Ok then that's YOUR phone and you can choose to keep it that way if you wish.
Why then is the op unable to do with HIS phone what HE wants to do with it?
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.
Unauthorized App Store Cydia Sues Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why then is the op unable to do with HIS phone what HE wants to do with it?
hmm...that's the whole point; 99% of people don't know what an informed choice is; you presume the whole audience for an iPhone sits on Macrumours all night; they don't.
I’m still puzzled how people the thottling to extend the life of the device after the battery starts spiking as a normal part of its life cycle. That usually ends up damaging the device.
At the end of it. Apple taking responsibility for my device for 3 or 4 years longer than the other companies is a good thing. If they didn’t offer support they would care what you do.
They are the ones who have to support the OS.
I don't agree with everything you say, but if all what you say is real / true and everyone picks Apple for all those reasons, is prepared to pay the premium for all those reasons then there is no danger from alternate app stores; no one would use them? However, it does not follow that another app store could not have in place even better curating [note, I don't for a minute think Apple execute the same dilligence in reality that they talk about]. It also doesn't follow that another app store is a pit of misery; in all likelihood 99% of the software would probably be the same, from the same developers; they would go to the store they would / could make the most money from wouldn't they.
You presume that people don't need choice; name any other walk of life where people don't want choice? You presume choice is a bad thing and only bad things come from having choice. Could you imagine how folks would feel if for example, a Mac and all its' trinkets could only be purchased from an Apple phyical store, no other way to get your stuff? It wouldn't matter how nice an Apple store was, people would not tolerate it.
I will say that people have made their choice not to have a choice (and to outsource the decision making to Apple) the moment they decided to buy an iPhone.
And this decision to not have a choice (or at least, the decision to not have to make a choice) is something which seems to have been largely left out of the discussion sphere, even though I feel it is just as important. Especially for select groups of consumers such as less tech savvy users.
Everything’s interconnected.
Apple’s not potentially being punished for there not being a third option. It would be for using their market position to act in an anti-competitive manner. If Apple wasn’t being anti-competitive there wouldn’t be anything to punish. It doesn’t matter that Android is an alternative. The problem for Apple is that they have to capability of single-handedly blocking developer access to over half of US smartphone consumers if developers don’t bend to their every whim.
Apple made ProtonMail add in-app purchases, even though it had been free for years
Apple strongarmed another independent email app
www.theverge.com
Apple's ability to tell me what apps I put on MY phone ends the minute the purchase is rung up.
Did it occur to you that people buying iPhones are buying them in spite of them being locked down, not because they’re locked down? Or that perhaps they’re prioritizing other needs and wants over the App Store situation? The claim that people are choosing to buy an iPhone because it’s locked down is unfounded at best and completely false at worst. In reality most people probably don’t care if it’s locked down or not, they just want an iPhone. If Apple did have an official way to support third-party app stores (but that were not pre-installed), would you stop buying iPhones? If not, then you can see why your logic is flawed. Few people are likely buying their phones based on the availability of third-party app stores.
I buy iPhones because they work with my Macs. Having an iPhone and a Mac means it makes the most sense to use Apple Watches and Apple TV’s as well. And because I’m so embedded in the Apple ecosystem it made the most sense to go with HomeKit compatible smart home products. Smartphones and the choice on which one to buy is based on far more than just what app stores are available on them.
Last edited:
Why though. If they need Apple’s tools and customers on their platform, they deserve to be paid. Otherwise. Make a webapp. Interestingly, this company was first because they beat Apple to it. On if rare times Steve Jobs tipped his hand 6 months early.
Y did you buy a phone which doesn’t allow you to do what you wanted with it in the first place o my to t through hoops to get what you want out of it?
Who said anything about unsigned. Of course it can be signed. Just like non Mac App Store apps can and are signed.
Apple is preventing installing apps from developers other than via the App Store and that is anti-competitive.
