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 Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It only took the first page for such uninformed hot takes, ultimately Apple will probably settle but if they lose on all counts, nothing is being shut down, pure ignorant folly.
I am a mobile software engineer that has released many iOS apps. lol
Fortnite literally did this. When a new update goes live, Fortnite will pop up message saying please update the app.
Do you want to fix your post?
And also, nothing on the IAP. Don't forget that.
DOJ: "When developers imagine a new product or service for iPhone consumers, Apple demands up to 30 percent of the price of an app whose content, product, or service it did not create. Then when a consumer wants to buy some additional service within that app, Apple extracts up to another 30 percent, again for a service Apple does not create or develop."
That’s a fear tactic that won’t work.
I wouldn’t put it past the Feds to try to break apart Apple’s hardware, OS, and Services divisions in an attempt to break up their ‘monopoly’.
Your free-speech argument is dead in the water. Just have to read the very first word in the first amendment to understand why.
If someone is an Apple shareholder or works at Apple, I fully understand why they would support Apple’s anti-consumer practices. Their own financial wellbeing may be at stake. I guess the EU’s success has now put some wind in the sails of the DOJ.
Guaranteeing that Apple will not settle and will fight to bitter end. This is more than just Apple’s image but also saving Steve Job’s legacy as well.
Apple doesn’t cave like Microsoft or Google and just settle or comply. They fight to the end and if outcome isn’t what they like, they’ll remove the feature in legal question or in this case, just pack up and shut it down.
Again, this isn’t just fight for Apple’s lasting image, but Steve Job’s image and legacy also.
not an apple shareholder, not currently working at apple, currently working as an iOS app developer. I stand by what I say.
Many of us don’t want it to be like a Mac. iOS is much simpler than a Mac because of the walled garden. That was literally Steve Jobs’ dream: to make technology as simple to use as possible and remove the barriers, so everyone could use it and not just us nerds. That’s exactly what iOS is.
Also Macs are relatively secure partly because of their low market share. With the iPhone being a dominant smartphone platform (and the platform with users who spend the most money) they will be the main target for attacks on mobile devices. We don’t carry our Macs around with us, with a constant internet connection and cameras on both sides and GPS etc. The consequences of malware on a mobile device are much higher, and so the security should be top priority.
People that want iOS opened up mostly just want to install emulators and stuff, is that really worth risking the security of the operating system for everyone? I’d love to hear a real reason for it that justifies it, because I can’t think of anything and I’ve tried. The only thing I’ve sideloaded on my Galaxy Tab is a Tamagotchi app lol
Last edited:
The context must you read it in to understand, young Onelifenofear. 😉
In United States vs. Apple (2012) they actually settled after they were found guilty at trial and before the appeal. They did appeal the settlement, but failed.
Apple will ultimately do what is most reasonable to protect their interest and if they determine a settlement is the best option they will definitely take it.
Have you been reading the legal document? There is this near the beginning:
"Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.
Boldface my highlighting, and a question: when did Apple offer a less secure environment?
"Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.
Boldface my highlighting, and a question: when did Apple offer a less secure environment?
“Never settle, fight till the end”. Meanwhile, this month alone: https://amp.theguardian.com/technol...-settlement-misleading-investors-iphone-sales
Apple to pay up to $14.4M in iPhone throttling settlement approved by B.C. judge | CBC News
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has approved a proposed maximum $14.4-million settlement from Apple to eligible members of a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of deliberately providing software updates that slowed its iPhone 6 and 7 models.
Last edited:
That doesn't sound probable, based on the commission model for both Apple and Google. Can you give a little more detail as to the reason for the discrepancy? I'm not asking you to reveal actual dollar amounts, but even the percentages she is being charged per might help me make sense of that. The model is so similar between the two, that I can only see the scenario being possible if all her revenue is based on first year subscriptions, or else her revenue is exactly $1,000,000 on Apple and $500,001 on Google. Or did she not bother enrolling in the Small Developer Program, even though she is eligible? I assume I must be missing something obvious, as the math just doesn't seem to work.
So let me get this totally clear if I may.
Let's say I open a brick and mortar store.
I made the store, I developed and created the products.
I own it all.
Customers can come past and I get to decide who I wish to allow in to my store, and who I will allow to buy any of my products.
Yes, You are saying I have the full right to do this as it's 100% mine.
If you do not like how I run my store, then you are of course totally free to open your own store with your own rule.
Yes?
So, you would be happy if I did not let in, black people, gay people, disabled people, perhaps someone who looks chinese, or anyone with a tattoo.
My store my rules.
You are happy that I can run my store my way, and the government / laws should have no right to tell me, I am not able to run my store exactly how I like it?
Yes?
Why can't you get the Galaxy Watch? Samsung's site says it does work with iPhone. My Samsung Fit worked fine with my iPhone, certainly better than my Moto 360 did.
Is this an example of creative spin on the DA's part? looking at https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
The part you are point to.
In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Apple’s then-CEO about an ad for the new Kindle e-reader. The ad began with a woman who was using her iPhone to buy and read books on the Kindle app. She then switches to an Android smartphone and continues to read her books using the same Kindle app. The executive wrote to Jobs: one “message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch.” Jobs was clear in his response: Apple would “force” developers to use its payment system to lock in both developers and users on its platform. Over many years, Apple has repeatedly responded to competitive threats like this one by making it harder or more expensive for its users and developers to leave than by making it more attractive for them to stay.
For many years, Apple has built a dominant iPhone platform and ecosystem that has driven the company’s astronomical valuation. At the same time, it has long understood that disruptive technologies and innovative apps, products, and services threatened that dominance by making users less reliant on the iPhone or making it easier to switch to a non-Apple smartphone. Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others
Case 2:24-cv-04055 Document 1 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 88 PageID: 4
Its like cherry picking examples to make a case IMHO. In other words story telling rather than an analysis of facts. Lawyers should have a field day educating DOJ.