Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[Jsameds]

Bell was still ruled to be a monopoly and split up even though I guess it was possible to get another telephone line somehow, ...

Who said it is one and the only option? Users spent the most premium money on iDevices, yet they can not freely use them as they wish.

Also I have a 1st gen iPhone and 1st gen iPad. Why is that I can no longer actually use them because Apple is not allowing builds with older SDKs to be uploaded in the App Store.

I could use the 1st gen iPad for what? two years max? And since then the expensive investment is collecting dust because even I as a developer can not load something on it anymore, ...

Due to the locked boot loader I can not even load my Linux (http://t2-project.org/) on it unless I spent years or so of reversing the crypto.

You fins this vendor lock in right?

If this would be done a decade ago by Microsoft on Windows Mac users would have been laughing about this.
But now the fanboy are even defending such vendor lock-in / censorship.

Btw. Want to load the NY Times app in China? Yeah it's gone now, ... Can't sideload, ...

You're not locked in, you can choose a different platform at any moment. You don't have to buy an iDevice, it's a free market, hence it's not a monopoly.

iPhone 1 and iPad 1 we're first gen products, you knew the risks. And F, man. The iPhone is 10 years old. Tech has a lifespan, get used to it.
[doublepost=1484308882][/doublepost]This thread:

"I want 'A' to do tasks 1, 2 and 3"
"But 'B' does all of those things you want, why don't you just get B instead?"

"BECAUSE I WANT 'A' TO DO IT OK??!?"

 

[alex0002]

You are missing the big picture. It's not about me or you or even everyone in this thread. It's about security of the platform as a whole.

When I recommend iOS to someone I do so knowing that it's the easiest and safest option because without jumping though some technical hoops there's pretty much zero that you can do mess it up accidentally or deliberately.

Once you open the gates and something goes wrong, the reputation of the platform as a safe, private and secure OS is destroyed.

I don't get it. If it's open that you want get an Android.

Do you work for apple?
Why is it your job to recommend iOS to anyone?

Do you also tell them - don't use macOS, it's dangerous and all sorts of unsafe apps might sneek in?

But yes, perhaps Android is a better option for many people, but unlike the burger analogy, most people tend to keep a smartphone for about 2 years.

 

[ReneR]

You're not locked in, you can choose a different platform at any moment. You don't have to buy an iDevice, it's a free market, hence it's not a monopoly.

iPhone 1 and iPad 1 we're first gen products, you knew the risks. And F, man. The iPhone is 10 years old. Tech has a lifespan, get used to it.
[doublepost=1484308882][/doublepost]This thread:

"I want 'A' to do tasks 1, 2 and 3"
"But 'B' does all of those things you want, why don't you just get B instead?"

"BECAUSE I WANT 'A' TO DO IT OK??!?"

It is so funny how the fanboys defend everything, even when 1st gen hardware was sh*t ;-)

You know what? That was an example. I can still enjoy my 1st gen iPhone in my collection. Because how few where build and who had one?

How quickly the iPad 1 was abandon however, was really a joke, ... And again the example, we own it yet can not really load any software on it. It was great back in the day, and could still be used for things. E.g. even car navigation for the kids or whatever.

I wonder with what passion some naysayers defend all nonsense. If those do not care about improvements they can just continue to use their iHoly in the limited way they want.

 

[Jsameds]

It is so funny how the fanboys defend everything, even when 1st gen hardware was sh*t ;-)

You know what? That was an example. I can still enjoy my 1st gen iPhone in my collection. Because how few where build and who had one?

How quickly the iPad 1 was abandon however, was really a joke, ... And again the example, we own it yet can not really load any software on it. It was great back in the day, and could still be used for things. E.g. even car navigation for the kids or whatever.

I wonder with what passion some naysayers defend all nonsense. If those do not care about improvements they can just continue to use their iHoly in the limited way they want.

Why do you seem to have a problem with what I like?

