Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They could've complied properly with the original ruling instead they didn't as they thought that they were right and beyond the law and now they've lost a significant amount of control in the App Store.

The same situation is playing out in the EU.

Apple thought that they were bigger than nation states and political blocs, but they are not.
Apple could always exit their legislative reach and preserve the platform.
 
I place security and privacy above cheapness.

As do I, hence why I would like to cut Apple out of the middle. They don't need to know what I have installed on my phone. No company should have a complete picture.

..plus I prefer to give my money to the developer directly. They get 100% (minus CC fees) vs. 70% or 85%.

I currently have zero subscriptions through Apple or the App Store, and I haven't spent a penny in the iPhone App Store in over two years. I've had the iPhone since the 3g.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0049190
You contradict yourself. You constantly argue that Apple should be allowed to do just that (arbitrarily block whatever it wants for no valid reason).
where did I contradict myself?

Microsoft should be able to do whatever it wants. if the market doesn’t like it, it will respond by leaving Microsoft. Similarly, Apple should do whatever it wants. If the market doesn’t doesn’t like what Apple is doing, they’ll move onto Android.

Point me to where I contradicted myself. I have always been in favor of market forces at work and less restrictions on businesses.
 
Awesome! Sounds good.

For me, If a developer offers an App directly, or though the App Store, I'll likely choose the developer directly. I cut out middlemen whenever possible.

I have no loyalty to Apple, or any company.
I always subscribe directly with the app developer rather than through the AppStore. It’s usually cheaper and I would rather give my money to the developers who did all the work than Apple.
 
I always subscribe directly with the app developer rather than through the AppStore. It’s usually cheaper and I would rather give my money to the developers who did all the work than Apple.
I have no loyalty to any company. Of course I have not purchased any new applications in years because I do not need to purchase applications all the time. I guess that your reasoning is that Apple did no work to building iOS, the iPhone, or the App Store, it was all done by third party developers.
 
Last edited:
Developers would need to build their own phone and os for you to say they did all the work.
The government built the roads we all drive on. Should car companies all give them 30% of the revenue from the sale of their new cars? Why not? The government maintain those roads. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
That's always my preference as well.
The developers to get the money for their products. Through the App Store 90% of developers get all of the money for their products. The commissions that Apple receives supports the infrastructure that hosts the App Store. Infrastructure is not free and neither is the electricity used to power that infrastructure.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zchrykng
The government built the roads we all drive on. Should car companies all give them 30% of the revenue from the sale of their new cars? Why not? The government maintain those roads. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?
The maintenance of the roads is paid for with the gasoline tax that everyone pays at the fuel pump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PlayUltimate
Maybe those car companies should build their own roads? You think that’s a good idea?
They could, but it would not be the best option. Just like developers should not build their own app stores for people to purchase their software.
 
The government built the roads we all drive on. Should car companies all give them 30% of the revenue from the sale of their new cars? Why not? The government maintain those roads. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?
Government and Apple are not the same thing. One is a public service in support of businesses and consumers (funded by businesses and consumers) and the other is a publicly traded for profit company. Lol what a ridiculous analogy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mwhite
So moving to another judicial jurisdiction wouldn’t help them would it.
Could if the judicial jurisdiction would create untenable regulations. Like the UK wanting a backdoor into the End-to-End encryption. Apple simply would not offer that option in those jurisdictions.
 
That was one judge's opinion based on what the lawyers presented.
I see you haven't been paying attention to this case. It was appealed through the entire US justice system. Apple gets zero more bites at that apple. They can appeal the specific order and contempt findings, but not the ruling against anti-steering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0049190
Government and Apple are not the same thing. One is a public service and the other is a publicly traded for profit company. Lol what a ridiculous analogy.
Of course it depends upon the location where the roads are built. Where I live, the government contracts out the building of roads to local companies to actually do the building of the infrastructure.
 
I see you haven't been paying attention to this case. It was appealed through the entire US justice system. Apple gets zero more bites at that apple. They can appeal the specific order and contempt findings, but not the ruling against anti-steering.
Nope, not really. It was not interesting.
 
They could, but it would not be the best option. Just like developers should not build their own app stores for people to purchase their software.
I disagree. App developers should be allowed to build their own app stores if they want to. Nobody is forced to use them. Let consumers decide which app store they prefer.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.