Sidebar Sidebar
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

For those defending Apple's App Store being the only place to install programs on IOS devices, how happy would you be if Apple introduced a similar system for the Mac. In other words, from now on you will not be able to:

1) Install anything other than macOS. No Bootcamp Windows or Linux - Only macOS
2) Only programs from Apple App Store will be allowed to run. Meaning no Office 365, no Parallels, Handbrake, VLC and many more in todays conditions, unless they are approved by Apple (if), raise their prices 30% to feed Apple's coffer and reduce functionality because of the sandboxing.
3) Programs would be admitted or rejected solely at Apple's discretion.
4) No software company will be allowed to distribute directly to the consumer like they do now.

I think a lot of people would scream and either try to jailbreak their Macs or jump ship. I'm sure Apple would love the idea but it would be shaking the boat too much.

However, I won't be surprised if the next generation Macs with ARM CPUs and macOS "Death Valley" implement the above scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit, dk001, ReneR and 1 other person
Marcode said:
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
Click to expand...

It's more like me wanting to sue McDonald's because I can't buy a Whopper.
 
bingeciren said:
For those defending Apple's App Store being the only place to install programs on IOS devices, how happy would you be if Apple introduced a similar system for the Mac. In other words, from now on you will not be able to:

1) Install anything other than macOS. No Bootcamp Windows or Linux - Only macOS
2) Only programs from Apple App Store will be allowed to run. Meaning no Office 365, no Parallels, Handbrake, VLC and many more in todays conditions, unless they are approved by Apple (if), raise their prices 30% to feed Apple's coffer and reduce functionality because of the sandboxing.
3) Programs would be admitted or rejected solely at Apple's discretion.
4) No software company will be allowed to distribute directly to the consumer like they do now.

I think a lot of people would scream and either try to jailbreak their Macs or jump ship. I'm sure Apple would love the idea but it would be shaking the boat too much.

However, I won't be surprised if the next generation Macs with ARM CPUs and macOS "Death Valley" implement the above scenario.
Click to expand...

The big point is still being missed. You don't HAVE to buy a Mac.
 
bingeciren said:
For those defending Apple's App Store being the only place to install programs on IOS devices, how happy would you be if Apple introduced a similar system for the Mac. In other words, from now on you will not be able to:

1) Install anything other than macOS. No Bootcamp Windows or Linux - Only macOS
2) Only programs from Apple App Store will be allowed to run. Meaning no Office 365, no Parallels, Handbrake, VLC and many more in todays conditions, unless they are approved by Apple (if), raise their prices 30% to feed Apple's coffer and reduce functionality because of the sandboxing.
3) Programs would be admitted or rejected solely at Apple's discretion.
4) No software company will be allowed to distribute directly to the consumer like they do now.

I think a lot of people would scream and either try to jailbreak their Macs or jump ship. I'm sure Apple would love the idea but it would be shaking the boat too much.

However, I won't be surprised if the next generation Macs with ARM CPUs and macOS "Death Valley" implement the above scenario.
Click to expand...

And Apple would flounder... perhaps?
If you distrust Apple so much why buy their product?
Obviously they have something you want. So why do you get to set the way it works if it's their product?

That's a good question and the opportunity to demonstrate that Apple has no ill intentions.

They can't be accused of running a monopoly and at the same time allow their macOS products to work the way they do.

You notice the lawsuit is for the iPhone.
How long before the useless scum lawyers bring a similar suit forth for the macOS App Store?
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkhanjel
Basically those have some rudimentary knowledge of economics know this is a frivolous suit and those who don't think the App Store is somehow anticompetitive.

It's very simple actually. Who sets the price? Apple or the developers? Developers? Okay, then it's not anticompetitive, hence not a monopoly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
lysingur said:
Basically those have some rudimentary knowledge of economics know this is a frivolous suit and those who don't think the App Store is somehow anticompetitive.

It's very simple actually. Who sets the price? Apple or the developers? Developers? Okay, then it's not anticompetitive, hence not a monopoly.
Click to expand...


Those lawyers think they have Apple on the hook because the first question they feel entitled to ask (when they have built absolutely nothing themselves) is "wait, did you profit from this?" "then you are liable!" Pay us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lysingur
ReneR said:
No need to always look for Android for the rescue: Do you want your Ford SUV only run on Ford gasoline?
Click to expand...

You must not know what monopoly really means. Apple doesn't set the price of apps in the App Store but in the example you gave, Ford would be the price-setter, hence suspect of monopolistic behaviour.
 
Last edited:
RichardF said:
You wouldn't believe how many people buy a BMW and then complain about the cost of ownership.

Somehow the manufacturer is to blame.
Click to expand...

Kinda like all the people here complaining about the AppStore and their iOS devices? Haha
 
chr1s60 said:
Ok. That is the beauty of a non-monopolized computer world. You are free to choose any manufacturer you want after researching the pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...


And perhaps after much ado, the discontents will build their own.
Until we go full circle again.

That's right, that's how the marketplace works!!!
 
SkydiveGuy said:
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."
Click to expand...

Oh, a Rand fan.
 
RichardF said:
And Apple would flounder... perhaps?
If you distrust Apple so much why buy their product?
Obviously they have something you want. So why do you get to set the way it works if it's their product?

