Posted on 05/13/2019 8:20:00 AM PDT by Monrose72
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in a case involving its signature electronic marketplace, the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with an antitrust suit against the company. The iPhone users argued that Apple’s 30% commission on sales through the App Store is an unfair use of monopoly power that results in inflated prices passed on to consumers. Apple argued that only app developers, and not users, should be able to bring such a lawsuit. But the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, rejected that claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Welp, there’s Rush’s show prep for today
Oh great, now he’ll talk about Apple for three hours...............
The 4 liberals plus Kavanaugh were the majority
Rush will talk about Apple for hours and most certainly the worthless RINO closet democrat Kavanaugh who sided with the 4 LIBERALS on the court against Apple. Kavanaugh will be another Kennedy.
His record so far would indicate that it is five liberals. SMH...
I support this decision. If users really own their devices then Apple limiting where you can obtain applications is unfair.
It would be akin to a car company telling you you have to buy only OEM parts.
John Deer tractor was doing something like this and they got slapped down so this decision is consistent with other such decisions.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3748946/posts
Same title, same source.
Search works, you know. :-)
How many times did Kavanaugh tell democrats during his confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade was “prescedent” and he had no intention of trying to do away with it. Every five minutes. He’s worthless. Trump needs to get a real pro-life WOMAN on the court if Roe v. Wade is ever being sent back to the states. No more former Kennedy clerks.
Yes, but the market should make this decision not the courts.
The biggest difference between Apple and Android to date is that Android is a house built of cheap plastic and Apple is a virtual bank safe.
It should not be the place of jurists to dictate Apple’s market strategy
Apple has a monopoly on cell phones? Really? There are other choices. I have never even owned an Apple cell phone.
That is SO disappointing.
What’s at stake here is who owns your device after you buy it? If you own it then it’s your choice what to do with it. Apple’s argument for security is nice and that’s a reason to buy through the App Store.
But if I want to make my own app and sell it on my own without paying a 30% fee to Apple then I should be able to do so and customers should be able to make the choice to buy directly from me.
And who owns your device after you buy it is the same question that is at play with the John Deere right-to-repair case.
https://newfoodeconomy.org/right-to-repair-elizabeth-warren-john-deere/
Do you own your device or does the manufacturer own it?
“Apple limiting where you can obtain applications is unfair.”
That limit is probably the biggest single factor that the iPhone and iPad platforms are NOT polluted with endless malware and viruses. There is HUGE value in having Apple exercise such strict control over the platform. We get enormous value out of that 30% that is paid.
The 30% Apple fee added to apps, is unfair to the ultimate consumer of Apple products. The 30% fee is not something that the app creator pays to Apple. The costs are added to the price the consumer pays. It’s the same thing as taxes on corporations, which corporations don’t pay, since the taxes are considered costs of doing business and added onto the products and services which consumer purchase; thus, the consumers end up pay the taxes; and likewise with Apple, the consumer ends up paying for the added Apple fee.
This decision may have a far reaching greater effect than just the topic. We can break it down:
“The iPhone users argued that Apple’s 30% commission on sales through the App Store is an unfair use of monopoly power that results in inflated prices passed on to consumers. Apple argued that only app developers, and not users, should be able to bring such a lawsuit. But the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, rejected that claim.”
Sound familiar? It should. It’s been on the liberal dirty sheet for about 30 years: the attack on pharmaceuticals. One of the major reasons the makers have had to price drugs to the distributors so high is that the government has forced upon the makers huge costs with the many years of research and taxing before mother may I could be secured. And they are a business, one for profit. So, the costs are much higher than if they weren’t regulated and forced to offset their costs. Of course, it’s a trade off, you get better quality. But you pay for that. It’s like going to Disney World and staying at the Grand Floridian instead of Motel 8.
So what this decision will lead to is going to be a steady line of fire truck chasing lawyers and, possibly, gold digging clients looking for their 15 minutes of fame in the court as any action against the pharmaceuticals is going to get liberal attention for their cause. And what will it do because of the expense of defending themselves? You can guess, increased prices.
They still have to earn their profit for continued operations. If the public cuts into that, it has to be made up. Like a circle in a spiral……
rwood
Do you own your iPhone or does Apple own it?
At at anythime Apple can tell you, “You own a brick.”
Apple, Twitter, and Facebook need to be broken up.
Turn them into apple sauce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.