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

[Admiralbison]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

 

[duffman9000]

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.

I haven’t used Cydia in years. When I did use it I found it to be junk crap.

 

[A MacBook lover]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

Uh…I’m good bud. 99% of people are fine too.

The reason apple sells iPhones is because of the App Store. If people didn’t like it, they wouldn’t buy it

 

[user002]

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!

You can buy Playstation games from the Playstation store, from Gamestop, from Amazon, from Walmart, or from hundreds of other retailers.

Terrible analogy.

 

[Abazigal]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

Here’s my counter-argument. Consumers knew what they were getting themselves into when they purchased iOS devices. If they didn’t want to be locked in a walled garden, then they should have purchased an android handset to begin with. Buying an iphone, only to complain that you can’t sideload some random emulator is like walking into a Japanese restaurant and complaining that it doesn’t sell french cuisine.

I also don’t see anything wrong with iPhones only being able to download apps from the App Store, the same way PS5 cannot access a game that is an XBOX exclusive. Apple makes the hardware, and just because you don’t like the way they do certain things doesn’t necessarily make it wrong or illegal.

With the caveat that all mac apps are available in the macOS App Store, I would actually support the Mac being as locked down as iOS. There are a number of benefits to the iOS App Store that I am missing on a desktop OS, such as the ability to manage my updates, subscriptions and purchases all in one place, as well as Apple being able to enforce rules like ATT. I don’t really view having to visit 10 different websites in order to download 10 separate apps, or having multiple clients and installers as a particular great user experience, vs having everything readily accessible to me under one roof.

The next issue is that some things only work when it’s the only choice available. For example, I am able to have all my apps available in one single App Store on iOS precisely because it’s the only App Store available on iOS (which in turn means that all developers have to host their apps there as there is no other alternative). This paradigm wouldn’t work to my advantage if other app stores were available and developers were able to make their apps available elsewhere and skirting around the stricter rules and protection of the App Store.

So while it may be a “choice” to deliberately limit myself to only one App Store (in a hypothetical alternate reality where the iphone allowed multiple App Store), it’s a choice which benefits the developer, not the end user. It’s far from being the pro-consumer choice you are making it out to be.

At the end of the day, I maintain that the current App Store model allows for the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of users. Changing the rules simply shifts this protection from the people who need them the most to a minor subset of users who arguably need it the least.

 

[duffman9000]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

You could like, buy something else. I recall that Sony approves of every game on the PS5. The Nintendo, MS, and Sony model hasn’t killed PC gaming yet.

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

Bad, but we have hundreds of other options so they can do with the Mac what they want, the market will decide. Same for the iPhone

 

[visualseed]

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

In US courts, EULAs are entirely enforceable and the first sale doctrine does not apply. Example: Psystar lost their countersuit against Apple claiming the EULA for MacOS was an antitrust violation. Court ruled first sale doctrine does not apply and EULAs are licensing agreements that legally bind the parties to their terms. You can’t build a third-party commercial service on the back of the customer breaking the terms of their EULA.

In Cydia’s case it may be perfectly legal under the “anyone can do whatever they want with their own personal device” doctrine for users to install the Cydia app, but it would be unlawful for Cydia to build upon that breach to offer a commercial service to exploit Apple’s IP (possibly creating derivatives of Apple‘s work) and offer access to those breached devices to Cydia’s customers wanting to distribute their apps which also subsequently breach Apple’s terms and possibly create direivitaves of Apple‘s works which only Apple has the right to do.

 

[webkit]

What is important is abuse of market power, not size.

Correct. One company could have a "legal" monopoly with 99% share while another company in a different situation could be determined to have an "illegal" monopoly or be abusing monopoly power while only having 51% share.

 

[jav6454]

well installer was the first thing that allowed you to install apps on your iPhone. Cydia was the first store you could install apps on iOS, but still quite impressive that both are still activly used

Wrong, Installer was first to the iPhone ecosystem. At any rate, you are confusing yourself.

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

No it is not. You want option? Go with Samsung or Google or another phone maker. You are not locked to the iPhone. How hard is it to grasp that people have options other than the AppStore. However, these are the same people making noise and trying to ruin the experience for others.

 

[webkit]

Simply not true. Read the whole judgement in Apple vs. Epic.

It is true. A monopoly is generally considered as having more than 50% share. In some countries, monopoly power is even considered to exist with as little as 25% share. Regardless, being a monopoly itself is not illegal and someone can have a monopoly but not an illegal monopoly. The crux of antitrust/monopoly cases are about "illegal" abuse of monopoly power. Having a "legal" monopoly is fine but, of course, can open a company up to more scrutiny of their business practices.

 

[webkit]

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.

What was the specific written ruling in this case that stated Apple didn't have a monopoly (legal or illegal)?

 

[MedRed]

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.

Manufacturers lock down their head units considerably more than an iPhone. Good luck installing any app on a car infotainment.

 

[webkit]

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.

