The Supreme Court Will Decide If Apple's App Store Is a Monopoly (wired.com)

The Supreme Court will review a 2011 class-action lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of operating an illegal monopoly by not allowing iPhone users to download mobile apps outside of its own App Store, reducing consumer choice. The case, being referred to as Apple Inc. v. Pepper., could have wide-reaching implications for consumers as well as other companies like Amazon. Wired reports: The dispute is over whether Apple, by charging app developers a 30 percent commission fee and only allowing iOS apps to be sold through its own store, has inflated the price of iPhone apps. Apple, supported by the Trump administration, argues that the plaintiffs in the case -- iPhone consumers -- don't have the right to sue under current antitrust laws in the U.S.

The case marks a rare instance in which the court has agreed not only to hear an antitrust case, but also one where no current disagreement exists in the circuit courts. The outcome could change decades of antitrust legal precedent -- either strengthening or weakening consumer protections against monopolistic power. The case also represents a huge source of revenue for Apple; the company raked in an estimated $11 billion last year in App Store commissions alone. The lawsuit centers around another Supreme Court case from 1977, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, "which established what is known as the Illinois Brick Doctrine," reports Wired. "That rule says you can't sue for antitrust damages if you're not the direct purchaser of a good or service."

Comments

I wonder why

[registrations_suck]

I wonder why? And I wonder if they know what a monopoly is..because it's pretty clear Apple's app store isn't.

Re:I wonder why

[fluffernutter]

Or a private website of an app publisher that I can install their app from.

Re: I wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only buy iOS apps from Apple. I can buy ps4 games from Sony's online store, as well as stores like best buy, ebgames.

Looks like Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores.

Re:I wonder why

[registrations_suck]

Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.

I'll wait.

Please link me to the third party manufacturers who are free to manufacture iPhones and distribute them independently from Apple, in exchange for a fair licensing fee.

I'll wait.

Re:I wonder why

[Pseudonym]

That would be the same place you get self-published console games, I presume?

Re:I wonder why

[presidenteloco]

https://www.samsung.com/us/mob...

close enough. Functionally equivalent. More open policy toward apps. Use at own risk.
But a clear, simple option.

Re:I wonder why

[hjf]

hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape.

And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.

Oh but not only Apple doesn't allow you to install other browsers in their iOS. They don't let you install anything not from their app store.

And yet, fanboys defend apple.

Re:I wonder why

[Dog-Cow]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Are you also waiting for a link to third party manufacturers for Toyota Corollas?

Re:I wonder why

[TheFakeTimCook]

I wonder why? And I wonder if they know what a monopoly is..because it's pretty clear Apple's app store isn't.

Exactly. And given iOS' marketshare, I can't imagine ANYTHING that Apple did could be legally considered "monopolistic".

Re:I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

A monopoly isn't about how much market share a company has

Actually, that is precisely what a monopoly is about. Meaning literally, single seller. A monopoly isn't illegal. There are lots of monopolies.
Where you as a monopoly need to be careful, is running afoul of the antitrust laws meant to protect us from corporations turning evil once they lack real competition in a market.

Re:I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.

Re: I wonder why

[pgmrdlm]

fan boi, nothing more. nothing less. You are as evil as the idiots that were Microsoft fan bois. Same with Android and also linux/Unix. You are a hypocrite and an idiot. f.o.a.d. in your fanboi world. Fucking idiot

Re:I wonder why

[Freischutz]

I think he's arguing that it's not the app store Apple should be forced to open up, but the iPhone itself.

As in allowing people to buy a Samsung iPhone.

You mean they should open up the Toyota product line, as in allowing people to buy a Dongfeng built Toyota Avensis and then market it under the Toyota trade mark? I can see how it might be a good idea to allow third party app stores for iOS as long as there are certain guarantees of them filtering out malware. However, forcing Apple to allow competitors to build copies of Apple's devices and to then allow them to market them these copies under Apple's registered trade marks (which is what a 'Samsung iPhone' would be) is a bit much.

Re:I wonder why

[thegarbz]

Yes you're right about the definition of monopoly, but the the parent is right about the impact. Anti-trust laws go beyond monopoly status and are very much related to market power, not just market share.

Re:I wonder why

[Attila Dimedici]

While I do not like the fact that you can only load apps onto an iphone from the app store, I do not support penalizing Apple for doing this. On the other hand, whether the app store legally qualifies as a monopoly depends on how the law is written.

And as another commenter has noted, a lower court has already ruled against Apple. If the Supreme Court did not take the case, the ruling that Apple IS a monopoly would stand. So, you should support the Supreme Court taking the case.

Re:I wonder why

[Merk42]

They don't let you install anything not from their app store.

... and before anyone provides links to the iOS versions of Chrome, Firefox, et al. Keep in mind, they must use the same Webkit rendering engine built in to iOS, so they are effectively just skins of Safari.

Re:I wonder why

[GLMDesigns]

Wow. A majority of the Supreme Court justices considered this worthy enough to review -- but you think that the case brought forward is "obvious."

OK.

Re:I wonder why

[oldmac31310]

Details please. What browsers can you not install in iOS?

Re:I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

I never argued the nature of antitrust laws. They were designed to attack trusts and other market-abusive entities... Probably why they didn't call them antimonopoly laws. I was simply correcting the definition of monopoly.

Re:I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

Couldn't agree more.

Re:I wonder why

[TheFakeTimCook]

Completely irrelevant. They are determining if they are a monopoly in iOS applications. They are, of course, if they're the ones selling the App, not just providing a store. There is nothing inherently illegal about this, unless it's being abused. The question before the court will be whether or not Apple's argument really holds water- that they're not a monopoly because they're not the ones selling the apps, the developers are, via their store.

If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not the ones selling the apps, then the class-action suit must be dropped because it fails the litmus test of being able to sue for damages against a monopoly under antitrust law.

That makes sense, in a twisted legalistic sort of way! ;-)

Thanks for the edjumication!

Re:I wonder why

[bill_mcgonigle]

I "punish" Apple for not allowing me to load my own apps but not buying their stuff, which I think is the best remedy, but I have four app stores on my phone (Android) and that is clearly a point of distinction driven entirely by Apple policy to prevent competition. The FTC could nail them without needing a monopoly finding.

Re:I wonder why

[odysseus_complex]

Just remember: It's okay to be a monopoly, it's not okay to act monopolistically. Basically, you can be the only one on the market to sell widgets, but if you act to prevent another company from entering the widget market you are breaking the law.

Or at least, that's how I understand it.

Re:I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

You're correct in general, but there are more restrictions than that. You can prevent another company from entering the market you have made that only serves your customer base... As long as you don't abuse your monopoly. For instance, if Apple is maintaining a monopoly on App distribution on iOS devices so that it can inflate the price of iOS apps, then they are running afoul of antitrust laws.
You are not allowed to abuse your monopoly, and you're not allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior as a monopoly. Basically, being a monopoly means there are a bunch of extra rules you have to play by.

Re: I wonder why

[DamnOregonian]

I doubt that's true, but I'll admit I can't say for certain it isn't. Can you back it up?

Re:I wonder why

[Tough Love]

remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? ...Nothing kept you from installing Netscape. And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.

Because it was a monopoly, asshole, this is a matter of public record. It is not in dispute except by bottom crawlers such as yourself.

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I said asshole when I should have said idiot. Trotting out misinformation about easily verifiable history one more time. Oh wait, that's exactly what an asshole would do. But I admit, we haven't really determined: asshole, idiot, or both?

Re:I wonder why

[Plumpaquatsch]

hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape.

And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.

Why do you guys always fail to mention that Microsoft had agreed to not tie any products to Windows to get out of another investigation? Are you ignorant of that? Do you not like reality? Does it simply not fit into your narrative?

