Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 180

    Johan42 said:
    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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.
    That type of thinking will bring about the Great Depression again.
    Says the guy who doesn't want to pay for tools.
    spinnydelijahg
  • Reply 102 of 180
    Anybody who claims Apple's 30% cut is abusive has clearly never tried to sell software on the retail market. Between rebates, marketing costs, distributor and retailer margins, reseller incentives, and sometimes rebate costs, you were lucky to net 20% on a good day. Considering the size of the audience and the service provided, 30% is a massive bargain -- for most software.
    And as has been pointed out before, you can't accuse a company of monopoly abuse when they don't have a monopoly on the market, since Android is actually in a dominant position even on the US market.
    As a guy who has built & sold products to national retail in the US -- agreed. One of my products was picked up by World Market, the home furnishings store. You know how much markup they wanted over my cost to their retail consumer price? 100%. Yup...aka "Keystone Pricing". That's their standard.

    Newbs whining here about Apple's 30% have no idea what it means to distribute in the retail channel... Wholesalers, distributors, retailers...they all need a piece. 30% total is cheap.
    macplusplusmcdavespinnydelijahgericthehalfbeebeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 103 of 180
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,290member
    genovelle said:
    avon b7 said:
    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.
    If this issue ever reached a ruling, the question wouldn't be about having the option to 'opt out' or even web apps.
    elijahg
  • Reply 104 of 180
    bitmodbitmod Posts: 267member
    steven n. said:
    As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me. 
    Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple. 

    This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
    Wrong... and hilariously so. Thanks for the Monday laugh. 
    The only 'earnings potential' you are worried about is your precious stock value. 
    Breaking the slavishly greedy and dangerous monopoly Apple has over control of how we use our own property - only stands to greatly benefit developers and consumers. 
    They aren't saying the Apple App Store can't exist - just not hold a monopoly that stifles competition. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 105 of 180
    bitmod said:
    steven n. said:
    As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me. 
    Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple. 

    This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
    Wrong... and hilariously so. Thanks for the Monday laugh. 
    The only 'earnings potential' you are worried about is your precious stock value. 
    Breaking the slavishly greedy and dangerous monopoly Apple has over control of how we use our own property - only stands to greatly benefit developers and consumers. 
    They aren't saying the Apple App Store can't exist - just not hold a monopoly that stifles competition. 
    Do tell… how did Apple change the product after(!) your purchase to limit your expected use of it?

    What made you pre purchase think that there were no limitations to what you could do with it?
    edited November 2018 JWSCStrangeDays
  • Reply 106 of 180
    bitmod said:
    steven n. said:
    As a developer, I love the single store concept and increased visibility allowing cheaper prices to my constomers because of increased volume. Sounds win-win to me. 
    Apple developers should band together and file amicus briefs with the court in support of Apple. 

    This frivolous lawsuit is an insult and dangerous to the earnings potential for all Apple developers.
    Wrong... and hilariously so. Thanks for the Monday laugh. 
    The only 'earnings potential' you are worried about is your precious stock value. 
    Breaking the slavishly greedy and dangerous monopoly Apple has over control of how we use our own property - only stands to greatly benefit developers and consumers. 
    They aren't saying the Apple App Store can't exist - just not hold a monopoly that stifles competition. 
    Thanks for letting me know I should block you. Consider it done!
    elijahgericthehalfbeeradarthekatStrangeDays
  • Reply 107 of 180
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,199member
    rcfa said:
    I wish Apple the best, but this suit, they should lose, or else consumers’ rights are a thing of the past.
    Someone who is in a position of gatekeeper who also actively lobbies the providers of the goods for which he acts as gatekeeper, and restricts what the apps may do, has way too much power.
    If there were multiple AppStores, with different policies, and consumers had the choice of which store or which policies they want to subscribe to, that’s different.
    But Apple not only helps and promotes users getting screwed (e.g. by pushing developers towards the subscription model), it lowers the value of devices people already paid for, e.g. by revoking users’ and apps’ access to MAC addresses, rendering network admin apps for iOS close to useless.
    For these things to stop, there needs to be competition, and there’s none.
    Choice isn’t automatically beneficial.  In fact it introduces fragmentation inconvenience & quality risk.  People in Western societies are brainwashed into thinking choices set them free but it’s just not so.
    macplusplusJWSC
  • Reply 108 of 180
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,199member
    jume said:
    carnegie said:
    I would add that I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against Apple in this case.
    It should rule against Apple in this case. It is going to be better for the consumer!
    How?  If customer choice is more important to you than customer experience, go to Android.  If you change Apple’s model to conform to everyone else’s that’s one less choice, where it actually counts.
    macplusplusJWSCspinnyd
  • Reply 109 of 180
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,199member
    svanstrom said:
    mcdave said:
    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.
    Then it’s a good job the integrated OS/App Store doesn’t represent the whole market, just a portion of it so I guess one actor’s practices can dictate nothing.

