Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[Jsameds]

Following this argument maybe Apple should also start review websites, and only allow the known good ones so you and your iDevice are not damaged by evil / malicious sites! As HTML/CSS/Javascript could 0day hack into your whole phone this is a security disaster waiting to happen! Get some more censors, fast !!

They could do, but websites are out of Apple's jurisdiction so they best they can do is tighten the security of the browser. What they can also do is make sure 3rd party browsers don't contain any exploits that could obtain system access.

They could do this by, oh I don't know, vetting and reviewing all 3rd party apps using a walled garden approach, for example.

 

[kdarling]

I don't think that's what the issue is.

To you and anyone else who is confused:

The issue is over being able to load iOS apps from outside the Apple App Store.

--

The case was initially allowed, then later disallowed because Apple argued that they did sell the apps themselves, but only acted as a place where developers rent space.

This recent decision goes back to the original decision that Apple sells the apps themselves, and therefore can be sued.

 

[dk001]

Political nonsense.

Okay .... where does the "politics" weigh in?

 

[kdarling]

Wrong. My personal position on this issue does not impede (or attempt to impede) upon the choices of other people make whatsoever. I'm not Apple, and this has been their app distribution system since July 2008.

Ah, okay. So you're simply siding with Apple, but would not object to anyone else having the option?

 

[canadianreader]

It doesn't make sense to me. It's gonna make the iPhone less secure for sure
[doublepost=1484322382][/doublepost]

Okay .... where does the "politics" weigh in?

Justice has always been the arena of politicians where they can legalize their agenda

 

[kdarling]

It doesn't make sense to me. It's gonna make the iPhone less secure for sure

Having apps in the first place already made it "less secure" than before.

 

[NoahK17]

In response, Apple removes the App Store for everyone and goes back to Web Apps only in iOS 11.

 

[ReneR]

They could do, but websites are out of Apple's jurisdiction so they best they can do is tighten the security of the browser. What they can also do is make sure 3rd party browsers don't contain any exploits that could obtain system access.

They could do this by, oh I don't know, vetting and reviewing all 3rd party apps using a walled garden approach, for example.

Why are websites our of Apple's "jurisdiction" (is Apple a government with courts now?) and Apps are? With your logic, why should they not vet websites for the iOS platform and only allow the known good ones in Safari?

Also that you think they can "make sure 3rd party browser don't contain any exploits" is more than wishful thinking. They have neither the source to read, review machine code is even harder, and they do not even spent the time or money to do so at al.

Heck, they can not even 100% guarantee and make sure their own browser does not contain exploits that could allow for more system level access as demonstrated by the many security exploits and even web based jailbreaking in the past.

 

[dk001]

In addition, Apple takes on the costs of distribution. How many TB of data transfer do you think it takes for those hundreds of thousands of downloads of a popular 1GB game?

The other cost people don't pay is marketing. With the App Store, you have a single stop where your app can be found. One of the biggest problems developers face with desktop apps is getting their product found. It'd hard to be seen when you're a small developer trying to rank well in Google search. But with the App Store that changes. It's a single place to be found.

Imagine trying to get your product found these days if you're not at Target or on Amazon. It's hard. The App Store is like an Amazon for apps. It's a real blessing for us developers.

Nice in theory, poor in practice. Unless you are an Apple darling app or have become a "trending" app, your chance of discovery is pretty much nil. It is like Amazon in a way. However, in Amazon the search algorithms work. App Store? Not so much.

 

[Jsameds]

why are websites our of the "jurisdiction" (is Apple a government with courts now?) and apps are? With your logic, why should they not vet websites for the iOS platform and only allow the known good ones in Safari?

Because apple vet, review, host and distribute the apps, they do not host the internet.

Also that you think they can "make sure 3rd party browser don't contain any exploits" is more than wishful thinking. They have neither the source to read, review machine code is even harder, and they do not even spent the time or money to do so at al.

Yes, I do think that. They can heavily restrict what apps are able to do and what they have access to.

Heck, they can not even 100% guarantee and make sure their own browser does not contain exploits that could allow for more system level access as demonstrated by the many security exploits and even web based jailbreaking in the past.

No they can't, which is why I said the best they can do is tighten the security of the browser.

Nothing is 100% secure, but I'll take 99% secure over 98%.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

My first thought when they unveiled the appstore & this policy was, that anti-trust case against MS over Internet Explorer hangs like a shadow over this whole thing. They must figure its worth the risk.

 

[Defthand]

They can sue, but it's not going to change Apple's position, and, like you said, most people feel the pros of their closed system outweigh the cons.

If people want these apps so bad they can jailbreak their phones. The rest of us shouldn't have to potentially deal with crap like this to accommodate them.

