The company behind the iPhone app store, Sidia, which was launched before Apple’s own App Store, has acquired a monopoly in the market for Apple’s iOS App Stores, and Apple has argued that this process violates the law.
When the iPhone was introduced in 2007, it had no way of running third-party software by default. Conversely, Steve Jobs Encouraged developers Create web applications running on the iPhone’s Safari browser.
But people soon figured out how to jailbreak the iPhone and started creating iPhone apps without the help of Apple. Seeing an opportunity, software developer Jay Freeman created a project Cydia This made it easier for users to download and install their own iPhone apps in the App Store before the App Store.
A few months later, Apple launched its own official App Store. Since then, Apple has used technical and contractual restrictions to remove CDia and other unauthorized app stores from the market. For example, anyone who wants to sell software through the official App Store must agree not to offer the software in competing App Stores such as Cidia.
A Thursday case Filed in federal court in California, the company behind Cydia argues that this is a blatant violation of the law of no confidence. The lawsuit alleges that “Apple is abusing and maintaining a monopoly power in the marketplace for iOS application distribution, and in the marketplace for iOS application payment processing.”
This case points to a number of ways in which this could be detrimental to consumers and the utility industry. Most obviously, Apple charges a 30 percent commission on most in-app purchases – recently reduced to 15 percent for apps earning less than 1 million. Cydia argues that in a competitive market Apple cannot leave out such high fees.
Cedia argues that it takes a long time for Apple to recognize applications and restricts direct communication between developers and their users. Again, as Cydia argues, more competition will force Apple to increase its game.
An Apple spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But by looking we can get some ideas about the possible response of the company Apple’s August Filed In the hopeless case of the epic. In that case, Apple argued that its App Store strategy could not violate the law of distrust because it “dramatically increased output, lowered prices and improved consumer choice”.
Apple has argued that there is no single “iOS app distribution market” in the epic case. In contrast, from Apple’s point of view, the iPhone and its App Store are two parts of the same product. From Apple’s point of view, Apple offers a wide range of flexibility to determine how to monetize this site.
It is the theme of a series of hopeless events related to the technology sector. In the 1990s, The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft In order to integrate its operating system with its web browser. Microsoft insisted that the Internet Explorer browser was not a separate product, but a new feature of Windows. A trial court rejected Microsoft’s arguments, but the ruling was overturned on appeal. The case was settled shortly after George W. Bush took office, and Microsoft agreed to make modest changes to its business model.
Since then, there have been very few successful hopeless cases challenging this kind of integration between technology products. Apple points out that this is far from the only hardware maker that tightly controls third-party software on its platform. For example, Apple argues that Sidia’s argument that Sodia, Microsoft and Nintendo are also monopolies is because they are trying to control who builds software for their gaming consoles.