Judge was quite skeptical that there is anything the plaintiff could do to fix it, but it’s standard practice to allow the plaintiff to try at least once or twice.
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.
Judge Dismisses Cydia Creator's Lawsuit Against Apple For Now
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's see.... open platforms that no one (EVER) blame the hardware maker for software they chose to install or ever had a damaged reputation:
-The Mac
-The PC
-Android Phones
-Windows Phones (when they were a thing)
-LITERALLY EVERY HARDWARE PLATFORM WITH SOFTWARE NOT IOS/IPAD OS!!!!
There is a huge freaking difference but scouring the dark web for apps and a reputable, third party app store offering apps or direct from developer downloads. Guess what? That Developers reputation is whose rep is on the line, not Apples....
I agree with many sentiments, but I would argue that the need for control is synonymous with greed and nothing more with security being the marketing to cover put wool over the eyes of their sheep who buy into every BS thing they claim.
The one.... the only reason we have a Mac App store today is not that Apple hadn't thought about things when developing mac OS (allllll the way back to 1984... a span of what, like 25ish years.... gee, what could have made them finally think of an idea to gouge dollars from developers).... they realized from the App store they could take a savage and excessive cut of developer revenue.
The problem? The mac app store is mostly a failure. There is often a promotional incentive to buy direct from the vendor.
They tried to market it as a security sandbox for apps.... but that is also a load of crap because you can do that at the OS level if security is your motivation.
Simply greed man. This also proved to be an epic failure for Microsoft who has since learned their lesson and cut fees and restrictions.
Also, Mac's are, despite growth, are a measly 16% market share of computers. The Mac app store, in contrast the ios app store, is FAR less restrictive because Apple needs developers to make software for Macs or people won't use them. Macs already have a very small number of apps compared to Windows.
Apple bankrolls the toolset and platform, other seek to profit by using hacks and security holes to sell their own wares without paying the platform holder. If this guy wants his own App Store then he should make his own hardware and OS for it to run on.
Yeah, I think there are a bunch of folks that just see “libertarian” as “whatever I want”. Even if that was true, there’s a disconnect because, if that’s what they believe, then any OTHER person also gets “whatever THEY want”, including protecting their investments
Pretty much. And, thing is, that was the SAME option that faced Apple back when they were working with Motorola on the ROKR. They knew that with what was going on in the cell phone market, they wouldn’t be able to come anywhere close to their goal of software/hardware integration and consumer control (remember, it was a NORMAL practice in those days for carriers to disable the data port so that you couldn’t transfer data from your computer to your device. You had to email the file to yourself and, of course, the carrier would get a nice .10 charge for the convenience
and, as a result, they had to make their own hardware. At the same time, make their own OS, AND, at the same time, make their own pre-installed apps to run on the OS which required the internal tools in order to support development AND, eventually, externalizing that development environment, API’s and all the rest to provide developers with effective tools.Cydia was a thing ONLY because Apple had completed the seriously herculean (and what many thought insurmountable) task of bringing the iPhone into existence. Anyone that has a broad vision for where smartphones should go should get to the hard work of making that vision come to be. Piggybacking on Apple, though cool their products are, will just have the entire industry stagnate around Apple’s vision for the future depriving consumers of something wild and different that could capture the imagination in ways currently unforeseen.
For those that understand that this is the way to go, a helpful hint. For goodness sakes, focus on things that the AVERAGE person would want.
I know it’s easy to NOT do a store and just say “Everyone can get apps for our platform from anywhere” and a vocal minority will tell you that it’s GOT to have sideloading. But, go ahead, put in the work. Create a secure store experience, create the tools developers need to make the most of your hardware, optimize for everyday tasks and you’ll carve out a nice niche for yourself (in the smartphone market, even 5% would make your smartphone company profitable. If a guy trying to spin satellites into orbit can get funding and be supported over years while not making a profit, YOU CAN TOO!
Sure, you can "argue" anything you want. That doesn't mean the words are worth any more than the cost of transmitting the bits from here to there.
Interesting how these stories are all written to detail the lawsuit and allegations but the story does not actually discuss why the suit was dismissed. Theres money in stoking anti-apple sentiment I guess,
Attempting to use the power of the state to force private companies to allow content they don't wish to host is very greedy, I agree. Im glad you are against that.
Which is such a stupid and artificial delineation. Computing is computing. You cannot even say that game consoles are special purpose since they are not only to play games. You cannot say the TVs are special purpose as they are not only to watch TV (I know, right?).
Game consoles have web browsers and streaming media app support. They support keyboards. You could use Office web and actually be functional.
TVs have apps stores and web browsers. They have game support (simple, but still). Not sure about keyboard support but my LG remote has a Query keyboard on the back. I never connect my TVs to the internet so I cannot say if that keyboard support is for anything more than typing in settings. I assume so.
The fact that business models discount prices on consoles and TVs in the name of "special purpose" computing does not mean they are any less a computing device than other device.
Exactly. The App Store has never been the best place for discovery. It has gone up and down over time as far as its value. Every app on the store as a dedicated link (or several now). Every developer has that link and should be doing their own marketing. Put the "Get on App Store" button on your site. Send review copies and press notes. Advertise. Make the next great app and generate some buzz - then you get on the front page of the App Store.
