I agree you should be able to run other app stores.... Just not Cydia. That app is just complete garbage. Design something better than that turd.
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
PlayStation and Xbox are 99% the same hardware today.
Can I run Playstation games on Xbox?
Why not?
That’s it!!!! I’m taking Microsoft to court until they allow Playstation Store on the Xbox!
Can I run Playstation games on Xbox?
Why not?
That’s it!!!! I’m taking Microsoft to court until they allow Playstation Store on the Xbox!
I would support this! I hate that they are trying to push Walmart pay. Same with Kroger.
I guess enough people aren’t viewing the ads within the cydia store anymore for Jay to be fruitful. Needs to turn to a lawsuit to get that money now. Jay, why don’t you go and make your own hardware and operating system and App Store? Should be easy if you team up with Epic, no?
I guess it might be better if there is a regulation that platform owners cannot run an Appstore. This will solve a lot of issues.
2008, those were the days. You could even do some stuff current iOS devices still can’t do today.
Right!!!
Everything I have seen from these people is hypocrisy.
If Epic made their own phone with EpicOS I have no doubt apps would only be from an Epic Store. Will they allow Steam Store? Doubt it.
I looked at many forums and many posts for so many years now.
The people who want Apple to have a third party store or side loading ar just pirates. They say they want choice!! Support developers!! Cheaper apps!!!
It’s all lies. They want to pirate apps and side load them. Almost every time I saw these people they were about 20 years old average and want everything for free. They won’t give one cent to developers if there is side loading or another store.
Actually, a lot depends on the circumstances surrounding how the EULA is presented, in the US at least, courts have found them enforceable.
That depends on the EULA and if a court decides it is not enforceable. As with any contract, it may or may not be valid; but the first sale doctrine does not automatically void a TOS/EULA. Even the first sale doctrine allows restricting further disposal under certain circumstances.
My understanding is that (in the US at least) jailbreaking remains legal, but many of these arguments in favor of forcing apple to open up their hardware is actually about apple changing their software to allow access.
I have no problem with someone writing their own code and loading it into iOS. What I’m not in favor of is using the force of law to require apple to build something they don’t consider in their best interests into their phones. Forcing someone to design code or engineering based on personal preferences is wrong.
Just as consumers should be free to choose which products and services they want to use, businesses should be free to design and offer the products they believe create value for customers and allow the company to be profitable.
I’m just not sure about this.
my biggest problem is not whether people can handle multiple app stores. The question is more, will developers still post apps on an Apple AppStore, which costs them 30% more, than a cheaper one, and will Apple still have an AppStore, if there are cheaper, but not monitored, AppStore Alternatives
If developers will run away from the apple AppStore, will we Then see more fraudulent apps.
Small developers, which per Apple are what 90% of the developers on the appp store, pay 15% so that is the ceiling an alternative store can charge; in reality it is likely to be less since they will have neither the user base, global reach or provide the same set of services. My guess is alternative app stores will struggle to be profitable. The big developers can afford to host their apps on their own website; and have no reason to try to start a competing App Store and absorb teh costs of running one.
The very judge that is hearing this case already ruled that Apple does not have a monopoly in a market (mobile gaming) where they had a higher market share than they currently do in the general mobile OS market.
Android provides several thousand competitors who all sell different products that run Android. The iPhone is a hardware/software combo that only runs on the products of one company.
There are also flip phones without screens and Linux phones.
A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a contract of adhesion, a leonine contract, a take-it-or-leave-it contract, or a [boilerplate] contract) is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.
While these types of contracts are not illegal per se, there exists a potential for [unconscionability]. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved [contra proferentem] i.e. against the party drafting the contract language.
If you look at the Chinese market, Tencent's app store dominates despite being a third-party app store. They charge developers 40% whereas the most popular first-party app store is Huawei's which charges 50%. Tencent is so popular because they cornered the market on gaming by buying up game rights (or developing the titles themselves) for 50% of the market and buying the exclusive rights to 80% of the Chineses streaming music market. Even China thought that last one was too egregious and told them to dial it back some. If you make a poplar app and it's not in their store, they will create a decent knock-off of it.
We always assume when side-loading is allowed on iOS that there will be flood of small, independent developers opening shops for boutique apps. What nobody considers is big business moving in and trying to corner the market with Walmart style app stores that focus on low-price, volume sales, with slim margins. Where they can pay their own developers to knock-off popular apps with low-cost imitators that satisfy the public's desire to not pay a lot for software while preying on developers that have to choose between getting a decent cut of lower sales or reaching more people knowing that if they don't distribute in that store their apps will just be knocked-off and they will lose those sales.
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?
And yet you said "Android" when you came up with a competitor to Apple when you thought I said Apple had no competitors, when I in fact said they have one competitor. And now with that clear you're changing it from one competitor "Android" to "thousand competitors that run Android", even though you know we're speaking specifically about smartphones and the apps that run on them.
A lot of people that challenge the basic concepts of these types of contracts being "legal" don't realize that modern society would grind to a halt without them. Imagine what insurance would cost for shippers if signing for a package didn't mean anything or legal costs for negotiating individual terms for products or services that have hundreds of millions of users even if only a tiny fraction of those potential customers wanted to propose different terms. Even posted signage becomes becomes irrelevant because there was no "meeting of the minds" between the parties.
Most EULAs are pretty standard fare and sanitized of the most egregious types of terms through decades of precedents and relevant industry best (or are at least a consensus of reasonable) practices. Occasionally, a court somewhere or new legislation decides that a type of clause is not legal and a lot of companies have to get creative and work around it to preserve whatever right they intended to preserve in the first place. If there were any damages, there might be grounds for some class-action, otherwise, users get new terms to agree to and life goes on.
Last edited:
I think it would be far more versatile. There were so many functions on Cydia that benefited the user.
Imagine if Winterboard alone had been an App Store app? It showed us what iOS was capable of.
That isn't the argument (by SaurikIT) in this case. The argument is that Apple has monopolies in iOS app distribution and in iOS app payment processing. SaurikIT (i.e. Mr. Freeman) wouldn't be able, under existing antitrust law, to demonstrate that Apple has sufficient monopoly power in the mobile OS market. So he's arguing, much as Epic unsuccessfully did, for intrabrand definitions of relevant markets.
A relevant market can, at least in theory (and based on existing case law), be defined such that it's limited to a company's own products. It's a bit of an uphill battle getting a relevant market defined thusly. Nevertheless, that's what Mr. Freeman is arguing for in this case because it's really the only path he has to shoehorning Apple's actions into a Sherman Act (Section 2) violation.
It depends on whether we're talking about a Section 1 or a Section 2 violation. Even lower market shares can provide bases for sufficient market power when it comes to Section 1 violations. But Mr. Freeman's Section 1 claim is effectively dead in the water (as time barred) after Judge Rogers decision a few days ago. His Section 2 and California law claims remain, but for Section 2 purposes a finding of monopoly power typically requires something more than 70% market share.