Unauthorized App Store Cydia Sues Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior

[theotherphil]

Can you change your WiFi MAC address with anything in the App Store?

Why do you even need to when Apple obscure your MAC Address for you?

 

[theotherphil]

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.

It’s certainly an interesting document but it’s a political document that doesn’t mean much on it‘s own. The US gov is made up of 3 branches...the Presidency, the Judiciary and the legislature (congress). So what’s basically happening is Congress is saying that we need to change some laws because we have a belief that these companies are doing some wrong. The problem is, they can’t force the other branches to make those changes. It can’t mandate a judge make a finding of fact on these issues that congress did. The judiciary can only work from established precedent and prior interpretations of the current law.

There’s a really good series of videos from a contract lawyer looking at the Epic v Apple case that is well worth a watch and gives an actual nuanced legal perspective, instead of the opinion of the armchair lawyers in here. One of the videos covers the above linked document.

Epic v Apple playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-lb7ReoUqL5_dTcM8ngmfV

 

[MacBH928]

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.

I don't believe say, first iOS shipped without a store and when a store was implemented it was closed. Thats when iPhone was a minority in the market. Apple was not using its large market share or corporate power to take down competitors. In fact, Blackberry flourished even more after the iPhone release but Apple took them down in the long run.

I bet if Apple was using the same methods and had 0.5% market share no one would even care about this. If the lawmakers are so keen on fairness of the market how come they let Nintendo and Sony sell games exclusively via their online stores on their devices?

 

[Abazigal]

I bet if Apple was using the same methods and had 0.5% market share no one would even care about this. If the lawmakers are so keen on fairness of the market how come they let Nintendo and Sony sell games exclusively via their online stores on their devices?

That is my other point of contention as well.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all have App stores for their multimedia platforms.

Nobody seems to be having an issue with it.

But it’s bad when Apple does it.

When four manufacturers are doing the same thing and only one is being singled out, it’s looking more and more like a company out to hit a quick payday than them genuinely having a problem with walled gardens.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

No its not. You cannot say iOS is not a monopoly and App Store is a monopoly at the same time. It either is or is not. App Store is NOT a monopoly and mobile apps, Google Play store is. By your own admission, iOS is not a monopoly, therefore, App Store cannot be a monopoly since there is Android and Google Play Store.

 

[Ethosik]

What makes you think that the ability to sideload apps would somehow affect your ability to exclusively use "one official source of signed, validated apps for my phone."

Because developers will pull their apps from the App Store? Is it REALLY this difficult for people to understand? I have seen this comment over and over and OVER again that ANY form of change will have ZERO impact on people that prefer a locked down environment - which IMO is the ONLY reason I prefer an iPhone over an Android. I would gladly prefer to pay less if the experience is the same. But back to the point, if Epic Games is allowed to make their own store for example, this will lead to exclusive apps ONLY allowed on the Epic Store. Some popular items will be removed from the App Store and force you to get another store so businesses can pocket all the extra cash. It will eventually lead to - Want any Adobe stuff? Need to install the Adobe Store! Want any Affinity software? Download the Affinity Store! Want Fortnite? Install the Epic Store! What this highly anticipated iOS app? Install the Epic Store that paid for exclusivity rights! (Borderlands 3 on PC hello?)

So this type of change will ABSOLUTELY impact those of us that prefer the locked down experience. Do not kid yourself that everything and all apps will remain on the App Store.

 

[Ethosik]

I'm well past done with sympathizing with anyone who complains about something they bought and will buy again next year, despite knowledge of all the viable options they have. If someone really doesn't know better, that's different.

And honestly, that argument/complaint does not work for the general public. If my Grandma was getting her first smartphone, would she ask "Can I download apps on other stores?" No. And just like my Grandma, even if she got an Android, she will still only use the Google Play Store.

The general public prefers convenience. They do not want to go hunting for different app stores. Which then hurts the businesses selling the apps. If you recall, Fortnite was removed from the Google Play Store a few years back and was side load only. They NEEDED to bring it back to the Play Store due to not getting enough downloads.

