To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing from the mall itself.
At least in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.
You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc.
And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired.
Put exclusivity and vendor selection together and you have a digital app store. Apple doesn't even pretend to be open -- they're a product with licensed 3rd party integrations.
On what grounds should they be compelled to be anything else?
https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agree...
That's why this is going to the Supreme Court - we all recognize that the App Store uses exclusive dealing, but it's non-obvious whether or not it's lawful.
>And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Apple's point was that they aren't selling anything - therefore appstore customers wouldn't have standing to bring an antitrust against them.
When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute.
The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute for Apple's App Store, because they have made it that way on purpose. You can't sell your iOS app through Walmart or Google Play or Amazon. You can't download it from the developer's website. And you can't run Android apps on iOS devices. So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution, and with that comes the antitrust restrictions that don't apply to competitive markets.
Is iOS app distribution a thing that can be dominated though, legally? In your example I get how stores and shoes are both things that can be dominated but what category of thing does iOS app distribution fall into? Is it still in the same category if one deletes iOS and just calls it in "app store"? Would Apple still dominate apps?
It's all confusing to me. I'm asking sincerely because I honestly don't know.
No different to Nintendo, PS4 stores etc.
This decision makes clear that legal weasels lost.
Understanding next steps requires constructing the argument correctly. One could ask why should Apple be forced to open "their" phone for example. This too would be weasel words because nobody on earth is asking Apple to open the phones in their pockets.
A more reasonable person might ask that Apple allow owners to control THEIR OWN PHONES.
You ask erroneously if BMW should have to stock ford Trucks. This isn't remotely analogous. This is asking if BMW owners ought to have to go to a BMW gas station, seek repairs only at BMW owned service stations. Listen to BWM approved music on BMW approved stereos.
Fundamentally using control of a users device after sale to maximize future revenue is inappropriate and the only remedy is to give users full control.
The question is whether Apple should make it easy for you to do this. And there is no legal basis for that.
If we decide that designing a toaster to only accept $vendor's bread is illegal that's all well and good but the justification for such a law will be that it's monopolistic behavior, not that the end user owns the toaster.
