I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. Of course he's a member of the party. He very likely wouldn't have been able to build Alibaba had he not been a member.
I absolutely agree from a consumer perspective. From the developer side though I'm certain that there are some app store policies dev's have to comply with that benefit neither consumer nor developer and are solely in Apple's interest.
I guess it's just interesting to me because Apple is both the market and the market regulator here. Continuing with my stock exchange analogy Apple plays the role of NYSE and the SEC. The nature of wearing both hats means there are going to be conflicts of interest and Apple has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not to their consumers. I see both sides but struggle to see a solution that doesn't leave app store customers worse off.
I've been thinking about this case a lot as it compares to the investment industry and it's troubling. Apple is the "market maker" here, not unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ and they certainly add value to the consumer and the developer by facilitating sales for devs and offering some level of protection for the customer. Apple of course deserves to be compensated for that value-add. On the other hand, Apple has built this "walled garden", which is another way of saying monopoly, and that comes at a cost to both the consumer (higher prices) and innovation (devs spend time/effort/energy complying with Apple's app store policies).
I'm not terribly familiar with the case law but I do know that NYSE has had at least a handful of similar antitrust cases in the past. I'm not sure if the cases were getting at transaction costs but the crux of every antitrust suit is generally that XYZ action by a monopoly leads to unjustifiably higher prices. It occurred to me that as a result of this case Apple might change their pricing structure to align with the pricing strategy stock exchanges typically use. That is, a nominal transaction fee that covers only the cost of the transaction but then charges the companies an annual "listing fee." That would be awful for innovation, small developers, and by extensions, consumers who would then having fewer apps to choose from.
I suppose thats just a long way of me saying that I fear the Plaintiffs may actually hurt consumers more in the long run.
I appreciate that medical innovation walks a fine line when they balance progress with the risk of a new technology but implanting the first device after approval in an 82 year old seems like a bit of an unnecessary risk.