Maybe back when the App Store had 500 apps the simple search in the store or the novelty of apps made discovery easier. But now developers are competing in a mature market and have to take ownership of their success (or lack thereof). Developers have to have an advertising budget and generate interest. Or they have to create the one app that absolutely everybody has to have and let the buyers come knocking. I wonder what that app would be - I'd love to write it and get rich without pushing my app.
Apple does not guarantee product placement as a benefit of the developer program or being on the store. It guarantees a place on the store, a link directly to the app, entry of the app in the search index, and the ability to have the app delivered to users. It MAY provide front page placement. It MAY provide a developer / app spotlight. But it does not, and should not be expected to, guarantee such placement.
Jailbreaking is legal. Apple lost that lawsuit years ago. But jailbreaking relies on exploits in the OS. Apple has the right and responsibility to close those exploits. That's why jailbreaking was always a cat-and-mouse game.
Legal to do it, anticipated that it would stop working, and got harder to do over time. Especially as some of the more prolific jailbreak developers took jobs at Apple.
Here's a solution - Epic games and anyone else who wants an open platform simply develop your own operating system. Epic certainly has the resources to do so, and when they do, they can open it up to jailbreaks, all app stores, and so on. Easy solution. Please leave my iPhone alone.
IIRC, the "blue light" thing (void blue color tones when one is about to sleep, and use warm colors like orange instead) that was added into iOS was originally only via jailbreaking. It was most amusing to hear some say that company didn't do anything when they still had to implement it for jailbroken devicesWhether 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.
False, and it shows that you have no sense nor knowledge about branding and brand perception.
PC Windows reputation with the public is poor. People still think Windows are a mess, unstable, and even the lay people can make fun of Windows BSOD. Brand perception of Windows is cheap. Same thing with Android. Brand perception of Android in the public is cheap and low. Most people still bought Windows and Android because they have to, or because they cannot afford not to.
This is why many Android OEMs are having a hard time convincing consumers to buy their $1000 models. Meanwhile, the same consumers have no problem spending that much for an iPhone. We can see this from the sales and revenue. People feel it’s worth it to pay that much for the Apple brand, but not others. This brand building took Apple decades to build. This Apple will ensure every control they can to maintain the brand.
This has nothing to do with what you think or what you want. In the end, that logo on the iPhone is Apple’s, and Apple is a control freak in protecting their brand.
Go look at what you CANNOT do as a Ferrari owner. The same thing.
Last edited:
Whatever you think the motivation is irrelevant. As a company, Apple has a duty and desire to protect and maintain their brand.
Go look at Disney and how they are very particular on what their brand is associated with in their media and products. Go look at Ferrari and what they require owners of their cars what they cannot do. Call it greed or whatever, but that’s the way it is. When a consumer watches a Disney movie, one has certain feeling and trust thanks to the brand. The same when one bought an Apple product.
I mean explain why Apple can maintain breaking revenue records during this pandemic YoY. People are more willing to spend more on Apple brand because there’s a level of trust in the brand. That’s what at stake here, and Apple will do all it can to maintain that. Greed or not, who cares. A company will do what it must do to protect its brand. It’s not about what you want.
Heck, we don’t even need to go that far. Look at Xiaomi. Even they start to lock up their bootloaders and making it more difficult for people to root their phones. The same with Samsung. All these OEMs realized that if they want people to spend more money for them, they have to do something to put trust in their brands.
Knowing all this, in the end it’s up to you to own Apple products or not. Apple will be Apple no matter what, control freak. Been like that since Steve Jobs.
The modified headline is still wrong. The complaint, not the lawsuit, was dismissed. The lawsuit is not dismissed until the court closes the case, which is nowhere close to happening.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but there are already alternative options (MDM, provisioning profiles, direct install from X-code) that schools and employers use to install non-app-store apps, without enabling side loading by the end user.
You can go and get a closed, curated experience in a psych ward too if you like.
Yet another fanboi who doesn't seem to even know that macOS exists.
No mate, iOS isn't closed to protect their branding. It is there to maximise profits from the 15/30% Apple App Store Tax.
Yet another clueless hater who didn't even read.
Maximising profit is what any company do. You're not providing an argument.
But, each of those options require several steps AHEAD of actual installation before those apps can get on your device. Is it possible that a malicious actor could call Grandma and have her first, get Jimmy to buy her a Mac and be sure to give her admin access to the system when he sets it up, download Xcode, download the code from the GitHub repository, bring it into Xcode, properly compile it, connect the phone to the computer and install the malicious code? Yes! This is indeed a valid vector. However, it’s also a very unlikely vector so having that as an option for people to use to install code? It’s a pretty measured risk.
Having ANY setup whereby a person, who doesn’t know what they’re doing, can be walked through (even chided and cajoled) into installing malicious software after taking a few steps using ONLY their phone? That’s a situation that Apple’s actively preventing. When they say sideloading is insecure, they’re not saying that your device, the tech savvy user who’s all about the siding and the loading, becomes less secure. They’re saying the devices of those who DON’T know what they’re doing become less secure.
The methods you mentioned are ALL valid ways for folks to get their apps on their devices and those who are most concerned are doing that already.