I have a great idea. Allow app stores the ability to fully police and provide protections for malware and fraud, let them require bonding from developers with severe jail penalties for sleazy developers and make the app stores liable as well. Developer app security would be tighter , customers would be protected and the Cydias would have to put their money where their mouths are. Baboon!
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
Cydia was amazing. For example, Before hotspot became a standard feature offered by Apple, cydia allowed me to install a tweak to turn my phone into a hotspot when I needed to. This was particularly useful during a power outage or ISP outage when my router internet connection was out of service but I still needed to use the internet.
The various tweaks on cydia were hella cool and existed long before apple ‘innovated’ to bring them to iPhone. Goes to show how much potential innovation exists (to tweak the iPhone UI) outside of Apple’s headquarters. We may have already gotten multi window multitasking on iPad if installing cydia was easy without requiring jailbreaking.
The various tweaks on cydia were hella cool and existed long before apple ‘innovated’ to bring them to iPhone. Goes to show how much potential innovation exists (to tweak the iPhone UI) outside of Apple’s headquarters. We may have already gotten multi window multitasking on iPad if installing cydia was easy without requiring jailbreaking.
A ruling in this case could potentially impact other companies if they are viewed to have a monopoly in applicable market. 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.
What a world we live in…. A company can build something like the iPhone and iOS, sell it with clear licensing terms, have someone hack that system and attempt to create a parasitic business on top of your creation, you never once (as far as I can remember) take legal action against the offending party but choose to just make your system more secure and competitive— and some how find yourself on the defendant end of a lawsuit that the government upholds because suddenly there’s a populist wave against your success.
When Android is out of business, we have something to talk about. Or even when Android starts preventing alternate appstores and we’re down to one business model. But for now, this is nonsense.
When Android is out of business, we have something to talk about. Or even when Android starts preventing alternate appstores and we’re down to one business model. But for now, this is nonsense.
Last edited:
The argument here is that Apple is using its monopoly power in anticompetitive ways.
First sale does not require allowing access; just that their rights are exhausted in terms of resale. You are free to do to teh hardware what you want, but Apple does not have to make it possible to do anything. The could have sealed teh entire internals in epoxy if they wanted.
I find the "Apple has a monopoly in the mobile OS market" incorrect. There are plenty of competitors in that market; Apple does not dictate app prices beyond a minimum of 99 cents, and marks up prices that are set by developers to cover their cut like any store does.
The question, IMHO, is whether consumers will benefit by lower prices if Apple is forced to allow alternative app stores. The answer seems to be no, as we did not see price drops when Apple lowered their take to 15% for small developers; all that happened was developers pocketed the windfall.
It would probably be to Apple's benefit to allow alternative app stores, since most would likely not offer as large a market as Apple, wind up charging a much as Apple, and Apple could introduce new charges taht are currently covered by the $99 developer fee.
The EPICs of the world could pull off their own store since they sell a product that ties in directly to their existing products and do not make money from being an App Store. Smaller stores would be challenged to be profitable, even Cydia struggled despite being popular in the jail break community. If sideloading makes pirating easier for the non-tech savvy users, developers may find themselves back to the old days bit copier era where popular programs were pirated easily. Android developers face serious piracy problems by all accounts, something Apple has managed to avoid so far.
I just don't see opening up the iPhone as a slam dunk win but rather a mixed bag of pros and cons.
That’s the things TOS aren’t applicable to your property. And iOS isn’t a service you use. That’s I why it’s mostly covered in EULA, who is legally questionable and unlikely to hold in court.
That is why it’s first sale doctrine makes the TOS/EULA null and void
Car manufacturers were told they cannot restrict who sold their spare parts.
Car manufacturers were told they cannot restrict who serviced their cars
The major phone companies were told they cannot restrict who uses their phone lines.
Utitlity companies were told they cannot restict who uses their services
Microsoft was told it cannot bundle it's internet explorer with it's own operating system.
If I want to purchase a music artists album, I can walk into multiple brick and mortor stores or from any of the multiple online music stores.
If I want to purchase a console game, again I can walk into multiple brick and mortor stores or from any of the multiple online gaming/retail stores.
But if I want to purchase an app for my iphone I have only one option and that is Apple's app store.
So why is it that manufacturers, companies and businesses are constally being told they must allow others access to their services, products or parts but yet when it comes to Apple it is allowed to restrict how the app store opperates (no 3rd party app hosters allowed, no sideloading allowed, no other online outlet allowed to host or sell Apple apps)
Car manufacturers were told they cannot restrict who serviced their cars
The major phone companies were told they cannot restrict who uses their phone lines.
Utitlity companies were told they cannot restict who uses their services
Microsoft was told it cannot bundle it's internet explorer with it's own operating system.
If I want to purchase a music artists album, I can walk into multiple brick and mortor stores or from any of the multiple online music stores.
If I want to purchase a console game, again I can walk into multiple brick and mortor stores or from any of the multiple online gaming/retail stores.
But if I want to purchase an app for my iphone I have only one option and that is Apple's app store.
