If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Nvidia owning ARM is a terrible idea, and should be stopped.
And that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple and their app store. Apple has NO right to run MY iPhone the way it wants. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. And because it's MY iPhone and not Apple's iPhone, Apple should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever about what software I choose to run on MY iPhone. If you want to only get software through Apple's app store on YOUR iPhone, that's your right. But neither you nor Apple should have the ability to stop me from getting software from any source of my choosing.
And the same thing goes for in-app purchases. MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. It's only Apple's until they sell it. Then it's MINE, not Apple's any more. It's well past time for Apple's app store monopoly to be busted.
Waaaaaaaahhhhhh.
Its your iPhone, but you only have a license to use the software on it. I mean, this has only been mentioned countless times over the years when talking about computers/software and ownership.
Well, a phone without an OS is a dead duck floating in the water and phones are sold under the legal condition of being fit to serve the purpose they are designed for.
That makes iPhone + iOS inseparable and the notion that the phone belongs to the owner but the OS does not, a bit of a problem if that fact isn't openly made known to the purchaser in clear and simple terms.
In the same way that carriers were obliged to unlock phones so that users could use them with other operators once contractual obligations had been met, a case could be made for users not to be tied, via software from manufacturers, to devices they own.
'Hiding' the requirements in ToS would definitely not be enough in the EU if someone were to make a complaint on the issue.
Is it all that different from a music CD, where the purchaser owns the physical disc, but only a license to listen to the songs, not to broadcast, modify, resell etc? Unless the music is itself out of copyright, and therefore analogous to open source. Customers seem to understand that just fine.
The carrier argument was a regulatory intervention because of the bit you mention "contractual obligations being met", which meant that carriers had no ongoing justification for the hardware to be locked.
There's no contract to license iOS though, it's perpetually not yours, but you are also perpetually able to remove it from your iPhone and replace it with other software, if you so choose. The fact that an alternative operating system for iPhones doesn't really exist (Android can run on it, but in a semi-functional way afaik) isn't Apple's problem.
I guess they could make it easier to install such a replacement OS, but if the alternative OS doesn't exist and the public appetite for it doesn't seem particularly keen, then what's the point.
The CD analogy isn't an adequate fit for this situation. Audio CDs are bought 'as is' and do not require anything other than industry standard equipment to play the music. They aren't devices which are subject to changes in functionality over time and the 'software' required to play them hardcoded into player devices.
There is no licence per se involved with music CD contents (at least not one that has to be accepted on use). Music CDs can, and are, played in public and on the radio but there are special licences for those cases (not with the CD itself but rather with the different companies managing the rights of the artists themselves.
In terms of other usage (depending on where you live and the different types of legislation) ripping or copying CDs is perfectly legal as long as you aren't doing it for personal financial gain. It's one of the reasons for example why you really can't buy hard disks, CD-R/RW or any storage media in Spain without paying a fee on top of the base price for precisely that usage. That fee can be reclaimed if you can prove that the disk was never used for copying content covered by certain digital rights.
However, the point wasn't so much a case of comparison or analogies but rather the notification to the user of the existence of clauses in ToS and if they can be considered valid notification methods.
We have already seen a ruling from the top EU courts on Spanish mortgage 'floor clauses' that made it crystal clear that including a clause (even with it still being a 'legal' clause in itself) in a mortgage contract was not enough (even if the clause was read out to the person signing the contract by public notary) and that the banks had to be able to demonstrate that the person signing the contract was aware of the implications and that the limitations had been spelt out in clear and simple terms for the consumer.
That decision cost the Spanish banks billions.
If someone were to bring the subject of Apple's OS restrictions up in the context of iPhone purchases and ownership, I think Apple could very likely find itself in a similar situation to the banks. 'Hiding' the relevant clauses in the ToS might not be deemed sufficient.
I doubt it. You'd have to prove reasonable expectation, and Apple's reputation as a walled garden, and a large part of the history of mobile devices and embedded operating systems would work against you. In addition, I'm not even sure that the ToS of iOS even says that you can't install software from other sources, it's just not something that Apple makes easy. Your points about mortgages were about explicit legal barriers, whereas what iOS provides is more of an obstacle to the user path to doing something. If the user jailbreaks their device they can install whatever they want. Even if there is a license clause and it gets struck down, I'm not sure how much that will effect Apple providing an "official" path to sideloading or alternate app stores.
And your point about CD and licenses is confused. If you concede that you need special licensing for doing certain things then you accept that there is another license for doing anything else. Your purchase of a music CD does not include a public or broadcast license, therefore it includes a more restricted license. Your purchase of an iOS device does not mean that you can alter, package and resell iOS as your own work and no reasonable person would expect that, so it is clearly licensed.
It would depend on the complaint and how it was presented.
As for CDs, the lack of an explicit licence to agree to makes it a different case. You aren't asked by the CD or even the player to accept any licence for which refusal to accept would impede your ability to use the product. To all intents and purposes, once you have the CD and the player, your usage options are unchallenged.
