Cydia, the 'original iPhone App Store' is suing Apple over antitrust claims

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2020
Cydia claims that Apple used its monopoly position of the App Store to push it out and ultimately render the jailbreaking store useless.

Cydia vs Apple
Cydia vs Apple


Another lawsuit that parallels Epic Games' claims that Apple has a monopoly position has surfaced. Cydia says that it was forced to close its doors due to Apple's unlawful control of app distribution on iOS.

Cydia also claims that had it not been for Apple's anticompetitive practices, users would benefit from a multitude of software that does not exist on iOS today. The lawsuit declares that Apple should allow third-party app stores and alternative software sources on its platforms.

The outcry is similar to Epic Games own lawsuit stating that Apple charging a "tax" and controlling the software distributed on its platform is an unlawful monopoly and should be stopped. Early hearings did not show much hope for Epic's case, as the preliminary judge was not impressed by the information provided. The next stage of the Epic lawsuit will be held in court July 2021.

Cydia was created as a jailbreak tool before Apple implemented the App Store on the iPhone. The tool acted as a sort of early app store with games and tools like copy and paste that did not exist on iPhone yet. The Washington Post estimates around 4.5 million users were accessing Cydia for apps in its heyday.

Jay Freeman, founder of Cydia, says that if you own a device you should be able to access every part of it and control the software however you like. He called jailbreaking a "vital tool" for iPhone users.

"Morally speaking, it's your phone and you should be able to do whatever you want with it," Freeman said. "You should get to decide which applications you put on it, and you should be able to decide where you get those applications from."

Apple ultimately patched every exploit and made it nearly impossible for tools like Cydia to be viable to the average user. The lawsuit suggests that Apple used loaded language to convince users that jailbreaking was dangerous and tools like Cydia would reduce the safety and security of your iPhone. Freeman claims these are falsehoods used to manipulate users.

Freeman said that Cydia earned $10 million at its peak in 2011 to 2012. Cydia earned its money by charging its app developers a fee for access to the Cydia store. The Apple App Store gained steam and ended up taking all of Cydia's potential income.

Cydia has hired the same lawyers used in the Samsung vs Apple patent case, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan. Epic Games opened the door for such lawsuits to exist, and this could be the last time they can challenge Apple on the matter.

The lawsuit demands a trial by jury, something that Epic Games chose to avoid, and seeks to be reimbursed for damages and fees. This would mean calculating all of the potential money lost due to not being able to operate on iOS properly since as early as 2012.

In a response to the Washington Post's queries, Apple reiterated that it is not a monopoly and has competitors in the market like Google's Android, and that Apple is in the best position to tightly manage what software is available on its platform. Apple has always taken a strong stance on privacy and security, and opening up its platform to third-party app stores would undermine its ability to keep users safe.

Apple has tried keeping regulators happy by taking steps to appease developers. The company introduced the ability for developers to challenge Apple's own regulations, and has reduced its fee from 30% to 15% for any developer earning less than $1 million per year.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,092member
    LOL.  Priceless
    tmayBeatsNotoriousDEVviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 60
    Not a chance Cydia. They created a product and enterprise expressly to violate Apple's terms of service and user license. They had complete knowledge and knew the risks. Now that their business has failed they come around with a lawsuit? The time to file was a decade ago.
    edited December 2020 sdw2001williamlondonviclauyycn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 60
    Desperate people will do and say anything on an attempt to blame someone else for their failure.
    edited December 2020 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 60
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,018member
    Yeah that isn’t going to fly.  Apple is right...they have viable competitors.  In fact, Android has a lot more end users.  No one is forced to buy an Apple product. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 60
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,677member
    Monopoly position... Not this load of crap again.

    Again, Microsoft does not have a monopoly position over Windows. It has a monopoly position in Desktop Computer Operating Systems.
    Google does not have a monopoly in google.com, they have a monopoly in Internet search engines.

    The difference is that there’s nothing wrong with controlling what you create and own, but there is a huge issue when you try and take control of a “free” market.


    viclauyycmaximarawatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 60
    I remember well the heyday of Cydia. A lot of close friends with a shit eating grin on their face over some $1.99 apps they had stolen.

