So you're saying anti-competitive behavior by actively trying to kill off competition on a market is legally permitted?
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. I am also saying that anti-competitive behavior as definitionally used within MR doesn’t mean the same as the legal use of the term.
Apple isn't stopping you from selling your code, but once you choose to run it through Apple's compiler to run on Apple's software, then they have every right to say, "This is how our compiler works and this is how our software works. If you don't like it, don't use our compiler and don't use our software."
I'm all for once I buy the device it's mine, but at the same time, Apple can build the device however they want. They're pretty transparent on what they're selling, and no one has to buy it if they don't like that it only works with iOS.
Next time you comment, know what you're talking about. The compiler has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can make an iOS app with no issues. The problem is the restrictions put on both software and hardware to prevent the user from installing it. It should be the user's choice whether they want to install the app on their device or not.
It doesn't matter if they're transparent, it should be illegal to prevent the user from modding the device after buying it. Apple has the right to sell it with iOS, Apple shouldn't have the right to stop me from trying to mod it after I buy it. What happens after I buy is my business.
The compiler is very important, especially when you're using something other than Swift or Objective-C. There are many options where you write one code base and then you can compile it to run on iOS or Android. The compiler is what decides if your app runs on iOS or something else, so yes, a very important consideration if you have a problem with iOS. But we don't need to get super technical. My point is, once you start using Apple's stuff, they have a right to say what the limits are.
I've jailbroken plenty of my Apple devices over the years. Apple has never come banging on my door in the middle of the night to try and stop me from modding my device after I bought it. But they do have every right to build the hardware and software in a certain way before you buy it, even if the way they build it is to specifically stop people from modding it, as long as they do that before you buy it, and they're transparent about it, I say it's all good. And again, if anyone has a problem with that, you have every right not to buy it.
It seems like your problem is that the best option out there (iPhone and iOS, according to one of your previous comments) is still not quite up to your particular standards. That may be true, and I think it's totally fine to have strong opinions on what Apple should do. In fact, there are plenty of things I wish they would do a little different. The part where I have a problem is when people start saying things like, "Someone needs to go in there and force Apple to do what I want them to do."
Breaking a TOS is not illegal, it is my right to use Apple's stuff contrary to Apple's wishes as long as I don't break any law in doing so.
The restrictions are put before it's sold yes, but they're in effect even after. So whose desire do we fulfil, Apple's one before it's sold or the user's after it's sold? The solution is simple, put the restrictions and give the user the choice to disable them. You know like they do in macOS?
You speak of jailbreaking, I also jailbreak my devices since it's my only choice, but believe me when I tell you it's not gonna be around much longer if it continues like this. iOS 15 still doesn't have a proper jailbreak and this has never happened in the past. So yes, I want the law to force Apple to give me full freedom over my device. I want to mod iOS and mod apps and terms of service or Apple's reputation be damned. In general companies be damned, power to the consumer.
I understand, and I'm actually with you on everything you said, except the part where the law forces Apple to do it. I would love to have that much freedom over my device, and if Apple allowed it I'd be all over it, but they don't, and I don't want it bad enough to buy an Android, which, again, is the choice I had before I bought it.
Yes but again, if Apple had a much smaller percentage of the mobile OS market, these types of antitrust/anticompetitive lawsuits wouldn’t likely be occurring.
Right, no one is asking to be able to open their own app store within Apple's App Store. The Walmart comparison doesn't really apply here for a few reasons.
Someone may own the device but they only license use of the iOS. Whether or not Apple should be allowed to restrict alternative app stores, sideloading, etc. on iOS (given their mobile OS market dominance) is the legal issue here.
The whole cry wolf crowd despite there never being a wolf.
"This is the mess alt-stores will bring." --
Android is in such disarray because of all of the 3rd party app stores! It is truly a colossal mess. I couldn't even use my phone! /s
"Add to the mix that all of these alt-stores could have separate payment processors so now your payment information is spread around instead of just in 1 location."
Like your payment information isn't already stored on how many different websites? The reaching here is on par with NBA players.
"Apple would be forced to allow users to install apps from outside the App Store under legislation recently unveiled by the EU."
July 5th, 2022 - "EU lawmakers have approved the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA)"
"We expect that the text of the DMA will be adopted in September or October 2022."
