Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[Analog Kid]

You really believe Apple will openly admit that they are in the wrong. Lets not forget, bend gate, touch disease, battery issue, antenna gate. Taken a long time for them to fix those issues after people stood up and fought what was the right thing for a company to do. I guess you do not like or want Freedom and Rights. Back to the cage you go.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/06/finder-for-airpods-app/

Update: Finder for AirPods has been removed from the App Store by Apple. According to the creator of the app, Apple reportedly did not like the idea of people locating their AirPods and thus the app was deemed "not appropriate for the App Store."

Apple has not confirmed the reason why the app was removed from the store, and the app's developer recommends people ask for refunds via iTunes.

Ignoring all the extra noise, and sticking to my original question:
which part of this exactly, confirms that Apple pulled the app because they wanted to sell replacement AirPods?

I don't mean to disparage a developer with the handle "upvoteking01", but the dev is hardly an unbiased source-- remember the Dash fiasco?-- and even they never said that Apple wanted to sell replacements and the only thing in quotes is "not appropriate for the App Store".

Apple has said nothing on the matter publicly, and the idea that selling individual AirPods is going to be a profit center is absurd on the face of it.

There are other BLE RSS apps that are still available.

So, it still looks a lot to me like they, and now you, are trying to create facts where there are none in an attempt to sell your FUD.

 

[Mascots]

BootCamp, VMWare, etc... well you sure showed me. Apple's market share only grew when it accepted x86 and welcomed Windows. As many business application were only Windows based. If Apple transitioned to x86 without allowing Windows apps, it would not see any growth, it would be the PPC days all over. It was one of Steve Jobs best decisions and I am not a big Windows fan either. Did it allow others to use Windows and its apps on the Mac, sure it is called CHOICE. Did I install Windows via BootCamp, nope. Did I use VMWare for certain small Windows only apps, sure.

In your world, I would have to run out and buy a Windows box to run a few Windows app. Stop being narrow minded. Apples arrogance lately is troublesome and I have been a long time Apple user. No I am not a fan-boy/girl or troll, so lets not go there.

I don't know what you're talking about market share and blah blah blah - I'm just telling you what their legally allowed to do.

ALSO: Flux used private APIs which is not allowed. Your little AirPods app was written for THEIR hardware and they have the right to remove it.

Apple can do what it wants in all of these cases and this recent court consideration doesn't mean anything in the context of those things.

If Apple were to allow apps outside the App Store, you can bet they would require developers to be licensed (so you still have to pay), there would be rules (so no private APIs), and if you broke them, you'll have your license pulled (exactly the same as the App Store). You're not going to get what you want no matter what

 

[69650]

Good news. I would welcome the opportunity to purchase app's from outside the iOS App Store without having to jailbreak.

 

[code-m]

Ignoring all the extra noise, and sticking to my original question:
which part of this exactly, confirms that Apple pulled the app because they wanted to sell replacement AirPods?

The developer is hardly an unbiased source-- remember the Dash fiasco?-- but even they never said that Apple wanted to sell replacements and the only thing in quotes is "not appropriate for the App Store".

Apple has said nothing on the matter publicly, and the idea that selling individual AirPods is going to be a profit center is absurd on the face of it.

There are other BLE RSS apps that are still available.

So, it still looks a lot to me like they, and now you, are trying to create facts where there are none in an attempt to sell your FUD.

So you believe there is no "conflict-of-interest" that in this example where a developer who paid the Dev fee, got the app approved by Apple and listed for sale, only to be removed by Apple for no apparent reason. If it was trademark art work being used, provide the developer the reason so their can resolve it and have it back up for sale. By asking the developer to pay a fee (no issue here), then approving it (no issue here), then removing it without a reason to the developer seems rather fishy to me, don't you think. What next, Apple beta-tests "Find my AirPods." No coincidence there I am sure.

You apply for a financial loan, it gets approved. The next day you go to withdraw some funds and the financial institute says sorry Mr. Analog Kid we have revoked on this financial loan, no reason provided. Do you not feel you deserve a reason why you were initially approved and then revoked. Sounds like you do not mind being discriminated against.

Sure there are a lot of BLE RSS apps, so why this one gets approved and then removed without reason. Apple should be clear as to why it removed it after approving it.
[doublepost=1484271478][/doublepost]

It's always been my biggest complaint about the platform. iOS has been SO GOOD historically that I've found myself able to look past this, because having a reliable and secure phone is very important to me.

However, the hacker in me still wants to play with things like emulators, and Apple not allowing them makes me sad. iOS sandboxing is secure enough that we really SHOULD be allowed to sideload apps if we really want to.

You can side-load apps via DevTools, however you have to re-sign it after a week.

 

[Labeno]

Hot off the news press... court rules: "anyone can sue anyone for any reason whatsoever."
Hmmm, I think I'll sue everyone for not being polite enough to everyone else.
I doubt I'll win, but the lawyer will... all my money.

 

[alphaod]

This guy probably wants to install apps "bought" elsewhere.

 

[MacBH928]

The App store is with its limitations, for example no emulation.

But its probably one of the best things Apple did, you don't have to worry about viruses or malware. If you used Windows 98, you know what I mean.

