Because they care for their OS and probably do not place market share and wide adoption in the market place at the fastest pace possible by making it available to other OEM hardware manufacturers.
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
Because they care for their OS and probably do not place market share and wide adoption in the market place at the fastest pace possible by making it available to other OEM hardware manufacturers.
Sure, the bandwidth used up in searches isn't significant. But there's a human on the other end who has to take time out of his or her day to maintain the database severs, ensuring they stay up and operational. And last I checked, database administrators got paid pretty good salaries.
Wikipedia isn't a fair comparison at all as they're constantly begging for donations to keep running. Apple is a commercial business, doing things to generate profits.
Honestly, if you don't believe in Apple's whole user experience and think it's like "being in jail" -- then I don't see why you continue to use their products at all? You sound like you'd be far happier using the Android platform, where everything is wide open.
The fact is, some people here seem to be comparing smartphones to desktop or notebook computers. Of course Mac OS X allows anyone to code for it and you aren't limited to ONLY buying from its App Store! It's a *computer*, which means people have always had that expectation of it since the first personal computer existed. A phone is more of a device. At the end of the day, you buy one so you can use a selected cellular service's airwaves to make and take phone calls, and send and receive data. We've gotten so advanced with them that they're basically little computers inside. But if Apple thought they should replace the Mac, they'd let you plug full size monitors into HDMI ports on them and pair up full size keyboards and mice, add external hard drive storage and more.
I pretty much just need my phone to work. I want to hit a button and call someone, or hit a button and take an incoming call or text message, or still another one to snap a photo. I *do* see it as an advantage that Apple has spent tons of money and time doing R&D to figure out a good way to present all the features, and a system to distribute additional apps that guarantees they've been subject to some review. For everything else, I use a computer!
Wikipedia isn't a fair comparison at all as they're constantly begging for donations to keep running. Apple is a commercial business, doing things to generate profits.
Honestly, if you don't believe in Apple's whole user experience and think it's like "being in jail" -- then I don't see why you continue to use their products at all? You sound like you'd be far happier using the Android platform, where everything is wide open.
The fact is, some people here seem to be comparing smartphones to desktop or notebook computers. Of course Mac OS X allows anyone to code for it and you aren't limited to ONLY buying from its App Store! It's a *computer*, which means people have always had that expectation of it since the first personal computer existed. A phone is more of a device. At the end of the day, you buy one so you can use a selected cellular service's airwaves to make and take phone calls, and send and receive data. We've gotten so advanced with them that they're basically little computers inside. But if Apple thought they should replace the Mac, they'd let you plug full size monitors into HDMI ports on them and pair up full size keyboards and mice, add external hard drive storage and more.
I pretty much just need my phone to work. I want to hit a button and call someone, or hit a button and take an incoming call or text message, or still another one to snap a photo. I *do* see it as an advantage that Apple has spent tons of money and time doing R&D to figure out a good way to present all the features, and a system to distribute additional apps that guarantees they've been subject to some review. For everything else, I use a computer!
There is no 100% security with any apps on any OS however there are ways to make systems more secure and one of those ways is through vetting applications and using a closed system. How can they continue to do this (proficiently) with multiple other app stores that are available from anywhere on the internet?
I can argue that Smart Phones now carry more information about a person than a PC might simply because people use them more. This means more vulnerabilities and more information to be compromised. Applications are installed in your system meaning they could potentially have more damaging capabilities than just browsing to a random website. That being said I'd at the least like Apple to ensure that it doesn't contain spam, malware, etc. It might not be the best security but at least it's something and it's better than just letting anybody in the world create an app and push it out for people to download.
Save for the parties involved in the discussions at Apple no one knows what kind of assessment these made for this scenarios. Perhaps they hired the best legal teams there are. Perhaps they made a mistake and hired the wrong people who didn't see this coming.
Steve Jobs was indeed against the idea and wanted any 3rd party app/ or utilitarian functionality to run within the browser if I recall correctly. His people convinced him to let developers in on it.
Perhaps they are fully aware that these lawsuits are the cost of doing business in our society and accepted that:
you try and build it, if you succeed, people will come with their hand out.
Our society and laws allow for this to happen. Some lawyers only exist to extract money forcefully by taking advantage of the system.
The only way out I see for an entity like Apple is to keep innovating.
Having something people want time and time again is the only way to survive.
But isn't this all a big waste? The burden on our courts and the creators is unfair and the doing of ignorant/ selfish people who have never built anything in their lives.
[doublepost=1484333873][/doublepost]By the way, you can buy an iPhone and actually just use it as a phone.
Well Apple and Android took different a different approach and we ended up in the same spot with Apps costing nothing anyway in both cases. The lower cost was going to materialize anyway as demand and competition in the App Development business did its job. People collectively drove the prices down the ground because that's all everyone is interested in: money.
