Unauthorized App Store Cydia Sues Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior

[jive turkey]

"It's Apple's platform, they can do whatever they want."

OK, how comfortable are you with:

"It's Microsoft's OS, they can bundle or ban whatever software they want."

"It's Google's search engine, they can sort results however they want."

"You bought Comcast internet service; they can include whichever websites they want you to access."

On my behalf, I am 100% comfortable with it because in each case (save maybe ISP depending on where one lives), there are alternatives if a user doesn't like it.

While I can sympathize with people wanting to have software alternatives, I cannot sympathize with the outrage over not being allowed the option. Why? Because this has been Apple's policy for 150 years. If a person continues to buy iOS devices and continues to stay in the Apple ecosystem, that is their choice. The fact that Cydia and other alternative options are not allowed isn't a surprise to anyone.

It's almost like me going to McDonald's and buying lunch, then after I pay for my Big Mac I get upset that McDonald's doesn't offer a steak so I demand they change their menu to meet my wants. I knew what the deal was before going in.

 

[hot-gril]

I've never seen an AdBlocker break. Time to install a good AdBlocker.

I don't remember, but it could've been because I had her using Safari, purely because there are fewer malware extensions available for it, but an update broke the ad blocker. Either that or she got some tech help who messed with things.

 

[peneaux]

Android has F-Droid and Aurora Store. The latter you can install Google Play apps without giving your information. And it shows what kind of tracking is included in the app. It's what Apple is doing with its App Store right now.

 

[vipergts2207]

US only, not the world. And it's close even in the US.
(btw, that's paywalled, I checked elsewhere)

You realize that these are US lawsuits that will be using US laws and regulations to examine how Apple's actions are impacting the US marketplace right? Judges and regulators will be concerned with where they have jurisdiction, which is the US. Market share outside of the US is completely irrelevant here.

 

[MrSkoTA]

It’s my phone. What do you not understand?

You signed an agreement NOT to alter the software! Don’t like it!?! Get something else! There’s other platforms for that crap! I prefer my iPhone locked down and more secure without all of the BS

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Um no. Washington, DC regulators can indeed ensure that "arbitrary rules" are not legal. Likewise the legal structure does exist. Just watch the FB, Google and Apple anti-trust enforcements.

Don’t need to watch, everyone but the cheerleaders know how this will play out. Companies have been trying to muscle their way onto platforms without the platform owner’s permission crying “no fair” since at least the NES, but likely long before that. There’s SO many prior rulings, that for this to come out different is going to take some TRULY novel thinking.

 

[hot-gril]

You realize that these are US lawsuits that will be using US laws and regulations to examine how Apple's actions are impacting the US marketplace right? Judges and regulators will be concerned with where they have jurisdiction, which is the US. Market share outside of the US is completely irrelevant here.

It's not irrelevant, because these are multinational corps, and their incentives are to make the most money worldwide. Meaning, even if Apple dominated the US market (which they still don't), they couldn't benefit from abusing the position. It's not like living in the US means you need to use an iPhone but living elsewhere means you don't have to.

 

[LeadingHeat]

My MBA has Apple Wallet, and nearly all of the same data on it that my iPhone does. Granted, my MBA doesn't travel around with me everything like the phone does.

The security aspect of the argument IMO doesn't hold water, because companies like Facebook have snuck in approved apps that datamine like crazy. Sure they might get caught by Apple at some point, but just the fact that they can sneak stuff by Apple all all negates the so called security aspect.

Yeah of course there’s gonna always be the bad apples trying to circumvent the system but the point is that there’s a solid system. Once they are found out then they are under grounds to be removed. Since there are terms/conditions for being on there in the first place, so they’re held accountable and can have repercussions.

I’m all for competition, but I hope that if this passes and Apple is forced to open up iOS like macOS is, please make it optional to keep only the App Store on my iPhone. I don’t want to have to have multiple app stores preinstalled on my phone. (Google play, Cydia, etc etc).

 

[hot-gril]

You signed an agreement NOT to alter the software! Don’t like it!?! Get something else! There’s other platforms for that crap! I prefer my iPhone locked down and more secure without all of the BS

More importantly, they won't go after you for breaking the EULA. So basically you're free to screw with your phone; have fun breaking their security.

