I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
For somebody who isn't an Apple user, you sure do have strong opinions about the company whose products you aren't using.
I use MacBook Pro virtually every day along with an iPad. Is that not enough for you?
Also, my stance is a common stance. Swap out Apple and put in someone else in a similar position and my opinion would be the same.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone. Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...
This is NOT a complicated matter. It's very simple, really: Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.
Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
Which government regulators? Please provide this inconvenient truth that undercuts your entire argument.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
As a customer, I choose iOS to not deal with the inefficiencies of store fragmentation, poor/no quality control, random payment systems etc. If I wanted these, I would have chosen Android.
Eliminating the closed store model is anti-competitive.
I would add that I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against Apple in this case.
That will largely hinge on whether SCOTUS accepts Apple's position that it is merely an agent for the developers rather than a (sole) distributor.
I don't think it does. It appears that the appeals court introduced that distinction, but it's not a distinction that appears in Illinois Brick.
Illinois Brick isn't a friend in this case IMO (SCOTUS of course could well disagree with me LOL), despite Apple's use of it as a reason for dismissal. Apple is NOT the "manufacturer" in this instance, instead seizing control of the distribution of after-the-sale software product for devices of their manufacture by artificial restriction.
EDIT: Oooh, surprise. It looks like a least a couple of justices also fail to see a direct and friendly connection to Illinois Brick. Interesting opening arguments, thanks @carnegie ;
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
It’s not your phone. You’re not buying hardware but a license to access iOS/App Store. If you don’t like Apple’s TOS you can buy something else.
It's more complex than that. Anyone can cook up TOS and they should abide by current regulations. That doesn't mean they do though. I've lost count of the number of bank clauses that have been made void or the amount of times new judgements oblige companies to change how they operate.
AFAIK no one has actually challenged the way things work in the EU although I believe these practices are being looked at at a high level as we speak.
There are also issues like whether TOS should be laid out prior to purchase.
Can a market that was never open in the first place be monopolised?
If you change your word around to be "a monopoly", then it becomes non-trivial to answer…
At the point where a new market becomes critical for society it becomes detrimental if it is a functioning monopoly, and that's what the laws target; not whether or not a private actor on their own market is able to do the philosophical loop-the-loop of monopolising their own market.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone. Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...
This is NOT a complicated matter. It's very simple, really: Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.
Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
Which government regulators? Please provide this inconvenient truth that undercuts your entire argument.
EU.
It will only take a single market-significant region finding the conduct anti-competitive to "break down that wall". If this goes nowhere in the US, and it may fail even if SCOTUS allows this case to go forward, I fully expect the baton to be picked up by the EU commission.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
As a customer, I choose iOS to not deal with the inefficiencies of store fragmentation, poor/no quality control, random payment systems etc. If I wanted these, I would have chosen Android.
Eliminating the closed store model is anti-competitive.
That's fine but legislation exists to be able to deal with these issues.
Ineffeciences, fragmentation, quality control, random payment systems will not form part of the reasoning however. They have nothing to do with the core issues. I'm not talking about the specifics of this particular challenge of course but the general business model and current reality.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone. Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...
This is NOT a complicated matter. It's very simple, really: Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.
Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
Which government regulators? Please provide this inconvenient truth that undercuts your entire argument.
EU.
It will only take a single market-significant region finding the conduct anti-competitive to "break down that wall".
Not really, you already today have the same Apple hardware functioning slightly different depending on what market it's being registered at. Heck, the Appstores are straight up regional already.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone. Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...
This is NOT a complicated matter. It's very simple, really: Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.
Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
Which government regulators? Please provide this inconvenient truth that undercuts your entire argument.
EU.
It will only take a single market-significant region finding the conduct anti-competitive to "break down that wall".
Not really, you already today have the same Apple hardware functioning slightly different depending on what market it's being registered at. Heck, the Appstores are straight up regional already.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. IMO once there's an optional and open to the public "app store" available to non-jailbroken iPhones then Apple's control of distribution is broken, particularly with $B's of potential profit to be made by parties other than Apple.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone. Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...
This is NOT a complicated matter. It's very simple, really: Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.
Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
Which government regulators? Please provide this inconvenient truth that undercuts your entire argument.
