I'm sure Apple is already taking steps in their baseline of IOS to deal with this. Can't have some bad apples (pun intended) ruining the "Apple" experience for customers who have come to rely on the app store for safe, secure and solid apps.
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
That is not consumer grade software. There is a way around this menagerie of stupidity. Charge each developer a flat fee to certify app. Host in app store no charge to developer. Charge user who wants certified apps flat fee to access store. User pays developer in app.
Done......
If iOS allowed other app stores what apps would you get that you’re not getting now? They’d still have to run on iOS and I assume would only have access to the same frameworks/APIs as App Store apps. Can you give me an example of an app that doesn’t exist on the App Store that could/would exist on an alternate App Store?
Choice of apps is a single facet of the overall argument, there are plenty of others that have been touched on in this thread.
There is, it's called Android or it's red-headed stepchild, Amazon.There is no basis for someone who buys an iPhone, then becomes upset that Apple vets App Developers to make sure their app is not malicious to you, the user. Developers have a right to price their app and Apple has a right to surcharge that Developer for the tools they need to make that app on Apple's intellectual property.
[doublepost=1557841157][/doublepost]
You're deflecting, If you want something different, buy Samsung, their system is a bit more open if you learn to code in linux or tizen.
Last edited:
Only so far as its not a single issue argument that's concluded one way or the other by my refusal to be drawn.
Competition in electronic distribution on all platforms is something to be celebrated.
This decision is just allowing a lawsuit to proceed. The lawsuit on its face is not strong enough to win. How is it that you think it's OK to force Apple to force App Devs to lower the cost of their (the app dev) app. Google has the playstore and Android is based in Linux. You can sideload apps on Android as well. The argument here looks like if I want to play Mario Kart 8 made for the Switch, I own a Gamecube, I sue Nintendo to force devs to make MK-8 on Gamecube, make it look and play as well as it does on the Switch and I want it to be FREE. There are other SmartPhone companies out there besides Apple. Use them.
For the benefit of all on this thread can you point to where I explicitly said that please?
Yes. Agreed. You the "My iPhone" owner, should also be held to account all costs, for getting repairs & support when the problem arises from outside the store, from Malware, and Ransomware if you use another store. Apple, should be able to charge a separate fee outside of the AppleCare warranty for this.
It's both Apple's phone and your phone. And there is quite the legal / judicial precedence to back that up. Control of hardware, systems, and platforms was established with Atari vs Activision (back in the 1980's). Atari wanted to argue that it was their system, their hardware, and they challenged the straight up legitimacy of 3rd party development. Atari flat out lost. And instead though, their lawsuit against Activision, established the legality and legitimacy of 3rd party developers straight up. From a legal standpoint the case established that anyone (i.e. Activision) could write software for any system as long as there wasn't anything actually blocking it. That is if you 1) Either could figure out how the hardware worked on your own or 2) Had previous knowledge of how to write software for it (e.g. were former Atari employees, i.e. Activision) - your work and business was legal. That is, the former Atari employees who left and started their own business writing software for the Atari VCS were not stealing or using company secrets. Moreover, there was flat out no action or legal recourse available for Atari to prevent anyone from writing software for the Atari VCS. This is also what lead to the flood of software to the system and crashed the video game market in 1983.
Starting with the Nintendo Entertainment System from Nintendo this court case is very specifically -*why*- all platforms since then has incorporated some form of lockout feature - such that 3rd party development could be controlled.
While 3rd party software development is now inherently legal - platform, system, or hardware manufacturers are just as much unquestionably allowed to completely prevent or manage 3rd party development using a lockout system or to openly allow it. Specifically that is: They don't have to allow others to undercut their requirements. Google allows 3rd party "App stores" as is their prerogative. But, they can just as much change their minds about it: Google just banned Chrome extensions being installed from 3rd Party sites
This all stated - Nintendo itself in the late 80's / early 90's very much got whacked for being anti-competitive with their licensing requirements and agreements for 3rd developers.
But, this case is very much about that 30%. In the Nintendo case - it was the developers being harmed. Previous anti-trust case precedence was: "Only direct customers of products or services can seek antitrust remedies against the product manufacturers or service offerers." The question, in this case, being posed is whether consumers are being harmed by essentially complicit developers (whether willful or not) passing on costs. To your point, to your concern, the Supreme Court says the question is legitimate and worthy of discussion. The previous precedence does not apply in this case as the Supreme Court views app purchasers as direct victims, not indirect victims.
Temper your expectations though. Nothing on the merits of the plaintiff's accusation is implied. Apple's defense of their license agreements could be accepted by court that hears the case now. The case is probably going back to the district level because a decision now needs to be made on the merits of the case. Yes, Apple gets to defend itself from the plaintiffs accusation. Then Apple would get to Appeal the decision if it goes against them.
Last edited:
Except when the whole is less than the sum of the parts. There is nothing but downsides for Apple customers, IMO, to have unregulated app stores.
- better apps can’t make that argument
- adult apps maybe
- safer apps can’t make that argument
- lower cost apps can’t make that argument either
- apps that can do shadier things than apps in an Apple App Store sure, that’s valid
What exactly is the benefit to the consumer, aside from all of the chest thumping?
agreed. the battle against Microsoft and it's browser was not a win for consumers. It was a stupid gesture, by the EU & the US to put it's beak where it does not belong. The marketplace will fix all problems.
