Oh, I see what you were talking about now. I still stand by my statement though. The lawsuit, the case, is really about the 30%, but the current argument from Apple was that the lawsuit can't be brought - they were trying to get it thrown out on a technicality.
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
There already is a free and open competitive market. Samsung, Apple, google are all part of it.
[doublepost=1557853666][/doublepost]
Users could also lose quite a bit with malicious apps. At any rate the judicial system will decide this. We can all have our opinions on it.
[doublepost=1557854278][/doublepost]
But that is not the definition of a monopoly. Since Apple isn't one there is no compelling purpose to force them to open the iPhone to other App Stores. "Maybe there'll be a benefit" isn't enough.
But that is not the definition of a monopoly. Since Apple isn't one there is no compelling purpose to force them to open the iPhone to other App Stores. "Maybe there'll be a benefit" isn't enough.
In no way were either of those statements intended to define a monopoly.
[doublepost=1557855381][/doublepost]
Let's make it more open and extend multiple appstore's to iOS.
[doublepost=1557855494][/doublepost]
The operative word being could. Let's not make decisions about consumer risk on behalf of everyone eh?
Last edited:
I released a game a few months ago to both iOS and Android. The day I uploaded the apk to the Play Store, it was cracked and put on a warez site. As of now, 100% of my Android players are using a pirated copy.
On iOS, getting a pirate copy is a difficult process for nearly everybody. If Apple was run like Android, I would literally be making no money anywhere.
Android piracy rate is 95%+ and malware is easier to get than herpes. It's all because of the open nature of the platform. Consumers really have no idea what a complete mess Android is and making iOS just like it would ruin Apple.
Ok - I'll ask you. Do you feel the home video came console market is any different then the cellphone app market? Both get exclusive privilege to determine development and licensing requirements. Apple along with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have put 100's of millions, if not billions of dollars into developing their respective systems and platforms. 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."
Since consumer risk with certain app store HAS happened in the past to multiple parties, there is precedent for making an informed comment on behalf of the masses. You however, are welcome to exclude yourself from the class.
However, we can debate the ins and outs and nuances of monopoly and competition till the cows come home (and likely we wont agree). We will see what the learned judicial system has to say about this.
With competing app stores users would be free to choose to do business with the store that offers the most secure service along with the most consumer friendly malicious software / refund policies, choice that they're presently denied on some platforms.
So why did you use this ‘nonsense’ to support your own argument in the first place if you think it isn’t comparable at all?
Btw. Apple reportedly offered the same discount for streaming services like Hulu and HBO on Apple TV even before generally lowering their cut for consecutive subscriptions to 15 percent. I really don’t think they did (and do) so while taking a loss...
That might be true in theory (and for small developers) but is also an oversimplification. There are many companies who have to offer their app/services on iOS simply because their customers expect them to do so.
It's a shame that you had that experience with your property, but I'd make 2 points off the back of it.
1. Google is estimated to have taken nearly 25bn in Play Store revenues in 2018. Clearly someone's playing for their apps.
2. With no competition on some platforms it's clearly arguable that every single transaction may be bad value for money, that's a very poor basis on which to continue and it doesn't resolve the security issues you've encountered on an alternate platform.
How do you know the service will be secure or consumer friendly or won't violate some apple guidelines/rules that means the app won't run on ios anyway? Few apps are denied, except those that violate protected speech or go against published guidelines (which include restricted apis and content which might mean apps specifically for adults)
Well if you're steering the argument on to other platforms then I'd use the PC gaming market as the model. 1 dominant app vendor (Valve) however there are multiple competing vendors (GOG, Amazon, Epic etc) some of which are aggressively pursuing market share.
For the most part all done on a Microsoft OS, a platform that Valve, Epic etc have paid nothing to develop.
It's a model that's working and doesn't seem have done Microsofts 950bn$ market cap any harm at all, consumers happy to have price competition and to date I've yet to encounter a single example of deliberate malware distribution through any of the market places.
[doublepost=1557863574][/doublepost]
Well I'd imagine security and the service offering would be among key differentiators when a competing app store is set up.
Apple model is working as well. Because one or more doesn’t like it doesn’t mean the model isnt working well for consumers. Nor does multiple app stores for the iOS platform mean the consumer is much better for it.