    You’re monopoly assertion is wrong by the way.  I live in a little country called New Zealand with the total population of a small-medium US city.  Every time we apply ‘free market’ economic models here the low transaction volumes fail to resolve to the benefit of the customer and we end up getting fleeced.
    macplusplus
  • Reply 110 of 180
    maxitmaxit Posts: 214member
    American ruling system is idiotic... I literally have no words about this.
  • Reply 111 of 180
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,199member
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    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. 
    Given the level of product vetting, I’d say they’re way more involved than a distributor.  Couplled with choice being so fundamental to western social doctrine, I don’t fancy their chances.
  • Reply 112 of 180
    TomETomE Posts: 149member
    Apple's App Store is the greatest thing ever.  I can download the App with a reasonable degree of knowing that it is not "corrupt".
    If I want to update the app, it is automatic.  If I wipe my computer , iPad or iPhone, I can reload the Apps.

    I have a few apps that did not come from the Apple App Store - I don't like that way, but it is their option.  I prefer Apple.
    It is easier and if it costs more, I don't know that it does, I am willing to pay for it - happily.

    Not a Monopoly - IRS is a Monopoly !
    spinnydradarthekat
  • Reply 113 of 180
    Johan42 said:
    Johan42 said:
    svanstrom said:
    Johan42 said:

    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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.


    Please quote the part where I mentioned “build/create”.
  • Reply 114 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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 is their phone and they're under no obligation to get/purchase  apps for it. 
  • Reply 115 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    mcdave said:
    rcfa said:
    I wish Apple the best, but this suit, they should lose, or else consumers’ rights are a thing of the past.
    Someone who is in a position of gatekeeper who also actively lobbies the providers of the goods for which he acts as gatekeeper, and restricts what the apps may do, has way too much power.
    If there were multiple AppStores, with different policies, and consumers had the choice of which store or which policies they want to subscribe to, that’s different.
    But Apple not only helps and promotes users getting screwed (e.g. by pushing developers towards the subscription model), it lowers the value of devices people already paid for, e.g. by revoking users’ and apps’ access to MAC addresses, rendering network admin apps for iOS close to useless.
    For these things to stop, there needs to be competition, and there’s none.
    Choice isn’t automatically beneficial.  In fact it introduces fragmentation inconvenience & quality risk.  People in Western societies are brainwashed into thinking choices set them free but it’s just not so.
    Ah the paradox of choice 
  • Reply 116 of 180
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,146moderator
    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    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.
    There is a point that many are missing.  Apple is not in any manner controlling what you can or cannot do with your iPhone or iPad.  You can toss them off a bridge, even blend them if you like, with exactly zero repercussions from Apple.  You buy an iPhone or iPad and it’s yours to do with as you please.  Now, if you want the benefits of iOS, that’s not yours to do with as you please.  Because you don’t own your copy of iOS; you license it, Apple owns it. And the App Store runs on iOS, and apps call iOS services to access the camera and other hardware in the iPhone or iPad. So if you want a different way of loading apps on an iPhone or iPad, you already have it.  Just load a different OS on there, if you have the technical chops to do so.  But while you are using iOS you are subject to the license terms you agreed to.

    This is where this case will ultimately play out; it’s an argument about what you can and cannot do with another party’s property.  And this is why I use the movie theater analogy.  In many theater chains in the United States you aren’t allowed to bring in outside food.  If you want food with your movie experience you must buy it, at marked up prices, inside the lobby of the theater, often from vendors who have deals with the theater chain (like Pizza Hut, for example).  You’ll pay more for the same pizza inside the theater lobby than right down the street at a Pizza Hut franchise location.  The theater owns the venue, knows it’s valuable retail space with a captive audience and charges Pizza Hut a premium for selling their food there.  And that cost is passed on to you, a member of that captive audience.  Is anyone doing anything illegal?  Can restaurants charge outsized corkage fees for outside food consumed in their venue? If this goes against Apple then I’m setting up a flea market stand inside my local Macy’s department store. I’ll have every right to do so.  
    edited November 2018 StrangeDaysJWSC
  • Reply 117 of 180
    Apple is obviously a distributor. But they are also a censor. That’s great when it’s keeping the store clean of filth (mostly), but not so great when it’s a violation of free speech. A iPhone owner should be able to download a legal app of their choosing that is in disagreement with apples worldview. As mentioned above, the info wars thing is a glaring example of complete mishandling of power. I don’t care for info Ward ar all. But if someone wants it, they should be able to have the app on a device they own. This kind of abuse is not new at Apple unfortunately. I remember having a U2 album with questionable cover art randomly appear in my iTunes account because Apple wanted to force it on me - along with everyone else. And whether you like the album or not, appreciate the cover art or not, the principle of it is that Apple weilded power inappropriately. The fact that Apple can take a view it disagrees with and eliminate it from the discussion - or to purposely harm a business it disagrees with - is extremely concerning. The terms “hate speech” gets used a lot today as justification for censorship. But it’s part of life. People say hateful or sometimes just foolish things sometimes. You want hate speech? Look at donald trumps twitter whenever he retaliated on someone. Horrible. You want far worse hate speech? Listen to the other side of the aisle with Maxine waters, Madonna, etc. calling for actual actionable assault and harassment of people who don’t share their views. Scary stuff. But you don’t see Apple banning their apps or banning twitter. 