I have both open and closed systems in my household. PCs, Macs, iDevices and consoles. Being both closed and open has their advantages and disadvantages.

My point is there are open and closed platforms for you to choose from, and I have an issue with people trying to prise open a closed system that I currently enjoy. I would not recommend ANY open system to someone with limited technical ability, the scope for things to go wrong is just too large. This is why everyones parent's/grandparents PCs are riddled with viruses, but their iPhones work nigh on perfectly.

It would also cause massive losses to the developer community. The fact that piracy is so difficult on a closed platform generates billions for developers. Just look at android, virtaully no money is ever spent on the platform because it's easy to pirate stuff. This will happen to iOS if it's ever opened up, and we will have much fewer apps as a result.

 

[xyion1]

It is so funny how the fanboys defend everything, even when 1st gen hardware was sh*t ;-)

You know what? That was an example. I can still enjoy my 1st gen iPhone in my collection. Because how few where build and who had one?

How quickly the iPad 1 was abandon however, was really a joke, ... And again the example, we own it yet can not really load any software on it. It was great back in the day, and could still be used for things. E.g. even car navigation for the kids or whatever.

I wonder with what passion some naysayers defend all nonsense. If those do not care about improvements they can just continue to use their iHoly in the limited way they want.

You are fair not to agree with Apple's (or any other company's) implementation of their licensed intellectual property however you cannot compel them to change it. Certainly speak your mind, but others are allowed to have an opposing view - there is no "correct".

Regarding not being able to install third party software, please show me one car manufacturer which lets you replace their Entertainment/Infotainment System with one of your choosing. CarPlay/Andriod Auto don't really count because a customer cannot install them on any vehicle they want without the Manf. allowing it (case in point, my 2016 Mazda 6 with junk infotainment). Not alking about tripping out the stock radio/nav system and putting in a 3rd party one(Alpine or whatever) - just let me flash a new ROM of the Nav I wrote into the car that I own.

 

[Jsameds]

Do you work for apple?
Why is it your job to recommend iOS to anyone?

Do you also tell them - don't use macOS, it's dangerous and all sorts of unsafe apps might sneek in?

But yes, perhaps Android is a better option for many people, but unlike the burger analogy, most people tend to keep a smartphone for about 2 years.

I'm the 'tech whizz' in the family, people are always coming to me to ask what should they get.

Unfortunately there's no closed platform desktop OS or I would recommend that to a lot of people too, OSX is the closest and safest open desktop OS but it really depends on what they want and need.

 

[maflynn]

Wow, this could have huge implications. I know I'm late to the party and I'm not about to read 17 pages. I think this may cost Apple a lot of money just to defend their closed walled garden.

 

[b0fh666]

nobody wants to open up YOUR idevice, @Jsameds. i want MINE open. that simple.

 

[sdz]

Abuah?!

what?

listen, i'm all against monopolistic competitive practices.
I'm all for releasing some stranglehold on economies that filthy rich have. i'm all for competition for luxury items.

but There's no monopoly here. If you don't like Apple's app store policy, There's a giant swath of Android manufacturers out there offering competitions, many come with their own App stores. If you're looking for an open and free market, that exists.

But where then does this "monopoly" end? What about OS? Apple has 100% of iOS installations on iPhones. is that not a monopoly preventing me choice of what OS I want? (although, I would love to buy an iPhone running android )


this is a slippery slope. Sometimes, yes, Lawsuits are required to keep a company in check, but sometimes, these things are more dangerous to the market than helpful

there is a monopoly.
I cannot install an alternative App Store on my iphone like I can on an android device.

