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
I primarily use tweaks for YouTube to enable background playing, disabling some tabs and blocking ads. It’s also useful for other apps like Reddit, Messenger, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook to enable additional features (like 4K playback) and to block ads.
That's for historic reasons. People were used to buy PC and Mac software in brick and mortar stores and install them, later to download them from the net (that was when malware became a widespread isssue).
The iPhone (and other phones before it) never had that.
I am totally OK with the one official source of signed, validated apps for my phone.
And recently I think twice to install stuff to my Mac that doesn't come from the Mac App Store.
No need, case history and precedence indicates very clearly what’s going to happen. But, everyone’s free to hope for whatever they want.
So you can buy physical copies authorized by Microsoft, you can buy digital copies authorized by Microsoft, you can exchange codes to redeem them in Microsoft's store?
I agree, and I will happily stay with my apps coming from the App Store. That said, if people want to risk the security on their phone, they should have that right. Apple would just need to make language VERY clear that downloading apps from sources outside the App Store could cause a variety of problems and that Apple can not be held responsible, otherwise you can bet some jack wagon will sue apple for their phone being bricked by an app provided through a third party store.
Last edited:
That section doesn’t mention monopolies, it’s mentioned earlier in section 2. Not section 45 (which sets up the FTC).
But fine, we’ll go with your way, throw whether or not it’s a monopoly out of the picture (BTW the link you share does not say Apple has over 50% market share, and if it did, still not a monopoly).
You’ll note if you actually read the section this part:
“The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves”
So something a consumer can reasonably avoid isn’t unlawful. Can a consumer reasonably avoid using the App Store? Yup. Buy an Android phone. Which are available cheaper than the iPhone, and in more options. The consumer has choice. Cheaper choice. There is and remains competition in the smartphone market place.
Don’t like what Apple offers? Buy a different phone. It’s simple. Just because you want something doesn’t mean you are entitled to it.
Only if Microsoft approves them. Which requires the developer paying Microsoft fees and following Microsoft guidelines, just like the App Store.
Not to mention the Xbox Series S is digital only. You can only get your games via the online store. Same with the PS5 discless version.
That would be a valid argument if there were any alternatives to the standard operating system for the device.
There isn't much that the owner of the device can do in the way of disagreement, short of simply refusing to turn it on. You can't very well say the user agreed to it when it's not as if they had a choice in the matter.
Yes my XS Max is jailbroken on iOS 13.5. I paid for all of my tweaks that came with a price. I refuse to pirate any app and make sure the Repo and tweaks are from reputable creators. I love the customization that I can do on my XS Max. I now have had the 12 Pro Max since launch day and it’s so boring even with iOS 14. I haven’t the updated the software yet as I’m hoping a jailbreak come out in the coming months.
If you would bother to read and then disagree, you can turn off the phone and return it for a full refund.
That's a red herring and you know it. Nobody has ever claimed iOS is a monopoly. What people have been saying is that the App Store is a monopoly, which it is.
And use the money to buy a different device... with software I don't own. Can you see the dilemma?
It really is "my way or the highway" with these companies, except the highway just takes you round in a circle back to where you already were.
Some guys tried to develop a Linux based phone. While that software would still not be owned by you, it should give you more freedom.
otherwise, yes, if you license software, it will not be owned by you.
Yes, that's the FTC Act and the Sherman Act is the act that refers to monopolies. A third act, the Clayton Act is the final of the three primary laws that deal with anti-trust issues. Not sure why that matters here, unless you're implying that the FTC Act can only be applied to monopolies, which would be false. And the link does say over 50%, 52.4% to be exact. I realize it's behind a paywall, but that is the number stated.
What is reasonable? Is the consumer's only recourse of purchasing another equivalent phone at the cost of hundreds (or $1k+) dollars reasonable? What if consumers have purchased substantial numbers of apps over the years as well, and changing to Android would require the further monetary expenditure to replace the apps?
It's also important to note that you're looking at only regulators' roles in this and are ignoring lawmakers'. You may recall the big tech anti-trust hearing earlier this year? In October the report on that hearing was released which stated that:
"Apple has significant and durable market power in the market for mobile operating systems and mobile app stores, both of which are highly concentrated. Apple’s iOS mobile operating system is one of two dominant mobile operating systems, along with Google’s Android, in the U.S. and globally. Apple installs iOS on all Apple mobile devices and does not license iOS to other mobile device manufacturers. More than half of mobile devices in the U.S. run on iOS or iPadOS, an iOS derivation for tablets introduced in 2019. Apple’s market power is durable due to high switching costs, ecosystem lock-in, and brand loyalty. It is unlikely that there will be successful market entry to contest the dominance of iOS and Android. As a result, Apple’s control over iOS provides it with gatekeeper power over software distribution on iOS devices. Consequently, it has a dominant position in the mobile app store market and monopoly power over distribution of software applications on iOS devices."
Additionally, it also states that "Furthermore, the Subcommittee should examine the creation of a statutory presumption that a market share of 30% or more constitutes a rebuttable presumption of dominance by a seller."
So the 50%+ plus threshold you cite is arbitrary in the first place and comes from an overly simplistic, and frankly incorrect view, that anti-trust laws only apply to true monopolies and that monopolies can only exist with control of at least 50% of the market.
You can read the report in full here:
competition_in_digital_markets.pdf (house.gov)
And let's not forget that the EU is also looking at big tech as well and actions they take could very well impact what goes on in the US, unless Apple starts significantly bifurcating software and capabilities based on region/country.
Last edited:
So Apple is to be blamed for their success? AFAIK when they broke up Standard Oil and AT&T they were the only providers. THAT is a monopoly. Instead of developers creating a 378th distro of Linux, maybe a small number of them could release an Android fork that truly compete against iOS/Android giving the world a free and open source operating system. Thats what Firefox did against Internet Explorer, Linux against Unix, LibreOffice against Microsoft Office, Brave against Chrome...etc
Apple's success isn't the problem, it's the way they're using that success as a weapon against others. Being big and successful doesn't mean you have to act in an anti-competitive manner. And developers could create a unified Linux distribution, but that's not the existing market reality that regulators and lawmakers are looking at and so is rather beside the point.
Pages 339-372 under 'Conduct'.
Yeah, I've read that. It's an opinion...imo. I'm just a lowly MR poster, we will see if anything comes of this.
It's not really an opinion that it's anti-competitive in a broad sense. What remains to be seen is whether it rises to the level of being legally actionable, and if not, whether lawmakers think it should be.