Sidebar Sidebar
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

Jake James said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with a certain product brand being available exclusively at one store. Products and brands do that all the time.

And saying the Play Store isn't an alternative to the App Store is ridiculous. They are both app stores and the vast majority of apps are available in both stores.
 
webkit said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would still be unfair
 
omihek said:
There is nothing wrong with a certain product brand being available exclusively at one store. Products and brands do that all the time.

And saying the Play Store isn't an alternative to the App Store is ridiculous. They are both app stores and the vast majority of apps are available in both stores.
Click to expand...
Never did I say a product shouldn't be at only one store. I'm saying there should be more than one store in the iOS platform.

The Play Store has Android apps, not iOS apps. The iOS app market is a different market than the Android app market. Both should have multiple stores within them.
 
webkit said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the issue here really isn't the mobile phone marketshare, it's the iOS App Store marketshare. I know that literally no one in the world would care if I started a mobile phone company called Orange and made it so that anyone who wanted to sell apps on my phone had to do it through my store. No one would care that I had 100% of the OrangeOS App Store marketshare.

So my question is, at what point do we say a company is no longer allowed to decide what they can do with their OWN software? Especially if it's something that they've been doing since day one. Like as soon as you grow to be a certain size, we will force you to go in and retro-actively change the way you've done things the entire time.

If there are really laws that say once you get to a certain size we take away different pieces of your business then ok, but my question is, are there? Are there really laws that say that? Or is the issue that people want there to be laws that say that, which is why they're suing?
 
Jake James said:
Never did I say a product shouldn't be at only one store. I'm saying there should be more than one store in the iOS platform.

The Play Store has Android apps, not iOS apps. The iOS app market is a different market than the Android app market. Both should have multiple stores within them.
Click to expand...
Then where do we draw the line? Should there be multiple stores within Walmart? Should a movie theater be forced to allow someone else to sell popcorn to movie-goers?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: freedomlinux
omihek said:
Then where do we draw the line? Should there be multiple stores within Walmart? Should a movie theater be forced to allow someone else to sell popcorn to movie-goers?
Click to expand...
I'm not asking to make a store inside the App Store, I want a different store with iOS apps. A better analogy would be:
Should there be multiple stores that sell the same things Walmart sells (assuming they're not products created by Walmart)? Answer is yes.

As for the movie theater, that's a private property. My iPhone is my own property, not Apple's
 
omihek said:
But the issue here really isn't the mobile phone marketshare, it's the iOS App Store marketshare. I know that literally no one in the world would care if I started a mobile phone company called Orange and made it so that anyone who wanted to sell apps on my phone had to do it through my store. No one would care that I had 100% of the OrangeOS App Store marketshare.
Click to expand...

The issue is about mobile OS share which Apple has around 55% to 60% in the U.S. combined with their exclusive/restricted app store availability in a market (mobile OS) which they have a dominant position.



omihek said:
So my question is, at what point do we say a company is no longer allowed to decide what they can do with their OWN software? Especially if it's something that they've been doing since day one. Like as soon as you grow to be a certain size, we will force you to go in and retro-actively change the way you've done things the entire time.

If there are really laws that say once you get to a certain size we take away different pieces of your business then ok, but my question is, are there? Are there really laws that say that? Or is the issue that people want there to be laws that say that, which is why they're suing?
Click to expand...

It's really about antitrust laws and regulations. When a company is declared (at least in court) to have a dominant position in a particular market, they can come under greater scrutiny regarding their activities in that market. If it is determined (in court) that a company is engaging in anticompetitive behavior, they can face fines, penalties, etc. While types of businesses, technologies, etc. have changed through the decades, this is essentially how antitrust laws and regulations have always been designed to work.
 
omihek said:
Then where do we draw the line? Should there be multiple stores within Walmart? Should a movie theater be forced to allow someone else to sell popcorn to movie-goers?
Click to expand...

Walmart doesn't have a dominant (enough) position in the retail store market. I'm not sure any one movie theater chain has a dominant position either.
 
webkit said:
The issue is about mobile OS share which Apple has around 55% to 60% in the U.S. combined with their exclusive/restricted app store availability in a market (mobile OS) which they have a dominant position.
Click to expand...
More relevant fact: Apple has 100% dominance over the market of iOS apps considering there's only one iOS app store (the "App Store")
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux
Jake James said:
I'm not asking to make a store inside the App Store, I want a different store with iOS apps. A better analogy would be:
Should there be multiple stores that sell the same things Walmart sells (assuming they're not products created by Walmart)? Answer is yes.

