US appeals court says public has right to sue Apple over App Store exclusivity

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    I believe in consumer choice and the open web. If you want to install an app outside the store from the web then you should be able to, just like you can on a Mac. Apple could just put up a big warning saying it does not recommend installing apps from outside the app store, and to proceed at their own risk. For certain applications this could foster new forms of innovation in ways we won't know about until its available to us.
    gatorguysingularity
  • Reply 42 of 71
    Storm982Storm982 Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    The evidence is already present as to what would happen. In the android side of things you can install different marketplaces. Study and reports unanimously show the outstanding amounts of male ware, instabilities, and numerous security loop holes consistently present. Why would a company open themselves up to that. "Hey I got this great product, now let's make it crap!" More than anything it's the lawyers that take on these frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting their 10% cut. When you are on top everyone wants a piece of your pie. Frivolous lawsuits should be fined harshly to prevent them from occurring. Yes there can be an argument made that it would deter people from coming forward in the first place then, similar to the reason why more rape victims remain silent, but the system as it is is broken right now.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 71
    SharkaZooSharkaZoo Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    People who are saying iOS is a monopoly but look at the bigger picture.  We already have 4 choices:   Android, iOS, Windows, and Tizen.  If you want malware go with Android. Security go for iOS. Want to look cool then Windows is your game.
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 44 of 71
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food?  And restaurants, for that matter.  I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste.  Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there?  And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style.  Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's?  Maybe setup a booth there?

    Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS?  That they have only a license to use it?  It's not their OS.  They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware.  But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS.  IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.  
    Totally agree.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 71
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member

    MplsP said:
    Agree that the suit is bogus. I also like the 'walled garden' arrangement of the iOS app store. And yeah, if you don't like it you can either get an Android phone or Jail Break your phone. I seem to remember something about malware and viruses on the open app store software, though...

    Really, all Apple needs to do is add another line in the next terms and conditions that everyone signs without reading saying you agree to use the closed app store. Perhaps they already have - I didn't read them either. 
    How well does the judge he know tech/security?  Either, the answer is "not at all" or "no such @gency" told him how to rule.

    My #1 reason for buying Apple is security and the "walled garden". If I didn't care and wanted insecure crap I'd buy Android.
    I agree.  That whole 'Walled Garden' term is used as a pejorative by the PC and Android world against Apple from their little 5% of the world's smart phone profits corner as an attack meme.  It's about time the truth and converse was popularized, i.e. that all the other mobile operating systems, particularly Android, are the equivalent of the untamed wild west where your life hangs in the balance by a thread.
    edited January 2017 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    SharkaZoo said:
    People who are saying iOS is a monopoly but look at the bigger picture.  We already have 4 choices:   Android, iOS, Windows, and Tizen.  If you want malware go with Android. Security go for iOS. Want to look cool then Windows is your game.
    To be fair the story that Android is a nest of malware is sensationalist poppycock. Yes there's more on Android than on iOS, but that still doesn't mean there's much nor that most users should be worried about it. Those antivirus apps that get promoted are not needed if you're dealing with Google Play, actually negatively affecting perfermance much more than any benefit they offer IMO.
    http://www.androidcentral.com/android-malware-should-you-be-worried
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 47 of 71
    damonfdamonf Posts: 229member
    Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food?  And restaurants, for that matter.  I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste.  Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there?  And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style.  Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's?  Maybe setup a booth there?

    Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS?  That they have only a license to use it?  It's not their OS.  They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware.  But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS.  IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.  

    The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time.  Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software.  You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters.  Why?  Because it is a safety issue.  That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS. 

    Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly.  Walled garden does not equal monopoly.  Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!

    edited January 2017 hlee1169radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 71
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,686member
    Storm982 said:
    The evidence is already present as to what would happen. In the android side of things you can install different marketplaces. Study and reports unanimously show the outstanding amounts of male ware, instabilities, and numerous security loop holes consistently present. Why would a company open themselves up to that. "Hey I got this great product, now let's make it crap!" More than anything it's the lawyers that take on these frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting their 10% cut. When you are on top everyone wants a piece of your pie. Frivolous lawsuits should be fined harshly to prevent them from occurring. Yes there can be an argument made that it would deter people from coming forward in the first place then, similar to the reason why more rape victims remain silent, but the system as it is is broken right now.
    It is about choice. If Apple provided a gatekeeper style solution no user would ever have to worry more than they currently do.

