Apple Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cydia Creator's Amended Antitrust Lawsuit

[visualseed]

Recognize that the DOJ case involved conspiracy and collusion with book sellers. Neither of those are in effect in the App Store

I’m recognizing that when they believed there was actual evidence of an antitrust violation they were relatively quick to act. So many here seem to hold out hope that given enough opportunities before various judges that some deus ex machina is going to swoop in and grant them an unappealable antitrust conviction based on some narrowly distorted interpretation of the law that will force all the massive changes they want on the company when there is little evidence to suggest that is ever going to happen.

 

[Analog Kid]

A monopoly (or monopoly power) as being discussed here in the legal sense can exist when there is more than one player in a particular market. There were more than one desktop OS maker in the 1990s, for example, during the Microsoft case and rulings. Microsoft didn't have 100% of that market.

The fact that you think this somehow addresses or maybe even refutes what I said is just evidence that you don’t understand the concepts involved.

 

[webkit]

No. You’re tripping on the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.

And I quoted you as saying generally.

Again, simply having 50% share is not "generally considered" a monopoly in the US. As defined by the FTC, "monopoly" is shorthand for "significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors." It's not a label you put on a firm for exceeding 50% share.

Apple does not meet this definition by any stretch of the imagination.


Perhaps you should just read the definition from the FTC. The difference between a legal and illegal monopoly, is exclusionary conduct without legitimate business justification.

Apple doesn't engage in exclusionary conduct within the market. And they certainly have legitimate business justifications for their strategy. So it would be hard to argue that they are breaking antitrust laws.

If they weren't clear, my comments regarding share were speaking to the "share" piece of the pie that can be used in antitrust cases regarding monopolies. 50% (generally!) share is a necessary or minimum condition, among other potential things.

 

[webkit]

The fact that you think this somehow addresses or maybe even refutes what I said is just evidence that you don’t understand the concepts involved.

Microsoft didn't have 100% of the desktop OS market in the 1990s. Are you suggesting that legal rulings at the time that Microsoft was a monopoly or had monopoly power in the desktop OS market were incorrect, then?

A "one seller" monopoly as you put it is more commonly referred to as a "pure monopoly." A legal ruling that a company is a monopoly or has monopoly power doesn't not mean they have to be the sole player in the particular market.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I thought Windows Phone was dead. I had a 'Windows Phone', and a banana would have been just as usable.

Well yeah it is now, and that was one big reason why. My point is that Google clearly got away with it while Microsoft got punished hard for it.

 

[BaldiMac]

If they weren't clear, my comments regarding share were speaking to the "share" piece of the pie that can be used in antitrust cases regarding monopolies. 50% (generally!) share is a necessary or minimum condition, among other potential things.

Again, the threshold is generally much higher that 50% as has been pointed out multiple times. Of course, after this backpedal, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[Analog Kid]

Microsoft didn't have 100% of the desktop OS market in the 1990s. Are you suggesting that legal rulings at the time that Microsoft was a monopoly or had monopoly power in the desktop OS market were incorrect, then?

A "one seller" monopoly as you put it is more commonly referred to as a "pure monopoly." A legal ruling that a company is a monopoly or has monopoly power doesn't not mean they have to be the sole player in the particular market.

Read what I said, I think I was pretty clear. And don’t mix arguments. I wasn’t discussing Microsoft, I was discussing what constitutes ”a monopoly”. I very explicitly said that threshold isn’t necessarily 100%. The point of my comment is that you’re thinking about this wrong. Stop trying to make this easy for yourself by picking a threshold number.

 

[Analog Kid]

Again, the threshold is generally much higher that 50% as has been pointed out multiple times. Of course, after this backpedal, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Their point is that they want Cydia and want to find a reality in which this case might win. It’s a “they still have a path to the playoffs” argument.

 

[jlc1978]

Their point is that they want Cydia and want to find a reality in which this case might win. It’s a “they still have a path to the playoffs” argument.

Once Apple releases their VR glasses they'll have a reality in which Cydia wins; until Apple revokes that reality's certificate.

 

[Veraxus]

That because it is a statement of fact, not an argument. Facts don't need arguments, they are just that - facts

Your logical fallacy is: Begging the Question

 

[Veraxus]

Cydia is going to have a much stronger case than Epic, since they predate the App Store and were deliberately muscled off of the devices by the manufacturer, only after the manufacturer launched a competing service. Textbook definition of antitrust behavior.

 

[teh_hunterer]

I'm amazed how little thought people put into their replies. Your claim is demonstrably false. Look around and observe everyone with their face buried in their phones. Are their lips moving?

Then it's just a computer? Then you can get any computer that lets you do what you want with it. There is a wide market of choice. You don't have to buy an iPhone where you know the limitations and then surprise Pikachu face. I'm amazed how little thought people put into their purchases.