So why is it that manufacturers, companies and businesses are constally being told they must allow others access to their services, products or parts but yet when it comes to Apple it is allowed to restrict how the app store opperates (no 3rd party app hosters allowed, no sideloading allowed, no other online outlet allowed to host or sell Apple apps)
I've posted several follow-up replies to those who asked for a more detailed explanation of the analogy. You have posted nothing but rhetoric and zero substance, ie opinions with no support and then claiming they're facts.
I would probably bett my house that cydia have less malware for the simple fact there is a strictly limited amount of trusted sources you can use. The rest are sources you must ad separately and not provided by cydia
It's not company A vs B but instead each company vs a competitive marketplace, as determined by the FTC.
There are basically only two mobile OS competitors, Apple with iOS and Google with Android. In the U.S., iOS currently has around 58% share and Android has around 42% share. These numbers can vary in different countries/markets.
This particular case seems to be less about consumers (or the "retail" side) and more about the "wholesale" side similar to how the case against Microsoft in the 1990s was more about Netscape, computer makers, other software makers, etc.
I'm not sure how things would play out in the long run if Apple had to allow an "open market" for app stores in iOS. It may, as you suggest, turn out to be more of a windfall for developers than anything else.
Then that excludes the iPhone, which has market power but is prevented from having excessive market power by a substantial and healthy competitor.
Microsoft at the time had something like a 95% market share for its OS. Great example of excessive market power being used to screw the competition. Very different case than iOS.
Basically yes, and this case could go similarly or not. A lot of factors can play into the success or failure of a case including new evidence, different arguments, etc. Other cases can also be appealed by other side.
Apple allows anyone to sell software in their “store”. What some competitors like Cydia are trying to achieve, is put their own store into a competitor’s infrastructure. This is similar to Home Depot being required to let Lowes have space in the Home Depot structure to sell goods at undercutting prices. Whether or not I (or we) would like to see competition with Apple’s store, it doesn’t make it fair or right for Apple to have to invest billions (continuously) to build the infrastructure and store, and be required to permit other store owners to sell in the space. Nothing is stopping Cydia from creating a phone, and setting pricing and options for it’s users to interface with a proprietary storefront. But they may find it challenging if they had to actually pay for the store. Nintendo also has a proprietary “store” (and arguably a monopoly within it’s market), but they don’t have to let Apple or Steam sell software and place a game store on their hardware either.
Because iOS, iMessage, the App Store plus other elements of the ecosystem are inventions by apple?
It'd be an absolute fustercluck. Atrocious battery life, stolen apps, and vulnerabilities all over the place. No thank you.
The existence of a single substantial and healthy competitor is not a sufficient against market power. This was reinforced by the recent Congressional report on competition in competitive markets:
"Apple has significant and durable market power in the market for mobile operating systems and mobile app stores, both of which are highly concentrated. Apple's iOS mobile operating system is one of two dominant mobile operating systems, along with Google's Android, in the U.S. and globally. Apple installs iOS on all Apple mobile devices and does not license iOS to other mobile device manufacturers. More than half of mobile devices in the U.S. run on iOS or iPadOS, an iOS derivation for tablets introduced in 2019. Apple's market power is durable due to high switching costs, ecosystem lock-in, and brand loyalty. It is unlikely that there will be successful market entry to contest the dominance of iOS and Android.
As a result, Apple's control over iOS provides it with gatekeeper power over software distribution on iOS devices. Consequently, it has a dominant position in the mobile app store market and monopoly power over distribution of software applications on iOS devices."
Source: https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_digital_markets.pdf?utm_campaign=4493-519
Monopolies are generally considered anything over 50% share. it doesn't really matter if it's 51% or 99% and the more important issue is anticompetitive practices that would be alleged.
I do not understand the reference. How does Apple's app store for the iPhone - one of many mobile phone product lines - restrain trade? Arguably it enhances trade for small developers who otherwise wouldn't have a platform to advertise their apps. I wonder how many people here arguing for opening the gates of sideloading have skin in the game because they work for large app developers.
Apple spends all this time and effort to make the iPhone experience as good as it is, and a court is going to tell them they can't. Wow...
I get the idea that people should be able to have the crappiest experience they demand, but wow, Apple didn't hold a gun to their head forcing them to buy into the Apple User Experience. You want malware spam and junk apps, GET AN ANDROID DEVICE!!! It's like too simple for some to comprehend!
What's next? Suing GM because the same base vehicle from one 'brand' to another doesn't support the same features? I always thought it silly that the same base vehicle from Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, GMC would have different trim levels (and often different reliability), and often a different brand on the engine and major parts. LET'S SUE GM!!! It's silly...
I get the idea that people should be able to have the crappiest experience they demand, but wow, Apple didn't hold a gun to their head forcing them to buy into the Apple User Experience. You want malware spam and junk apps, GET AN ANDROID DEVICE!!! It's like too simple for some to comprehend!
What's next? Suing GM because the same base vehicle from one 'brand' to another doesn't support the same features? I always thought it silly that the same base vehicle from Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, GMC would have different trim levels (and often different reliability), and often a different brand on the engine and major parts. LET'S SUE GM!!! It's silly...