    It is about control. Should Apple be vetting what is appropriate for me in Apps? Not from a malware perspective but from a feature perspective? Shouldn't those decisions be taken by the developer and the user? 
    singularity
  • Reply 49 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    damonf said:
    Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food?  And restaurants, for that matter.  I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste.  Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there?  And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style.  Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's?  Maybe setup a booth there?

    Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS?  That they have only a license to use it?  It's not their OS.  They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware.  But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS.  IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.  

    The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time.  Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software.  You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters.  Why?  Because it is a safety issue.  That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS. 

    Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly.  Walled garden does not equal monopoly.  Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!

    Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice? 
  • Reply 50 of 71
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,686member
    SharkaZoo said:
    People who are saying iOS is a monopoly but look at the bigger picture.  We already have 4 choices:   Android, iOS, Windows, and Tizen.  If you want malware go with Android. Security go for iOS. Want to look cool then Windows is your game.
    It isn't as simple as that in this case. Especially as other parts of the Apple ecosystem do not impose a walled garden.
  • Reply 51 of 71
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    avon b7 said:
    Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.



    You mean like the EU is prosecuting Eire and Apple for not complying with EU Membership T&Cs?
    radarthekat
  • Reply 52 of 71
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    williamh said:
    If only people had a choice and could buy a smartphone from someone else?  Since there isn't any other manufacturer, the lawsuits are important. 

    Seriously, will someone represent the many consumers that want a walled garden?
    Didn't people say this when the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was filed - there are other computers and browsers that people can use, why sue Microsoft? Microsoft lost.
    singularityavon b7
  • Reply 53 of 71
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,686member
    frac said:
    avon b7 said:
    Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.



    You mean like the EU is prosecuting Eire and Apple for not complying with EU Membership T&Cs?
    Ha. The EU isn't prosecuting Apple.

    In my reference I was talking more along the lines of the recent EU legal ruling that forces some Spanish banks to return billions of euros to customers that were subjected to floor clauses. The floor clauses themselves were not singled out as ilegal but the way they were communicated to customers was seen as lacking transparency and clarity meaning it was not enough to have the clauses in the contract per se. The contracts, full of financial terminology, were aimed at  end users who had little or no experience in the field.

    Although if someone had directly challenged the legality of floor clauses I'm sure they would have been considered ilegal all the same.
    singularity
  • Reply 54 of 71
    Can't you buy apps on android ,Google?
  • Reply 55 of 71
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,879member
    pentae said:
    I believe in consumer choice and the open web. If you want to install an app outside the store from the web then you should be able to, just like you can on a Mac. Apple could just put up a big warning saying it does not recommend installing apps from outside the app store, and to proceed at their own risk. For certain applications this could foster new forms of innovation in ways we won't know about until its available to us.
    You can. You are legally allowed to jail break your phone and install apps.
    hlee1169radarthekat
  • Reply 56 of 71
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    avon b7 said:
    frac said:
    avon b7 said:
    Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.



    You mean like the EU is prosecuting Eire and Apple for not complying with EU Membership T&Cs?
    Ha. The EU isn't prosecuting Apple.

    In my reference I was talking more along the lines of the recent EU legal ruling that forces some Spanish banks to return billions of euros to customers that were subjected to floor clauses. The floor clauses themselves were not singled out as ilegal but the way they were communicated to customers was seen as lacking transparency and clarity meaning it was not enough to have the clauses in the contract per se. The contracts, full of financial terminology, were aimed at  end users who had little or no experience in the field.