 

[Ethosik]

Why would reputable apps distribute on other stores exclusively?

Why was a highly anticipated video game released on the Epic Store exclusively? (I am referring to Borderlands 3). Yet it was. Money. Its all about money. If Epic approaches a VERY POPULAR upcoming iOS app and offers them a killer deal for exclusively having their app, of course they would do it.

 

[Ethosik]

Everyone who keeps defending Apple saying its their Phone and they can do what they want... YEAH! That is the problem!!

Its not just about what some of Apple's customers want (though that should be important to them), its what Apple's platform developers (third party companies providing apps/services on the iPhone) want. Don't kid yourself... if developers in mass decided not play Apple's games anymore, and the only thing you could run on Apple's hardware was Apple's software, no one would be buying their hardware.

BUT, there isn't another market for them to move to because it wouldn't be beneficial for anyone, customers or developers, for their to be more platforms to support or jump back and forth on, especially at the prices of these devices and the vendor lock in practices.

That is generally why its better to have regulation for these situations that exist.

No this is what competition and capitalism is all about. If developers get SO ANGRY at Apple that they remove their apps, consumers will need to move to Android. Then Apple will either A) change their policies since iPhone sales are tanking or B) let the iPhone completely die.

 

[Ethosik]

Microsoft wasn’t in trouble for making IE the default browser. The issue was Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OS’s and then abused that power by colluding and bullying OEM’s to install Windows and only windows prior to shipping at threat of sanctions. Microsoft didn’t manufacture any hardware back then.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

I see this argument so....many....times on this site when people do not understand the topic. They also approached Netscape to try to convince them to NOT develop the software! I have not seen Apple do this "Please don't develop this software!!!!"

 

[Abazigal]

If you recall, Fortnite was removed from the Google Play Store a few years back and was side load only. They NEEDED to bring it back to the Play Store due to not getting enough downloads.

Actually, what happened was that Epic refused to release Fortnite on the google play store and tried to get android users to side load the app instead. It didn't work out in the end, but what was equally telling that that fortnite was already available on the iOS App Store right from day 1 - because its locked down nature meant that Epic couldn't attempt a similar stunt on iOS even if they wanted to.

I already didn't have a good impression of Epic back then, and their latest stunt just reinforces my belief that you really don't want such companies having too much power over the customers, and that Apple is the only entity capable of keeping them honest and ensuring that they behave.

 

[Ethosik]

Actually, what happened was that Epic refused to release Fortnite on the google play store and tried to get android users to side load the app instead. It didn't work out in the end, but what was equally telling that that fortnite was already available on the iOS App Store right from day 1 - because its locked down nature meant that Epic couldn't attempt a similar stunt on iOS even if they wanted to.

I already didn't have a good impression of Epic back then, and their latest stunt just reinforces my belief that you really don't want such companies having too much power over the customers, and that Apple is the only entity capable of keeping them honest and ensuring that they behave.

It was on the Google Play store at one point, was removed as side load only, then was put back on.

Fortnite for Android will ditch Google Play Store for Epic’s website

Epic Games CEO cites “economic efficiency” of bypassing Play Store’s 30 percent cut.

www.theverge.com

After the whole Epic tantrum a few months ago, I am never installing the Epic Store again. I guess its good news to developers since I paid for the games a second time on Steam (the ones I could).

 

[warp9]

In the same way that auto manufacturers don't have the right tell you what roads you can drive on, Apple doesn't have the right to tell you what apps you can install. They do, but they shouldn't.

This is so unbelievably wrong. Roads are a tax-paid public service. Iphones are a privately owned invention. Apple not only has the right to tell you what apps you can install, they have the right to shut down all apps and the app store completely.

IOS is not a public service and it's not a monopoly. Apple can do whatever the hell they want with it.

 

[warp9]

And we did not sign up to buy a "Managed" device.

You actually did. It's in the Apple End User Agreement that you agreed to when you clicked on "I Agree" when setting it up.

