Yeah using caps doesn't make your point any more valid, or excuse this mess of a post.
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.
Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah using caps doesn't make your point any more valid, or excuse this mess of a post.
When a market is dominated by two duopolies such as what exists in the smartphone OS market today then "just not buying xxx" is not a viable option or argument. It's certainly not a persuasive argument as far as the FTC or DOJ are concerned.
However you look at it this suit has done us all a terrible disservice. It has inadvertently opened the door up for some of the dumbest analogies.
This is so dumb. How can Apple have a monopoly on their OWN hardware? Can I sue Samsung because I want apps from the Apple App Store on my Samsung TV? What if I want OSX on my Dell? Should I sue Dell until they officially support it?
No. It's just dumb and completely ignorant of how the world actually works.
No. It's just dumb and completely ignorant of how the world actually works.
If this passes I see Apple charging developers for the Developer Tools if they do not wish to be on the App Store. Apple could go back to charging $2500 a year for developers but instead they offer world class tools for free to develop world class software.
Or there were just two major suppliers of firearms in the USA and one of those suppliers prevented you from purchasing ammunition anywhere other than in their store.
They are accused of having a monopoly on the manner of distribution of other companys' apps made for their device. Would you allow a computer computer to only let you buy third-party apps from their own company store with a 30% markup?
Would I allow it? Why wouldn't I? If they've set up the platform, designed and built the hardware and software required to make apps and distribute them to billions of people worldwide instantly then they can do what the **** they want. 30% seems reasonable when you consider the work that's gone into it all.
If I didn't agree with it I just wouldn't buy it, and if I didn't want to sell on their store I would sell it elsewhere. By doing so I may be penalising myself though, but that's another story.
This is going to be a controversial opinion, but...
Suppose Apple is required to open iOS as a platform. For the first time in ten years, developers will be able to sell their applications without the restrictions of the app store that Apple levels on them (example: allowing upgrade pricing). This might be exactly what is needed to finally kick off the post PC world Apple clamors on about but then fails to deliver on.
Companies like Panic could finally price and support their software sustainability, making devices like the iPad worth the initial investment to target/develop for. Something like this would kick off such a fury of development, it would make the entire planet spin faster in orbit.
If this sticks and Apples hand is forced to open iOS, it could be one of the best things that has ever happened to them. Sure they'd loose so sale profit, possibly, but they'd sell so much hardware it probably wouldn't matter.
Suppose Apple is required to open iOS as a platform. For the first time in ten years, developers will be able to sell their applications without the restrictions of the app store that Apple levels on them (example: allowing upgrade pricing). This might be exactly what is needed to finally kick off the post PC world Apple clamors on about but then fails to deliver on.
Companies like Panic could finally price and support their software sustainability, making devices like the iPad worth the initial investment to target/develop for. Something like this would kick off such a fury of development, it would make the entire planet spin faster in orbit.
If this sticks and Apples hand is forced to open iOS, it could be one of the best things that has ever happened to them. Sure they'd loose so sale profit, possibly, but they'd sell so much hardware it probably wouldn't matter.
Apple's fees for the App Store are fair anyway. And if you can't stand the occasionally higher-priced app, there's Android, which actually has a higher market share, so IDK how they're calling this a monopoly. This is BS.
I understand what you are saying - and thanks for the explanation - it just seems like this should be considered a frivolous suit and should not be allowed to proceed.
I also have to agree with what some others have said regarding the security of the platform if app distribution were opened up to all comers. That is the road to a malware-ridden world for Apple users. Again, this is something which Apple's competitors would love! Our so-called security agencies would also be thrilled, there would be no need to install backdoors in official software when malicious apps could work their way through to users easily without the oversight Apple provides.
Last edited:
If it were a good idea, they would have done it already. Nothing's stopping them. Maybe the problem is that there is no post-PC era since humans won't change and will always find it easier to work on a PC.
Nothing stopping publishers selling the apps through other channels. You just can't install them without jail breaking, which is your right, I suppose.
[doublepost=1484293329][/doublepost]Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo etc. Although you can buy the software from different retailers it ALL has to be passed and secured by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo before you can install it. Apple could do the same thing and still control what can run on their devices. Would that satisfy these clowns?
[doublepost=1484293329][/doublepost]Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo etc. Although you can buy the software from different retailers it ALL has to be passed and secured by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo before you can install it. Apple could do the same thing and still control what can run on their devices. Would that satisfy these clowns?
Forcing Apple to work like Android is only opening up the world of malware, pirating, etc.
I feel they don't do this to be a monopoly but rather to keep the things listed above to a minimum.
I feel they don't do this to be a monopoly but rather to keep the things listed above to a minimum.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz representing the group of iPhone users only wants to cash in on this angle.
Those iPhone users feel that if apps could be purchased from more places for their devices, the experience and quality will be the same?
And why would Apple be forced to bear the creative and monetary cost of sustaining the entire structure while allowing other vendors to piggy back without the financial burden associated with profiting from the opportunity and platform Apple has created and continues to update and improve?