 

[shark512]

I disagree with this frivolous lawsuit. There is plenty of competition in the marketplace: consumers can choose a (cheaper) android phone and use the google play store, they aren't required to use iDevices and apps. Developers currently have the freedom to choose what platforms they support for their service and/or app, Apple isn't 'forcing' them to do so. And then there is the security consideration, an alternative appstore for iDevices would have to prove that their security and screening process for apps was equal too or exceeded those set by Apple. To be fair, about the only criticism that can be levied at Apple is that their app approval guidelines are convoluted, inconsistent, nontransparent and limiting ;-). So if an app/service has a viable market, but wouldn't be approved, a company can always go to the android platform. Lastly regarding price, in what way are iDevice apps too expensive? Most apps are free and make use of the freemium model and only when a user wants more features do they have to pay. And how much is that on average? About the cost of a Starbucks Latte! (70% of which goes to the coding barista!)

 

[b0fh666]

Wow, this could have huge implications. I know I'm late to the party and I'm not about to read 17 pages. I think this may cost Apple a lot of money just to defend their closed walled garden.

one can hope. this nonsense is going for too long already

 

[sdz]

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.'

your simplistic world....
I hope soon we can install and use alternative app stores without discrimination

 

[ReneR]

Why do you seem to have a problem with what I like?

I have both open and closed systems in my household. PCs, Macs, iDevices and consoles. Being both closed and open has their advantages and disadvantages.

My point is there are open and closed platforms for you to choose from, and I have an issue with people trying to prise open a closed system that I currently enjoy. I would not recommend ANY open system to someone with limited technical ability, the scope for things to go wrong is just too large. This is why everyones parent's/grandparents PCs are riddled with viruses, but their iPhones work nigh on perfectly.

It would also cause massive losses to the developer community. The fact that piracy is so difficult on a closed platform generates billions for developers. Just look at android, virtaully no money is ever spent on the platform because it's easy to pirate stuff. This will happen to iOS if it's ever opened up, and we will have fewer apps as a result.

Many people are not satisfied with the current state of affairs. If there would be a more useful and permanent option to sideload other developers apps thru other means you still would not need to use it and enjoy your closed system.

Btw. contrary to some arguments here this does not protect you from malicious apps. Not only do they regularly slip thru Apple's sloppy review, there are even 0days out in the wild where even websites ore iMessages could hack your system. Some years ago a popular jailbreak.me website even used it for, ... jailbreaking, ...

Apples closed AppStore is snake oil for security, just like antivirus is snake oil (anti virus often has more vulnerabilities than the plain OS before).

In previous times you could always install third party radios. That you can often not do this anymore is mostly because the various forms, shapes and sizes.

Yet, you can totally do this. You can even tune or swap the engine, gearbox, suspension breaks, ... even replace the whole MCU, chip tune it and if you want replace the whole infotainment if you redo your dashboard with your personal styling taste, ... You can even retrofit modern infotainment in your vintage whatever dashboard and whatnot. You can 6V to 12V convert your vintage, and you know what? You can even LPG propane gas or electro convert your car.

In fact you have chosen a really bad example given that cars are probably one of the most tweaked, tinkered and tuned things on earth. Probably followed by personal computer electronics, to which category iDevices belong.

PS: At least the Mazda MX5 appears to be running Linux on their infotainment, and I noticed some Youtube videos on tweaking it, ...

 

[maflynn]

your simplistic world....
I hope soon we can install and use alternative app stores without discrimination

Given the pace of lawsuits, a resolution is possibly a decade a way if not longer. Apple will fight a two prong battle, first to win it out right either by appeals or summary dismissals, or by dragging this on as long as possible.

 

[respectto]

I agree with the decision to sue them. It is monopolistic.

I buy a Mac I can download software from wherever I like, and if it ****s up my computer it's on my head!

If I buy an iPhone (which is running a mutated version of Mac OS) I have to buy from Apple, Apple take their 30% cut (which I think is anti competitive in the first place, because they also sell app services which gives them a competitive advantage over competitors such as Spotify)

But my main beef is that Apple decide what is and is not good for me, mainly PORN!

