That's not how antitrust enforcement works. Government prosecutors decide which companies have monopoly power and are abusing it.
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
The system as it is does not allow sideloading. “Allowing it for the 1%” would require work for Apple to create the framework for the feature to exist, likely changes to the Secure Enclave as well, and a LOT of testing. Apple MIGHT put forth the effort required IF there was a potential profit in it. There’s zero profit in it, as the prior poster indicated, because far less than 1% of people would ever use it.
I don't think you understood my point. They are free to sell apps on their platforms, but they are not free to choose how to sell **iOS** apps, it's either App Store or nothing. Android is irrelevant, you can't sell iOS apps on Android.
I for one don't care if Apple's reputation is damaged, I want their product and I want to use it how I please, Apple be damned.
The App Store is the only store for iOS apps. The Play Store is not an alternative to the App Store because it doesn't have iOS apps, it has Android apps. Apple is making specific efforts to prevent other companies from building or selling iOS apps using their own store.
Can't sell iOS apps on an Android store, you can only sell Android apps in an Android store. iOS apps are not Android apps, totally different product.
You had the permission of the OS vendor, though. And, also had the permission of the software vendor. Just because there wasn’t anything preventing you from installing the software doesn’t mean that you didn’t have permission.
I don't but iPhones because of the walled garden. I buy iPhones because of everything nice it has that Android doesn't have, including constant updates, a better and refined UX, an ecosystem etc. The walled garden is one of its few downsides. So no I wouldn't be better off with Android, I hate everything about it.
And yes I do jailbreak, it's just that doesn't seem like jailbreaking is gonna be around much longer. iOS 15 still doesn't have a proper jailbreak.
We shouldn't need permission from the OS vendor. My device my rules, not theirs.You had the permission of the OS vendor, though. And, also had the permission of the software vendor. Just because there wasn’t anything preventing you from installing the software doesn’t mean that you didn’t have permission.
No it wouldn't require Apple do create anything new. Sideloading is already a feature, it's just limited. All they have to do is remove the limitations. Really all they need is to remove code, not add.
Doing nothing is no effort. Adding anything is effort. Removing anything is ALSO effort, because it’d still need to be tested after it’s removed.
Obviously it's effort, but it's negligible effort comparing to creating an entire new feature like you're suggesting. At the worst case they would need to create a switch to enable it, which is also trivial. FYI the secure enclave has absolutely nothing to do with it. The restrictions are codesign related (kernel + amfid + installd). Trust me I've contributed to jailbreaks, allowing sideloading is the easiest thing ever if you have access to iOS.
Agreed, but still sad for those that voted with their dollars for a specific ecosystem when another type exists. Apple's way of doing things is unique and may very well be legislated out of existence so that we have no choice but the wild wild west. Personally I'd love to see the Mac store operate in the same way iOS does, everything in one place with one payment system. 😍😍😍
Last edited:
The issue here is that iOS has around 55% to 60% of the U.S. mobile OS market within which Apple's App Store is the only app store. If iOS has a much smaller share of the mobile OS market, there would be no lawsuit like this. Any sort of McDonald's comparison in this case is irrelevant because they don't have near the share of the fast food market that Apple has of the mobile OS market.
In some ways, this Apple lawsuit is similar to the Microsoft suit in the 1990s. The 90s suit wasn't about Microsoft dominating the browser market (Netscape had a much bigger share at the time), it was related to Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS and how that "unfairly" impacted activities within desktop OS. This suit is essentially about Apple's dominance in mobile OS and how that "unfairly" impacts activities within mobile OS.
Dominating as in being basically one of just two players in the market and in this case, it's Apple/iOS that has the larger U.S. mobile OS share.
This is about antitrust laws and regulations. It's up to the regulators and courts to decide if a company has a dominant or monopolistic position in a market AND if that company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior.
It's a "problem" now because when a company controls too much of a particular market, it can stifle competition, innovation, etc. Companies with much smaller shares of a market don't have that power and control. Again, it speaks to the purpose of antitrust laws and regulations.
You’re definitely in the minority. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Sorry…
So apple is stifling App Store innovation? They certainly aren’t stifling smartphone innovation.
Of course you don't care, or care if some of Apple's customers are harmed. Selfishness at its finest.
If you don't like Apple's policies, simply reward an Apple competitor with your currency purchasing their phone where you can side load to your heart's content. And find true happiness.
You had the permission of the OS vendor, though. And, also had the permission of the software vendor. Just because there wasn’t anything preventing you from installing the software doesn’t mean that you didn’t have permission.
You should be a grade 37 Bureaucrat. Technically you are correct but you know what I mean.
Who still jailbreak's their phones? Seriously. I never got this sort of complaint directed at Apple. It's their sandbox that you are playing in. They can decide the rules. If they say the only way to get an app on the phone is the Apple Store then that's the rules. Go to android if you want a phone that operates like the Wild West.
Thanks for raising this point. The way people on here are arguing, they would have sided with Microsoft apparently.
A negligible effort for an almost non-existent market of folks. Still too much effort.
You were a rebel that didn’t get permission for that install (even though you totally had permission so not exactly that much of a rebel)?
Yes, Apple controls Apple’s App Store like “any company” controls “any company’s” “any product”. Regardless of market share.
McDonald’s DOES have over 40% of the fast food market, though. I guess 40% is not enough in the “arbitrarily hand over control of a company’s product to the government” market.
If by “in some ways” that means that it’s taking place in a court. However, as the issue was not with their market share of the Microsoft’s Excel market (100%) or their market share of the Microsoft Windows market (also 100%), instead being about their marketshare of, as you say, the desktop OS market and the browser market, it’s nothing like the discussions of Apple’s undue control of Apple’s App Store. There’s not even a comparison as to size of marketshare because Apple is 55% THIS year. Last year 53%, the year before that 47%. Microsoft at the time was on 90% of all desktops. (Oh, and for completeness, Microsoft was on 100% of the systems that Microsoft was installed on, but that, again, wasn’t the problem).