 

[Kuckuckstein]

Microsoft wasn’t in trouble for making IE the default browser. The issue was Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OS’s and then abused that power by colluding and bullying OEM’s to install Windows and only windows prior to shipping at threat of sanctions. Microsoft didn’t manufacture any hardware back then.

Apple control the entire stack from hardware to software. They aren’t colluding with 3rd parties or bullying other manufacturers into installing iOS on their hardware.

In order to claim that they are abusing their monopoly power, you first need to define the relevant market. In this case, Cydia and Epic are trying to claim that iOS app distribution is the relevant market but this isn’t the case as it’s too narrow a definition. Smartphone App distribution is the relevant market and Apple do not have a monopoly here.

A manufacturer is expected to have a monopoly on their own products and it’s not illegal to do so.

Being ahead due to having a better product or service or having better business acumen isn’t against anti-trust laws.

Anti-trust laws specifically look at harms to customers/ consumers....that is the end user. Devs are not the end users of these devices. Now you have to ask yourself this...why has Apple got 50% market share when they ONLY sell premium devices? They don’t give away their devices with the OS preinstalled like many other manufacturers (this could be an anti-trust issue).

The end user knowingly PAYS a premium for the Apple device and experience. How can you claim harm to a consumer when there’s a crap ton of other, cheaper choices (some are even free, or close to it)?

Apple customers, of which I am one, knowingly pay a premium for a differentiated product. I choose Apple exactly because of the increased privacy and security. I choose Apple because of a single marketplace to purchase my Apps - a single entity has my personal details and credit card info. A single point of contact if anything goes wrong. A single list of my subscription. A single point of failure instead of a large security surface area for potential hackers.

I DO NOT WANT a Microsoft store, an epic store, an Adobe Store, a Readlle Store, a Google Store, a Nintendo Store, an EA store etc, etc. This is a TERRIBLE user experience where I would have to change my credit card number with each of them when it expires, each of them when I change an address or email. I would have to track down the right store and relevant page to change/ cancel a subscription. I would have multiple points of contact for support issues and my personally identifiable information is spread across a large surface area. Not all of these developers will have the same privacy policies (so some of my data may be sold), and some of the smaller devs may not have the infrastructure/ expertise/ desire that Apple does to secure my details. I can get all this by choosing a manufacturer that uses android as it’s OS yet I CHOOSE to pay more to avoid this mess.

Apple is a premium brand that prides itself on it’s reputation for user experience, privacy and security. It differentiates itself from IT’S competition in exactly that way and is highly successful EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THIS.

By trying to enforce these changes on Apple, the consumers who purchase Apple products because of their differentiation WILL BE HARMED.

TLDR:
Apple is a monopoly on their own products.
This is expected and isn’t illegal.
The relevant antitrust market is smartphone app distribution, not iOS app distribution.
Apple isn’t colluding or abusing it‘s monopoly position.
Apple has the market share through user CHOICE, not abuse.
Antitrust law considers harm to the consumer.
There is no harm to the consumer, as they choose Apple specifically.
Many other manufacturers are available at substantially cheaper prices.
Antitrust laws will be unlikely to change anything as Apple’s business practice is exactly what differentiates them from their competition, and consumers freely choose them.

Fair points, but that is really the crux of the monopoly discussion.

I agree, that Apple has created its complete eco-system and therefore can do whatever they want. And I also agree that they do a formidable job at that. After all, nobody has to use them, but the tight and smooth integration makes it the obvious choice for many.

But the fact is that this argument only holds as long as number wise Apple remains small in the business, as long as it is one of several eco systems. On mobile, there now are only two. Apple has the huge revenue bubble for them, but most users are on Android. I could imagine that Apple strategically will remain the small one (unit wise), while still growing the business revenue wise. And again, admittedly that is a clever business strategy. That is probably also why they keep the prices high: those who can afford will choose the iPhone, M1 based computers etc, but the mass marked can't afford this.

