Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[neutralguy]

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

I don't get this analogy at all. Nobody is saying Apple should allow android apps to be installed on iPhone. Does Sony force you to buy al the games from Sony store or you can go to any store and buy a PS4 games based on the competitive pricing?

It's one thing to be an apple fan, but at least think logically.

 

[ReneR]

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.

15 years ago we Mac users advocated the use of Macs because they were just so great, open and standard conforming (come in, find your way of Mac).

Nowadays the new Apple fans just wants to send everyone away who does not agree with their closed view of the world instead of listening to other's people opinion (don't like it go to Android).
[doublepost=1484324553][/doublepost]

15 years ago we Mac users advocated the use of Macs because they were just so great, open and standard conforming (come in, find your way of Mac).

Nowadays the new Apple fans just wants to send everyone away who does not agree with their closed view of the world instead of listening to other's people opinion (don't like it go to Android).

PS: do you not see the pattern? You want to forbid us things, limit our way of using the product; force us go elsewhere (Android) while we do not want to force you do anything, only ask for more open flexibility, that you would not be forced to actually make use of!

 

[sbailey4]

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)

Help me understand, if developer Joey creates a Weather app. How does having it on the app store available to millions of users verses on BillyBobs app store any different? Maybe BillyBob wont charge the $.29 cent fee and only charge the developer $.19 (20% not 30%). But how many potential sells with BillyBobs store have verses Apples? And how will that make it any better for you, the end user? If you get the app, whether you got it from Apples store or BillyBobs store how does that matter in the least to the end user? And if getting it from BillyBob store you have to jump through hoops to install it verses pressing an icon right on your device, how would that be better? Talk about "defending the undefendable".......

 

[jeffg819]

15 years ago we Mac users advocated the use of Macs because they were just so great, open and standard conforming (come in, find your way of Mac).

Nowadays the new Apple fans just wants to send everyone away who does not agree with their closed view of the world instead of listening to other's people opinion (don't like it go to Android).

I listened to your opinion and I think it's wrong. You want to force a private enterprise to conform to your particular desires because they are not doing things the way you want.

What we have here is a mind closed to the IP driven economics of what went into the iPhone and its ecosystem, closed to the idea that maybe millions find value in Apple's curation of the App Store, and closed to the possibility that the world is full of trade offs, this being one of them.

I think I am immeasurably better off with the current setup and I find nothing of value in the argument that I'm paying more for software than I should.

 

[MrX8503]

Each download is a risk. As each malicious App can an will slip thru Apple's review it makes it not more secure.

Everything is a risk. Getting out of bed is a risk. What I'm saying is the AppStore is more secure.

You calling something a wasteland does not actually make one. When was Mac OS application download and install a wasteland?

Is each democracy a wasteland until a proper dictator comes and long with proper censorship and state surveillance?

Actually the Mac app scene was a wasteland prior to the Mac App Store. Now you have many Mac Devs that actually put in the effort.

 

[ReneR]

I listened to your opinion and I think it's wrong. You want to force a private enterprise to conform to your particular desires because they are not doing things the way you want.

What we have here is a mind closed to the IP driven economics of what went into the iPhone and its ecosystem, closed to the idea that maybe millions find value in Apple's curation of the App Store, and closed to the possibility that the world is full of trade offs, this being one of them.

I think I am immeasurably better off with the current setup and I find nothing of value in the argument that I'm paying more for software than I should.

I find it a basic human right to load software on their personal computer as they like.

If this trends continues and you can no longer load third party software on your future macOS you may start to see the point.

And what should Windows PC users say if the SecureBoot locks out future installs of Linux or other alternative systems? Or Apple no longer allows installing Windows, or running "emulators" like VMware or Parallels on future macOS versions?

That companies like Apple start to tread the sold computing devices like they still own it is a scandal.

You think you are better of, while nobody would force you to enable the 3rd party install option. And you do not even know what revolution you are missing in all the Apps that are not even developed because Apple does not allow them. There are so many jailbreak or even AppStore example that Apple later shamelessly copied into their OS (nightshift et al.).
[doublepost=1484325953][/doublepost]

Everything is a risk. Getting out of bed is a risk. What I'm saying is the AppStore is more secure.



Actually the Mac app scene was a wasteland prior to the Mac App Store. Now you have many Mac Devs that actually put in the effort.

This is disgusting how you speak about the respectful Mac developer community and companies. Especially those who sticked with Apple thru their near bankruptcy only to be insulted by you like this.

And btw. the best, big and productivity Apps are not even in the AppStore. Because Apple's rules would not even allow. And even AutoCAD LT, which was advertised by Apple as such a big vendor joining, is no longer in the AppStore, ...

 

[sbailey4]

I don't get this analogy at all. Nobody is saying Apple should allow android apps to be installed on iPhone. Does Sony force you to buy al the games from Sony store or you can go to any store and buy a PS4 games based on the competitive pricing?

It's one thing to be an apple fan, but at least think logically.