    Although if someone had directly challenged the legality of floor clauses I'm sure they would have been considered ilegal all the same.
    If by "not prosecuting Apple" you mean the €15B fine is just procedural, then accountability will have to be redefined. 
    Ré the Spanish banks ruling, that was determined on the basis of 'harm' that applying 'floors' was denying mortgage borrowers due recompense for interest over payment. No such equivalence is applicable - or has been proved, regarding App Store files or use of Apple's iOS software. 
    hlee1169radarthekat
  • Reply 57 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    pentae said:
    I believe in consumer choice and the open web. If you want to install an app outside the store from the web then you should be able to, just like you can on a Mac. Apple could just put up a big warning saying it does not recommend installing apps from outside the app store, and to proceed at their own risk. For certain applications this could foster new forms of innovation in ways we won't know about until its available to us.
    You can. You are legally allowed to jail break your phone and install apps.
    According to Apple it was not legal to jailbreak and if they had their preference that would likely still be their approach. They still technically maintain that it's not broadly legal to do so.
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/06/applejailbreakresponse-1.pdf

    Regulators disagreed with them a few years ago and more recent rules have helped clarify things, so yeah it is deemed legal for the most part tho there some questions about it still. This particular issue of app restrictions might fall under the same regulatory reasoning if the point was pushed. Dunno. 

    edited January 2017
  • Reply 58 of 71
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    avon b7 said:
    Storm982 said:
    The evidence is already present as to what would happen. In the android side of things you can install different marketplaces. Study and reports unanimously show the outstanding amounts of male ware, instabilities, and numerous security loop holes consistently present. Why would a company open themselves up to that. "Hey I got this great product, now let's make it crap!" More than anything it's the lawyers that take on these frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting their 10% cut. When you are on top everyone wants a piece of your pie. Frivolous lawsuits should be fined harshly to prevent them from occurring. Yes there can be an argument made that it would deter people from coming forward in the first place then, similar to the reason why more rape victims remain silent, but the system as it is is broken right now.
    It is about choice. If Apple provided a gatekeeper style solution no user would ever have to worry more than they currently do.

    It is about control. Should Apple be vetting what is appropriate for me in Apps? Not from a malware perspective but from a feature perspective? Shouldn't those decisions be taken by the developer and the user? 
    It's apple's store and there are rules. You can choose to be locked in with Apple or go Wild West with Android. 




  • Reply 59 of 71
    I personally do not understand the argument that prices on the App Store may be too high. How old are the people wanting to sue Apple over this fact. I have been using computers a long time now and prior to the App Store coming on line I certainly paid a whole lot more for software than the prices I see on the App Store. I am willing to pay a software author for their product. I should, before I retired I wrote software for IBM mainframes so I know the time and effort involved.

    I like the fact that Apple has control of what is available, making it far less likely that the software I install will have any type of malware within it. Crazy world out there these days. If you don't like something .... take out a lawsuit. I sure hope that these fools lose their case in the long run.
    hlee1169
  • Reply 60 of 71
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,686member
    frac said:
    avon b7 said:
    frac said:
    avon b7 said:
    Asking users to agree to the terms after having flashed up the licence in the middle of the setup process and via a checkbox, probably wouldn't get very far in the EU if someone legally challenged any of its terms.



    You mean like the EU is prosecuting Eire and Apple for not complying with EU Membership T&Cs?
    Ha. The EU isn't prosecuting Apple.

    In my reference I was talking more along the lines of the recent EU legal ruling that forces some Spanish banks to return billions of euros to customers that were subjected to floor clauses. The floor clauses themselves were not singled out as ilegal but the way they were communicated to customers was seen as lacking transparency and clarity meaning it was not enough to have the clauses in the contract per se. The contracts, full of financial terminology, were aimed at  end users who had little or no experience in the field.

    Although if someone had directly challenged the legality of floor clauses I'm sure they would have been considered ilegal all the same.
    If by "not prosecuting Apple" you mean the €15B fine is just procedural, then accountability will have to be redefined. 
    Ré the Spanish banks ruling, that was determined on the basis of 'harm' that applying 'floors' was denying mortgage borrowers due recompense for interest over payment. No such equivalence is applicable - or has been proved, regarding App Store files or use of Apple's iOS software. 
    The important part of this is what I mentioned. The EU ruling was the result of escalation through different courts right up to the EU. Floor clauses are in fact not illegal by themselves but are illegal if they were not explicitly explained to you at the time you signed the contract.

    This means the banks do not have to refund you anything if you have fallen foul to this practice IF they can PROVE you were given all the necessary information BEFORE you signed. Of course the reality of this is that virtually none can prove this as the clauses themselves were 'hidden' in the contract.

    This point was made clear by the legal teams of the affected banks right after the ruling. A dumb move, effectively trying to defend their evil practices. It just made people even angrier.
    edited January 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.