Apple is already going to be forced to allow this in EU pretty soon. Just pucker up and prepare for it in the states as well.
July 5th, 2022 - "EU lawmakers have approved the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA)"
"We expect that the text of the DMA will be adopted in September or October 2022."
Apple is already going to be forced to allow this in EU pretty soon. Just pucker up and prepare for it in the states as well.
You don’t get it. The iPhone is the equivalent to the building owned by Wal-Mart. It’s not public property. The phone belongs to Apple to do with as they wish, just as shopping malls are privately owned and can lease or not lease to whoever applies. A “monopoly” is a power company with no other choice for power, not a phone that only has 50% of the market.
Except that neither Walmart nor any shopping mall chain has 55% to 60% of the retail store space market. A company can be declared to have a dominant position or monopoly power with 55% to 60% share (iOS share of mobile OS market in U.S.) especially when there are basically only two players (iOS and Android) in the particular market. From there, the court(s) would have to decide if Apple's restricting of alternative app stores is anticompetitive behavior and violates antitrust laws/regulations.
The point is and always has been to make it usable for the end user, with no 7 day limitations. As is, sideloading is used for developers to test their stuff, not to distribute apps.
In your posts, you consistently conflate your device (which you own) with iOS (which Apple owns). You are free to use or modify your device anyway you see fit. You can even install your own OS! However, you are not entitled to force Apple to modify their IP to meet your desire.
Not historically. There’s no legal precedent for 60% being a monopoly or having monopoly power. And, that’s not going to be changed by these actions because there are quite a number of businesses with 60% marketshare in definable markets that would instantly see legal challenges using this as a precedent. Especially since many of the US folks in the position to regulate businesses hold shares in these successful 55 to 60% businesses.
Again, not historically. A grocery store that buys up land adjacent to their property would be restricting competition. A grocery store that restricts what goes on INSIDE the store they legally own is not.
No. But controlling your own software isn't anti-competitive. It's a competitive advantage.
Not really, until very recently in the EU. The US had laws in certain areas clearly defining how large certain companies could be, but they didn’t sit by waiting until they got to a certain size and jumped in, it was defined from the outset and the companies grew to a point and never passed those levels. Many of those restrictions were removed some time ago, though.
In the US, there’s just a lot of folks that feel strongly about Apple, but the laws currently in place have no way to “fix” the situation that gives them concern when the situation that exists was caused primarily by “People liking the product and buying it. Voluntarily”. My expectation is that monopoly/antitrust angles will go nowhere (as they’ve gone nowhere in the past, even the EU didn’t use ‘monopoly’ terms in their legislation) and some new legal framework that doesn’t take into account any actual wrongdoing would need to be created. The trouble with that is that it would have to be SO narrowly focused (again, because Apple’s not doing anything different from any other company in the US), that the law may not pass or be struck down because of it’s extremely narrow focus.
Nope, I am not free to modify my device, that includes installing my own OS. If I could install my own OS, I'd accept that, but the hardware is locked down too.
What are you talking about? I'm not aware of anything preventing you from installing your own OS on an iPhone.
What's stopping you?
Name a company that has 60% share of a particular market within which there are only two major players, and wouldn't be considered as having a dominant position or monopoly power?
Unless that grocery store (chain) happens to own/control 60% of commercial land in the U.S., it's not the same thing.
A grocery store (chain) that has 60% of the grocery store market could very well be subject to antitrust/anticompetitive litigation if they unfairly restricted access. Of course, the topic here is not about reacquiring Apple to put apps or other app stores in their own App Store. It's about iOS access, an OS that has 55% to 60% share of mobile OS in the U.S.
Ever heard of Amazon? Largest retailer in the world. Wal-Mart is 2nd.
Operating systems are not “players” they are software products. Android is run on hundreds of companies and their devices. A monopoly is when you only have a limited choice of COMPANIES to choose from in a product or service sector.
McDonald’s is the largest seller of food worldwide, that doesn’t mean Joe’s Burgers should be allowed to set up a booth inside their restaurants.
Last edited:
60% is certainly above a minimum threshold in the US for courts to consider a finding of monopoly power. It's unlikely that a court would find that they meet the other requirements.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
Furthermore, Apple has closer to 50% of the smartphone market in the US, and there are certainly more than two major players.