No one is saying you have to be able to buy android apps in the apple appstore nor is anyone saying you have to be able to by iOS apps in the android store.
I'm not sure you understand the actual issue/what's being argued.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks Judge to Dismiss App Store Monopoly Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No one is saying you have to be able to buy android apps in the apple appstore nor is anyone saying you have to be able to by iOS apps in the android store.
I'm not sure you understand the actual issue/what's being argued.
If your description of what they do is actually true, then I'd agree with you. That's exactly the use case that the exemption to the DMCA was meant to address.
However, I think that it's obvious that they have to modify iOS in order to provide the unsupported features that they have. For example, I doubt Apple has an API available to install toggles on the home screen. Or launch third party code on startup.
Ok. I didn't read the whole forum. Sorry.
Though what is stopping from someone putting together an online Web App Store? Ya, maybe it won't be native but it's still a possibility to do these things via the web which is a powerful technology that can leverage many things that apps do in the Apple App Store.
And this is not true, since anyone can enroll as an iOS Developer, negotiate directly with any other developer to buy source code for any iOS app (or download open source apps for free), and use Xcode on their Mac to build and install the app on their iPhone (Rovio would probably license you some source code for a few $Billion or less, with no 30% to Apple). Enterprises can do the same and open a competing iOS App Store for their employees.
What's that got to do with the price of eggs? "Make your own" would be a get out of jail free argument for every monopoly investigation if that were the case.
First, from a legal standpoint, "just use Android" isn't going to fly. Like I said, what is interesting about this case (for me) is that this isn't cut and dry. Apple has basically said that nobody is free to sell software for iOS outside of their own store. Is this illegal? We shall see!
I am not sure where you were going with the "Apple products on Android phones" comment. Apple is already free to sell their Apps on Android if they want. They are also free to set up their own Android store if they want. Of course, we will see pigs fly before this happens, but you get my point.
Apple likely won't be able to ask for a cut of the profits in third party stores if Apple's SDK isn't use to produce said app. The same stands true for any other operating system, I believe. Just think in terms of real world tangible goods. I create a product, let's say a vehicle. Somebody else makes some really spiffy seats for my vehicle. If they are not using parts that I patented, they can't (to my knowledge) be required to pay any sort of royalties to me, the car manufacturer.
And to answer your last question, if you have a nook, you CAN buy books on the kindle store, yes. The more important thing to note though, is that I can buy an epub from any store anywhere and use it on my ereader, be it a nook, kindle, or whatever else. I don't have to have Amazon's or Barnes & Noble's blessing.
----------
I am pretty sure you are spot on here (regarding many responses to this thread).
Last edited:
And that's close to how the law reads. Monopoly's are legal if the don't use their market power to cut off business who "make their own". iOS devs can make their own.
So, are you saying that it is not a monopoly when my father can buy a developer account, pay Rovio to license some code and compile the program?
is this a serious argument?
That argument just wouldn't wash, because it's not the inability to create apps that's the problem; it's the inability to distribute them without Apple taking its' 30%.
In an absolute worst case scenario a business could go under because of the 30% fee; people may not buy the app if the price is increased due to the fee, and if the price remains what it would have been without the fee, then it may not be enough to meet costs.
You *can* distribute apps without Apple taking 30%. Put the source code to an iOS app on your web page with a PayPal donate button. A few developers actually do that.
Any enrolled dev can download, compile and install the app from source code. There's plenty of open source iOS apps out there. And thousands of developers as potential customer.
You *can* distribute apps without Apple taking 30%. Put the source code to an iOS app on your web page with a PayPal donate button. A few developers actually do that.
Any enrolled dev can download, compile and install the app from source code. There's plenty of open source iOS apps out there. And thousands of developers as potential customer.
That's not the same thing, and in any event you still have to enrol as a dev and pay for the privilege, so Apple is still getting a fee.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not but the comparison you're making is ludicrous.
You *can* distribute apps without Apple taking 30%. Put the source code to an iOS app on your web page with a PayPal donate button. A few developers actually do that.
Any enrolled dev can download, compile and install the app from source code. There's plenty of open source iOS apps out there. And thousands of developers as potential customer.
Definitively, you can't be serious.
Perhaps. But realize that lots of ludicrous sounding arguments about the fine print in the law wins legal cases. So your point may be irrelevant to the discussion topic.
Sure it does, as long as there is somewhere else to go. The question of whether there is somewhere else to leave to, is the very question that determines whether something is or isn't a monopoly.
----------
It's one thing to be upset, and another to claim it should be illegal. I'd be upset if Apple tried to restrict Macs to only using App Store apps, but I wouldn't claim it should be illegal for Apple to do so. I'd just vote with my wallet and switch to using Windows or Linux. Now, if Apple computers ever reach the point of popularity where they actually have a virtual monopoly, like MS used to have with Windows, then I would think it should be illegal for Apple to restrict things that way.
With phones the situation is quite different. While iPhones are certainly very popular, there plenty of other good options. Unless someone works for a company which mandates using an iPhone, I don't think most people need to use an iPhone. They can always get an Android or Windows or Blackberry phone if they don't like Apple's terms. As long as that remains true then I don't think a monopoly charge like this holds water.
I don't think the argument is about consumers (although important as it is about developers being "forced" into only one avenue to sell their software to iOS customers.
I think it will be a good test of the system. I don't think it's a frivolous lawsuit like many are or can be. I think it's an interesting one that could wind up being very important as a precedent for the future.
Thats the whole point of this lawsuit, if you want apps from somewhere else, there is nowhere else.
Thanks for clearing up a lot of things I was not sure of. You make some great points.
