There is No doubt that the virtual store of Apple is a monopoly, on the basis that -in principle at least – the users of devices of apple can only acquire their apps in the store. Yes, you can do a “jailbreak” of the phone, but this mechanism is not for everyone. On the one hand, Apple is confident that the technical capacity of the one who thus acts, is in the minority and so, it assures in large part that people only buy apps in their store.
Apple receives 30% of every app sold, so something like 11 billion dollars a year, which is no small thing. The problem is that this has two effects: on the one hand a distortion of prices as the users can’t compare prices at other stores, and in addition, that the prices found are in general higher than they should be. These are the two main reasons for fight against monopolies.
In the demand for Pepper vs. Apple Inc., calls for the government to break finally the monopoly. Cuts less hierarchical have heard similar cases and it seems to have agreement in order to eventually not to proceed. Only the Supreme Court gets involved if there is no agreement between the parties.
Since then the first question is whether the monopoly of Apple is a conspiracy to increase prices. The issue is that it is not clear because Apple is often not the direct seller, but that is who distributes the apps and collect your commission. For this reason, the demands do not seem to proceed. This is similar to going to one of the many squares (so-called “malls”), where simply an organization that rent spaces to vendors. However, the counter-argument is that Apple is monopolizing the distribution of apps and this inhibits to say the least, the creation of other app stores to be able to compete with the store down the block, for example, taking a commission lower. This would be convenient because the creators of apps could reduce their prices and the monopoly would then be in difficulties to continue to operate, at least as it would have been doing even before that could be other online stores.
If Apple loses the case, could this have an effect on other channels that have distribution monopoly as in the case of Amazon. For example, the Google Play store of Android, you do not have that problem, and however, the apps store of Amazon yes.
Notwithstanding all this, if the Supreme Court directs that the case must go to trial, there is a long way to change things. There are extensive arguments in defense of Apple, for example, that in the market there are many other manufacturers of phones and that, therefore, there is competition, although clearly this seems to be only a trick legal, because it is not particularly that the problem.
It would be interesting to see that the market of iOS is open to competition and more types of scrutiny. It is not simply that Apple controls the market of apps for their devices so that there is no malware, but a question of what is permissible and what is not, what business practices are appropriate and what are that are generating this problem of the monopoly of apple.