they do not accept your terms, you will contest them to have a monopoly on this shirt. Ignore that almost identical shirts can be purchased in other stores or online for less, you want this shirt and you will not pay the request price. Or even better, you want to leave with the shirt and then go pay the manufacturer of the shirt directly instead of through the store. Do not be aware that the store has deals with the manufacturer and provides a secure and secure payment method for the shirt that may not be available if purchased otherwise. Or that if you buy the shirt online, it can't really be from the manufacturer that the team designed (that means they don't get compensated) or worse is infested with fleas and ticks that suck your blood and bring you to diseases! Although it may seem like an extreme analogy, it is not so far from what can (and does in the Android world) happen if you are not very careful about where to get applications.

Let's put it aside for some of the other arguments. Directly from the article. My counter arguments are in parentheses.

"Apple has gone a long way to maintaining its hold as the sole distribution channel for Apple device users, who have damaged developers, consumers, and competition in general."

These are Apple's designed devices and how they sell them is not up to you, me or really anyone other than Apple's management. If shareholders are unhappy, they can and have known such dissatisfaction.

To enforce its monopoly

It is NOT a monopoly anymore than Ford is a monopoly because it is only possible to get Ford cars from Ford

Apple has permanently disabled or "walled" units that was changed to Download software from elsewhere than via Apple

Changing a device beyond its intended use for its own gain is at risk. Don't jailbreak and chances are your device will never paint itself. You take responsibility for your own actions

forced developers to accept not to sell iOS apps anywhere other than their app store

Interesting how Mcavoy says this. By carefully saying iOS apps instead of just apps, it can be assumed that Apple refuses to allow developers to take their own apps and send them to other platforms. Which Apple does not and developers can submit their apps to any platform they want

prohibited from the IOS ecosystem software that collected payment without paying Apple

Take a shirt from a store and tell the store You only pay the manufacturer of the shirt. Afterwards do not contact me from jail when I do not accept callers

and asked regulators to do jailbreaking a device illegally under copyright law

I actually agree with this section. If you want to try jailbreaking or changing a device you purchased, go for it. Just don't expect Apple to repair or replace it under warranty .

Then there is a little …

"By monopolizing access to iOS, Apple can charge artificially high prices to developers who carry no relation to the cost ̵

1; a lot of all developer revenue – 30 percent of all developer revenue – which has increased the prices of consumers and stymied innovation in app distribution. "

Mcavoy leaves the part that Apple does not set the prices of apps in the IOS App Store, developers do. They add 30% as to anyone who knows retail, can tell you that this is not so outrageous a mark. The rest of the article continues in the same way while Mcavoy throws out the word "monopoly" a lot, but apparently does not understand what a monopoly really is.

If the Supreme Court decides that only developers can carry such a suit, would the same developers who earned so much money from iOS are willing to kill the goose who made their golden egg?

Source link