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

[Act3]

So did Kavanaugh side with the liberals on the court?

Yes he did. But wait, isn't Apple a liberal backing company too?

 

[LordVic]

I agree with this part.



It's not just the individual devices that are at risk here. With one device affected, odds are it could be used to spread the malware to other devices it communicates with. While Apple doesn't care if you light up your iPhone on fire, it should however restrict how you use the software. It is a limited license after all.

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)

 

[I7guy]

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)

We will see what comes out of this case. It will be interesting. I’m sure Apple has prepared appropriately.

 

[-Ray-]

That would be contempt of court, they did that in the UK, that didn't go well.

Apple could argue otherwise. Apps that use iCloud details such as file storage, Game Center, etc can be locked down otherwise apple would have to provide authentication apis outside of apples control and that will not happen. Too much of a security risk.

 

[Stella]

Imagine Apple loosing this and being forced to allow side loading of apps. There goes any claim of a security advantage over Android.

You still have the choice of using the AppStore. No one is forcing you to side load.

 

[Knight3]

I wonder how the Apple apologists will defend this one? I mean if the US Supreme Court rules for the case to go ahead, then their is going to be the fire where the smoke is....

Not looking good for Apple at the moment, with this plus the anti competition case in Europe that’s being investigated. Maybe their bubble will burst?

A trial works quite differently with a lot of arguments from both sides my friend. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't say anything.

 

[Fixey]

All this would do if Apple is forced to lower its 30 percent take is App developers like myself can put up prices a little more and have less taken away by Apple and give developers more income, with 30 percent I don’t price the apps too high as the more the more that 30 percent cuts in, if lowered gives me more money and allows to increase prices a little further.

But on most apps there ad driven, so they are free to the end user, like most apps on the AppStore

They is one area that allowing apps to be purchased elsewhere is all this red tape and daft rejects that developers get from Apple, I had a game rejected because I had the word Kid in the game, wtf so if you have a game called Wizkid it will be rejected by Apple if not rated for kids, this side has to change open up the iOS it’s customers choice we’re and what they want to install the current system is it’s not yours it’s upto Apple what software you can and allowed to install you just payed for the privilege and this has to be addressed

 

[az431]

I think the crux of the argument is that once you buy an iPhone, it's your physical hardware.

should you want to destroy the OS on it, install 3rd party software (even with the risks), once you own the hardware, that shuold in thoery be allowable.

Problem is, Apple refuses. Once you buy an iOS device, App deployment is monopolistic. You cannot go anywhere else. This also forces companies to use the App store, AND follow App stores' rules. Often times draconic, arbitrary and slanted to Apple's favour.

An example of Apple potentially using this as abuse to the App developer.
Apple has a policy that you cannot sell / distribute an App on the app store that replaces, or repeats existing functionality within iOS. There are many cases where, Apple did not have functionality. So a developer made an App, only for Apple to essentially copy that App into iOS and then ban the developers App post-hoc

This is an abusive monopolistic position, as it puts overriding controls of what we, the consumer are allowed to run directly in Apple's exclusive controls. While This is possibly good for security and safety of your device, it removes any agency from the user, while potentially damaging and hurting other businesses that Apple can arbitrarily chose to support or deny.

I'm not saying the App store itself is a bad thing. The curation is great. But there needs to be allowances for user choice.

so TLDR: One stop streamlined store for all your Apps Good.
Apple's exclusive controls with zero 3rd party "store" or installations should user want? Bad

This is patently false. Apple has no such policy.

The only policy that even touches on this is 5.2.5, which states that apps can't be" confusingly similar to an existing Apple product, interface (e.g. Finder), app (such as the App Store, iTunes Store, or Messages)."

There are thousands of apps on the App Store that replace of repeat existing functionality, including apps that replace Mail, Messages, Calendar, Pages, Numbers, Music, etc, etc. This is 100% permitted as long as you don't pass the app off as Apple's version.

Apps that have been removed for what the developers allege are competitive reasons (e.g., F.lux, screen time apps), were removed because they used non-public APIs, which is prohibited under 2.5.1, or misused user personal information.

You can allege whatever you want in regards to whether Apple's conduct is "monopolistic," but what matters is whether the App Store is a monopoly under antitrust laws. It isn't.

 

[LordVic]

Imagine Apple loosing this and being forced to allow side loading of apps. There goes any claim of a security advantage over Android.