I am an adult, I don't have kids, and I wouldn't let a kid play with my iPhone anyway, if I wanted every single app on my phone to be an adult one I should be able to do so. I bought the hardware I own it, Apple shouldn't be deciding what I can have on it. THIS IS THE REAL REASON despite what people may claim WHY ANDROID IS WINNING! When folks say Android is a more open platform what they are really saying in polite shorthand is I can download adult apps on Android! Now I don't for a minute believe that they are going to open up their own store to Adult content as they are the new puritans, but I should be allowed to download an app from anywhere I like from the web without Apple taking a chunk for the privelege of hosting a file!

I understand the security issue, but I'm sure Apple isn't the only company that can scan software for security flaws!

If they allowed adult apps by whatever means without someone having to jailbreak, their market share would go up drastically over time I believe.

 

[BootsWalking]

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.

That's a reasonable position. I have no problem with Apple building up their huge software distribution platform in the App Store and I agree they can charge whatever they want for it. The issue I have is them disallowing people to obtain apps by other means. The App Store could be the greatest thing since sliced bread and if that's the case it will win out in the marketplace. The issue is when they take action to suppress competition to their store. Let the market decide what the best distribution model is rather than using antitrust behavior to anoint the winner.

 

[sdz]

Many people are not satisfied with the current state of affairs. If there would be a more useful and permanent option to sideload other developers apps thru other means you still would not need to use it and enjoy your closed system.

Btw. contrary to some arguments here this does not protect you from malicious apps. Not only do they regularly slip thru Apple's sloppy review, there are even 0days out in the wild where even websites ore iMessages could hack your system. Some years ago a popular jailbreak.me website even used it for, ... jailbreaking, ...

Apples closed AppStore is snake oil for security, just like antivirus is snake oil (anti virus often has more vulnerabilities than the plain OS before).

In previous times you could always install third party radios. That you can often not do this anymore is mostly because the various forms, shapes and sizes.

Yet, you can totally do this. You can even tune or swap the engine, gearbox, suspension breaks, ... even replace the whole MCU, chip tune it and if you want replace the whole infotainment if you redo your dashboard with your personal styling taste, ... You can even retrofit modern infotainment in your vintage whatever dashboard and whatnot. You can 6V to 12V convert your vintage, and you know what? You can even LPG propane gas or electro convert your car.

In fact you have chosen a really bad example given that cars are probably one of the most tweaked, tinkered and tuned things on earth. Probably followed by personal computer electronics, to which category iDevices belong.

PS: At least the Mazda MX5 appears to be running Linux on their infotainment, and I noticed some Youtube videos on tweaking it, ...

I fully agree!
Choice is always better for the consumer. And in that case its also better for the developers.
Maybe there will be a strong competition for the provisions.

And also maybe there will be an App Store provider in countries with different laws (allows porn and p2p apps etc)

I would appreciate the choice.

 

[kdarling]

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.

Truth.

This is like suing Microsoft because Xbox wont play Nintendo games.

This is the worst kind of analogy we're seeing, acting as if iPhones would forced to run Android apps or something.

The phones will still be using iOS apps. But you'd be able to get ones that Apple doesn't sell from their own store. Just like the way we can buy third party accessories now from places other than an Apple store.

And btw, XBox developers can sell their own games from any store they wish, even their own website.

This is like forceing Coca Cola to allow anyone to sell their Cheap-Cola inside the Coca Cola bottle!

No, we've already bought the Coke bottle (iPhone).

Now we want to be able to use it to hold a different drink, which we can because the bottle now belongs to us.

It's amazing how many posters act as if Apple still owns the phone they bought. Maybe those who think like that, shouldn't be allowed to resell it anywhere they wish, either.

Nothing quite like willing servants to a megacorporation.

 

[I7guy]

That's a reasonable position. I have no problem with Apple building up their huge software distribution platform in the App Store and I agree they can charge whatever they want for it. The issue I have is them disallowing people to obtain apps by other means. The App Store could be the greatest thing since sliced bread and if that's the case it will win out in the marketplace. The issue is when they take action to suppress competition to their store. Let the market decide what the best distribution model is rather than using antitrust behavior to anoint the winner.

