Exactly, go over to the Android platform and buy into their ecosystem.....and just buy google stuff.
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.
Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple never prohibit you to do any of that. Apple just made its iOS more protective for those end users that are not technically savvy. For technically savvy users, there is method to install the apps through other stores or your own web site. The difficulty of going through the technical hurdles kind of proves these users' ability to protect themselves well.
They would also not beholden to some of Apple's draconian App Store rules like "must use webkit", "duplicate iOS functionality" & "pay us royalties." These hurdles are not technological.
Ana after installing such an app from a non-Apple entity, which in turn installs a virus on your device, people like you will be the first ones to whine about it.
Can someone smarter then me explain this to me? Seems if you don’t like Apples way of doing things then go elsewhere...
All I see are devs who want the ability to reach IOS users through Apples platform, but don’t want to pay the price of admission. If you are not happy then go android.
All I see are devs who want the ability to reach IOS users through Apples platform, but don’t want to pay the price of admission. If you are not happy then go android.
To maintain brand quality and recognition. Android has been long associated with malware, not because of the Google Play Store, but because of the ability to side load bad applications.
We recently had a problem where developers could download Apple developers tools outside of Apple servers. That injected Malware into each Application put into Apples App Store.
Not only would allowing outside operating systems/Apps onto the platform be a Tech Support nightmare, Apple iPhone brand would be forever seen as bad product, riddled with Malware. All because allowing customers to easily hack into their platform degrading the Apple name known for high quality and known for "It just works" features.
People wanting to do this on Apple is on the wrong platform.
"In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices. "
Apple doesn't charge for any of their apps - developers set app prices
Apple doesn't charge for any of their apps - developers set app prices
Personally, I hope this doesn't go anywhere. I believe in caveat emptor - Let the buyer beware. We bought into an ecosystem. Apple has every right to control that ecosystem as it sees fit. If you don't like it, go Android.
To turn that around, Apple opening iOS up to allow alternative app stores and sideloading does not mean you have to participate in using those methods. An Android user can choose not to install other non-Google play stores and Android has a system setting to block app installs from other sources.
I feel like a lot of the Apple fanboi "NOOO! We can't open iOS app installation!" viewpoint here is based on ignorance of how Android works when it comes to this. Like they think by allowing alternative ways of installing apps your device is now inherently going to allow things to install willy-nilly without any user control. That's not how Android works, and you can lock down an Android phone to a single marketplace in exactly the same way Apple does. The "malware free" platform iPhone users (falsely) believe they have is not due to the closed nature of iOS/Apple's App store. It's just due to better vetting of apps by Apple on their own personal store. An approval process that has already been shown to NOT be the perfect utopia of security the proponents think it is.
You could have the same thing on Android by turning on a single switch on the Android system setting and if Google made getting apps published the same process Apple does.
My point is giving customers a CHOICE is not an issue. To quote you: They can always buy only from the Apple App Store if they want a more limited and potentially more secure way of getting apps.
Yes. And, ironically enough, textbook publishers have set-up lots of monopolies, price-fixing, forced obsolescence, and anti-competitive practices themselves.
Plenty of companies sell across the platforms. You do not have an exclusivity agreement with Apple. Search any diet app and see it exists on multiple platforms.
Truly a bizarre case, if only because of the US’s misguided obsession with price as the only measure of monopolistic behavior. I believe Apple takes too big a cut from Store sales, but no serious person believes a lesser cut would result in lower app prices.
Exactly. I was going to say the same with games. It would be trivial to find an example that's available on Android and iOS.
So instead of having the supreme court set precedent you'd rather have a bunch of inefficient district court fights that all contradict each other? That sounds like a bad time.
Not at all. The court decided that a matter should be decided in court, that's all.
Yeah and Apple never attempts to have cases bought in certain counties as it increases their chances of wining.
But whatever, I’m sure you only like the Supreme Court when it decides in Apples favour and will defending Apple all the way.
If I was Apple ID be more concerned about the EU anyway as their is a chance they could be ripped apart there..
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
I did, and after saying it's not you did a 180 and said:
It was that contridiction I took issue with, i.e. that you could consider iOS a market in and of itself; I do not think looking at a micro market that is only a fraction of the larger one is the right way to define monopolistic practices.
If you did not mean to make that argument then you have my most humble apologies.
I hope this leads to other App stores or side loading. I know this will open Pandora's box with malware but I am will to accept the risk.
Maybe Apple could make something like a red band phone that supported side loading, 3rd party app stores, etc and the normal walled garden devices. I would even be willing to pay a little more IF it had the same specs as the non-red band.
Maybe Apple could make something like a red band phone that supported side loading, 3rd party app stores, etc and the normal walled garden devices. I would even be willing to pay a little more IF it had the same specs as the non-red band.
In a free market fair is what people are willing to pay at whatever demand level the seller desires. If developers don't like the deal they are free to develop for other platforms. If developers bolt then Apple has to decide wether or not to lower its price.
No problem that's why iasked.
all i was presenting was potential arguments, Not my argument, nor what I believe is the likely verdict. Just potential arguments to be made.
that's why it's probably being allowed to go to trial, because there are several arguments that can present themselves and the judge determined that a trial, where sides can present their cases to determine which is considered the "acceptable" view point.
And just because a judge allows the trial to commence, doesn't mean that any party is "guilty" of anything. Thats why it needs to go to trial.
If I put my personal opinion into the mix. No, the App store is not a monopoly. If you don't like it, there are more than enough competing products that are more open and accessible to chose from.
It's a common argument against for sure.
The thing is, I did that. And you know what? My phone hasn't exploded yet. I haven't had my bank accounts wiped out, or my dong shots leaked on the internet. I have no reason not to stick the Play Store, except for that time I side-loaded a ported version of GCam from a vetted source. Thing is, I had a legit reason to do that and the option was available to me without a yearly subscription and a Mac & XCode to push the damn thing.
Apple literally no longer gets a single penny out of me. Not for their phones, tablets or their computers any more and thus not for their App Stores or any of their subscription services - nothing. How cool is that for Apple? It's what they want, obviously. Especially in numbers.
I’m still waiting for your evidence of Apple rigging a jury or buying cases. Do you have some or don’t you?
This is the ultimate in how its' supposed to work. And its always a real possibility, especially in the phone industry.
it doesn't matter how big you are. If you manage to shrink your install base enough that the costs of development no longer present enough potential market, than the risk of those developers leaving is a reality.
We all saw what happened to Windows phone, despite trying to pay developers to come. We saw what happened to Palm when nobody developed for them, and even Blackberry, when they were #1 bled developers for growing markets instead of stagnating ones. (Blackberry was still the #1 seller of smartphones as late as 2010, and it still couldn't save them once developers left the platform)
Apple might sell the #1 selling individual phones, But they are not the #1 seller of devices and have seen their market share shrink slightly now for a few quarters (which indicates a trend).
3rd party developers and accessory makers pay attention to these things.