[doublepost=1557845270][/doublepost]
No. Developers will charge more, citing all the new security concerns they will have to pay for to make it a safe user experience.
[doublepost=1557845495][/doublepost]
The developers have iOS, Mac OS which they do not need a store, Chrome, Android, Linux, Microsoft, XBOX, PS4, and Nintendo, Amazon, ROKU, All the TV's to develop games, apps for. Consumers should have the ability to install a separate app on any device, yet, the CONSUMER, should bear the costs of Malware, Ransomware that may come as a result from it, not ..
I reject the idea that some or all of the points you listed aren't areas for competition.
In terms of benefits to the consumer, any and all of the usual concerns / preferences a consumer or developer may have in choosing one outlet over another.
The term 'unregulated app store' is an interesting one. Regulators are usually considered to be independent 3rd parties with no connecting commercial interests. In this instance what entity are you suggesting holds that role?
As I asked, chest thumping aside what is the benefit to the consumer? The answer to that is not evident, except in some vague generalization.
So basically, ignored the points in my point and just went on with some mumbo jumbo.
There was certainly no chest thumping and no cause (in the language offered) to suggest there was. Be careful you don't start playing the person and not the argument.
The argument is behind the concept that open competition in the electronic distribution market and on all platforms would be an enhancement (for any and all reasons normally brought through competition) for both consumers and developers.
Last edited:
I don’t play the person as my comments pertain to the post, not the person. The chest thumping is in reference to a vague generalization about competition.
But that said, what quantified benefits are there for the consumer and developer? i would really like to some quantifiable benefits. But alas, I don’t expect a laundry list or a even a short list.
Yep yep. But I have to give it to Apple to be able to trick their isheep followers to believe having more option is a bad thing. They can still only use the apple app store so I don't know why they are so butt hurt from it? I would prefer to have more options and more app stores available.
[doublepost=1557849465][/doublepost]
Why are you pushing your belief onto others? You still can only use apple app store. Others like having option. If it's less secure, that is our problem. You make it sound like Apple is super secure, look what happened w/ the facetime bug. The kid told apple about it and they didn't do a thing. He and his parents had to tell 9to5mac to publish the story before apple finally fixed the issue.
[doublepost=1557849898][/doublepost]
- Imagine an app store that lets the developer support apps for all ios firmware. That means if you have the very first iphone, developer can still support that phone. No more being obsolete once apple moves on from that phone.
- an app store that is strictly cater to just one thing like fashion. No more trying to rummage through millions of apps. This app store can focus on the stuff they are strong at vs a jake of all trait.
- Look at epic vs steam. Epic is offering a better cut for the developer vs the usual 30% take on steam.
- Competition is great for the consumers.
I'd acknowledge there are a small number of markets where competition hasn't provided any benefit at all but electronic distribution flat out isn't one of them.
In terms of the benefits of competition, I'm happy to take into account normal factors such as service differentiators, reputation, price and of course any number of other things.
Okay, at least some items to discuss. However competition is good for consumers means exactly what?
[doublepost=1557851033][/doublepost]
There doesn’t seem to be any big differentiator for consumers except adult apps. Since many apps are a free or try before you buy the cost issue does not play into it.
The FTC's view:
"When firms compete with each other, consumers get the best possible prices, quantity, and quality of goods and services."
Which aligns with more or less every economist and consumer ever.
I'm not sure I get what you mean. iPhone apps are very inexpensive, even some developers have complained that the prices users are willing to pay tops out at afew dollars. So app developers price to sell, and Apple does not have the ability to dictate higher prices, so it is a competitive market and not a monopoly. If anything, users are benefiting from lower prices.
[doublepost=1557851876][/doublepost]
There already is open competition. Developers are free to price as they chose and offer apps on any platform they choose. This notion that only if there are multiple app stores soemhow the consumer will benefit and prices will be lower is wrong, IMHO.
There are any number of potential differences in end to end service including everything from the build of the store, promoted content, products sold, navigation options, the legal undertakings voluntarily made by the entities involved and a huge number of other factors.
I get that the cost argument doesn't come into it for you, please don't make that assumption for everyone else.
No, SCOTUS merely said that Apple was incorrect in using a previous decision when asserting that app purchasers were not direct customers. It made no comment on the merits of the case, as it pointed out in its ruling.
So no comment on the underpinning reasons why these systems are in place, as I mentioned?
Do you feel the video came console market is any different then the cellphone app market? I mean, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have put 100's of millions, if not billions of dollars into developing their respective systems. Why should anyone else who hasn't spent a dime building them be allowed to step in and say "Thanks for all your effort developing this platform for me. I'm going to setup my own store on your systems and you don't get any say in what I deem is appropriate or acceptable. Oh, and I'm not going to pay you anything for anything I develop or anything anyone wants to sell though my shop on your system."
[doublepost=1557852633][/doublepost]
Right, that was Apple's argument. That the App buying consumer is not directly purchasing from Apple therefore can not sue per Illinois Brick Co v Illinois which held only the directly affected individuals can seek relief or make claims of anti-trust. The court just disagreed and said "No. The app buying consumer is directly buying from Apple. Therefore Illinois Brick Co vs Illinois does not apply." "The case may proceed." Which is what I said.
Well, let's find out definitively by encouraging Apple to allow competing stores for App purchases.
[doublepost=1557852918][/doublepost]
Users may benefit more if there was another store that took a different cut or offered superior service.