Apple's 'loss' is the best result for users, developers, Apple, and Epic

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2021
Epic Games' extremely partial win in its legal case against Apple is the best compromise, keeping App Store protections, keeping convenience for users, and helping developers.

The ruling won't change how the App Store looks, or protects users
The ruling won't change how the App Store looks, or protects users


It's practically partisan -- some people will say Epic Games has won its legal case against Apple, others will insist that Apple has triumphed. Life, and court rulings, are rarely ever binary switches, on or off, one or zero.

In making the specific ruling she did, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has made customers, users, and developers the winners.

Most of all, it protects users. There are plenty of people who would prefer to be able to side-load apps onto their iPhones from anywhere they like, but they are a minuscule fraction of the billion iPhone users in the world.

Those billion users can continue to download apps from the App Store without a thought, and really without a care. Just as they have known for over a decade, getting a new app is straightforward, and there's no question about safety and security.

Strictly speaking, of course, there is, but few users think about it and barely any ever actually have to. It's on the App Store, so they know where to get it, they know it will work on their iPhones, they're done.

If the App Store had been broken up, it would give side-loading fans what they wanted, and it would have given a very few developers what they craved. And Apple was right, it would've irrevocably ended the trust that users have in the App Store.

And, if you're hell-bent on side loading, individuals or businesses can do it on a limited scale through Xcode or through enterprise development certificates. Just ask Facebook.

Most developers will continue as they are

Apple will still argue that it needs its commission from apps and that it's only fair it get paid since it is running the App Store. While we don't know what the costs of running the Store are, Apple's argument is true -- and this result still gets the company what it needs.

That's because for all the furore over paying Apple 30%, or even 15%, at least a great many developers know it could be worse. Any developer who used to sell software on CD-ROM, and paid for shelf space in stores, thinks that 30% is a bargain.

And of those who do not, a significant majority is going to find out. Using your own payment system instead of Apple's sounds great because you get all of the revenue, but of course it's an entirely new cost plus labor in accounting that a developer may not have had to bear before.

Some developers already do have their own backend payment processes. Those are the biggest ones, whose software runs on multiple platforms. It's the Epic Games kind of developer, really, and they will switch away from paying Apple in a heartbeat.

Smaller developers may find an opportunity to grow larger, or to merge, or perhaps to sell their own payment processes to other companies. They won't do that for free, though, and ultimately it will be cost that determines how this all shakes out for developers.

That cost will mean that despite the ruling against Apple, it's likely that the majority of developers will carry on paying their 30% or 15% to use the App Store.

Everybody wins, or at least nobody loses

The only thing that Epic lost was the ability to spin off its own iOS App Store. As a result of the ruling, they'll be able to point consumers to off-device payments. The specifics of how that's going to work aren't clear, and will likely end up in litigation itself, but we'll have to see how that goes.

Hopefully Epic and other big developers will find creative ways to use the new ruling to let them make a little money. Maybe some will offer customers merchandise that they sell separately, and can now tell users about.

But customers and users are the key winners here. Users might gain something, they might not, but they definitely do not lose out -- and they so easily could have.

Read on AppleInsider
williamlondon
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    williamlondonScot1watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 41
    Well this does help Apple defend itself against congress. They can't say Apple is a monopoly or go after them about the 30% now.

    It doesn't help Epic since their Developer Account is still banned and now they owe Apple $12 Million plus interest for breaking Apple's rules initially. Talk about an LOL
    aderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 41
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 41
    ggwill0 said:
    Well this does help Apple defend itself against congress. They can't say Apple is a monopoly or go after them about the 30% now.

    It doesn't help Epic since their Developer Account is still banned and now they owe Apple $12 Million plus interest for breaking Apple's rules initially. Talk about an LOL
    A single ruling does not prevent Congress from calling Apple a monopoly. Only when the matter is completely settled (all parties agree to cease further legal action) can we decide what impact this ruling will have on Apple's future with Congress. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 41
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,100member
    It is a naive to think allowing shady developers to link out to alternative payment systems is a "win for consumers", as you put it 

    It is going to be a s**** show 
    bloggerblogwilliamlondonhlee1169thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 41
    Apple should change their store policy; add a hosting fee, the fee is waived if they use Apple's payment system. Also if a vendor wants to use their own payment system, all they get is a URL link, nothing integrated directly in the App Store UI, if they want it integrated, there's a per click fee for that too.
    edited September 2021 hydrogenauxioaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    edited September 2021 iyfcalvinaderutterj2fusionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days. 

    Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store? 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 41
    red oak said:
    It is a naive to think allowing shady developers to link out to alternative payment systems is a "win for consumers", as you put it 

    It is going to be a s**** show 
    Agreed, if a customer has an issue with an app or a charge, they're gonna complain to Apple and Apple will have to send them off to the developer instead of solving their problem directly.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 41
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,100member
    tylersdad said:
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days. 

    Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store? 
    Hey Genius  - the option is to go to Android.   Apple built and runs its own store.   Apple is the Walmart here.   Evidently, this is complicated for you to understand 
    hlee1169auxioj2fusionsireofseththtwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 11 of 41
    The only real risk here is that if the steering gets out of control it could damage users' trust in the App Store, and that would certainly hurt developers and Apple. For instance, what about a link labeled Pay with ApplePay that actually led to some third party payment mechanism? With a ban on anti-steering, Apple presumably isn't allowed to block it (though I'm pretty confident they would anyway, and would fight for it). Constraints on anti-steering, allowing ethical and transparent steering, would make more sense than a ban on… banning the practice.