    All that to say that Apple needs to provide a way for device owners to acquire the apps that the OWNER wants and not just what Apple agrees with.

    If Apple doesn’t want an app in their store, fine. But someone should be able to go to the store next door and get it - if they truly are just a distributor after all. 


    edited November 2018 avon b7
  • Reply 118 of 180
    I haven’t finished reading all these comments, but from what I’ve read, I still do’t get it????
    Can you say? Choice
    Can you say? Microsoft store
    Can you say? Google Play
    Can you say? Android
    Lack of choice is at the crux of the concept of monopoly. 
    Everyone has made a choice when the go with one operating system or the other.
    If someone feels they are overpaying for anything, they are free to choose another OS.
    People are not being forced to buy anything. They can chose other approaches or solutions.
    The marketplace will decide... Apple will go out of business if they make a bad marketing decision.

    From the looks of it, they’ve made a marketing decision... and the market as whole likes it.

    radarthekat
  • Reply 119 of 180
    geekmee said:
    I haven’t finished reading all these comments, but from what I’ve read, I still do’t get it????
    Can you say? Choice
    Can you say? Microsoft store
    Can you say? Google Play
    Can you say? Android
    Lack of choice is at the crux of the concept of monopoly. 
    Everyone has made a choice when the go with one operating system or the other.
    If someone feels they are overpaying for anything, they are free to choose another OS.
    People are not being forced to buy anything. They can chose other approaches or solutions.
    The marketplace will decide... Apple will go out of business if they make a bad marketing decision.

    From the looks of it, they’ve made a marketing decision... and the market as whole likes it.

    The idea is that you choose a platform. 

    Say a smartphone with app capability. 

    Apple makes a smartphone. But Their are many Manufacturers of other smartphones - each with their own flavor, quality, etc. 

    Yet the manufacturers have to play by the rules when they are allowed to sell in the USA. 

    Ford and Chevy both make cars with radio capability in the cars. But one doesn’t choose for you what you can and can’t legally listen to over the available airwaves. 


  • Reply 120 of 180
    geekmee said:
    I haven’t finished reading all these comments, but from what I’ve read, I still do’t get it????
    Can you say? Choice
    Can you say? Microsoft store
    Can you say? Google Play
    Can you say? Android
    Lack of choice is at the crux of the concept of monopoly. 
    Everyone has made a choice when the go with one operating system or the other.
    If someone feels they are overpaying for anything, they are free to choose another OS.
    People are not being forced to buy anything. They can chose other approaches or solutions.
    The marketplace will decide... Apple will go out of business if they make a bad marketing decision.

    From the looks of it, they’ve made a marketing decision... and the market as whole likes it.

    The idea is that you choose a platform. 

    Say a smartphone with app capability. 

    Apple makes a smartphone. But Their are many Manufacturers of other smartphones - each with their own flavor, quality, etc. 

    Yet the manufacturers have to play by the rules when they are allowed to sell in the USA. 

    Ford and Chevy both make cars with radio capability in the cars. But one doesn’t choose for you what you can and can’t legally listen to over the available airwaves. 


    And Apple doesn't choose what sites you visit with Safari or what tweets you receive.  A better analogy would be the fact that Ford and Chevy provide zero support for installing a Toyota engine in their vehicles.  I'm pretty sure Tesla doesn't provide a mechanism for installing a different OS in their cars.

    If you don't like Apple's "walled garden" approach, you are welcome to buy into a different platform.
    ericthehalfbeeradarthekat
Sign In or Register to comment.