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

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly

japanime said:
OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?
Click to expand...

the MS case was NOT about MS refusing to ship any other browsers on their OS image. that was their right. the case was about MS threatening to stop selling windows to OEMs who chose to include another browser she selling complete PCs. big difference. that was using their monopoly in one product area to crush another product area and is not legal.
 
clibinarius said:
If Apple successfully prevents me from installing what I want on my phone, they will successfully move me to another mobile OS.

And I believe the 10% of us who jailbreak for the most part feel the same.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding the whole point of competing mobile platforms, especially a vertically integrated one such as Apple's. Just as you can't access the Apple App or iTunes stores on Android devices, you can't access the Google Play store or the Windows store on an Apple device. Etc. etc.

You're never going to make Apple budge on this so you might as well jump ship now. And I'm sure Apple cares for the other 90% of legitimate iOS users, and not the 10% of jailbreakers.
 
DaveGee said:
"cornered the distribution market for software for the iPhone"??

Like Microsoft has cornered the market on x-box software distribution?
Like Sony has cornered the market on play station software distribution??
Like Nintendo has cornered the market on wii software distribution???

Yea....
Click to expand...

Those are not good examples. You cannot obtain third party software for an iphone from anywhere but the App Store. On a game console, you can buy physical media. A better example would have been the PSP Go, which I don't believe supported anything but downloaded games.
 
MetalMoon said:
If you don't like the app store, then perhaps its time to find a different phone.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much it. My take is that the court is viewing that the Apple app store policies are not malicious and, if anything, creates a good playing field for competition while kicking those that abuse and destroy environments in the name of Civil Rights.

Has anyone done a portfolio search on the backers of this suite? Love to know if any of them own app stores on line themselves.
 
And what would the result of this suit be? Alternative app stores that increase security threats on our already vulnerable mobile devices? No thanks!

----------
mdelvecchio said:
sue McDonald's!
Click to expand...

It would be more like..

Sue McDonalds because they don't allow Taco Bell to sell tacos on their menus.
 
japanime said:
OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.
Click to expand...

The difference: 90% market share in the operating system market.

If Apple sold 90% of all smartphones, _and_ these lawyers were not complete idiots who can't even file a lawsuit that isn't thrown out because of obvious mistakes that they made, then they could very well have a point.

The article says this was thrown out on a technicality. The technicality was that they forgot to _claim_ any facts that caused injury to them (forget about _proving_ those facts). This is like you getting acquitted of a murder charge on the technicality that the prosecutor didn't claim that you actually killed someone.
 
Last edited:
I'm so tired of a majority of people trying to get a piece of the pie that Apple created. You think it's unfair for Apple to restrict you to their ecosystem? Well guess what. Tough *****.

Apple invented the iPhone, iOS, and they can do whatever they like, whether you like it or not. Period. End of story.

Now, it's in their best interest to keep customers happy and continue to improve their products, but trying to sue them because they don't allow competitors to run their own app stores within iOS is insane.

If you want it so bad, get off your lazy butt and invent it! Use that piece of meat that sits atop of your neck and make the world what you want it to be...but don't try to mooch off of someone else.

I truly wish frivolous law suits like this would get thrown out immediately and a hefty fine given to those who brought it to cover the costs of wasted tax dollars and time.

Okay...off my soap box. Have a great day :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorbag42
japanime said:
OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.
Click to expand...

MS also deeply integrated IE at such a level that removing it would be impossible for the integrity of the system - that is, delete IE and the system no longer works.
 
MOFS said:
Microsoft had a near (90%) monopoly on desktop computers. They bundled IE into every computer (ultimately trying to make it unremovable) and gave it away for free in order to overtake Netscape. Apple currently has around 50% of the marker and there are clear competitors doing the same thing (Microsoft included ironically) which means this is surely a non-event.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether competitors do it. For example, Apple is allowed to bundle Safari with OS X whereas Microsoft is not. This because bundling is not bad per se. It becomes a problem when bundling leads to a decrease in economic efficiency, typically when a dominant undertaking can use its market power in another market to distort competition. Since Apple does not have a significant market share in either market, there is no question of abuse of dominance regardless of the bundling.