So logically thinking, if there is an app that Joey developer created, what difference does it make where you the end user get the app from? How does getting it from store 1 or store 2 make any difference? Maybe its only 89 cents verses 99 cents? What if Joey wants 99 cents for his app no matter where its distributed from? What if its a free app?

 

[cmwade77]

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

I disagree, look at Android as a prime example of how they allow other app stores. They allow installation from unknown sources, but when you enable the feature that allows it they popup a warning letting you know that the apps may be less secure or cause device problems. Ultimately this policy has led to lower costs for consumers, because they can either sell directly or potentially use other app stores that take a smaller cut.

Apple could offer the same ability with a similar warning, it wouldn't be hard and it would solve the problem. Competition is never a bad thing.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

That makes all macOS users few geeks faced with serious implications, because they can install programs from anywhere they want.

When next fake flash installation wave hits Apple gets to collect all the "rewards".

 

[HyperFall]

Fantastic, just what the App Store needs - lower prices

What an idiotic law suit. Developers receive 70%-85% of the revenue passing through the store and they control the pricing so how on earth can this be deemed a monopoly...

[doublepost=1484328678][/doublepost]

 

[Stella]

The appstore is what made the iPhone the killer device. Yes Apple could open up iOS, but I don't want that to water down the AppStore and affect me.

There was an open market on Windows Mobile back in the day and it was a wasteland.

There's no reason why the Apple AppStore would be watered down. Apple can keep the same as is today.

 

[tech3475]

One possible option for Apple is something similar to console/pc gaming where keys can be sold elsewhere but still run through the app store.

I don't know how the courts would take it, but it's a common practice elsewhere.

 

[Stella]

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

???

But it wouldn't need two phones. it just needs software to support 3rd party downloads. Let the user make the choice of which AppStores they'd like to use.

 

[Rocco83]

People that are cheering this are absolute morons. Any time something like this happens, the only people who win, or get paid, are lawyers.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

15 years ago we Mac users advocated the use of Macs because they were just so great, open and standard conforming (come in, find your way of Mac).

Nowadays the new Apple fans just wants to send everyone away who does not agree with their closed view of the world instead of listening to other's people opinion (don't like it go to Android).
[doublepost=1484324553][/doublepost]

PS: do you not see the pattern? You want to forbid us things, limit our way of using the product; force us go elsewhere (Android) while we do not want to force you do anything, only ask for more open flexibility, that you would not be forced to actually make use of!

15 years ago security was not a big concern. Openness was.

Today: Apple has an ecosystem. So does Android. So does Amazon (as an Android derivative). Some are more 'open' than others. Some are more secure than others. Both users and developers have a lot of platform choice. Buy the one that fits your needs. Apple fits mine. Android fits my SO's. Neither is good/bad or better/worse. All have competition.

Why is this even an issue?

 

[dk001]

...

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?
...

I have. Or tried to. Of all the licensing agreements I have read, Apple's comes out at pretty much the top of legalese incomprehensibility.

 

[kdarling]

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.

Fair enough.

And if it does not compromise security for everyone, then you have no objections to having the choice?

(It's amazing how many people are actually arguing that iOS is so insecure that allowing unvetted apps would compromise their entire phone. This does not speak well at all about how people perceive iOS.)

Then don't buy the phone. Simple.

Love it or leave it, eh?

Many times in the past we've gone through this same type of scenario, where Apple does not (yet) support something, and there's always a group that claims it should never be allowed.

And yet when that feature does come, all of a sudden it's okay. You'd think everyone would learn by now.

A lot of us like our Apple gear, but we want it to be even better. It's because of that consumer demand, that iDevices have gotten a lot of features that didn't exist before.

 

[TechGeek76]

??? You did not really understand the previous analogies.

If your grocery store does not sell your example gold I can go to your next example gold store.

Can I go with my iPhone to the next virtual AppStore?

Ah, ic, that is where your example falls flat, .... bummer.

It fell flat with a stupid analogy.

 

[I7guy]

Fair enough.

And if it does not compromise security for everyone, then you have no objections to having the choice?

(It's amazing how many people are actually arguing that iOS is so insecure that allowing unvetted apps would compromise their entire phone. This does not speak well at all about how people perceive iOS.)



Love it or leave it, eh?

Many times in the past we've gone through this same type of scenario, where Apple does not (yet) support something, and there's always a group that claims it should never be allowed.

And yet when that feature does come, all of a sudden it's okay. You'd think everyone would learn by now.

A lot of us like our Apple gear, but we want it to be even better. It's because of that consumer demand, that iDevices have gotten a lot of features that didn't exist before.

Nobody is saying "it" shouldn't be allowed. At least what I'm saying is Apple should be free to run their business within the law. This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit and I hope Apple prevails. Similar to downgrading iOS versions.

And the last paragraph is basic hyperbole. "They were against it before they were for it"?

 

[Sam_S]

USA you continue to amuse the rest of the world...
[doublepost=1484331834][/doublepost]

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

Exactly!! There are so many examples of where tight controls are required to ensure that applications work as they should, don't damage the device etc.

