Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
58,652
22,248


U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers today granted Apple's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the company by Jay Freeman, creator of an alternative App Store known as Cydia for "jailbroken" iPhones and iPads. The case might not be over yet, however, as Freeman was given the option to file an amended complaint by January 19.

cydia-vs-apple-feature.jpg

Freeman sued Apple in late 2020, alleging that the company has an illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution given that the App Store is the only authorized marketplace where users can download apps on the iPhone and iPad. His complaint also alleged that Apple has "consistently tried to snuff out alternative app stores" such as Cydia.

Cydia launched in early 2008, months before the App Store debuted. The app allows users who jailbreak their iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch to install apps outside of the App Store, as well as themes and tweaks that customize the look and functionality of iOS. For example, long before Apple introduced the Control Center on the iPhone, there was a tweak available on Cydia called SBSettings that offered similar functionality.

The lawsuit alleged that Cydia was the "first comprehensive solution" for expanding the iPhone's capabilities, and "the App Store before the App Store." (Early members of the jailbreaking community might argue that the Installer app was the true first.)

Freeman joined a growing number of developers who have sued Apple for alleged anticompetitive behavior, including Fortnite creator Epic Games.

When the complaint was first filed, an Apple spokesperson said the company would review the lawsuit, but denied that Apple was a monopoly given that it faces competition from Android. Apple has also repeatedly touted the privacy and security benefits of the App Store, claiming that third-party app stores could expose users to fraud and malware.

Should an amended complaint be filed by Freeman, Apple has until February 2 to respond, according to Gonzalez Rogers.

Article Link: Judge Dismisses Cydia Creator's Lawsuit Against Apple For Now
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SurferPup

Joe Rossignol

Senior News Reporter
Staff member
May 12, 2012
797
2,705
Canada
I don't normally comment on my own stories, but this one felt special to write given that I dabbed with the jailbreaking community back in the iOS 1.1.1 through iOS 6 days and fondly remember Jay Freeman (saurik) as the creator of Cydia. I couldn't resist mentioning that Installer.app was the true first "App Store outside of the App Store" contrary to the lawsuit, unless they want to argue that Installer wasn't "comprehensive."

To be 13 years old in 2007 again… fun times.
 

Lestdog

macrumors regular
Jan 16, 2008
210
305
Back in the day jailbreaking an iPhone opened up great possibilities. A lot of the utilities found on Cydia eventuality found their way into future versions of iOS. I’m not sophisticated enough to say why we can or can’t have options here. If one chooses to compromise their iDevice and download apps outside the App Store, let them assume the responsibility if something goes wrong. Those of us who want assurance that our apps are going to play nicely will stick to the App Store.
 

ian87w

Suspended
Feb 22, 2020
7,933
11,345
Indonesia
Back in the day jailbreaking an iPhone opened up great possibilities. A lot of the utilities found on Cydia eventuality found their way into future versions of iOS. I’m not sophisticated enough to say why we can or can’t have options here. If one chooses to compromise their iDevice and download apps outside the App Store, let them assume the responsibility if something goes wrong. Those of us who want assurance that our apps are going to play nicely will stick to the App Store.
This is impossible. In the end, that iPhone has Apple's logo in it, so anything that went wrong will affect the brand no matter what you think. This is why Jobs (and Apple) was super control freak. Because they actually one of the few who paid attention to their branding.

Why do you think people today still have the notion that Windows is unstable and crashes/BSOD a lot? Because whatever people do to their PCs, when it booted, it showed Microsoft Windows' logo and brand. So whatever happens, even if it was not Microsoft's doing, will be associated with the brand.

Why do you think more and more Android OEMs are locking their bootloaders and making it more difficult to root? Because they realized that when things went south, people will associate the bad things with the brand they saw on their phone.

I don't have any personal thing for/against jailbreaking. But I understand Apple's positioning. You may own the phone, but everything else associated with the phone is associated with Apple's brand. Look at how Ferrari told their owners what they cannot do on their own cars.
 