I don't think jailbreaking even voids your warranty, just makes it so you have to un-jailbreak before bringing the phone in for service. Unless something changed.

 

[IG88]

They have a right to set policy in their own App Store.

That would be fine if users could side load apps that aren't in the App Store. You know, like that thing called macOS?

 

[IG88]

It is by comparison. You have to watch what you download. My grandma refused to listen to my advice to get an iPad instead of an iMac, and now every time I visit, I have to rid her of MacKeeper and 20 malicious browser extensions.

Yes. But the iOS solution would be to prevent me from being free to install on my Mac as I please, just because grandma wouldn't listen. Just because grandma can't handle that level of freedom doesn't mean mine should be taken away.

My solution to the ability to side load apps in iOS would be to bury a toggle in developer settings. Grandma won't ever find it, so she won't be side loading malware. Win Win.

 

[rjp1]

lol @ the people questioning does Cydia still exist - that is the entire point of the lawsuit.

Cydia created the app store market on iOS and Apple copied it and then locked them out.

 

[9927036]

Don’t need to watch, everyone but the cheerleaders know how this will play out. Companies have been trying to muscle their way onto platforms without the platform owner’s permission crying “no fair” since at least the NES, but likely long before that. There’s SO many prior rulings, that for this to come out different is going to take some TRULY novel thinking.

I hope the big tech companies will be broken up. I assume you mean the same.

 

[hot-gril]

Yes. But the iOS solution would be to prevent me from being free to install on my Mac as I please, just because grandma wouldn't listen. Just because grandma can't handle that level of freedom doesn't mean mine should be taken away.

My solution to the ability to side load apps in iOS would be to bury a toggle in developer settings. Grandma won't ever find it, so she won't be side loading malware. Win Win.

There is that option. You can sideload through Xcode.

And no, I don't advocate locking down the Mac. As I said, she should've used something else.

 

[9927036]

Yeah of course there’s gonna always be the bad apples trying to circumvent the system but the point is that there’s a solid system. Once they are found out then they are under grounds to be removed. Since there are terms/conditions for being on there in the first place, so they’re held accountable and can have repercussions.

I’m all for competition, but I hope that if this passes and Apple is forced to open up iOS like macOS is, please make it optional to keep only the App Store on my iPhone. I don’t want to have to have multiple app stores preinstalled on my phone. (Google play, Cydia, etc etc).

Apple has never been proactive in discovering the apps that spy on us. This is all the work of outside security researchers.

 

[hot-gril]

Don’t need to watch, everyone but the cheerleaders know how this will play out. Companies have been trying to muscle their way onto platforms without the platform owner’s permission crying “no fair” since at least the NES, but likely long before that. There’s SO many prior rulings, that for this to come out different is going to take some TRULY novel thinking.

I want the Aladdin Deck Enhancer to do a top-decker in my iPhone.

 

[twilson]

How so? I can purchase xbox games on disc, I can buy them digitally from MS and also from a whole multitude of places.

Unless Microsoft approves a game, it’s not getting on the Xbox. Same goes for Playstations.

 

[9927036]

There is that option. You can sideload through Xcode.

And no, I don't advocate locking down the Mac. As I said, she should've used something else.

Not really an option. You have to have the Xcode project files for the app!

 

[vipergts2207]

It's not irrelevant, because these are multinational corps, and their incentives are to make the most money worldwide. Meaning, even if Apple dominated the US market (which they still don't), they couldn't benefit from abusing the position. It's not like living in the US means you need to use an iPhone but living elsewhere means you don't have to.

That's a plainly absurd claim on its face. It also ignores the proportion of Apple's sales that come from this country. Additionally, locking down the system benefits them everywhere, not just in the US. Further, regardless of the incentive to make the most money worldwide, all that will matter to judges and regulators is how Apple's decisions impact their jurisdiction. The goal of US anti-trust laws are to ensure fair play in the US.

 

[hot-gril]

That's a plainly absurd claim on its face. It also ignores the proportion of Apple's sales that come from this country. Additionally, locking down the system benefits them everywhere, not just in the US. Further, regardless of the incentive to make the most money worldwide, all that will matter to judges and regulators is how Apple's decisions impact their jurisdiction. The goal of US anti-trust laws are to ensure fair play in the US.

