To the believes in AppStore review, when I load something to iTunesConnect for the AppStore I usually get this informative message:
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
Btw. I just tried, so on an original, 1st gen iPhone I could not find anything that would load. The AppStore even looked partially broken rendered. As a developer I can not submit Apps using the old SDK for older customers anymore.
And on my iPhone 6S WhatsApp just "expired" and wanted an update, which I guess means you will not have a working WhatsApp.app for old iOS anymore?
Wonderful customer experience.
What's the issue?
Install windows 3.11 and try to find programs that run on it. Wonderful Microsoft experience.
I still have a bunch of apps that run in my iPhone 4. Being on iOS 7 apps that use a newer sdk will not be updated. I'm not sure if the issue on an obsolete almost 7 year old mobile device.
What's the issue?
Install windows 3.11 and try to find programs that run on it. Wonderful Microsoft experience.
I still have a bunch of apps that run in my iPhone 4. Being on iOS 7 apps that use a newer sdk will not be updated. I'm not sure if the issue on an obsolete almost 7 year old mobile device.
The issue is as a developer he could target older OS's and distribute them outside the app store since he cannot distribute there.
==
All the people are asking for is a legit way to distribute and install apps outside the app store. The people that want this stuff as disinclined to use the Apple app store anyway so Apple and big dev's aren't going to lose anything out of the deal heck they don't even need to make it easy.
What's the issue?
Install windows 3.11 and try to find programs that run on it. Wonderful Microsoft experience.
I still have a bunch of apps that run in my iPhone 4. Being on iOS 7 apps that use a newer sdk will not be updated. I'm not sure if the issue on an obsolete almost 7 year old mobile device.
I could actually install any Windows 3.x software without a problem and still compile new apps for it, ...
That is exactly the issue with the new cloud based distribution world where the vendor controls the distribution.
PS: I could not submit any new builds to Apple the whole last week, due to their broken iTunesConnect servers, ...
Right, if you kept the sdk. And I believe in the app store a dev can make their apps compatible with IOS 7 also.
Wow. Ad hominem, much? Even if I did shop at Hot Topic, it would have no bearing on my argument.
As for the analogy, though it's not perfect, it sums up why suing Apple in this scenario is pointless. Ignoring the issue that, if you don't like Apple's walled-garden approach you're more than welcome to code for Android (or, if you really want to code for iOS, put your app on the jailbreak market), there are significant benefits to living in a walled-garden: The quality of the apps tends to be higher, and there are practically no malware concerns, just for starters. Sure, you have to pay the owner of the garden, but you also reap the benefits.
Those are possible benefits for the buyer, not the app maker.
Nobody wants to force buyers to go elsewhere. Only to ALLOW them to be able to.
A 7 year old computer can run almost all apps that my current PC can. Why are mobile devices an exception?What's the issue?
Install windows 3.11 and try to find programs that run on it. Wonderful Microsoft experience.
I still have a bunch of apps that run in my iPhone 4. Being on iOS 7 apps that use a newer sdk will not be updated. I'm not sure if the issue on an obsolete almost 7 year old mobile device.
The problem is a much deeper one, which is Apple control and censorship. So assume someone develops the most amazing app (virtual assistant, music / TV streaming, whatever) and Apple will not approve it because of competing with their core services you can not sell anything. The only thing left is sue Apple for monopolizing the distribution channel for this kind of devices.
If Microsoft would have done this a decade ago hell would break loose.
[doublepost=1485605837][/doublepost]
And without a good reasons. I as a developer would love to take some extra care to also work with old iOS / SDK. This is an entire artificial limitation enforced by Apple. Usually I only update xcode and SDK installs because Apple forces me as otherwise they automatically reject the App upload with: "Invalid binary" (too old SDK).
[doublepost=1485606140][/doublepost]
Kept the SDK? You mean my board full with CDs, or the backups on the NAS?
Also even Apple still allows me to download old Xcode and SDK versions. And everyone could easily made a backup now, or earlier. They just simply will automatically reject all uploads that have a minimum iOS version set to a quite recent version.
And as Apple has the censorship and distribution monopoly there is no other viable way to get it to customers.
Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones. The courts will decide this if the case isn't tossed.
[doublepost=1485612415][/doublepost]
Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones though. That could be a contributing factor in getting the case tossed.
The suit is not about smartphone monopoly.Its more specific than that. Its talking about out how Apple is the only source of apps on iOS.A platform is just a foundation for various apps to be distributed.
I guarantee if Windows ran on this model,a 7 year old PC would not even come close to running the amount of apps it does today
You don't seem to comprehend it's not about a monopoly on "smart phones" but about a monopoly on software distribution for a given computer system (iOS). In other words, the "monopoly" is on SOFTWARE, not HARDWARE. Imagine if Microsoft told you that you could only buy Windows software from them and charged 1/3 your profits for every piece of software made for Windows. That's essentially what Apple does for the iOS operating system. People used to say it was just a phone, but iOS extends to everything from tablet computers (even 'pro' versions) to tv set-top boxes (AppleTV) these days. It has arguably become a general computer operating system at this point (how much more so if it ever merges with 'macOS').
