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
Well in theory maybe. But there aren't many apps you cannot get including other music apps and streaming apps and you can import music purchased elsewhere. But sure, if there is one certain app that maybe someone creates and Apple does not allow it, ok you have a small point. But I would bet there are 99 more of the same type of app that they do have that would suffice.
Not following your Firefox argument, I have Chrome, Firefox, Firefox Focus and Safari browsers on my device (hmm seems a bit overkill for a telephone come to think about it) I should probably remove about 3 of them
Bottom line is, it is what it is, and if that type of thing is what is most important for any user then they should consider alternatives to the Apple ecosystem not sue the company for the way they designed and sold it upfront.
Well in theory maybe. But there aren't many apps you cannot get including other music apps and streaming apps and you can import music purchased elsewhere. But sure, if there is one certain app that maybe someone creates and Apple does not allow it, ok you have a small point. But I would bet there are 99 more of the same type of app that they do have that would suffice.
Not following your Firefox argument, I have Chrome, Firefox, Firefox Focus and Safari browsers on my device (hmm seems a bit overkill for a telephone come to think about it) I should probably remove about 3 of them
Bottom line is, it is what it is, and if that type of thing is what is most important for any user then they should consider alternatives to the Apple ecosystem not sue the company for the way they designed and sold it upfront.
This where just examples. In each category there can be a startup who is doing things revolutionary more awesome and apple will simply not approve it.
Also all your browser use all the same iOS build-in UIWebView or WKWebView. As I mentioned over a hundred posts before they are only a UI shell with custom history, feature nobs and such. Simply because Apple is not allowing this party javascript engine Just-in-time compilers and such.
In the past third part apps even had to run with Apple's JavaScript JIT disabled and thus where always much slower than Safari. I heard that may be allowed with WKWebView now or whatever.
Bottom line: external developers are in all areas seriously hampered by Apple rules and approval process.
Why should users not sue Apple if they feel cheated? If my Corvette pollutes the environment more than specified, or the engine blows up after 10 miles and they refuse to repair it under warranty I certainly would also consider to sue them, ...
Why is Apple so different, holy that people should not sue them?
Suing Apple because the App Store is the only place you can buy apps is like suing the local mall because it's the only place you can buy a t-shirt at Hot Topic. It's ludicrous.
If you have only 10 apps on your iPhone maybe you should be fighting here Apples fight about allowing more apps or not.
Thinking there are no revolutions to implement is also naive. If Steve Jobs thought there is no revolution in mobile phones there never would have been an iPhone. If he had no vision to mix phones and PCs there would not have been an iPad. And nowadays Apple is preventing innovation with their dictating rules.
I once even uploaded an App into the AppStore only because I became tired of re-signing it each week when I wanted to use it myself, ... !!!
[doublepost=1484345786][/doublepost]
Yes another stupid analogy. Is your local mall the manufacturer of that t-shirt? Can we stop making stupid examples and discuss the case and point instead of your fashion choices?
Your cheap, insecure home automation plastic junk will be hacked straight thru your internet router, not thru your AppStore apps.
http://arstechnica.com/security/201...ws-from-notorious-mirai-infects-3500-devices/
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/botnet-broke-internet-isnt-going-away/
IoT security nightmare has nothing to do with App Store review.
Restaurants fall under very different laws than products manufacturers. We are talking about antitrust here...
But, To go with that analogy, we aren't talking about you not selling alcohol in your restaurant. We are talking about somehow making it so I can't walk to the bar across the street and have my gin and tonic after I ate a burger at your place. Perhaps you see me at that bar and you ban me from your restaurant as a result (as close as I can get, it's an unusual analogy)
I think it's perfectly fine that Apple restricts what They sell on their storefront. That's not the problem here in the lawsuit, if I understand correctly. The problem is I do not have another legitimate option on iOS because Apple has closed all of those doors. Perhaps for good reason, but that doesn't change it from having anticompetitive elements.
Last edited:
http://thehackernews.com/2016/10/mirai-botnet-iot-malware.html
It has happened in the past and will continue to do so in the future, if you want to be safe disconnect from the internet. Simple as that, regardless if you have an Open, Closed or partial system in place. Connected vehicles, and infrastructure are not immune either, those system are guess what connected to the internet as well.
