Supreme Court questions Apple's arguments over App Store antitrust suit

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."
    The problem with that argument from Ben Thompson is that all other software marketplaces operate the same way as Apple, regardless of whether it's digital or a physical copy. There is a markup charged regardless, and it's usually in the 25-30% range. Buying a physical copy of a new console game from Amazon? You're paying a significant markup. Buying a digital copy of a new console game from the PS4 store? You're paying a significant markup. It's pretty obvious that having choices for where you get the software hasn't actually eliminated this type of practice. Apple's approach is standard for the entire industry. So are the plaintiffs in this particular case actually going to get relief from markups if they won? No. They'll just get a greater range of stores that charge the same markup.
    Right.  And that's why the Illinois Brick case is important.  That case says that the someone indirectly harmed by a monopolists actions can't sue, only the directly impacted party can.  In this case, Apple argues that they aren't the one's charging the consumers, they are charging the developers.  If the developers are harmed by this, they should sue.  The end users shouldn't be able to sue because Apple isn't directly charging the consumer the 30%.  If Apple wins this argument, then they get the easy case to make, showing that they aren't using their market power to charge a "supracompetative" fee for selling developers' apps.

    Unfortunately for Apple, a number of the justices don't see Apple as the indirect party since the consumer has a direct purchasing relationship with Apple.  This kinda makes sense, Apple is the intermediary between the developer and the consumer, so it's tricky to argue that the developer is the middle man.  (The argument is that the developer sets the price, so the chain of "harm" goes from Apple to the developer (in the form of the 30%) to the consumer (in the form of passed-on price increases).)
    Seems to me Apple’s legal team isn’t making the right argument. They need to assert they are not a monopoly since developers may choose other means to create and distribute their products/apps and that Apple is not required to carry any or all apps submitted.
    They will assert they aren't a monopoly when/if it gets to that point.  In this case, if they can get the case tossed because the plaintiffs don't have standing, they won't even have to get to the substance of the case.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 42 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."
    The problem with that argument from Ben Thompson is that all other software marketplaces operate the same way as Apple, regardless of whether it's digital or a physical copy. There is a markup charged regardless, and it's usually in the 25-30% range. Buying a physical copy of a new console game from Amazon? You're paying a significant markup. Buying a digital copy of a new console game from the PS4 store? You're paying a significant markup. It's pretty obvious that having choices for where you get the software hasn't actually eliminated this type of practice. Apple's approach is standard for the entire industry. So are the plaintiffs in this particular case actually going to get relief from markups if they won? No. They'll just get a greater range of stores that charge the same markup.
    Right.  And that's why the Illinois Brick case is important.  That case says that the someone indirectly harmed by a monopolists actions can't sue, only the directly impacted party can.  In this case, Apple argues that they aren't the one's charging the consumers, they are charging the developers.  If the developers are harmed by this, they should sue.  The end users shouldn't be able to sue because Apple isn't directly charging the consumer the 30%.  If Apple wins this argument, then they get the easy case to make, showing that they aren't using their market power to charge a "supracompetative" fee for selling developers' apps.

    Unfortunately for Apple, a number of the justices don't see Apple as the indirect party since the consumer has a direct purchasing relationship with Apple.  This kinda makes sense, Apple is the intermediary between the developer and the consumer, so it's tricky to argue that the developer is the middle man.  (The argument is that the developer sets the price, so the chain of "harm" goes from Apple to the developer (in the form of the 30%) to the consumer (in the form of passed-on price increases).)
    Seems to me Apple’s legal team isn’t making the right argument. They need to assert they are not a monopoly since developers may choose other means to create and distribute their products/apps and that Apple is not required to carry any or all apps submitted.
    How exactly can someone distribute the apps into Apple without the app store? Apple had put itself into a box. They don't only allow developers to distribute, they run classes in coding. They promote the app store in ways that makes that argument very challenging to day they least. 
  • Reply 43 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."
    The problem with that argument from Ben Thompson is that all other software marketplaces operate the same way as Apple, regardless of whether it's digital or a physical copy. There is a markup charged regardless, and it's usually in the 25-30% range. Buying a physical copy of a new console game from Amazon? You're paying a significant markup. Buying a digital copy of a new console game from the PS4 store? You're paying a significant markup. It's pretty obvious that having choices for where you get the software hasn't actually eliminated this type of practice. Apple's approach is standard for the entire industry. So are the plaintiffs in this particular case actually going to get relief from markups if they won? No. They'll just get a greater range of stores that charge the same markup.
    Right.  And that's why the Illinois Brick case is important.  That case says that the someone indirectly harmed by a monopolists actions can't sue, only the directly impacted party can.  In this case, Apple argues that they aren't the one's charging the consumers, they are charging the developers.  If the developers are harmed by this, they should sue.  The end users shouldn't be able to sue because Apple isn't directly charging the consumer the 30%.  If Apple wins this argument, then they get the easy case to make, showing that they aren't using their market power to charge a "supracompetative" fee for selling developers' apps.

