Judge upholds Apple delisting of free Musi app that streams songs from YouTube

Judge tosses Musi case against Apple, sanctions lawyers for "mak[ing] up facts."

See full article...

 

[Focher]

The App Store has a 100% market share for apps for iOS devices.

Tell us you haven't read a single comment in this thread or have even a basic understanding of the legal definition of a monopoly without telling us you don't have a basic understanding of the legal definition of a monopoly.

Take any company's product and replace it in your sentence. Do you really think that makes any sense whatsoever? My guess is that you do, which is really the core of the challenge.

 

[Jiraiya]

This one seems pretty simple, "with or without cause" is explicit and there's no legal requirement for apple to do business with them.

That said, the sanctions part has me a little confused. The earlier section of the article suggests the law firm outright fabricated information for their argument, but the latter section suggests that it was merely something ambiguous, which seems like a different beast entirely.

This is the sort of egregious legal "mistake" that makes me wonder if they used AI tools to write their complaints.

 

[SeanJW]

Monopolies are defined by their control over a broad market, not their own products. You wouldn't say McDonalds is a monopoly because its the only place you can get a Big Mac. If there are equivalents on the market, then its not a monopoly.

..what? I know people who have switched from apple to android. 99% sure they still have a soul.

...hair colour? Just covering all bases here.

(Aging means I'm no longer a red-head... did I grow or otherwise acquire a soul as I got older?)

 

[black_box]

Assuming Musi had written an android app and put it in the Play store, how easy would it have been for Google to figure out how it worked and close the exploit path they were using?

 

[Gary Patterson]

“Monopoly” is a legal term and all the cases taken to court so far have found that Apple have no monopolies in law. The markets they are in are personal computers (tiny market share) and smartphones (around 40% in most regions). They do have control over app distribution for iOS but that’s not a monopoly because the market is “smart phone apps” not “iOS apps.”

There are moves in many jurisdictions to force Apple to open up side loading. The EU did it, others are in progress, so we all know it’s possible if politicians care to try.

Don’t rely on specious uses of legal terms, your arguments will be easily shot down. Lobby your politicians to force the issue based on freedoms and other vague concepts they can more easily sell. Apple are being less free and don’t The People deserve more freedom for some reason?

 

[kb99]

I suppose it is inevitable that just as law firms use AI to invent supporting law, law firms will use social media tactics to argue their cases. Make wild assertions unsupported by evidence and leave it to the other guy to counter. It is a positive step that a judge found this tactic to be worthy of sanction. What's OK on X or Truth Social ain't necessarily OK in federal court.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Sounds like they got their law license at the comedy store.

 

[Selethorme]

It depends on how you define the market.

United States v. Microsoft seems instructive. Apple has an operating systems monopoly for iPhone devices. And they extend that monopoly to the application distribution market by prohibiting any competition to the App Store.

No. Defining the market as "operating systems for iPhone devices" is like saying Ford has a monopoly on the infotainment systems in Ford vehicles. Every single-brand product is a "monopoly" over itself by that logic. The court in Epic v. Apple already explicitly rejected this kind of argument. The relevant market is smartphones, where Apple competes with Android. The Microsoft case worked because there was no viable alternative to Windows for "general-purpose personal computing" and that is simply not true with iOS, where Android holds the global majority of marketshare and is a readily available substitute.

As for:

And they extend that monopoly to the application distribution market by prohibiting any competition to the App Store.

This (wrongly) frames the App Store as a separate market Apple muscled into. It isn't. The App Store was built as part of iOS from the moment third-party apps were permitted. There was no preexisting app distribution market for iOS that Apple foreclosed, because they created the ecosystem. Microsoft, by contrast, entered the existing browser market specifically to neutralize a competitor.

When Apple uses this monopoly power to prevent consumers from running the apps of their choice on the device they own, consumers are inevitably harmed. And acquiring another device for the purpose of running that app is a substantial barrier creating vendor lock-in.

Apple claims an unrestricted ability to deny developers access to the App Store without cause. If that doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable.. it should.

Your switching costs argument is probably your strongest, but only in the way that it's true for literally everything. The question is whether the cost to switch was inflated through anticompetitive conduct or whether it is a natural consequence of choosing an expensive product. And lest we forget, in this case the app was removed for enabling circumvention of YouTube's Terms of Service. You're going to have a tough time framing enforcement against a ToS-violating app as consumer harm.