As for the movie theater, that's a private property. My iPhone is my own property, not Apple's
Click to expand...
But Apple's software is their private property.

And as far as other stores selling what Walmart sells, again, anyone can sell an app; no one needs Apple's app store for that. Now, if you want to put Walmart's Great Value brand on your product, I believe they sell that brand exclusively at Walmart.
 
webkit said:
Walmart doesn't have a dominant (enough) position in the retail store market. I'm not sure any one movie theater chain has a dominant position either.
Click to expand...
They're right saying you can't open your store inside Walmart or sell Popcorn in a private property. The thing is none of those things reflect the situation accurately, that is making an alternative store, not a store inside a store, where iOS apps are sold with the permission of developers who made them and the user who will install them on their device. In other words, Apple should have no say considering they're not making the apps nor are the apps being sold in a property they own (the user's device).
 
omihek said:
But Apple's software is their private property.

And as far as other stores selling what Walmart sells, again, anyone can sell an app; no one needs Apple's app store for that. Now, if you want to put Walmart's Great Value brand on your product, I believe they sell that brand exclusively at Walmart.
Click to expand...
An Android app is a different product from an iOS app! They're completely different things. You cannot sell an iOS app without going through the App Store. And Apple's software is irrelevant, the apps will be installed on the user's device which is NOT Apple's property.
 
Jake James said:
An Android app is a different product from an iOS app! They're completely different things. You cannot sell an iOS app without going through the App Store. And Apple's software is irrelevant, the apps will be installed on the user's device which is NOT Apple's property.
Click to expand...
Great Value peanut butter is a different product from Skippy peanut butter, but they are both peanut butter. If I want to sell peanut butter under the Great Value brand, I will have to sell those products exclusively at Walmart, but nothing is stopping me from selling peanut butter at other stores under a different brand.

Apple's software is very relevant, as that is actually where the apps are installed. And everything that happens on a user's iPhone is automatically attributed to Apple and their reputation is affected.
 
omihek said:
Great Value peanut butter is a different product from Skippy peanut butter, but they are both peanut butter. If I want to sell peanut butter under the Great Value brand, I will have to sell those products exclusively at Walmart, but nothing is stopping me from selling peanut butter at other stores under a different brand.

Apple's software is very relevant, as that is actually where the apps are installed. And everything that happens on a user's iPhone is automatically attributed to Apple and their reputation is affected.
Click to expand...
An app being built for iOS is absolutely not a brand. I can't sell someone else's brand but an app I built to run on iOS is mine and mine alone and I should be able to sell it without Apple's permission considering the code is 100% mine.

The apps are installed on the user's device. Apple shouldn't control what the user is able to install. And you're acting as if you can install a different OS on an iPhone but turns out the hardware is locked down too, not just the software. Don't tell me the hardware is theirs too.
 
If you don’t like apples TOS, you certainly don’t have to develop on their platform. It will come down to the original agreements laid forth and how they are interpreted. Watching this one.
 
Johnly said:
If you don’t like apples TOS, you certainly don’t have to develop on their platform. It will come down to the original agreements laid forth and how they are interpreted. Watching this one.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't need permission to build on their platform. The app is 100% the developer's code and the device is 100% the user's property. If the developer and the user agree to sell & buy the app then it should be settled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux
Jake James said:
An app being built for iOS is absolutely not a brand. I can't sell someone else's brand but an app I built to run on iOS is mine and mine alone and I should be able to sell it without Apple's permission considering the code is 100% mine.

The apps are installed on the user's device. Apple shouldn't control what the user is able to install. And you're acting as if you can install a different OS on an iPhone but turns out the hardware is locked down too, not just the software. Don't tell me the hardware is theirs too.
Click to expand...
You can do what you want with the iPhone hardware and iOS software. Apple isn’t obligated to help you when the intended use is outside of the scope of the TOS.
 
I7guy said:
You can do what you want with the iPhone hardware and iOS software. Apple isn’t obligated to help you when the intended use is outside of the scope of the TOS.
Click to expand...
I don't want Apple to help me. I want Apple to stop from actively trying to stop me from doing it. Not passively, but actively.
 
I7guy said:
If the apple ecosystem doesn’t work for you there are alternatives. And why continue to support apple when it’s ecosystem doesn’t support you?
Click to expand...
Android is literally worse. The Apple ecosystem absolutely works for me it just has one flaw that I believe shouldn't be legally permitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back