    Unfortunately for Apple, a number of the justices don't see Apple as the indirect party since the consumer has a direct purchasing relationship with Apple.  This kinda makes sense, Apple is the intermediary between the developer and the consumer, so it's tricky to argue that the developer is the middle man.  (The argument is that the developer sets the price, so the chain of "harm" goes from Apple to the developer (in the form of the 30%) to the consumer (in the form of passed-on price increases).)
    Back in 2016 Apple themselves put forth the notion that they are more than an intermediary. As Ben Thompson points out if you actually read his IMO well-considered narrative:

    Apple's Luca Maestri: 

    Each quarter, we report results for our Services category, which includes revenue from iTunes, the App Store, AppleCare, iCloud, Apple Pay, licensing, and some other items. Today, we would like to highlight the major drivers of growth in this category, which we have summarized on page three of our supplemental material. The vast majority of the services we provide to our customers, for instance, apps, movies and TV shows, are tied to our installed base of devices, rather than to current quarter sales.

    For some of these services, such as content, we recognize revenue based on transaction value. For some of the services, such as the App Store, we share a portion of the value of each transaction with the app developer and only recognize revenue on the portion that we keep. To fully comprehend the scale of the services that we are delivering to our installed base and how fast this business is growing, we look at purchases in addition to revenue. When we aggregate the purchase value of services tied to our installed base during fiscal 2015, it adds up to more than $31 billion. That’s an increase of 23% over fiscal 2014.

    " (Ben Thompson quoted) First off, it is striking that when Apple was facing one of its most challenging years in the stock market, its first response was to basically make the plaintiff’s point in Apple v Pepper: suddenly the company wanted to recognize all of the App Revenue, “a portion” of which is shared with developers. That sounds like a company in the middle!

    Secondly, though, the reason Apple wanted to include all app revenue is that the “Services Narrative” has always been first and foremost the App Store narrative. Apple makes a huge amount of money, with massive profit margins, by virtue of its monopolistic control of the App Store. It doesn’t make the games or the productivity applications or the digital content; it simply skims of 30%, and not because its purchasing experience is better, but because it is the only choice."

    As an aside but perhaps more important in Mr. Thompson's view:

    ...it seems incredibly worrisome to me anytime any company predicates its growth story on rent-seeking: it’s not that the growth isn’t real, but rather that the pursuit is corrosive on whatever it was that made the company great in the first place. That is a particularly large concern for Apple: the company has always succeeded by being the best; how does the company maintain that edge when its executives are more concerned with harvesting profits from other companies’ innovations?

    Ok, now I've actually read his well-considered narrative.  On the last point, he's mischaracterizing what Apple (Luca Maestri) said.  Here's what Apple said: "For some of the services, such as the App Store, we share a portion of the value of each transaction with the app developer and only recognize revenue on the portion that we keep."  And from that Thompson says "the company wanted to recognize all of the App Revenue" (and he says this twice).  Where does Apple say that they ever intended too count all the revenue let along that they wanted to do so?  They are just saying that they do recognize the 30% they get as revenue.  Duh.  What else should they do?  No recognize the revenue?  If Apple were a real retailer, they would, in fact, recognize all the revenue and then net out the cost of goods sold.  That's what Walmart does, that was Amazon does, that's what retailers do.  That's not what Apple does for the App Store.