I literally resisted on forums just to respond to this. I am extremely happy with this walled garden. Things just work, and apple is constantly and watching to make sure they do. That is world extra money, and a little less freedom. If I want to customize, I mess with terminal in MacOS, and that works fine for me. I would be very afraid of opening up the iOS, someone somewhere, will figure out how to do very malicious things on it, and it will make using my phone just that much more of a hassle. Then on screen time, there willl be a metric, "dealing with viruses, malware, and illegal listening, 1 hour / day", ugh. no thanks.
Actually we need jailbreaking for anti-competitiveness from not only Apple but mobile carriers.
Case in point:
I'm in Japan using a Softbank sim, but the sim is from a third party sim provider and I pay that provider not Softbank. I chose that provider because I like their customer service and you don't need a 2 year contract. Plus I can't stand Japanese carriers.
Because the sim was not purchased directly from Softbank, even though I'm paying the normal price for the Softbank sim monthly, "Personal Hotspot" (tethering) is bricked simply because I don't have a 2 year contract with Softbank. My plan includes data of course.
This is my phone I purchased outright unlocked at the Apple Store. I should be able to tether my Macbook with my phone so I can work and study when I'm outside. Softbank has simply turned off my tethering ability even though I am paying for monthly data.
If I jailbreak and use the tetherMe app, I can tether all I want using the data I'm paying for.
Jailbreaking isn't about pirating. No more than Safari or Chrome is about pirating. Cydia is fully legit just like Safari.
Cydia is good.
Case in point:
I'm in Japan using a Softbank sim, but the sim is from a third party sim provider and I pay that provider not Softbank. I chose that provider because I like their customer service and you don't need a 2 year contract. Plus I can't stand Japanese carriers.
Because the sim was not purchased directly from Softbank, even though I'm paying the normal price for the Softbank sim monthly, "Personal Hotspot" (tethering) is bricked simply because I don't have a 2 year contract with Softbank. My plan includes data of course.
This is my phone I purchased outright unlocked at the Apple Store. I should be able to tether my Macbook with my phone so I can work and study when I'm outside. Softbank has simply turned off my tethering ability even though I am paying for monthly data.
If I jailbreak and use the tetherMe app, I can tether all I want using the data I'm paying for.
Jailbreaking isn't about pirating. No more than Safari or Chrome is about pirating. Cydia is fully legit just like Safari.
Cydia is good.
And the other part of the duopoly offers a non-walled garden approach meaning consumers have a choice. If you want a smartphone that offers side loading of apps or alternative app stores Androids huge variety of options is right there. Consumers have ample choice. Competition more than exists. It’s not remotely an anti-trust issue that Apple won’t simply give everyone exactly what they want.Nobody said Apple has a smartphone monopoly. What they are is part of a smartphone OS duopoly with Google and that makes them subject to anti-trust laws, and potentially actions based on those laws. The only people going on about how “Apple isn’t a monopoly so these laws don’t apply to them,” are those who don’t understand that anti-trust laws don’t only apply to true monopolies.
You’ll have trouble finding where the word monopoly is used even once.
If people are uninformed about something that’s their own fault. Apple makes it more than clear that the App Store is the only way to get apps on the iPhone.
No it’s not. You can buy an Android phone instead if you want that capability. You, as the consumer, have that choice. Apple offers their product with a specific set of features. If you don’t like those features, don’t buy an iPhone. Buy one of a HUGE range of Android phones. This is not complicated.
So, by your reckoning, if a person doesn't like what Apple does, they are not to buy Apple products. That's basiclly what you saying and if so it implies that you do not own your iphone, Apple does because they can dictate how the iphone should be used.
If a person purchases an iphone, that person should be able to do what they want with it because it is their property. If they want to jail break it and put doddy app's on it, possibly malware and viruses, it is their 'CHOICE' to do so, not Apple's. Regardless of the merits of preventing iphone users access to cydia, that is not Apple's decison to make, it is the owner of the iphone's to make and this is the argument cydia are making, Apple is preventing 'choice' and in doing so it is anticompetitive.
All these problems for Apple go away if they have a similar gatekeeper system that macos has. Apple can put a notice up that states that if gatekeeper is turned off, then use at your own risk.
