....Apple's financial interest in a product should expire once the device is paid for. Think of it like buying a car. Once you own a car, you can do whatever you want to it, or increase its performance like a new exhaust...
Customers can purchase music from Amazon and load it using iTunes. Similar functionality for app sales doesn't exist yet. If you want to trade freedom for safe apps, that's should be a customer's choice; not Apple's.
Owning a car is not the same as what's going on here because the customer doesn't own iOS. We tend to see the phone hardware and the operating system software as the same thing, but we buy our iPhone hardware while we license the operating system that is on them.
If Apple doesn't want to open up their software causing it to be less secure that should be their decision, not the customer's. If Apple wants to put non-removable snowmen on the lock screen that's their decision too—the customer can't demand their removal on the basis that it's their phone, because it's Apple's software.
This has Amazon and Cable TV providers written all over it. They don't want to pay Apple the 15% cut.
It also sets a precedent that might allow banks and competing payment services to force them to open up access to NFC.
And I think the key part of that argument applies there. You are not forced to use an iPhone, but if you choose to use one, then you are subject to certain conditions, including only loading software via the AppStore (or XCode), just like if you want to use an iPhone's NFC to pay for stuff, you have to go through Apple Pay. If you aren't willing to live with these restrictions, buy something else.
A good start, but false reasoning: the real issue is whether or not the owner has full control over hardware he/she bought. installing apps from other sources is but one issue; access by the owner to the "raw iron" is another, and more important one.
Well, I understand the argument Apple is making; after all, a business that makes $21,000,000,000 in revenue during one quarter (with Apple's cut being $6,000,000,000) is a case and business any company would logically fight.
But if I wanted to invest my own money to create my own App Store, it wouldn't go very far with Apple's walled-garden approach.
A case like this would be best fought on Copyright Law; specifically First-sale doctrine. Apple's financial interest in a product should expire once the device is paid for. Think of it like buying a car. Once you own a car, you can do whatever you want to it, or increase its performance like a new exhaust. However, Apple designs software, supplemented with capricious license terms which limits future purchases (and customer choice) to doing business only with Apple.
Customers can purchase music from Amazon and load it using iTunes. Similar functionality for app sales doesn't exist yet. If you want to trade freedom for safe apps, that's should be a customer's choice; not Apple's.
You seem to be neglecting the fact that users can do whatever they want with the hardware they purchase from Apple. But not even Microsoft sells you a copy of MS Windows. The OS is licensed; the user gets a license to use it and agrees to the terms of that license. You don't have the right to copy it and resell it, for example. And other restrictions. iOS is basically the movie theater lobby you pass through on your way to the theater, the movies being anologous to apps you then utilize, also under license that prohibits certain uses (like copying, for example). You cannot bring your own movies, or food, through that lobby. But you can build your own movie house (equivalent to jail breaking) and then make whatever deals you want for purchasing movie theater food and films to view.
A good start, but false reasoning: the real issue is whether or not the owner has full control over hardware he/she bought. installing apps from other sources is but one issue; access by the owner to the "raw iron" is another, and more important one.
How does any owner of an iOS device NOT have access to the raw iron? Do whatever you want, within your abilities to do so. But don't demand the provider of the hardware, who also provided their own means to access it, support your access requirements/desires through their OS. You're free to build your own OS, figure out for yourself how to break into the secure element and other secured parts of the hardware. Have at it.
This should go further in that they should allow any operating system to be installed on the iDevices. I do hope the third party App Store will eventually happen. I like the products but hate the company for obvious reasons
Just goes to show that time and time again, the DOJ and the government does not seem to understand or value anything to do with software or the digital eco-system.
Software patents are treated as the red-headed bastard step-children of "real" patents.
No understanding of the concept of a closed App Store.
No respect for individual privacy as far as digital data is concerned.
Just providing a tangible example of the idiocy of expecting Apple to allow apps from other places, like RaderTheKat did, should be easy to understand. But that makes too much sense.
the original complainants, the "obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices." Alternatively, Apple could pay out damages for "higher than competitive prices" customers were required to pay because Apple utilized an alleged monopoly.
I don't think this is the answer at all.
The reason the "Windows PC" market flourished, was because it was opened by Compaq back before Windows was a thing. This was perfectly fine up until the internet came along in 1994 and suddenly every version of Windows could access the internet, and get taken over by rootkits in seconds.
That is the point of the App Store, since the devices are always connected to the internet, you don't want any software being installed on the device that hasn't been secured. An "Alternate App store" is the same as asking for a way to sideload pirate software without hacking the device.