    Also, a point that gets overlooked here (e.g.,  It doesn’t make the games or the productivity applications or the digital content; it simply skims of 30%, and not because its purchasing experience is better, but because it is the only choice.) is that Apple does a lot more than provide a store front to earn its 30%.  Everything in the App Store is build on top of the iOS APIs that Apple developed.  If you count the lines of code that go into any app in the App Store (or use any other measure of investment), for the typical app, the vast majority of the IP that makes the app was developed by Apple.  This goes from the (now considered) basic functionality of scrolling lists to cutting edge technology like ARKit.  Apple doesn't (directly) charge a dime for this.  The 30% is one way Apple recoups the cost of that investment.  If you could develop an iOS app using Xcode and all the iOS APIs and sell your app through some other channel, Apple would be well within their rights to charge a license fee for that IP. 
    macplusplusradarthekatroundaboutnow
  • Reply 44 of 55
    bitmod said:
    jungmark said:
    Apple isn't a monopoly. There are other choices if you don't want to use the App Store. Get Android. No one is forced to use the iPhone. 

    Can I sue my car company for not allowing apps being installed in my car?
    No, but you could sue your car company if they stated they would brick it at your expense and void your warranty if you didn't fill up at the gas station of their choice and only use the brand of tires they said, and even if you bought an air freshener that wasn't approved by them. 
    Not under anti-trust laws in the United States.  In it's hay day, GM was probably a monopolist in the legal sense, but it certainly isn't today.  There may or may not be federal or state laws that cover exactly the situation you describe, but it's a stretch to assume it would apply in the digital realm.

    In fact, Apple does pretty much exactly what you describe with most of its hardware.  Go to the Genius Bar with a brand new iPhone with some custom modifications and see if they respect your warranty.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."
    The problem with that argument from Ben Thompson is that all other software marketplaces operate the same way as Apple, regardless of whether it's digital or a physical copy. There is a markup charged regardless, and it's usually in the 25-30% range. Buying a physical copy of a new console game from Amazon? You're paying a significant markup. Buying a digital copy of a new console game from the PS4 store? You're paying a significant markup. It's pretty obvious that having choices for where you get the software hasn't actually eliminated this type of practice. Apple's approach is standard for the entire industry. So are the plaintiffs in this particular case actually going to get relief from markups if they won? No. They'll just get a greater range of stores that charge the same markup.
    Right.  And that's why the Illinois Brick case is important.  That case says that the someone indirectly harmed by a monopolists actions can't sue, only the directly impacted party can.  In this case, Apple argues that they aren't the one's charging the consumers, they are charging the developers.  If the developers are harmed by this, they should sue.  The end users shouldn't be able to sue because Apple isn't directly charging the consumer the 30%.  If Apple wins this argument, then they get the easy case to make, showing that they aren't using their market power to charge a "supracompetative" fee for selling developers' apps.

    Unfortunately for Apple, a number of the justices don't see Apple as the indirect party since the consumer has a direct purchasing relationship with Apple.  This kinda makes sense, Apple is the intermediary between the developer and the consumer, so it's tricky to argue that the developer is the middle man.  (The argument is that the developer sets the price, so the chain of "harm" goes from Apple to the developer (in the form of the 30%) to the consumer (in the form of passed-on price increases).)
    Seems to me Apple’s legal team isn’t making the right argument. They need to assert they are not a monopoly since developers may choose other means to create and distribute their products/apps and that Apple is not required to carry any or all apps submitted.
    How exactly can someone distribute the apps into Apple without the app store? Apple had put itself into a box. They don't only allow developers to distribute, they run classes in coding. They promote the app store in ways that makes that argument very challenging to day they least. 
    They're not a monopoly because developers may distribute or sell via Android, or as a web app (free or as a paid service). The choice to develop and sell is wholly in the hands of the developers. Apple doesn't force anyone to develop, sell OR buy apps.
    macplusplusrandominternetpersonradarthekat
  • Reply 46 of 55
    Hey y'alll, glad to be ehere.  I'm a 46 year old guy who has been using Apple products since around 1984 (Apple //c).  Totally an Apple guy through and through.  Was an early adopter of the Mac, iPhone and other products,

    Here's the skinny, Apple will totally lose those round at the US Sup Ct.  Just looking at the questioning at this stage of the legal process shows Apple is in the hole; the Justices don't buy Apple's arguments.  Even the conservative justices appear willing to allow the underlying case to proceed.  In my view, Apple will have to open up iOS to app developers directly and/or other App Stores...not a question on if but when.

    Personally I will stick with te App Store as I prefer the security and seamless integration, but soon it won't be the only game in town, so get used to it.

    I think the Mac model will be the norm going forward.

    Hang in there y'all!! :)
  • Reply 47 of 55
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    georgie01 said:
    This lawsuit is beyond stupid...

