I'm still using my iPhone 4, circa 2010. There are apps that are iOS 7 compatible; so what is your point?
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
Developers can not send new build with old SDK to Apple anymore. All new updates and Apps can be for newer iOS versions only.
PS: And some apps -e.g. WhatsApp- unfortunately expire. So after some time some loaded apps will even become dysfunctional.
Last edited:
That does not make it a monopoly, only a walled garden; which you may not like. It will be for the courts to decide the outcome, which will be years from now as I suspect there will be appeals on both sides unless the case is tossed.
This was not example for monopoly, just answering random questions in between, ...
Apple could also be nicer to their users and developer. Look at the many extended warranty programs. They could really fix their broken stuff earlier, and not wait for class action suits, and have people pay for expensive logic board or display swaps before they finally get their act together. Ironically usually when the hardware is 3+ years and people already got rid of it anyways, ... :-/
I'm not defending apples policies, but I'm defending apples right to operate their business within the law as they see fit. They operate iOS within a walled garden and that is their approach. I'm defending potential customers right NOT to buy Apple products.
As far as everything else it's a matter of perspective.
Because American's hate to work, and love money. What easier way to get money with no work?
How exactly is this lawsuit worded? Apple doesn't set prices, so how can it monopolize? Developers set their prices on their apps.
Yes its a monopoly.You use Apple's store and ONLY Apple's.On Android,I use multiple stores where the cut of profits goes to other companies.Hence not a monoply on Android
The courts may disagree on you. For example, if you want the netfilx app, there are multiple sources including IOS. So no there isn't a monopoly.
Apparently you're still missing the point. Nobody is talking about a monopoly on apps in general. ONLY about where you can get iOS apps.
If you want the iOS Netflix app, there's only one source, because you're only allowed to download from one source with a stock iPhone, and that's from Apple's App Store.
Nothing else, no other brands, no analogies needed. Apple is simply accused of making a monopoly on where a stock user can get iOS apps. That's it. That's all.
Is "walled garden" a term legal term I missed?
Also what happened to "land of the free and the home of the brave", in this brave new times we are no longer free to install on our hardware what we like, and no longer be brave enough to load something without a walled garden vetting of uncle sam?
Nice hyperbole, but Apple hasn't been found of any wrongdoing.
[doublepost=1484427634][/doublepost]
You missed the point, Apple hasn't been found for any wrongdoing or monopoly inspite that the term monopoly has been thrown around suggesting it's in disagreement with the Sherman act.
Which is exactly why I'll never download anything from services other than Apple's official iOS App Store.
You're correct that the case hasn't been decided yet.
However, I was addressing your above claim that there are multiple sources for the Nexflix app. By saying that, it looked like you didn't understand the issue was ONLY about iOS apps.
It's a common term for an ecosystem where a particular service is only available from one controlled source. It refers to the fact that all that control makes it look pretty and safe inside, but there's no way out.
E.g. with a dumb flip phone, you can only download apps from its carrier's app store (the walled garden). However, the appeal is that it's easy to buy from there, and all the apps are vetted for look, functionality and security. Carriers liked the extra revenue, too.
The irony of all this, is that back in 2005 Steve Jobs gleefully made fun of such carrier walled gardens, calling them "orifices to get to the end user".
Then he later copied their methods, by creating his own walled app garden to keep all app revenue. It was an unexpected turn of events, as before the iPhone, smartphones could download apps from anywhere.
Last edited:
That was not my experience. I don't believe the lack of CPU power was the cause of poor apps. The AppStore revolutionized the app scene.
iDevices last a long time. Many people hung onto their iPad 2s for many years. I bet Android users burn through devices at a much faster rate.
That is slightly disingenuous - Apple is acting as a broker. The only place you can get the Netflix app is from Netflix, who chooses to offer it via the App Store (or Portal, if you'd like).
I suppose the outcome of these case, in however many years, will see if Apple is legally required to support other Portals & brokers to sell apps.
But, as it stands, the developer is the entity responsible for creating, maintaining, pricing, and supporting their apps, not Apple, who provides them a service (vetting, hosting, payment processing, etc) and charges them accordingly. If the developer doesn't like those terms & conditions, they are free to publish their products elsewhere, just not into Apple's IP, which is Apple's choice to make, not the developers or consumers.
Does Sodastream have a "monopoly" on their CO2 refills? Is this illegal?
Depending on how narrow one wants to make this, it could be a monopoly. It's not like AT&T in the 80's before Judge Greene got a hold of them, there was nowhere else to turn for phone service. This is not that in the broader sense, which is to say it will be an interesting case that will be dragged out for years(probably) before anything comes of it.
The iPhone just appeared when just like other phones CPU became faster and display bigger.
