I fail to see why Apple should allow anyone else to run their apps or sell them without it being through the Apple App Store. Having this arrangement gives the customer peace of mind that (a) the app is fully tested, (b) the app is fully compliant with OS or iOS, (c) works properly, (d) isn’t going to break the device or (e) isn’t going to bring in viruses or other malware. Having a system by which anyone can throw their rubbish in is not a good idea in any way at all.
You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.
In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.
As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.
There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions could be different.
I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.
Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.
If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
You put yourself on dodgy ground when you start claiming that you know what other Apple users want and then use that as a basis for your argument.
In this particular case, it is not about what users want. It is about Apple's supposed harming of competition.
As an Apple user you can't speak for me. I would like an alternative App Store if only for competitive reasons. From there, everybody can make their own decisions.
There is nothing to suggest an alternative app store could not compete with Apple. If that is the case, app store competition could bring the 30% down, there would likely be more offer on the store and store imposed restrictions could be different.
I know Apple well enough to know that it's plain common sense to know that Apple would never allow a third party app store to be able to install apps onto their devices. It goes against everything that Apple is about.
Some third party, uncontrolled app store would be full of crap and dangerous apps, illegal apps, virus infected apps, malware apps, rip offs of games and other apps, apps that use illegal APIs and Apple would never allow it.
If you want the wild, wild west of apps, and the garbage that comes along with it, then go use Android.
You are making the same mistake. This isn't about what users or Apple wants. That is irrelevant.
If this case (or any similar case) reaches a negative verdict for Apple, it would not be a question of 'Apple never allowing'. Apple might be forced to change something.
SCOTUS is currently a majority conservative court. I think people are making a mistake in thinking the eventual ruling will disfavor Apple.
That's one of the reasons I added "any other case". I think the EU will evaluate Apple's practices fairly and without letting 'political' colour get in the way. Some US Apple users will scoff at that as in their minds the EU decision has already been taken.
I fail to see why Apple should allow anyone else to run their apps or sell them without it being through the Apple App Store. Having this arrangement gives the customer peace of mind that (a) the app is fully tested, (b) the app is fully compliant with OS or iOS, (c) works properly, (d) isn’t going to break the device or (e) isn’t going to bring in viruses or other malware. Having a system by which anyone can throw their rubbish in is not a good idea in any way at all.
How do you know an alternative App Store wouldn't be better? That said, your points are irrelevant to the argument.
That is, is having one app store harmful to app developers and users? To be clear, 'harmful' in this context is NOT any of the points you describe but the lack of competition and the arbitrary percentage cut Apple imposes.
I never understood this argument with iOS. If you don’t like the prices, buy something else. Crying monopoly seems to be the new way people complain about wanting something they can’t afford.
Keep in mind that just because Kavanaugh agreed with the Left-leaning SCOTUS judges to hear this case, that does not mean Kavanaugh will reach the same conclusion.
To be clear, this decision from Monday wasn't a decision by the Supreme Court to hear the case. Justice Kavanaugh wasn't even on the Court when it decided to hear this case - i.e., when it granted cert. That happened last June.
This was a decision on the legal question that the Court had already agreed to hear. So, for now at least, the Supreme Court is done with the case.The case will proceed in the (federal) District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals would go to the Ninth Circuit.
It's possible that another legal issue of sufficient importance will arise and the Supreme Court will agree to hear another aspect of the case. But I wouldn't say that's likely. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear about 1 in 1,000 of the cases that circuit courts decide. I think the likelihood of this particular case returning to the Supreme Court is much higher than that for a typical case, but it's far from a certainty.
It is not a traditional monopoly in the overall market, but it is a monopoly for distribution of apps in the iOS, tvOS and watchOS ecosystems.
A "traditional monopoly". It's either a monopoly or not. Owning something does not make you a monopoly it makes you the OWNER of it. It's Apple's platform, they OWN it. It has NEVER been an open development platform nor an open app distribution platform... EVER. Apple owns the developer tools and they own the OS, if they choose to own the distribution model that's absolutely within their right.
No one has to open their operating system to development and it's ludicrous to think that. Could people develop apps for the iPod? No. It was a closed platform. Apple did let a few developers write games for it, but that was it. iOS is NO different than that other than Apple has opened the doors to more developers, but they still have absolute control over the development and distribution of apps for the platform.
Saying Apple can't own and control any part of that is the same as saying Apple cannot tie their hardware and their operating system together, because people want iOS, but don't want to pay Apple's prices for their hardware. Well, tough sh!t. That's the PRODUCT Apple is selling. You don't like it, buy a different product.
There is no way, this is going win, doing so, means any product from any company on the market can be forced into breaking it apart and letting others in.
You need to study your history. That is like telling Microsoft it's their platform and they don't need to open it up to anyone. Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer for free and was hit w/ a million dollar fine per day by the courts because it hurt Netscape. It was viewed as being a monopoly. They kept giving it away until Netscape finally folded and didn't mine the fine. Just because it's their platform doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
You also might check into your history. At that time, Microsoft owned the vast, vast majority of the personal computer OS market. When Microsoft used IE to push Netscape out of the way, there was nowhere else to go.
If current app developers don’t want to deal with Apple’s App Store, they can work with the Android platform, which dominates the mobile device market. Apple can’t hold a monopoly at the same time it has a minority share of the market.
Keep in mind that just because Kavanaugh agreed with the Left-leaning SCOTUS judges to hear this case, that does not mean Kavanaugh will reach the same conclusion.
To be clear, this decision from Monday wasn't a decision by the Supreme Court to hear the case. Justice Kavanaugh wasn't even on the Court when it decided to hear this case - i.e., when it granted cert. That happened last June.
This was a decision on the legal question that the Court had already agreed to hear. So, for now at least, the Supreme Court is done with the case.The case will proceed in the (federal) District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals would go to the Ninth Circuit.
It's possible that another legal issue of sufficient importance will arise and the Supreme Court will agree to hear another aspect of the case. But I wouldn't say that's likely. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear about 1 in 1,000 of the cases that circuit courts decide. I think the likelihood of this particular case returning to the Supreme Court is much higher than that for a typical case, but it's far from a certainty.
You’re right. Either the reporting was not clear or my own inattention to the details of this case prevented me from understanding that this was not actually a SCOTUS case at this time, but one for the lower courts.
Comments
That is, is having one app store harmful to app developers and users? To be clear, 'harmful' in this context is NOT any of the points you describe but the lack of competition and the arbitrary percentage cut Apple imposes.
This was a decision on the legal question that the Court had already agreed to hear. So, for now at least, the Supreme Court is done with the case.The case will proceed in the (federal) District Court for the Northern District of California. Appeals would go to the Ninth Circuit.
It's possible that another legal issue of sufficient importance will arise and the Supreme Court will agree to hear another aspect of the case. But I wouldn't say that's likely. The Supreme Court only agrees to hear about 1 in 1,000 of the cases that circuit courts decide. I think the likelihood of this particular case returning to the Supreme Court is much higher than that for a typical case, but it's far from a certainty.
If current app developers don’t want to deal with Apple’s App Store, they can work with the Android platform, which dominates the mobile device market. Apple can’t hold a monopoly at the same time it has a minority share of the market.