Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

[LordVic]

People don't want to void the warranty on their phones. That's why. The consumers weighed the pros and cons and decided against it as they would have no recourse if something happened to the phone when the offending OS was installed.

But that doesn't argue my point.

if I so happen to

Know what i'm doing (I don't, but i'm doing the hypothetical)
Trust what I'm doing
Don't care for support from Apple

Why can't I replace my OS on my iPhone?

Especially as you said, I'm legally entitled to.

sounds like, Apple (and other manufacturers) are ignoring the ruling of the law. so while it's "legaly" allowed, the manufacturers are still actively making it a technical impossibility.

even if i'm in a 1% minority of people who want to and can do it, I still have no ability to do so because of Apple's software

 

[nouveau_redneck]

This won't be good for Apple. Or the consumer. If it ends up against Apple down the road.

I agree. I want my apps from an Apple App Store only. If this opens the way to alternative stores, I won't buy from any of them. I like Apple vetting all apps I put on my phone.

 

[sracer]

The problem is that people go too far and don't always understand the ramifications and the downsides....because they are only looking at the potential positives.

That concern is a bit premature. Let's see how far this goes in the courts and what the courts ultimately decide.

Based on what we know (which is very little at this point), I'm seeing a lot of defending Apple and a belief that Apple should be free to do whatever they want to with regard to how they run their business.

 

[apolloa]

Nothing to apologize for.

OTOH, you clearly don’t understand what this ruling means. It’s literally just a go-ahead to have a trial. The Supreme Court made NO DETERMINATION as to the merits (or lack thereof) regarding this case.

Yet that doesn’t stop many here from assuming that the Supreme Court somehow decided Apple was in the wrong.

My point proven....

Rig the jury again? You’re quite the conspiracy theorist, aren’t you?

You don’t know your history..

 

[Knight3]

I don't agree with Apple having the right to restrict software. As I said, when you buy a device, you are doing two essential things.

1 Purchase of the physical device. This is now your device. it's not a license, it's not a lease, you own it. Thus, property ownership tends to come with it certain rights for what you can do with the physical device itself.

2. Purchase / lease of the software on that physical device. This being the limited license.

in my opinion, the 2nd part of the transaction should not override the first part. if I chose to open myself up to malware, security risks, etc, on the physical device I own, than that should be entirely my right. Risks of that also my own should something happen (if I brick my phone installing a 3rd party OS for example, I believe Apple should have the ability to deny warranty repair)

In addition, Malware doesn't just "spread". these aren't the viruses of the 80s/90s, where just inserting a disk will infect a computeres MBR. Malware today still generally requires user interaction in order to install their payloads. Me installing malware on my computer will not infect my neighbour or vice versa. Same with phones. Should you install Malware on your phone, you might have security risks yourself, But your friends and families phones don't suddenly become infected either.

In the case of iOS restrictions, I would like to see device manufacturers be forced to allow for the replacement of the OS with a 3rd party OS if the default OS does not meet the requirements of the purchaser. Don't like being restricted to the App store only? Install a 3rd party OS that has the opening you require.

Now, That also doesn't mean Apple must support 3rd party OS's. That's sillyness. But they shouldn't be able to block it either. (This is also true for the rest of the computer industry that is doing it's best to follow Apple's lead and lock software to hardware)

I never said just infecting one device will magically infect every other device in the vicinity. All I said was the "odds" of that happening are not impossible.

You're probably underestimating the lengths and resources state sponsored actors like Russia and China have at their disposal.

Just cuz we pay a premium for a device doesn't mean they should give into our every whim. We can't expect companies to change how they operate just cuz it's not more convenient or affordable for consumers. A lot of consumers out there still technologically dumb and shouldn't be allowed to be able to do everything they want with their devices. We know Apple's practices before buying the iPhone and we did buy one regardless.

I don't always agree with what Apple does but it certainly isn't fair to ask them to change how they operate their software. This doesn't qualify for a Monopolistic practice.

 

[AdonisSMU]

No, I do have a full understanding. It's not income redistribution, its theft from people who earned or inherited their money.

IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY FOR THE TAKING JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE THAN YOU.

You can try buttering up the concept of "income inequality", but in the end it is nothing other than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor just because it's not equal for somebody to have more than another. That is called communism / socialism, in the end, it only makes everybody equally poor.

No it is the cost of doing business and the cost of government creating and maintaining the framework that you became successful with. Secondly, most of the people complaining about others taking their money don't pay in adequately to begin with. I find myself paying financing other people's lifestyles... mainly the fly over states that don't generate any income or tax dollars on average. Most conservative states are taking in more tax dollars than they put into the pot. I thought they didn't want wealth redistribution....but then they have their handout. How about redistributing the money back to the states CA and NY where it originated?
[doublepost=1557769012][/doublepost]

Poor analogy. The debate is not about a 3rd party company dropping support for a platform, the debate is about the first party company [aka Apple] preventing 3rd party companies from developing or distributing their applications if they don't like that.... in addition, it's also about that same first party not allowing the 2nd party (the consumer / iPhone owners) to install the applications they want if they aren't approved.

Microsoft has nothing to do with whether or not an application can be installed on your Mac, nor should they be required to develop an application for your out of date platform.

Microsoft merely develops an app, says "it will run on XY and Z", if you don't meet those requirements, then you need to upgrade to a compatible platform.

You need to read the post I was quoting. Then comment on it. The users argument boiled down to wanting apple to support old hardware forever. That's simply not technologically or economically feasible.

 

[LordVic]

I never said just infecting one device will magically infect every other device in the vicinity. All I said was the "odds" of that happening are not impossible.

You're probably underestimating the lengths and resources state sponsored actors like Russia and China have at their disposal.

Just cuz we pay a premium for a device doesn't mean they should give into our every whim. We can't expect companies to change how they operate just cuz it's not more convenient or affordable for consumers. A lot of consumers out there still technologically dumb and shouldn't be allowed to be able to do everything they want with their devices. We know Apple's practices before buying the iPhone and we did buy one regardless.

I don't always agree with what Apple does but it certainly isn't fair to ask them to change how they operate their software. This doesn't qualify for a Monopolistic practice.

Oh, I don't think companies should change when it's convenient for the consume.r

I expect them to change when they are violating the basic premise of a competitive regulated marketplace that is setup in order to prevent monopolistic practices from taking advantage of users who may have no alternatives but to pay those "high prices".

also< no I don't underestimate china/russia and other agents. I work IT for a bank. the hoops we must go through to keep our members safe.


Now, I do tend to agree with part of the "this doesn't qualify for monopolistic practice" only because Apple is a minority share in the industry for market share and usage. There are viable alternatives from dozens of other manufacturers. Thus, Apple and the iPhone doesn't qualify for a monopoly.

but, if you look at iOS itself as a market unto it's own (which is part of the argument of the lawsuit), than yes, this is a monopolistic practice within the micro context of the specific platform.

if you are on iOS, the Appstore is 100% a monopoly.
if you don't care about iOS, than no, the Appstore is not a monopoly.

 

[jlc1978]

Good news for consumers. Apple shouldn’t get to decide what apps I can install. That was the reason to jailbreak in the past.

Not really. SCOTUS only said the suit could go on because APPLE'S interpetation of a previous SCOTUS decision was not correct. They made no comment on the merits of either side's arguments; that will be doen as the case progresses through the lower courts.

 

[ijlakw]

These 5-4 decisions set precedent. We really need the Supreme Court to only set precedent unanimously. Having set precedent on a simple majority is too close and becomes too political.

Agreed.... look how the voting went down... Kavanaugh ended up being the swing vote.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

 

[jlc1978]

if you are on iOS, the Appstore is 100% a monopoly.
if you don't care about iOS, than no, the Appstore is not a monopoly.

That's not how a monoploy is defined. You have to look at the whole market, wnere the consumer can chose what type of OS they want to use. The question is wether or not Apple has enough power to set prices for an entire market; clearly they do not because their market share is much smaller than Android and they let developers set their own prices.