What experience did you had back then, that allowed such rich UI experience on such small, stamp sized display? The AppStore has not much to do with that.
[doublepost=1484438564][/doublepost]
Why is there so much hate and sending people way in you?
I'm a long time Mac developer, even back in the day when Mac marketshare was minimal, and the company nearly bankrupt. I use Macs at work and home every day. So why do you not allow me to raise well educated concerns? Only with productive criticism can things improve. And I rather like to see Apple improve than stagnating. Some things are just not right, especially taking choice and freedom away from end users. Why should IT companies dictate people's life like this? Most of us would not accept this in any other product or company. But when Apple is doing is then it is right and for the greater good.
Some a really trapped in the Cupertino reality distortion field.
[doublepost=1484438931][/doublepost]
Yeah, as I mentioned earlier initially Steve Jobs only wanted to allow open and standard conforming web apps. It was only when so many developers were crying for native apps that they allowed it. My personal option is that they did not really plan for this. A quite lucky turn of events to generate so much unplanned revenue for them, ... ;-)
Last edited:
You still don't get it. In the example you state above re printer cartridges, HP does not mandate that you can only buy HP cartridges from HP exclusively. You can buy HP cartridges from lots of retailers.
You are confusing two issues. You can ONLY buy iOS Apps from Apple. You can buy HP cartridges from anywhere.
Apple could if they wanted to create a standard set of rules for iOS Apps then let anyone sell those Apps. That is what Xbox and PS4 do. That would be fine because there is an element of competition in the distribution of Xbox and PS4 games.
Unfortunately many people have a blind obsession with Apple that clouds all reasonable thinking on issues like this.
You still don't get the point as you say. The fact that IOS apps can only be bought by apple is a monopoly only if determined by the legal system. Having some posters say it on MacRumors doesn't make it a "legal fact".
And on the other hand, I'm going to ignore the comment about "obsession" because there is a lot of that, plus "agendas" around here. (Talking generally in the third person)
Last edited:
The only place Netflix can sell their "iOS Netflix app" is in Apple's store. I get Apple made the iPhone, but Netflix made the "iOS Netflix app" and they should be free to sell in any store of their choosing. Netflix has already paid the dev fee to Apple and Apple has approved it for sale on iOS devices.
EA is allowed to sell their xbox games in any store; best buy, steam, etc. They are not forced to sell in Microsoft's store. I'm sure MS would like 30℅ of their sales.
If I do a search for the price of call of duty for Xbox, I get various prices. Competition. If I do a search for the price of a game for iOS, I get one price. No Competition, aka monopoly.
Last edited:
Yes, POOR Apple. They're only scheduled to do $1 TRILLION in sales this year.... Poor poor babies.
Spare me the sob story. Apple is one of (if not at times THE) richest tech companies on the face of the Earth. Arguing about doing things for "free" is about 359.9 degrees away from reasonable.
It is not really free. It's figured into the cost of every single Mac made. Otherwise, I could just download a copy and put it on a Hackintosh legally since it's "free". You cannot 'buy' OS X (macOS) but that doesn't make it "free".
So what if the top 1% own and control 80% of the world's resources? So what?
The problem is that money begets more money and the circle is endless. If you are born into a rich family (top 1%), you're set for life. If you're born in a crap hole, oh well, right? Why should the rich pay any taxes or live with reasonable profit margins? They 'earned' it right? CEOs making 1000x what they used to make...that's OK. I'm sure they EARNED every penny. In other words, there's no point "discussing" something with someone that thinks it's A-OK for people to make BILLIONS and pay only 15% taxes (if any; GE Corporation generally pays NOTHING in taxes). Get all the security and opportunities of the USA but don't share in any of the costs? Yeah, that's the way they like it. Put the rest on the national debt and let some future generations pay off almost 19 TRILLION and counting....
WTF are those qualities? Have you seen the new Macbook Pro? It's $2400 for the base model with hardly any storage (250GB is woefully inadequate in 2017 and to get even 1TB requires over $3000), requires dongles to do literally everything and it's ram limited so it's out of date on arrival. You call that the "best" ????
What about the GPUs? Want to play a game? I hope you like OLD games because that's all it can run, even in Windows with boot camp. They're mobile GPUs which mean they are a JOKE. What about desktops, though? The iMacs ALSO use mobile GPUs! The old Mac Pro had a PCI slot so you COULD get something decent once in awhile, but the new Mac Pro only has a totally outdated "pro" GPU with zero other options. And it's the lack of OPTIONS that is so darn troubling! I can't get a quad-core i7 Mac Mini anymore! They decided they would rather I bought an iMac or a Mac Pro, but they don't keep the Mac Pro updated or make it for consumers like me that don't need a Pro GPU. I don't need another monitor right now, but the iMac forces me to buy one just to get a better GPU than a Mac Mini and/or a quad-core i7. It's RIDICULOUS. There is NO REASONABLE MACHINES to even consider, let alone buy AT *ANY* PRICE. They simply do not make them.
