AltStore Pal Now Free Thanks to 'MegaGrant' From Epic Games

[Unregistered 4U]

One more time, computer OEMs and third party dealers/retailers were NOT prevented from selling Windows machines with alternative browsers or office software.

One more time, all available documentation related to the case indicates that statement is not true. If you have an issue with the truth, you can contact the US government.

BTW, for anyone that’s interested in some of the text of the complaint (these are just two examples of a literal litany of bad practices. Practices Apple is not accused of because, importantly, Apple doesn’t have OEM’s)

For example, Microsoft attaches to a Windows license conditions that restrict the ability of OEMs to promote software that Microsoft believes could weaken the applications barrier to entry. (This next one is something I didn’t know until this deeper review) Microsoft also charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ensure that all of their Windows machines are powerful enough to run Windows NT for Workstations. To the extent this provision induces OEMs to concentrate their efforts on the development of relatively powerful, expensive PCs, it makes OEMs less likely to pursue simultaneously the opposite path of developing "thin client" systems, which could threaten demand for Microsoft's Intel- compatible PC operating system products.

and

When Compaq eventually agreed to restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons and program entries to the Presario desktop, it did so because its senior executives had decided that the firm needed to do what was necessary to restore its special relationship with Microsoft.

The documents are riddled with the activities Microsoft took in order to control companies via their Windows license. Searching for OEM’s yields over 300 instances (in addition to calling out the OEM’s by name hundreds of times in instances where Microsoft was taking some retaliatory action or another)

The point again was that Microsoft was not able to dictate what can or can't be loaded/pre-loaded on their OS and neither should Apple be able to.

Except for… they literally were. Anyone who even performs a cursory review of the legal documents will find far more than just two examples of that.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The dma is all about hobbling American tech and taking their successful business and giving it to others free.

Vestager has even said as such. She has indicated she will judge how successful DMA is by it’s impact on the profits of American companies.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Does Apple own all iOS software, even the products they themselves did not make?

Apple produces and has primary control over the features of the iPhone, the iPhone OS, the iPhone App Store, Xcode, (required to develop and deploy iOS applications onto the App Store) AND the Apple Mac and macOS without which, Xcode won’t run legally.

Anyone that doesn’t agree at any point with Apple’s delivered features OR any of Apple’s terms and conditions can simply not take the steps required to deliver an App to Apple’s App Store. The same way a developer delivering an application to the Nintendo eShop has to abide by the rules/regulations Nintendo has set up, so, too does a developer delivering an application to the Apple App Store has to abide by the rules/regulations Apple has set up.

In short, the statement below is true for all instances of CompanyX. Even for companies that don’t exist yet.

Any developer delivering an application to CompanyX’s (digital storefront) has to abide by the rules/regulations CompanyX has set up.

 

[webkit]

No anti trust found here. Only some regulations which require apple to open up it's app store. As I've repeatedly said, competition formed in this way is not competition.

I said antitrust related as in government laws and regulations that are meant to encourage and promote competition in a marketplace by preventing anticompetitive behavior by major companies in that market.

Apple is not using any market power for a small company to grow a competing cell phone business. It's a tough business requiring, capital, knowledge and execution. Incumbants aren't responsible for any of it.

By Apple not allowing alternative app stores on a major segment of the mobile OS market controlled by them (iOS), they were stifling competition in the app access/app store market.

 

[webkit]

One more time, all available documentation related to the case indicates that statement is not true. If you have an issue with the truth, you can contact the US government.

BTW, for anyone that’s interested in some of the text of the complaint (these are just two examples of a literal litany of bad practices. Practices Apple is not accused of because, importantly, Apple doesn’t have OEM’s)

For example, Microsoft attaches to a Windows license conditions that restrict the ability of OEMs to promote software that Microsoft believes could weaken the applications barrier to entry. (This next one is something I didn’t know until this deeper review) Microsoft also charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ensure that all of their Windows machines are powerful enough to run Windows NT for Workstations. To the extent this provision induces OEMs to concentrate their efforts on the development of relatively powerful, expensive PCs, it makes OEMs less likely to pursue simultaneously the opposite path of developing "thin client" systems, which could threaten demand for Microsoft's Intel- compatible PC operating system products.

When Compaq eventually agreed to restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons and program entries to the Presario desktop, it did so because its senior executives had decided that the firm needed to do what was necessary to restore its special relationship with Microsoft.

The documents are riddled with the activities Microsoft took in order to control companies via their Windows license. Searching for OEM’s yields over 300 instances (in addition to calling out the OEM’s by name hundreds of times in instances where Microsoft was taking some retaliatory action or another)

Except for… they literally were. Anyone who even performs a cursory review of the legal documents will find far more than just two examples of that.

Restricting does not mean blocking. While Microsoft incentivized computer OEMs not to pre-install alternative browsers, they did not completely block them from doing so. The choice was ultimately theirs. Third party dealers/retailers were also able to install alternative browsers and plenty advertised Windows computers with Netscape Navigator pre-installed.

