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 Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, they have a particular company that manufactures all of their accouterment, which happens to not be Samsung.
Apple is not successfully preventing this, no, and I don't want them to.
I agree to an extent; I think Apple could leave a signature in, the same way you register for an update, that the update with properly filled out paperwork denying Apple any responsibility in case of privacy issues due to Malware would keep your normal "Vanilla" iOS very safe-the only issue I could see if that, by eliminating the jailbreaking community entirely, you'd be telling mostly benevolent exploiters of OS holes to take a hike meaning all future research into security of iOS outside of organized firms would go probably to melicious elements (as they would be the only people capable of having an organization and motive). I see no reason Apple couldn't allow for an "Open" iOS which allows the user to accept unverified code at user risk, or more practically, the user to accept certificates from trusted sources (like Cydia).
This is macrumors, not macfans. I've made considerable investments in apps, as well as products, mostly on the basis that I can use them as I want. That Apple wants to control most user's interactions with the outside world is neither my concern nor problem, but sometimes I might want to withdraw to my walled garden.
Why buy a house in suburbia when you can live in the country or the city, after all? Simple-so you can retreat to either when you so decide.
As someone who does tinker with the idea of buying apple stock, that's another reason.
So, what do you not understand about me wanting to be able to control my products the way I do, and finding it frustrating to have to fight Apple to tell them to shut up and take my money? I find Mac OS X and iOS very "relaxing" platforms in the sense I seldom have to think about them and their use. I can use windows and frequently do when I need. I can say aside from software compatibility, if one has the money, I can't think of any reason to choose windows over OS X. However, if Apple was stupid enough to restrict OS X, then I'd just install bootcamp and be rid of OS X.
Apple's aware of this problem, so they won't do it.
As far as jailbreaking is concerned, most people in the market don't jailbreak, so Apple doesn't need to cater to the jailbreakers. At the same time, they want their revenue. If they're ever able to close up holes, then the jailbreaking revenue-some would disappear like me as we jump ship, but most don't.
My concern is: Why do you care so much that only the Apple store exists? An open platform won't deprive you of your precious store. Why do you think it is so needed that Apple vertically integrate their users? If you like it for yourself, fine, whatever. But I'm in the limbo land of highly computer savvy and demanding from my technology and profoundly lazy, and Apple products fit my niche perfectly. If Apple makes it so I can't be both anymore, I'm out of the ecosystem. In terms of power and user experience, Apple products simply aren't *THAT* good compared to alternatives if you're very well versed on computers-pretty much anything is certainly usable. If your device doesn't do what you want, you don't use it anymore. It is that simple.
My complaint is, I think jailbreaking will be dead fairly soon. Unless legal cases win which break up Apple's control over the OS, I'm going to end up jumping ship-and taking my thousands spent on Apple with me in opportunity cost-which annoys me as I don't want to do it, but also because it seems so unnecessary. Why would this need to occur? I would compare it to an arbitrary despot who does it simply out of some insane belief that it'd build unity. It won't. It will do nothing more than impede Apple's growth-which you might find fine, since clearly based on the idea you don't see why someone who isn't quite a "fan" as you'd think of it shouldn't be using Apple products anyway. In the real world with most products and most real people, the world doesn't work that way.
The variety is that you can buy different products with different approaches to stores. Apple uses the one store to protect the contents of the phone, one set of rules to apply to all apps, one signing authority.
You want to remove the variety of a choice of what Apple is doing and make it be like Android.
I share the same feelings.
Except I am much closer to jumping ship with one of the Q3-Q4 Android phones after using my iPhone 4 everyday since launch day.
Everyone keeps telling me - too bad leave iOS. I'm starting to finally believe it.
Nobody cares about us man..
I appreciate the attention you've given to my comments, and you've presented reasonable arguments, however...
