To be blunt, it’s a bit of a “what have you done for me lately” type thing. I haven’t jailbroken a device since maybe iOS 4 or 5. That’s a whole decade where Cydia hasn’t really improved the iPhone all that much (unless you’re one of those diehard themers, but I’ve never really understood those people). Really, I think he’s trying too hard to try to monetize Cydia but has no real shot at doing it, the odds that, even with sideloading, enough people would choose to use Cydia in such a way that makes it effectively monetized seems suspect. Vast majority of Android users, if they use a sideloaded app store, use something like Amazon’s or other big name stores. Are the apps on the store worth the process/work of sideloading the apk onto your phone? And are they worth the money charged? Does Cydia have a plan for addressing those concerns if sideloading were to become a thing?
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
Not to mention the security implications. Apple would have to make sure the sandbox is even more hardened (yeah, sideloading doesn’t mean “easy jailbreak”, most of the stuff on Cydia would still require a jailbreak, kinda like packages on the Google Play Store that require a rooted device).
Any change to software requires effort, and I can say that with the same certainty as I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow. After all, it’s my job, or a huge part of it anyway.
It may be an issue for some customers but it wouldn’t be an antitrust issue from an "unfair" dominance standpoint.
Apple, for example, has 100% dominance of the Apple Stores products market but it's not an issue because Apple doesn't dominate the (electronics) retail store market.
I still jailbreak. I've even contributed to jailbreak and exploit development. I don't do it for themes. I want full access to the code of iOS and apps and be able to mold them to my liking. For example, with a jailbreak I can have proper backgrounding and the ability to close an app without it being killed by iOS. I have the ability to run unsigned code and have terminal utilities on my phone. I like to enhance the usability of iOS and apps and plenty other reasons.
Saurik isn't trying to monetize Cydia, he has left Cydia development to other people years ago. Saurik simply believes in freedom and is fighting for it (he also fights to keep jailbreaking legal etc.)
Sideloading isn't jailbreaking but it's one step closer to freedom. And extra security I wouldn't mind if they made it optional like on macOS
What you're saying: Apple has dominance of a store it created itself.
What I'm saying: Apple has dominance over stores people COULD create by their own desire. I'm not asking to create my own App Store, I'm asking for the ability to create my own iOS app store.
It IS over. Appeal is “what one does” when what happens from the legal process didn’t go the way they preferred. If there was some new information that came to light, appeals are there to have it legally determined if it would have changed the course of the case. There IS no new information here.
Apple introduced the App Store on July 10, 2008 with 500 apps. SOOOOoooooooooo… yeah.
Well then... Your best course of action would be to write a letter to Tim Cook demanding Apple remove their privacy/security/anti-fraud safeguards protecting Apple and their customers, so that you can sideload and finally find happiness.
Let us know how it goes. Though I have a feeling you won't be able to muster up the energy to even write a letter.
That’s already true, for any device that you create, you should rule over it 100% and no one should have any say over what you do with it. Heck, if you want to create, say, a mobile phone and OS, WITH an app store and restrict the folks from buying your device to ONLY using that app store, I say GO FOR IT! No one should have any say on how the device YOU create can be used other than you.
And, if anyone that bought your device knowing about the limitations, comes along and tries to tell you, “Hey, I want to buy stuff from other app stores,” you should be 100% free to tell them to pound sand if that’s your response of choice. There should be no requirements to listen to anyone other than, maybe, your shareholders if your device production company is public.
I guess that would be an accurate analogy if Apple prevented you from charging your Phone with 3rd party devices.
No, it would be like Ford didn't allow you to install third party firmware/software for any of their computer-controlled systems onboard. And that seems completely reasonable to me.
You can do whatever you want with your own device. If you really wanted to, you could launch it into outer space, tie a cinderblock to it and let it sink into the depths of the ocean, set it on fire, use it as a paperweight, etc. On the other hand, the software that runs on your device (iOS) is not owned by you, only licensed to you subject to the licensing agreement you agreed to when you set up your phone. You cannot do what you please with that (without breaking a legal agreement).
Yah, folks ARE effectively requesting a favor.
They bought a device WITH known limitations and would now want that company to remove those limitations that they bought with the product. I mean, just the fact that they bought the device means that those limitations AREN’T serious enough to prevent them from buying the device.The moment that Apple device sales decline due to a very large number of potential customers refusing to buy the devices because they lack a particular feature, is the moment that Apple will consider seriously adding that feature.
