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
Actually, that is actually one of the more legally cogent responses I've seen here. Anti-competitive impact must be shown before a practice will be ruled out of bounds.Thank you Judge MikhailT.
People can buy Mac OS software outside of the App store already. This wouldn't apply to the App Store for Macs.
And they do. They can either jailbreak the device and download apps from other places til their heart's content or they can not buy into the Apple ecosystem and get an Android or other OS phone.
Apple developed the hardware, the OS, and the entire ecosystem from soup to nuts. If people don't want to play by the rules of said ecosystem, they can purchase something other than an iOS device. End of story. Unfortunately, though, that probably won't be the end of the story. This is likely going to be litigated to death and several attorneys are going to have big paydays because of that.
This will not end well. Wolf Haldenstein is a large, sophisticated law firm that usually wins. Sounds silly, but this is the firm that got "Happy Birthday" declared as public domain which was a significant royalty decision.
Here's the problem I see with your Ford analogy: I think you should say if Ford only allowed you to buy accessories from the Ford store. "Ford" gas is irrelevant because your car can't do much without gas the same way your iPhone is essentially useless without access to the internet.
But the app is an accessory. Yes, it may be important and it immensely broadens the usefulness of our phones, but many of the apps we rely on can function within a browser.
This is total ********. Your analogy is buying new iPhones only from Apple.
I have nothing against Apple selling iPhones. Like it or not: limiting what apps you load, and what hardware you plug into the lightning port is exactly controlling which gasoline is sold for your Ford.
My point was that Apple may well encapsulate OS X and iOS into one system, thereby locking third party apps out of OS X. Also forcing people to have an Apple ID for a Mac.
jailbreaks are not always available and require massive amounts of hacking to enable. jailbreaks from really brace and busy people are not the same as a free market.
Good point but I think the better analogy is "can I sue the movie theater for not letting me bring in my own Coke and popcorn"? At least with the movie theater analogy, they really are creating a monopoly for drinks and snacks and they are charging WAY above market prices because they can. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this lawsuit, I will continue to buy all of my apps through the Apple App store because I trust them to vet the apps for any malicious code / privacy threats. I am sure their screening isn't perfect but I trust them more than any other company to make an honest effort to screen the apps.
There is a lot of functionality built into iOS which is not available to web frameworks, so I would disagree that browser-based apps are a viable competitor to native iOS apps. And deciding which parts of an iPhone experience are essential vs not (gas vs accessories in your example) is a slippery slope. If you go by Apple's own admissions they believe their app ecosystem is an essential element of the iPhone.
IMO, the problem here is not that you have to buy from Apple, but that Apple can arbitrarily ban apps from the app store with no recourse for the developer. Then with no other options we users have lost our freedoms.
Apple should only be able to have arbitrary and draconian control of the app store if they allow users to purchase from other sources or if they allow all apps that meet the technical requirements be in the app store. There is nothing fair about Apple's acceptance of apps and their use of power to enforce their view of political correctness.
First of all iOS is just a scaled down macOS. How much innovation you call it depends on your believe into the US patent system.
Unrelated to this it universally programable computer, just like a Mac, PC, Amiga, Atari, you name it. Why should Apple limit what a user can load onto their computer they purchased for good money.
And no need to sent your example users to Android: first of all they may discover this after purchase, and secondly they may still prefer the iPhone look and feel. Yes, strange, I also wonder why some prefer a Corvette over a Porsche, ... ;-)
Uhm, can't people already jailbreak and install whatever they want? Or is that too much effort for some people?
I like that Apple has some say/control over the App Store. They created the devices and the store. As a user I expect that Apple certifies the apps that I am downloading from the App Store and that they are safe. If someone downloads a third party app then they are on their own and cannot come back to Apple for a fix to iOS due to a malicious app.
I like that Apple has some say/control over the App Store. They created the devices and the store. As a user I expect that Apple certifies the apps that I am downloading from the App Store and that they are safe. If someone downloads a third party app then they are on their own and cannot come back to Apple for a fix to iOS due to a malicious app.
So, if I want my grocery store to sell gold bullion but they do not, I have the right to sue them? Hahahaha!
This is absurd. Those of you that think this is good have lost your minds. Help lower prices of apps?? These people want to get paid to use apps now? And you forget developers set their own prices. Wanting to be able load apps from other sources just opens the device up to other problems which would then be blamed on Apple because, you know, people are stupid. If you don't like the way things are on iOS go to Android. No one is forcing you to have that iPhone or iPad.
The lack of competition and price argument is facetious. Apps compete against each other on the same terms, not across different sources.
I win. Next.
I win. Next.