    Did the plaintiffs ever buy software before the App Store? Where could they buy an app for $0.99? Prior to the App Store I can’t even remember a commercially available app for a computer for less than $15 not including discounts (even for a less capable one than what can be bought for $0.99 now). Apps nowadays are incredibly cheap, and that’s because of the App Store. The Mac App Store has also made macOS apps cheaper—Apple even reduced the cost of their pro apps significantly.

    The idea that Apple has a monopoly on apps in order to raise prices is beyond stupid.
    Exactly.   They're complaining because Apple's 30% take is raising prices to....what?   I see apps for $2, $5, $10 and some more expensive ones at $25 to $29, but that pales in comparison to what computer programs used to cost - A cheap utility was $50.   I seem to remember paying around $200 for certain apps back in the day.  Didn't AppleWrite cost something like $129?   Add inflation based upon 1990 and that's $251 in today's dollars.  

    Furthermore, if there was no AppStore and Apple used a model similar to the old physical software model through 3rd party distributors and physical retailers, what do they think the wholesale percentage would be?  It used to be 40% to 60% and prices would rise far higher.    These people are trolls and idiots.    

    Or, if Apple was forced to permit anyone to sell iOS apps, they could simply instead start charging developers for the development tools, documentation and iOS license, all of which are free today.   If Apple charged, say, $2000 for the tools and a developer's/license fee of say $495 per year, do these idiots think that app costs wouldn't rise?

    This case never should have gotten out of the first court it was in.   Unfortunately, the SC is just dumb enough to rule against Apple or send the case back down for review. 
  • Reply 48 of 55
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member

    To me there are two questions that I haven’t seen asked.

    Do application developers need to pass on the 30% cost to their consumers?(I don’t believe they do but I’m not all that knowledgeable in the subject)

    The second question is, out of all of the AppStore developers which ones are actually charging their customers the 30%?  

    Of course you have the Spotify’s that want to be vocal about it, however from what I’ve seen they don’t have to pass the 30% markup on to you.

    Just two questions I was wondering about, I won’t get into the “is the AppStore a monopoly or not a monopoly” argument.
    That's actually irrelevant.  The 30% cost is a cost of doing business and like any cost of doing business, it factors into the selling price of the product, either directly or indirectly.    Obviously, developers would like to eliminate the 30%.  What they don't see, as per my post above, is that the alternative could be far more costly to them.   As for me, I'm never buying an iOS app that's not validated by Apple.  
    icoco3
  • Reply 49 of 55
    cropr said:
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    As a developer of apps (iOS, Android and web based) I must say that this statement is only true for standalone apps that don't communicate with an Internet cloud service. 

    For the cloud solutions I am developing and which have an iOS client among other clients, the App Store has very limited value.  I have my own internet servers, my own security infrastructure and 1 single payment API which cost me less than 3% of turn over of my apps.  

    Developing for one payment API on iOS, for another payment API on Android and for a 3rd one for web based clients, would only lead to additional costs.

    A survey among my customers revealed that exactly 0 customers found my app on the Apple App Store.  I won all customers because of the marketing actions I took (and paid for).  


    I am also a developer and I agree with cropr.  For standalone Apps I believe that 30% is reasonable for all of the services that Apple is providing.  However for Apps that rely on external content (cloud, ebooks, streaming, etc) the 30% is excessive.  This is another case of Apple's one size fits all attitude not quite working in the real world.
  • Reply 50 of 55

    To me there are two questions that I haven’t seen asked.

    Do application developers need to pass on the 30% cost to their consumers?(I don’t believe they do but I’m not all that knowledgeable in the subject)

    The second question is, out of all of the AppStore developers which ones are actually charging their customers the 30%?  

    Of course you have the Spotify’s that want to be vocal about it, however from what I’ve seen they don’t have to pass the 30% markup on to you.

    Just two questions I was wondering about, I won’t get into the “is the AppStore a monopoly or not a monopoly” argument.

    Like cropr and I said, it really depends on if your app is standalone or depends on non-Apple infrastructure to operate.  For standalone, the 30% means that it takes me a little longer to recover my up front costs, but for apps that depend on external content, that 30% could actually be 75% or more of my margins.  That is why there are a number of Apps that are free but require you to sign up for the service externally (eg Audible).
  • Reply 51 of 55
    bitmod said:
    jungmark said:
    Apple isn't a monopoly. There are other choices if you don't want to use the App Store. Get Android. No one is forced to use the iPhone. 