 

[BootsWalking]

Then it's just a computer? Then you can get any computer that lets you do what you want with it. There is a wide market. You don't have to buy an iPhone where you know the limitations and surprise Pikachu face. I'm amazed how little thought people put into their purchases.

Just a computer? No. How many computers this powerful can you fit in your pocket? The take-your-marbles-and-go-home rejoinder against anti-competitive behavior is as trite as it is pointless. Antitrust violations don't disappear just because you want them to.

 

[teh_hunterer]

Just a computer? No. How many computers this powerful can you fit in your pocket? The take-your-marbles-and-go-home rejoinder against anti-competitive behavior is as trite as it is pointless. Antitrust violations don't disappear just because you want them to.

The inherent simplicity and security of the iPhone, which includes the app store and lack of side loading, is explicitly part of the product being sold. You've turned around and decided you want the iPhone to be a different product, and that's purely on you. You don't have to buy an iPhone, and Apple doesn't have to make the product you want them to make. The entire rest of the market makes that product.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The inherent simplicity and security of the iPhone, which includes the app store and lack of side loading

"Lack of side loading" has nothing to do with why almost anyone buys an iPhone.

Additionally, it is not a security risk to install software not from the Apple iOS App Distribution Monopoly Store.

"Side loading" is a scary sounding term that simply means installing software that still conforms to the platform security and sandboxing, but might not be something Apple likes (usually always for business reasons of their own)

People are "side loading" all day long on most every computing platform out there.

 

[ChromeAce]

If I have a finished iOS app that nanny Apple doesn't like for whatever arbitrary reason it decides that Tuesday, can I take it right to the Play Store?

No. Neither can you take a Play Store app and put it on the App Store.

 

[teh_hunterer]

"Lack of side loading" has nothing to do with why almost anyone buys an iPhone.

Additionally, it is not a security risk to install software not from the Apple iOS App Distribution Monopoly Store.

"Side loading" is a scary sounding term that simply means installing software that still conforms to the platform security and sandboxing, but might not be something Apple likes (usually always for business reasons of their own)

People are "side loading" all day long on most every computing platform out there.

As I said, the inherent security and simplicity of the iPhone is a major part of why it sells. Apps only installing from the app store is a major part of that, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[pookynubber]

Automobile manufacturers aren't allowed to restrict where we buy gasoline for our cars, and smartphone makers shouldn't be allowed to restrict where we buy apps for our phones.

wouldn't the analogy be more apt to equate gas with electricity? apple does allow me to charge my phone wherever I want.

 

[BootsWalking]

The inherent simplicity and security of the iPhone, which includes the app store and lack of side loading, is explicitly part of the product being sold.

I don't accept the supposition that the iPhone's security is the result of Apple's self-directed monopoly on app distribution. For example, what prevents Apple from offering the app validation they perform now on apps distributed elsewhere, like Apple's MFI Certification Program for hardware? They could charge vendors a fee for the program the same as they do for MFI.

You've turned around and decided you want the iPhone to be a different product, and that's purely on you.

Consumers don't buy into an ecosystem expecting it to turn into an anti-competitive monolith.

You don't have to buy an iPhone, and Apple doesn't have to make the product you want them to make. The entire rest of the market makes that product.

And Apple doesn't have to violate our antitrust laws. We all have options.

 

[shplock]

This is good

This is bad and shows how little some people truly know or understand about technology or privacy etc.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is bad and shows how little some people truly know or understand about technology or privacy etc.

Good to see that irony isn't dead

 

[shplock]

Cydia is the living proof that Apple users (who want to) can easily handle multiple app stores and/or third party apps. If I am clever enough to know what and what not to download on my Macbook and Windows computer, I am sure can handle it on my iOS device too. Open the gates, Tim.

With respect you are NOT smart enough to know what to do and not do if you go anywhere near an app store such as Cydia.
Malware writers etc are smarter than you and if they can outsmart and hack the federal government then with respect you will be child's play.

 

[shplock]

In before people defend Daddy Apple and say incorrect information about security and ownership.

In before people defend Daddy Cydia and say incorrect information about openness and no malware or no theft!

 

[shplock]

Imagine what iOS would be like today if Cydia were on every iPhone from day one.

It would be a nightmare!

 

[shplock]

So Freeman is trying to state that Cydia is an IOS app and also that it is an app store, he needs to make his mind up.
Let us not forget that Cydia is essentially an app store for illegal apps that let you get in game purchases for free.
This is known in the real world as theft and any of you who are saying this is good and we need Cydia on every iPhone say this to you.
What you are clamouring for is to be able to walk into a restaurant that the owner has spent time, money and lots of effort into creating and turn into a success where you eat and drink. When it comes time to pay the bill you refuse to pay!
Now imagine you are the restaurant owner, would you still say this is a good thing or would you expect people who use your product to pay for it?
Exactly, so stop supporting Cydia and Freeman who seems to just want a payday because he thinks he deserves one.