Only by using a specific, third-party email app that we can control. And Android devices are not allowed on our Wi-Fi network.
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
Only by using a specific, third-party email app that we can control. And Android devices are not allowed on our Wi-Fi network.
If you want to create an Arcade Game you must sell it via the Arcade Store. Just like you if you want to create an app you must sell it in the App Store.
Also it is ENTIRELY possible to become a registered developer to develop for the Arcade Store but still not be able to distribute games as physical media like the big companies do. What do these developers do? They can only distribute via the Arcade system. It's the same thing. Those people are only registered for the Arcade Store.
The argument could be made, Apple never had 90% of all cell phone sales. They did have a monopoly on touch screen smart phones that looked, just like an iPhone.
Here is the issue some of you are not getting. Any Xbox360 game whether sold on Xbox live or physical media as to be approved by Microsoft to bear their mark. The same thing applies to all Nintendo and Sony Playstation or Sony Portable games. They all have a gatekeeper and if you don't like it then look for another platform.
Those approvals come with a price tag. With the Appstore, Apple does take a 30% cut but they cover all of the download/redownload and hosting issues for the apps as well as the merchant fees and handling the gift cards and promo codes. The developer has to just create their app, get it approved and set their price.
The old way of doing things on Windows mobile was too hard. You had to market the app, run the store and handle returns by yourself.
Those approvals come with a price tag. With the Appstore, Apple does take a 30% cut but they cover all of the download/redownload and hosting issues for the apps as well as the merchant fees and handling the gift cards and promo codes. The developer has to just create their app, get it approved and set their price.
The old way of doing things on Windows mobile was too hard. You had to market the app, run the store and handle returns by yourself.
They used that phone company because it was the only choice they had. Not because they picked it from a group of competitors.
What? You think people are buying tablets because they're the same as laptops? I was under the impression that people buy them because of the differences.
How else do you explain all the people who own both? Do you think they just got confused?
Compared to laptops tablets are supposed to:
* Turn on and off instantly with no 'wake from sleep' time
* Start and stop app usage without user thoughts about saving/loading files
* Have super long battery life
* Not need any work put into maintaining where my 'stuff' is kept or how to find it
* Update easily without me having to do research ahead of time about what updates to run and where to get them
All of these are things that tablets need that laptops really don't have to have to succeed.
When you throw a long list of alternate goals at something, yeah, the design of it will then be different.
Yeah, but you don't access the filesystem on an iPad like you do on a Mac. The OS is cut down and different. The hardware is designed to maximize battery and limit weight even more so than in a Macbook Air.
Pretty much everything is intentionally designed differently, which is what my point was. You're just backing up my claim that tablets and laptops are not at all the same thing.
And this is a question the court will have to determine: What is the market in which the iPhone/iPad/AppStore reside? This will define if they have a monopoly. Then they would need to determine if the monopoly position is being abused.
I believe from past court cases, the government is hesitant to make the monopoly call and impose corrections on the market. In general, monopolies do not last as someone comes out with some alternative that erodes away the monopolists position.
I don't believe the courts will define iOS devices as a market unto themselves, but rather part of a larger "mobile devices" market and thus Apple doesn't have a monopoly position. Even if they are found to be a monopoly, they could argue that the Cydia store is an alternative (and wouldn't that be funny).
If there were such a great demand for an alternative source, people would either be flooding over to Android and/or jailbreaking and using Cydia. If Apple observed this behavior and people were all telling them the reason is choice of app sources, Apple would very likely cave in and allow it or continue to lose business (perhaps they would also respond by lowering the AppStore charges if that's why devs were going to Cydia). This would be the natural way for their "monopoly" to erode.
Pricing set is not what is been disputed... what is been disputed in this law suit is not pricing set but monopoly. Look up for the word Monopoly before posting more in this thread.
I can see both the stupidity and the reason in this.
The stupidity is that you already bought a product that is an controlled environment and to draw similarities to play NES cartridges on a SEGA master system for example.
The reason is that it always good to question it, even how good it really is and maybe bring out something better and make people think.
The stupidity is that you already bought a product that is an controlled environment and to draw similarities to play NES cartridges on a SEGA master system for example.
The reason is that it always good to question it, even how good it really is and maybe bring out something better and make people think.
Yes, but you can access the filesystem just like a Mac, I do it everyday. I prefer it that way. It's all there. The fact that Apple hides it doesn't make it any less like a PC.
We're not missing anything. Just because a company has to authorize it doesn't mean the same thing as having only one outlet to buy from.
Apple has a strict authorization program for its lightening adapter. But you can BUY the adapter via many avenues. You don't HAVE to buy the adapter or devices that use it from the Apple Store. Follow?
Well that part wasn't my point. My point was that one may not be considered a monopoly today might be tomorrow. If someone "challenges" the system - then it's only natural that the legality is examined.
regardless, you could easily have this 'advanced user mode' disabled at the domain level and have the same scenario we do now.
Well, it's fantastic that you both have jumped in headfirst and are apparently using your iPads to replace your laptop computers and use them exactly the same way. Really, that's cool.
But I think you're a bit blind if you think that's how the average tablet owner uses theirs. Trust me, most of them still own a Mac or a PC and are using those very differently than they use their iPad.
How about: A fan, a mouse/trackpad, a serial bus, parallel bus, a power button,
Flipped the other way an iOS device has some things a computer doesn't like:
A phone number (except wi-fi only models), a GPS receiver, A proximity sensor, an accelerometer, full SoC.
I do not own an iPad or any tablet, I do much more than read email, play games and browse the web on my MBP.
BUT Trust me there is people who only surf, email and play the ocassional game and for them there is no difference
Ah so that I can only buy k cups for my keurig machine that are authorized by green mountain is a monopoly as well?
When you have other alternatives with bigger marketshare you do not have a monopoly. Please cite a precedent for a similar monopoly where the non market leader was found to be in violation of law because of addons, accessories and other items related to the device.
I guess game console makers are all guilty of the same thing as well.
It's called trends, current trends tell us this the route companies are going. Apple has gone as far as from the DVD drive from their computers. The past tells us others will follow, just like when Apple removed the floppy drive...
So your argument is that because some people use them for the same things, they must be the same?
I can see you don't own one. Maybe you should play with one in a store some time.