Apple, on the other hand presents you with its licencing terms in the ToS and you can't do anything with the device until you accept them.
The fact that you would have to 'jailbreak' a device to be able to defeat that situation says a lot about the barriers Apple tries to place before the owner of the device when it comes to alternative systems.
I haven't read the ToS either but I'd wager that there are clauses around iOS that tie it to the device and without which would make the device useless to regular users and ad such inseparable from the device.
However, that is all secondary in the context of my reply. The point wasn't on the legality of the clauses but rather how they were presented to the purchaser.
That was precisely the case with the Spanish banks. The clauses themselves were considered to be legal but the EU's highest court ruled that the user had to be explicitly notified of them and in easy to understand language.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Nvidia owning ARM is a terrible idea, and should be stopped.
And that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple and their app store. Apple has NO right to run MY iPhone the way it wants. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. And because it's MY iPhone and not Apple's iPhone, Apple should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever about what software I choose to run on MY iPhone. If you want to only get software through Apple's app store on YOUR iPhone, that's your right. But neither you nor Apple should have the ability to stop me from getting software from any source of my choosing.
And the same thing goes for in-app purchases. MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. It's only Apple's until they sell it. Then it's MINE, not Apple's any more. It's well past time for Apple's app store monopoly to be busted.
Waaaaaaaahhhhhh.
Its your iPhone, but you only have a license to use the software on it. I mean, this has only been mentioned countless times over the years when talking about computers/software and ownership.
QFT.
sure, it’s “your” iPhone once you buy it. So go make your own OS and enjoy!
Meanwhile back in reality, the iPhone is just a lovely brick without the software and apple owns that software. Notice how all OS updates are free? That’s because you don’t own them, apple does. Part of the purchase price of an iPhone is a license to use that OS and its many updates.
Back on topic, yay FTC! This is a clear case where the government should get involved.
Or just frickin jailbreak the damn thing and load whatever you want…just don’t expect any more “free” updates from Apple for YOUR device.
Back on topic—I AM shocked that the FTC chose to block the sale—they almost never do this to an American company. Perhaps it’s due to having a Dem in office, although more likely it’s just a symptom of the growing mistrust of BIG TECH.
Back on topic—I AM shocked that the FTC chose to block the sale—they almost never do this to an American company. Perhaps it’s due to having a Dem in office, although more likely it’s just a symptom of the growing mistrust of BIG TECH.
I completely agree. Trump would have proclaimed how he was bringing jobs, business & industry back to the U.S. -- and then abused it by declaring who they would be allowed to do business with (which was the fear of one of ARM's founders).
But even beyond that stupidity, few Republicans care about anti-competitive monopolies. They're more likely to support them than destroy them.
Back on topic—I AM shocked that the FTC chose to block the sale—they almost never do this to an American company. Perhaps it’s due to having a Dem in office, although more likely it’s just a symptom of the growing mistrust of BIG TECH.
I completely agree. Trump would have proclaimed how he was bringing jobs, business & industry back to the U.S. -- and then abused it by declaring who they would be allowed to do business with (which was the fear of one of ARM's founders).
But even beyond that stupidity, few Republicans care about anti-competitive monopolies. They're more likely to support them than destroy them.
Side-loading a thought. Wikipedia is asking me to donate money. It happens every year and is making it a nuisance. What if a big tech like Apple or Google donate a huge sum of money to Wikipedia so it can stop soliciting money to users? This solicitation is unpleasant like many ad loaded by Google. I estimate that just $100 million is enough for Wikipedia.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Nvidia owning ARM is a terrible idea, and should be stopped.
And that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple and their app store. Apple has NO right to run MY iPhone the way it wants. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. And because it's MY iPhone and not Apple's iPhone, Apple should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever about what software I choose to run on MY iPhone. If you want to only get software through Apple's app store on YOUR iPhone, that's your right. But neither you nor Apple should have the ability to stop me from getting software from any source of my choosing.
And the same thing goes for in-app purchases. MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. It's only Apple's until they sell it. Then it's MINE, not Apple's any more. It's well past time for Apple's app store monopoly to be busted.
The iPhone hardware is yours. But not the IP. Don’t get overexcited about your ownership rights.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Considering every bill that has tried to force Apple’s App Store open has failed (North Dakota), vanished from the voting session when it became obvious the votes weren't there (Arizona), and the rest are in committee (where some 90% of bills die) the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Considering every bill that has tried to force Apple’s App Store open has failed (North Dakota), vanished from the voting session when it became obvious the votes weren't there (Arizona), and the rest are in committee (where some 90% of bills die) the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
But, that's how things work these days: keep trying this was and then that way until something changes and suddenly wrong become right.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Nvidia owning ARM is a terrible idea, and should be stopped.
And that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple and their app store. Apple has NO right to run MY iPhone the way it wants. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. And because it's MY iPhone and not Apple's iPhone, Apple should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever about what software I choose to run on MY iPhone. If you want to only get software through Apple's app store on YOUR iPhone, that's your right. But neither you nor Apple should have the ability to stop me from getting software from any source of my choosing.