This wasn't about their monopoly, it was about them violating their probation.

Re:I wonder why

[iamhassi]

Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.

I'll wait.

Cydia, available since 2008. Sorry for making you wait 2 days but you could have googled this on your own. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:I wonder why

[iamhassi]

I think he's arguing that it's not the app store Apple should be forced to open up, but the iPhone itself.

As in allowing people to buy a Samsung iPhone.

He's arguing that it's ridiculous to have the App Store be open because nothing else is open. Is the Xbox and PlayStation store also a monopoly? I can't buy from anywhere else, I can't even jailbreak because if I do I'm ban from using the console online. When does that lawsuit start? Besides, people are already free to jailbreak iPhones and download any app they want, no one is forcing them to download from Apple, that's just the default.

Re:I wonder why

[Macdude]

hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape

And Apple has what percent of the smart phone market again?

Now explain how it's a monopoly and how Apple is abusing it?

Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

According to the article, the appellate court ruled against Apple:

In 2013, a district court in California initially sided with Apple, agreeing that the tech giant was shielded by the Illinois Brick Doctrine. But the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's opinion last year.

If only Apple had allowed side-loading apps a long time ago, I might have bought an iPhone.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

The walled garden is a pro or a con, depending on your perspective.

There is no perspective from which disallowing side-loading is a pro. The "walled garden" doesn't keep malware out. It's a nice convenience, just like Debian's package management system is a nice convenience.

Sideloading disallows you freedoms you could have. If you don't want those freedoms, then disallowing it is neutral for you: it's not a pro.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Xenx]

I think the bigger issue is that the app developers aren't going to develop side-loaded apps unless it's a viable option for people.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Xenx]

If you give the customer the choice of being able to turn on side-loading, you cater to both groups. You just don't turn the setting on if you don't want it. If it's a business concern, I imagine it wouldn't be impossible for management software to lock the setting.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[rmdingler]

Well put.

Clearly, disallowing side-loading benefits no cellphone user. Apple, on the other hand, may benefit, er, infinitesimally.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

According to the article, the appellate court ruled against Apple:

In 2013, a district court in California initially sided with Apple, agreeing that the tech giant was shielded by the Illinois Brick Doctrine. But the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's opinion last year.

If only Apple had allowed side-loading apps a long time ago, I might have bought an iPhone.

Sure - but how much do you think they care about you? There are a number of people that like the iPhone because of it's usability. There are some who know what they are doing, but look at their phone as something really important that they must have total control over. And there are some like me, who know what they are doing, and who look at a phone the same way they look at a refrigerator. I want to turn it on, and I want it to work. And if I want to write apps for it, I will. It isn't terribly difficult.

But for me, at it's tippy top best, any and all smartphones are pretty much crippled toy computers.

And a technically adroit person who won't buy one for whatever reason, be it the expense, or the mythical closed garden, just tells us that that particula phone isn't for you.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[registrations_suck]

To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.

You're totally allowed to do this. You have the freedom not to purchase an iPhone, and instead get an Android phone. Nothing is stopping you. Have at it.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.

Why don't you write your own apps? Then you will know. What appears to be the typical Android user in Slashdot wants to be known as technically adroit enough to ascertain for certain that their Androis Apps are up to snuff - why don't they simply write their own apps?

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

I have no reason to believe you know what you are doing.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Pseudonym]

why don't they simply write their own apps?

Isn't part of the point of FOSS and open platforms that we can do precisely that without having to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Besides, I'm theoretically adroit enough to know that checking a solution is probably in a lower complexity class than crafting a solution.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Pseudonym]

The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.

Honest question to which I don't knownthe answer: is this a significant problem for Android device manufacturers?

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Xenx]

The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.

That problem already exists on computers. It has been there for decades. There is no real difference when it comes to a smartphone. People will be smart/stupid regardless of whichever device it is. Restricting usability because some people are barely smart enough to hit a power button is not the best way to go about things. Hell, by making them find the setting (or have someone find it for them) there is an extra step before they can be "idiots". It's still a one up over computers.

Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.

Yes, because app developers are going to just up and give you the code to compile yourself. I know some would, but I don't see most businesses as wanting to release their apps as code.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[fish_in_the_c]

To me. If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of what i bought as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[LynnwoodRooster]

Given that Android devices outsell iPhones by about 7.5 to 1, I'd say no.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[jezwel]

If it was, you'd have seen news about here by now. The issue must therefore be non-existent, as the vast majority of consumers seem to stick with whatever's most convenient - which is whatever store is already there on the device.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[BronsCon]

Those who avoid that fate still tend to know of at least one other person in their circles who had that happen to them, or started getting text message spam from someone they know who when asked about it said they didn't send that but everyone in their contacts is also complaining to them.

I know two people who've had this happen. Both iPhone users. Get off your fucking high horse.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Reverend Green]

It's not a walled garden. It's a prison state.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

I have no reason to believe you know what you are doing.

I have no reason to care what you believe.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

why don't they simply write their own apps?

Isn't part of the point of FOSS and open platforms that we can do precisely that without having to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Besides, I'm theoretically adroit enough to know that checking a solution is probably in a lower complexity class than crafting a solution.

And I like FOSS on my actual computers. Even though I can write for my iPhone, at it's base level, it is like my refrigerator or microwave. It is an appliance. I don't care about FOSS for my Microwave or my Refrigerator.

And I would have the same reaction if I was using an Android phone. Nothing more than a useful appliance.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Bing Tsher E]

The Apple '1984' ad was pretty condescending.

I can see where it would be extremely insulting to be accused of being one of the drone people in that commercial. However, the shoe fits, to a certain extent.

Deal with it. It grows tiresome watching the Apple-zealot song and dance. Until Apple gave up on producing a real and modern operating system and just let NeXT take them over, Mac OS was a running joke to non koolaide drinkers, i.e. the kind of 'the rest of us' who hang out on /. .

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Dog-Cow]

iOS has always required explicit permission for apps to access the contact list, and has always required apps to function without such access, to the extent possible (e.g. WhatsApp wouldn't be functional without it). So, any user who had their contact list spammed has only themselves to blame. Apple did everything possible except forbid 3rd-party access, and you would be here complaining about that, if it were the case.

I hope all these high horses trample you.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

Yet you post a response.

Yet you do as well.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[goose-incarnated]

Sure - but how much do you think they care about you? There are a number of people that like the iPhone because of it's usability.

My wife has one, its usability is crap. Usability is not subjective, its objective and can be measured empirically. iPhones fail on many of the usability metrics, and its no secret that they do so I keep wondering why so many iPhone users believe that the usability of an iPhone is so good?

You think the usability of an iPhone is good? Watch how many iPhone users fail to discover the different things that the single button it has does. Yup - the iPhone fails multiple usability metrics before you even get to the software.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Pseudonym]

Not worldwide, they don't.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Powercntrl]

The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security.

Nothing is stopping you from buying something at Home Depot which ends up burning down your house and/or sending you to the E.R. Somehow, they still manage to stay in business.

Apple locks down their devices because you're not really buying a piece of hardware. You're paying for the transferable rights to use iOS and its associated services, which just happens to include the requisite hardware as part of your purchase. It's like buying a Magic Band with admission rights to Disney World, but with better hardware specs.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[BronsCon]

iOS has always required explicit permission for apps to access the contact list

So has Android.

and you would be here complaining about that

Hey now, that's a hefty assumption based on... what, exactly? It's not like I was complaining in the first place, merely stating a fact. I use both Android and iOS, I'm intimately familiar with both platforms, and I don't pick favorites as they both have their place; I also have no illusions that one is better, overall, than the other. Again, they both have their place.

I hope all these high horses trample you.

You're such a nice guy, I wish you nothing but the best in life.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[TheFakeTimCook]

why don't they simply write their own apps?