What may eventually happen is when the hardware stabilizes, and the devices last 7 years instead of 2, smaller content stores may be made available (eg netflix/hulu/amazon/comixology/etc) on all platforms and not be entirely beholden to Apple as long as the software only downloads assets and not executables. But once you open Pandora's box of allowing another app store on the device, you invite the kind of rubbish that exists on the Android alternative stores. Just look what Samsung and LG do, they tried to lock their users into using their own app stores on their Android-based SmartTV devices and hide/disable Google Play. All of those SmartTV's are now unable to run just about everything. THAT is what will happen if there are competing app stores.
Look at how well Steam works on PC/Mac and compare that with how utterly broken the Microsoft store is on Windows/Xbox and how people are completely unwilling to use EA/Origin's online store and Ubisoft's UPlay because that means they have to buy the game repeatedly when they just want ONE app store to deal with.
So as much as having multiple app stores sounds like a way to increase competition, it's really isn't. It just creates extra work for the end-user and makes it easier for malware to creep into devices that would be secured otherwise. It's not that I'm against the idea of multiple stores as a whole, but rather the alternative should be "direct purchase" where alternate "store" provides you with a code for every service, so you get your one copy of the game on all your devices (eg iOS, Android, Wii U, Windows(Steam+Windows+GOG), Xbox, PS4, 3DS, etc), and we forget about this attitude of "buy 80$ software once for each device I own"
I don't like the walled garden but see why people might prefer it.
Personally, I'd prefer a simple gatekeeper approach and let the user decide. Apple of course would take a potential hit in the pocket.
So the fact that a licence exists does not make its contents necessarily legal. To know that, someone would have to challenge it in the courts first.
In some areas even if certain terms are technically 'legal', they can can deemed void if they were not clearly and explicitly explained to the person who accepted the terms.
Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.
The fact that Apple approves the Apps and takes a cut from the developer, might work against the company if someone decided to make a legal challenge.
If you want to trade freedom for safe apps, that's should be a customer's choice; not Apple's.
As it is already, let them go ahead and jail brake their phones. Apple does not have to support seed efforts to sidestep their store. Any eeefort to support that weakens the security on every other phone as well. The courts don't have to step in at all. You're "free" to do whatever you want.
I'm tired of judges ruling on these cases when they can't even understand the basic underpinnings of technology. You would think a specialized court would have to eventually form to hear technology cases.
This has Amazon and Cable TV providers written all over it. They don't want to pay Apple the 15% cut.
They will have to pay the piper sooner or later.
I don't know. There are plenty of apps that bypass the App Store fees. If you don't use their in app purchase feature or charge for the app. NO FEE. Sling, direct tv, Spotify etc etc already take adavantage of that.
If you want to trade freedom for safe apps, that's should be a customer's choice; not Apple's.
As it is already, let them go ahead and jail brake their phones. Apple does not have to support seed efforts to sidestep their store. Any eeefort to support that weakens the security on every other phone as well. The courts don't have to step in at all. You're "free" to do whatever you want.
I'm tired of judges ruling on these cases when they can't even understand the basic underpinnings of technology. You would think a specialized court would have to eventually form to hear technology cases.
This isn't really a technology issue. If it goes to court, technology probably won't have much importance in the verdict. At least if the same people who got this ruling move on to the next step.
When Apple is compelled to allow third parties to bypass the App Store (i.e. when consumers win any suits they bring) they will have to implement a way to allow third parties to install apps. If they sandbox those apps more than they sandbox App Store apps, they'll face yet another set of suits alleging they are impeding competition by unfairly limiting the abilities of non-App Store apps. If they lose those suits, they'll have to allow non-App Store apps the same access as their vetted App Store apps, only without the vetting. They will have the same access as vetted apps, just no check on what they do with the data. And I bet that one of the first apps to take advantage of that would be one called "Backdoor" by FBI Software Inc. You'd still have to unlock the phone to allow installation, but from that moment on all your data are basically compromised.
This strikes at the heart of the Samsung vs Apple debate: Those who think a Samsung device is superior to an Apple device think it is only about features. Those who think an Apple device is superior are also looking at environment, infrastructure, security and reliability: In short, does it "Just Work"
You cannot ensure that something "Just Works" (and will continue to Just-Work) once you you open Pandora's Box. There are advantages to opening that box and there are disadvantages. You just can't have it both ways. IBM understood that. Apple understands that. Probably even Samsung understands that. But Samsung users usually do not. They think they can have it both ways.