 

[BaldiMac]

It allows for more competition in the app access market whether it be individual developers creating their own stores, or third party stores being created to compete to market apps..

This is nonsense. A made up market with no legal significance created to avoid acknowledging the flaws in you argument.

Computer OEMs had the choice of going with more favorable Windows OEM license terns and not pre-install alternative browsers OR less favorable terms and be able to install alternative browsers. They were not blocked from installing alternative browsers unless they chose a license agreement with (some) alternative browser restrictions but it was their choice to make. They were not prevented from making a choice.

Independent dealers/retailers could also install alternative browsers on Windows machines they sold.

None of that changes the fact that FTC unequivocally states that the courts found "Microsoft was able to [...] prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software..."

 

[I7guy]

I said antitrust related as in government laws and regulations that are meant to encourage and promote competition in a marketplace by preventing anticompetitive behavior by major companies in that market.

But still no antitrust here. The dma is a way of dismantling American tech. If the eu was serious they would find more station cell phone competitors.

By Apple not allowing alternative app stores on a major segment of the mobile OS market controlled by them (iOS), they were stifling competition in the app access/app store market.

It’s their right to. There is no law regarding apple enabling competition on their own products.

 

[webkit]

This is nonsense. A made up market with no legal significance created to avoid acknowledging the flaws in you argument.

It's not a "made up" market. Otherwise, alternative iOS app stores/sources like AltStore PAL, Mobivention Marketplace, Setapp Mobile, etc. wouldn't be in or entering that market.

None of that changes the fact that FTC unequivocally states that the courts found "Microsoft was able to [...] prevent computer makers from installing non-Microsoft browser software..."

“217. Microsoft's license agreements have never prohibited OEMs from pre-installing programs, including Navigator, on their PCs and placing icons and entries for those programs on the Windows desktop and in the "Start" menu."

What the court found was that MS did not block computer OEMs from pre-installing software like Netscape Navigator but made it less desirable (e.g., financially) to do so. The other browser related issue was with IE having to be included/bundled with Windows.

U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact

www.justice.gov

 

[webkit]

But still no antitrust here. The dma is a way of dismantling American tech. If the eu was serious they would find more station cell phone competitors.

It's dealing with major, market influential/powerful companies just as antitrust laws are designed to do.

It’s their right to. There is no law regarding apple enabling competition on their own products.

A company doesn't have a right to stifle competition and engage in anticompetitive behavior if they are declared to have significant market power, control, influence, etc.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not a "made up" market. Otherwise, alternative iOS app stores/sources like AltStore PAL, Mobivention Marketplace, Setapp Mobile, etc. wouldn't be in or entering that market.

Okay, Bob. You let me know when you see a lawsuit mentioning it.

“217. Microsoft's license agreements have never prohibited OEMs from pre-installing programs, including Navigator, on their PCs and placing icons and entries for those programs on the Windows desktop and in the "Start" menu."

What the court found was that MS did not block computer OEMs from pre-installing software like Netscape Navigator but made it less desirable (e.g., financially) to do so. The other browser related issue was with IE having to be included/bundled with Windows.

U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact

www.justice.gov

You're just playing word games here. Causing something not to happen (e.g. through financial incentives) is the same as preventing it from happening.

 

[I7guy]

It's dealing with major, market influential/powerful companies just as antitrust laws are designed to do.

There were no antitrust laws, just some (terrible) regulations after the fact whereby the sole purpose was to dismantle American Tech. An easier way is not to buy it in the EU.

A company doesn't have a right to stifle competition and engage in anticompetitive behavior

Good thing Apple didn't then.

if they are declared to have significant market power, control, influence, etc.

Keyword is "if". They are influential, but that isn't the same as significant.

 

[webkit]

Okay, Bob. You let me know when you see a lawsuit mentioning it.

Lawsuit? I was simply stating that requiring Apple to open iOS to alternative app stores allows for more competition in the iOS app access market which is does.

You're just playing word games here. Causing something not to happen (e.g. through financial incentives) is the same as preventing it from happening.

No, it is you who seems to like to play word games. What I had stated is that computer OEMs were not prevented from making a choice of going with more favorable Windows OEM license terns and not pre-install alternative browsers OR less favorable terms and be able to install alternative browsers.

 

[webkit]

There were no antitrust laws, just some (terrible) regulations after the fact whereby the sole purpose was to dismantle American Tech. An easier way is not to buy it in the EU.

Good thing Apple didn't then.

Keyword is "if". They are influential, but that isn't the same as significant.

Of course it's "if" and by the DMA declaring Apple a "gatekeeper", they effectively stated Apple had significant control and influence in the EU market.

 

[I7guy]

Of course it's "if" and by the DMA declaring Apple a "gatekeeper", they effectively stated Apple had significant control and influence in the EU market.