Isn't part of the point of FOSS and open platforms that we can do precisely that without having to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Besides, I'm theoretically adroit enough to know that checking a solution is probably in a lower complexity class than crafting a solution.

Oh, so you think there isn't an F/OSS Community for iOS?

https://github.com/dkhamsing/o...

That's but one repository. Google "iOS open source" and prepare to be surprised.

And before you whine that "oh, so I have to buy a Mac just to Develop for iOS? That's hardly 'Open'!!!" I say, "Many, many Development toolchains and platforms have hosting hardware requirements." This is even more prevalent when targeting an Embedded platform (like iOS), where Dev. Toolchains are OFTEN only offered for one host platform.

Ask any embedded Developer, like me, who happens to prefer their Development Toolchain to execute on their non-Windows platform of choice, be it macOS or Linux, just how frustrating it is to attempt to find ANY IDE tools that will support [x] device. Suffice it to say, I really wouldn't have ANY Windows experience if I hadn't had to run whatever Toolchain that was only available for Windows, just to develop software for whatever particular microcontroller I was targeting.

Oh, and that limitation still largely exists. Fact of life. Sorry.

So, the fact that you have to have a Mac to Develop Open (or Closed) Source software for iOS makes Apple no worse than probably 75% of embedded device OEMs.

But, to un-digress, I hope you will agree at the very least that iOS != Closed Source.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[TheFakeTimCook]

Some, in fact, do. But for Iphone you still need their permission to give the apps away.

No you don't.

You can publish the Source of your App, just like for any other platform, or you can publish a precompiled ".ipa" file, and anyone with a Mac, Windows, or Linux computer can install and run that App using Cydia Impactor.

Completely "legal", according to Apple.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[TheFakeTimCook]

The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security. The problem with a design approach that dumbs things down as much as possible so that any fool can use it is that any fool will use it.

Also, I believe you always could side-load if you wanted by compiling the app yourself with XCode and loading it on the device, or at least you used to be able to do so. I can't remember if Apple started charing some yearly fee to app developers that made this unfeasible even for most tech geeks, but this is about the appropriate number of hoops to keep the kinds of users that would do something utterly stupid from hurting themselves.

#1: Exactly this. Apple enjoys a well-deserved reputation on iOS as being essentially malware-free, and no amount of explaining or blame-laying would restore that reputation THE VERY FIRST TIME some idjit would install a finely-crafted Trojan, and have their IDevice compromised. No thanks!

Yes, you can alalways compile and load any iOS App using XCode. And the on.y time you need anything above a FREE iOS Dev. license is if you are intend to submit same to the iOS App Store for Distrubution.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

With Apple you can make an app and get paid. With Android you can make an app and everyone will pirate it.

That's a point worth considering, piracy is harder on iPhone.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[perpenso]

You need a developer key in order to build and deploy apps to your test environment ($99). On Android, this is free.

Nope, that is no longer the case. You can now compile and run on your own devices without a paid developer account.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

Cool story Bro. I have to be the strangest Apple zealot around, having mostly other platforms.

Yeah, maybe you are.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The walled garden is a pro or a con, depending on your perspective.

There is no perspective from which disallowing side-loading is a pro. The "walled garden" doesn't keep malware out. It's a nice convenience, just like Debian's package management system is a nice convenience.

Sideloading disallows you freedoms you could have. If you don't want those freedoms, then disallowing it is neutral for you: it's not a pro.

Rubbish. There are loads of perspectives where disallowing side-loading is a pro. The walled garden approach is no different from what the vast majority of companies do on their corporate network: verify applications before allowing them onto the network. Your link to the Xcode Ghost malware also refutes your argument more than it supports. That was three years ago and Apple fixed the problem for every user within hours. How many bits of Android malware of the same era are *still* sat on users' devices?

For the 1% of geek iPhone users, you can sideload if you have Xcode. Most of the 99% of iPhone users who aren't geeks would rather be able to download any app safe in the knowledge that an expert has checked that it's not going to hose them.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Wootery]

This You're not really buying hardware meme is getting rather out of hand. The old Google/Facebook treat you as a product, not as a customer line makes some real sense, but you're taking things a bit far.

Unlike many other major tech companies, Apple doesn't derive revenue from advertising and data-mining, but from selling products. Yes, the product is locked-down and it runs proprietary software.

Where does it end? You're not really buying a bicycle, you're buying the ability to cycle to places, which just happens to include the requisite hardware as part of your purchase?

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[asylumx]

For the 1% of geek iPhone users, you can sideload if you have Xcode. Most of the 99% of iPhone users who aren't geeks would rather be able to download any app safe in the knowledge that an expert has checked that it's not going to hose them.

Exactly -- and Xcode requires an apple computer. That indicates more of the same monopoly.

Also, Apple's walled garden is vastly different than the majority of corporate private networks because it's not a private network.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Pseudonym]

Just for the record, I was specifically responding to the "why don't you write your own apps" complaint.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, they do.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[fj3k]

You don't understand the 'not really buying' concept if you think it is similar to the 'the consumer is the product'.

To use your bicycle analogy; if you were unable to fix your own bike, if you had to buy tires from the manufacturer, and if they refused waranty fixes if you had taped streamers to the handle bars, then it would be similar.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

Sure - but how much do you think they care about you? There are a number of people that like the iPhone because of it's usability.

My wife has one, its usability is crap.

um - huh. My wife and I have iPhones, and not had a failure yet. Testimonials aren't worth shit. Yours or mine.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

Usability is not subjective, its objective and can be measured empirically.

If that's the case, why has usability been going downhill ever since someone decided to rename UI to UX?

Respondent is full of it. iPhone is as usable as Android which is as usable as iPhone. Using both, I kinda figured that out.

I chose iPhones because I use a Mac as my main computer because the software I need to use on the Mac is not available on anything else. IOS is tightly integrated with MacOS and will be even tighter soon.

For the same reason, I have some Windows machines because there is software I need to use on those that isn't available on the Mac.

I try to always use what works, rather than schoolboy Ford Versus Chevy stuff. I must confess though, I get enjoyment out of yanking some zealot's chains to watch them squeal in outrage.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Dr. Evil]

Use a developer account.

Unless by "freedom" you mean installing shading apps from sites in China and loading them up with pirated emulator ROMs. Then yeah, IOS sucks for that.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

So now is their going to be a contest for the "strangest apple zealot around" because man you have a lot of competition. Their are some outright nutjobs just on here.

That's okay. If I stand up for Android in a group of Apple fans, they ll tell me I hate Apple and am a Android fanbooi.

It's a funny, hate driven world. Gotta pick one, exalt it as perfect, and hate the other. If oyu hav eot make up reasons, its okay, because you love the right one.

To hell with that crap. I'll just use things that work. In further outrage to the faithful, I've owned both Ford , Chevy, and Mopar.,and at present own Jeeps. And foreign cars. And Pickup trucks. They all worked too.

But the real zealots have one thing over me. They can make up their minds first, on things that have nothing to do with the actual performance of the device. So the person who buys the cheapest Android device riddled with spyware can know he is superior to the Hipster assholes that think they are so superior by buying iPhones. They are more alike than they would ever admit.

And I tease the Android user zealots more just because there are more f them.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[gnasher719]

All those apps that article is talking about are gone (replaced with newer versions). It's not impossible to put a malicious app on the store, but it's harder, more rare, and likely to be removed quickly.

And the app review process makes sure that apps cannot even _ask_ for permissions if there isn't a good reason for the app to get them. So it's not your decision to give the app access to your address book or not use it, it's the developer's decision not to ask for access to your address book, or stay off the store.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[phantomfive]

It's not impossible to put a malicious app on the store, but it's harder, more rare, and likely to be removed quickly.