If you can't justify $0.99 on an iPhone application you shouldn't have an iPhone.

 

[RichardF]

There's no reason why the Apple AppStore would be watered down. Apple can keep the same as is today.

Say Apple do indeed decide to allow the installation of Apps procured away from the App Store.

Who will handle the vetting process and the security?

Apple would also have to modify iOS to allow for this. Say they are crazy and allow it, what's in it for them?
Make their users happi----er? What would make the users happier? Lower prices or installing apps Apple won't allow. Let's brake that up: developers and the apps market strategy have moved away from the pay once and use. Everything is free with in-apps purchases, subscription or just plain free.
As soon as anyone can set-up shop, now developers don't have to deal with the approval process (which is there for a reason) or pay a cut to Apple for their platform/ distribution/ access to the clientele but they have to bear the burden of building, running and maintaining their own store if they don't want to use a 3rd party.
The problem is that developers are not in the distribution and security business. How many do actually want this?
And what happens to the end-user experience once there are dozens of App Stores to choose from?
Why add that layer of complexity and degrade the quality of the experience?

Who will people call when they have issues with their device?
Apple will say, not our app or store. Developers will say call Apple, my App is fine, I don't make iOS. The 3rd party App Store will say, hey we are just renting/ selling space to developers.

Why would anyone want that clustermess?

How can you quantify the damage inflicted to the Apple brand and the impact on sales then?
Who will shoulder that? The scum lawyers who just wanted to get paid by bringing this forth?


This is a complete waste.

People who think this means freedom of choice have very low standards and expectations of quality if they can't see the quality of the work Apple has done to create what exists today and which others have copied.

What I don't understand is why people buy into the offering and then criticize it?
Ignorance? In 2017 how can you not now what you are getting into when you buy an iPhone?
And don't you know you can return it for a full refund if you didn't, did find out and disagreed?



If you were Apple, how would you feel if this were happening to what YOU have built?????
How many business owners in the room? Raise your hand!
[doublepost=1484332124][/doublepost]

I have. Or tried to. Of all the licensing agreements I have read, Apple's comes out at pretty much the top of legalese incomprehensibility.

Keep at it. You read anything complicated/ different from what you have been doing day in and day out for 3 decades, it will seem incomprehensible.

Have you ever looked at biochemistry, mechanical engineering, quantum physics, math, a $1B M&A transaction deal draft contract? etc. etc.

It's Apple's creation/ experience. They have the right to protect it from people wanting to take a shortcut and borrow the user-base they have done nothing themselves to build.

 

[kdarling]

Nobody is saying "it" shouldn't be allowed.

You must be reading a different forum, if you think nobody is saying an alternative store shouldn't be allowed.

At least what I'm saying is Apple should be free to run their business within the law.

What can be considered within the law, is what the lawsuit is about. We'll have to wait to see.

And the last paragraph is basic hyperbole. "They were against it before they were for it"?

Oh come on. Now you're losing any credibility. How long have you paid attention to Apple forums? There's always a group that argues against something until Apple does it. Always. From apps to wallpapers to larger displays.

The really ironic part is Jobs originally was against any third party apps at all. He claimed they would make the phone and network insecure. Just imagine if he'd never felt the pressure from customers and staff to allow them.

The idea of change makes a lot of people fearful. That's understandable, but it's the only way we progress.

 

[jujufreeze]

A question I always have, Microsoft lets Macs use Parallels to run Windows, why doesn't Apple let Windows PCs boot up MacOs?

 

[RichardF]

[...]
Love it or leave it, eh?

Many times in the past we've gone through this same type of scenario, where Apple does not (yet) support something, and there's always a group that claims it should never be allowed.

And yet when that feature does come, all of a sudden it's okay. You'd think everyone would learn by now.

A lot of us like our Apple gear, but we want it to be even better. It's because of that consumer demand, that iDevices have gotten a lot of features that didn't exist before.

The reasons why Apple has introduced features over time are strategic ones.

Say you come out with a product. What reasons will your clients have to buy another from you (assuming that's possible at all) if you make the perfect one from the get-go?


I have read your posts on this thread.

Could you tell us an example of an App or content you'd like to source and which you cannot find in the App Store?

If you are arguing your position in this matter for the sake of the intellectual argument only then, that's fine of course but you are conveniently ignoring Apple's right and business common sense to protect what they built while only focusing on the end user alleged "right" to do whatever they'd like with the physical object (property) they paid money for and which they own. They do not own the software. Use of the software requires understanding and agreement with the terms of its creator. No one knows this it seems. Of they do, why is it not important to anyone? Because they take it for granted, that's why.

Apple have a vested interest in this. We are not talking about a monopoly or dominant position in utilities and basic elements of life in society here. This is not about access to education, clean water, electricity, telecom or health care.

This is something no one is forcing anyone to buy into and for which they are alternative.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Though it would be nice.

 

[gbc204]

Have I been misunderstanding what a monopoly is all these years? Is the App Store so big that it's considered its own economy?