Everyone is coming to Apple with their hand out.
Why hasn't anyone built an alternative to the Google Play store and more importantly, in this case to the Apple App store?
Could someone in the know please break down the logic of the court behind this verdict?
Incredible.
Those iPhone users feel that if apps could be purchased from more places for their devices, the experience and quality will be the same?
And why would Apple be forced to bear the creative and monetary cost of sustaining the entire structure while allowing other vendors to piggy back without the financial burden associated with profiting from the opportunity and platform Apple has created and continues to update and improve?
Everyone is coming to Apple with their hand out.
Why hasn't anyone built an alternative to the Google Play store and more importantly, in this case to the Apple App store?
Could someone in the know please break down the logic of the court behind this verdict?
Incredible.
Actually, there are no alternatives to the AppStore. This would be like if you bought a BMW, you were only allowed buy things for your car from a BMW store; the music for your car, baby seats & the suitcases you use to go on holiday. That sounds like a monopoly to me
I'm sure something around line 2million in the Windows EULA says you abide by Microsoft's terms of service and yet they got whoopped more than once!I'm sure something around line 2million in the iTunes EULA says you abide by Apple's terms of service
As others have said, if you don't like Apple's walled garden/ecosystem etc, then you're free to purchase a nice Android phone and install whatever you want on it
If anyone sues Apple, rather than send a lawyer to defend (at great cost), they just need to send the person a note 'Please return us your iPhone / iPad and we'll give you the market value for the 2nd hand product.'
As for the comment is if you don't like it buy something else, what are you 12 years old? I mean is this the best you can argue?
Sasmsung, Amazon and Xiaomi....there 3 name of company (I am sure there are more) that came up with their own store... so don't understand your logic!
As for the Apple store alternative, you can't unless you JB ....that's because of Apple's monopoly!
Last edited:
Forgive me but that is a convenient incomplete look at things.
Absolutely not.
The difference is that Apple has something people want.
No one is forcing anyone to buy an Apple product.
You argue that once they own a device they should be able to load with anything they want from any source.
That's ignoring the fact that Apple sells an experience, not hardware or software only and they are the custodian of that ongoing experience. They built it (their ideas and vision), allowed others in whom profited handsomely, they maintain it at their cost so they own it.
What does this have to revolve around pricing?
Is anyone engaging in price gouging? Is Apple defrauding anyone?
For everything paying App, there are numerous free alternatives.
What are these iPhone users wanting exactly?
I am afraid that under the guise of capitalism, these ungrateful useless losers are really commies at heart.
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
It also prevents developers from veering outside what Apple let them do.
If you want alternative apps, you have to jailbreak your iPhone to install them.
Why can't I choose an iPhone AND choose where I buy my apps from?
uh, following your logic, the 3rd party accessories are widely available for all Apple devices.
To reuse your example, it would be akin to want to load the engine and various critical components with a firmware coming from another origin other than BMW.
It's alluring on the surface (ohhh cheaper!), but who is bearing the cost of developing and building the product to begin with? What's in it for BMW to continue doing that?
[doublepost=1484295259][/doublepost]
Developers want to sell directly to the users? Why to save the 30% they pay Apple?
Without Apple, they'd have nothing and no one to sell to.
The opportunity and the ongoing support is the cost they pay to play.
And because Apple is not selling an inert physical object.
You cannot dissociate the iPhone from its identity. The experience is the identity.
Apple own it and they earned, don't you think.
Why aren't you buying an Android phone from the 2,000+ OEM manufacturers instead?
If this is the level of the discussion.... boy this forum really reached the lowest point in history!
I wonder that too, but fanboys are to busy defending the undefendable here to give an answer... reality distorsion field is alive and kicking in 2017!
Things would be very different if the subject was Microsoft and not Apple! (oh wait... that alrea)
Deflate all you want sir.
Not at all. It's because the people who want this have never built a business in their lives.
The product and experience are Apple's.
Have you ever read the Software License terms of any of the devices you think you own because you paid money for them?
Of course not...
And please don't attempt to frame this as a fanboy discussion.
Microsoft never built a distribution process/ platform for the developers to profit from.
The developers did everything on their own.
Had Microsoft built anything similar, they'd defend it too. Why would you think otherwise?
Just address the arguments I put forth logically if you can.
Last edited:
I don't get why anyone is happy about this. Lower prices aren't everything. As someone who uses Android and iOS, I can tell you first hand that the app experience on iOS is superior to that on Android. Sure there is the occasional app that is better on android, but as a market of apps as a whole, iOS is filled with much better quality apps. The Play Store as well and Amazon App store and other places are flooded with complete trash apps that run slow, are full of ads, and aren't worth the time of day. Many of the apps people complain about being overpriced aren't going to change if other stores are allowed to put out iOS apps. All that will happen is you will see a flood of garbage apps available from multiple sources. Quality apps will still charge a high price if they feel justified in charging it.