How do you even know this? Compared to what? What is the mean time of removal for malware on the Apple store?

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[registrations_suck]

To me. If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of what i bought as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.

If they were changing the deal after you bought it, I'd agree. But you know the terms and conditions before you buy....and then you choose to buy. It's unreasonable to then complain about the terms and conditions you previously accepted.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[TheFakeTimCook]

Just for the record, I was specifically responding to the "why don't you write your own apps" complaint.

Sorry to rail on you, then!

I just get tired of all the Slashtards that won't spend 5 seconds on Google to check to see if F/OSS is even a "thing" on iOS. And the answer is, of course it is, within certain boundaries (like requiring the XCode toolchain).

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[fish_in_the_c]

Yes but does that make any sense with any other machine. Would it be legal to sell a pair of scissors with long unreadable legal contact a sesor controlled device that disabled the scissors if you used them paper not made by the company?

I would agree normal market forces should mean such a product would fail. If it doesn't one has to ask how the free market system has been hacked to fail.

Why do we have an FDA. because people insisted on it. People insisted on it because normal markert forces were not enough to stop suppliers from poisoning or killing a unacceptable number of consumers.

So likewise if people's natural property rights are being violated and the product is good question why?

Some situations are illegal regardless of what a desperate or uninformed person is willing to agree to. Example ( minimum wage, indenturedo servitude, slavery, prostitution)

They are wrong because the buyer is harming the seller even if the seller is willing. The principal works both ways.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[dgatwood]

Everyone else however refers to android as the ad infected cheap mobile OS because many people have experienced getting malware infections from apps in the play store ...

Of course, it is worth noting at this point that this isn't a valid justification for not allowing third-party stores or sideloading, because the Play Store is neither.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[tattood]

Would it be legal to sell a pair of scissors with long unreadable legal contact a sesor controlled device that disabled the scissors if you used them paper not made by the company?

There is not a long unreadable legal contact that you need to read to know that you can only buy apps from the App Store. Maybe if you had bought the original iPhone 1 before the App Store was created, then you would have an argument about being forced into something you didn't agree to. But now, after 10 years of existing, anyone who buys an iPhone knows that you can only download apps from the App Store, so parent's argument is valid.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[tattood]

So anyhow - I guess you don't like Unix? If you know your way around MacOS, you know your way around Linux.

I have to disagree with this. I understand your point that Mac OS is built on Unix, but 99% of what the average user would do with a Mac involves the graphical interface. Most Mac users don't even know what the Terminal program is, much less how to use it. The Terminal is the only way that Mac remotely resembles Linux from a user perspective.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

You should be more concerned about keeping your few remaining teeth. Don't forget to stock up on food stamps.

You should be more concerned about making foolish statements that might be construed as threats of physical harm. Always a wise move, for Anonymous Cowards are not beyond law enforcement - it's all a matter of how hard they want to go after you.

Not sayin', just sayin'

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

I like iPhones because, paradoxically (you know, since Apple is ONLY about "money, money, money"), they typically get OS upgrades for five years or more, whereas most Android phones are lucky to have supported upgrades for longer than six months past their intro date. So if you want a phone that the manufacturer will have supported OS upgrades for a few years, Apple is your only choice. Funny how that works ...

That is true. In the length of time that my Samsung Galaxy tablet has been updated twice, I've received a lot of iPhone updates. And Samsung is one of the better Android makers for updates. My wife's tablet has never been updated.

This by the way, is what you lose when rock bottom dollar is the most important purchase decision. Yeah, the Apples often cost more. But part of what you are paying for is OS support. Since Android isbuilt around cheap, the profit margins do not allow for updates on most phones.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[fluffernutter]

More correctly, 0% of MacOS users are able to avoid the graphical interface.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Pseudonym]

Oh, wait, I read that original claim completely backwards. Sorry, my bad.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Plumpaquatsch]

The "walled garden" doesn't keep malware out.

I bet Android users wish they had such problems. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[BronsCon]

Care to cite an example?

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[registrations_suck]

Yes but does that make any sense with any other machine. Would it be legal to sell a pair of scissors with long unreadable legal contact a sesor controlled device that disabled the scissors if you used them paper not made by the company?

I would agree normal market forces should mean such a product would fail. If it doesn't one has to ask how the free market system has been hacked to fail.

Why do we have an FDA. because people insisted on it. People insisted on it because normal markert forces were not enough to stop suppliers from poisoning or killing a unacceptable number of consumers.

So likewise if people's natural property rights are being violated and the product is good question why?

Some situations are illegal regardless of what a desperate or uninformed person is willing to agree to. Example ( minimum wage, indenturedo servitude, slavery, prostitution)

They are wrong because the buyer is harming the seller even if the seller is willing. The principal works both ways.

None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.

Apple isn't saying you can't use apps not made by Apple.
Apple isn't selling snake oil that will kill people or not cure people as advertised.
Apple isn't selling very expensive iPhones to desperate and uninformed people who have no other choices.

Re: Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh calm down. No threat is being made. Just a snide comment.

Note that I was writing that it might be construed as such, and a little reminder that Internet anonymity isn't what lot of people think it is.

Call it a Public service announcement.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[goose-incarnated]

Sure - but how much do you think they care about you? There are a number of people that like the iPhone because of it's usability.

My wife has one, its usability is crap.

um - huh. My wife and I have iPhones, and not had a failure yet. Testimonials aren't worth shit. Yours or mine.

Why'd you snip out my observation that the iPhone's usability is measurably poor? If you think it's good - great, but that is subjective. It performs poorly in metrics, and this can be seen when you watch an iPhone user use their phone. An UI that makes the user think that bluetooth is off, for example, when it actually isn't fails an important metric. A UI Element (like the single button)that does triple duty for unrelated functions fails another important metric.

These aren't testimonials you moron, these are measurable.

Re:Lower court ruled against Apple

[Ol Olsoc]

Why'd you snip out my observation that the iPhone's usability is measurably poor?

Why, because it was a waste of electrons. What means apparently more than anything else in the world to you, means nothing at all to me.

It makes phone calls, it surfs the internet and it runs apps. I don't need it to do anything else, because if I want to do real computing, I have a lot of them. It's a toy, Your Android is a toy as well. They are toys, and you are very excited about this toy.

Me? I have better things to do than bask in the glow of running metrics on my iPhone One of them is trolling android phone users. Not because the Android is poor, or banchmarks one way or another, but because their fans get really excited about them. Its just one more smartphone.

Re:It's not a monopoly

[Wycliffe]

The dispute is over whether Apple, by charging app developers a 30 percent commission fee and only allowing iOS apps to be sold through its own store, has inflated the price of iPhone apps.

Which is a false claim anyway:

• People can download the source code to many iOS apps from GitHub, Gitlab, SourceForge, etc.
• People can download Xcode for free and people can get a Developer Certificate for free to compile and install apps on their own iOS devices.
• You only need to pay Apple $99/year for a Developer Certificate that's enabled to deploy to TestFlight and the App Store.

Even if this is true, this is only for free open source apps. Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous amount of steps to go thru to get an app, this still doesn't give someone the ability to sell an app. Inflated prices and/or monopoly generally refers to apps that you pay money for not open source apps.

I can't see the SCOTUS

[rsilvergun]

siding against Apple on this one. Not after Gorsuch got appointed. He's got a long history of siding with corporations over consumers. The argument will be that you can just get an Android and side load so no monopoly here. Heck, that might even be a valid legal argument.

Re:I can't see the SCOTUS

[DamnOregonian]

No, it won't. This case has nothing to do with Android vs. Apple. It has to do with Apple owning a monopoly on App distribution on iPhones, and whether or not the class action suit ongoing against them has legal standing.

Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for you

[presidenteloco]

IOS is an operating system. So is Android. You don't really care which one you use, as the user experience is similar.