You want to be safe, don't purchase or use any connected device.
That's not quite what the claim is...
The claim is that Apple has instituted “an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the aftermarket for iPhone applications in order to control and derive supracompetitive profits from the distribution of iPhone apps worldwide.” (Plaintiff)
So, it's ok to have a monopoly but it's not ok, to leverage it use to derive "supracompetitive" profits (according to the plaintiff).
1) What does supra competitive really mean? The core complaint by the plaintiff is that 30% is too much.
2) Does this fall under anti-trust law if you can buy the same software in a competitive market (Android) for roughly the same price? (Anti-trust is to protect customer, not developers).
Apple got out of the original ruling by saying it's not the true seller - the money goes to developer, and Apple takes a commission. The reversal effectively says, no, in they eyes of the customer Apple are the seller, opening the way to back to the original question.
IMO, it's the right ruling - IMO, in the eyes of the consumer: Apple is the seller ...therefore, the original challenge should be able to proceed and have it's fair day in court.
Whether the original challenge should be successful or not is a different matter...
Even though we all know Apple has monopoly over iOS, it still puzzle's me how it is an 'overall' smartphone app monopoly AND how it's derives super-competitive profits (30% is the rough commission range as Google Play isn't it?).
Last edited:
I'm not well versed in legalese, but it doesn't sound to me we are saying different things here. Maybe I don't understand but... applenisnt allowing these developers and buyers another way to sell their product. If there was another option, this would hold less water. No?
no idea,
I'm just another dumbass in the peanut gallery making comments...
I thought I'd just point out that the original case was about Apple taking advantage of a monopoly, not about actually having a monopoly.
How about Apple incorporate an "Activate Developer Mode" toggle in System Preferences, this way if you want to compile and install via DevTools you can do so without constantly signing it.
Win/Win, if you don't need it don't use it and its off by default. If you want to use it you have the option. Development community happy, is that not what Apple wants, a healthy and happy dev community. Be open minded and accepting of innovation.
I wonder if the courts know that you can already load apps from Cydia? And honestly, the App Store isn't a monopoly because there are other app stores.
What is preventing you from buying an android phone instead? There is a lot of competition out there.
If Apple did enable developer mode, then what developer would remain in the official app store and pay 30% of sales to Apple?
And if Apple is not receiving any money (since a Dev wouldn't have to pay the $99 annual fee or 30% of gross revenue to sign their app) then why would they continue to develop the tools and APIs for free?
If this sideloading of Apps mandated as legal, I could see developer tools costing money and developers and consumers would be worse off since there is a higher barrier to entry for small shops. At least with the current system you only pay more if you make more, so deploying a free app (even with Ads) is just $99/yr.
There is nothing stopping a developer from developing an app for the App store and setting whatever price they want, including having advertisements, in-app purchases, and subscriptions (yes, I agree not having upgrade pricing is strange). There is nothing stopping the developer from offering the same IP on different platforms (or "stores") for different types of devices to reach a broader market. And there is nothing stopping a customer asking a developer from asking a developer from developing an app for the platform they want (within platform rules.)
Right now Apple does allow temporary signing of apps to a target device, I think its just for a week though. So you can develop at home and send it to your device for free for a week, which is enough to test and learn how to code.
All the people who were called "armchair lawyers" that don't know WTF a "monopoly" or "trust" or anything of the kind should feel vindicated that an actual court is allowing the case. The simple fact is Apple locks down the app markets for iOS. Similarly, they have locked down the hardware selection that can run OS X when in fact any PC COULD run OS X (i.e. Apple artificially blocks it from being installed with a check on the hardware). Does anyone seriously believe Apple would be making the profits they are making if they did not prevent competition for both hardware for their mainstream computer OS or software for their iOS devices? By controlling BOTH they can ask anything they want regardless of actual value (e.g. compare an iPhone's cost versus what it sells for and you'll see why Apple makes ALL the money while everyone else in the smart phone market has to compete against each other while Apple competes only against itself for both hardware and software. They have even denied approving software because it competes with their own software! If that isn't anti-competition, I don't know WTF is. Look up the definition of greed and you'll find a picture of Apple Inc.
oh come on!
First, the Bill of Materials (BOM) for an iPhone does not include even 1 hour of design/development it took to create it. That's like me saying my house should cost $90k cause that was the cost of the raw materials.