 

[LordVic]

That's not how a monoploy is defined. You have to look at the whole market, wnere the consumer can chose what type of OS they want to use. The question is wether or not Apple has enough power to set prices for an entire market; clearly they do not because their market share is much smaller than Android and they let developers set their own prices.

did you just read the very last two lines of my post and assume that was the message of my post? I'd recommend reading the whole thing, as I made that very exact argument

 

[mi7chy]

It's not so bad that Apple has a monopoly on the app store but the fact that it's abused to disadvantage developers by stealing ideas and booting 3rd party apps, unfair fees for 3rd party vs Apple services, disallow customers' freedom to legit apps like emulators/torrent clients/Kodi, etc. For these reasons it should be modeled more like Android where there's more freedom with not only Google Play Store but also Amazon Appstore, F-Droid Free Open Source Store and more.

 

[DaveP]

I may have missed it, but one point in Apple's favor is that with the developer tools any app can be loaded onto a device if you have the source code. Of course a developer selling numerous copies of their source code would run afoul of Apple's developer terms, but many apps are open source and the code is freely available. It obviously isn't a very large or efficient market, but it does exist, and serves as a good counterpoint to the arguments that a device owner should be able to run whatever they want on their device. Because they can, just not very easily.

 

[DotCom2]

So being able to load apps from anywhere equals rogue apps lol. That's funny. So buying apps straight from the developer is rogue and dangerous. You're just the type that Apple needs on the jury

If I were a betting person, I would say YES! The odds would be much higher.

 

[I7guy]

did you just read the very last two lines of my post and assume that was the message of my post? I'd recommend reading the whole thing, as I made that very exact argument

You forgot to add, in my humble opinion. The courts may not find the same as you declared.

 

[jlseattle]

The psychology of this argument is so interesting. It's a philosophical point of view. One would argue that if you don't like the ecosystem of Apple, shop in another ecosystem. The other would argue that the ecosystem should be open, people should work in the free market system and if bad things happen, its the responsibility of the user to not let it happen. The nanny state versus the Wild West. This is a direct reflection on our own society in America.

My vote is this: Let each company decide how to run their ecosystem and users should vote with their dollar to those ecosystems. If you want an open ecosystem, go to Microsoft or other companies that give you that ecosystem. if you want an closed safer ecosystem then stay with Apple or others that have that ecosystem.

Usually in closed ecosystems, nanny states, or high end retailers like Nordstroms you pay for the service you get. It's very catered and very closed in what they will offer. BUT you get what you pay for. But you will pay more.

OR you can have an open eco system where the products aren't as good but cheaper. You have more opportunities to both take advantage or take advantage of others. And you get what you pay for. Cheap but "does the job".

I prefer closed ecosystems just because I appreciate good quality and things just being done right in the first place for me. AND I know that others in the ecosystem will have consistent service. Opening up Apple App Store is a bad thing and will hurt the quality of Apple products. Even if they label, red texted or whatever crap you put on it. It still is not a good thing. Go to another solution for another ecosystem.

 

[1146331]

No it is the cost of doing business and the cost of government creating and maintaining the framework that you became successful with. Secondly, most of the people complaining about others taking their money don't pay in adequately to begin with. I find myself paying financing other people's lifestyles... mainly the fly over states that don't generate any income or tax dollars on average. Most conservative states are taking in more tax dollars than they put into the pot. I thought they didn't want wealth redistribution....but then they have their handout. How about redistributing the money back to the states CA and NY where it originated?
[doublepost=1557769012][/doublepost]
You need to read the post I was quoting. Then comment on it. The users argument boiled down to wanting apple to support old hardware forever. That's simply not technologically or economically feasible.

Well in that case I agree, no company should support old hardware forever.

I am against most social welfare programs, they tend to be abused. There should be short-term assistance and assistance for those that are literally disabled to the point they can't work.

Before we got rid of those programs though, I would be for getting rid of political black money that goes into the pockets of companies that politicians push for (e.g. green energy companies that got lots of government money and never yielded anything). Also the shrimp on the thread mill, I don't support things like that.

