I'm surprised I haven't seen any mention of the side effects of this ruling. Gaming consoles, TV consoles, they all have app stores. Wouldn't this ruling set a precedence that pushes all hardware devices to support side-loading?
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 Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cydia Creator's Amended Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)
Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.
Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
Source: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act
Again, if people dont want to? Then dont. Having the option does not need having to do something. Windows and MacOS already does this. They both have well working app eco systems if you do not dare to download .exe and .dmg files. But why not give those who dares the possibility? Apples walled garden isnt safer by this. If anything we could get some amazing improvesments to the software/hardware i recon.
It's called illegal tying and applies to anything a manufacturer unilaterally imposes. Fuel, parts, air freshener, apps - it doesn't matter.
"Tying arrangements are not necessarily unlawful. Antitrust concerns are raised by tying arrangements to the extent that they are used to maintain or augment the seller's pre-existing market power or impair competition on the merits in the market for the tied product."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement
See below
It doesn't apply to every company equally. It only applies to companies the government determines to have excessive market power. That's how the FTC has been enforcing the antitrust laws for decades.
Source: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
It's clearly a violation of the EULA, but the EULA is between Apple and the end-user: Cydia is not a party in that agreement so it's not bound by it. Furthermore, whether the EULA can actually prohibit jailbreaking and which consequences it can lead to are unclear to me and likely depend a lot on the jurisdiction.
As far as I understand Cydia could still get involved as a third-party through a tortious interference claim. How successful that could be I cannot say.
The difference in what you are saying and what Cydia is saying is that they had *working* apps that were actively shut down out of desire to stifle competition.
A realistic analogy, since that is what you are trying to put out there, is you were able to successfully get your application running on an IoT or a Tesla or whatever else and then the company in question actively stops you from being able to use said application.
That's the thing, was Apple maliciously targeting Cydia just because they were an alternate App Store, or was Apple plugging back-doors and security holes which Jailbreaking exploited to allow installation of things like Cydia. I remember plenty of Jailbreak releases which were only possibly due to those devs discovering a backdoor to take advantage of. I bet there are juicy emails/messages on both sides of the argument.
I have faith in Apple. We know little about the guy litigating. Apple is the most ethical IT Company on the planet. ATM - I trust Apple - not this guy.
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, there have been no recorded examples of his JB methods and/or Cydia installing anything malicious. If he released a new JB, you could "install" it with zero security concerns. Cydia had a list of recommended actions to take post installation, and one of them was to change your admin and root passwords from the default to specifically make your iPhone more secure. He never promoted cracking or piracy. In fact, many of his JBs actually plugged the security vulnerability it used to install thus making your phone more secure. In the context of JBing, he is as trustworthy and ethical (unless you consider JBing itself unethical) as Apple.
I don't disagree fundamentally, but recommend caution. Apple certainly likes to be considered the most ethical IT company and is very successful with its marketing. Looking at what they're doing in China, I'm not so sure anymore though.
EULA have never held up in court.
Huh „more aggressive?“ doesn’t it just mean Apple fixed more security bugs which they used to inject the JB in the first place?
That’s why you have a revenue, user base, Nr of business partners and market impact requirement in EU so you don’t run in to absurd things.
Check the terms of the software license. I suppose you could totally replace iOS with your own software and be exempt. Or replace the on board software on your car to allow additional software to run, but if you agree to certain terms of use, well you pretty much agree to terms of use
Tesla doesn't have a monopoly. The argument in this case is that Apple has a monopoly in the mobile OS market and (more importantly) is allegedly using its monopoly power in anticompetitive ways.
I wonder which app store - Apple's or Cydia - has a bigger percentage of malware on offer? How effectively does Cydia police apps on offer there against that sort of thing, or how easily a bad-acting software developer/company can be effectively (deterrently painfully) sanctioned for their bad behavior by Cydira (or Apple)?
Store brands have a cost to maintain in the quality of goods on offer, the customer service, how well the store's buyers know the customer base and thus what (and how much) to buy or not buy for retail sale. We observe this in retail as the differences between Dollar General, Walmart, Macy's, and Nordstrom.
Personally, I appreciate the efforts that Apple puts into its app store, imperfect as they are (I still see what amounts to immense amounts of crapware whenever I search for anything generic, and that makes me wonder about malware), and I can see Apple's point about how bad apps in a bad store would likely reflect badly on the platform too.
For the obvious counter-example, see the Google Play store for the result of insufficient curation (or have they cleaned it up since I last looked, pre-pandemic?). OTOH, I used to work for Apple in the 1990s, so perhaps I'm improperly biased.
Store brands have a cost to maintain in the quality of goods on offer, the customer service, how well the store's buyers know the customer base and thus what (and how much) to buy or not buy for retail sale. We observe this in retail as the differences between Dollar General, Walmart, Macy's, and Nordstrom.
Personally, I appreciate the efforts that Apple puts into its app store, imperfect as they are (I still see what amounts to immense amounts of crapware whenever I search for anything generic, and that makes me wonder about malware), and I can see Apple's point about how bad apps in a bad store would likely reflect badly on the platform too.
For the obvious counter-example, see the Google Play store for the result of insufficient curation (or have they cleaned it up since I last looked, pre-pandemic?). OTOH, I used to work for Apple in the 1990s, so perhaps I'm improperly biased.
Potentially yes, if they have a monopoly. The argument in this case is that Apple has a monopoly in the mobile OS market and (more importantly) is allegedly using its monopoly power in anticompetitive ways.
Has whatever you just did won you an argument, ever, or a friend? And there are no arbiters of facts, there are facts and not facts. Ie opinions even falsehoods, but facts remain as facts
tesla has a monopoly in their own car entrainment system.
Well from a legal POV EULA aren’t legally binding. So far apple claims it is binding without any court cases supporting this.
And it’s already been shown jailbreaking is legal.
And the vulnerability apple closes is just about how you jailbreak it with other tools. Cydia can be installed with cydia impactor without impacting security
That's not exactly how monopolies are defined. If it was, just about every company could be considered as having a monopoly.
Very clear explanation, thank you.
So if Cydia wins and overtime Apple loses that excessive market power because of side loading, would Apple have the right to disable side loading? At which point a company is dominant or not?
Microsoft doesn’t have to put a different store, such as Steam, on the XBox, and Car manufacturers such as Tesla can control the software and features on their vehicles, such as the “Full Self Driving” which they sell for about $10K. Same for Garmin having an exclusive store of Apps for their wearables.