 

[OLDCODGER]

They'd shoot themselves in the foot here. Its the more open access of mac os that is a seller.Take that away and some business would migrate away.

One of mac os's draw for some niche users is its related enough to Linux we get Linux originated ports more easily and readily. Often times these won't be dev key'd. the ports are a convenience, we take software guardian games as just a minor chore to get that functionality.

Or they are dev key'd....but they don't deal will apple store submission crap. Here is our app...dl, install. Why no app store? The app will never pass apple's (sometimes idiotic) submission rules.

Apple does not allow CLI interactive (or pure CLI use) applications on its store. Apple if they do not like how funky you get with API...will not allow the app submission. I have 1 or 2 apps now pulled from the store that are now direct DL. Apple said yeah....cool you really read up on our API, but you read too much. Bye bye now.

Number of mac os apps used out there cut off by pure store release would be quite large...and many could not "play ball" and recode even if they wanted too.


More commercial stuff...there goes steam to go for one of the bigger grey elephants in the room. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. back in 2011 my entertainment needs a factor in the swtich to Mac OS on a MBP. A R script that should have been 2 hours to make took 8 hours because of issues....time to blow off some steam very much in order. A cool +100 factor was going down my steam library and seeing lots of games have that apple icon on them. Steam for me and others...was a consideration.

Agree with your response, but we are talking Apple ....

 

[wheelhot]

alleges that by not letting users purchase apps from third-party sources, there was no price competition, leading to higher app prices.

I hope the judges will look into the app store and see all the free and $1 apps. The only expensive apps are those that are really well built and even then, it's not as expensive as before app store era and they're usually cheaper alternatives.

 

[code-m]

I don't know what you're talking about market share and blah blah blah - I'm just telling you what their legally allowed to do.

ALSO: Flux used private APIs which is not allowed. Your little AirPods app was written for THEIR hardware and they have the right to remove it.

Apple can do what it wants in all of these cases and this recent court consideration doesn't mean anything in the context of those things.

If Apple were to allow apps outside the App Store, you can bet they would require developers to be licensed (so you still have to pay), there would be rules (so no private APIs), and if you broke them, you'll have your license pulled (exactly the same as the App Store). You're not going to get what you want no matter what

You were the one who brought up running other OSes on Apple hardware. Last I checked x86 was created by Intel, the HDD/SSD, Ram, etc, by other companies. You are pretending that this is the PPC days with IBM, Moto, Apple.

If private API was not allowed, why did it get approved. Is there a flaw in the Apple AppStore vetting procedure, as this is what is being implied. Sure AirPods is Apple hardware the protocol to locate BLE is not, by your reasoning if I created an step-counter app that uses the altimeter and accelerometer it may be rejected as it is using Apple hardware.

Licensed similar to MFi, I welcome it. All bow down to the Apple regime, its our way or the highway.

 

[Thor_1]

Most people would cry foul if after paying several thousand dollars to Ford or GM or Toyota for a vehicle, the manufacturer required all additinal parts or upgrades (even stereos, speakers, and alarm systems) be purchased from the vehicle manufacturer's marketplace (their approved dealer service providers).

So, why is it that everyone thinks the situation is so different for software? When someone buys an iPhone, it is purchased (not licensed, which would be a completely different situation), thus the owner should not be locked into a wholly restrictive ecosystem with limited choices and captive pricing.

The app store structure requires that Apple be paid for anything that goes onto an iPhone that was already purchased by someone. Even free apps provide revenue to Apple because the developer must pay a fee to be authorized to publish apps in the app store. This is a problem!

That has never been the case with vehicles, so your what if scenarios are not relevant. However everyone purchased an iPhone knowing there was a limatation on where you could purchase apps.

 

[wheelhot]

This can go along the lines that Google should be sued for monopolising their google search ads market cause they don't allow other ads provider on their platform.

If you think this sounds silly, this is exactly what the attorney is saying

 

[Defthand]

"Censor" apps? That's like saying you should be allowed to sell things under the Wal-Mart banner in a competing space because the real stores don't carry adult magazines.

That's a strawman argument. Another business couldn't possibly represent itself as Walmart in order to sell something unacceptable to Walmart. Yet that business could sell those things as an alternative discount retailer, under its own banner, to—yes—customers who want it. No one is proposing that Apple should allow apps into its own store that violate Apple's personal tastes.

 

[code-m]

The App store is with its limitations, for example no emulation.

But its probably one of the best things Apple did, you don't have to worry about viruses or malware. If you used Windows 98, you know what I mean.

It is no surprise that Apple is transitioning to a services based company. Music, Movies, Apps, Books, Pictures, Data, etc. The focus and company revenue will be service based hence all the data centre news. The focus from desktop/laptop hardware to mobile has been occurring for a while. A recent MacRumors article mentioned revenue growth from these services to project 1 Trillion USD. Easier to make money with software based services then invest a lot of R&D, production, testing, manufacturing, shipping, support, sales, promotion with hardware.

Apple is moving along the same lines of Sony, Microsoft, etc. It has always used the software to sell the hardware, not sure if it will now reverse and use services to sell the hardware. Expect longer refresh between hardware releases. Consider it a feeling.