Just as an FYI, while Android can support sideloading, it's not the simple, just double click any old program and magically it's installed.

there are steps required to enable the feature. it's not on by default. First you must enable developer mode. Than enable load 3rd party APK's. And then on each load you will be prompted that the source is a 3rd party program and not verified/validated for security/safety.

Apple being forced to allow sideloading will likely follow a similar "opt-in" setup, where you'll only enable it via obfuscated menus that prevent accidental installs or malicious code from installing without knowledge.

 

[1146331]

Your logic is fine but it’s not just about giving consumers a choice (they by the way have that already by side loading apps) but anyway it will potentially ruin the whole iOS ecosystem and what about that new store you suggest? What happens if there is no control at all, and people seems to start disliking their iOS devices? Who will the consumers blame? My guess is Apple even though they were forced to let things like that happen. Sometimes consumers shouldn’t have a choice like that. For an example if this will hurt other people due to malicious software invited into the system. You need to think broader than that. And in the end of the day no one is really forced to buy an Apple product. So if a consumer is not liking the rules, go ahead and find another product or ecosystem. As simple as that.

Your attitude of "Go buy another product or find another ecosystem" is pure bull.

Yeah you can vote with your dollar, but you can also utilize the legal system when a company is unfairly artificially limiting the applications in their app store.

Once again, I put my case very plainly: having a proprietary Apple store is okay as long as an alternate store exists. Consumers should have a choice and there should be big red letters warning users about the consequences of using a non-approved app store.

I think very broad, I work in cyber security. The stupidity of users never fails to amuse me but also never amazes me anymore.

With that said, the choice belongs to the consumer, not the phone manufacturer. If Apple is going to not approve an app, they should open the opportunity for secondary markets.

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.

The view of "users are too dumb to make their own decisions" is too common amongst Apple apologists / elitists. These are the same people that want to control your lives in every aspect, such as banning straws because some *******s dispose of them improperly or want to take from the rich and give to the poor because of "equality".

 

[AdonisSMU]

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)

The SCOTUS already ruled in favor of your position on the physical device. you are free to install the other software but you are voiding the warranty.

 

[LordVic]

The SCOTUS already ruled in favor of your position on the physical device. you are free to install the other software but you are voiding the warranty.

Thanks! Good to know.

question then is why are so many devices still technically locked down if it's allowed?

Go try installing Android on an iPhone for example. WHile I don't honestly expect it to work for various reasons. Where would you even start if you wanted to replace the OS? is there a bootloader tool? some way of at least accessing such functionality?

there's a big difference between "allowed to" and "providing the functionality too"

 

[apolloa]

A trial works quite differently with a lot of arguments from both sides my friend. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't say anything.

Yeah right, you believe that if you want, if they didn’t feel their was a case to answer for and it was not in the public interest they wouldn’t have allowed it to proceed.. of course Apple could rig the jury by the case being held in its home town that favours Apple, not impartial in the slightest.

 

[realtuner]

I wonder how the Apple apologists will defend this one? I mean if the US Supreme Court rules for the case to go ahead, then their is going to be the fire where the smoke is....

Not looking good for Apple at the moment, with this plus the anti competition case in Europe that’s being investigated. Maybe their bubble will burst?

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.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Your attitude of "Go buy another product or find another ecosystem" is pure bull.

Yeah you can vote with your dollar, but you can also utilize the legal system when a company is unfairly artificially limiting the applications in their app store.

Once again, I put my case very plainly: having a proprietary Apple store is okay as long as an alternate store exists. Consumers should have a choice and there should be big red letters warning users about the consequences of using a non-approved app store.

I think very broad, I work in cyber security. The stupidity of users never fails to amuse me but also never amazes me anymore.

With that said, the choice belongs to the consumer, not the phone manufacturer. If Apple is going to not approve an app, they should open the opportunity for secondary markets.

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.

The view of "users are too dumb to make their own decisions" is too common amongst Apple apologists / elitists. These are the same people that want to control your lives in every aspect, such as banning straws because some *******s dispose of them improperly or want to take from the rich and give to the poor because of "equality".

I was with you right up until the last sentence. That argument you sight is much more complicated than "equality". It shows you don't actually have a full understanding of the argument being made as it relates to income redistribution.

 

[realtuner]

Yeah right, you believe that if you want, if they didn’t feel their was a case their abs it was not in the public interest they wouldn’t have allowed it to proceed.. of course Apple could rig the jury, again..