Step 1.
Buy Android Phone:

Step 2. Go to one of:
Play Store
Aptoide.
ApkMirror.
Amazon Appstore.
GetJar.
SlideMe.
AppBrain.
F-Droid.
Mobogenie.

Re:It's not a monopoly

[rmdingler]

People can download the source code to many iOS apps from GitHub, Gitlab, SourceForge, etc. People can download Xcode for free and people can get a Developer Certificate for free to compile and install apps on their own iOS devices. You only need to pay Apple $99/year for a Developer Certificate that's enabled to deploy to TestFlight and the App Store.

Yes. An accurate statement that describes workarounds for a largish percentage of /. readers, yet, almost nil mean Facebook denizens.

There are several recent (political & otherwise) developments that might lead a reasonable person to believe we are not a nation of logical thinkers.

You sure about that?

[Khyber]

From what I'm reading, they are merely deciding on whether the class actually has standing to sue.

Oh, wait, /. editors don't actually do any real editing.

Re:You sure about that?

[DamnOregonian]

From what I'm reading, they are merely deciding on whether the class actually has standing to sue.

Well, you're not wrong... but you're implying that the summary isn't, and it is.
Whether or not they have standing is based on the litmus test for whether or not Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of applications to iOS devices, and whether or not such a thing can even be a monopoly. So in essence, they are ruling on whether or not Apple's App Store is a monopoly.

Re:You sure about that?

[1ucius]

Yea, it's weird they didn't grab some app developer, too e.g., Gab.

Re:You sure about that?

[Khyber]

"So in essence, they are ruling on whether or not Apple's App Store is a monopoly."

No, they are not by any means. They are ruling on basic procedure first, that is determining standing. AFTERWARDS, this will get sent back to lower courts, and trial for the monopoly claim will begin (or in this case, resume,) and THEN a ruling will be issued either for or against Apple.

The legal system isn't as cut and dry as you think.

Re:You sure about that?

[DamnOregonian]

Wrong again, chap.
Whether or not they have standing is directly dependent on whether or not they have a monopoly.
For against Apple has *nothing* to do with whether or not they have a monopoly. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. But if they have a monopoly, then the class in the class action suit has standing to sue.

Re:You sure about that?

[Khyber]

Wrong again, and I have tons of actual fucking civil court experience to back it up.

"Whether or not they have standing is directly dependent on whether or not they have a monopoly."

No, whether or not they have standing is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Even if the court finds evidence for standing, this gets remanded back to the lower court for a ruling update.

And even if they are found to not have standing for the reasons they stated, they still have an opportunity to demonstrate other anti-competitive things.

BECAUSE THIS TRIAL WAS NOT ABOUT BEING A MONOPOLY (as Apple is not a monopoly by most any legal definition) I T WAS ABOUT BEING ANTI-COMPETITIVE.

You don't need to be a monopoly to be accused of being anti-competitive.

Try again when you've kicked big company ass like I have (Electronic Arts fell before me. Nice thud they made.)

Re:You sure about that?

[DamnOregonian]

Oh man. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
I get that you have some experience in the field, but you should be smart enough to know that your experience doesn't make you all-knowing.
The petitioners are claiming they have standing to sue based on Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 15(a).

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15(a), provides that “any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws . . . shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”

In their complaint, they are asserting that Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Title 15 of the United States Code, Section 2.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, makes it unlawful for any “person . . . [to] monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.”

As you can see, the suit's standing is asserted statutorily by the Clayton Act, in supposition that Apple is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as an entity that isn't an "innocent monopoly". If Apple is determined not to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, then the Class has no standing to sue. Ergo, the determination by the Supreme Court will be whether or not Apple is engaging in monopolistic behavior, which in the Sherman Antitrust Act, means a non-natural monopoly.

Ergo, the court will rule whether or not Apple is a monopoly when they rule whether or not the class has standing to sue.
This has nothing to do with any penalty against Apple- that's not the court's job. But they will in fact rule whether or not they are a monopoly as determined by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Here's your sign.

Re:Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for yo

[Applehu Akbar]

Step 1.

Buy Android Phone:

...

Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.

I hope Apple fails on this...

[vix86]

If Apple loses this, then maybe they'll be forced to provide options for allowing side-loading apps with the general populace. This would allow GPL licensed libraries and applications to become available on iOS devices. The GPL requires that code licensed under it be redistributal and usable anywhere; however, there is a license agreement when you make and publish apps on the App Store that limits the code reuse capabilities. Some relevant links, 1 2.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, it might allow other app store options much like Amazon's store on android. This could also allow open source package managers. It may make iPads actually useful for something besides consuming content.

It would also protect Mac OS and Windows devices from having the same fate.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[wwphx]

I disagree. At least at a minimal level Apple inspects code to try and find malware, they also have standards about reading address books and such. If third parties start selling software for side-loads, frankly I don't trust them to not do this. I admit some creepy software has gotten in to the Apple Store, and it gets yanked as soon as it's revealed to be creepy. I read about creepy apps in the Android store, and it seems to depend upon which Android store it's discovered on whether or not anything happens. There seems to be a lot more caveat emptor in the Android app marketplace, and I really don't want to be bothered with it.

I've been on iPhones since the 4S, I tried Androids and I just don't care for the OS. Personal preference, to each their own. iPhones work just fine for me, I neither need nor want side-loading. If the case breaks in the direction of allowing side-loading for iOS, I'll continue getting my apps only from Apple unless somehow they rule that the Apple Store must go away, and I can't see that happening.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[AmiMoJo]

Relying on code review and automated behaviour scans is a solid fail. They need to make the OS robust enough to give the user full control of what apps can and cannot do, and explain the consequences to the user better.

As for Android, the Play Store is no worse than Apple's App Store. The only other one I use is the open source F-Droid store, which of course means accepting all the risks associated with any open source package manager like you would find in any Linux distro.

The main issue I have with the Apple App Store is the very poor search function. If you don't know the specific app name it's very hard to find something good. There is far too much crap on there and somehow the crap seems to bubble to the top of the results. To be honest I'm not sure there are any good English learning apps for Chinese speakers, they were all either too advanced or obviously developed by people with no teaching experience. YouTube is much better, but of course blocked in China.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[swillden]

There seems to be a lot more caveat emptor in the Android app marketplace, and I really don't want to be bothered with it.

Then don't bother with it. You can continue using only Apple's store, no one will force you to use other stores, should they be allowed. But you obviously don't speak for all iDevice owners, at least some of whom would like more options.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[gnasher719]

There is no reason why GPL licensed code cannot run on on iPhone. Your "license" argument is nonsense, you can use your own license on the App Store (but must agree to the minimum terms of Apple's license, that's not something GPL should have a problem with).

The problem with GPL licensed software on iOS is that copyright holders of GPL licensed software told Apple they didn't want their software on the App Store. And if the copyright holder doesn't want their software on the App Store, then Apple removes it. Apple just doesn't get involved in arguments between copyright holders and licensors. If you use GPL licensed code, 100% observing the license, and therefore completely legal, but the copyright holder says "no", then Apple doesn't get involved in that argument and the app stays outside until copyright holder and licensor agrees.

(I hope everyone understands that GPL licensed code has a copyright holder, who has given you a license, but might not like what you are doing. That copyright holder would lose in court, but Apple doesn't run a court).

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[bigpat]

If Apple loses this, then maybe they'll be forced to provide options for allowing side-loading apps with the general populace. This would allow GPL licensed libraries and applications to become available on iOS devices. The GPL requires that code licensed under it be redistributal and usable anywhere; however, there is a license agreement when you make and publish apps on the App Store that limits the code reuse capabilities. Some relevant links, 1 2.

Technical legal merits aside... and yes I think the Supreme Court will send this back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs should have standing to sue, but the crux of the issue is whether this is good or bad for consumers.

