Apple finds it impossible to lower prices on apps for iOS, because such matters are solely administered by the developers themselves, as she deals with what gives them a platform to publish their developments. This was the company’s lawyers write in response to the statement of claim about compulsion of Apple Inc. to refuse to abuse their position as sole distributor of the software in matters of pricing.

Apple does not sell apps, but only provides third-party developers a platform for their implementation, charging for it a percentage of each transaction, the content of the opinion. Therefore, the possibility of revising the price of software and games published in the App Store, not company-dependent. The only thing that may influence the Apple is on the content of applications that must conform to the requirements of the proprietary equipment.

Why iOS apps are so expensive

But the plaintiffs hold a different position. The views expressed in a class action, monopoly, set the Apple on the app market for iOS and allowing that to dictate their rules regarding the pricing principles, stems from several factors. First of all, the company created a closed market, preventing the emergence of new platforms of distribution. This in turn allowed her to set an excessive amount of Commission from the sale of each application, equal to 30% of their prices.

In Cupertino would behave more cautiously, refusing from charging exorbitant fees from the developers that directly affect the price of the final app, if the App Store has a competitor, says David Frederick, a representative group of plaintiffs. If the U.S. Supreme court, which will consider the matter, deems Apple guilty of violating the basics of competition, plaintiffs will be entitled to compensation in the triple size from the injury suffered, and the company will be forced to eliminate violations.

But not so simple. Under American law, plaintiffs in monopoly cases there may be only the primary consumers, victims of actions of the enterprise-monopolist, which in this case are the developers, not the customers applications. Therefore, if the judge recognizes the Apple monopoly, which is unlikely, it is only with the treatment of creators BY allegedly suffering from exorbitant fees.