Apple can always move their hq to Ireland if they don't like the justice system in the USA.
[doublepost=1557864226][/doublepost]
Correction: every free app still requires a yearly dev fee
[doublepost=1557864427][/doublepost]
So where are the malicious apps on the mac? The mac desktop is run like android, apps can be sideloaded.
Of course, especially streaming services; but many seem to offer a free app and in Netflix' case you subscribe outside of the app Store so Apple doesn't get a cut, yet Apple still lets them on the store. Those developers want a shot at Apple's user base. If it is lucrative enough then they need to play by Apple's rules.
It's clearly working well for Apples earnings. No credible reasons to believe a competing market wouldn't deliver the same consumer benefits that competition delivers in virtually any market.
There are credible reasons to believe a competing market would give apple a "black-eye". It can go both ways.
[doublepost=1557866097][/doublepost]
Cost of doing business. Unless your motives are altruistic your business model has to include the expenses to produce an app. Even on an alternate app store model, should it come to pass, a dev will wind up by paying apple something for the certs and what not to upload the app to the phone.
I'm normally supportive of open and free markets but the walled garden approach is a selling point of iOS, not a detriment. It keeps out malware, vastly reduces scams, lowers piracy (it's about 5%), and improves the offerings. Look at Amazons app store for a frightening example of apps gone wild.
Apple has built a reputation for having a safe and predictable environment. Turning iOS into Android would erase all of it and would be the beginning of the end for the platform. I can't see why you would support that.
Obviously you are implying Google sells our data. Completely false. Selling data would result in making ONE sale. Why would Google's customers buy twice or more from google?
"Hi google, id like to buy that data again cause my OS doesn't have copy/paste function"
Google collects user data. That is a big difference from selling it.
[doublepost=1557871952][/doublepost]Courage.
Monopoly.
Redefining words one at a time.
Market is probably a better word than sell. Certainly your data is Google’s golden goose since they can sell all kinds of services around it.
This is not the same model. It's not an apt comparison. I don't think you recognize why the Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo platforms are closed off systems. Why it's legal for them to be closed off like that. Therefore why the two markets: TV based video game consoles and the iOS App Store are similar markets.
The more apt comparison would be should Steam have to allow other vendors inside of its platform? A separate vendor that sells games separately inside of Steam to compete against Steam on its own platform. Would this not increase competition, customer service, and lower costs to customers in the Steam market place?
If the Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo products do not need their individual markets opened up to competition on their own platforms because the three together are competition individually to each other - then the same holds true to Apple vs Android. Besides, isn't Android the larger better market because of its free OS and open mobile market place? I mean, Android is 80% of the market, right?
Here you are correct and right, they've paid nothing to develop Microsoft's OS. Microsoft quite obviously left 3rd party development open on their systems to spurr its adoption and because having onerous 3rd party license agreements would kill that. More importantly, though Intel wanted to grow themselves and they weren't interested in writing their own software for their own chips themselves. So locking their hardware away only for themselves would have only been suicide.
This is not the same as market for home video game systems or smart celluar telephones. Forcing the PC market model on to these two would only make them worse.
For some people the answer to that question may be yes. For others it would be no. There is no right or wrong answer here, and no perfect solution. It’s just trade offs. Some like Apple want security and control, others want more flexibility and the choice to decide for themselves.
I’m guessing from apple’s perspective they don’t want the brand to be dragged down by low quality apps. Of course they can still pull some stuff even if they lose the case to make sure apps are high quality.
[doublepost=1557878924][/doublepost]
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...l-data-to-some-agency?redirected_qid=18988368
Mac os is not locked down as iOS and I don't see rampant malware infesting macs. Saying the iOS walled garden keeps you safe is an unproven myth.
[doublepost=1557885191][/doublepost]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 "The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses."
Apple is artificially rasing the prices by restricting the supply of alternative distribution stores. Apple made the iPhone and the iOS app store but artificially preserves their status as the sole iOS app store with the use of DRM.
[doublepost=1557886258][/doublepost]
Why not keep the analogies to software.
"It's like me developing an app for a Windows desktop and not paying MS for it"
What you don't get is they don't want the Walmart shelf space. They want shelf space at a different store.
Last edited: