Developers Looking to Set Up Alternatives To Apple's App Store

TechDirt is reporting that in response to the frustrations with Apple's app store dictatorship, a few developers are looking to set up their own alternative app stores. Alternate app stores would only work on jailbroken phones, making their adoption scope limited, so the question is whether Apple will go after these start ups on the legal battlefield. "Apple, which collects a 30% commission from sellers on its store, doesn't break out the site's revenue. Brokerage firm Piper Jaffray estimates the site generated about $150 million in sales last year and projects total sales will grow to $800 million this year. Apple did not respond to requests for comment. But it has said in the past that with the iPhone it was trying to strike a balance between a closed device like the iPod and an open device like the PC."

Comments

Anti-competitive behavior?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Surely a case could be made against Apple's anti-competitive behaviour?

In Australia, what Apple is doing is against the law, under our anti-third-line forcing legislation.

Re:Anti-competitive behavior?

[ta bu shi da yu]

That argument doesn't work. eBay was not the only online auction system on the Internet, but they got done like a dinner for third-line forcing when they tried to make everyone in Australia only use PayPal.

Striking a balance

[dmoen]

"the iPhone ... was trying to strike a balance between a closed device like the iPod and an open device like the PC"

The correct "balance" between open and closed is *open*.

Re:Striking a balance

[icebike]

Mr BadAnalogyGuy, is that you?

You can buy any truck you want.

But if you buy a Ford, you have to by Exxon Gas only, and you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford, and you can only use Ford parts, and you can only use Ford windshield washer fluid, and the radio will only tune in the Ford Station.

If you put any item not approved by Ford and sold by Ford in the truckbed your warranty is void and you committed a DCMA violation.

Re:Striking a balance

[icebike]

Apple is not UP Front with their application denial policy. It has never been explicitly publicized, and it is enforced with whimsy and capacious inconsistency. They disallow one app but allow another that does the exact same thing. They disallow competent email apps because they would "compete" with the built in Email app. Compete? (They mean "show up".)

Some apps they refuse to give because Steve Jobs says NO. No other reason. The Iphone Camera can take movies. (Most cell cameras can). Steve says NO. If you jailbreak you can take movies.

If you live in Apple's world, have a Mac at home, you probably think this is just the way it is. But if you come from a Linux or Windows environment you can not conceive of why one Fart app is denied while another is approved. Why you can't send MMS on the device.

And because you are from the Mac world this is ok by you, you are so used to being told exactly what you can and can't do by Apple you know no other way.

Re:screw it

[Kalriath]

I can't find a real moderation for this, so I'll settle for a virtual moderation of "-1 Huh?"

Actually...

[Jon.Laslow]

"If Apple allowed jail broken phones to use the app store..." They do - I frequent the Apple App Store and Cydia on my jailbroken iPhone 3G. The issue is about developers being able to sell apps that aren't permitted on the Apple App Store because they use undocumented APIs, compete with Apple apps, etc...

Old news.... move along...

[diggitzz]

This is old news -- Cydia and associated apps have been available on jailbroken iPhones for at least a couple of years now! The most awesome apps I downloaded through Cydia and its Installer App were the BSD Subsystem, OpenSSH Server (0_o!), and Terminal! With those three in hand, the iPhone became just another node on my network, capable of scripted rsync backups and other automated shell customizations! I think that the realization that the iPhone is a fully functional handheld machine is the primary knowledge that Apple seeks to keep out of the hands/heads of the general public. Perhaps the goal is to sell more Macs... or maybe the goal is to soon "open up" the platform to all developers/apps and topple the monopolistic/racketeering practices of phone cos and rival closed-platform phone/handheld manufacturers, similar to what they did with iTunes and DRM? One can only hope...

but in the meantime, one can just jailbreak the iPhone ;-)

Bundling does NOT automatically mean monopoly

[hellfire]

In US law, for any company to be a monopoly, it has to be the only player in the market, or have a dominant market share in the US market. Microsoft owns 90% of the desktop operating system market. That's a monopoly. Apple isn't even the #1 phone manufacturer in the US yet. It's getting there, but not yet. It's far from dominant in the cell phone industry.

If you are a monopoly, you can't "bundle" basically, because that means you are using your leverage in one market to take advantage of another. If you aren't a monopoly, then it's up to the market to decide if the bundle you created is a buoy for greater sales, or an anchor that sinks you to the bottom. Microsoft has tied IE to it's OS. It used it's OS dominance to edge out Netscape and not allow anyone to preinstall it on PCs, and edge AOL off PC desktops in preinstalls and forced them to put MSN installs on them instead. That's anticompetitive, because AOL and netscape (no matter how they sucked at the time) could not compete by going to a PC manufacture and offering a better deal. That's not the sole reason for their collapse, but by denying consumers choice, you damaged both these company's businesses.

There are no US laws that explicitly state that bundling is across the board illegal. There are no US laws that state bundling itself is a monopoly practice. There are laws that state bundling is illegal for true monopolies. Once you lesser Slashdot peons who don't understand antitrust law get that thru your thick heads, the sooner the elite of this site will allow you to join our ranks, and be allowed to use the abbreviation /.er and be cool like us ;)

Re:Legal Issues

[risk one]

Actually, if these stores can be set up as legitimate for-profit businesses, I wouldn't be surprised if this could lead to an antitrust case, forcing Apple to open up the iPhone.

Or rather, another antitrust case.

Moreover why bother?

[goombah99]

One has to ask what the market sector is here since it is inconvenient for both developers and users. And it seems to me it is, perhaps obviously, only going to be people who have to have contracts with companies that don't use iphones.

That is to say, as a user there is the problem that I can't update my iphone easily. Each time I try there's a high likelihood my jailbreak will bust. And it's also possible my non-apple approved applications will also break. So there's no assured path forward when there is a pressing need to update the phone comes along. even trivial issues could become strong motivations to update: for example perhaps I need a new verison of quiktime to view some new content I want to see.

And for developers. Well why bother when there is the android market beckoning. Surely that market is going to swamp the jailbroken iphone market shortly.

So my feeling is that this ecosystem is going to shrink not grow with time as android takes over and apple issues enough annoying needful updates.

Re:Legal Issues

[mjwx]

On what basis?
It isn't illegal to sell or offer gratis software for a platform.
It isn't illegal to setup a website.

Dont worry, they'll find one. Copyright and Intellectual Property are two of the leading contenders. Remember the "look and feel" lawsuits.

If there really is as much money as they say in this, Apple wants all of it.