Millah

macrumors 6502a
Aug 6, 2008
860
502
Back in the day jailbreaking an iPhone opened up great possibilities. A lot of the utilities found on Cydia eventuality found their way into future versions of iOS. I’m not sophisticated enough to say why we can or can’t have options here. If one chooses to compromise their iDevice and download apps outside the App Store, let them assume the responsibility if something goes wrong. Those of us who want assurance that our apps are going to play nicely will stick to the App Store.
Apples argument (which I tend to agree with) is that in the end, it won’t be the users choice anymore if they open the flood gates. Once the option to side load exists, developers can and will pull out of the App Store and force their users to side load. If big apps that mainstream users rely on like Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, etc pull out of the App Store, the user no longer has the choice. They HAVE to enable side loading. If employers or schools force you to use an app that isn’t available in the App Store, you don’t have the choice.

Right now, users do have the choice. You can use Android, Windows, or macOS to run third party app stores. iOS and iPadOS are the ONLY options on the market for a closed/curated experience. Why do we need yet another fully open computing platform with no restrictions? We already have them. Can’t we have at least ONE platform like iOS?
 

Rashy

Suspended
Jan 7, 2020
186
371
Ah, the good old times, when Apple didn‘t even have a control or notification center, case-sensitive keyboard, SwipeBack or non-instrusive volume indicator. iPhone 4 and Cydia, good old times.

Since iOS 13 with Dark Mode, there isn‘t anything missing for me anymore. Minus an option for a permanent number row in the keyboard and, of course, the times where apps didn‘t bother you with subscription bullśhit.
 

johnnytravels

macrumors regular
Oct 24, 2019
210
560
Apples argument (which I tend to agree with) is that in the end, it won’t be the users choice anymore if they open the flood gates. Once the option to side load exists, developers can and will pull out of the App Store and force their users to side load. If big apps that mainstream users rely on like Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, etc pull out of the App Store, the user no longer has the choice. They HAVE to enable side loading. If employers or schools force you to use an app that isn’t available in the App Store, you don’t have the choice.

Right now, users do have the choice. You can use Android, Windows, or macOS to run third party app stores. iOS and iPadOS are the ONLY options on the market for a closed/curated experience. Why do we need yet another fully open computing platform with no restrictions? We already have them. Can’t we have at least ONE platform like iOS?
I agree with the first part that the option to sideload may lead to apps pulling out of the app store. But what is the problem? Not sideloading itself is the security risk but sideloading apps from shady sources. Look at macos for a platform that is versatile but also very secure. Implement other security measures like app signing. It can be done outside of the App store. If you’re afraid of what the data leeches might do: having an open system makes data leeching easier but at the same time makes it also more visible for experts, journalists etc. so if you trust in an enlightened free speech society you will have no problem hearing about data issues. Also think what this does for societies where people have ‘fewer options’ in general like in China. No more ‘Apple take this app off the store or we’ll ban you from our market’. I think this alone makes it worth it.
Which brings me to my second point: I disagree with framing a closed system as a market option, especially since Android has shown that the default app store will remain the go to source for most users in western countries who never bother with optional sideloading. Second: framing switching platforms as an option negates the effects of platform lock in. People choosing to switch will not only have to re-buy applications but will also lose some of their primary channels of communication (e.g. Facetime and iMessage).
Thus if you argue that having a closed system is an actual option among others you must also argue for Apple having to provide access to their full range of services on other devices. Anything other negates the fact that people will not start their digital lives with the purchase of their first smartphone a week from now but have in fact a digital history.
Whether you have ever jailbroken or not, you have benefited from the work of people like Saurik. Apple has copied some of its best iOS features from jailbreak tweaks. :)
It feels almost like … free market competition :)
 

laptech

Suspended
Apr 26, 2013
1,858
2,456
Earth
I've heard it many times from lawyers (from lawyers who are friends with a relative, plus have seen it written in the national press over the years) winning a case is not about proving ones innocent or guilt, it's about who can make the best argument. Over the years I am sure we have all seen cases play out in the media with individuals or companies who we believed to be innocent or guilty based on the facts and the evidence provided and as yet the verdict has gone the other way because one lawyer was able to make a better argument than the other lawyer.