Second - all the Andriod phone makers commoditized themselves...what is stopping them from developing their own operating system to differentiate themselves? Oh the millions/billions of up front investment with no guarantee of any return?
Apple has always locked down their stuff - even in the 90s when they were days from bankruptcy, but it didn't seem to be an issue then. iPhone sales are declining - why is this even anything to worry about?
(I am not saying that as a consumer I would not enjoy lower prices for Apple products – I most certainly would. Just like my boss would love to pay me less money for the same work.)
Apple refuses to crack the phones for them.
Same reason for https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...er-iphone-design-officially-reopened.2027394/
You are confusing TWO SEPARATE MARKETS. Software and hardware are not the same market! By TYING them together in a way where you cannot buy software without paying Apple a share of the pie and without them "approving" your software, they have made themselves a monopoly of software for the iOS computer system (i.e. iPads, iPad Pros, iPods, AppleTVs and iPhones).
Similarly, by tying OS X to only Apple hardware (when in fact Macs are nothing but generic PCs in fancy cases), they have created a monopoly of hardware for the OS X (macOS) general computer operating system. You are forced to buy their hardware in order to run OS X when OS X has no such requirements to function (artificial hardware check).
In short, Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too and so far they've been able to do that and that is why they have more money than God. Yes, you can avoid the Apple computer products altogether, but that does not make it right for them to do what they do. It would be like Chevy saying you must buy Chevy brand tires for their car or put only Chevy brand fuel in them when neither tires nor fuel have a damn thing to do with a Chevy car functioning. Why should I have to buy overpriced crap (as in it doesn't have the GPU I want) hardware to run OS X when I have ZERO interest in the Apple branded hardware, only the operating system? Why should developers have to pay Apple a huge slice of their profits and put up with their applications being banned any time Apple feels like it? Who would want to put that much effort/work into an application only to have it crap-canned by Apple for no given reason what-so-ever? That's the level of control Apple has and it's bad for the consumer all around.
[doublepost=1484353352][/doublepost]
I'm not saying its actual value is just the cost of materials, but look at the profit margins of Apple versus the next nearest competitor. Android controls somewhere around 80% of the market yet Apple makes all the profits. Why is that? Because it cost them SO much to develop iOS? Bologna. They make most of the profits because they control the hardware and the software. No one else on Earth has that arrangement anymore (Blackberry used to and when they were popular they made huge profits the same way). But iOS is more than just a phone OS now. It's an OS for numerous computer products Apple makes. And they want a huge cut of profits for ALL SOFTWARE written for it. They keep making it harder to get software outside of Apple's influence for OS X as well. That's not really for security. It's for greed.
Apple licensed out the mac OS in the 1990s to 3rd party computer makers. I wouldn't call that "locked down". If they had done it sooner, Microsoft might not have become the giant it became. For Apple, it was too little too late. And while Apple is enjoying huge profits in the short term, it WILL eventually cost them and perhaps even bankrupt the company in the long run for the same reasons it happened the last time. You can't maintain those profit levels indefinitely with an ever-shrinking market share. Apple only cares about profits, not market share, but developers will dump Apple in a cold hard second if they feel there's no money to be made (that point of bleeding off developers seemed to be somewhere around dropping below a 10% market share with the Mac in the 1990s. There was lots of software when it had close to a 20% share. Sound familiar? That's the iPhone now. Its share has been dropping steadily year after year. Unless they stop the market share bleeding, it won't last forever and most of Apple's profits are tied to that Phone. Apple's stock could crash overnight if it appears the iPhone is finished. Look at Blackberry for god's sake and Nokia. History tends to repeat itself when companies don't diversify themselves and make the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
Last edited:
Not if your device is running 10.2.
[doublepost=1484353818][/doublepost]
Whoa! 15 years ago security was a big concern. The target was different. These days it is more 0day, fishing, etc.. than direct malware or virus.
[doublepost=1484353991][/doublepost]
My background is engineering and regulatory is my latest venue. I did have to chuckle when, during the Apple vs. Samsung episodes, Apples' lawyers had to take time to interpret Apples' legalese and they had difficulty.
If you understand it, more power to you. Very few do.