    Cydia was a legitimate app store in the same sense as the Rolex sales representative you used to find at every street corner.
    williamlondonBeatspujones1viclauyycMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,530member
    What a load of crap. You exploit flaws in an OS security system to start a business, and as those flaws are fixed over time, and you go out of business as a result, you then think, because right now, everyone is seeing dollar signs as they try to claw money out of Apple because of some ill advised and legally dubious claims of monopoly, that you can do so as well.

    it’s amusing, in a way. We can look to Android as a comparison. There are stores other than the Google Play store, to be sure, which is one reason given as to why Android is so “open”. But what is everyone advised to do by almost everyone who writes about these things for Android users? Only use the Google Play store for security reasons and piracy reasons. So here we have writers and security experts advising to never use any of those independent stores, just as it was advised to not use Cydia.

    sooo...
    viclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 60
    I remember well the heyday of Cydia. A lot of close friends with a shit eating grin on their face over some $1.99 apps they had stolen.
    This is what developers will get with external app stores. Fewer sales because anything of value is ripped off.
    Beatsviclauyycsvanstromroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 60
    mjtomlin said:
    Monopoly position... Not this load of crap again.

    Again, Microsoft does not have a monopoly position over Windows. It has a monopoly position in Desktop Computer Operating Systems.
    Google does not have a monopoly in google.com, they have a monopoly in Internet search engines.

    The difference is that there’s nothing wrong with controlling what you create and own, but there is a huge issue when you try and take control of a “free” market.


    Call it a monopoly when apple owns 90% of the smartphone market. Apple is in no way a monopoly in the mobile space!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 60
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Crazy how you can use a company's invention, exploit it and then sue the same company that gave you that invention in the first place.

    What a crazy world.
    williamlondonviclauyycFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 60
    JonGJonG Posts: 24unconfirmed, member
    I think there is a case for anticompetitive behavior, which does not require a monopoly.  All of these comments about "monopoly" address Epic's case (which I agree is rather laughable).  The Cydia case rests on anticompetitive behavior, not a monopoly.

    Apple does not OWN the platform, since they sell it to me and do not rent it.  None of these EULAs have been tested in court really. Note that Apple continues to tell me what I can do with something I have purchased. No one would accept this logic in a car; here's the only parts, oil, and gas you are permitted to use. Or how about a lightbulb; you can only use it with the light fixtures that I make, or vice-versa.

    How about selling a refrigerator and then saying that it is monitored and will shut down if you buy certain foods that aren't on the approved list?

    I'm an Apple user, and even an admin for a company that predominantly uses Apple.  I'm very submerged in their ecosystem, but that doesn't mean I have to defend all of their behaviors.  This all harkens back to a few years ago when everyone who is defending Apple right now was up in arms because Sony started going after hackers who modded their PS systems to run linux.

    Also, everyone can remember a few years ago when it wasn't a government regulation that once you had paid off a cell phone, that the original carrier, at their own option, could keep it locked to the network.  Now, once you own it, you own it and a carrier can't tell you that you have to use their service.  You can't call Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile a monopoly, but they CAN engage in anti-competitive behavior that freezes out smaller businesses in the same space.

    The simple basis is this:  All of these devices are computing platforms and laws have to be universal for computing platforms. Either platforms need to remain open so that you have a right to do with a hardware platform as you please, or we have to agree that all computing platforms can be locked down and companies are allowed to dictate how their product is used after you purchase it.
    edited December 2020 Ofergatorguyelijahgwilliamlondon
  • Reply 12 of 60
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,099member
    JonG said:
    I think there is a case for anticompetitive behavior, which does not require a monopoly.  All of these comments about "monopoly" address Epic's case (which I agree is rather laughable).  The Cydia case rests on anticompetitive behavior, not a monopoly.