Where's this "Make your own" part of the law??? IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The rule is monopolies are legal if companies do not try to thwart competition (i.e. the consumer prefers that product on its merit alone). That is NOT the case with iOS because Apple is thwarting the ability for other companies and individuals to offer software directly to consumers rather than through Apple's mono-block iTunes store. Apple has thwarted competition in the software distribution market for iOS products rather than letting the iTunes store compete on its own merits and they also freely admit to blocking software offerings from developers that "compete" with their own software products (e.g. no browser is allowed to compete directly with Safari, etc.)
I think it's pretty fricking blatant when Apple admits that they do not allow software that COMPETES with their own. No anti-competition is part of anti-trust law. I'm sure some on here would argue against the case as in the past, but they're full of it. Capitalism is BASED ON COMPETITION. If you do not allow competition 1 to 1 in each market you are thwarting Capitalism and thus the entire BASIS of the U.S. economy. This should not only be illegal, but it should be punishable in the strictest terms since it ultimately harms all of society (lack of choice and higher prices all around). It is the primary reason that Apple is able to charge $2000 for notebook hardware that would cost $900 from another company. They leverage OSX against Windows and those that don't want the abomination that is Windows HAVE to pay Apple's INSANELY HIGH prices for hardware in order to use OSX instead. Leveraging one market to force another market is called TYING and it's 100% illegal in anti-trust law (and again, the usual arm-chair lawyers will argue it's not because they are utterly clueless or worse yet corporate egg suckers) but it's what is written verbatim in the law and it doesn't take a Einstein to READ IT for yourself. You can't count on case history because the courts have become law makers in recent years and prefer to litigate new laws from the bench with their rulings rather than HONESTLY interpret existing laws. You know it and I know it. Even the Supreme Court is CORRUPT. They bias in the direction of their own party MOST of the time these days and so you get the same 5:4 type rulings right down party lines left and right. If they were interpreting the law this would not happen. They are trying to MAKE THE LAW SAY WHAT THEY WANT IT TO. Capitalism is supposed to benefit the consumer not screw him over for god's sake!!! It's a mockery!
As far as I'm concerned, the whole damn government make a mockery of our Constitution. They don't follow the law when they're required to. They don't represent the people when they make laws and they sure as hell don't listen to their constituents or they wouldn't have an abysmal 4% approval rating. They are career politicians, most of which never worked an honest day's labor in their entire life, yet they're supposed to be "experts" on everything they tell others to do. They bicker and fight over power and don't even agree to things their own party supports just to thwart the other side. How the HELL does the "LAW" mean ANYTHING under those circumstances? They've made this country a laughing stock and while they fight and argue and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, the corporations do WHATEVER THE FRACK THEY WANT. There is NO ONE to punish them. When you or I break a law like insider trading we go to jail. When someone in Congress inside trades or uses their power to manipulate the market to their personal advantage, it's perfectly legal. The banks that caused the recession are richer than ever and other than a few scapegoats, the rest all got away with it while you and I may have lost our jobs, our houses and damaged our families and way of life. This is the first generation that is worse off than their parents and it's only looking worse for the one after that. WHAT THE HELL CAUSED IT?
GREED
Say whatever you want about Apple and their policies and whether it's "legal" or not; it doesn't really matter since nothing will be done regardless. If Microsoft doesn't include someone else's browser with Windows, they're guilty of anti-trust law. If Apple does the SAME DAMN THING with the iPhone, they're just adorable and darling and cool.
If Apple ever gets their OS on over 90% of all smart mobile devices, maybe they'll get the same slap on the wrist as micro$oft did after years and years of court proceedings.
As for me, as an iOS dev, I have no problem with selling my software to enterprises, and with no 30% cut going to Apple. There's usually more money in that, than in 1 man App Store apps. And the reason some enterprises buy iOS devices is because they are decently locked down.
It's not such a minimal slap in Europe. They just got hit with over $731 MILLION in fines. The sad thing is that the browser thing doesn't matter anymore in Windows. People have broadband now. You can download Firefox in SECONDS. It only mattered back when there was mostly dial-up and that time has long past. In other words, the criteria doesn't even make sense today. The real problem is when companies purposely do things to stop open competition. I mean it's pretty basic. You make a product and maybe you patent it if possible and then you sell it. Rigging the thing to not allow anyone else to make accessories, etc. without paying Apple is bullcrap. Do I need to pay Subaru in order to put Michelin tires on my car? Of course not. But hey, Subaru is a tiny player in the car market so why shouldn't they be able to prevent me from buying 3rd party products for it??? That's the argument you're making.
Why should Apple get paid just because I want to buy a dock for an iPod Touch? If Apple makes the best dock, then it will sell. If not, it should be their problem, not mine. Worse yet, if I want to run a 3rd party application that Apple doesn't approve, too bad? I have jailbreak it via some hack? It seems to me that if you make a computer platform available to the pubilc and 3rd party developers it should be open. Of course you can disagree. You can register to be a Communist party member in this country if you so desire it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with those principles. I think anti-competition is a factor in ruining small businesses in this country. Big companies are always trying to find ways to put the little guys out of business.
You're correct. An open source converter will do the trick, this still allowing purchase from either source (which was the original question I was answering). But my response did imply that te ePub would work out the door, which I now knownitnwill not.
I hardly think controlling all of the oil, which is a natural substance that the world depends on to function, is the same as controlling the app distribution that apple created from nothing, on a device that apple also created from nothing. Not to mention that currently, everything depends on oil... No one NEEDS an app store..
Just because what they created is popular and made them a ton of money, doesn't mean they are doing anything illegal by not allowing other companies to potentially screw up the experience they are striving for with their product.
Actually there is a difference. I can buy PS3 games at amazon or any other retailer. No one is forcing devs to sell games on PSN, that is their choice.