No, abusing their position worldwide doesn't benefit them because they'd lose customers. Otherwise they'd already be in full abuse mode. As you can see right now, it's easy to switch phones, people enjoy the choice, and usage is mixed all over the US. So the regulators don't have a job to do.

 

[LeadingHeat]

Apple has never been proactive in discovering the apps that spy on us. This is all the work of outside security researchers.

I didn’t say Apple is the one to find out. Although I’m sure plenty are denied through the initial screening process. I’m talking about being found out by anyone. Apple, private firms, even publicized by MacRumors haha. Point is, once they’re “found out” then it’s pretty clear they’re in violation of the terms they signed and Apple has a right to kick them out.

 

[hot-gril]

Not really an option. You have to have the Xcode project files for the app!

So you want to install unsigned software that's not even open-source, meaning you're not a developer or anything, you just want something Apple didn't approve. And you want it to be about as easy as installing from the App Store. Sounds fine until every appmaker, realizing most people are capable of installing this way, starts distributing only through those other stores. Then average people have to get everything from there, not the App Store. And all that unapproved software uses whatever tricks they want to.

This doesn't take any imagination; it's already how things work on macOS. Even Chrome isn't on the App Store. But that's on a desktop, so whatever. On a phone, "nobody" needs to mess with this crap, and those who do can use Android.

So instead, Apple tries to lock things down. Yes they're greedy and want the $, but users also like the platform and have the choice in the end, so it's fair. It's an old story. Look at video game consoles for the parallel universe. Nobody forced Nintendo to open the floodgates, and I'm glad for that.

 

[vipergts2207]

No, abusing their position worldwide doesn't benefit them because they'd lose customers. Otherwise they'd already be in full abuse mode. As you can see right now, it's easy to switch phones, people enjoy the choice, and usage is mixed all over the US. So the regulators don't have a job to do.

Please explain how Apple cannot abuse their market position in the US unless they have that same market position the world over. Apple single-handedly dictates who has access to the consumers of half of the US smartphone market. Anti-trust laws aren't concerned with the number of competitors, but their size and power to influence (potentially unfairly) the market. The fact that there are numerous handset makers doesn't change the fact that as the market exists today, Apple and Google control almost all of the software side of things, making them a duopoly and subject to possible anti-trust actions. Amplify the status quo and you'll see how absurd your claim is. If Apple had 99% market share in the US and only 1% in the rest of the world, Apple would somehow be unable to abuse their market position in the US because of their position in the rest of the world?

The FTC Act even regulates foreign commerce if it will have an effect on US commerce.

"Section 5(a) include such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States or involve material conduct occurring within the United States."

A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov)

Notice it gives no reciprocal protection for consumers, entities, or markets of foreign nations, it cares only for domestic markets. This should be obvious because it's up to other countries to regulate their own markets. The way you apparently believe things work would render nations unable to effectively regulate their markets and enforce anti-trust laws unless the targets of such actions were dominant the world over.

 

[hot-gril]

Please explain how Apple cannot abuse their market position in the US unless they have that same market position the world over. Apple single-handedly dictates who has access to the consumers of half of the US smartphone market. Anti-trust laws aren't concerned with the number of competitors, but their size and power to influence (potentially unfairly) the market. The fact that there are numerous handset makers doesn't change the fact that as the market exists today, Apple and Google control almost all of the software side of things, making them a duopoly and subject to possible anti-trust actions. Amplify the status quo and you'll see how absurd your claim is. If Apple had 99% market share in the US and only 1% in the rest of the world, Apple would somehow be unable to abuse their market position in the US because of their position in the rest of the world?

Apple doesn't single-handedly dictate anything. If they want to act like a monopoly just because they have 60% US market share, or even 99%, they'll lose the rest of the world, and Google will get it for free. It is a duopoly, though.

So if Apple wanted to act to their own detriment (ain't going to happen), and they somehow got a hold on the US such that nobody here could really switch to – what would be – the obviously superior Android phones the rest of the world uses (possible in theory but far from true rn), I'd be complaining.

 

[NT1440]

Coming from someone who was VERY into jail breaking for many years...this is such a ****ing stupid argument.

Im going to sue Tesla for not being able to put apps on their OS, then I’m going to sue Chevy for not letting me buy a BMW at their store. I can only get Chevy family cars??? 🙄