    Too many negatives, ugh.
    makemineamacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days. 

    Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store? 
    Your choice happens when you buy the phone. If you choose to buy an iPhone, you choose the  App Store model that goes with it. 
    williamlondondave marshthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 41
    Bosa said:
    I see this as a huge win for Apple.

    A federal judge just said “Apple Not Monopoly”, that is huge and makes it tougher for anyone else in the future to claim Apple is  a monopoly.

    the App Store payment thing , not everybody will want to connect to an outside store even with option, I won’t for sure
    She did say that Apple is engaging In anticompetitive practices though… specifically she said “ Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice.”


    That’s pretty bad when you think about it, given federal laws that might becoming, and probes being conducted in other countries like Australia and the EU. Congress might use this judgement as “evidence” as to why it must act to protect consumers. 
  • Reply 14 of 41
    Apple should change their store policy; add a hosting fee, the fee is waived if they use Apple's payment system. Also if a vendor wants to use their own payment system, all they get is a URL link, nothing integrated directly in the App Store UI, if they want it integrated, there's a per click fee for that too.
    very creative way of making money. Apple should also consider offer paid version of iOS, only paid version of iOS can use other payments.
    hydrogenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    Microsoft wasn't forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows due to their position giving them an unfair advantage. Microsoft was shown to have been exhibiting monopolistic behavior, that is, they were using their position in the OS market to give their browser an unfair advantage. In other words, Micrsoft wasn't forced to make changes simply due to their position, it was their behavior that brought on the forced changes. Epic was unable to show that Apple was exhibiting monopolistic behavior.
    williamlondonhlee1169aderutterj2fusionsireofsethwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 41
    red oak said:
    tylersdad said:
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days. 

    Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store? 
    Hey Genius  - the option is to go to Android.   Apple built and runs its own store.   Apple is the Walmart here.   Evidently, this is complicated for you to understand 
    Hey Genius - this is the same legal rationale MS used when EU regulators accused them of being a monopoly. Their legal rationale was soundly rejected and they were ordered to remove IE from Windows. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 17 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
    It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days. 

    Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store? 
    Your choice happens when you buy the phone. If you choose to buy an iPhone, you choose the  App Store model that goes with it. 
    This legal rationale did not work for Microsoft when they tried to get EU regulators to back off of their decision to force MS to remove IE from Windows. 

    It should be rejected for the same reason here. Just because I buy a MS computer, doesn't mean I should be forced or coerced into using IE. Likewise, just because I bought an Apple iPhone doesn't mean I should be forced or coerced into using the App Store. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 41
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    Microsoft wasn't forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows due to their position giving them an unfair advantage. Microsoft was shown to have been exhibiting monopolistic behavior, that is, they were using their position in the OS market to give their browser an unfair advantage. In other words, Micrsoft wasn't forced to make changes simply due to their position, it was their behavior that brought on the forced changes. Epic was unable to show that Apple was exhibiting monopolistic behavior.
    Fine. It wasn't monopolistic. It was anti-competitive (according to the judge in the matter). I would say a rose by any other name is still a rose. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 19 of 41
    The Walmart analogies are missing the point. If Walmart sold a vacuum but the bags for that vacuum were only available at Walmart and possibly at a premium price I would be forced to buy through Walmart. Sure I could shop at Target but I’d have to buy a new vacuum. Similar to ink cartridges for printers. They are proprietary but courts have upheld the right for third parties to sell recycled or compatible cartridges. I suppose Apple has the right to build a proprietary walled garden ecosystem. Most consumers probably don’t know exactly what they are buying into and probably don’t care. We have a lot of opinions here but none from lawyers. I have no idea what the legal grounds are that drove the judge’s decision. Ultimately that’s what counts. And once again the Apple Insider fan boy bias drives the content of this article. These are more like opinion pieces/editorials than journalistic news stories.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 20 of 41
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,273member
    tylersdad said:
    I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
    I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 
    Wrong analogy. Microsoft forced all hardware vendors to use Windows and every Microsoft app. Apple has a product and sells software for that one product (actually only two, iPhone and iPad). Apple owns the hardware and iOS while allowing developers to create software, using Apple tools, for those products. Apple has every right to define how apps are paid for. The judge is wrong in this case because she doesn't comprehend the entire infrastructure Apple is providing for developers. This infrastructure is only for iOS devices, not for any other manufacturer's devices. As many of you have stated, it's like going to any store and picking up a product then telling the store you're going to pay for it outside their store. Go ahead and try this and see if you even reach the door without being arrested. This is considered stealing and so is the decision to allow outside payment of apps. If this judgment stands, I can see other people trying to set up outside payment systems for every other business and it isn't going to happen. I also wonder how an app not bought through the App Store is even going to work. The judge said side-loading or alternate app stores aren't required so will Apple be forced to allow outside activation of apps? That's going to be a hacker's dream. Can't wait to see Epic games get hacked with unofficial serial numbers. This activation method also opens the door to malware being introduced but of course our three-letter organizations can't wait for that to happen.
    williamlondonhlee1169sireofsethp-dogwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.