Yes, what about them? They're not Walmart nor a shopping mall chain and according to Statista, had around 38% share of the retail e-commerce market in the U.S. in June.
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.
Cydia Files Appeal in Higher Court in Legal Battle Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, what about them? They're not Walmart nor a shopping mall chain and according to Statista, had around 38% share of the retail e-commerce market in the U.S. in June.
No it does not. You are licensing to use it under the terms and conditions you agreed to when you set it up. You didn’t read it did you?
Also, tracks and video purchased from streaming services don’t belong to you either. You’re paying for the right to play them, nothing more.
I wasn't referring to the "smartphone" (device) market but rather the mobile OS market. According to Statcounter, iOS accounted for 55% to 60% of the mobile OS in the U.S. over the past 12 months. The only other major player was Android with around 40% to 45% share.
#1 retailer in the world. No one is demanding they allow “stores” to be set up within it. They decide what does or does not get sold on THEIR platform.
1. That's not a market. That's an install base. Market power is based on markets.
2. Android isn't an individual "player". Each manufacturer has their own OS based on the android open source code.
Being #1 with 38% share (according to Statista) and having numerous competitors versus being #1 with 55% to 60% share (according to Statcounter) and having few competitors can be two entirely different things.
Last edited:
It is a market in the same way there is a browser market, word processing market, etc. The Microsoft case in the 1990s was largely about their share of the desktop OS market. In the case of iOS, it's about the mobile OS market.
Android is an individual player and is provided/licensed to smartphone OEMs which can choose to modify a bit. There are two major players in mobile OS, iOS and Android.
All companies have something about them that makes them special and sets them apart from their competition, making them BETTER than their competition to a certain set of consumers. And, those things that make them better and more attractive TO those consumers, they are NOT going give to their competition. That, at its core, is anticompetitive and it’s what every company does.
It is a monopoly. The AppStore is the *only* way users can get apps for their iPhone/iPad.
People who want an emulator or a firewall on their iPhone/iPad are SOL because Apple doesn't allow those on the AppStore. Yes, yes, there is always jailbreak. But then Apple breaks the jailbreak with ensuing updates. Back to square one. Those users are SOL.
Don't make arguments without being informed first. You can't install your own OS on an iPhone. The hardware is locked down to only accept Apple's software and it is impossible to bypass that without a software vulnerability.
It seems to me that there MAY be a decently sized market for folks that “Don’t want Apple OR Android” that some enterprising company is missing the boat on making a device to suit that market.
Either that, or it’s just not a very large number of people.
Either that, or it’s just not a very large number of people.
I'm licensing to use iOS, the hardware is mine and mine alone, and therefore I should be able to put my own software in it, even if I need to install another OS, which I can't because the hardware is locked down.
And consider, even if it was possible to force a company to do a thing like this, there’s nothing stopping someone from forcing them to change it back.
Epic tried to have their definition of the market be accepted in that lawsuit and the judge found there was a different definition.
You can do what you want their your device. Apple does not have to assist you to do something that isn't supported by their software. When you buy a microwave do you bemoan you can't load your refrigerator firmware.
Not quite. Microsoft had market power in the desktop OS market where they leveraged their dominance of that market to force their partners to give them preference in the browser market.
Apple doesn't participate in a "mobile OS market". It's simply a feature of their mobile devices.
Contrast that with Google, who enters into agreements with their horizontal competitors to limit competition in various markets by leveraging the Android brand to give preference to Google services.
That's simply not true from a market perspective. Just because two pieces of software are based on the same open source project does not mean that they aren't competing with each other.
AH! It DOESN’T exist. And, going from today’s reality to “something else”, would be what’s commonly referred to as a “new feature”.
There's a difference from "not assisting" and "blocking you from doing it", don't you think? I am more than able to install another OS, if only the hardware didn't have measures to specifically prevent me from doing it.
The microwave isn't able to load the refrigerator firmware, my iPhone is able to load another OS, it just has an artificial barrier that shouldn't be there.
I have the skill to do it if only the hardware wasn't locked down to block me from doing it.Skill?
Bootchain - The iPhone Wiki
I'm sure Apple's website also references their chain of trust somewhere. It's common knowledge at this point.
You bought something knowingly with limitations in it's use. You have a 14 day window to return if said device didn't suit your requirements. My point was that a resourceful person could figure a way around those limitations and do whatever they wanted to with iphone hardware (or microwave hardware)
You can return most consumer oriented electronic gadgets if they don't suit your needs.