Mobile News is for people who likes to get updated on daily basis about Android, iOS, Windows Phones, Apps, Security, and much more articles. If you have any kinds of questions please free to ask by contacting us.
*where 123 - means sub-id. For each of your traffic sources please use some specific ID, ID can be of any type without any special characters. (All SubIDs need to be different). The more specifically, you diversify your traffic sources the better it’s possible to determine the different quality of traffic. Here are some examples: IMPORTANT for ALL numeric IDs - use ONLY numbers 12 - good 195 - good 12956 - good 9 - good 23-12 - not good 5321.1232 - not good 12_32 - not good IMPORTANT for ALL other settings when using letters (A, a, B, b etc.), common symbols (. - _ and that’s it) use quotation marks (“”) . Any uncommon symbol (& ^ @ ` ~ , + = etc.) even with quotation marks - won’t work for the IDs’ name. “” - good “FIRST_test.org_12” - good “23-12” - good “15_fs” - good - not good 2352-42 - not good 528sjn - not good 625_2 - not good “test&” - not good Examples of good working SubIDs:

Apple App Store Antritrust Case Is Headed to the Supreme Court

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Every time an iPhone or iPad owners buys something from the App Store, Apple gets a 30 percent cut. Having raked in an estimated $11 billion from that arrangement in 2017, the company is understandably committed to maintaining the status quo. However, an antitrust case against Apple that started in 2011 is on its way to the US Supreme Court, and it could change the way you buy apps.

The case (Apple Inc. v. Pepper) brought by Apple customers faces an uphill battle. The position of the plaintiffs is that Apple’s complete control over application distribution on the iPhone has caused pricing inflation. If you want to make apps for iOS devices, you can only distribute them in the App Store. If you want to charge money for them, Apple will always take a piece of the action. The platform is fully locked down, so there’s no official method to install apps from third-party sources.

At the heart of this case is the 1977 Brick Doctrine, which comes from the Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois Supreme Court case. The court held that you cannot sue for antitrust damages if you’re not the direct customer of the accused. For example, if someone has a monopoly on RAM chips and sells them at an inflated price to OEMs, you can’t sue the chip supplier because your computer was too expensive.

Apple and the Department of Justice claim that consumers don’t have the standing to sue Apple because they’re not the direct customers. Developers set the prices, so they’re actually to blame. On the other side, the plaintiffs accuse Apple of monopolizing the distribution of apps. If developers could release apps via other stores or just on their own websites, prices might be lower.

Supreme Court

If the plaintiffs were to prevail, they would be able to sue Apple for damages, and the company might be forced to open the iPhone up to third-party app distribution. This is the Android model, where Google has its own store but allows consumers to enable installations from third-party sources. There are open source repositories of apps, as well as the Amazon Appstore. This option hasn’t slowed the growth of the Play Store as far as anyone can tell, and it offers Android users more choices.

If Apple wins in the high court, consumers would have fewer grounds to bring antitrust cases against increasingly wealthy and powerful technology firms. Other companies that rely on commissions to earn money (like Amazon) could also be shielded from similar lawsuits.

Comments are closed.