 

[ewelch]

ios has a 17% market share. They aren't a monopoly in any sense.

Laughably incorrect.

Apple's iOS is about 28%–31% of the global mobile operating system market share, with Android commanding the remaining ~68%–72%. In the US it's roughly 55%–58% share. iOS generates nearly two-thirds of all app revenue, driven by a higher-income user base.

 

[Rosyna]

Assuming Musi had written an android app and put it in the Play store, how easy would it have been for Google to figure out how it worked and close the exploit path they were using?

All you need is something like Wireshark.

 

[Rosyna]

iOS generates nearly two-thirds of all app revenue, driven by a higher-income user base.

It’s not a “higher-income user base” it’s more that even with equal income users, developers will earn more from iOS apps due to rampant and easy piracy on Android. To do the same on iOS, you generally have to be a dedicated pirate (which may also involve never installing security updates that close vulnerabilities used for jailbreaking).

Hell, device attestation is so broken on Android that recent versions of the Twitter app won’t run in a default config on some off-the-shelf smartphones.

 

[nononsense]

Well in the country the lawsuit took place, they hold 60% of the market

Still not a monopoly. This is not rocket science.

"A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell') is a market in which one person or company is the only supplier of a particular good or service"

-wiki, and everyone else on the planet.

 

[gnasher729]

Absolutely a wild story, and I'm not in any way defending Musi, however, do we have any idea how much of this was due to the law firm they hired and how much of this is their own fault? Especially with law firms relying way too much on AI these days

You are responsible for picking your law firm and to observe what they are doing. If you think you lost only because of your law firm, you can sue them.

 

[Rosyna]

Still not a monopoly. This is not rocket science.

"A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell') is a market in which one person or company is the only supplier of a particular good or service"

-wiki, and everyone else on the planet.

I think it’s also important to note that, regardless of market share, monopolies aren’t illegal in the US. Gross anti-competitive behavior that can be proven to harm consumers is, however.

This differs from some other jurisdictions that only require a theoretical harm to competition (and not even a direct harm to consumers) and I think that’s where this confusion comes from. See also: precautionary principle.

 

[rayer]

"sanctions lawyers" will get my click every time. I'm so easy. :/

If only we got a daily dose of this but with Trump lawyers

 

[Epke]

The App Store has a 100% market share for apps for iOS devices.

Damn those game consoles！

 

[araczynski]

Pretty sure whether Musi was a thieving POS or not doesn't matter here, bottom line is that per terms of service, Apple/Google will always have the right to remove any app for any reason.

 

[johnsonwax]

The developers at Musi could have made an Android app, but apparently didn't, so your "monopoly" claim doesn't withstand even the most cursory examination.

Musi could have made a native web app, and bypassed the music store entirely. It just streams YouTube content - a web app should have worked perfectly.

I've been saying for years that most of these developers aren't suing because they have no way to get on the platform, but because they want the discovery that Apple's software gives them.

 

[atuba]

What we have here is one company serving as judge, jury and executioner on what apps can get in their devices or not, overstepping standard legal procedures.
It got taken out not because the app was legally considered criminal, it got taken out because Apple didn't like what they were doing.

Tell you what… when you develop your own phone and then you develop an ecosystem and marketplace for it from scratch, let me know so I can upload my crypto, scamming and anti-XSportSeeker apps with impunity.

 

[TimeToTilt]

It’s not a “higher-income user base” it’s more that even with equal income users, developers will earn more from iOS apps due to rampant and easy piracy on Android. To do the same on iOS, you generally have to be a dedicated pirate (which may also involve never installing security updates that close vulnerabilities used for jailbreaking).

Hell, device attestation is so broken on Android that recent versions of the Twitter app won’t run in a default config on some off-the-shelf smartphones.

You have anything to backup that first claim about piracy? Not sure it's wrong, just never seen that claim made anywhere.