 

[Mascots]

You were the one who brought up running other OSes on Apple hardware. Last I checked x86 was created by Intel, the HDD/SSD, Ram, etc, by other companies. You are pretending that this is the PPC days with IBM, Moto, Apple.

If private API was not allowed, why did it get approved. Is there a flaw in the Apple AppStore vetting procedure, as this is what is being implied. Sure AirPods is Apple hardware the protocol to locate BLE is not, by your reasoning if I created an step-counter app that uses the altimeter and accelerometer it may be rejected as it is using Apple hardware.

Licensed similar to MFi, I welcome it. All bow down to the Apple regime, its our way or the highway.

Why can't you install Linux on a 2Ds? Why can't I install an alternate OS on Echo?! Apple sells hardware and licenses iOS or macOS.
Sometimes that happens, man. If you submit an app and then pass it through an update, you're taking advantage of the trust they give you for expedited review.

If you REALLY want it, you can just get the source to your little app, compile it in Xcode, and install it on your phone that way, so don't be SO mad.

 

[samcraig]

I don't agree this is the route to go. If one is unhappy with the ecosystem, they should leave. That being said - there are a lot of people on this thread who have no idea how to form a logical (let alone legal) argument. The analogies in this thread are some of the worst I've ever seen.

 

[Defthand]

Installing apps outside of the App Store is asking for trouble.

Maybe. Maybe not. Do you use a Mac? Were all of the softwares on it purchased from Apple's [MacOS] app store? If you're like most desktop/laptop users, the answer is 'no'. If Apple opened up iOS to allow antivirus and malware detection apps to monitor their mobile hardware, it would provide some assurance.

 

[Analog Kid]

removed without reason

Ok, so I'll just take this to mean that we're in agreement. Of course, Apple usually does provide a reason, and likely did in this case, we just don't know what it is.

As far as the rest of your questions: it's possible that a bank can call your loan without reason, check your loan agreement. That's good practice with any contract or agreement you sign.

 

[CE3]

Good news. I would welcome the opportunity to purchase app's from outside the iOS App Store without having to jailbreak.

That's the problem - it fundamentally compromises the way iOS functions from the ground up, and I reckon Apple will do whatever it takes to fight changing that structure.

Those who give up their freedom in return for a little security... etc (although that's not what Franklin actually meant).

Yeah, it doesn't apply when the current trend is for intelligence agencies like the FBI to ask companies like Apple to compromise their customer's privacy and security in the name of "security". The Franklin quote is more fitting for the latter. If people don't like Apple's closed ecosystem, they have the freedom to choose another mobile OS. It's not like this is anything new - Apple has always run things this way, and no judge should have the right to change that.

I would complain about a lack of freedom if I felt the App Store deprived me of choice, but since it continues to offer the best selection of quality mobile apps around, I'm good.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Like 85% of apps are free. lol. WTF. This country is so stupid.

 

[OUsooner08]

Horrible idea. We'd have the same issue that exists now in the Android market. App experience is horrendous and doesn't is absolutely not user friendly, not to mention the security issues. Hell I guess now you could sue a game manufacturer for not letting you purchase extra content from wherever you want.

 

[Defthand]

I don't agree this is the route to go. If one is unhappy with the ecosystem, they should leave. That being said - there are a lot of people on this thread who have no idea how to form a logical (let alone legal) argument. The analogies in this thread are some of the worst I've ever seen.

Sam, you are right about the quality of the analogies and arguments in this thread.

Apple's closed-wall approach to app availability is a positive feature to most people but it is anticompetitive. Users should have the option of buying and installing apps from other sources. It should be their choice to assume the risk.

Posters are scratching their heads over the price argument because they are limiting themselves to the free or dollar apps. They are ignoring the costlier subscription apps that have to factor in Apple's generous take. Over time, Apple's markup can add up to $$$ for the consumer. Do these posters think the $Bn app store revenues came from free apps?

Unfortunately, the only way to correct a large company's attitude is to sue them

 

[JM]

My position is that Ford is free to offer any gasoline they want but can't inhibit people from buying their gasoline elsewhere.

I get that position.

So what about Apple's argument of making a better product ecosystem because it is "closed"?

(where any developer can code for, but that's a separate argument.)

 

[code-m]

Why can't you install Linux on a 2Ds? Why can't I install an alternate OS on Echo?!

Oh don't give me any ideas now
[doublepost=1484275904][/doublepost]

As far as the rest of your questions: it's possible that a bank can call your loan without reason, check your loan agreement. That's good practice with any contract or agreement you sign.

Every loan I have taken has a defined repayment timeframe, if I pay early on some I pay a very minor admin fee $50 USD. On most of the loans its flexible and open, as long as the minimum payment is made per month or sooner, no issues.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

How is this a monopoly? If you dont want to be locked into their ecosystem, there is the Google Play Store and Amazon Marketplace as well as the Microsoft Store.

This is Atlas Shrugged coming to life.... "Reardon Steel is a bad idea. No one will trust it... Years later: Reardon Steel is too important for one company to possess."