Tim Cook Delivers Speech Emphasizing Apple's Opposition to Sideloading

[Sophisticatednut]

What would the charges be?

Contempt of court.

 

[BaldiMac]

Contempt of court.

You don't sue someone for contempt of court.

 

[Beautyspin]

Google didn't leave, it was forced out. How? The great China firewall. Same as Twitter, Facebook and several other US internet companies.

Is that what you were led to believe?

This Day in History: Google Announces Exit from China Market

 

[Beautyspin]

The argument was about how “great” Google was for not doing business with China, while in reality Google invested in JD (Tencent) and other sort of projects in China.

So, contrary to your point, Google got no balls either.

In 2010, David Drummond, the chief legal officer for Google at the time, wrote a blog post on January 12:

“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”

1. Paying for patents is necessary if you do business. Does not matter who holds the patents. At least it is not a company that steals patents from other companies like your so-called Apple.
2. Investing in a company is not a crime. It did not want to censor its search results and compromise on its values so it had the balls to quit. We all know how Apple responded to Chinese authority.

 

[InuNacho]

They had no data on how crappy the crappy the keyboard was when they created it, they thought people would love the thinner device, but then after getting tons of data on people hating the keyboard, they changed it back, and made the device thicker.

I guess that makes sense, there seems to be no feedback on anything in the Apple labs.
Just a bunch of engineers that think for us and blame the end user for not liking it.

 

[npmacuser5]

Sure tell yourself that. In EU we own the device. Apple are free to challenge this is court as shrink wrap agreements aren’t legally binding. And I can tell you 0% of people was given the agreement before money changed hands. And that will nullify any agreement apple think they have with users and their use of their device

Wonder why the EU does not go after Tesla. Talk about a complete walled off system from the software and very important the repair side of the device. Seems the EU a bit passive aggressive towards Apple.

 

[dk001]

Sideloading is hardly a hassle. In fact, it’s easier as one can just get an APK from a website right away. At least that’s how easy it is on Android. THe only prompt the system will ask the user is to allow the downloading app (eg. The browser) to install app from unknown sources.

That depends on what version of Android.
I have to grant permission by site or app in Privacy > Permission Manager before any installs or downloads are allowed.
Android 11

 

[BaldiMac]

Sure tell yourself that. In EU we own the device. Apple are free to challenge this is court as shrink wrap agreements aren’t legally binding. And I can tell you 0% of people was given the agreement before money changed hands. And that will nullify any agreement apple think they have with users and their use of their device

Software license agreements are legally binding in the EU.

CJEU: Breach of a Software Licence Agreement Considered an Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights - Hannes Snellman Finland

www.hannessnellman.com

 

[dk001]

...because google hasn't enforced privacy on them. Duh!
Have you forgotten about Zuck crying over the changes Apple made in iOS14/15 than screwed his numbers?

There is no one stock version of Android - there are a lot of flavors / morphs of it out there.
btw - the impact to ads like FaceBook ran into involved the browser, not aps. This ability exists on Android if users want to install it. That has nothing to do with Google.

 

[dk001]

How about some of us customer like to have a buying choice of having a closed garden system like Apple and a phone that is full feature enough that doesn’t allow side-loading.

It’s not like Apple iPhones are the only choices in the market to choose from. Anyone who doesn’t like Apple ecosystem and iOS has the option to choose the alternative. Last I check Samsung made some awesome Android Galaxy phones, their high end competes well against Apple too.

I don’t choose Samsung because I don’t want side-loading, so I choose iPhones AND I would gladly recommend and defear my friends to Samsung if Apple’s closed system isn’t for them; I would also recommend iPhones for those who do prefer a closed and tight system.

My other half loves her Z Flip 3. She will never ever install from other than the preinstalled app stores on her device. For her intents and purposes it is as locked down as the App Store is on iOS. She likes and enjoys stock Samsung version of Android.

So, not seeing your point.

 

[dk001]

I wonder how much legalised side-loading would actual affect Apple's balance sheet? I'm betting that 90-95% of typical Apple users would exclusively stick to Apple's App Store, and in turn all of the major software developers would keep App Store versions of their software of there.

And if apps could be side-loaded, it might attract more customers who have previously been swayed over to Android for the extra freedom.

I bet 99.9999% would still use.
I install apps on my Android from alternative app stores however that doesn't mean I dropped the use of the Play Store.

