Apple facing new $5.5 billion App Store antitrust lawsuit in the Netherlands

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 96
    crowley said:
    crowley said: Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there. that could be expanded if needed
    It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
    It may be needed if legally mandated.
    Now you're getting closer to the truth: forced side loading would be an arbitrary regulation and have no real competitive benefit. 
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 42 of 96
    CheeseFreezeCheeseFreeze Posts: 1,100member
    It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
    And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments.
    Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
    elijahg
  • Reply 43 of 96
    HedwareHedware Posts: 42member
    avon b7 said:
    Naiyas said:
    JohnDinEU said:
    I’m old school Apple and I’m Dutch. I remember Steve being pissed at Microsoft (re it’s market dominance) and we were able to download software from wherever we wanted. There were risks but so is driving a bicycle. I believe that customers should be free to choose from wherever you they want to to buy (paid or free). Apple changed their business model (or adjusted it as it saw fit) and me as a consumer had to adjust with. I sincerely hope Apple will be forced to open up and allow companies to offer downloads for free or paid (outside of the App Store directly onto your phone) and or allow companies to sell directly their software outside of the App Store. 
    If you’re old school Apple you must know that iOS is not macOS. The two are vastly different serving very different markets. On macOS (old school) you can still download software from wherever you want unabated and the model hasn’t changed. Sure they are trying, but it’s not happening.

    iOS is vastly different. Ever since it’s inception the only way to get an app onto the phone from anywhere is via the “web app” method. This was there from day one and remains to this day. The App Store came a few years after first release and was driven by developers wanting a native app capability which had to be BUILT from the ground up. The price was that the only way to use this IP was via the App Store and it’s fee system.

    To the vast majority of consumers it is fantastic - a one stop shop for apps that keeps their apps updated with no hassle.

    To legacy computer users that got used to the old school way it was alien and seen as taking away features. But we fail (and still do) that the reason for iOS success is the simplicity of a one stop shop.

    The vast majority of consumers couldn’t care less about the 30% margin or only having one App Store. They just want their phone to work, not break, and want a single place to find what they want. It’s simple for them and a vast number pay for that.

    If you don’t want that, go buy one of the many Android phones on offer.

    Basically, you don’t understand that the iPhone as a product has never changed its business model when it comes to apps. The option for web apps still exists, but it provides developers no income to survive.
    iOS and MacOS are not vastly different at all - except for the App Store issue.

    iOS is tuned for a mobile workflow and plays to its strengths. MacOS is tuned for a less mobile experience. 

    The iPhone did change its business model with regards to apps. It shipped without an app store as we know it. 

    You later admit this and mention the costs involved. That is irrelevant. As has been seen over the years, it isn't impossible for third parties to do the same. The complaint is that alternative app stores are not allowed to exist on iDevices. Competition is not allowed. 

    Developers can generate income from their apps in different ways. It doesn't only have to be through a sole app store.

    The vast majority of users not caring less about the 30% is irrelevant (apart from being unproven). None of the different investigations or proposals have considered if users care or not. It could be 10% or 60% and it still wouldn't change anything.
    As a user I want a one stop shop to buy apps and to get upgrades; that has a trusted payment system; that has strong and trustworthy security and privacy safeguards; that has measures to stop viruses, etc; that has a stable interface; that the apps works with my iPhone and iPad; and has good expectation of being around.

    Yes I don’t care about the 30% as I see that as a cost of doing business and is a feature in all businesses, big and small.

    I don’t particularly care about developers, particularly those that want to tear down what suits me as an Apple user and app purchaser. As for your calls for competition, the App Store puts the developers into a single marketplace for us users to easily and comprehensively assess the competition. Quite a bit of the goods in the marketplace are crap and their developers would not survive in their desired open market. 

    So for me I will only buy apps from the Apple App Store and will only pay via that Store’s payment gateway. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 96
    Apple won’t pull out of EU countries.

    They’ll fight this obviously discriminatory law that appears to be worded specifically to target certain companies, not certain behaviors. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 96
    It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
    And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments.
    Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
    Liar. AppleInsider is fair. MCaRumors is a known anti-Apple site disguised as a fan site. The fact you can’t see this tells me all I need to know about you.
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 46 of 96
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,650member
    It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
    And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments.
    Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
    Liar. AppleInsider is fair. MCaRumors is a known anti-Apple site disguised as a fan site. The fact you can’t see this tells me all I need to know about you.
    You're hilarious. Or is it delusional. Not sure which.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 47 of 96
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    elijahg said:
    sflocal said:
    I really don't understand how/why a country tells a company - any company - to force it open its proprietary product to outside competitors.

    This is not anything like the old Microsoft Antitrust case from 20+ years ago, so don't try playing that card.

    Apple owns the hardware, and software.  It doesn't license it out to any other companies.  It's a closed system.  The folks buying the iPhone are Apple's customers, not the developers.  The iPhone became popular because Apple's customers enjoy the business model.  Period.  The folks that are complaining are the minority whining, vocal developers that feel entitled to hitch a ride on Apple's efforts and essentially rip Apple off.  

    As a developer myself, I'm embarrassed to share the stage with this miscreants.  I remember not long ago when boxed software was the only way to get your "app" out there and Apple's 30% fee - while being the current industry norm - was a bargain compared to a company back in the day having to package/distribute their software, compete for shelf space at whatever store carries it, pay all the distribution costs, and accept whatever percentage those retailers take from the sale.

    Embarrassing.
    Apple does not own the hardware. If they did, it would be different. It’s my phone and it is not for Apple to tell me how to use it. 
    Which may be what that whole rental plan that we heard rumors of is focused at.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 96
    maximaramaximara Posts: 409member
    It's baffling to see the constant Apple-defenders on AppleInsider. Apple can't do wrong. Apple is magic, Apple is god, Apple is great.
    And when you click on the same topics on MacRumors.com for example, a much more balanced, neutral view on the topic can be found in the comments.
    Sometimes I think half of this forum is made up of Tim Cook bots.
    Exaggeration.  Apple screws up - just look at the last year of MacOS/Safari updates with the latest boondoggle being Monterey 12.3 which is bricking Macs.  That said they built the App Store and therefore should have control over what and how they charge.  The developers supporting this are too stupid to realize that they are likely cutting their own throats.
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 49 of 96
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,687member
    crowley said:
    davidw said:

    Security was built into iOS from the ground up. iOS had never allowed side loading of software from external sources like SD or SIM cards or through USB. 
    You can side load software from the App Store, or Xcode using a Mac through USB.

    Steve even used the term "side load" in the App Store introduction (@2:10): ;


    Not the same as software from third party stores, or from removable media, sure, but there is capability there that could be expanded if needed
    Technically, Lightning on the iPhone is not USB. One can not (using a Lightning to USB cable) connect a USB thumb drive, SD card reader, external HD or external CD/DVD drive to it and have it work. There is no power coming out of a Lightning. It support very few USB protocols. And remember the first 4 generations of iPhones had the 30 pin connector, which the Lightning replaced.  iTunes can use the USB on a computer to connect to the 30 pin or Lighting  connecter on the iPhone for back ups and "side loading" apps purchased from the App Store using iTunes on the computer. Remember, the first half dozen or so  generations of iPhones required iTunes. There are adapters that can use the 30 pin or Lightning connector to download photos from a digital camera on to an iPhone or iPad or even iPod. This to back up photos or free up memory on the camera, when traveling. Even though they have a USB connector on the camera end, I do not think it's using USB protocol to transfer the photos.  

    Even the USB-C port on an iPad Pro, do not support most USB protocols.

    "Side loading" back then meant installing apps other than from an iPhoneOS update. Installing from the App Store was consider "side loading" back then. Today "side loading' is refer to as installing an app from anywhere other than the official app store for the device. Be it the Apple App Store or Google Play or Amazon App.