EU.
It will only take a single market-significant region finding the conduct anti-competitive to "break down that wall".
Not really, you already today have the same Apple hardware functioning slightly different depending on what market it's being registered at. Heck, the Appstores are straight up regional already.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. IMO once there's an optional and open to the public "app store" available to non-jailbroken iPhones then Apple's control of distribution is broken, particularly with $B's of potential profit to be made by parties other than Apple.
Their control isn't broken, they would just let some other actors in under certain conditions on certain markets. There's a difference there.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
Developers can opt out. Web Apps are still supported via HTML-5. They don’t have to be in the Apple Store.
gatorguy said: Illinois Brick isn't a friend in this case IMO (SCOTUS of course could well disagree with me LOL), despite Apple's use of it as a reason for dismissal. Apple is NOT the "manufacturer" in this instance, instead seizing control of the distribution of after-the-sale software product for devices of their manufacture by artificial restriction.
You're agreeing with Apple's position then. Illinois Brick prohibits the customer from suing the indirect party to the sale, which is what Apple is arguing their position really is. Apple considers the sale to be between the customer and the app developer. If the SC agrees Apple is an indirect party per Illinois Brick, then the plaintiff has no standing to sue.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
And why not allow third-party app stores at the user's risk?
For one thing, any issues arising from such apps would likely be reported to Apple, overwhelming their customer support for problems that they didn't create.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals.
Simplicity and safety can be achieved just fine while giving the owner of the phone control of what he/she wants.
Not true. Ask google why they are the new Window XP of malware
I don't understand the overcharging angle. Can someone who does maybe break it down into who has been overcharged for what and why that would be illegal?
The plaintiffs claim that they are paying an overcharge to Apple as a result of Apple's anticompetitive conduct, i.e. Apple not allowing developers to sell their apps in other ways. The plaintiffs' argument is that they are buying apps directly from Apple, not indirectly from app developers.
The plaintiffs can build their own Operating System, Development Platform, Server infrastructure and more. Oh wait! They couldn't ever afford to do that as it would take a decade or more to pull off.
They are benefiting massively from the entire infrastructure and platform Apple, Google, or Microsoft provides. Each one has different terms to play in their sandboxes.
Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
Yeah, this isn't a violation of the Antitrust act. There are potentially other issues with this, but antitrust isn't one of them.
Alex Jones application doesn't adhere to the TOS. End of story.
gatorguy said: Illinois Brick isn't a friend in this case IMO (SCOTUS of course could well disagree with me LOL), despite Apple's use of it as a reason for dismissal. Apple is NOT the "manufacturer" in this instance, instead seizing control of the distribution of after-the-sale software product for devices of their manufacture by artificial restriction.
You're agreeing with Apple's position then. Illinois Brick prohibits the customer from suing the indirect party to the sale, which is what Apple is arguing their position really is. Apple considers the sale to be between the customer and the app developer. If the SC agrees Apple is an indirect party per Illinois Brick, then the plaintiff has no standing to sue.
No I do not it that's their primary basis for dismissal. It will be clearer to you if you read the opening arguments linked by @Carnegie in post #78. The Illinois Brick case isn't particularly useful to Apple's position, at least significantly so, in the view of several justices. It was a different model that what Apple uses.
You need only look at the software market prior to the existence of the iOS App Store. For starters, software was more expensive. Outside of the “everything should be free and open sourced” world, software applications even for things like handheld PDAs was comparatively more expensive. Developers couldn’t expect volume sales as consumers had to be able to find them. Developers also mostly had to handle distribution through physical media and individual websites themselves. Lower volume plus administering sales and support equals higher priced software. For Apple’s cut, the App Store provides a single, easy place to find applications, and sales and distribution are all handled through the store. With most apps priced at 99¢, consumers could try things out at minimal risk, which creates a huge potential upside for volume sales. For the developer, it’s possible to sell a million copies netting 75¢ apiece, instead of grossing $15 each and only selling a thousand copies.