Just because this is a Apple biased forum does not mean Apple is right in every case it wins. It just means Apples lawyers are able to make a better argument.
 

maerz001

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2010
1,969
1,710
This is impossible. In the end, that iPhone has Apple's logo in it, so anything that went wrong will affect the brand no matter what you think. This is why Jobs (and Apple) was super control freak. Because they actually one of the few who paid attention to their branding.

Why do you think people today still have the notion that Windows is unstable and crashes/BSOD a lot? Because whatever people do to their PCs, when it booted, it showed Microsoft Windows' logo and brand. So whatever happens, even if it was not Microsoft's doing, will be associated with the brand.

Why do you think more and more Android OEMs are locking their bootloaders and making it more difficult to root? Because they realized that when things went south, people will associate the bad things with the brand they saw on their phone.

I don't have any personal thing for/against jailbreaking. But I understand Apple's positioning. You may own the phone, but everything else associated with the phone is associated with Apple's brand. Look at how Ferrari told their owners what they cannot do on their own cars.
You ignore that with macOs we have a stable open system for millions of users for decades.

The argument Apple brings for iOS with “security” sounds good. but on the other side the argument “money” by running a monopoly App Store is the better option.
 

God of Biscuits

macrumors regular
Sep 17, 2007
179
390
If one chooses to compromise their iDevice and download apps outside the App Store, let them assume the responsibility if something goes wrong.

That's not even the issue. Not at all. Jailbreaking depended on an exploit. A way to literally exploit a security flaw on the iPhone. You want Apple to intentionally leave ways to gain root access to iPhones just to suppose the vanishingly tiny jailbreaking community freedom to install other apps on their phones? NO.
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
17,058
17,205
Singapore
I've heard it many times from lawyers (from lawyers who are friends with a relative, plus have seen it written in the national press over the years) winning a case is not about proving ones innocent or guilt, it's about who can make the best argument. Over the years I am sure we have all seen cases play out in the media with individuals or companies who we believed to be innocent or guilty based on the facts and the evidence provided and as yet the verdict has gone the other way because one lawyer was able to make a better argument than the other lawyer.

Just because this is a Apple biased forum does not mean Apple is right in every case it wins. It just means Apples lawyers are able to make a better argument.

In the same vein, not every lawsuit brought against Apple necessarily means that Apple is in the wrong either, but this forum sure likes to act like it.
 

nyuszika7h

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2020
53
123
Apples argument (which I tend to agree with) is that in the end, it won’t be the users choice anymore if they open the flood gates. Once the option to side load exists, developers can and will pull out of the App Store and force their users to side load. If big apps that mainstream users rely on like Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, etc pull out of the App Store, the user no longer has the choice. They HAVE to enable side loading. If employers or schools force you to use an app that isn’t available in the App Store, you don’t have the choice.

Right now, users do have the choice. You can use Android, Windows, or macOS to run third party app stores. iOS and iPadOS are the ONLY options on the market for a closed/curated experience. Why do we need yet another fully open computing platform with no restrictions? We already have them. Can’t we have at least ONE platform like iOS?
Technically, employers and schools can already ask you to sideload apps, as long as those apps are strictly in-house and not distributed to the general public. That is one of the explicitly approved use cases by Apple, other than developers testing their own apps.

As for "why not just use Android", the problem here is that Android is very often a second class citizen and apps like Twitter are far more polished on iOS. (And then there's also iMessage. Have fun trying to get all your family and friends to switch to another messaging app.) You may be fine with Apple's walled garden, but why shouldn't someone who likes the freedom but also cares about app quality be able to have the best of both worlds?

As others have said, Apple already has a security system in place for sideloaded apps, on macOS apps from external sources have to be notarized. On iOS there is no notarization system yet, but your app still has to be signed with a valid enterprise certificate to distribute to over 100 users (which costs about $300/month) and Apple can revoke it anytime, they already do. You could argue that technically it will slightly reduce security still as some people will install malware before Apple catches it if it passes the initial notarization process. But then again, despite Apple claiming how good their app review is, tons of scam apps still end up in the App Store, as they are consistently able to be fooled by decades old tricks like changing app behavior server side after the app is approved, or showing something different if someone opens the app from an Apple IP.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.