Or maybe the suit will get tossed and that will be that. Only that a suit was allowed, apple hasn't been found guilty in a court of law. It's going to be hard to prove damages and probably easy to prove it's protecting the public, while compensating developers.

Or maybe Judge Green will try the case and break up apple.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

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.

I was in complete agreement with you until you decided that the plaintiffs must be 'commies'...! Sorry, this is more a case of just plain old greed. Because the motivation for this suit is not fairness, or an open platform, it is greedy lawyers and plaintiffs hoping to make a buck. And I really don't doubt that somewhere in there is an instigating party such as a competitor. Security is one of the unassailable remaining advantages which iOS has over Android -- and as long as the platform is controlled BY Apple, it will remain secure. Android, on the other hand, will never be secure, because anyone can create an app and sideload onto phones.

 

[b0fh666]

Truth.

This is the worst kind of analogy we're seeing, acting as if iPhones would forced to run Android apps or something.

The phones will still be using iOS apps. But you'd be able to get ones that Apple doesn't sell from their own store. Just like the way we can buy third party accessories now from places other than an Apple store.

And btw, XBox developers can sell their own games from any store they wish, even their own website.

No, we've already bought the Coke bottle (iPhone).

Now we want to be able to use it to hold a different drink, which we can because the bottle now belongs to us.

It's amazing how many posters act as if Apple still owns the phone they bought. Maybe those who think like that, shouldn't be allowed to resell it anywhere they wish, either.

Nothing quite like willing servants to a megacorporation.

stockholm syndhrome.

 

[CE3]

Truth.

This is the worst kind of analogy we're seeing, acting as if iPhones would forced to run Android apps or something.

The phones will still be using iOS apps. But you'd be able to get ones that Apple doesn't sell from their own store. Just like the way we can buy third party accessories now from places other than an Apple store.

And btw, XBox developers can sell their own games from any store they wish, even their own website.

No, we've already bought the Coke bottle (iPhone).

Now we want to be able to use it to hold a different drink, which we can because the bottle now belongs to us.

It's amazing how many posters act as if Apple still owns the phone they bought. Maybe those who think like that, shouldn't be allowed to resell it anywhere they wish, either.

Nothing quite like willing servants to a megacorporation.

Your analogies aren't so great either.
[doublepost=1484312673][/doublepost]

stockholm syndhrome.

I know, right?! We're all chained to that subpar App Store and the 5 good apps they have available.

 

[Defoler]

While I understand people not wanting to abide by apple only rules of what can or can not be on the app store, or their share in prices, from my experience with third party shops for apps on the android, those apps are mostly filled with spyware or many are stolen-copy versions of original games just with more intrusive ads.

Control of the market is bad, but with everyone can create some BS app which doesn't do what it say it does and be a front for a spyware, I fear more of apps I download than being under a monopoly of apps.

I will never get close to any third party store with zero testing and accountability for android, let alone for ios.
If only google put more control on the apps going into their store like apple...

 

[kdarling]

Your analogies aren't so great either.

At least they're accurate. The ones about running non-iOS apps, or about Apple being "forced" to do anything... other than create a setting to allow downloading from other sources... are NOT.

I know, right?! We're all chained to that subpar App Store and the 5 good apps they have available.

Right, the ones that Apple as Big Brother allows. Which includes tons of junk, just because Apple wanted to be able to claim so many available.

Now consider the existence of other stores, who could even concentrate on only providing fewer highly selected apps. Consumer and developers win because of better wares and easier discovery.

Alternative stores could also offer trial periods, incentives, etc. And even better payouts for developers.

 

[mikezmac]

Everyone just wants to sue Apple for way money. They do not have monopoly unless google goes under.

This is a shameless blatant money grab attempt