And from what I can see there is still a large income gap between iOS and Android users in the US.

https://www.proximic.com/Insights/B...cantly higher,their device than Android users

 

[siliconaddict]

I'm no fan of Apple. But they run the platform. They can do with it what they want. It would be like saying Target isn't allowed to stop selling a product in their chain. Now if you want to argue duopoly with Google Store and Apple store as the only options.....that I might understand as an argument. This is why side loading should be allowed on all platforms up to and including 3rd party stores. Going back to Target if you don't like them, you have a host of other options to buy from.

 

[Dr.Kamiya]

A little bit off-topic, but Apple being able to delist an app at any time, "with or without cause" is IMO a good argument to why side-loading should be allowed, otherwise Apple is the sole and final arbiter of what a user is allowed to run on a personal computing device that the user owns and is completely paid for.

Apple of course is completely right in that they can choose what apps they allow and distribute via their App store, but it shouldn't be the only way to load an app onto an IOS device.

 

[Dr.Kamiya]

I don't have any issue with the app maker and lawyers being found guilty in the case, or rather not having a case to sue, but I do have a problem with Apple being able to delist apps with or without cause, which this case just added more precedent to.
Not that it's anything new - it's the whole reason why I never consider getting anything from Apple.
But it is too bad that Google is also going that exact way, bit by bit but surely.

We need fully featured alternatives to both Google and Apple, completely independent from both corporations, like yesterday on mobile space - which this article also serves as proof of.

What we have here is one company serving as judge, jury and executioner on what apps can get in their devices or not, overstepping standard legal procedures.
It got taken out not because the app was legally considered criminal, it got taken out because Apple didn't like what they were doing.
Even if you personally think what they did is wrong, which I'll tend to agree, the fact is that this isn't a case where Muse was legally prosecuted to only then Apple remove the app from the app store based on the result of that - Apple overstepped and removed it regardless.

And that's the whole issue with having one or only a few monopolies/oligopolies in a space as important and intimately connected to everyday life for huge throngs of the world's population - that sort of power cannot be at the hands of so few, particularly opaque and profit driven businesses.

I'm generally supportive of your argument, but I think we need to make a distinction here between Apple the device manufacturer and Apple the software distributor.

I completely support people being able to run the software they want on their personal devices. However Apple is also within its rights when it chooses not to distribute a particular app through its store.

And also why side-loading should always be allowed otherwise it isn't your personal device anymore, but that's another topic.

 

[bella52]

Some apps are on ecosystems they don’t fully control—especially when they rely on third-party content like YouTube streams. It feels like we’re seeing more cases where legal gray areas and platform rules collide, and the outcome can significantly shape competition in the app space.

 

[Chuckstar]

Absolutely a wild story, and I'm not in any way defending Musi, however, do we have any idea how much of this was due to the law firm they hired and how much of this is their own fault? Especially with law firms relying way too much on AI these days (and while admittedly I know nothing of the firm in question, shit lawyers are shit lawyers), I am curious as to what really happened here. Did Musi screw this up or did the law firm?

Maybe we'll get an update in the future?

Winston & Strawn is not some shady ambulance-chasing law firm. They are about as “white shoe” as it gets. Obviously, there can still be people at such a firm who make poor decisions, though.

 

[Gary Patterson]

Of course they are sixty in the region being discussed, and given you know it's "forty in most" it feels intentionally misleading that you posted like this instead of talkimg about the market that matters which is the US where they have sixty percent share.

(Sigh)

And that’s the region they were shown by a court not to have a monopoly. Which is why I didn’t bother to look it up (I don’t keep iPhone market share for various regions around the planet in my head, hence my guesstimate). It makes no difference.

 

[arobert3434]

It seems like there's only one monopoly involved in the case and that's YouTube. Their only competition in ad-compensated free online music is I guess Spotify, though they are pretty niche in comparison.

 

[aphexbr]

You have anything to backup that first claim about piracy? Not sure it's wrong, just never seen that claim made anywhere.

And from what I can see there is still a large income gap between iOS and Android users in the US.

https://www.proximic.com/Insights/Blog/The-iOS-Opportunity#:~:text=iPhone users boast significantly higher,their device than Android users

The US is a weird market, look at the rampant complaints some people have about the colour of iMessages depending on whether you're sending to an iPhone or not. Due to the way the market developed, people in other countries don't have that hangup because they defaults to using cross-platform apps like Whatsapp before iMessage was released. Partly due to this and other factors, it seems the iPhone is more likely to be seen as a status symbol there, whereas people in other places are happy to use equally expensive flagship phones from Samsung and the like. Then, contracts tend to be more common there while pay as you go rules elsewhere, so people just get the upgrade included in their contract every few years and never look around when it's time to upgrade.