For the consumer, it’s ready access to a mind-boggling array of apps just by browsing or keyword searching. Then, not only does the usually low price remove risk barriers to purchasing, so also does the App Store clearance process. Prior to the iOS App Store, downloading software from the internet brought the risk of viruses, bloatware, and compatibility issues, not only with the OS, but with the hardware and with other apps loaded on the same device. The App Store’s review process has vastly reduced or eliminated those risks. You buy an app and try it. If you don’t like it, it’s because you don’t like what the developer has created, not because the app has slowed or crashed your device, or mysteriously rendered another app inoperable. Likewise, the App Store brought user interface continuity. Ten years ago, the idea of buying an app with no instructions or documentation was a rarity, and vaguely disquieting. Now, because of the UI continuity that came with the App Store, the idea of referring to a user manual to figure out how to use an app is a rarity.
The App Store is not some sort of monopolistic money-grab. It ushered in a whole new paradigm for software sales that has greatly benefitted both developers and consumers.
I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.
I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
So what? I'm free to build my own house, that doesn't mean that it's some sort of evil oligarchy controlling the house building market just because I lack the skills to build houses myself… You either accept having to pay extra for it to be easy, or you put in the hard work to learn how to do it yourself.
Nonsensical analogy.
No it isn’t it’s a great analogy. You’re free to build and side-load apps for iOS, just like you’re free to build a house. But that doesn’t mean it’s “free” to do so without costs. To build a house you must buy tools (wood, saws, etc). To build an iOS app you must als buy tools (a Mac).
What part are you struggling with?
You’re under the assumption that I want to build my own app. I mean, I never said anything about creating my own app, now did I?
The entire basis on your absurd whining was that it wasn't-free for users to build their own apps and load them onto devices because they had to buy a Mac to get Xcode. That was the argument you made -- that it cost money to buy tools to build an app. To which, we properly informed you that nothing is free, and that, like building a house, you must invest in tools.
Now you're just dodging by saying "But I don't really want to do this!" Get real, son. You're the one who brought up the complain of buying tools, not me dur.
Comments
Also, my stance is a common stance. Swap out Apple and put in someone else in a similar position and my opinion would be the same.
Eliminating the closed store model is anti-competitive.
EDIT: Oooh, surprise. It looks like a least a couple of justices also fail to see a direct and friendly connection to Illinois Brick. Interesting opening arguments, thanks @carnegie ;
AFAIK no one has actually challenged the way things work in the EU although I believe these practices are being looked at at a high level as we speak.
There are also issues like whether TOS should be laid out prior to purchase.
At the point where a new market becomes critical for society it becomes detrimental if it is a functioning monopoly, and that's what the laws target; not whether or not a private actor on their own market is able to do the philosophical loop-the-loop of monopolising their own market.
It will only take a single market-significant region finding the conduct anti-competitive to "break down that wall".
If this goes nowhere in the US, and it may fail even if SCOTUS allows this case to go forward, I fully expect the baton to be picked up by the EU commission.
Ineffeciences, fragmentation, quality control, random payment systems will not form part of the reasoning however. They have nothing to do with the core issues. I'm not talking about the specifics of this particular challenge of course but the general business model and current reality.
For the consumer, it’s ready access to a mind-boggling array of apps just by browsing or keyword searching. Then, not only does the usually low price remove risk barriers to purchasing, so also does the App Store clearance process. Prior to the iOS App Store, downloading software from the internet brought the risk of viruses, bloatware, and compatibility issues, not only with the OS, but with the hardware and with other apps loaded on the same device. The App Store’s review process has vastly reduced or eliminated those risks. You buy an app and try it. If you don’t like it, it’s because you don’t like what the developer has created, not because the app has slowed or crashed your device, or mysteriously rendered another app inoperable. Likewise, the App Store brought user interface continuity. Ten years ago, the idea of buying an app with no instructions or documentation was a rarity, and vaguely disquieting. Now, because of the UI continuity that came with the App Store, the idea of referring to a user manual to figure out how to use an app is a rarity.
The App Store is not some sort of monopolistic money-grab. It ushered in a whole new paradigm for software sales that has greatly benefitted both developers and consumers.
Now you're just dodging by saying "But I don't really want to do this!" Get real, son. You're the one who brought up the complain of buying tools, not me dur.