Apple iOS has approximately 58% share of mobile OS market in the U.S. (percentage can vary by country) and since Apple's App Store is the "exclusive" app store for that market, it could potentially be argued that the App Store therefore has similar share and monopoly power. This can depend on how the jurisdiction/judge/etc. decides to define share.

 

[BootsWalking]

Manufacturers lock down their head units considerably more than an iPhone. Good luck installing any app on a car infotainment.

Apps don't represent a primary utility of automobiles. They do for smartphones.

 

[BootsWalking]

You really need to research that Microsoft issue a bit more. Microsoft actually was caught cheating and denying access to API's they were using, if we are talking about the same angle on this issue.

Microsoft has a long history of changing the playing field depending on who you are. THAT is definitely illegal. To my knowledge, Apple isn't doing that unless you openly defy the license agreement that you signed on your free will. Microsoft cheated developers because they thought they could, not because it was in users better interests.

I'm well versed on the Microsoft case. The primary issue was illegal tying of IE with Windows. Any details of APIs and denying competitors access is tangential to that. You can read the details of the case here.

 

[jav6454]

I haven’t used Cydia in years. When I did use it I found it to be junk crap.

Mainly as all the developers that were with Cydia left and are now doing their apps thru the AppStore. The whole point of the jailbreak and Cydia was to achieve what was not possible at the time with the iPhone.

The notification system we have today? It came from a Cydia app. Many good things were done back then. Now? Just a repository for pirated apps. Cydia lost eventually.

 

[webkit]

No it is not. You want option? Go with Samsung or Google or another phone maker. You are not locked to the iPhone. How hard is it to grasp that people have options other than the AppStore.

The same sort of argument could've been made to PC makers in the 1990s. If they didn't want to sell their computers with Windows, they could've gone with Linux, BeOS or some other OS yet that didn't prevent backlash against Microsoft and an eventual government antitrust suit.

 

[jav6454]

The same sort of argument could've been made to PC makers in the 1990s. If they didn't want to sell their computers with Windows, they could've gone with Linux, BeOS or some other OS yet that didn't prevent backlash against Microsoft and an eventual government antitrust suit.

In the case of Microsoft, they abused their power with the IE debacle. Notice how the government didn't go after them for the Office Suite, which could have been considered a monopoly.

 

[whatgift]

I don't believe that Apple got their ideas from jailbroken apps, they are completely obvious interpretations of features that any software engineer could've come up with. Just because they are similar doesn't mean they were copied.

 

[webkit]

In the case of Microsoft, they abused their power with the IE debacle. Notice how the government didn't go after them for the Office Suite, which could have been considered a monopoly.

I understand the reasoning behind that case but my point was computer makers still had choice too which is what you were saying about consumers having the choice of going with Android instead of iOS.

 

[Beautyspin]

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.

He (the judge) made a mistake and the win that Apple got is likely to be temporary. The following is an analysis by an Apple defender.

Demarcation between Section 1 (concerted action) and Section 2 (unilateral conduct): what Apple, Epic Games, and their amici tell the Ninth Circuit

No matter how hard I try, I can't think of a more fundamental question of U.S. antitrust law than where to draw the line between Section 1 (...

www.fosspatents.com

 

[visualseed]

I don't believe that Apple got their ideas from jailbroken apps, they are completely obvious interpretations of features that any software engineer could've come up with. Just because they are similar doesn't mean they were copied.

The same features also appeared in Android and WebOS at the same time they were showing up in jailbreak apps. Even PamOS and PocketPC/WindowsCE had many of these features like notification dropdowns years before. Jailbreak apps may have been first to introduce them to iOS, but they were hardly foreign concepts. I will say that a lot of subtleties in UI behavior that make iOS enjoyable to use actually did show up in third-party apps first before being sherlocked by Apple. My favorite is Pull-to-Refresh which was first used in the Tweetie App.

 

[mejsric]

Keep piling on the pressure on the Apple corporation from everywhere because it’s only going to grow.

let’s not continue to fool ourselves.

Apple’s App Store IS a monopoly it’s:

anti-competive
anti-innovative
anti-consumer


If people want to be locked in a wall gardened digital prison, and the one single prison guard is Apple’s App Store that is their choice and ought to be a choice, Not have it imposed on everyone else‘s iOS device.


it’s not that difficult to understand.

How would Mac users feel if MacOS was locked down like iOS and they lost control over their Macs, freedom to purchase, download and install elsewhere?

McDonalds has monopoly of McBurger, i want KFC on McDonalds, KFC store should be there too!

 

[visualseed]

He (the judge) made a mistake and the win that Apple got is likely to be temporary. The following is an analysis by an Apple defender.

Demarcation between Section 1 (concerted action) and Section 2 (unilateral conduct): what Apple, Epic Games, and their amici tell the Ninth Circuit

No matter how hard I try, I can't think of a more fundamental question of U.S. antitrust law than where to draw the line between Section 1 (...

www.fosspatents.com

The judge is a ‘she” and Florian Mueller is hardly an Apple defender.