    Apple does not OWN the platform, since they sell it to me and do not rent it.  None of these EULAs have been tested in court really. Note that Apple continues to tell me what I can do with something I have purchased. No one would accept this logic in a car; here's the only parts, oil, and gas you are permitted to use. Or how about a lightbulb; you can only use it with the light fixtures that I make, or vice-versa.

    How about selling a refrigerator and then saying that it is monitored and will shut down if you buy certain foods that aren't on the approved list?

    I'm an Apple user, and even an admin for a company that predominantly uses Apple.  I'm very submerged in their ecosystem, but that doesn't mean I have to defend all of their behaviors.  This all harkens back to a few years ago when everyone who is defending Apple right now was up in arms because Sony started going after hackers who modded their PS systems to run linux.

    Also, everyone can remember a few years ago when it wasn't a government regulation that once you had paid off a cell phone, that the original carrier, at their own option, could keep it locked to the network.  Now, once you own it, you own it and a carrier can't tell you that you have to use their service.  You can't call Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile a monopoly, but they CAN engage in anti-competitive behavior that freezes out smaller businesses in the same space.

    The simple basis is this:  All of these devices are computing platforms and laws have to be universal for computing platforms. Either platforms need to remain open so that you have a right to do with a hardware platform as you please, or we have to agree that all computing platforms can be locked down and companies are allowed to dictate how their product is used after you purchase it.
    Ignorants like you crack me up.  Apple DOES own the platform.  Fact.  

    The truth doesn't care what you believe and how you spin it to suit your agenda, and guess what?  It's the exact same thing on Windows too!  You have no "right" to complain when you run a piece of bootleg software on Windows that exploits a flaw in Windows that eventually gets patched and stops working.  By your analogy, the creator of the WannaCry virus could technically sue Apple and Microsoft for locking down their OSes, preventing their software from working.

    As far as that refrigerator analogy?  Same thing.  You make any modifications to that refrigerator and it stops working, you are S.O.L.

    Seriously, why do we even make an effort explaining what a T.O.S. is to people like you.
    williamlondonviclauyycsvanstromMacPromarc groundaboutnown2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 60
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,337member
    I remember well the heyday of Cydia. A lot of close friends with a shit eating grin on their face over some $1.99 apps they had stolen.

    Cydia was a legitimate app store in the same sense as the Rolex sales representative you used to find at every street corner.
    Stealing apps wasn't really what Cydia and Jailbreaking was about. I jailbroke my phones for years and so did close friends for the tweaks and added functionality not stolen apps. CCcontrols before control center existed.CCtweak for the long press function in control center before there was 3d touch and now haptic touch. Barrel for a cool animated unlock screen. NoSlowanimations for a super fast open and close of apps and the phone by being able to control the animation speed.

    I had no problem paying the developers that gave their free time to make these things possible.. I never trusted some off shoot store that sold pirated apps.Considering the price of apps then and now that is actually a pretty shitty thing to do. B)

    elijahgsaarekmarc g
  • Reply 14 of 60
    jcs2305 said:
    I remember well the heyday of Cydia. A lot of close friends with a shit eating grin on their face over some $1.99 apps they had stolen.

    Cydia was a legitimate app store in the same sense as the Rolex sales representative you used to find at every street corner.
    Stealing apps wasn't really what Cydia and Jailbreaking was about. I jailbroke my phones for years and so did close friends for the tweaks and added functionality not stolen apps. CCcontrols before control center existed.CCtweak for the long press function in control center before there was 3d touch and now haptic touch. Barrel for a cool animated unlock screen. NoSlowanimations for a super fast open and close of apps and the phone by being able to control the animation speed.

    I had no problem paying the developers that gave their free time to make these things possible.. I never trusted some off shoot store that sold pirated apps.Considering the price of apps then and now that is actually a pretty shitty thing to do. B)

    Most did use it for just that. People would brag about how they didn’t have to pay for apps. And the tech guy at work would teach them how to do it b
    williamlondonviclauyycsvanstromMacPron2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,530member
    JonG said:
    I think there is a case for anticompetitive behavior, which does not require a monopoly.  All of these comments about "monopoly" address Epic's case (which I agree is rather laughable).  The Cydia case rests on anticompetitive behavior, not a monopoly.