The correlation between higher income and iPhones in the US might have more behind it, but I think it's largely because iPhone users are less likely to try out Android phones because there's an artificial stigma and no drive to switch, whereas people elsewhere are more likely to shop around no matter their income level.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Of course they are sixty in the region being discussed, and given you know it's "forty in most" it feels intentionally misleading that you posted like this instead of talkimg about the market that matters which is the US where they have sixty percent share.

It's a moot point though, since monopolies are not, in and of themselves, illegal.

If you want to prove in court that Apple are somehow abusing their control over their own product then, well, good luck.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Yeah, no. Ultimately the merits of this particular case are irrelevant. What is relevant from a public policy perspective is that Apple is a monopoly. It can remove apps arbitrarily, with or without cause. The developers then have no avenue with which to reach their market.

This can cause irreparable harm, especially to small developers, who may be completely focused on the Apple ecosystem. According to this judge, at this point, because a developer clicked through a 60-page agreement, that’s all A-OK.

“You don’t have to agree, you could code for Android” Well, you don’t know that. There are entire industries that use iOS exclusively. If someone supports those industries, one must code for iOS and is therefore at risk of arbitrarily losing livelihood.

It’s pedestrian boilerplate that should be illegal. Apple SHOULD be listing explicit criteria for delisting.

“Waaah, waaah,” cry the dissenters, “How likely is this?” That’s not the point. The point is that it’s possible, and one does not truly know what criteria may result in delisting, nor is there a rectification path. That’s Kafkaesque. Consider where our (US) society is headed. If a Trump supporter makes an app and liberal Apple doesn’t like it, could they delist it? If Apple’s taken over by a capital investment firm and turns Trump, could they use Palantir to find out everything possible about a developer, and use AI to delist him if he’s gay, trans, embraces DEI, or is critical of the fascist in the White House or whatever war of opportunity is being waged that week?

It’s bad, and there should be public policy to restrict such boilerplate.

EDIT: LOL, I hit Submit and sure enough, in the meantime, there are three armchair assholes saying “go code for Android.”

iOS is a walled garden but that doesn’t mean it’s bad for small developers, in fact there is a fairly compelling argument it’s great for them.

On average, each iOS user spends significantly more on apps and subscriptions than Android users. It can be argued that some of the difference is because iOS users have more disposable income, based on them spending significantly more on the average iPhone than Android users spend on average for theirs.

But it can also be argued that iOS users ste far more comfortable spending on apps because of apples stringent app approval policies meaning they are less likely to get scammed. And it’s easy annd clear purchase policies make it easy to cancel subscriptions and get refunds.

So where you fall as a developer on how you feel about the policies depends mostly on how close to the line your apps get. If your apps struggle to get approval due to specific rules they conflict with, you obviously care a lot less about the benefits of strict regulation, if your apps don’t you likely appreciate the benefits of customers being more comfortable with making purchases.

I’m in the middle, I’ve had some apps rejected or delayed until I made requested changes, for reasons i deemed stupid. But I still appreciate how easy it is to get customers to pay me in iOS for the apps I did get approved.

 

[Deranged]

ios has a 17% market share. They aren't a monopoly in any sense.

To be fair, in the US phone market (which is predominantly where the Musi app would’ve been used), iOS has a 55% market share. Not that that excuses Musi approach or make Apple a monopoly, but still.

 

[Cloudgazer]

You have anything to backup that first claim about piracy? Not sure it's wrong, just never seen that claim made anywhere.

https://www.phonearena.com/news/Pun...-90-of-mobile-pirates-were-on-Android_id79528

The sad bottom line is that Punch Club was available in torrents hours after the official launch. For every Android sale, there were 12 pirates, while for every PC sale there were 4 pirates. For every iOS sale there were 2 pirates


There are a lot of similar single app stories. Though mostly they date from the earlier days of mobile, when piracy rates on iOS would be much higher than today (due to easy jailbreaking) and premium games were much more common.

Premium games have almost entirely died out, and the few that do exist survive entirely off the iOS market.