And it is clearly bad for consumers to allow Apple to continue to monopolize their ecosystem from top to bottom. Apple is too big for that now. This has or inevitably will lead to stagnation in the marketplace, higher costs for consumers, less choice already. It is the classic situation of bad for consumers and bad for the free market that drives anti-trust laws.

Re:I hope Apple fails on this...

[tlhIngan]

If Apple loses this, then maybe they'll be forced to provide options for allowing side-loading apps with the general populace. This would allow GPL licensed libraries and applications to become available on iOS devices. The GPL requires that code licensed under it be redistributal and usable anywhere; however, there is a license agreement when you make and publish apps on the App Store that limits the code reuse capabilities. Some relevant links, 1 2.

Oh, you mean Apple hasn't for the past 3 years allowed side loading?

There's a whole ecosystem around apps that are not allowed in the App Store - lots of emulators for iOS are available.

In fact, it's slightly ironic, because Apple is enforcing the provision that if you use this, the app MUST be open-source. You cannot ship just binaries and have the build system link it. (Well you could, but Apple frowns on that). It's why there's a whole ecosystem of apps for iOS that are source only, but things like f.lux didn't (they p rovided binaries only).

And if you don't care, there are tools for Windows that use the same mechanisms to sideload precompiled apps the same way. It's only the official tool (Xcode) that Apple requests you supply source with.

And yes, there is slight irony in that Apple is doing the open-source enforcement thing.

Nintendo did the same shit

[reanjr]

NES cartridges were a design patented by Nintendo. It has been reported that premium games ($50) had a $15 fee paid to Nintendo for the use of the patented cartridge. How is that any different?

Yes, Tengen existed and worked around the patent, just as jailbreakers can work around the iPhone lock down.

Re:Nintendo did the same shit

[Nothing2Chere]

After you bought that cartridge did Nintendo's decision to stop selling that product prevent you from using it when you bought a new TV? Did it stop working, or were you able to continue to use your purchased product after they decided to stop selling it?

Re:Nintendo did the same shit

[Dog-Cow]

I've used several apps over the years after they were removed from the App Store. Your analogy is stupid because it demonstrates the opposite of what you expected.

Re:Nintendo did the same shit

[91degrees]

Well, a patent is a monopoly by intent. I think that's the main difference.

Should be illegal

[fish_in_the_c]

If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of it as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.

Re: Should be illegal

[Bing Tsher E]

If you bought a Sony DVD player, Sony can't prevent other companies from producing DVD disks, that you can play on it.

Re: Should be illegal

[fish_in_the_c]

Making a copy of data is more complex, because there is a difference between a physical device that you own the dvd and the data you bougt a liscense to use but On the other hand zone coding to control which counties you can play your DVD in is an obvious violation of the intent of those laws and should be illegal. Also morality of using technology as way of enforcement of law is morally questionable. Esp when that technology prevents you from doing what is legal in your country.

Re: Should be illegal

[fish_in_the_c]

No but the dvd consortium prevents Sony from selling a DVD player in the United States that can play a DVD you bought in japan.

I owe PhantomFive $100. You owe me

[raymorris]

Suppose I owe PhantomFive $100.
You owe me $100.
He emails me asking "hey, where's the $100 you owe me?"
I reply "I can't afford to pay you until rsilvergun pays me".

Then he sues you, and so do I.

He tells the court "I got shorted because rsilvergun didn't pay Ray. If rsilvergun had paid Ray, Ray would have paid me." At the time time, I'm suing you because you didn't pay me.

He would not prevail in his suit against you. First, you owe *me*, not him. You and I may have worked out a payment plan, or could have a lawsuit, or whatever that he does even know about. Secondly, his claim is based on the hypothetical "if rsilvergun paid Ray, Ray would have paid me". Maybe I would have, maybe not. Maybe I would have made a partial payment, maybe none at all.

That's the legal issue in this case. Apple charged PUBLISHERS 30% (vs 8%-18% other payment processors charge, and unknown marketing costs). Publishers could sue Apple for forcing them to pay that 30%. Here a third-party, some users, are saying "if Apple didn't charge publishers as much, publishers wouldn't charge me as much." Maybe so, maybe not. It's a hypothetical from a third party. Major publishers, such as Google and Steam could sue over the 30% they have to pay.

Intuitively, at a gut level, I'd like this particular case to go forward, but it's hard to formulate a rule that gives the result we want in this case without leading to ridiculous results. Suppose I don't pay my car payment and I tell the bank "I would have the money to pay my car note, if I hadn't spent so much on iPhone apps." Should the car company then sue Apple over my car loan? What if my bank owes somebody money? Should that other person sue me because the bank didn't pay them?

I generally like Apple's products but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they lose. There's no legitimate reason why an iOS version of macOS's Gatekeeper doesn't exist. It can default to allowing only App Store apps and allowing managed devices to be further restricted, but if I want to install unapproved software on my entirely personal device, I should be able to do so at my own risk.

PS - on a tangent

[raymorris]

This is totally going off on a tangent, but it's kind of an interesting story, I think.

Many years ago, the porn industry went through a period of doing pretty much what I described above. For example, John owed Dave, Dave owed Mike, Mike owed Ray, and Ray owed John, but nobody had any money. So they resolved all the debts with phone calls, without any actual money changing hands, after realizing that the money John owed would eventually end up back with him. There was a lot of that going on for a couple weeks.

A major payment processor suddenly shut off all payments to and from anyone they suspected might be even indirectly involved with adult web sites. This created a cash crunch even for companies who didn't use that processor, because their customers couldn't pay them. In turn, they couldn't pay their vendors. The whole ecosystem of the industry was screwed. Porn sites couldn't pay the content providers (photographers), who therefore couldn't pay the hosting companies, who then couldn't pay their consulting server admin and security guy, who in turn couldn't pay for the content he used on his side-business site, etc.

I started a spreadsheet of who owed who and started making phone calls. "John owes you money and you owe Mike, and Mike owes me. John is going to hook me up with something I need, so all those accounts will be cleared up, okay?"

Next call "I owe you, but you owe John. I've talked to John and he says you are clear with him if I'm clear with you, okay?"

It was an interesting time. Thinking back on it, I might have been able to take a 5% cut of each transaction :)

Re:It's not a monopoly

[sit1963nz]

A 1MB App sold through the store for $20 costs Apple the exact same storage, backup, and data transmission costs as a 1MB Free App. Developers are free to set their own price, including free. And the software can be made available all over the world, and a Chinese Developer can compete on equal footing with an American, French, Australian, Mexican developer in every country. You only need to look at Android to see that Apples Walled garden is actually the better option for 99% of owners.

Re: This is not like energy or transportation

[Bing Tsher E]

If Apple was the only company making apps for their iGadgets, you might have a point. However, they step in between the people who buy their hardware and third parties they would like to get software from. They prevent them from doing business with whomever they would like to buy software to run on it.

Re:Lower court ruled against Appl

[TheFakeTimCook]

To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.

You're totally allowed to do this. You have the freedom not to purchase an iPhone, and instead get an Android phone. Nothing is stopping you. Have at it.

Exactly this.

And what's especially disingenuous about fluffernutter's screed is that he is an iOS Developer, according to him "Because [he] has to go where the money is" (paraphrasing).

In other words, even Developers that NEVER miss an opportunity to bash Apple, on every possible point, STILL recognize that Apple's App Store model is the only one which is good for Developers, like him.

And we all know what happens to App ecosystems where Developers see no real advantage to them, right?

Ask Microsoft.

Better yet, ask any "mobile" Developer whether they'd rather Develop for iOS or Android.

Apple's model "just works".Notheing is perfect; but, in the. Vast majority of cases, Apple's way seems to be the best compromise for everyone involved

Re:Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for yo

[muffen]

Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.