Comments
If Apple doesn't want to open up their software causing it to be less secure that should be their decision, not the customer's. If Apple wants to put non-removable snowmen on the lock screen that's their decision too—the customer can't demand their removal on the basis that it's their phone, because it's Apple's software.
They don't want to pay Apple the 15% cut.
They will have to pay the piper sooner or later.
You left one out: Crap developers who don't know how to manage resources properly, or do garbage collection.
Not all of them want to make money from selling personal data, some of them just aren't very good at programming.
It also sets a precedent that might allow banks and competing payment services to force them to open up access to NFC.
And I think the key part of that argument applies there. You are not forced to use an iPhone, but if you choose to use one, then you are subject to certain conditions, including only loading software via the AppStore (or XCode), just like if you want to use an iPhone's NFC to pay for stuff, you have to go through Apple Pay. If you aren't willing to live with these restrictions, buy something else.
They'll have to sell 'em...won't they???
installing apps from other sources is but one issue; access by the owner to the "raw iron" is another, and more important one.
I like the products but hate the company for obvious reasons
Just goes to show that time and time again, the DOJ and the government does not seem to understand or value anything to do with software or the digital eco-system.
Software patents are treated as the red-headed bastard step-children of "real" patents.
No understanding of the concept of a closed App Store.
No respect for individual privacy as far as digital data is concerned.
Just providing a tangible example of the idiocy of expecting Apple to allow apps from other places, like RaderTheKat did, should be easy to understand. But that makes too much sense.
I don't think so. All they decided is that Apple could be taken to court, not that they have to allow third-party App stores.
This will go to court and Apple will win. And that will be the last we hear of it. Until the next frivolous lawsuit,
The reason the "Windows PC" market flourished, was because it was opened by Compaq back before Windows was a thing. This was perfectly fine up until the internet came along in 1994 and suddenly every version of Windows could access the internet, and get taken over by rootkits in seconds.
That is the point of the App Store, since the devices are always connected to the internet, you don't want any software being installed on the device that hasn't been secured. An "Alternate App store" is the same as asking for a way to sideload pirate software without hacking the device.
What may eventually happen is when the hardware stabilizes, and the devices last 7 years instead of 2, smaller content stores may be made available (eg netflix/hulu/amazon/comixology/etc) on all platforms and not be entirely beholden to Apple as long as the software only downloads assets and not executables. But once you open Pandora's box of allowing another app store on the device, you invite the kind of rubbish that exists on the Android alternative stores. Just look what Samsung and LG do, they tried to lock their users into using their own app stores on their Android-based SmartTV devices and hide/disable Google Play. All of those SmartTV's are now unable to run just about everything. THAT is what will happen if there are competing app stores.
Look at how well Steam works on PC/Mac and compare that with how utterly broken the Microsoft store is on Windows/Xbox and how people are completely unwilling to use EA/Origin's online store and Ubisoft's UPlay because that means they have to buy the game repeatedly when they just want ONE app store to deal with.
So as much as having multiple app stores sounds like a way to increase competition, it's really isn't. It just creates extra work for the end-user and makes it easier for malware to creep into devices that would be secured otherwise. It's not that I'm against the idea of multiple stores as a whole, but rather the alternative should be "direct purchase" where alternate "store" provides you with a code for every service, so you get your one copy of the game on all your devices (eg iOS, Android, Wii U, Windows(Steam+Windows+GOG), Xbox, PS4, 3DS, etc), and we forget about this attitude of "buy 80$ software once for each device I own"
Personally, I'd prefer a simple gatekeeper approach and let the user decide. Apple of course would take a potential hit in the pocket.
So the fact that a licence exists does not make its contents necessarily legal. To know that, someone would have to challenge it in the courts first.
In some areas even if certain terms are technically 'legal', they can can deemed void if they were not clearly and explicitly explained to the person who accepted the terms.
Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.
The fact that Apple approves the Apps and takes a cut from the developer, might work against the company if someone decided to make a legal challenge.
I'm tired of judges ruling on these cases when they can't even understand the basic underpinnings of technology. You would think a specialized court would have to eventually form to hear technology cases.
Those who think a Samsung device is superior to an Apple device think it is only about features.
Those who think an Apple device is superior are also looking at environment, infrastructure, security and reliability: In short, does it "Just Work"
You cannot ensure that something "Just Works" (and will continue to Just-Work) once you you open Pandora's Box.
There are advantages to opening that box and there are disadvantages. You just can't have it both ways. IBM understood that. Apple understands that. Probably even Samsung understands that. But Samsung users usually do not. They think they can have it both ways.