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

 

[Villarrealadrian]

Great I hope Apple's app monopoly is destroyed, I have an iMac that only supports up to High Sierra and so Xcode 5 can't be installed just because apple doesn't want to (Apple Monopoly), and an iPhone 8 that I won't upgrade to iOS 12.2 o 12.3 because my Xcode apps won't work anymore until I upgrade to a Mac that can support Mojave. That is the reason why Microsoft will always crush Apple because of their support with most hardware and they won't limit you to have the newest pc on the market, not everybody can jump on the new Apple new crap wagon but we like programming, so nah! /&%$it! im changing to surface! Besides there has not been any innovation in years is just Apple's SaaS greed, Apple TV is just Apple's envy to Netflix.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Thanks! Good to know.

question then is why are so many devices still technically locked down if it's allowed?

Go try installing Android on an iPhone for example. WHile I don't honestly expect it to work for various reasons. Where would you even start if you wanted to replace the OS? is there a bootloader tool? some way of at least accessing such functionality?

there's a big difference between "allowed to" and "providing the functionality too"

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.

 

[sracer]

So you want the government to say you have a right to develop on the iOS platform and sell your app wherever/however you chose? Having governments decide companies business models is a scary thing.

Governments already do that... and have been for as long as there have been governments.

IBM and Microsoft have had to modify their business models because the courts deemed those business models to be predatory. If Apple's business model is declared predatory by the courts, I would hope that people would see the benefit of having Apple change accordingly.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Great I hope Apple's app monopoly is destroyed, I have an iMac that only supports up to High Sierra and so Xcode 5 can't be installed just because apple doesn't want to (Apple Monopoly), and an iPhone 8 that I won't upgrade to iOS 12.2 o 12.3 because my Xcode apps won't work anymore until I upgrade to a Mac that can support Mojave. That is the reason why Microsoft will always crush Apple because of their support with most hardware and they won't limit you to have the newest pc on the market, not everybody can jump on the new Apple new crap wagon but we like programming, so nah! /&%$it! im changing to surface! Besides there has not been any innovation in years is just Apple's SaaS greed, Apple TV is just Apple's envy to Netflix.

That's not a monopoly. I want my old macbook to be able to use the new excel so now MSFT must allow me to install it.

 

[1146331]

I was with you right up until the last sentence. That argument you sight is much more complicated than "equality". It shows you don't actually have a full understanding of the argument being made as it relates to income redistribution.

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.

 

[panjandrum]

Really, as others have said, just warn people properly that the store they are using may be dangerous and let them get on with their lives. If they come to Apple for service, and the problem is related to a non-Apple app then the user gets to pay Apple for the service time. That's completely fair all-around. I for one would very much like to be able to stop charging and carrying my old jailbroken iPhone around with me just so I can use a proper WiFi Analyzer. Somehow Apple thinks their users are too stupid to make any kind of decision for themselves. Absurd.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Governments already do that... and have been for as long as there have been governments.

IBM and Microsoft have had to modify their business models because the courts deemed those business models to be predatory. If Apple's business model is declared predatory by the courts, I would hope that people would see the benefit of having Apple change accordingly.

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.

 

[LordVic]

Great I hope Apple's app monopoly is destroyed, I have an iMac that only supports up to High Sierra and so Xcode 5 can't be installed just because apple doesn't want to (Apple Monopoly), and an iPhone 8 that I won't upgrade to iOS 12.2 o 12.3 because my Xcode apps won't work anymore until I upgrade to a Mac that can support Mojave. That is the reason why Microsoft will always crush Apple because of their support with most hardware and they won't limit you to have the newest pc on the market, not everybody can jump on the new Apple new crap wagon but we like programming, so nah! /&%$it! im changing to surface! Besides there has not been any innovation in years is just Apple's SaaS greed, Apple TV is just Apple's envy to Netflix.

What you're describing with your mac isn't an example of an appstore monopoly.

Your mac, even older version can run just about any 3rd party software, from any 3rd party source outside of the Mac App store as long as those 3rd parties keep their code up to date to support Apple's API's in MacOS.

Because Apple isn't supporting older hardware with newer OS releases is NOT the same thing as discussed in this thread. you can go ahead and install windows on that mac and still have full blown access to latest updates and software from any 3rd party source.

The argument of this thread is that Apple does not allow that on iOS devices. You have no 3rd party sources allowed at any point, removing user agency from allowing you to chose the source of your software.

Whiel I don't think you're necessarily wrong about Apple's horrible handling of Mac's and MacOS in the last 5 years, it's really irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[1146331]

That's not a monopoly. I want my old macbook to be able to use the new excel so now MSFT must allow me to install it.

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.