Apple Says Blix's Twice-Tossed Anti-Competitive Lawsuit Alleged 'False Conspiracy Theories' [Updated]

[gregmancuso]

Come on, you must be pretending not to understand. I wasn't talking about anybody being forced to buy iPhones, of course. But if you buy an iPhone, which I agree to be the best choice, you are forced to use it the way they want. And they have always put heavy obstacles for people to use the device they often paid >$1000 the way they want. You know it very well and this is a problem precisely because Android is not a great alternative.
Also, they can force developers to follow rules so there can't be real competition in some cases. That's a lot of power, often too much I believe. When people buy whatever product, they shouldn't be unwillingly signing for that. It's clearly a side effect and not a feature. Apple deserve its success but there must be regulations over it.

And the problem is? You make the conscious decision to buy into the Apple ecosystem. The iPhone you purchased is a component of that ecosystem. You made your choice knowing full well what the parameters of use were. This is not a case of Apple selling you something and only after you passed the return period telling you that your device is “feature limited.” If you bought an iPhone with the expectation that side loading or whatever else you wanted to do with it are enabled then you made a poor purchase decision.

caveat emptor et emptor scientiis.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't want my users to use sign in with Apple for some reason, i want them to use something else, and Apple says NO CHOICE they have to be allowed to use this. Nothing about that is "competitive".

What it goes to show is that pro-user and anti-developer policies are but two sides of the same coin. I am glad that Apple sides with me, the end user, in this regard.

 

[Philip_S]

If you don’t or don’t want to be tied to their ecosystem you are free to choose from any number of android phones.

When the choice is between apple’s restrictions or an Android distributor’s spyware backed into the core libraries, there is no good choice. One is marginally less awful than the other, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

I use Apple services because I want their walled garden and the security that goes along with it.

If apple’s restrictions were strictly about security, preventing tracking, and so on, there’d be a lot fewer complaints.

 

[gregmancuso]

When the choice is between apple’s restrictions or an Android distributor’s spyware backed into the core libraries, there is no good choice. One is marginally less awful than the other, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

If apple’s restrictions were strictly about security, preventing tracking, and so on, there’d be a lot fewer complaints.

I don’t know. If Apple were to eliminate all fees and keep the rest of the App Store rules status quo I bet we would still have 2/3 of the posters on this site bashing the hell out of Apple and the App Store.

 

[Lemon Olive]

What it goes to show is that pro-user and anti-developer policies are but two sides of the same coin. I am glad that Apple sides with me, the end user, in this regard.

Until Apple is the only one making any of the software you depend on, you shouldn't be.

 

[Abazigal]

Until Apple is the only one making any of the software you depend on, you shouldn't be.

I suppose I should be happy when developers drag their feet over implementing new software features like split screen or ATT, or even keeping it 64-but compliant then?

I wish that Apple would use its influence to headlock Instagram into releasing a decent iPad app by now.

 

[Lemon Olive]

I don’t know. If Apple were to eliminate all fees and keep the rest of the App Store rules status quo I bet we would still have 2/3 of the posters on this site bashing the hell out of Apple and the App Store.

I hardly think pointing out the obvious anti-competitive behavior that Apple has engaged in over time counts as bashing the hell out of Apple and the App Store.

Not everything Apple does is actually anti-competitive, and not everything they do is not, so this becomes a weird topic to discuss, because every article on the subject invites clowns who are Yes They Are or No They're Not.

Apple has done a lot of things that are highly questionable, and others that are flat out anti-trust violations. Anti-trust laws exist purely by virtue of those willing to enforce them. Apple knows this and plays this game. They make friends, a lot of friends, very few enemies, and then play this game and hope to not get prosecuted.

It is documented in open court that Apple states publicly one reason for specific App Store rules, and privately has entirely different reasons. It is documented that they selectively enforce everything based on who it is, what is at stake, and what the bottom line amounts to.

But Apple's biggest problem is being both platform and #1 player on the platform. Apple could be just a platform, selectively enforce its rules, and while some would still complain there would be little-to-no legal action because no one could point to direct profit for Apple based on their selective enforcement. It is different when Apple creates the platform and then puts out their own offerings on the platform, and engages in practices that stifle competition with themselves.