There are a lot of items out there that would be a great fit for the iPhone/iPad hardware and the ONLY reason it isn't being used today is that Apple will not allow it. Nothing to do with security, privacy, or other concerns.

 

[dk001]

Sure thing, being unscrupulous is one of the core competences somebody must have to run a $3 trillion company.

There is a reason most CEO's of BIG corporations stay put of politics and use lobbyists. It always comes back to bite the company in the ass.

 

[dk001]

Microsoft does allow it on the windows store

and there are APKs I can load on my XBox and PS4.
Don't own a PS5 so I cannot check there.

 

[Wildkraut]

Does Microsoft allow Steam on the Xbox?
Speaking of Windows, note that Microsoft did attempt to lock Windows to its own app store with Windows RT and 10S. So Microsoft actually wanted that walled garden as well.

Doesn’t make sense, Steam Games are technically not compatible with XBox, nor did they sue and try to release Steam for XBox.

 

[I7guy]

One thing we can agree on. That earning money and running a business is not synonymous with morally good

It’s not synonymous with morally bad either.

Selling locked down or reparable products are a business decision can be a morally good or bad thing

Sure, can be viewed any which way. But it’s different than an Enron or Bernie madoff. The former stole. With a mass produced consumer electronic device you optin by buying it and should have done your research.

 

[AndiG]

Only two false claims of Apple:
1. Sideloading undermines privacy and securits
-> Sideloading is possible on Windows/Linux/Android/macOS. People decide if they want to allow sideloading and we didn‘t see e.g. the Android universe collapse. It is up to the users to decide.
2. 3rd party IAP services are evil
-> Well, how does Apple explain that 3rd party payment systems are not evil if you buy physical goods?

 

[BaldiMac]

Only two false claims of Apple:
1. Sideloading undermines privacy and securits
-> Sideloading is possible on Windows/Linux/Android. People decide if they want to allow sideloading and we didn‘t see e.g. the Android universe collapse. It is up to the users to decide.
2. 3rd party IAP services are evil
-> Well, how does Apple explain that 3rd party payment systems are not evil if you buy physical goods?

Well, number 1 is true and Apple didn't say number 2.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Only two false claims of Apple:
1. Sideloading undermines privacy and securits
-> Sideloading is possible on Windows/Linux/Android. People decide if they want to allow sideloading and we didn‘t see e.g. the Android universe collapse. It is up to the users to decide.
2. 3rd party IAP services are evil
-> Well, how does Apple explain that 3rd party payment systems are not evil if you buy physical goods?

On #1 -- don't forget macOS -- Apple may have heard of that?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You don't sue someone for contempt of court.

Wonder why the EU does not go after Tesla. Talk about a complete walled off system from the software and very important the repair side of the device. Seems the EU a bit passive aggressive towards Apple.

Software license agreements are legally binding in the EU.

CJEU: Breach of a Software Licence Agreement Considered an Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights - Hannes Snellman Finland

www.hannessnellman.com

I actually recommend you read these legal texts and the actual ruling is related to IP law. The title and case is not related to this case, especially when EU don’t recognize fair use as a legal term.

This actually relevant.

EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following…

www.lexology.com

And this case I be

ECJ allows resale of ‘used’ software licences in landmark case and extends the principle of exhaustion even to downloaded (non-physical) copies | Perspectives | Reed Smith LLP

www.reedsmith.com

Even this case related to decompiling licensed software

ECJ Top System ruling grants right to correct software errors

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on 6 October 2021 in Top System SA v. Belgian State (Case C‑13/20) EU:C:2021:811 that, under article 5(1) of the

www.technologylawdispatch.com

The first problem is tho with contrary of sale. And iPhone files squarely in it.
Points from the ruling

In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following decisions:

• l Oracle's software licence was a contract of sale
• l the terms of the licence could be ignored
• l the downloading of the software from Oracle's website by the licensee (now considered a purchaser) exhausted Oracle's right to control further
• distribution of the downloaded copy
• l it was therefore not an infringement of Oracle's copyright in the software for the licensee to onsell his licence l the trading of second hand licences and/or copies of the software was lawful.

