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. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see how the plaintiffs will get the courts to rule in their favor. Apple can use the security and integrity of the OS as justification not to allow people to install 3rd party stuff from developers who haven't been approved by Apple. It's like having to offer support for those with jailbroken firmware. They can also use the anti-piracy argument. If people could easily install ipas and modified ipas with unlocked iAP on their devices, piracy would be rampant and severely impact developer revenue. This is a big part of the reason why Adobe and Microsoft went to the subscription model for CC and Office, although MS still offers a standalone version. I don't like subscription models but unfortunately they had little choice.
If Apple is confident that this isn't a monopoly, why are they so keen on getting the lawsuit dismissed on a technicality? Someone else will simply file another suit, instead if Apple is so confident they are right, it should go to trial and then Apple can settle the debate once and for all.
Well, Gillette and other razor companies did try to prevent third parties from selling razor blade replacements that are compatible with their razors, much like printer manufacturers have tried to prevent third party companies from selling compatible cartridges. In both cases, they have lost in court, as the courts have ruled it was a monopoly, I have a gut feeling that this would be the same thing.
[doublepost=1529354580][/doublepost]
Yes, much like Android has multiple App stores, but when you enable an additional App store, there should be a warning like in Android that Apps from that source may not be reliable, etc.
[doublepost=1529354792][/doublepost]
They can't really argue the security angle when Android allows users to install from 3rd party sources and doesn't have security issues, a simple warning lets you know that you may be in uncharted territory though.
As for subscription model only, there are still ways that people hack Adobe and Microsoft software without subscriptions, I don't endorse piracy, but I know that a subscription only model won't prevent it. Those of us that want to do thing legitimately simply use free alternatives like OpenOffice, Google Docs, GIMP, etc. or the software that comes with a Mac.
Sure, I see no downside.
[doublepost=1529355366][/doublepost]
They're moving to subscription models so they can get more revenue. It has nothing to do with a better experience for the end user (though they try and pass it off that way).
I dislike subscription models because, financially, they don't work for me. I purchased a copy of Office Home 2007 back in 2007. It is now 2018 and I am happily using Office 2007. It does everything I want and I see zero reason to upgrade. That copy of Office Home cost me $150 + tax. A subscription of Office 365, for the same length of time, would have cost me $500 ($5.00 /month x 120 months). Yeah, I'd have access to more of the Office suite. I'd also be on the current version. All things I don't need or care about.
I will continue to use Office 2007 until it no longer meets my needs. Even when Microsoft stops supporting it I will continue to use it. This is why companies are moving to a subscription model, more money.
Last edited:
I can already see what one of the stores would be like if Apple allowed third party stores. People would wonder how an app that costs 2.99$ on the App Store could be free on Totally Not Pirated App Store but would choose the free version anyway.
Microsoft had a monopoly back then - around 95% of consumer computers were running Microsoft Windows.
Apple does not have a monopoly - they have less than 50% of the market in America.
I completely agree.
Imagine if Microsoft in the mid to late '90s had been able to not only ship IE as the default browser on Windows but also prevent people from installing Mozilla and other competing browser? ... Would the web be a better place?
Last edited:
Microsoft had a vastly dominant market position at the time. Apple doesn’t have the same stranglehold. iOS isn’t even the dominant OS. I suspect this case is very different on that point alone.
Of course Apple is running a monopoly. Key word is "illegal."
Yeah, well, they prevent anyone else from opening an App Store and charging smaller fees. It's amazing they've been getting away with it for so long.
That's hypocrisy at its best. Would you say that Android has a monopoly!? They inherently have 85% of the mobile market. No, they don't, they simply sell a cheaper product which means there'll be a lot more of them. Apple can EASILY over-run the desktop market by lowering their price. But that's not their business model.
I'd like to see sideloading be possible on the iPhone (without 7 day restrictions like free provisioning allows).
It's not like users lose the ability to stay app-store only. Being able to side-load simply allows apps that Apple cannot allow on the app store due to legal reasons (such as emulators) to be installed by users at their own risk, should they choose to. It also allows users to continue using apps that may be banned in their country due to censorship attempts, like VPN apps in China and Telegram in Russia (if Apple ends up removing it).
The point is, Apple can't offer certain things in their store because it creates liability for Apple. An approved method of sideloading would let iOS users keep using these apps without Apple having that liability.
It's not like users lose the ability to stay app-store only. Being able to side-load simply allows apps that Apple cannot allow on the app store due to legal reasons (such as emulators) to be installed by users at their own risk, should they choose to. It also allows users to continue using apps that may be banned in their country due to censorship attempts, like VPN apps in China and Telegram in Russia (if Apple ends up removing it).
The point is, Apple can't offer certain things in their store because it creates liability for Apple. An approved method of sideloading would let iOS users keep using these apps without Apple having that liability.
I always thought the court knew this wasn't a problem... and accepted, but i guess not..
It doesn't prevent anything... developers can go where they like.... This is more of an "lets se how much we can get" type
Shop owners don't this. Everyone competes on price, but no one flocks to the cheapest place either. but developers do ?
It doesn't prevent anything... developers can go where they like.... This is more of an "lets se how much we can get" type
Shop owners don't this. Everyone competes on price, but no one flocks to the cheapest place either. but developers do ?
Like I mentioned above, people who want to feel safe inside the walled garden can simply remain inside it. They don't have to venture outside.
Apple could place sideloading behind multiple warnings and require you to separately approve every self-signed certificate that sideloaded apps are signed with. Basically ensuring there's no way you will accidentally run code from outside the store without going out of your way to do so.
That is only one part of it. It will cause erosion and fragmentation. And once that kicks in it is the end of it. And then there will no longer be that choice, but people will be forced to go elsewhere to get a certain app.
If you want that, just get an Android based system so you can have the flexibility with associated advantages and disadvantages.
An intervention will have serious consequences.
Protect to me means "protected at all cost"
Companies sets their goal on this always,, but falls apart pretty quickly, as users demands grow..
Suddenly, you then get to a vauge "privacy" practice, which doing what you wanna do behind the scenes. (excludes betas for some reason). Since you should have betas/you own apps signed by Apple as well. if you want security even on a beta.
Apple does not only wants to stop this case, but all similar future cases. Getting a Supreme Court decision that this argument cannot be made in any case in the future is a much better outcome for Apple.
Getting a decision from the Supreme Court is the supreme way to settle the debate once and for all.
People here keep using Gillette as an example when Kodak is a far better example. Kodak lost their suit as should Apple. I'm not sure many understand what this suit is really about.
That’s not how monopolies work.
You need to have a greater than 50% market share in a general product category. Home computers is a market category. Home computers that run windows is not. It’s a sub category.
Cell phones is a market category. Android cell phones are a sub category. But if the sub category has more than 50% then it could be a monopoly.
The only category that Apple might soon be a monopoly on is smart watches. Unless the government rules that watches are a category, and smart watches are just a sub category
How are you going to buy anything onboard a cruise that's not already on the ship? That's a retarded analogy.