And the same thing goes for in-app purchases. MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. It's only Apple's until they sell it. Then it's MINE, not Apple's any more. It's well past time for Apple's app store monopoly to be busted.
Just stop. This "argument" has been made by several ill-informed members over the years. Yes, it's your phone. When you buy it, you know full god*** well what Apple's limitations are. If you want to work around them, you can do that via jailbreak. Moreover, Apple does not have an illegal monopoly with regard to apps. That's because you have plenty of other choices when it comes to phones, and there is no evidence that Apple's conduct has harmed consumers. On the contrary, free apps and app prices are orders of magnitude lower than they were pre-iPhone. This is coupled with vastly increased software choice. In order to get that, you sign up for Apple's walled garden. Or you buy an Android phone.
Finally, I'm sorry to tell you (not really) that the courts are moving in the opposite direction on this issue. Apple's app store exclusivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what minor changes to 3rd-party payments are made.
If this acquisition is allowed it makes no sense why Apple’s App Store is being forced to open up. Apple has every right to run its products the way it wants to. Nvidia owning ARM affects multiple computing companies not just its own.
Nvidia owning ARM is a terrible idea, and should be stopped.
And that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple and their app store. Apple has NO right to run MY iPhone the way it wants. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. And because it's MY iPhone and not Apple's iPhone, Apple should not be allowed to have any say whatsoever about what software I choose to run on MY iPhone. If you want to only get software through Apple's app store on YOUR iPhone, that's your right. But neither you nor Apple should have the ability to stop me from getting software from any source of my choosing.
And the same thing goes for in-app purchases. MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone. It's only Apple's until they sell it. Then it's MINE, not Apple's any more. It's well past time for Apple's app store monopoly to be busted.
With the average knowledge level of users and the amount of personal info on your device at any time most people have zero business loading apps from anywhere they please. Do you realize how easy it is for a malicious app to gain root access to your device? Parents hand their kids their phones all the time to play on. Between kids loading whatever they want and older or inexperienced users doing the same.. it would be a nightmare. These same users would ultimately blame apple when they have their bank accounts stolen from or their device is not operating correctly because of malware on THEIR device. Think about how many millions of infected Windows machines there are in the wild right now from just the users I mentioned? Kids loading what they want from god only knows where on the internet. Older folks or inexperienced users falling for the amazon scam and granting remote access to someone in another country that hold their machine for ransom?
I jailbroke for years my own devices and friends and the number one thing I told people not to do was load pirated apps from the app store. There were so many cool tweaks to add from developer in the Cidia store to make your phone behave and look unique. THAT was the reason and the fun of jailbreaking. I didn't mind paying a small developer a few bucks for a tweak they they work on and maintain on their own personal time. Not to steal apps from some shady ass store to save 99c? Other folks who decided to do that got bank info stolen or worse... as well as a device that needs to be wiped and restored as new.
As far as in app purchases go.. I pay for most of my non apple services outside of the app store and their 30% surcharge. Youtube premium I pay $9.99 directly to google through paypal.. it is 12.99 a month through the app store subscription billing. Disney+ bundle is paid for the year after creating an account online. Shudder is another one paid for the year outside of the app store. IMHO all developers should just pass the 30% onto the customer via the monthly pricing. Let's just be upfront about it. Here is the price you can pay, or here is the price you can pay for the convenience of using the app store for billing and initial downloads and updates which all come from Apple servers.
If this hurts or is unfair to smaller devs than Apple should adjust the percentage for those smaller devs until they reach a certain monthly monetary threshold. If they never get that big they can't held to that 30% charge. It can't be free, but it needs to be fair in proportion to what they generate. I think they may do something similar to that now with smaller devs, but I could be wrong?
Comments
As for CDs, the lack of an explicit licence to agree to makes it a different case. You aren't asked by the CD or even the player to accept any licence for which refusal to accept would impede your ability to use the product. To all intents and purposes, once you have the CD and the player, your usage options are unchallenged.
Apple, on the other hand presents you with its licencing terms in the ToS and you can't do anything with the device until you accept them.
The fact that you would have to 'jailbreak' a device to be able to defeat that situation says a lot about the barriers Apple tries to place before the owner of the device when it comes to alternative systems.
I haven't read the ToS either but I'd wager that there are clauses around iOS that tie it to the device and without which would make the device useless to regular users and ad such inseparable from the device.
However, that is all secondary in the context of my reply. The point wasn't on the legality of the clauses but rather how they were presented to the purchaser.
That was precisely the case with the Spanish banks. The clauses themselves were considered to be legal but the EU's highest court ruled that the user had to be explicitly notified of them and in easy to understand language.
But, that's how things work these days: keep trying this was and then that way until something changes and suddenly wrong become right.
Finally, I'm sorry to tell you (not really) that the courts are moving in the opposite direction on this issue. Apple's app store exclusivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what minor changes to 3rd-party payments are made.