I'd like to read why you think Samsung, Microsoft and Blackberry mobile OS did not take off.
Why aren't the developers not flocking to them to create content: build and they will come, right?
It turns out, a clientele and user base does not just appear out of nowhere.
You can manufacture cool. You have to build it.
And now these people want to use anti-trust laws to waste Apple's time and money so they can get paid?
Why didn't they even buy an Apple device and why didn't return it when they found out they could not source apps away from the App Store? They own the physical electronics object but not its software.
They are not being shortchanged either. They bought it to use as a phone perhaps, maybe? Well then can. An iPhone works perfectly fine without adding any app or 3rd party content to it.
These people would sue McD for not allowing them to bring in someone else's ingredients and asking the McD kitchen to make them a burger like they saw on McD ads using those ingredients.
And if it tastes like puke, they will prob. sue McD for that too (for endangering their health, welfare, lost revenue and/ or for allowing to happen, you know minimum and reasonable expectations and all... ).
This is such BS.
They can lower the prices from "Free"? One of the problems with the App Store is you CAN'T RAISE prices to the point where an individual developer-- not a corporation doing it as a form of advertising or user recruitment-- can survive. This is ********.
The majority of your text can be answered by:
The owner takes the risk.
A warning given when someone installs an app from a 3rd party App Store will be sufficient.
Its called "Personal Responsibility". Don't blame Apple if you ignore the warnings.
If indeed the courts rule against Apple, Apple will quite simply have to suck it up and accept the ruling. This applies to any other company in the same position.
The owner takes the risk.
A warning given when someone installs an app from a 3rd party App Store will be sufficient.
Its called "Personal Responsibility". Don't blame Apple if you ignore the warnings.
If indeed the courts rule against Apple, Apple will quite simply have to suck it up and accept the ruling. This applies to any other company in the same position.
Last edited:
It's precisely because of Apple's perceived quality achievements and their related, actual financial success that makes them a target. When an individual or entity becomes successful, their work, their property rights, become eligible to be seized. The years of work and risk involved become secondary to the whims and wants of consumers, competitors and others.
Personal responsibility is great but what happens when Joe Shmoe decides to download "Hacked App X" from some random app store and it then compromises his iPhone. Now maybe Joe decides to send an iMessage to another iPhone user and then their phone is compromised. Think it's far fetched? It's not.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more people download applications for their smart phones than applications for their PCs. Let's see....we've got banking information, credit card info (Applepay), personal details on social media, schooling and the list goes on. Many people are ignorant or just don't care when it comes to information security. Why should I (or anyone else) have information at risk because they want "more places to download the same app?".
That's what you said, not what i said.
No this is a civil lawsuit; Apple isn't under criminal investigation.
Still I thought you'd refrain from hyperbole.
Another can of worms.
Nope that's not it, if you read my posts; I'm against interference unless it's against the law, which is why I want Apple to prevail... not because of change.
Your iMessage example is far fetched.
Unless iMessage is already vulnerable, it is highly unlikely that an Application could be installed or executed on someone's phone via iMessage.
Since its possible to send iMessages without an iOS device, the venerability is already wide open, and wouldn't need a 3rd party appStore to abuse this security risk.
Unless iMessage is already vulnerable, it is highly unlikely that an Application could be installed or executed on someone's phone via iMessage.
Since its possible to send iMessages without an iOS device, the venerability is already wide open, and wouldn't need a 3rd party appStore to abuse this security risk.
Last edited:
That's the whole point of the lawsuit - to determine if Apple complied with anti-trust law. No one knows yet in this particular case.
Warnings are not legally binding in the vast majority of cases you can think of.
[doublepost=1484337948][/doublepost]
100%
I agree with this. Apple as a matter of policy forbids many apps for any number of reasons (some legitimate, some probably not). I bought my device and I know that this means I have agreed, but as a consumer I'd like to have the option for non-Apple-approved apps on my phone. Allow competing stores to install the competing apps in a sandbox and limit the way they can interact with the phone (no dialing out unless I specifically allow it within Apple's controls, etc.).
Yes, this will inevitably lead to scandalous headlines and more lawsuits ("Apple let my phone call Burma 300 times! All I installed was a flashlight app!") but customers should have the right to shoot themselves in the foot. Also, the iOS is getting kinda stagnant. This will help.
or a user downloads an app (s)he thinks is for an advertised purpose when in reality the app does something else in the background.
No one can stand the Android fragmentation and yet the very users who should know better want to destroy it all and introduce it to iOS.
Why should this fall back on Apple to deal with after they are forced to alter THEIR business strategy for THEIR product?
Last edited:
And then security goes down the toilet, and people sue Apple for not protecting them from their own stupidity.
