Yep. Banking apps will also follow (if they get nfc). Pulling support for Apple Pay and instead building it into their ****** 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.
U.S. Department of Justice in 'Early Stages' of Drafting Possible Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that is not what you said. You said this:
Games have left Steam to be on the Epic Games Store. But that doesn't mean Steam sucks. Games don't exist on Steam, but that doesn't mean Steam sucks.
Third-party apps and App Store are in the same vein. Allow third-party, limit the number of them that can be installed (i.e. three app limit), and sandbox them hardcore to protect iOS as much as possible. I mean, adults are going to sideload a site that sounds an awful lot like CornHub. Kids will sideload Fortnite since it isn’t there. And maybe we’d get something like WoW for iPhone that we’d sideload? But a small limit like Roku had for installing a developer channel should be enough for most.
And repairs have always been a sticky wicket because if you can use generic boards, then it opens the doors to the macOS being able to be installed on ANYTHING. We might let be coming back to paying for macOS again.
That is market cap. While they do have an absurd cash hoard, the expectation that their support staff could or should be expanded to provided all sorts of "free" support for every third party app is ridiculous.
I hope small dev houses are ready for a significant premium increase on the developer license and tools thanks to these big dev houses pushing their own agenda for their own stores (corporate equivalent of "think of the children!").
There’s no reason to limit third-party app installations to three apps. Except being anticompetitive ********s. Oh wait… that’s exactly what’s being investigated here and being regulated by lawmakers against. While Apple’s secure platform argument is entertained by quite a few of them, such brazen stifling competition won’t be.
Repairs have never been about generic boards.
Once Apple has lost their gatekeeping power to be needed to sign apps for distribution, other IDE developers can pick up the slack and provide alternatives to Xcode.
Last edited:
Yep, its no secret that the AppStore in its current form utterly sucks.
It’s build to slowly drag people into subscriptions, does not allow devs to sell version upgrades to existing customers, and much more.
Again, Apple would gain real competition and would have to modify the AppStore in a way it becomes more attractive to devs and customers. If they don’t, devs and customers move away, a healthy competitive market, simply as that.
I hate these types of decisions made by government bureaucrats, but some competition might improve the AppStore. It is by far the worst service Apple offers and I’m sure much of that is the conflict between what’s right for shareholders and what’s right for consumers. I think Apple could have prevented this with the balance tipped a little more toward consumers and third-party developers. To be clear, not every aspect of the store is anti-consumer. Some consumers strongly support the App Store for some of the privacy protections they don’t get from the Google Play Store.
Last edited:
Only good thing about this would be the ability to run video game emulators on iOS. Emulation on iOS would be awesome as the A chips are more powerful than Samsung’s Snapdragon line of chips.
Or full OS emulation, being able to run a full linux vm (or, hell, macos vm) locally on my ipad would be awesome
Apple will win this lawsuit- Lina Khan and the Biden DOJ have very interesting antitrust views that basically boil down to “big tech bad”. What Apple does have to worry about is the garbage bills floating around the US Senate like the US Competition and Choice Online Act, basically the US version of the EU DMA. Luckily Schumer is payed off by Big Tech interests and refuses to hold a vote and there is no time left before the midterms. In general America‘s separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, as well as our bicameralism, makes it very hard to pass laws compared to Europe. People say our system of government is “broken” but since most of what politicians want to do is terrible it’s actually a blessing in disguise!
Didn’t have to wait too long, this one was posted right along with your post!
Free enterprise and capitalism HAS prevailed. It’s just that what the market has chosen is not what you want and there’s not enough people that want what you want to make what you want worth producing.
Free Market:
an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal.
Notice how government intervention does not exist or is minimal? By proposing government intervention, you’re actually saying you DON’T want a free market. Which is fine, there are many folks that prefer the government running their markets. Just do say that you’re for a free market when what you’re talking about is diametrically opposed to free markets.
And, with financial motivation, I’m sure there’s a virtually endless number of folks that would be happy to talk them through installing whatever’s required for them to have control over their system.
It’s when a company uses a market advantage in one area to control an unrelated market. For example, if Apple had an exclusivity clause that meant that a developer releasing an app for the App Store could not release that app for any other smartphone platform, thus limiting app choice. Or, using the money from their iPhone sales to buy up all other companies making phones for the US market and then shut them down, meaning other phones aren’t available to buy.
When compared to prior anti-trust actions, the fact that Apple has done nothing to prevent Android phones from being sold OR Android applications from being written means that Apple’s case is nothing like those. Apple’s not even taking any actions to prevent new smartphones from coming to market. So, it’ll be entertaining to see if they create some new legal argument like the EU with their made up “Gateway” definition. Prior cases in the US have always held that companies like McDonald’s have control over the products they bring to market, so to say that Apple doesn’t have control over the products THEY bring to market will be a creative stretch indeed.
Agreed. Considering Zuckerberg will not be deposed in the whole data breach case with that now defunct company from years ago getting data of Facebooks users - they have another caste that’s costing Met $1.5billion agreed payment in usa and uk btw - and precious case against Microsoft in 13 states of a monolooly that didn’t go anywhere (gates’ investment into Apple bringing Jobs back), I highly doubt nothing will come of this.