That's a good question and the opportunity to demonstrate that Apple has no ill intentions.

They can't be accused of running a monopoly and at the same time allow their macOS products to work the way they do.

You notice the lawsuit is for the iPhone.
How long before the useless scum lawyers bring a similar suit forth for the macOS App Store?
Click to expand...

The app store on a Mac is optional and you can download from any source on a Mac. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
 
ryanwarsaw said:
The app store on a Mac is optional and you can download from any source on a Mac. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
Click to expand...


We know that.

How do you know Apple does not keep it that way so they can deny being monopolistic in their intent?


Or, say Apple extends their iOS strategy to macOS?
You think that the answer will be any different?

I set-up shop and this is my product. Please pay attention, I don't want your money and no transaction will take place unless you read, agree and acknowledge that you understand this is my product and your buying it constitutes acceptance of my offering.
1 billion sales later, you and some others come to me... to say what exactly?
 
I don't get it. If Apple forced us to use their browser only, their version of Twitter, their version of Facebook etc; I'd get why the lawsuit might exist. But apps come from third-parties and everyone has a choice to use third-party apps or not. You can even remove the sight of their own developed apps now.

Does it matter there's only one route to finding apps? No. It's all jealousy from a few people with a bit of money not liking the fact Apple controls their own eco-system from top to bottom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
RichardF said:
We know that.

How do you know Apple does not keep it that way so they can deny being monopolistic in their intent?


Or, say Apple extends their iOS strategy to macOS?
You think that the answer will be any different?

I set-up shop and this is my product. Please pay attention, I don't want you money and no transaction will take place unless you read, agree and acknowledge that you understand this is my product and your buying it constitutes acceptance of my offering.
1 billion sales later, you and some others come to me... to say what exactly?
Click to expand...

Nobody can know why Apple does it that way. I will just say that if they even tried to close off what you can download on a Mac people would reject that as preposterous.

They should do the IOS store the same way. You have to click a few things and authorize downloads from an outside source.
 
ryanwarsaw said:
Nobody can know why Apple does it that way. I will just say that if they even tried to close off what you can download on a Mac people would reject that as preposterous.

They should do the IOS store the same way. You have to click a few things and authorize downloads from an outside source.
Click to expand...


Apple do.

No, some only would. Many would leave, even more would stay.

What the lawyers and the ignorant iPhone "users" behind this lawsuit conveniently neglect to think about for too long is that Apple's commercial success in the free and democratic economies we all enjoy for many reasons and hate for some, is that their success is a validation by the people (a very large number of users relative to the population on earth) that they do not dislike Apple's way of doing things to the point where they would not buy into the offering and its acceptance.

What's more? No one rose, not even on the back of a widely popular crowdfunding campaign to fund an alternative in the marketplace.


You were breaking things down for me earlier, would love to read some more.
 
If they did close the Mac app store it would result in a lawsuit just like this. It would be considered as bad or worse than anything Microsoft did back in the day.
 
chr1s60 said:
It's more like me wanting to sue McDonald's because I can't buy a Whopper.
Click to expand...
If McDonald were selling 3rd party stuff yes, your example is flawed from the beginning.

Apple is selling 3rd party apps but only trought their own store and don't allow competitors...

In your case is like if the only way to get a burger was trought McDonalds...wich luckily it isn't so!

And it is not only about money as some make it seems, I want another burger not because it is cheaper, but because I want choices!
 
The problem with AppStore is not pricing, but it is their monopoly power in app reviewing. They can easily deny the publishing of certain apps, with vague or nonsense reasons. Apple is both protecting customers from malicious apps, and reserving the power of filtering apps that they simply don't like. In other words, what we see at AppStore is what Apple allowed us to see.

A walled garden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit, alex0002 and 8692574
tmjdisorder said:
In other news McDonald's is being sued for being the only place you can buy a Big Mac
Click to expand...

The difference is that you can buy food at other places for your body and insert it in the mouth of the body you have without buying a different body than the one you have.

But, if you are African-American and you are only allowed to buy food for your body at McDonalds, then you can sue whatever overlord is preventing you from inserting food in your body from Burger King.

We could simply alter our appearance to eat at Burger King. And again if we wish to eat at Taco Bell. And again if we wish to eat at Denny's. But we shouldn't have to.

Providing a convenience such as an App Store is permitted. But if you prevent someone from shopping elsewhere, then you have broken the law.

Consider the Internet Explorer case. Microsoft didn't prevent someone from installing competing browsers. They just bundled their own default browser. And that was a violation.

In the iOS, Apple bundles Apps and prohibits the installation of any other Apps without their permission. You can only obtain Apps from Apple and only the ones they permit.

If Microsoft moved to this model in Windows, you can bet they'd be punished.

There is even signs of this anticompetitive nature showing up in MacOS. Apple has an App Store which you can choose not to use. But if you attempt to install an Application that isn't signed and authorized by Apple then you have to manually circumvent Apple's "security" to install it.

Apple has become the Microsoft of the 1990's. And Microsoft has become the voice of freedom in the 2000's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tinmania, dk001 and b0fh666
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back