Instead of coming up with another bogus analogy, just try using actual names, and you'll see immediately that the answer is no. In your case, that would be something like: "So does this mean I can sue Apple for not selling Android apps?" Obviously not.
Look folks, no wacky analogies are needed. It's really quite simple to understand:
Nobody is demanding that Apple sell anything.
Instead, they want Apple to allow users to get iOS apps from places other than just Apple. That's all.
--
For example, I might want to create some family apps and mail them to my family and friends to use, or let them download from my private webserver. But I don't want to pay $100 a year forever to Apple to let them have access to those apps. Nor do I want them visible to everyone in the world.
(I did this all the time for WinMo, BB and Palm Pre apps.)
Last edited:
Please show us something you need you cannot currently find in the App Store.
You are saying it's about the principle? Why should I have to deal with increased UI and functionality clutter and complexity in iOS because a small portion of users feel they are entitled to dictate how Apple should make their own product work?
And no, people should not be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot because morons will.
Should we allow people to drive without a seatbelt?
Because their actions or inactions don't affect just them: it would affect others who are bystanders.
Same with iOS. How would you like it if your phone's content were uploaded without your knowledge because your brother in law sent you something that infected your device from his compromised phone (with him knowing or not)?
In Apple's case, if Apple allowed it, they would be liable for damages.
You need to try phones different from the iPhone, then you might understand, otherwise you might sound ignorant ( as to ignore how it works not as an insult).
There are different stores on android and they work seamlessly!
App from a different store do not need to be a difficult to install nor b cheaper, but can be better because they do not have to comply to what Apple want..For example app that replicate their own.
Choices are good.....But I am sure Apple thought you the opposite!
Last edited:
We know that.
People who think that's acceptable are conveniently ignoring many other factors at play here.
It's simplistic and wrong to think it's ok.
[doublepost=1484338764][/doublepost]
Exactly.
Ha yeah well I purposely chose Apple over the "others" for my current devices and have no desire to use the others. I did have options to pick from. Also I have never had an issue finding a decent app in that massive app store to suite my needs. Typically there are a LOT of different ones to choose from too that do what I am looking for. So there are choices with Apple as well.
And Apple didn't teach me anything about choices. Its crystal clear they started a closed ecosystem back when this all started and folks CHOSE to buy into that knowing that. Now they want to complain and sue because they "think" it shouldn't be that way. Well too bad. When you guys start your own companies you can choose what your business model will be and folks can either accept it and buy your products or not and buy your competitors products. THAT is what choice is about my friend.
Last edited:
Did it ever occur to you that Apple could simple also not implement the code and thus features faster? There is only so much a human can code in a day, ... and also the initial iPhone and iPad silicon was rather limited in term of available CPU and GPU cycles to run things smoothly.
[doublepost=1484340020][/doublepost]
Apples review will usually not spot this "thing in the background" in the first place. Usually such apps where in the store for months or year until some clever user or security researcher spotted the issue.
Also if you are malware gangster: would you not write your evil app in a way that it does not do the evil thin in Apples review?
Of course.
And in that case, no amount of 3rd party stores or code would have fixed those limitations.
Now how many other more powerful hardware devices are there out there while Apple devices still offer a safer/ cleaner experience with less?
Everything is consensus-driven and choices must be made to protect their interests.
And all those things are business decisions made by Apple.
Your buying and using their products is an acceptance of their terms and choices.
Don't you remember Nokia selling 50 different phone models and not one that did everything which forced consumers to give up features vs. others?
The market place will take care of all of this. If Apple is no longer good, it will fail.
Many tried to rise against it and people are voting with their feet and wallet.
I'd love a smarter and better alternative to Google and Apple. Why not, right?
But in the present state of affairs, I much much prefer the choices Apple are making, even if they feel slower.
As for the evil intent, you are right. However you would then be limited by the inherent protections in place in the OS. iOS does a much a better job.
Also, the bottleneck devs. complain about is with humans reviewing the apps. Its still pretty quick (about a week) and much better now than it used to be. The reaction time to offending apps has also been considerably shortened.
Last edited:
Actually its not a bad analogy, its just one you don't like. McDonalds is closer to my home but sometimes I want a Whopper.
If that's what you want, jail break your phone and create all the app you wants on that store. But that's not what you want, people like you want to create a space where no oversight exists and any numbskull who wants to data mine can create fake apps which cause all sorts of problems...
http://mashable.com/2014/12/31/interview-android-app/#HpSczwm46iqE
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/10/fake-android-antivirus-app-developer-virus-shield
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/18/beware-the-fake-pokemon-go-apps/
And the list goes on and on with Android/google store. Sorry, but I don't need or want that environment so quit pretending your somehow legit.