Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Hit With Multibillion-Euro Lawsuit for 'Overcharging' App Store Users

ersatzplanet said:
Simple solution - Allow side loading and different app stores, BUT have a switch in settings that allows only downloads from the Apple App Store. Make that the default setting. When the user decides to side load an app and turns this off, they get a warning telling them that that are about to lose their warrantee, AppleCare if they have it, and all service options for their phone by doing this. They take full responsibility for any cost viruses will add to their system.
Click to expand...
Actually the simple solution is to incorporate something like Gatekeeper which verifies that the software is from an identified developer, is notarized by Apple to be free of known malicious content, and hasn’t been altered. Just stop using the App Store as the only means to software installation. Problem solved. Why deal with this issue in the first place is what Apple needs to be thinking about given the current political environment. You can still have the Apple store, but then no one will be claiming that they are forced to buy only from the Apple app store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
Realityck said:
Actually the simple solution is to incorporate something like Gatekeeper which verifies that the software is from an identified developer, is notarized by Apple to be free of known malicious content, and hasn’t been altered. Just stop using the App Store as the only means to software installation. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Even simpler is to not buy an iPhone but any of the thousands of Android phones out there.
 
As I said in similar threads, the main anti-competitive behaviour comes from Google. They're the ones that have created a duopoly by forcing horizontal competitors to include the Google Play Store and other Google services on almost all android phones.

Apple isn't the one interfering with competition. They're just doing their own thing, and it's incredibly successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cupcakes2000 and ct2k7
WiseAJ said:
Even simpler is to not buy an iPhone but any of the thousands of Android phones out there.
Click to expand...
Or as I mentioned previous just use a MBA or other devices you can install software you need to use with your mobile phone. No one is forcing anyone to just use a iPhone to be able to use apps to do things. ;)
 
I7guy said:
You can get a new Honda at a Toyota dealership?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen a brand specific dealership in a very long time here, but a cursory google search indicates some agents which has deals with vendors to offer their cars outside of main dealerships
 
Remy149 said:
A majority of apps are either really cheap, free or subscription based. How much cheaper are you expecting apps to actually get. More and more of the subscription based apps only offer a sigh in option in their apps and prices still go up not down
Click to expand...
Let there be competition and then we will see, how that will turn out.
 
ct2k7 said:
I am failing to see how adding a toggle is reducing choice.
Click to expand...
Because a single source app store is a choice that is being taken away. I don't want to have to choose between dozens of stores each with their own policies. I don't want to be forced to install a third-party store with policies I disagree with because they offer an exclusivity deal to an app I rely on.
 
BaldiMac said:
As I said in similar threads, the main anti-competitive behaviour comes from Google. They're the ones that have created a duopoly by forcing horizontal competitors to include the Google Play Store and other Google services on almost all android phones.

Apple isn't the one interfering with competition. They're just doing their own thing, and it's incredibly successful.
Click to expand...
Wrong the main anticompetitive behavior comes from Apple and Google, both have different anticompetitive practices and both will face the justice, just like Microsoft had to face it in the 90s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and hydrochloride
BaldiMac said:
Because a single source app store is a choice that is being taken away. I don't want to have to choose between dozens of stores each with their own policies. I don't want to be forced to install a third-party store with policies I disagree with because they offer an exclusivity deal to an app I rely on.
Click to expand...
Are you forced to use a particular App Store?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
ct2k7 said:
Could be a race to the bottom!
Click to expand...
Maybe. Let‘s discuss further about this in a year, when a) the EU Digital Markets Act has come into effect and b) App Store competitors exist/developers can offer their products for sideloading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ct2k7
Steve121178 said:
That's probably the worst analogy I've seen on MacRumors.

Lets make it a bit more realistic. If I walk into McDonalds and I see a burger I want for £4.99 I am either happy to pay the price and enjoy my burger or I walk away and find an alternative that fits my budget.
Click to expand...
jimbobb24 said:
It’s where regulators screw it up for everyone because they cannot possibly grasp the millions of decisions and optimizations and trade offs that got us to this and when they intervene will unleash the unintended consequences of their intervention. If this were as simple as “take back money from bad corporation” than every App Store on every platform would undercut apple. But they are all pretty similar.

These interventions will ruin whole industries.
Click to expand...
There are ways antitrust regulators can solve this problem, a common tool is to break up an monopoly. In this case, they can demand the parent company of App Store to be independent of the rest of Apple in meaningful ways.
 
hydrochloride said:
Maybe. Let‘s discuss further about this in a year, when a) the EU Digital Markets Act has come into effect and b) App Store competitors exist/developers can offer their products for sideloading.
Click to expand...
Or we could go back to the old model of large updates and not continuous revenue streams for apps which don’t do any off device processing or cost $10 per week for some unused feature.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
BaldiMac said:
Because a single source app store is a choice that is being taken away. I don't want to have to choose between dozens of stores each with their own policies. I don't want to be forced to install a third-party store with policies I disagree with because they offer an exclusivity deal to an app I rely on.
Click to expand...
Let me guess: You buy everything in your life in the same store, food, clothes etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and ct2k7
Wildkraut said:
Wrong the main anticompetitive behavior comes from Apple and Google, both have different anticompetitive practices and both will face the justice, just like Microsoft had to face it in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Strong opinion. But it doesn't change what I said.

ct2k7 said:
Are you forced to use a particular App Store?
Click to expand...
Possibly. Did you read the rest of my post?
 
ct2k7 said:
Or we could go back to the old model of large updates and not continuous revenue streams for apps which don’t do any off device processing or cost $10 per week for some unused feature.
Click to expand...

And the old model of updates actually having to justify themselves and their pricing with fixes, new features, refinements, etc

So much of "subscription pricing" is just collecting rents for often very little actual improvement over time.

***Yes, I know part of the idea is to have developers "keep fixing stuff" -- but it's really hard to make a value assessment with that sort of nebulous benefit... and very easy for developers to do less work and just keep printing money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back