    Apple does not OWN the platform, since they sell it to me and do not rent it.  None of these EULAs have been tested in court really. Note that Apple continues to tell me what I can do with something I have purchased. No one would accept this logic in a car; here's the only parts, oil, and gas you are permitted to use. Or how about a lightbulb; you can only use it with the light fixtures that I make, or vice-versa.

    How about selling a refrigerator and then saying that it is monitored and will shut down if you buy certain foods that aren't on the approved list?

    I'm an Apple user, and even an admin for a company that predominantly uses Apple.  I'm very submerged in their ecosystem, but that doesn't mean I have to defend all of their behaviors.  This all harkens back to a few years ago when everyone who is defending Apple right now was up in arms because Sony started going after hackers who modded their PS systems to run linux.

    Also, everyone can remember a few years ago when it wasn't a government regulation that once you had paid off a cell phone, that the original carrier, at their own option, could keep it locked to the network.  Now, once you own it, you own it and a carrier can't tell you that you have to use their service.  You can't call Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile a monopoly, but they CAN engage in anti-competitive behavior that freezes out smaller businesses in the same space.

    The simple basis is this:  All of these devices are computing platforms and laws have to be universal for computing platforms. Either platforms need to remain open so that you have a right to do with a hardware platform as you please, or we have to agree that all computing platforms can be locked down and companies are allowed to dictate how their product is used after you purchase it.
    They don’t sell you the platform. They sell you the products that the platform engenders. There’s a difference. Who owns the intellectual property the platform fun’s on? Is it you, or Apple? The answer is easy.

    there’s also a difference in the way the law treats a person who has bought a product, and a third party who is attempting to subvert that product for their own monetary purposes.
    MacProroundaboutnown2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 60
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,530member

    jcs2305 said:
    I remember well the heyday of Cydia. A lot of close friends with a shit eating grin on their face over some $1.99 apps they had stolen.

    Cydia was a legitimate app store in the same sense as the Rolex sales representative you used to find at every street corner.
    Stealing apps wasn't really what Cydia and Jailbreaking was about. I jailbroke my phones for years and so did close friends for the tweaks and added functionality not stolen apps. CCcontrols before control center existed.CCtweak for the long press function in control center before there was 3d touch and now haptic touch. Barrel for a cool animated unlock screen. NoSlowanimations for a super fast open and close of apps and the phone by being able to control the animation speed.

    I had no problem paying the developers that gave their free time to make these things possible.. I never trusted some off shoot store that sold pirated apps.Considering the price of apps then and now that is actually a pretty shitty thing to do. B)

    Yes, the PURPOSE as stated by Cydia wasn’t to steal apps. But a very large percentage of apps on Cydia were pirated. Cydia did nothing, or at most, very little to take those apps down, because while pirating apps wasn’t the purpose, it was a major way in which the platform was used. Malware was abundant there as well. Particularly as jailbroken phones lost most of the protections Apple had built in, and so Cydia was the perfect place to insert them into what people often thought were pirated apps.

    there was little positive about Cydia, even if a few people did gain some small benefit. Most of those benefits weren’t of great benefit, just minor convenience. 
    edited December 2020 viclauyycmarc gwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 60
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Next thing you know  Peloton will sue Apple over Fitness+.
    marc g
  • Reply 18 of 60
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,415member
    This claim is like a burglar suing you for changing the combination on your safe after he broke into it last month. 
    jdb8167williamlondonNotoriousDEVviclauyycFlytrapsvanstromDancingMonkeysMacPromarc groundaboutnow
  • Reply 19 of 60
    dewme said:
    This claim is like a burglar suing you for changing the combination on your safe after he broke into it last month. 
    Excellent, you win the internet today!
    edited December 2020 marc gwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 60
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Never used Cydia, but my brief experiment with jailbreaking a couple years ago did find some pretty neat software.  I don't have much time for the lawsuit, but I wish there was a practical way for Apple to allow software from alternative app stores.
    williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.