But even back in the days, users had a choice. They could have gone to Linux (more secure and private, my choice back then) or Mac but didn't. No indvidual consumer was forced to do so. The problem was, unless you had the time and eagerness to battle system settings, Linux was just very unapproachable for many. And the Macs before 1997 were just not good enough competition (I also used them). Although Windows was everything than a polished experience, for the majority it was best choice. I believe, even OEM's could have gone against that. And some did sell computers with Linux on them.

And following the argument - my eco system, my rules - Microsoft could have excluded others from providing a browser for Windows. Everybody would have considered that outrageous. And once you saw the alternatives, Internet Explorer lost because it was the worse choice. But it is quite intersting to see, that for many this is not an active choice to begin with: marketing "and seeming defaults" seem to rule, even today.

But you are right - in the end it is what the users perceive. And for most Mac and iOS users the Apple qualities are what counts most. Competition could do the same, but Google's business is the opposite of privacy and Microsoft's OEMs and probably customers would shout out if Microsoft suddenly went 100% Apples model and only do things on their own hardware.

 

[sebastian...]

That’s where you’re wrong kiddo. When someone invents an item they should be able to design how it functions. I don’t understand it there are companies that make phones that are highly highly customisable why does these people not just move over to these devices instead of trying to get one specific company apple to change their invention to suit them? Same goes for people here commenting that this is a good thing and that apple should have less control over the devices it invents

But Cydia was there first, before Apple. You could even argue that Apple took the idea of AppStore from Cydia, like it took so many tweaks over the years from Cydia and incorporated into iOS.

 

[jameslmoser]

The iOS App Store does not exist for them (the developers).

It exists for us (the consumers).

Of course it exists for the developers!! Its a service Apple forces them to use and then charges them for it! What a ridiculous statement. There has to be an app from developer in the store before a user can even look at it!

 

[Chopper9]

Back in 2008, Jay Freeman first released Cydia as an app store designed for the iPhone, offering apps a few months before Apple had its own App Store. Since then, Cydia has served as an app repository for jailbroken iPhones and iPads, making it easy to install unauthorized software on compatible devices.

Now Cydia is joining a growing cadre of developers accusing Apple of anticompetitive behavior, reports The Washington Post. Cydia on Thursday sued Apple, accusing the company of using anticompetitive tactics to "nearly destroy Cydia" ahead of the App Store launch, which Cydia's lawyers say has a monopoly over software distribution on iOS devices.

According to Cydia, if Apple did not have an "illegal monopoly" over iOS app distribution, users would be able to choose "how and where to locate and obtain iOS apps," and developers would also have alternate distribution methods.

Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz told The Washington Post that Apple will review the lawsuit and that Apple is not a monopoly because it faces competition from Android. Apple also must maintain control over the way software is installed on the iPhone to prevent customers from accidentally downloading viruses and malware, which iPhones would be more susceptible to with a third-party App Store.

The App Store is the only authorized way to install apps on an iPhone or iPad, with more than 1.8 million apps available worldwide. Over 28 million developers around the world use the App Store to distribute apps, and Apple earns somewhere around $15 billion in revenue from the App Store each year. Apple has a dedicated App Store review team that reviews every app submitted to the store, along with guidelines that developers have to follow.

Before the App Store, though, there was Cydia. Jay Freeman told The Washington Post that he developed Cydia as a way to make it easy for customers to jailbreak their iPhones and install new software to support features created by developers who wanted to make apps and new functions for the original iPhone.

According to his estimations, more than half of early iPhone customers were jailbreaking their iPhones to use Cydia, and in 2010, 4.5 million people were searching for apps weekly. By then, Apple had come out with its own App Store and started making it harder to jailbreak new iPhones, and over the years, also added features that were previously only available through Cydia, such as the Control Center.

Freeman claims that the risks of jailbreaking are "overblown" and are similar to downloading software from a PC. "Morally speaking, it's your phone and you should be able to do whatever you want with it," he said. The lawsuit claims that Apple used "coercive" terms to prevent customers from using Cydia, and as security ramped up, Cydia's business waned.