 

[rgbrock1]

This isn't really about the 30%. Apple can charge whatever they want at their store. But they should NOT be allowed to have the only store. If I want to write an app for the iPhone, I should have the choice to put it in Apple's store, some other store, or sell/give it away directly from my own web site.

And infect it with malware or viruses galore. Some of the people whining here about having no choice should think about that. the Apple App Store does a pretty good job of keeping spyware, malware and virus out of the products sold there. Allow others to sell apps which run on the iPhone/iPad etc. opens everyone up to a world of hurt. Is that what you want also?

 

[linuxcooldude]

But that doesn't argue my point.

if I so happen to

Know what i'm doing (I don't, but i'm doing the hypothetical)
Trust what I'm doing
Don't care for support from Apple

Why can't I replace my OS on my iPhone?

Especially as you said, I'm legally entitled to.

sounds like, Apple (and other manufacturers) are ignoring the ruling of the law. so while it's "legaly" allowed, the manufacturers are still actively making it a technical impossibility.

even if i'm in a 1% minority of people who want to and can do it, I still have no ability to do so because of Apple's software

Apple sells its iPhone/iPads as a single product. It does not separate it into Operating System and Hardware and sold separately. Therefore any modifications wanted by the consumer is entirely on that consumer whether possible or not.

 

[Jonathan2019]

I think Apple does have a monopoly. Why? Because you have to sign a developer agreement that you give Apple exclusive rights to only sell your iOS App through the Apple App Store. Now the next problem is that Apple is moving iOS Apps to Mac. Which makes me wonder if Apple will try to restrict the Mac App market even more. Right now no one makes Apps for Mac (except the ones that have good marketing or were popular before the Mac App store). It's already extremely restricted with Gatekeeper and such. So you say the App Stores are safer? it's pretty easy to spoof someone into thinking they need to enter their username and password on Mac and iOS and there's nothing Apple will do about it. The App stores and Gatekeeper are actually worse because you think that it's safe but in reality they're not. Just my two cents from the perspective of being a Mac and iOS developer...

 

[rgbrock1]

Exactly. And since it's MY iPhone, I should have the right to repair it however and wherever I want as well.

But Apple thinks we're too dumb to be able to do it ourselves.

Probably because most users ARE too dumb to be able to do it themselves.

 

[Knight3]

You can buy aftermarket car parts of a lesser quality for your car. If that part fails, the consumer has no right to complain or sue the manufacturer of the car. They can go after the manufacturer of the part.

You're right except for the part where for a car it's just you who'd be at a loss for value. But software is an entirely different paradigm.

 

[subi257]

No You can’t!
Because apple has a walled garden too. If You have a watch?

Yes, you can. Buy android products and then you can just buy from the play store.

 

[rom3o]

It wont. This will go nowhere, platform holders take cuts everywhere (console stores, Steam, Epic Store, literally any marketplace on earth does so to finance the delivery of said content).
30% is the average fee, it‘s ugly but everyone does it.

You do realise that you mentioned two competing platforms where one currently challenges the other by claiming that the established 70/30 split is unfair?

I totally agree that Apple deserves a cut for its services but 30 percent just doesn’t seem reasonable anymore (especially not for IAPs where the only thing they do is handling the payment). The Epic Store keeps 12 percent for mainly the same services as the App Store and with the cost curves of data storage and payment processing fees coming down I could imagine that Epic still makes a fair amount of money with their store.

 

[LordVic]

Apple sells its iPhone/iPads as a single product. It does not separate it into Operating System and Hardware and sold separately. Therefore any modifications wanted by the consumer is entirely on that consumer whether possible or not.

you're not arguing what I'm saying though.

I'm not saying Apple must sell them seperately. Only that the "key" to unlock the bootloader be available if someone wants it, to replace the OS.

I would honestly expect 99.99999999% (with margin of error) to never know, or care.Only that it is available for those that desire to (as they own the hardware and should have the right to if they want)