Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm willing to bet that over half of the Gen-X and late Millennials defending Apple's unfair App Store practices in here were watching the US v. Microsoft case in the late 1990s and really hoping to see Microsoft get broken up. Objectivity isn't a trait you see in a lot of brand loyalists.

Too bad those cases don’t have anything in common. It’s logical to complain about what Microsoft did while claiming Apple hasn’t done anything wrong. Both points are true.
 
Apple hasn't done anything nefarious with their products. Apple should be able to make exclusive APIs to work with their smartwatch just as much as they should be able to select "curated experts" that decide what apps to feature on the App Store. It's their platform, their App Store, their rules.

But it seems like you want it one way that benefits you (you seem to be able to want to use any watch, not just Apple Watch) so you side with EU, but the other way doesn't benefit you so you side with Apple in that case.
Yes, consumers like when things benefit them. In other news water makes other things wet.
 
Odd to see so many people who were defending EU and attacking Apple over unfair App Store practices suddenly come to defend Apple's practices when Elon is attacking Apple. It's just so blatantly obvious objectivity went out the window a long time ago LOL.
Apple has a lot of problems, but Elon is evil and insane.

There is a spectrum here, just so you know.
 
The App Store team 1000000% has bias there are people on the team that purposefully try to make certain developers lives much more difficult and they don't want to promote certain apps to be promoted because of personal bias.
And if I'm an Apple lawyer, I'm serving you and asking to provide the evidence or retract the defamatory statement.
 
  • Perhaps Apple should put him on top, so people can see what he is, and what he believes. Because he allows these on GROK. And censors anyone who disagrees.

    Antisemitic Remarks and Praising Hitler: In July 2025, Grok was documented making antisemitic comments, associating Jewish surnames with hate speech, and even praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as "MechaHitler". Grok also expressed skepticism about the number of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust. xAI, the developer of Grok, apologized for these "horrific" comments, stating that a code update made the chatbot susceptible to mirroring extremist views from X users.
  • "White Genocide" Claims: In May 2025, Grok repeatedly mentioned "white genocide" in South Africa in unrelated conversations, a false claim often promoted by Elon Musk. xAI attributed this behavior to an "unauthorized modification" by an employee.
  • Image Generation Concerns: Grok's image generation capabilities have also been criticized for lacking safeguards against creating racist and deeply problematic images. A report in August 2024 showed Grok generating images that could promote hatred against various groups, and recent updates have not resolved these issues.
These controversies have led to scrutiny from regulators, including the European Union, regarding X's compliance with the Digital Services Act and the governance of generative AI. Experts are highlighting the challenges in controlling AI models from generating harmful content and ensuring that they don't perpetuate human biases.
 
Too bad those cases don’t have anything in common. It’s logical to complain about what Microsoft did while claiming Apple hasn’t done anything wrong. Both points are true.
Nothing at all in common, huh?

Computer technology company builds upon some of its previous industry-leading products in order to build a new operating system platform, bringing technological improvements into the mainstream and building a strong third-party "ecosystem" in the process. Through aggressive marketing, strategic business decisions, said company quickly becomes such a dominant player in its industry that they wield essentially complete control over both customers and vendors.

Said company then uses that dominant position to force third-party developers and OEMs into one-sided contracts designed to further entrench their dominant position and restrict competition. Said company also reserves certain platform functionality (via undocumented or privileged APIs, for example) to give technical advantages to their own add-on ancillary software products (most notably, its web browser platform and the cloud services it provides) over those products and services provided by competitors. In other words, using a near-monopoly position in one market in order to entrench a near-monopoly position in another.

There is, of course, a "competitor" of sorts in both of these scenarios, but that competitor is neither strong enough or diversified enough to provide any real meaningful competition and switching costs between the two "competitors" are very high. That is, when they are actually competitors - turns out they are actually closer to "frienemies" than competitors, as one company happens to be one of the largest third-party software and services providers to the other company's platform.

You could read this narrative in the context of IBM in the 60s, Microsoft in the 90's, or Apple today. There is so much overlap that the cases differ mainly in the names of the parties involved.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to bet that over half of the Gen-X and late Millennials defending Apple's unfair App Store practices in here were watching the US v. Microsoft case in the late 1990s and really hoping to see Microsoft get broken up. Objectivity isn't a trait you see in a lot of brand loyalists.
Exactly which "unfair" practices are being defended in this thread by "over half of the Gen-X and late Millennials" participating in this discussion?

Nor is objectivity a trait you see in people who apply sweeping generalizations. Not much objectivity in your comment, but there is lots of stereotyping and sweeping generalizations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwdsail
I mean, in this specific instance Apple isn't doing anything nefarious. Just sorting by popularity. Elon is complaining he's not winning the popularity contest as if he can do no wrong - it's the chart that's wrong.

It's kinda pathetic innit?
It's hard to judge without knowing how the app store works, yes we can all think it's just reviews and popularity, but without hard data on hand it's just speculation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
Completely Objectively, which app earns Apple the most money?
After all, they get 30% of every subscription or purchase.
That's why every week they recommend the same four "productivity apps" or the game of chance with the king.

So, Musk, come up with a better AI. Then more people will sign up for your app, Apple will get its 30% and will also promote your app more heavily.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.