Very interesting, firstly because you think the malware situation is that bad on Android whilst you most likely use a computer, and secondly because you think that using antivirus would make a difference.

I hate apple, but Android should face the same

[pgmrdlm]

Just saying.

Re:I hate apple, but Android should face the same

[iampiti]

Could you elaborate? As far as I can think in Android the situaction is completely different:

• You can "sideload" applications
• You can install alternative app stores (there's even some that specialise in open source apps)
• You don't have to pay any money to develop an app and install it in your Android devices. You just need the free (as in beer) Android SDK

Hoping for the win, next stop comcast

[HockeyPuck]

Then Comcast will be forced to enable cable tv subscribers to get content from other pay-per-view providers (like Netflix) through the cable box.

Re:Hoping for the win, next stop comcast

[dcw3]

Apples vs Oranges (or Comcasts)

It's a false equivalence. Yes, Comcast (and others) should be treated as monopolies because they are on a local basis. Apple is not.

For enterprise, Apple is not the only source

[perpenso]

Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.

I'll wait.

Any organization that signed up with Apple as an enterprise developer can directly distribute to members of the organization.

For open source anyone can build the app

[perpenso]

Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.

I'll wait.

For open source apps I believe anyone can download Apple's free Xcode development environment, build the app and run it on their device

Re:For open source anyone can build the app

[oldmac31310]

Allude doesn't mean what you think it means, AC. Using it does not make you seem clever.

Re:For open source anyone can build the app

[perpenso]

Is this the method that requires Apple hardware? I think there are ways to get around it, but it is NOT as simple as you allude it to be.

Yes, Xcode is macOS specific. However for Windows there is the free community version of Visual Studio from Microsoft, I believe it can create iOS apps too.

Distribute your app as open source

[perpenso]

If your app is open source you are free to distribute the source code outside the App Store. Users can then download Apple's free Xcode development environment and build your app themselves and run it on their devices.

Re:Distribute your app as open source

[phantomfive]

Users can then download Apple's free Xcode development environment and build your app themselves and run it on their devices.

That's a crap solution, and you know it.

Re: Distribute your app as open source

[fluffernutter]

Lol... I am a regular linux user and it has something called a 'package manager'. If that fails, you can download a binary. You don't have to build anything. I haven't built anything for years and the last time I did it, it was just because it was absolutely bleeding edge.

Will slowing growth prompt more openness?

[swb]

I keep thinking that part of the reason Apple has been such a closed garden and kept such a stranglehold on i-device hardware and software is that opening up the platform is a late-stage, slowing-growth expansion strategy they plan to unleash once they have significant declines in iPhone sales volumes.

I can't help but think there's a world of potential uses for iPhones that get stymied because of Apple's restrictions on software functionality, I/O devices etc. It's a small computer with built-in display and camera -- if you had PC-like wide-open software and hardware integration, I think new and novel uses would explode.

Stupid Lawsuit

[dcw3]

Really? This requires a SCOTUS decision?!? If the iPhone were anywhere close to being the only choice, you might be able to make a case. But it's not, and Apple's not anywhere close to a monopoly.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit

[1ucius]

You're missing the point of the lawsuit. For now, this is about boring legal stuff: who is able to being a lawsuit and who can't.

Re:"Apple, supported by the Trump administration"

[1ucius]

The Trump administration deserves credit for supporting a company with whom they have an ongoing feud.

Re:Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for yo

[ncc74656]

Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.

Funny...I've never needed antivirus on my phone in the nearly five years that I've been running Android phones. I don't even have antivirus on my Windows installs, and they've never been pwned either.

If I have a lawn sale in my yard

[presidenteloco]

And I decide to let some of the neighbors sell their stuff too at my lawn sale, by renting a table,
should I be able to decide which stuff they can sell there?
Like. You can't sell those bicycles because I'm trying to sell mine.
Or you can't sell edible, sharp-cornered kids toys.
Or coffee mugs with stupid logos on them, because, well just because.

The general point is you are perfectly free to set up your own lawn sale in your yard if you don't like the conditions,
and as a shopper, you can go to their yard, with all the sketchy stuff for sale, or my nice orderly yard.

You have free choice. You are not locked in to my yard.

Re:If I have a lawn sale in my yard

[bondsbw]

Your analogy doesn't compare. It even fails to address the topic at hand, that Apple has exclusive rights to sell apps to anyone using their platform.

So no, I'm not free to set up my own lawn sale. I am required to go through you since you are the builder of my house. You are one of just a handful of property sellers in the country, and I'd have to move far, away from my family and friends, to use another seller. But most of those guys are fairly strict too. None of this resembles a market that benefits from real competition.

Re:If I have a lawn sale in my yard

[presidenteloco]

Thing is, it's well known that the neighborhood you moved into is the one with uniform design standards, exclusivity, quality control etc.
It's also well known that freedom-lovers tend to move across the street, where anything goes.

So my analogy is fine, and one more thing.... get off my lawn! :-)

Re:If I have a lawn sale in my yard

[DamnOregonian]

That doesn't quite work...
The problem isn't their control over their store. It's that as a store that basically enforces itself as the only possible distributor of bicycles in the world, they're subject to antitrust regulations. This protects people who want to buy bicycles from you jacking up the cost of bicycles beyond what a free market would reasonably allow.
If apple allowed side-loading of apps, or existence of other stores- then they would circumvent this antitrust problem.
Also, if the court decides that you can't actually have a monopoly on the distribution of something that you're not selling, then they're also free from it. Otherwise, they will be subject to antitrust law, and it won't be pretty for them.

Re:If I have a lawn sale in my yard

[bondsbw]

But I still can't sell to anyone who lives in houses you've built across the whole country. Since you built 1/5 of all the houses, that limits my income quite a bit.

And worse, you get to decide what meets your guidelines after I've invested all the work. I built a company to sell bicycles, which do not appear to violate any guideline you provided, then I invested all the R&D and development effort and even worked with you the whole time to make sure everything is legit. But then when the bikes are supposed to go up for sale, you decide "Nah, you can't sell those." You don't say why. A few months later you open up a bicycle division.

Difference: Microsoft = chastened monopolist

[rsborg]

hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape.

And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.

Oh but not only Apple doesn't allow you to install other browsers in their iOS. They don't let you install anything not from their app store.

And yet, fanboys defend apple.

So the rules are changed if you have monopoly position. Microsoft at the time had a consent decree they had to abide by (which they ignored). Then they got convicted for doing what they weren't supposed to do.

Re:Trump doesn't do anything but treason

[Khyber]

If you think I sound upset, you must be projecting your own emotions. Perhaps you should sue Trump for the mental illness he's obviously created in you while you're after him for being a treasonous fuck.

Re:Trump doesn't do anything but treason

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If you're going to be upset about trivial shit like that while Trump commits ongoing treason, you really have your outrage priorities in order.

Trump may be terrible, but this is Russian trolling counter-ops. The goal is not to persuade against him, but anger his supporters to make them more likely to vote, thus preserving Trump.

Apple will Cite Security --- my first bet

[OppMan29]

They will claim that if they allow other app stores to sell and install apps it will somehow make the phone less secure. .

Re:Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for yo

[iamhassi]

Using Android doesn't cause viruses or malware. It's downloading android apps that cause malware. Run antivirus every time you download a new app. Infected android phones = 36,000,000+. Infected iPhones = 0 https://bgr.com/2017/05/29/jud...

Re:Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for yo

[iamhassi]

Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.

Funny...I've never needed antivirus on my phone in the nearly five years that I've been running Android phones. I don't even have antivirus on my Windows installs, and they've never been pwned either.

Just because you don't use protection does not mean you are clean. You need protection with android phones. 36,000,000+ infected in just 2017 https://bgr.com/2017/05/29/jud...