And it’s all about the best convenience and established trust amongst Apple users the App Store will remain the primary source for app downloads purchases and in-app purchases. Developers will still make THE most money and easiest convenience of biking payments and trend tracking.
I always love this statistic. “People who own smartphones and have access to third party stores don’t use them. By a HUGE margin. So, Apple should go through all the effort required to support third party stores (including the endless additional security patches) for what’s likely well under 1% of their customers!”
There’s literally zero business case here. Apple could NOT support third party stores in 2023 and would lose, at most, well less than 1% of their customers? Seems like a sound business decision to not support them. Now, if the government wants to foot the bill for it, that’s a different thing altogether. However, I doubt the government will want to pay what’s required.
Agreed. I don’t see why this need anyway it’s all money related competitors wanting iOS to be Android to the core. We’ll see how this will turn.
Nah, a politicians’ Fred is insatiable.
Good! I hope Meta leaves iOS App Store! Users can still access Meta/FB via the browser of their choice.
Also developers are very innovative: Twitter via TweetBot is an example. There will be alternatives using common API’s to access third party resources or come up with competing social media services. IG, TikTok, etc all sprung up incl Snap. It’s a wide wide world out there. New services.
Well, there’s been no indication of the kind of things that the EU defined and then pushed out the implementation of a year. As the US is the home market of Apple, though, there’s likely less opportunity for pulling out.
Making it open and competitive would mean increasing competition, not taking steps to maintain the same duopoly. Financially subsidizing a company that wants to enter the market, THAT would be increasing competition. Or creating incentives that make it more likely that companies would create more smartphone OS competition. Any “solution” that still ends up with just two smartphone OS’s hasn’t increased anything.
No, they’ve heard of it, but why would anyone desire for a more insecure system? If Apple was offering macOS OR macOS with more intrusion vectors, not many would consciously choose the one with more security vectors. iOS sideloading is iOS now with more intrusion vectors!.
The problem
Anyways, in three years Apple will no longer have the vast power in all methods it does now. It will be regulated away. Most of that will be to the benefit of the consumers, and sometimes the consumers need a break as the top 1% and the Apple executives are the ones taking in all the money.
I seriously doubt you’re one of them…
You sure think you know everything. The reason why there at times needs to be regulation is when a company has too much power and acts in a monopolistic fashion. Apple has tried to create something it can defend as not a monopoly but it definitely acts like a duopoly with Google at the top.
Anyways, in three years Apple will no longer have the vast power in all methods it does now. It will be regulated away. Most of that will be to the benefit of the consumers, and sometimes the consumers need a break as the top 1% and the Apple executives are the ones taking in all the money.
I seriously doubt you’re one of them…
It’s the NOT tech savvy Grandma’s that folks should worry about. The most insecure vector of ANY computer is the person using it. And if that person has the ability to be talked through making the system less secure for malicious actors to do their work, you can be assured that all the scam call center workers will have a script ready to go.
No, I just use search engines for things that I’m not sure about. To ensure I don’t go posting things like “The government needs to get involved in the smartphone markets because that’s what free markets are all about!” Can you define in what way Apple has acted in a monopolistic fashion? Have they attempted to curtail development of applications for other OS’s? Have they forced any handset makers out of business? Or, do they just make a thing that people want and people who want it buy it?
Apple doesn’t have vast powers. What are these vast powers you think they have? PC’s are unaffected by Apple. Android is unaffected by Apple. In fact, Apple’s biggest weakness, some would say, is their platform is too restricted and that’s what provides Android with an opening.
Loosen those restrictions (which are the reasons folks choose Android) and folks like you may see Apple going from around half marketshare in the US to 70 or 80%. I mean, it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other because I’m in favor of the free market (letting the market decide). If the market doesn’t want what I want, then I’m fine with that. But I WILL have a hearty chortle if one of the outcomes is that Apple’s products become more and more popular, not only in the US but worldwide due to the decreased restrictions.
Privacy & Security options are only shown what the app is requesting. if a app never request or has any code that uses for example the microphone then it will never show up in Privacy & Security
So you claim. We could hold a vote: „Should Apple have the exclusive power to decide what applications can be installed on iOS - or should applications be installable freely, such as on other OS (Windows, macOS, Linux).
That’s the issue that will be regulated: application software markets have (for decades) been related but independent markets (from OS and hardware). And it has had hugely benefited innovation and pricing for customers.
Apple has chosen to bundle or „fuse“ hardware, OS and distribution of application software into one platform and control it all by themselves in monopolist fashion. That is obviously not illegal - but it should be.
The fact that checks and balances aren’t needed for most users and situations doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist.Alternative methods of app distribution are checks and balances on Apple‘s behaviour and pricing.
Operating systems are a market that’s (basically) naturally converging onto few options.
When people or governments want and benefit from competition in the market for automotive vehicles, that doesn‘t mean that more mutually incompatible underlying platforms should exist.
They have curtailed development of applications (and functionality within applications) for their own OS. Which, along with Google‘s Android constitutes a duopoly.