It actually breaks the TYING clause of the Clayton Act. Artificial 'tying' (meaning you must buy one to get the other when in fact they are two separate items/markets) is PROHIBITED when it "substantially" lessens competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act#Contents). In this case, every time Apple denies an app because it competes with Apple's own app, they are violating the tying clause of the Anti-Trust Act while their App Store denies ALL (reasonable) competition for DISTRIBUTION of software for the iOS market (having to 'hack' your phone to install 3rd party software is not 'reasonable' and severely limits the software available through such channels).
The ONLY legal question here is whether Apple's iOS products represent a "substantial" market (i.e. is competition being substantially reduced as a result?). There is NO QUESTION they are violating the literal interpretation of the Clayton Act's tying clause by forcing you to buy all your 3rd party software through their market place and they are violating developer's rights by denying them distribution because it competes with their own software.
A similar argument can be made in reverse with the Mac hardware market. Here, Apple is forcing you to buy their PC hardware in order to run OS X (macOS). They've artificially TIED the hardware to the software, meaning if you want to use OS X and software designed for OS X, you MUST buy an Apple brand computer even though it's internally no different than any Windows/Linux PC hardware out there. In the past, one could argue the Mac "market" was not substantial compared to the Windows PC (given rulings against Microsoft for having a functional "monopoly" despite the availability of OS X and Linux among others for such hardware). Apple was a company on the brink of bankruptcy in the late 1990s and so its "market power" was not substantial. However, I would argue things are a bit different in 2017 than in 1998! Macs represent a substantial hardware seller in the market place (even for those that might buy it to use mostly or all Windows on something like a Macbook Pro). They are no longer insignificant in hardware sales and the company is one of the largest tech companies in existence. The idea that the Mac is no longer a substantial market is absurd. Thus, I would argue that Apple is in violation of the Clayton Act tying clause for HARDWARE for OS X (macOS). They are forcing you to buy their PC hardware instead of something from a competitor like HP, Lenovo, etc. in order to use OS X and its software market.
The SOLUTION for the Justice Department in BOTH cases is simple. BREAK THE TIES. Force Apple to allow 3rd party software distribution for iOS and allow OS X to be purchased separately and installed on non-Apple hardware. The CONSUMER should decide what product merits purchase for hardware and software separately as they are two different markets as evidenced by the FACT that OS X CAN EASILY be "made" to run on generic PC hardware (i.e. Hackintosh). There is no technical reason it won't run other than Apple purposely blocking it and not selling it separately.
Nice post. However in my opinion it will be years before the case is decided or if it gets tossed. We'll find out. Apple is stubborn and has a big red appeal button if it loses.
Security is the best thing Apple provides through the App Store - let's hope this doesn't change that.
As argued with many points in this thread the AppStore does not bring a single bit of security. While malware slips thru Apple's review all the time, normal text messages, and websites can constantly break thru security vulnerabilities in the Message.app or Safari.app and thus compromise your phone all without the AppStore review.
Higher security comes thru more secure programming (e.g. no buffer overruns, off-by-one (or more) etc. pp. Not thru forced AppStore review where a malicious app can even actively hide the malicious behavior until it is out at the customer later.
Less bugs more security.
[doublepost=1485693767][/doublepost]
How does your short response correspond to my point that Apple is actively censoring and preventing competition? We as developers have no control over what we can publish or not. Do you think I would start a "really AI assistant" in my garage knowing that a) Apple is limiting me to very specific official APIs of what the assistant can even access and do - e.g. it could never be prominently on the lock screen, and b) Apple would never approve an assistant twice as good or better than their?
You are backpedalling. This is what you posted earlier
This has nothing to do with smartphone monopoly
But still will take years to decide. You can post any opinion of apples business practices and unless Apple changes it voluntarily it is what is for the next few years.
[doublepost=1485698153][/doublepost]
See what i posted above. I'm not a fan of this lawsuit because of the premise but it's out of our hands. Not like our opinions are going to be used by the court.
So department stores and supermarkets should have no control over who is allowed to sell in their stores?
[doublepost=1486613729][/doublepost]
Yes, but they're not Apple. So there.
The difference is that there are multiple supermarkets for retailers to sell their goods in so if one doesn't want to carry Kraft, another will. Here there is ONE super market for iOS products (which represents something like 80-90% of all smart phone profits) and Apple is allowed to deny any software that it feels like denying for any reason including competing with their own software which violates anti-trust laws since "substantial" anti-competitive practices (in that they affect a substantial market share in their actions) aren't allowed in this country.
Amazing argument.
The only real point is the courts will decide the verdict, not this thread.The difference is that there are multiple supermarkets for retailers to sell their goods in so if one doesn't want to carry Kraft, another will. Here there is ONE super market for iOS products (which represents something like 80-90% of all smart phone profits) and Apple is allowed to deny any software that it feels like denying for any reason including competing with their own software which violates anti-trust laws since "substantial" anti-competitive practices (in that they affect a substantial market share in their actions) aren't allowed in this country.
Amazing argument.
Bad analogy.
Apple can continue to control who is allowed to sell in THEIR app store al they want. That would not change.
However, the app makers themselves would be able to sell their wares in other stores.
So if, for instance, Apple refused to carry an app because it competed with one of theirs, the writer of that app could sell it in a different store.