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
I am having hardtime understanding if this can even be called a monopoly? Assume there is a Amart if it lets other vendors sell their products in its store on the condition that there is a small price they have to pay in order to put their products on its shelves in return they dont need to pay rent and they get the benefit of customers who love to shop at Amart could this be considered a monopoly? Also who is responsible if there is a defect in the product? the vendor of the said product or Amart?
This is what makes the App Store great though, I remember finding funky purchases for apps, so I went in to my purchase history clicked a few buttons, typed a brief explanation and Apple took care of it, money back in my account the next day.
If apple didn’t control the payment processing, the above would proberly not have gone as smoothly if at all
I get that but why should App developers be allowed by virtue, to reach people who own Apple devices. Why is that a default right that only benefits the devs? Seems unfair that Apple made the App Store what it is but Devs get a free ride because “unfair” “monopolies.”
That's not really the point. The point is that the devs would be able to pocket that money themselves and better able to compete, which in turns allows them the capability to offer more to consumers.
It's clear that iPhone's success is based in part on its reputation of reliability and ease of use. My parents bought iphones because their friends reported satisfaction with the device. If that reputation changes, and reports become widespread of iphones malfunctioning, malware, etc. - apple loses one major pillar of their ability to sell the device successfully.
Put simply: if my parents start hearing repeated reports that iphones aren't as reliable as the used to be... they won't ask: "did you download from outside the app store? did you side-load?... they'll just stop buying iphones.
Put simply: if my parents start hearing repeated reports that iphones aren't as reliable as the used to be... they won't ask: "did you download from outside the app store? did you side-load?... they'll just stop buying iphones.
You're forgetting that MacOS doesn't have the same restriction as iOS. Until recently, you could install software from any source, including unregistered developers. At a minimum, you can still bypass the MacOS app store. Which raises a question... what justification does Apple have for restricting one OS if it doesn't the other?
Meanwhile, those who are defending the restriction have nothing to lose if Apple has to share the iOS app market. Those users can still use the App Store exclusively. Interestingly, the MacOS app store is not thriving. Some popular developers don't participate in it, and customers like me don't buy from it.
Atleast on Android(and PC even MacOS) they have multiple App Stores. Epic Games put their games on their App Store without using Google Play store, but on Apple they need to use the Apple App Store since there’s no other way to distribute their apps alternatively on iOS.
Yes. We need more local control, not national control.
If it's national, it needs to be unifying.
With that answer I'm surprised you made it this far in life without someone holding your hand. If you don't know what's bad and what's good you shouldn't own any technology at all
Apple may have their way of doing things, but if their way of doing things violates anti-trust law, then they cannot simply tell people to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
And there is certainly more to it than devs who "don't want to pay the price of admission."
If Apple wants to create a marketplace where people can sell apps and charge a fee to everyone who uses it, that's fine. But when they use their power as the author of iOS to prohibit people from buying or selling anywhere else, that becomes problematic.
If the App Store provides as much value as Apple says it does (and it does provide real value), then why not allow people the option to buy and sell without using it?
It's their refusal to allow people to buy or sell anywhere else that constitutes anti-competitive behavior, and we'll all be better off if the courts reach the same conclusion.
Let them open it up and some one will put out malware within a few weeks.
A techie person might be ok but a non-techie person like my mother-in-law will be side loading malware like there is no tomorrow. She bricked her last two Android phones. She’s on an iPhone SE now with no issues.
A techie person might be ok but a non-techie person like my mother-in-law will be side loading malware like there is no tomorrow. She bricked her last two Android phones. She’s on an iPhone SE now with no issues.
Multiple apps stores don’t seem to be best for the consumer,IMO. Without a proper review by Apple who knows what is lurking under the covers. So while you claim an opinion is spreading FUD, I’m claiming, perhaps, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture from a consumers point of view.
But this will be up to the judicial system to decide and it may take years. So we’ll see.
Question should be is it safe to download an app from outside the wall garden? Answer is no, unless you know what your doing and many of our seniors who are just learning about smart phones for first time do not have this knowledge.
The only real consumer reason to have this is to bypass paying for the app. I side load apps on my Android device just to keep from paying anything. I won’t pay for anything unless someone makes me pay. This will only spearhead the free app w pay ads and free app with subscription models.
A developer should have the right to charge whatever they want on the App Store be it $.99 or $1,000.
Yep. And also I doubt Apple would allow apps be downloaded into iOS without something like a certificate allowing the software permissions. And Apple is not going to vet software for free. It would charge developers going that route for certification.
Allowing the government to decide anything more complex than what they'll have for lunch is a scary thing.
No. That means Netflix will pull their app from the App store and go to a third party store which will force a majority of iPhone users to install this new store. Then Amazon would create their own store and I have to install that store too. Then Google will create the Google Play store. Epic Games store. Origin Store. Ubisoft Store. Then a Steam store. And who knows what policy they will put in to protect user data.
What an absolute horrible experience that would be.
How will netflix auto update the app? They would need a background service to update the app (Apple doesn't allow most apps to run in the background to conserve battery). Unless you mean Apple should allow apps should run in the background. Which means you'll have 50 apps running in the background for the sole purpose of self updating.
It can just check if it's outdated when you open it, like any desktop application.
then you have to wait for it to update when you want to use it. along with 200 apps on your phone. imagine doing that on LTE wasting your monthly data allowance.
do you personally go to the app store and manually press update on each app? no, you either do auto update or you manually click "update all"