The question remains, why can’t Apple’s mobile OS operate like its desktop OS, which offers more freedom for users and marketers and has proven secure for prudent users? The answer is that it can but Apple is exploiting your paranoia. Ultimately, you should only consider reputable apps that have a track record of legitimacy. Even then, the exploits that users worry about are typically ones that they agreed to when they signed the app’s user agreement. Regardless what assurance Apple’s certification may offer, if you agree to some social networking’s app policy to forfeit your privacy, you created your own dilemma.

Jailbreaking a phone is not a reasonable solution. Apple’s contract--again, here’s their controlling hand at work--forbids it, and they will routinely issue patches that disable the latest hacks. The solution, in a country like ours, is personal choice and responsibility. If you want more security, use Apple’s app store exclusively. If you want more choices and potentially better pricing—even at the risk of malicious code--you should have the freedom to use your phone as you wish. And no, an Android phone is not a suitable compromise for people who have invested big $$$ in Apple’s other products and want a cohesive experience.

 

[dk001]

You obviously don't understand the point of what was posted.

One study found that 20% of Android apps steal data.

Just a couple months ago more than 1 million Google accounts were stolen by malware apps and 86 apps available in third-party marketplaces can root 74 percent of Android phones. And that was just one instance.

Yes, stuff occasionally gets through the Apple review process, but it's far better than the lack of review we see on the Android side.

What does that have to do with the topic? You are describing differences in vetting vs. alternative app stores. Most users of Android never turn on "Unknown Sources".
Compare it instead to the Mac App Store and the ability to load outside of that. Closer relevance.
[doublepost=1484323040][/doublepost]

Sooo this makes as much sense and me during Sony because I can't play an Xbox game on it. I own the PS4 they should open it up so I can download a game from anywhere....wtf

So you are limited to games only via the Sony Store?

 

[jeffg819]

Is this really so hard to understand? There are absolutely NO alternatives to buying IOS(!!!!) apps other than Apple's own app store. With the large market that Apple owns, this IS a problem for customers because there is no competition.

The comparison with IOS vs Android has abolutely nothing to do with it.

Now imagine a world where Windows applications could only be bought from Microsoft. You would be screaming havoc -- even though there are the Mac and Linux. But the fact that there are other operating systems doesn't really help the majority of Windows users, does it?

This lawsuit against Apple is long overdue.

Then don't buy the phone. Simple.

 

[ReneR]

Because apple vet, review, host and distribute the apps, they do not host the internet.

A mood argument when Safari provides access to web applications and services your vetting and censorship arguments apply just the same. If you want security they need to vet it too.

Yes, I do think that. They can heavily restrict what apps are able to do and what they have access to.

Sideloaded apps are still sandboxed and protected mode controlled by the OS. Third party apps can still not just do anything. If they ask for the microphone the microphone enable question will pop up etc. Nothing at all that stands in a way for security.

No they can't, which is why I said the best they can do is tighten the security of the browser.

Nothing is 100% secure, but I'll take 99% secure over 98%.

Your numbers are really silly. You must be living in such a nanny nation if by your own numbers you rather trade in just 1% security over all freedom and flexibility.

While I would guess different numbed, I still would rather have freedom and flexibility and trading in a few more of your security percentage points.

If people like you run the world, the future will be a brave new world where nothing is allowed, and all freedom is taken away from us.

PS: and again, what is wrong with choice? nobody forces you to enable some hypothetical third part app store option in the settings, ..!

 

[Jsameds]

Then don't buy the phone. Simple.

Take that common sense out of here, Macrumours users will not tolerate this filth!

 

[CE3]

Ah, okay. So you're simply siding with Apple, but would not object to anyone else having the option?

My point is that the choice to keep the system closed was already made, and people have been buying into that closed system since 2008 (including you apparently, or why else would you be in this discussion thread). I didn't make that choice, and my personal opinion that the current system is working for me doesn't mean I'm trying to make choices for others. If you don't like it, jailbreak, move to Android, or sue Apple and see what happens...because now you can.

My hope is that Apple's priority is to make their devices as safe and secure for their customers as possible. That's where I side. If modifying iOS code to accommodate the needs of a few compromises security for everyone, then yes, I object to that.

 

[ReneR]

Then don't buy the phone. Simple.

It is not so simple, as mentioned some hundreds post earlier people may need iOS for one app or workflow. Also many normal users do not know about such limitation. In fact I know many normal users who are unhappy with their iPhone in one software way or the other, and are really confused by the restrictions they do not understand.

Right now many only continue to buy iPhones because a) they are used to it and b) fashion.

That iPhones sell does not mean that Apple can not do better by allowing some evolution and revolutionary development.

 

[Moorepheus]

I just had to reply to this one.