But similarly there could be a competition concern if Apple's behaviour in the smartphone market, or perhaps even touch-based smartphones market, reduces overall efficiency by imposing the App Store as the only means to acquire apps on iOS devices and distorting competition in all those smaller markets in which individual apps could partake. Apple used to have a very tight control in the past and even rejected competitor's apps for duplicate functionality. It is not unrealistic to argue that Apple's insistence on the App Store could decrease efficiency in the app market if it is able to distort competition. It is irrelevant whether both iOS and the App Store are Apple's, there are limits to economic freedom if efficiency is impeded. As long as the smartphone market remains competitive and therefore efficient, which it currently is, Apple is free to dictate the conditions under which iOS can be used, at least from a competition-law perspective.
 
With a billion Android phones being activated every ten minutes, according to Eric Schmidt, why of earth does anyone give a crap about the App Store? LOL !!!!!!!!
Keep up the good work Apple!
 
CFreymarc said:
That is pretty much it. My take is that the court is viewing that the Apple app store policies are not malicious and, if anything, creates a good playing field for competition while kicking those that abuse and destroy environments in the name of Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

No, the court didn't even look at the case. Because the plaintiffs claimed that they were somehow injured by Apple, but they forgot the unimportant detail to tell the court what Apple supposedly did to injure them.
 
BigBeast said:
If that were truly the case, the majority of handsets I see each day wouldn't be Android; however, that isn't the case. If that were truly the case, there wouldn't be 20% Apple haters commenting on Macrumors, and 70% Apple haters commenting on Engadget. And yes, those percentages are straight out of my ass, but I feel that I'm actually being kind with those numbers, so I don't mind too much.
Click to expand...

Well, the number of Android phones to iphone is totally down to the cost differences between both. If an iphone was cheaper we'd see more of them than iphones. We'll see that when the 5C is released.

What im taking about with my initial statement is that apple seems to have US judges backing them on quite a few lawsuits.
 
carmenodie said:
With a billion Android phones being activated every ten minutes, according to Eric Schmidt, why of earth does anyone give a crap about the App Store? LOL !!!!!!!!
Keep up the good work Apple!
Click to expand...

Exactly, android is "winning", I tell ya'!

With Apple being trounced so handily in the cell phone market, they need all the help they can get, right? So the App Store should stay the exclusive software distribution on iOS, the poor little guys!

:p
 
japanime said:
OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.
Click to expand...

From what I understand about the Microsoft Internet Explorer case, the issue wasn't that they were refusing to bundle any browser other than IE with the operating system.

Microsoft built up a leading position in the personal computer market. In order to promote their browser offering, Internet Explorer, MS bundled it for free with Windows. The case alleged that MS was leveraging its power in the PC market to stamp out competition in the browser market by bundling IE with Windows. It was further alleged that MS had written code into Windows to make competing browsers malfunction. Basically, MS was accused of using a legitimately established dominant position in the PC market to beat competition in another market, the browser market.

The case depends on the definition of market and I don't agree with the plaintiffs' idea of defining "market" to mean the market for iPhone software distribution.
 
mdelvecchio said:
the MS case was NOT about MS refusing to ship any other browsers on their OS image. that was their right. the case was about MS threatening to stop selling windows to OEMs who chose to include another browser she selling complete PCs. big difference. that was using their monopoly in one product area to crush another product area and is not legal.
Click to expand...

You're right, and more specifically MS was forcing other companies to bundle their software if they wanted to be part of the only profitable PC platform at the time.

The browser case was just an extension of the previous DOJ suit where Microsoft had been convicted of using their monopoly to prevent companies that wanted to sell DOS/Windows computers to ship them with alternative OSes, thus preventing any competing platform from having any chances.
 
Catalyx said:
I don't see how Apple is obligated to allow other app distribution systems on their own platform when there are other options for consumers in the smartphone market.
Click to expand...

And yet they do allow another distribution system on their platform. It's one they've invested fair bit of work in to despite their being on way to make money off it as yet*.

HTML 5 apps. Sure they aren't as full feature as CocoaTouch Apps but they are a full valid framework that spans Apple and other devices.

*I still suspect we'll see iCloudApps opened up to third party developers, maybe as soon as next year.
 
japanime said:
OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.
Click to expand...

Difference #1 - Market share. Apple never had anything close in phones, smartphones, or even tablets to what Microsoft had in OS

Difference #2 - Other bad behavior. Microsoft threatened to withhold it's OS from computer makers that included another browser (even though they could install other software in the computer before selling it), if they sold computers with another OS, using FUD to kill competitors, etc.

Difference #3 - Microsoft left a paper trail about why they were bundling the browser, to kill Netscape.
 
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