 

[Lemon Olive]

I suppose I should be happy when developers drag their feet over implementing new software features like split screen or ATT, or even keeping it 64-but compliant then?

That has nothing to do with your previous comment.

If it bothers you that certain developers drag their feet about adopting new APIs, then obviously thats because you use their software and wish it offered those things. So since you're using and depending on their software, you might show a little more consideration for the developer's side.

I often find it funny when the same people who complain about developers being slow to adopt the onslaught of new features Apple makes possible every year, also complain about developers moving to subscription based revenue models for their apps and services. Like the $5 you spent 8 years ago should entitle you to an update with new features that developers need to work on today.

 

[I7guy]

[...]It is different when Apple creates the platform and then puts out their own offerings on the platform, and engages in practices that stifle competition with themselves.

Of course the above is an opinion as the legal system in the US hasn't yet determined this is the case.

 

[I7guy]

I don't want my users to use sign in with Apple for some reason, i want them to use something else, and Apple says NO CHOICE they have to be allowed to use this. Nothing about that is "competitive".

One can always remove the option to sign-in with Facebook and/or Google and this becomes a non-issue.

 

[Abazigal]

That has nothing to do with your previous comment.

If it bothers you that certain developers drag their feet about adopting new APIs, then obviously thats because you use their software and wish it offered those things. So since you're using and depending on their software, you might show a little more consideration for the developer's side.

I often find it funny when the same people who complain about developers being slow to adopt the onslaught of new features Apple makes possible every year, also complain about developers moving to subscription based revenue models for their apps and services. Like the $5 you spent 8 years ago should entitle you to an update with new features that developers need to work on today.

I am willing to pay if it means that apps I use get updated in a timely manner. I am currently subscribed to a number of apps, such as fantastical, overcast, todoist, infuse, and Tweetbot. Though I am back to the stock podcast app because the developer has made it clear that he is still in the process of updating it and we likely won’t be seeing any updates anytime soon.

At the same time, I have had numerous apps essentially being abandoned. Like Clips, Copied and Next, after I have had a fair amount of information stored inside, and it’s next to impossible to export them to another app.

Likewise, I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting that if left to their own devices, developers are never going to adopt features like Sign In with Apple which, while beneficial to the end user, offers little benefit to them. After all, we are only human. I desire a more convenient way of account creation (why some apps even require me to create an account to use is beyond my ken, but at least Apple is moving to offer me an alternative to signing in with Facebook), developers would rather I pass them my email or facebook credentials for god knows what, and in this context, it makes sense for Apple to enforce it at the App Store level.

Showing consideration only accomplishes so much at the end of the day.

 

[gregmancuso]

I hardly think pointing out the obvious anti-competitive behavior that Apple has engaged in over time counts as bashing the hell out of Apple and the App Store.

Not everything Apple does is actually anti-competitive, and not everything they do is not, so this becomes a weird topic to discuss, because every article on the subject invites clowns who are Yes They Are or No They're Not.

Apple has done a lot of things that are highly questionable, and others that are flat out anti-trust violations. Anti-trust laws exist purely by virtue of those willing to enforce them. Apple knows this and plays this game. They make friends, a lot of friends, very few enemies, and then play this game and hope to not get prosecuted.

It is documented in open court that Apple states publicly one reason for specific App Store rules, and privately has entirely different reasons. It is documented that they selectively enforce everything based on who it is, what is at stake, and what the bottom line amounts to.

But Apple's biggest problem is being both platform and #1 player on the platform. Apple could be just a platform, selectively enforce its rules, and while some would still complain there would be little-to-no legal action because no one could point to direct profit for Apple based on their selective enforcement. It is different when Apple creates the platform and then puts out their own offerings on the platform, and engages in practices that stifle competition with themselves.

There really seem to be two arguments. The App Store as arbiter - which is does not cause issue - vertical integration =/= monopoly. Ann’s having apps. That does not really raise either as there are plenty of alternatives ans the first party are not al;ways the best and all apple apps are uninstallable.

 

[LonestarOne]

It is literally Apple's job as the platform to enable competition, and not engage in any behavior that affects it.

So, your failure to compete is all Apple’s fault. You bear no responsibility at all.

Got it.