Last edited:
What is stopping another company from controlling software and hardware? Blackberry did it and did great until the iPhone came out and the paradigm shifted. And Apple is free to do it until the next big thing from whomever, after which they could meet the same fate. Fortune is a fickle mistress. In the days of shareholder value, the purpose of a company is to make money, and as much of it as they can (unfortunately).
Since Apple's net profit margin is 20%, I'd say an iPhone costs about $520/unit to make. Probably more since they get margin on the higher memory models.
You are correct, Apple did license out Mac OS in the 90s, my mistake – but before that (under Jobs), they were locked down. I believe the original Mac had special screws to keep people out, back in 1984.
This isn't a new MO for the company, like it or not.
@MagnusVonMagnum - your stance is conveniently tilted towards the end user. You are neglecting to think too long about Apple. It sound like they should build it (in a way that's desirable) and not only give it away but also maintain for free???
The macOS is free. So what if the hardware includes healthy margins to pay for the company to function and profit for being right/ successful.
You call their hardware "overpriced crap"? It's the best hardware out there for its design, materials, feel and experience it delivers to the user.
The App Store is the only conduit to Apple devices. So what? If they opened it up to others (why would they give away their clientele to someone else?) how could they also make money from the distribution. You are saying it's wrong and they shouldn't.
They built it and it's good. If it were bad and hurting end users, that's one thing. But people are flocking to it despite competing mobile overpaying systems, hardware and app stores.
So are those who discontent buying into this set of rules exactly?
It's like talking with your mouth full.
Where is this sense of entitlement coming from?
[doublepost=1484355125][/doublepost]
This is what lawyers do: they accuse and do it in the best wording they can find to their advantage and leave the accused having to defend itself.
You notice they want you and the judge to think that Apple did what they did to block out competitor. The claim plants that seed and it doesn't matter if it's wrong or if they are going off on a tengent.
You ask Apple and they will explain the App Store exists the way it does for the benefits and convenience of its users and the developers. It administers it and gets conmpensated for it.
Who are the lawyers or the judge to decide what's fair compensation? What's fair is what the market will bear.
Again remember these are not utilities and essential basic human needs commodities we are discussing.
Apple sets the rules they want to serve their interests. Why would anyone think and believe Apple would do anything to hurt its own interest? That's crazy.
Is there a portion of undesirables amongst its users? Absolutely.
Look at this lawsuit for evidence. And they won't go away and something else. They feel it is acceptable to FORCE Apple into changing and doing what selfish and short sighted minds suggest would be "right".
The macOS is free. So what if the hardware includes healthy margins to pay for the company to function and profit for being right/ successful.
You call their hardware "overpriced crap"? It's the best hardware out there for its design, materials, feel and experience it delivers to the user.
The App Store is the only conduit to Apple devices. So what? If they opened it up to others (why would they give away their clientele to someone else?) how could they also make money from the distribution. You are saying it's wrong and they shouldn't.
They built it and it's good. If it were bad and hurting end users, that's one thing. But people are flocking to it despite competing mobile overpaying systems, hardware and app stores.
So are those who discontent buying into this set of rules exactly?
It's like talking with your mouth full.
Where is this sense of entitlement coming from?
[doublepost=1484355125][/doublepost]
This is what lawyers do: they accuse and do it in the best wording they can find to their advantage and leave the accused having to defend itself.
You notice they want you and the judge to think that Apple did what they did to block out competitor. The claim plants that seed and it doesn't matter if it's wrong or if they are going off on a tengent.
You ask Apple and they will explain the App Store exists the way it does for the benefits and convenience of its users and the developers. It administers it and gets conmpensated for it.
Who are the lawyers or the judge to decide what's fair compensation? What's fair is what the market will bear.
Again remember these are not utilities and essential basic human needs commodities we are discussing.
Apple sets the rules they want to serve their interests. Why would anyone think and believe Apple would do anything to hurt its own interest? That's crazy.
Is there a portion of undesirables amongst its users? Absolutely.
Look at this lawsuit for evidence. And they won't go away and something else. They feel it is acceptable to FORCE Apple into changing and doing what selfish and short sighted minds suggest would be "right".
Last edited:
Uhhh because what's the point of putting a warning if it doesn't protect the person or entity which put it there????
Seriously?