    "Side loading" using Xcode requires an Apple Developer account.  It's not something that the average iDevice user can do themselves. And having to use iTunes to "side load", is no different that having to use the Apple App Store.    

    The issue for Apple is not with finding a way to "side load" with iOS. It's still a security issue, that iOS was not originally designed for.  No matter how secure Apple can make iOS from "side loading", iOS will never be as secure as when there's no "side loading". Otherwise Google would had made "side loading" on Android safe, by now.   
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 50 of 96
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Well that's a lot, I'm going to need to chunk it up....
    davidw said:

    Technically, Lightning on the iPhone is not USB. 
    It's not a USB port for sure, but it absolutely is the USB protocol for data and power transfer.
    davidw said:

    One can not (using a Lightning to USB cable) connect a USB thumb drive, SD card reader, external HD or external CD/DVD drive to it and have it work. 
    Not as reliably as you can on a PC or Mac, but you certainly can in some cases.  You won't be able to use the Lightning cable in the box with the iPhone, as that has a USB-A terminus, and those devices will not have that port on them.
    davidw said:

    There is no power coming out of a Lightning. 
    There absolutely is.  Not nearly as much as the 200W supported by USB-C, but many MFI accessories are powered by the Lightning port.
    davidw said:

    It support very few USB protocols. 
    So?  It only needs to support data transfer in order to side load an app, and it does.
    davidw said:

    And remember the first 4 generations of iPhones had the 30 pin connector, which the Lightning replaced. 
    Not sure why that's relevant or why I would need to remember it.  Though I do remember it, as it happens.
    davidw said:

    iTunes can use the USB on a computer to connect to the 30 pin or Lighting  connecter on the iPhone for back ups and "side loading" apps purchased from the App Store using iTunes on the computer. 
    Not sure why you're telling me what I already know and pointed out to you.
    davidw said:

    Remember, the first half dozen or so  generations of iPhones required iTunes. 
    Again, why do I need to remember that?  Again, I do, but it's not relevant.
    davidw said:

    There are adapters that can use the 30 pin or Lightning connector to download photos from a digital camera on to an iPhone or iPad or even iPod. This to back up photos or free up memory on the camera, when traveling. Even though they have a USB connector on the camera end, I do not think it's using USB protocol to transfer the photos.  
    It absolutely is.  You think all the camera manufacturers are supporting a custom iPhone protocol?  Nah.
    davidw said:

    Even the USB-C port on an iPad Pro, do not support most USB protocols.
    "Most protocols" are not relevant, side loading an app will only require the bog standard data protocol.
    davidw said:

    "Side loading" back then meant installing apps other than from an iPhoneOS update. Installing from the App Store was consider "side loading" back then. Today "side loading' is refer to as installing an app from anywhere other than the official app store for the device. Be it the Apple App Store or Google Play or Amazon App.
    Yes, I'm aware of that, but your point was about transferring apps over USB.  The iPhone supports that.  There's no reason to think that transferring apps from a third party over a wire would be significantly more challenging, once the iOS security model is modified to permit it.
    davidw said:

    "Side loading" using Xcode requires an Apple Developer account.  It's not something that the average iDevice user can do themselves. And having to use iTunes to "side load", is no different that having to use the Apple App Store.    
    It's pretty different.  It uses USB, which was your point in the first place,.
    davidw said:

    The issue for Apple is not with finding a way to "side load" with iOS. It's still a security issue, that iOS was not originally designed for.  No matter how secure Apple can make iOS from "side loading", iOS will never be as secure as when there's no "side loading". Otherwise Google would had made "side loading" on Android safe, by now.   
    I agree, the issue is with iOS's security model.  Not sure why you made the USB point at all.
    elijahg
  • Reply 51 of 96
    john f.john f. Posts: 111member
    How can they say since 2009? In 2009 Apple hardly had any mobile phone market share. This is like trying to rewrite history. Apple earned their way to have mobile phone market share while other manufacturers faltered. Yes, the manufactures that held the market like Nokia and Blackberry eventually closed shop, and this is Apple's fault? So at what point did Apple market share become large enough for it to be considered a monopoly or its behavior monopolistic? Even now, Apple still has only small (23%) market share in Europe, and at any point this may get smaller due to competition. If anything, Apple has caused prices of apps to go down. The huge success of mobile phone apps on iOS since 2009 meant pricing of apps are far lower than before (2009). In fact, consumers have become price conscious and expect to buy apps for 99 cents. Apps for 0,99-4,99 EUR have become so low, in fact, that developers have to resort to subscription model to survive. How inflated can prices be if consumers won't pay more than 0,99-4,99 EUR for an app to begin with? Meanwhile game consoles are closed systems since forever with similar markups, and we don't hear anything about that. Never have. Let's sue game console manufacturers, but also for the length of their existence! Ha! Oh, but Apple is making an insane amount of profit, you say? Ah yes, that's despicable in a free market society, we should wring out some money from them.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 96
    JohnDinEU said:
    I’m old school Apple and I’m Dutch. I remember Steve being pissed at Microsoft (re it’s market dominance) and we were able to download software from wherever we wanted. There were risks but so is driving a bicycle. I believe that customers should be free to choose from wherever you they want to to buy (paid or free). Apple changed their business model (or adjusted it as it saw fit) and me as a consumer had to adjust with. I sincerely hope Apple will be forced to open up and allow companies to offer downloads for free or paid (outside of the App Store directly onto your phone) and or allow companies to sell directly their software outside of the App Store. 
    I mean this sincerely... do you believe that PCs are different than Phones?  And if not... they why not buy an Android and get the open platform that a PC was always built to be?  If you do... does the integrity of the Apple curated platform mean something to you?  It does to me and I don't want to see that value promise compromised.
    maximarasphericwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 96
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    avon b7 said:
    The trickery is mostly web/email related and therefore device independent. There is actually another vector on mobile phones which is SMS. And then you have the age old and eternal problem of old fashioned calls, where someone actually calls you pretending to be someone else and tries to extract information from you. A lot of older people fall for that. 

    My banking app always gives me a splash screen on openings on mobile, warning me of phishing, smishing or other kinds of nefarious attempts to get my personal data.
    On the bright side, I haven't seen a 'security question' when signing up for an account since the last time I did anything with the government.

    foregoneconclusion said:
    It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
    Isn't this a bit like, 'there are only 5 flies in my soup, not 100'? Then, there are apps you can't get on the App Store because Apple decides to play politics, like Gab.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 96
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    Hedware said:
    So for me I will only buy apps from the Apple App Store and will only pay via that Store’s payment gateway. 
    Same here, but partly because I can't think of an app I need on iOS, like MakeMKV (for example), on MacOS. If I could, I'd probably think differently about this.

    ericthehalfbee said:
    Liar. AppleInsider is fair. MCaRumors is a known anti-Apple site disguised as a fan site. The fact you can’t see this tells me all I need to know about you.
    Different approach from what I usually see. I'm not sure which is more fair. AI pulls down whole posts when things get out of control. MacRumors seems to disappear people. Maybe that happens at AI as well, but I get pretty ticked off when I've spent hours participating in some conversation, and then the whole thing goes away in a poof.

    davidw said:
    ... "Side loading" using Xcode requires an Apple Developer account.  It's not something that the average iDevice user can do themselves. ...
    Yeah, it's just obscure and technical enough that it isn't done by many, which keeps things safer as a whole. Well, except for all the bad apps in the App Store.
    crowleyelijahgwatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 55 of 96
    It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
    Isn't this a bit like, 'there are only 5 flies in my soup, not 100'? Then, there are apps you can't get on the App Store because Apple decides to play politics, like Gab.
    No, it's like "we want better app store competition in a market where privacy/security is the most significant competitive difference between app stores, so let's eliminate competitive privacy/security". 
    watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 56 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,431member
    It isn't needed. Prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps are just as good on iOS as on operating systems with 3rd party stores. And the privacy/security is better than other operating systems with 3rd party stores.
    Isn't this a bit like, 'there are only 5 flies in my soup, not 100'? Then, there are apps you can't get on the App Store because Apple decides to play politics, like Gab.
    No, it's like "we want better app store competition in a market where privacy/security is the most significant competitive difference between app stores, so let's eliminate competitive privacy/security". 
    Competitive privacy and security would not be eliminated. The Apple App Store would remain for those who see value in it.