This isn't about being a fan. As I said you're welcome to complain about Apple's business model or any other aspects of their products and services, and wish that they'd do something different. As a matter of fact I do happen to wish certain things were different about the iPhone. For example, I'd like to be able to install a vnc server on my iPhone so I can control it from my computer. But that's not what this article is about.
This article is about people claiming that Apple is hurting them (illegally) by making certain business decisions, and that legally Apple should not be allowed to do that.
What if Apple shut down the iOS product line completely? Would we be able to sue them because we as consumers no longer have the option to buy iOS products at all? I know that's a ridiculous analogy, but the idea that Apple should be forced, legally, to provide certain features and functionality in their own platform, is also ridiculous.
You said: 'I find Mac OS X and iOS very "relaxing" platforms in the sense I seldom have to think about them and their use.'
One of the reasons the iOS experience is the way it is, is specifically because of how closed the platform is. If it wasn't closed like it is, then you wouldn't have the same experience. It's a matter of opinion or taste as to whether or not an open iOS would be a better experience or not, but again, that's not what this article is about. Personally I like the security and confidence of knowing that anything I install on my iPhone is sanctioned by the people that created it - both the hardware and the operating system. Apple happens to believe that that's the way technological devices should be, and so that's how they've designed and built their products. They have every right to have that opinion, and build their products and services accordingly.
Incidentally, Apple also happens to believe that that's the way computers should be as well, but the market has clearly shown them that if they chose that path they'd probably lose a lot more business than they'd gain. although that said, they've certainly built the OPTION for that into Mountain Lion. On the other hand, Apple happens to believe that their iOS products are better partly BECAUSE the platform is closed, and since they pioneered this particular market in 2007, they've had more success in succeeding in that market than they did with Macs (although let it be noted that they're leaning that way with GateKeeper or whatever it is in Mountain Lion).
As far as you taking your business elsewhere, that's perfectly legitimate of course. But is that a problem for Apple? It would seem that Apple happens to believe that their iOS products are better in a closed ecosystem, and they believe that they are attracting more customers or better customers or whatever it is that matters to them by providing the product and service this way, than what they'll lose from people who feel the way you are bordering on feeling (taking your business away from them). That's their choice to make, rightly or wrongly. If they lose enough customers through people like you leaving them THEN they might change their position (it's quite likely the iPad Mini for reasons such as this) but as far as they're concerned, rightly or wrongly, that's not happening sufficiently for them to make that change.
Although, that said, the market has spoken to some degree against the above: I would argue that the one big reason the Android has had any success (despite many people believing it is an otherwise inferior experience) is because it does happen to offer one feature that Apple doesn't: an open platform. And that's the point! Apple is free to choose to create products and services that make up a closed platform. The closed platform is part of the feature set (good or bad) of their products and services. It is their choice to do that with their products and services, and it is our choice as consumers to decide if we like that feature or if we'd rather have a different feature.
I have no issue with you not liking that feature. And I have no issue with you wishing that you could have a device that has all the other benefits of iOS without that somewhat restrictive feature (the closed platform). To some degree I have the same desires.
But this article is about some group of people trying to force Apple through legal avenues to change the feature set of their products and services. I believe no one has any right to do that. It's Apple's products and services and they have every right to decide what features should be included and what shouldn't, and the consumers can decide which products and services they want to purchase based on which products and services have the most compatible features with their desires and needs.
To argue that "closed platform" is anything other than one particular feature of Apple's products and services is, at least in my opinion, ridiculous.
----------
I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this statement.
Apple's iOS (or iPhone OS as it was at the start) has been a closed platform since the very beginning. If you objected to the concept of a closed platform, why did you invest in Apple's products and services?
Not trying to be an ass here. The question is genuine.
Last edited:
yes, at least you can install whatever you want, there are no boundaries.
you wanna stay tied to a single app store, an app store which has been involved in selling E-books for higher prices.
There is a tradeoff, security vs. multiple app stores. Everyone has a choice, iOS which chooses the security side, Android with the multiple app stores.