    Can I sue my car company for not allowing apps being installed in my car?
    No, but you could sue your car company if they stated they would brick it at your expense and void your warranty if you didn't fill up at the gas station of their choice and only use the brand of tires they said, and even if you bought an air freshener that wasn't approved by them. 

    Which is thankfully not what Apple is doing.
  • Reply 52 of 55
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,336member
    gatorguy said:
    payeco said:
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 
    It's not irrelevant.  Courts can and do look at why companies do what they do.  A compelling business justification is a valid defense in an antitrust case.

    Per https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

    Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

    Here's Ben Thompson's take on the App store as having a monopoly position, take it or leave it. In a nutshell for those with zero interest in really reading about the why's:

    "To put it another way, Apple profits handsomely from having a monopoly on iOS: if you want the Apple software experience, you have no choice but to buy Apple hardware. That is perfectly legitimate. The company, though, is leveraging that monopoly into an adjacent market — the digital content market — and rent-seeking. Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.

    To be clear, Apple absolutely did create the modern app marketplace, and, as the company loves to brag, an entire new economy full of new types of jobs. That, though, is precisely the problem: the App Store is not a fun side diversion; it is one of the largest platforms we have ever seen, on which hundreds of thousands of people are seeking to build real businesses, and that carries different types of responsibilities — and legal limitations — than an OS feature. It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."

    https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-apple/

    I will disagree with Mr. Thompson about the chances of SCOTUS coming down on the side of Apple and dismissal, but on the larger case of Apple and monopoly he makes common sense arguments IMHO. 

    Thanks for sharing that.  Is he right though?  I have a Netflix account (and others) and I watch lots of Netflix programming on my Apple devices.  And I've never paid Apple a dime for this digital content.  I subscribed through the Netflix website and Netflix gets 100% of their monthly fee.  If Apple is using it's market power in the device arena to gain market power in this other market, they aren't doing a very good job of it.  A better example would be if Apple didn't allow Netflix or Pandora on iOS in order to improve their market power in the media market.
    Google puts the 30% back on customers with their Youtube Red subscription as an example. If you have a subscription through the IOS app store the price per month is $12.99. If you sign up online @ google.com it is $9.99 per month. I thought I read in the past that Spotify was the same?  It's cheaper to have a subscription outside of Apple.

    Once Apple starts to consistently make it's own original programming we may see the price model change for Netflix..
  • Reply 53 of 55
    ajminnj said:
    cropr said:
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    As a developer of apps (iOS, Android and web based) I must say that this statement is only true for standalone apps that don't communicate with an Internet cloud service. 

    For the cloud solutions I am developing and which have an iOS client among other clients, the App Store has very limited value.  I have my own internet servers, my own security infrastructure and 1 single payment API which cost me less than 3% of turn over of my apps.  

    Developing for one payment API on iOS, for another payment API on Android and for a 3rd one for web based clients, would only lead to additional costs.

    A survey among my customers revealed that exactly 0 customers found my app on the Apple App Store.  I won all customers because of the marketing actions I took (and paid for).  


    I am also a developer and I agree with cropr.  For standalone Apps I believe that 30% is reasonable for all of the services that Apple is providing.  However for Apps that rely on external content (cloud, ebooks, streaming, etc) the 30% is excessive.  This is another case of Apple's one size fits all attitude not quite working in the real world.
    You’re not Apple. Thirty percent looks excessive to you because you want to pay less. Give me a break.
  • Reply 54 of 55
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    Whatever you or anybody else does with his/her phone, does not affect the security and reliability of the next person.
  • Reply 55 of 55
    jungmark said:
    Apple isn't a monopoly. There are other choices if you don't want to use the App Store. Get Android. No one is forced to use the iPhone. 

    Can I sue my car company for not allowing apps being installed in my car?
    Apple allows third-party app installations into their OS X (at their own risk), but doesn’t allow third-party app installations into iOS. Why? Mac revenue is shit while iOS revenue is off the charts. Allow people to install whatever they wanted into their iOS devices, and they’d lose a large chunk of their revenue. So the best way to prevent this is by making it nearly impossible to install apps through normal means. Controlling who can develop, or what they can or can’t develop for iOS devices, and what people can or can’t do with their devices. What’s that called? A monopoly.
Sign In or Register to comment.