The company behind the iPhone app store Sidia, which launched Apple Pal before its own app store, Apple Play argued that Apple Play has created a monopoly in the market for iOS app stores, violating antitrust laws in the process.
When the iPhone was introduced in 2007, it did not have a mechanism for running third-party software. Instead, Steve Jobs encouraged developers to create web apps that run in the iPhone’s Safari browser.
But people soon figured out how to jailbreak the iPhone and started creating iPhone apps without Paul’s help. Seeing an opportunity, software software developer Jay Freeman created a program called Sidia, which made it easier for users to download and install native iPhone apps before the native app store.
A few months later, Apple Play launched its own official facial app store. Since then, Apple Play has tried to drive Cedia and other unauthorized app stores out of the market using both technical and contract controls. For example, anyone who wants to sell software through the official facial app store must agree not to offer software in competitive app stores such as Sidia.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in California, the company behind Cedia argues that this was a clear violation of antitrust law. “Apple Play has wrongly acquired and retained a monopoly power in the market for iOS app distribution, and in the market for iOS app payment processing,” the lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit points to a number of ways in which consumers and the app industry have suffered. Clearly, the app pulls a 30 percent commission on most app purchases – which is currently 15 percent for apps earning less than 1 1 million. Saidia argued that Apple could not leave the competitive market with such a high fee.
Cedia also argues that Apple takes a lot of time to approve Pal apps and limits direct communication between developers and their users. Again, Saidia argues that more competition will force Apple to make its game.
A spokesman for Apple Pal did not comment on the claim. But looking at Apple’s gust filing in Epic’s anti-trust lawsuit we can get a little idea of the company’s possible response. In that case, Apple Play argued that its app store strategy could not violate anti-trust law because it “rapidly increased output, reduced prices and dramatically improved consumer choice.”
Apple also argued in the Epic case that there is no separate “iOS app distribution market”. Instead, Apple’s iPhone and its App Store are two parts of the same product. In Apple’s view, the no-confidence motion gives Apple greater flexibility in deciding how to monetize the platform.
This is a recurring theme in anti-trust cases involving the technology sector. In the 1990s, U.S. The government sued Microsoft for binding its browser operating system to its web browser. Microsoft insisted that the Internet Explorer browser was not a separate product, but a new feature of Windows. The trial court rejected Microsoft’s arguments, but that decision was partially reversed on appeal. George W. The issue came to a head shortly after Bush took office, when Microsoft agreed to make general changes to its business model.
Since then, there have been very few if any successful antitrust legal systems challenging this type of integration between products. And Apple Paul points out that it is far from the only hardware manufacturer to tightly control third-party software on its platform. Apple Pal, for example, argues that Cedia’s argument suggests that Sony, Micro .ft and Nintendo are also monopolists, as they try to control who makes the software for their gaming consoles.