You aren't willing to say "well, because I value the multiple app stores over security, I choose Android, you choose what you want", you are saying "if you want the security option, SCREW YOU, the courts should INSIST you get the multiple app store choice."
The number of stores has nothing to do with security. It's all about how well each store vets their apps.
The real security trade-off is allowing non-vetted apps (something that people have done for decades with desktops and mobile phones). And even that's usually okay if you use common sense. Like don't install something from a text message without asking the person if they actually sent it; don't download from Chinese websites, etc.
In iOS (non-jailbroken), any code that executes on the iPhone must be signed and uploaded to the phone by Apple. There are bugs that means that sometimes doesn't happen, but those bugs get fixed. That means any malware must get into the store, be picked from the store, and creates a paper trail for Apple to follow. Also, Apple can turn off any app that proves to be malware.
To support multiple stores, Apple must allow software signed by others on the store, so someone uploading malware can sneak in through that way. They can't immediately shut off any malware they become aware of, and have no paper trail to find the people who uploaded it.
It's not a perfect security, but it definitely adds a good level of security. The other limitations also help - malware that gets on there can't access other apps, storage outside of its own sandbox, etc.
For a device, I prefer the security advantages over "I can upload from multiple sources" since the App Store has all I want.
Legitimate app stores have a paper trail, because they're also geared towards paying royalties. Google Play Market, Amazon App Store, Handango, Blackberry... they all require registration so they know who uploaded what.
Agreed that remotely shutting off an app would require that particular store to support that action and the user to enable it.
Yep, that's great for most people. Personally, I like also having the option to decide for myself to load apps that the store might not allow, might not have, or might not be supported any more, but which still work. (E.g. Flash)
In addition, I and other developers sometimes swap apps, or I might make one to give my family or friends.
And there's a device (actually, a wide range of devices) you can choose that gives you that choice. You want to mandate that choice on every device and thus on every person, and want the government to enforce that choice so those who don't want that choice can just pound sand.
Sir, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not "wanting to mandate" anything.
I'm simply asserting that having multiple stores isn't the problem. It's how well they check incoming software. (Not the people; the apps. We've seen hidden code from kids and universities, both usually non-suspicious sources.)
There's a couple concerns. One is the ability of the stores to check for malware.
But there's a huge difference in safety and control between one store and multiple store (and particularly if that also includes sideloading not from any store, and other requests like let us add stuff that interacts with other apps like alternative keyboards (keyloggers), media handlers like flash (great vector for adding malware from websites).
In the current scheme, where only one store is involved, any code that executes on an iPhone must come from Apple, be signed by Apple. (Those cases where other code can be injected are bugs to be fixed.) That means any malware either must somehow trick the OS into thinking it's signed by Apple (not easy) or get it into the store and get people to download it from the vast array of apps. It also means the code is limited in what damage it can do, how much of your device it can affect. It can't go rummaging through your full storage, reading and writing files used by other apps (or the apps themselves). It can't modify the OS to install a keylogger.
To support even a specific limited number of other stores (which won't satisfy the demands of those who are claiming multiple sources as a right), that still means accepting code from other sources, making it easier to find a way to crack the system. Open it up to sideloading, much wider options for malware to be executable. And fulfill the demands for apps to do more - the vault is open, kiddies, come take the goodies.
And this change in the OS affects everyone, even if they never use any app store but Apple's. The holes are open.
More apt, if Apple prevented you from installing your own OS on the phone you bought unlocked, you'd have a case.
Uh, no, we have a case in that we can abandon apple. Legally, you're right. We can't do that. But...here's the thing. We don't have to buy iPhones.
If 5% of users-or half of jailbreakers-stopped buying iPhones, how many billions over a decade would apple lose?
This is how economics works, and maybe if everyone spent their money as you suggest, Apple would be able to hold us even if they did something similar to that South Park episode...