    The difference would be that alternative app stores could compete with it. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 57 of 96
    avon b7 said: Competitive privacy and security would not be eliminated. The Apple App Store would remain for those who see value in it.

    The difference would be that alternative app stores could compete with it. 
    Forced side loading would end the main privacy/security difference between iOS/Android entirely. So that form of competition would be over. As for the other types of competition, they've never actually materialized on Android in 13 years. Epic and Microsoft have never dedicated themselves to creating highly competitive Android stores during that time. They ignored mobile because they thought PCs/consoles were superior, but now that mobile has become a bigger cash cow than PCs/consoles combined they've lobbied governments to force iOS to side load. 
  • Reply 58 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,431member
    avon b7 said: Competitive privacy and security would not be eliminated. The Apple App Store would remain for those who see value in it.

    The difference would be that alternative app stores could compete with it. 
    Forced side loading would end the main privacy/security difference between iOS/Android entirely. So that form of competition would be over. As for the other types of competition, they've never actually materialized on Android in 13 years. Epic and Microsoft have never dedicated themselves to creating highly competitive Android stores during that time. They ignored mobile because they thought PCs/consoles were superior, but now that mobile has become a bigger cash cow than PCs/consoles combined they've lobbied governments to force iOS to side load. 
    It wouldn't end anything. 

    You, for example could freely choose not to use anything other than the App Store. You wouldn't be 'required' to sideload anything and if you did decide to sideload something at some point, it would be you (the user) who takes the decision. Not Apple taking it for you. 

    There are many alternatives to the Play Store. Competition exists. It is a lucrative business. If it weren't, those stores would have a hard time existing. 

    I have three app stores on my phones and two mobile services platforms. 

    elijahg
  • Reply 59 of 96
    avon b7 said: It wouldn't end anything. 

    You, for example could freely choose not to use anything other than the App Store. You wouldn't be 'required' to sideload anything and if you did decide to sideload something at some point, it would be you (the user) who takes the decision. Not Apple taking it for you. 

    There are many alternatives to the Play Store. Competition exists. It is a lucrative business. If it weren't, those stores would have a hard time existing. 

    I have three app stores on my phones and two mobile services platforms. 

    It very obviously ends the main privacy/security difference between Android and iOS. And your claim that forced side loading would still allow iPhone customers to avoid side loading is false. The EU is not mandating that app developers provide their software on both 3rd party and 1st party stores to give customers a choice between a side loaded and non side loaded version.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 96
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,431member
    avon b7 said: It wouldn't end anything. 

    You, for example could freely choose not to use anything other than the App Store. You wouldn't be 'required' to sideload anything and if you did decide to sideload something at some point, it would be you (the user) who takes the decision. Not Apple taking it for you. 

    There are many alternatives to the Play Store. Competition exists. It is a lucrative business. If it weren't, those stores would have a hard time existing. 

    I have three app stores on my phones and two mobile services platforms. 

    It very obviously ends the main privacy/security difference between Android and iOS. And your claim that forced side loading would still allow iPhone customers to avoid side loading is false. The EU is not mandating that app developers provide their software on both 3rd party and 1st party stores to give customers a choice between a side loaded and non side loaded version.
    That difference would remain, not be eliminated. No one would be forced to sideload but the option of alternative sources for apps could exist. 

    The EU hasn't mandated anything yet. It's a proposal. 

    elijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.