Under the EU's software copyright law (Software Directive 2009) the first sale in the EU of a copy of a computer program by the right-holder, exhausts the distribution right (provided by copyright) within the EU of that copy. Oracle argued there was no sale as its licensees did not own the copy on their servers but were merely licensed to use it. The CJEU said a sale was "an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him". It said that Oracle's licence transaction coupled with making available the software by download to its customers for their permanent use constitutes a 'first sale ... of a copy of a program' with the result that under the Directive Oracle's right to control further distribution was extinguished. The CJEU did not concern itself with the download process which would have revealed that Oracle did not even deliver, let alone sell, its copy and the copy assembled at the user's server was a different one.

 

[planteater]

Which is exactly the reason they're making macOS more like iOS by the day. They're greedy and they see a chance for squeezing even more money from consumers by limiting their choice.

How exactly is macOS becoming more like iOS? lol.

 

[BaldiMac]

I actually recommend you read these legal texts and the actual ruling is related to IP law. The title and case is not related to this case, especially when EU don’t recognize fair use as a legal term.

This actually relevant.

EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following…

www.lexology.com

And this case I be

ECJ allows resale of ‘used’ software licences in landmark case and extends the principle of exhaustion even to downloaded (non-physical) copies | Perspectives | Reed Smith LLP

www.reedsmith.com

Even this case related to decompiling licensed software

ECJ Top System ruling grants right to correct software errors

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on 6 October 2021 in Top System SA v. Belgian State (Case C‑13/20) EU:C:2021:811 that, under article 5(1) of the

www.technologylawdispatch.com

The first problem is tho with contrary of sale. And iPhone files squarely in it.
Points from the ruling

In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following decisions:

• l Oracle's software licence was a contract of sale
• l the terms of the licence could be ignored
• l the downloading of the software from Oracle's website by the licensee (now considered a purchaser) exhausted Oracle's right to control further
• distribution of the downloaded copy
• l it was therefore not an infringement of Oracle's copyright in the software for the licensee to onsell his licence l the trading of second hand licences and/or copies of the software was lawful.

You just posted a bunch of links that don't actually address the point being made. For example, the first two cases you posted were about the transfer of licenses. Not about making software licenses unenforceable. As with all contracts, not all clauses are enforceable.

And you ignored the case that I posted that directly addresses what we were talking about.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Wonder why the EU does not go after Tesla. Talk about a complete walled off system from the software and very important the repair side of the device. Seems the EU a bit passive aggressive towards Apple.

In what way do you think Tesla can do things that they get away with? I can look them up for you if want.

Their repair side is open, their software contains their own only and includes no 3d party software you can purchase.

Eu is working to pass a right to repair bill. The parliament is overwhelmingly supporting it and will almost 100% pass when precented. It just awaits to be completed by the commission.

New EU initiative on consumer 'right to repair'

The European Comm

www.osborneclarke.com

 

[Wildkraut]

Fun Fact: The more Apple preaches against installing iOS Software from different sources(a.k.a. Sideloading), the more this topic gains attention and turns against Apple.

There is no way to escape, Apple…

There is a saying in Brasil that even made into music:
Se correr o bicho pega Se ficar o bicho come.(If you run the beast catches you, if you stay the beast devours you.)

 

[Apleeseed84]

Wonder why the EU does not go after Tesla. Talk about a complete walled off system from the software and very important the repair side of the device. Seems the EU a bit passive aggressive towards Apple.

I think because vehicles are Planned Obsolescence, but Tesla did change the software recently in the US were the car Don’t able to do rolling stops anymore and drivers have been vocal about it.

With that said Tesla for sure did announce how the Battery will be part of the structural chasis, meaning that it would be impossible to swap it out on your own

 

[0924487]

iOS App distribution = Walmart product distribution // Walmart and Apple have monopolies on this.
App distribution = product distribution // Walmart and Apple do not have monopolies on this.

Dude, I didn’t came up with that definition, the US regulators And the court ruling came up with that wording.

My assertion is also valid in Economic analysis, so you can stop twisting.

The iOS platform is a captive platform that has barriers to entry, you can’t make a carbon copy of iOS and call it iiOS and sell carbon copy of iPhones. Barriers to entry makes Apple a technical monopoly and thus creating non perfectly competitive markets. You can create a de facto carbon copy of Walmart and call it Halmart and render identical services with relative ease if you have capital, there is no natural or technical barriers to entry in most locations, thus in most cases Walmart is not a monopoly in product distribution.