But you can't charge a Chevy Volt at a Tesla Station
[doublepost=1484372351][/doublepost]
But if you have a non-Tesla EV, you can't charge it at a Tesla Station.
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
[doublepost=1484372351][/doublepost]
How is that any different to Xbox not allowing you to buy PS4 games through the PSN store on their device...
Because in Apple's case there is no technological barrier preventing the distribution of apps outside their App Store. Same reason why Toyota doesn't sell Tesla batteries to Corolla owners.
You mean the same way Apple would have to pay amazon for utilizing their platform and borrowing their clientele?
And why would you want to do that anyway when the same app is avail in the App Store?
[doublepost=1484377038][/doublepost]
This is the incorrect ruling in my opinion.
How did his judge arrive to this conclusion and how that conclusion constitute a proper basis for allowing the lawsuit to proceed?
Apple is a broker/ a store. Money flows through them so they can control the transaction and ensure they are compensated. It also ensure the safety of the transaction. Finally their intent is build a clientele. Why wouldn't they?
Users know full well that they are not buying from Apple because they know Apple does not make the app they are buying unless it is an Apple app.
Who in their right mind would think Economist app or the Nintendo Mario app is made by Apple.
Recourses are also available: clients can obtain a refund from Apple if they so choose for any reason or from dispute the charge either their financial institution if need be.
[doublepost=1484377309][/doublepost]
Yes there are barrriers that are preventing non signed apps from being used on devices running iOS. And there should be.
This lawsuit is akin to asking Tesla to allow users to use Toyota modules or batteries in Tesla cars because the owners would like to AND to assist to accommodate that desire. Why on earth should Tesla be forced to do that if they do not want to?
Last edited:
Why would the apps have to be unsigned? Apple already allows developers to sign apps that are distributed outside the App Store.
Your analogy to Tesla is not applicable because the apps are already compatible with the iPhone. The entire model of installable apps relies on this fact. Apple is simply disallowing the mass distribution of them outside their store.
Last edited:
The discs still have to be authorised by MS, though. You're not getting any extra content that MS doesn't want you to get. A console is just as locked down as iOS.
The only difference between getting the same thing from different retailers is price, which is understandable considering games can cost from £10 up to £80/100 for special editions, but usually around the £35/40 mark.
Apps on the other hand are 79p upwards. You're really not going to save any considerable cash here. In fact you can already save money by using an App price tracker and waiting for the price to drop or even go free (which happens more often than you might think).
Is it really worth compromising the security and integrity of an entire platform to obtain a handful of apps that Apple doesn't want you to have?
Or is the better option to just use a platform (that already exists) that allows just that?
The mention was "there are no technological barriers". I wrote yes there are and Apple can add more if they want/ need to.
I was reusing that Tesla example to follow along.
Actually it's even worse in Apple's case: Developers get the tools for free from Apple to create content which some argue Apple should allow to be sold outside of the App Store.
Tesla in that example would have to accommodate that desire on their clients' part by providing Toyota and others everything they need to make the batteries compatible with Tesla cars.
I am telling you it's insane.
The Mac app scene is quite a bit different than the iPhone app scene. I would say casual apps on the Mac has gotten significantly better after the Mac App Store and I agree that large apps from adobe and auto desk have their place outside the App Store.
Pre iPhone AppStore, smartphone apps were pure crap. What I'm getting at is Apple revolutionized apps. Quality and functionality went through the roof. I've owned smartphones pre iPhone and the app scene was depressing.
What technological barrier is there that prevents Apple from allowing apps to be distributed outside the App Store?
I'm still not following you're line of reasoning on the Tesla analogy. Apple already provides everything a developer needs to create iOS apps. They currently provide those tools for free but nothing is preventing them from charging for it, the same as how nothing is preventing a third-party from creating their own development tools should the market feel that Apple was charging too much for theirs. Also keep in mind that most major OS vendors now provide their development tools for free. This isn't done out of the kindness of their hearts or because they will recoup the money by charging for app distribution. They do it because the success of their ecosystem is enhanced by it.
Like so many other people you have totally mis-understood the issue here. This is about App purchasing and nothing else. This is not about whether allowing third-party App Stores is a good idea, whether it will hurt iPhone security, etc. It's a very narrow question: is Apple's exclusive control of the sales and distribution of Apps for iOS effectively a monopoly. The answer is clearly yes. Sometimes a monopoly can be in the public interest and that might well be the case here. That's another debate.
Secondly, to suggest that all the Apps on the AppStore are good quality is patently nonsense. 99% of the Apps on the AppStore are total crap.
Finally, to suggest that allowing third-party App Stores would not increase the number and diversity of Apps available is also total nonsense. Of course it would. Apple has frequently blocked Apps they don't like.
Last edited:
Apple is currently acting like a broker. The app developers do not charge Apple a set fee for each copy of the app and then Apple sets the sale price. So, if it moved to a more retail-esque situation, then a developer would pay Amazon to be part of the store, and Amazon would sell their app at whatever price they want (why would Amazon, or anybody, allow you access to their customer base for free?). Looking at book sales - publishers/authors aren't losing money on each sale below the MSRP. But that set up is much more complex.
