It's also, according to Apple, what keeps out "fraudsters and pornsters and hackers and malware and spyware and foreign governments."
From "Apple, Fortnite Battle Moves Before Appeals Court Over App Store Monopoly Claims" in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal:
A two-year legal battle between Apple Inc. AAPL -0.95%decrease; red down pointing triangle and “Fortnite” maker Epic Games Inc. over how apps are distributed on the iPhone took its next steps before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday...
Tom Goldstein, a partner at Goldstein & Russell P.C. arguing on Epic’s behalf, said that the “beating heart” of the case is whether Apple’s walled garden approach to its iPhone App Store hurts competition.
“The only thing that is kept out by Apple’s walled garden is competitors,” he said at the hearing. “I haven’t been able to conceive of a theory of the case in which Apple should legitimately be immune from antitrust scrutiny,” he said.
One of the three judges, Milan Smith Jr., asked Apple’s lawyer about the differences between Apple’s more closed approach with its mobile operating system and the more open ecosystem of the Mac operating system...
Apple’s walled garden approach makes the iPhone more secure than the Mac, PC and Android platforms, [Apple representative Mark] Perry argued, and gives Apple a competitive differentiation.
“What’s kept out by walled gardens is fraudsters and pornsters and hackers and malware and spyware and foreign governments who wish to hijack the phone and GPS and microphone feature of the device,” he said.
My take: Law 360's Dorothy Atkins, better equipped than most at reading the body language of appellate courts, went with this headline:
9th Circ. Judge Open To Apple's Take On Epic Antitrust Trial ($)
Unlike the above venues, iPhone and Android, offer a free tier for Apps that provide free services or that monetize outside the smartphone OS. For example all travel Apps, nearly all fintech Apps, and more.
What’s not clear to me is what legal issue the Appeals Court is actually looking at. Both sides have thrown lots of stuff against the wall to see if anything sticks.
Despite what all of the Apple haters are putting forth in their articles, this is nothing more than oral argument before the three judge panel. It’s not a brand new trial. Just part of the appellate process that IMO is being overblown by claiming it’s a second trial of sorts. Absolute legal gibberish.
He’s trying this case in the media court, a kangaroo court. His first assertion is false, the only things kept out are predators, child predators, etc. or squatters like Epic who seek squatter’s rights (sell rent-free) in Apple’s gorgeous, well maintained virtual real estate.