If a Porsche (or any automobile) is still under manufacturer's warranty, while you can service it at an independent mechanic, you cannot "tinker [with] it" nor can you install custom engine performance profiles on it (other than those available at and installed by an authorized dealer, if any) without potentially voiding the manufacturer's warranty. If an issue arises that could potentially have been caused by these unauthorized tweaks, manufacturer may at its discretion declare the warranty null and void or, at a minimum, deny the dealer's claim for any related repair (which means the dealer won't perform the repair).

You are right, you can't do those things w/out voiding the warranty. That's not the argument here. Anyone with any car can go to any performance shop they want and install anything they want on their cars, it's theirs, they purchased it (unless it's a lease or rental, of course). Will they forgo a warranty claim, possible, but here in the US we are protected against that too, the dealer must provide PROOF that the modification caused the issue that is being requested to be fixed under warranty. If you take your car in for a radio that stopped working and you only put an exhaust on your car, they can't deny the claim, that's against the law. With the iPhone, you don't have that choice, other than JAIL BREAKING it. And I guess that's the point, why do we have to JAIL BREAK an iPhone that you own, to do things you want to do, it is at your own risk. Personally, if there were 50 apps stores, I would only probably use apples, only because of the level of security they provide.

But to each their own, I personally think this is a good thing for consumers, you may not, and that is ok too.

 

[sbailey4]

How is that different from 2000 with Microsoft Office monopoly? If you don like it don't buy and use it in your company? Well, have fun when every document you got was a Microsoft Office document, ... Actually the problem still exist today, and you tell us to "just buy something else"?

There are many reasons why someone ends up with an iDevice, be it some software, some workflow, whatever. And after paying good loads of $$$ they can not even use it like it is their own.

There are options other than MS Office to open office documents. So non-issue there and has zero to do with this topic. And why cant you use your device like its your own? Simply because the apps that were made for it are distributed via the app store? Notice distributed not made by. Individual developers make the apps Apple just distributes them via their store. So having 2 stores would somehow make things better? And again the ecosystem is well known before you purchase Apple products. So yeah if a more open system is what you prefer then don't purchase Apple get Android instead. Rather than buying into the Apple ecosystem THEN complaining and suing because you decided you don't like the rules or what you signed up for.

 

[jeffg819]

Why should I as a developer be forced to give apple 30% of my sales?

Why should I as a user be limited to what I load on my device?

Why should anyone buy something else if they like the glossy rounded rectangle most?

1. Don't develop for iPhone. Stick to the other markets.
2. Because it's the deal that you faced when you purchased the hardware. Don't like it, don't buy it.
3. Seems loading from wherever is more important to you. Get an Android.

This is not about price. This is about people not wanting to play by the rules so they can screw up for their own individual benefit what is a working ecosystem for millions of users.

 

[Defthand]

stop spending your cash on Apple or any other product that you don't happen like their policies and rules.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Smartphones are ubiquitous. They have become a necessity with consumers. What if all phone manufacturers had policies that prevented you from bargaining? If one company is allowed to, the rest can too. In a free market, companies won’t typically conspire to rig the game, but consumer laws are still needed as insurance.

 

[paul4339]

To you and anyone else who is confused:

The issue is over being able to load iOS apps from outside the Apple App Store.

--

The case was initially allowed, then later disallowed because Apple argued that they did sell the apps themselves, but only acted as a place where developers rent space.

This recent decision goes back to the original decision that Apple sells the apps themselves, and therefore can be sued.

... furthermore, the original decision (that was reversed) was dealing price competition and higher prices due to monopoly, not other reasons such as product choice, security, etc.

 

[ReneR]

There are options other than MS Office to open office documents. So non-issue there and has zero to do with this topic. And why cant you use your device like its your own? Simply because the apps that were made for it are distributed via the app store? Notice distributed not made by. Individual developers make the apps Apple just distributes them via their store. So having 2 stores would somehow make things better? And again the ecosystem is well known before you purchase Apple products. So yeah if a more open system is what you prefer then don't purchase Apple get Android instead. Rather than buying into the Apple ecosystem THEN complaining and suing because you decided you don't like the rules or what you signed up for.

Even today Libre and Open Office can not deal with all complex M$ Office documents flawlessly.

Also it is not that Apple educate each user before purchase that you can not freely load software on your iPad. There are no big warning signs, or Apple Store genius disclaimers. I know from many friend and family discussions that most are rather surprised by the situation way after purchase.

Heck, some even wanted to load their photoshop or m$ office on their iPad, ...

 

[LuckyBubba]

The court has gone mad - okay, now it's time to make two phones: A phone for me where security is important and a phone for all the complainers with no security. Go purchase an Android, the complainers have a choice - just go the f k away.