No No No. I have a Sony TV, they don’t tell what I can and cannot watch.
The App Store is a monopoloy and that is bad for consumer choice. Clear and simple.
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
No No No. I have a Sony TV, they don’t tell what I can and cannot watch.
The App Store is a monopoloy and that is bad for consumer choice. Clear and simple.
So your idea of freedom is forcing others to do what you want?
everyone keep misunderstanding with the lawn monopolies are. As long as you were “acquire a monopoly legally you’re fine. Market share does not determine whether a mop monopoly is legal or not. It’s the usage of that market share that determines whether the behavior I’ve said monopoly is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Market share has no bearing The only way Apple would get in trouble with the law is if somehow they used their share of the smart phone market to cripple their competitors. Since android actually has a large r The only way Apple would get in trouble with the law is if somehow they used their share of the smart phone market to cripple their competitors. However apples store does not interfere with any of the other app stores. Even for developers they can choose to develop for one or the other or both.
The reason that Microsoft had a problem in this lawsuit was because Microsoft acts as a 3rd party software, it doesn't actually make the hardware, but Apple does... and also... Europe.
Microsoft does license sharing on iOS. Turns out it isn't actually impossible.
Can you install anything you want on that TV? No. Does Apple tell you what you can and cannot watch? Also no.
They don't tell you what to install, they only tell you whats available.
And by doing so, they limit what you can install. It is the same argument being used against Apple by the people in the lawsuit.
Yes, he can actually install anything you want on that TV. And yes, apple does actually tell you what you can watch, how many porn apps do you find on the app store or any app that streams porn without hiding it away in some corner (reddit).
"Apps containing pornographic material, defined by Webster's Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings", will be rejected
Apps that contain user generated content that is frequently pornographic (ex "Chat Roulette" Apps) will be rejected"
If you want to watch porn on an iPhone or iPad, you totally can. You just can't do it with an app, but you can totally watch porn. I mean, I doubt there are porn apps on the Sony TV. Are we arguing that Sony is stopping porn by not having Porn Apps? Or would you simply tell somebody to just watch porn like they'd watch anything else?
Go ask the devs of your massive software archive what they think about your situation.
PS, I've downloaded hundreds of games over the years. I have MAYBE 10 on my phone right now that I expect to ever play again. I've also got VHS tapes at home that I never bought DVD versions of. They simply weren't worth the cost to me so I let them go.
Software isn't forever. You shed what no longer works, or is no longer worth the cost to you. That's about all I have to say with regards to that.
The fact we can only get apps from the App store is a BENEFIT that I actually want and I'm sure I'm not alone. You start getting apps from "wherever" and it significantly lowers the quality and oversight of Apple. I don't think at its core, this lawsuit will attempt to make Apple "jailbreak" the OS to allow app downloads from wherever. That just wouldn't happen because it's far too onerous.
This is in the end is about money and perhaps curtailing Apple's pricing power.
There is no such thing. You want "free and open" -- go to Android. We want vetted and secure, thank you.
The difference was marketshare, of which Apple has very little compared to Microsoft mid-90's
Yeah, but connection is always changing and creates and endless headache of finding the right one to match. There are other examples like Disney, but I just threw that out there because this industry has such pricing power and still does, despite dollar shave, etc. The reason is because it's hard to find replacements that fit, they always change connector, and they aren't easy to find. There used to be zero that fit...the one you posted I've never seen.
You can also replace the phone in your pocket. However you can’t run whatever OS you want on the system you CHOOSE to put in your car.
Control of the total market, or very nearly, is what makes it an illegal monopoly. In almost every neighborhood in America, there is one cable company available, because they put the wires up and the local government granted them a monopoly. For all cable companies to offer services in all neighborhoods would mean five or six more wires on the poles. Too much capital to spend on a dying technology. If we all had optical fiber, all the cable selections could live inside your fiber and never bump into each other.
The aftermarket stereo that you put in your car would be an alternative app store (assuming you can install apps or maps).
This is similar to when the RIM CEO said Apple is in the wrong for not allowing iMessage on competing platforms..