The reason the EU declared Apple a gatekeeper, imo, is posted above. Apple is clearly influential, but by the numbers not a majority.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Restricting does not mean blocking. While Microsoft incentivized computer OEMs not to pre-install alternative browsers, they did not completely block them from doing so. The choice was ultimately theirs. Third party dealers/retailers were also able to install alternative browsers and plenty advertised Windows computers with Netscape Navigator pre-installed.

It literally does not matter. YOU don’t mind if Microsoft restricted and/or not blocked their third party OEMs, but the US Government cared enough to document the ways in which restrictions and blockings affected how the third party OEM’s ran their businesses.

Apple has no third party OEM’s, so there’s no parallel to what Microsoft was doing then.

 

[webkit]

It literally does not matter. YOU don’t mind if Microsoft restricted and/or not blocked their third party OEMs, but the US Government cared enough to document the ways in which restrictions and blockings affected how the third party OEM’s ran their businesses.

Apple has no third party OEM’s, so there’s no parallel to what Microsoft was doing then.

The government cared as they should've cared, just as the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today.

 

[tmaciak]

It's not a "made up" market. Otherwise, alternative iOS app stores/sources like AltStore PAL, Mobivention Marketplace, Setapp Mobile, etc. wouldn't be in or entering that market.

So what? Enter market is nothing compared to keep up on market, they will die or vegetate once novelty will wear off. Epic move is just greenwashing, as only such big corporation as Epic have chance and in this case only because Fortnite popularity, even declining, is still high. And if we could build ladders from hypocrisy, we could walk off to moon on Epic one.

 

[I7guy]

It's not a "made up" market. Otherwise, alternative iOS app stores/sources like AltStore PAL, Mobivention Marketplace, Setapp Mobile, etc. wouldn't be in or entering that market.

It is a made of market. Legislating a market is indeed a made up market carved from someone elses' hard work.

“217. Microsoft's license agreements have never prohibited OEMs from pre-installing programs, including Navigator, on their PCs and placing icons and entries for those programs on the Windows desktop and in the "Start" menu."

What the court found was that MS did not block computer OEMs from pre-installing software like Netscape Navigator but made it less desirable (e.g., financially) to do so. The other browser related issue was with IE having to be included/bundled with Windows.

U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact

www.justice.gov

 

[I7guy]

The government cared as they should've cared, just as the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today.

Please point to some legal ruling for Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices in the US relating to the app store.

 

[webkit]

Enter market is nothing compared to keep up on market, they will die or vegetate once novelty will wear off.

If that happens, fine. At least the market will have decided instead of a large company interfering by blocking/preventing potential competition.

 

[webkit]

It is a made of market. Legislating a market is indeed a made up market carved from someone elses' hard work.

Regulations are how competition and markets are better able to exist. They aren't "made up" markets.

Please point to some legal ruling for Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices in the US relating to the app store.

I said the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today. There are ongoing investigations and lawsuits against Apple.

 

[I7guy]

Regulations are how competition and markets are better able to exist. They aren't "made up" markets.

It's a made up market, because the "beneficiaries" of the market didn't make the market themselves.

I said the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today. There are ongoing investigations and lawsuits against Apple.

An "ongoing investigation" is not a guilty verdict in the US of A. Although some take it as such.

 

[webkit]

It's a made up market, because the "beneficiaries" of the market didn't make the market themselves.

Once the market finally stopped being stifled by Apple, at least in the EU for now, the "beneficiaries" made the market. It was Apple that was unfairly preventing the alternative iOS app store/distribution market from existing.

An "ongoing investigation" is not a guilty verdict in the US of A.

Stating the obvious here. Again, what I stated was that the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today.

 

[I7guy]

Once the market finally stopped being stifled by Apple, at least in the EU for now, the "beneficiaries" made the market. It was Apple that was unfairly preventing the alternative iOS app store/distribution market from existing.

Apple owns the ios app store. The "beneficiaries" are taking a slick of apple's business for free. It's like giving away a slice of a pizza pie. There was nothing unfair about it. And hence the DMA "needle threading".

Stating the obvious here. Again, what I stated was that the government should care about Apple's anticompetitive restrictive policies and business practices today.

There was no anti-competitive restrictive policies. People are just making that up.

 

[webkit]

Apple owns the ios app store. The "beneficiaries" are taking a slick of apple's business for free. It's like giving away a slice of a pizza pie. There was nothing unfair about it. And hence the DMA "needle threading".

Apple owns the App Store but does not own the iOS apps (other than Safari, Keynote, Numbers, Pages, GarageBand, etc.) nor do they own the alternative app stores like AltStore PAL, Mobivention Marketplace, Setapp Mobile, etc. The alternative iOS app store/distribution market is what was created once Apple stopped unfairly blocking (at least in the EU so far) that market from being able to exist.

There was no anti-competitive restrictive policies. People are just making that up.

It was anticompetitive in the EU which is why alternative iOS app stores are now being allowed. Potential rulings/decisions in other countries are still up in the air.