Once the user buys it the user is the owner, not Apple. The user should be able to install whatever software the user wants.
You're not getting the point. My point is, these limitations are anti-competitive and should be illegal.Yah, folks ARE effectively requesting a favor.
The moment that Apple device sales decline due to a very large number of potential customers refusing to buy the devices because they lack a particular feature, is the moment that Apple will consider seriously adding that feature.
I'm not requesting a feature, I'm requesting freedom which is my right.
Neither is 60%
And, you’re right, it’s not 40%, t’s actually 43%, I rounded down to 40%
Right, and anticompetitive would be akin to the things Bell was doing such as:
Buying out telecommunications companies
Taking control of available land required for any competition to run lines or set up offices
Restricting the use of any hardware other than Bell hardware
of which Apple has done nothing like. New non-Apple phones are arriving on cell networks all over the world and none of them are restricted to using the iPhone, even in the US. And this is the core reason why the US cases aren’t going anywhere. Apple hasn’t bought out Motorola and shut them down, they haven’t coerced the carriers to ONLY carry iPhones and with only 60% of the market if they ARE trying to control the market, they’re not very effective at it.
People that consider it “no effort” are likely the same that look at the international highway system that’s been available since before they were born and assuming that, too, took “no effort”. I mean it MUST have been no effort, it was already there!
I get your point, but, in reality, what you want, specifically in an Apple phone, doesn’t currently exist. And, it’s never existed (it’d be different if it once existed and then was removed as it’d be more like asking it to be restored). So, going from today’s reality to “something else” would be what’s commonly referred to as a “new feature”. Like going from not having copy/paste to having copy/paste. Some would likely think that NOT being able to copy/paste should have been illegal. I’m glad it wasn’t because it would have taken awhile longer before we’d seen the first iPhone.
Right, and in late 2008 there WAS an App Store. Which was when Cydia filed their first lega… no, no they didn’t. But in 2009 when the App Store existed… they didn’t either. However, early in 2010, they also didn’t file any legal challenge. But then, in late 2011, Cydia filed no legal challenge. They were able, by the middle of 2012, to completely avoid filing a legal challenge. So, it was with some surprise that, in 2013, no legal challenge was filed. In 2014, after 6 years of the App Store existing, they filed no legal challenge. The years 2015-2019 were marked, curiously enough, by the complete lack of a legal battle between Cydia and Apple even though the Apple App Store had been in existence that entire time.
They made their bold move in 2020. Apple tried to shut it down, but no, the judge let the case go forward. And, after a years long wait, they lost their case. However, they have appealed and this case, which is practically over, continues!
C
Contrary to popular belief, sideloading does exist on iOS. It's just very limited and Apple spends time and resources to stop anyone who tries to change that. It'd take less effort if they didn't do that.
You can as of right now sideload an arbitrary app with limited entitlements and access for 7 days only (then you have to resign). You can do that for 1 year with a developer account or enterprise one, but try to distribute an app like that and your certificate will be revoked.
Contrary to popular belief, sideloading does exist on iOS. It's just very limited and Apple spends time and resources to stop anyone who tries to change that. It'd take less effort if they didn't do that.
You can as of right now sideload an arbitrary app with limited entitlements and access for 7 days only (then you have to resign). You can do that for 1 year with a developer account or enterprise one, but try to distribute an app like that and your certificate will be revoked.
I only responded to the part of the post that dealt with stifling innovation. Hence my comment.
My point was that if iOS only had a small share of the mobile OS market, it wouldn't likely result in an antitrust/anticompetitive lawsuit especially if there were many other players. It's an issue here because Apple restricts alternative app stores in a market (mobile OS) which Apple has a dominant position.
Neither is 60%
And, you’re right, it’s not 40%, t’s actually 43%, I rounded down to 40%
55% to 60% could be enough to declare a company as having monopoly power, especially with only two major players in a market, but it would be up to the court(s) to decide. Of course, being a monopoly or having monopoly power is not itself illegal. The real legal issues for dominant companies potentially come in regarding antitrust/anticompetitive behavior which, again, are up to the court(s) to decide if they violate laws/regulations.
Anticompetitive behavior can include numerous things including unfairly blocking or restricting competition (e.g., app stores) from a market (e.g., mobile OS) where a company has a dominant position.