Yet I could easily build a Hackintosh for $1200 that would run circles around every single Mac Apple makes when it comes to graphical apps and games. Why on Earth would I want a legal Hackintosh? It ought to be pretty obvious by now. I want a machine that meets MY needs, not what Apple wishes I would buy. Why is it I have to choose between CRAP hardware and ditching OS X entirely? There's no other legal options. I have to give up my application software and buy new stuff for a Windows machine all because Apple won't sell me a computer I actually WANT?
The problem is that OS X is NOTHING SPECIAL when it comes to hardware requirements. Any number of stock PCs could easily run OS X as-is if it weren't for the EFI check. In other words, Apple is forcing me to buy/use sub-standard hardware in order to use their OS when the OS should be completely separate from the hardware. IF OS X had something "magical" in it that required special hardware, it might be different, but it's just a damn more or less stock PC in a fancy case at ultra-high prices. If it were ultra-awesome, OK, I could deal with it. But having a GARBAGE graphics chip pretty much ruins every single Mac out there.
So if Chevy had their own gas brand and their cars required Chevy gas, you'd be OK with that even if the gas cost 4x what everyone else's gas cost?
It's called anti-competitive behavior. They are TYING two different markets (hardware and software) artificially together in such a way as to thwart competition for one or the other since a Mac is just an ordinary PC (nothing special about them). Purposely "tying" one product to another product to thwart competition is illegal under Anti-Trust laws. The problem is the government doesn't enforce the laws anymore because the government is OWNED by big business. I find it odd that doesn't bother you in the slightest. Do you enjoy getting screwed over and paying higher prices with less choices?
I'm discontent. Others are too. Microsoft sold tons of product and made tons of money in the 1990s and 2000s and they did every under-handed thing in the book to try and force people to buy their OS with a computer, get people to use only their browser (the horrible years of an Internet that only worked properly with Internet Explorer for some sites while their browser didn't support actual standards so other sites looked like crap on it. They had competition. Apple was there. Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox was there. That doesn't mean what they did was OK. "WE" (as in the poeple of the Earth) have to deal with a world made by these companies. The question is whether you want to live in a world where everything costs a bundle and companies like Microsoft use key loggers in Windows 10 to spy on everything you do (which they gladly hand over to any government agency that asks for that information) or whether you'd like to keep competition, choices and privacy. Big Brother is watching but he's a bunch of overly large corporations that control the government rather than the government itself (a distinction without a difference much of the time).
It's called CAPITALISM and it's based on COMPETITION to benefit the CONSUMER, not the corporations. The government is supposed to be BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE, not the corporations. Copyrights are supposed to expire so that the public gets use of the art in the long run while allowing the owner to make money in the shorter term, but with corporations being declared the same as people and the fact they never really die, suddenly copyrights go to infinity. That thwarts the entire purpose of the law and the Supreme Court is corrupt to allow corporations to be treated as people. It's tantamount to treason, in my opinion, since it thwarts the power of the Constitution to legal entities instead of actual people, allowing the upper most class to control everything forever. We are essentially an Oligarchy now and starting January 20th, that will become PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to even the most blind people out there.
So what apps are these plaintiffs actually overpaying?
So with their rationale they will sue Cydia because they also have a monopoly in what can be released there?
So with their rationale they will sue Cydia because they also have a monopoly in what can be released there?
I'm amazed how many people don't understand this, but there is no law against having or being a monopoly. The point at which it becomes illegal is when you abuse one monopoly to create another.
Imagine you're a really successful carrot farmer and you do so well you end up owning every carrot farm in the world - that's fine. Imagine you decide to spend your profits to buy every onion farm in the world, so you can triple the price of onions. That's the part that you're not allowed to do.
The legal question here is roughly: 'did apple turn a monopoly in smartphones into a monopoly in smartphone app sales'?
[doublepost=1484444586][/doublepost]
All paid apps. Apple takes 30%, and prevents anyone else (Cydia for example) from launching a competing app store that charges less than 30%.
Owning 'all the farms' doesn't prevent anyone else to start a farm.
Cydia is still out there isn't it? Apple is not preventing anything, users still find a way to get it.
http://cydia.saurik.com/
So they will get what kind of compensation from Apple? They bought one instance of all the apps?
Attorneys trying to get a piece of the pie.
Apple can say any website could be used as an app, you are free to do so...