Cydia lawyer Stephen Swedlow says that the "legal climate" has been changing, which makes it the ideal time to file against Apple. Cydia is the "perfect claimant" for an antitrust case given that it has an app store that's an alternative to Apple's own offering. If the suit is successful, Cydia plans to once again compete with Apple, but without the need for jailbreaking.

Article Link: Unauthorized App Store Cydia Sues Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior

1. Cydia doesn't offer pirated software. A user has to take the step of adding an unofficial illegal repository. By your logic, Chrome is responsible for piracy because you can point it to The Pirate Bay.
2. The only reason piracy is even possible on Cydia is that Apple forces it to be! By refusing to sign Cydia, Apple makes jailbreaking a prerequisite to install Cydia. If Apple allowed other app stores and opened up a means for third party software to install apps, you wouldn't be able to pirate on Cydia.

But keep drinking the kool-aid, for whatever reason you do.

Chalk it up to ignorance. So much on display in this thread from armchair lawyers it’s quite entertaining. Good little soldiers.

 

[I7guy]

Of course it exists for the developers!! Its a service Apple forces them to use and then charges them for it! What a ridiculous statement. There has to be an app from developer in the store before a user can even look at it!

Apple doesn't force anybody to do anything. A potential IOS dev, voluntarily joins the program by paying $99, and then can use a lot of Apple software collateral to get an app up and running. All without anybody holding the proverbial gun to someone's head.

 

[Carrotcruncher]

How dare they not allow Cydia and its ability to install pirated software!

for shame!

The real question is who owns the device ? The buyer or Apple

 

[Carrotcruncher]

It's Apple's platform. What do these people not understand?

So if I buy a new car I shouldn't be able to mod it is that what your saying ?

 

[Carrotcruncher]

Oh yeah I loved using Cydia and having a barely usable phone it was so great

I agree it sucks, but that isn't the issue, the issue is allowing users to do what they want with "Their" devices. If they want to install garbage it should be their choice, an Iphone is an expensive device bought outright not a loan device from Apple, if the device is on loan it should state that at the point of sale.

 

[warp9]

The real question is who owns the device ? The buyer or Apple

So if I buy a new car I shouldn't be able to mod it is that what your saying ?

I agree it sucks, but that isn't the issue, the issue is allowing users to do what they want with "Their" devices. If they want to install garbage it should be their choice, an Iphone is an expensive device bought outright not a loan device from Apple, if the device is on loan it should state that at the point of sale.

The argument isn't about devices. It's about the software on those devices and you don't own any of it or control what happens with it or get to dictate how it's managed. Apple and the app developers own all of it.

HOWEVER: Since we actually do own the device itself, we should be allowed to delete iOS and install another os like Android if we want. This wouldn't affect Apple in any way, short of some warranty challenges. The hardware is great but clearly not everybody is onboard with the software.

 

[HylianKnight]

So macrumors moderators apparently flagged my Letter Kenny “to be fair” meme assuming it was meant as a provocation... I can only assume the moderator has never seen Letter Kenny, but since I was not offered any sort of chance to explain myself, “To be fair” is something that you simply say and sing anytime someone else says “to be fair”. It is not a provocation, affirmation or condemnation. It is simply a neutral good time. I was just simply adding pure joy to the conversation. To the moderator who sent me the message, I appreciate you for what you do for the community. Perhaps you may not see it as adding to the community, but sometimes these conversations can get a little too heated, and a brief period of calm and humor can sometimes be a welcome sight to keep the conversation civil and on track. Thank you.

 

[InGen]

But Cydia was there first, before Apple. You could even argue that Apple took the idea of AppStore from Cydia, like it took so many tweaks over the years from Cydia and incorporated into iOS.

You wouldn’t walk into a retailer and tell them “hey before you opened up this store other companies had stores too with similar stock displayed in a similar way I think you owe it to them to stock their brands because you copied them.” And yet it seems like you are suggesting that opening a digital storefront and selling things is something that could be copyrightable?