I completely understand your point, I just do not think a court could compel a company to do it. I also don't think that lower prices app prices are good for developers (I say clean out all the junk and charge more for good, useful apps). Currently the App Store restrictions don't go against my sensibilities, so I am discounting the importance of them - which may be a much bigger sticking point for others.
Businesses generally bake all of their costs into the sale price along with profit margin. In some instances you can lose money if development or recurring costs are higher than budgeted, but Adobe would never create a _new_ product for iOS without baking in the 30% fee already. So, if they wanted to make a $70 iOS app, then they'd make sure it only cost them $40/copy to design & market + $21 app store tax = $8 profit per copy sold. This is different from the Mac App store (where prices likely would increase) since pricing was set prior to the 30% fee being taken into account - this, in my opinion, is why the MAS has so many apps sold outside. Also sandboxing and all that really changed the game for Mac app developers, who may have had to rethink their entire app based on the new technical limitations.
And if the Apps still had to be approved by Apple, there is nothing saying they still wouldn't charge $99/year + some additional app review amount (its like a couple grand to develop an XBOX game I believe) so this would really impact bootstrapped developers who need to pony up money before making a single sale.
Case in point - please see Amazon not paying the developer at all when was doing the "free app of the day" or whatever, back in 2011. They have since discontinued that program for Amazon Underground.
https://gigaom.com/2011/08/02/54805-reasons-not-to-be-amazons-free-app-of-the-day/
Ultimately this decision only says the case could be taken to trial, and maybe it would be good for the development community & consumers in general...my personal belief is that it will not, but I can see the other side of the argument too.
I have to disagree. Before the AppStore there where fine Mac apps by Mac enthusiast. Now the AppStore is 90% full with cheap crap from people that want to make some quick money, that barely even performs their basic advertised function.
It never occurred to you, that pre-AppStore smartphone apps where simply not the most awesome because the low clock ARM CPUs and small screens could simple not capable to do more back in the day?
Even the 1st iPhone was still limited of the rather low CPU performance and certainly why the iOS updates did not last that long and made the poorly underpowered phone the opposite of snappy, ...
And you can backup that "factoid"?
And have the courts decided the IOS app store is a monopoly? There is no clear answer as you are not the court of law in the US. This is very similar to the chips found in ink cartridges. The DCMA legislation effectively blocks competition for lower priced suppliers. The answer is not as clear cut as you suggest.
Only Apple can sell iOS apps. Many stores can sell Xbox games.
No one is asking to run ps4 games on Xbox. No one is asking to run android apps on iPhone.
[doublepost=1484411475][/doublepost]
We don't need a car analogy. Compare the iPhone to an Xbox. Both electronic devices that run closed software.
MS doesn't have a monopoly on Xbox game stores. I can buy Xbox games from many different stores. I can buy iOS apps from only one store, Apple's store.
Wrong.
It is consumers asking to be able to buy and use non-Tesla batteries that are made for a Tesla. Or to use Bilstein struts instead of Sachs-Boge. And claiming they are being charged more than they would if they could use alternatives.
You say MS still gets to approve what games the Xbox runs. Locked down. Why wouldn't Apple still have same if Amazon could sell iOS apps.
No one is asking to be able to run any apps.
This is about Apple having the only iOS app store. MS doesn't have a monopoly on Xbox game stores.
[doublepost=1484412260][/doublepost]
There is only one iOS app store, owned by Apple. Compare the iPhone to other locked down devices like an Xbox. I can buy or sell Xbox games in many different stores. MS doesn't not own all Xbox game stores.
That's not the point, you can have your opinion about how Apple operates, but unless the courts issue some anti-trust ruling what Apple is doing is legal. As others have pointed out it's not like an app can't get found in other stores on other platforms.
This will take years and years to slog through the courts and the definition of monopoly will be clarified.
1. I can buy iOS apps only from Apple's store.
2. I can buy Xbox games from many different stores.
What part of what I said is opinion?
With any due respect, you should refrain from commenting on legal questions where it is painfully obvious you have no training, education, or experience.
So then educate the board about why it would be considered to be a "legal" monopoly and cite your findings and precedents. With all due respect of course.
Given the case hasn't even hit the courts yet.
So then educate the board about why it would be considered to be a "legal" monopoly and cite your findings and precedents. With all due respect of course.
Sigh. Welcome to the ignore list.
Well that is an educational response to the question being asked.
If you are going "to call somebody" out be prepared for it. Responses like this are infantile, imho....but to each their own.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Monopoly
Here is some context.
Still one of the dumbest things I have heard all week, might be the dumbest thing I hear about all year. Sometimes I weep for the stupidity people adhere to. There is no case here, why was this lawsuit allowed in the first place? Stupid stoopid waste of money and time. Should I sue my parents for having a monopoly on my birth?
that users are not allowed to install their own software choices is a waste of time and money. Especially when iPhones effectively become bricks after 3 years when developers can no longer send apps to Apple with older SDKs for older phones.
Total waste of environmental resources, rare earth minerals, energy and so forth.