Re:Lower court ruled against Appl

[atrex]

I'd argue that there's some distinctions you're failing to make here.

The iOS Dev that has to dev for iOS because "that's where the money is" is probably referring to the market penetration of iPhones and iPads, not the Apple App Store which comes along with the iPhone.

Second, why do developers prefer to develop for iOS over Android? It's most definitely not because of the App Store. It's because there is only one manufacturer for iOS devices and only two product lines they have to worry about, the iPhone and the iPad. Both of which run the same or exceedingly similar versions of iOS. It significantly reduces the amount of QA they need to (or at least should) do when testing their apps.

Given the opportunity, I'd wager that many iOS Devs would jump at the chance to use a different distribution platform for their iOS apps. And, you know it's not just apps. Apple forbids any kind of third party application that even remotely resembles a marketplace. You can't rent or buy movies via the Amazon Movies or Google Play Movies Apps on an iPhone - you have to instead purchase/rent the content via another device or PC before you can stream it to your iOS device. No such restriction for iTunes though.

Valve's Steam Link App was booted off the App Store because it dared to display a list of games that looked like a marketplace - even though the games were all PC games and not software for iOS (I don't even think that they were available for purchase either).

All that does show that Apple is using their position as a hardware manufacturer and operating system developer to advantage their own software and entertainment marketplaces over those of it's competitors, either by completely preventing outside marketplaces from operating or by hampering the usage there of.

Unlike Microsoft however in the days when it got smacked around, Apple doesn't have near as much of the smart phone market share as MS had of the PC OS market share back then (which I believe was close to or over 90%). So you're not wrong in saying that consumers have a choice whether or not to buy an iOS or an Android device. But, this question is more about the developers choice of how to distribute their application. On iOS it's the App Store or not at all. So one can argue that the App Store has a 100% monopoly on distribution of iOS software. In other words, a developer that runs afoul of Apple's censors could find their app and themselves permanently banned from the App Store, flushing untold man hours down the toilet and leaving that developer with no alternatives. You also can't have anyone else start a new marketplace and say "Hey, I can provide a secure marketplace for transactions and ensure applications are trustworthy more efficiently than Apple, so I'm only going to charge a 10% commission".

Re:Lower court ruled against Appl

[TheFakeTimCook]

I'd argue that there's some distinctions you're failing to make here.

The iOS Dev that has to dev for iOS because "that's where the money is" is probably referring to the market penetration of iPhones and iPads, not the Apple App Store which comes along with the iPhone.

Second, why do developers prefer to develop for iOS over Android? It's most definitely not because of the App Store. It's because there is only one manufacturer for iOS devices and only two product lines they have to worry about, the iPhone and the iPad. Both of which run the same or exceedingly similar versions of iOS. It significantly reduces the amount of QA they need to (or at least should) do when testing their apps.

Given the opportunity, I'd wager that many iOS Devs would jump at the chance to use a different distribution platform for their iOS apps. And, you know it's not just apps. Apple forbids any kind of third party application that even remotely resembles a marketplace. You can't rent or buy movies via the Amazon Movies or Google Play Movies Apps on an iPhone - you have to instead purchase/rent the content via another device or PC before you can stream it to your iOS device. No such restriction for iTunes though.

Valve's Steam Link App was booted off the App Store because it dared to display a list of games that looked like a marketplace - even though the games were all PC games and not software for iOS (I don't even think that they were available for purchase either).

All that does show that Apple is using their position as a hardware manufacturer and operating system developer to advantage their own software and entertainment marketplaces over those of it's competitors, either by completely preventing outside marketplaces from operating or by hampering the usage there of.

Unlike Microsoft however in the days when it got smacked around, Apple doesn't have near as much of the smart phone market share as MS had of the PC OS market share back then (which I believe was close to or over 90%). So you're not wrong in saying that consumers have a choice whether or not to buy an iOS or an Android device. But, this question is more about the developers choice of how to distribute their application. On iOS it's the App Store or not at all. So one can argue that the App Store has a 100% monopoly on distribution of iOS software. In other words, a developer that runs afoul of Apple's censors could find their app and themselves permanently banned from the App Store, flushing untold man hours down the toilet and leaving that developer with no alternatives. You also can't have anyone else start a new marketplace and say "Hey, I can provide a secure marketplace for transactions and ensure applications are trustworthy more efficiently than Apple, so I'm only going to charge a 10% commission".

First: Why not let fluffernutter speak for himself? I had seen his anti-Apple posts for quite some time, and believe me, he is not shy about posting his opinions. I don't think he needs his Mommy to fight his battles.

Having said that, I will go ahead and address your "argument".

According to everyone at Slashdot, Apple is just barely hanging-on with a miniscule market-share. So, why would Devs. be SO anxious to get their Apps placed in the iOS App Store, even though it may mean they have to invest in a Development Platform that they personally don't like to one degree or another?

I'll tell you why: Because, unlike the VAST majority of cheapskate Android owners (most of which are kids or poor adults) WON'T PAY for Apps, and only look to see what they can leech for Free, or PIRATE. Conversely, although iOS owners certainly enjoy a good, free App, they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to reward Devs. that produce a useful App with their actual MONEY.

You will just argue that iOS owners are duped into purchasing Apps they don't like, because Apple doesn't have "Free Trials". Well, that argument ignores the fact that Apple has ALWAYS had a 14-day money-back for ALL p

Re:Lower court ruled against Appl

[atrex]

Well, I am not everyone at slashdot, you can tone down the rabid fanboyism a bit. I'm fully willing to acknowledge that iOS has 54% of the mobile OS market share while Android has 45%. http://gs.statcounter.com/os-m... Hence why I believe the developer, even if he does happen to be as anti-Apple as you claim, isn't wrong about not being able to leave money on the table when it comes to the question of whether or not to develop his application for iOS or not.

No, I don't expect Apple to host a market place app on the App Store any more than I expect Google Play to make the Amazon App Store downloadable through their storefront. What I pointed out (or meant to point out) is that:

As for the "restricting content providers", Apple has many content-provider Apps on the iOS App Store. Netflix and Hulu immediately come to mind, as does HBO Go, Many Network and Cable-Channel Apps, DirecTV Now, and most Cable Providers' Apps. ALL of those Apps are FREE; plus, NONE of that content, most of which requires a subscription with the App Publisher of one sort or another, makes Apple ONE THIN DIME. But of course they make it easy for iTunes.

1) Apple uses their platform to advantage iTunes (as considered being a separate application compared to the App Store, whether they are integrated or not) over other entertainment applications by forbidding those applications from offering In-App rentals or purchases. This has nothing to do with subscription based entertainment applications (though there is some overlap when considering Amazon Prime & Amazon Movies). This appears to be potentially monopolistic, but, it is slightly off-topic (even though I brought it up first) since we're supposedly talking about developers and Apps here.

2) What you've pointed out is that Apple will allow a user to place the phone in developer mode and then compile source code or manually install a pre-compiled ipa using a PC based application. This is beyond most users and this is not true side-loading. What Android allows is turning off a simple setting in the security settings (Allow Installation from Unknown Sources) and then opening the apk on the phone/tablet or via a browser link - no PC or Developer mode required.

While I do see evidence of some third party App Stores for iOS (TUTUApp, TweakBox, FlekStore) the fact that they talk about downloading paid apps for free (something I would not condone) points out their illegitimacy/illegality. Others (Cydia, GetJar, Appland) apparently require jailbreaking the device in order to use. And again, since there is no side-loading in iOS, installing any of these is prohibitive or difficult beyond most users.

I wouldn't really say iOS is easier to develop for, I would say it's easier to QA for.

I'll tell you why: Because, unlike the VAST majority of cheapskate Android owners (most of which are kids or poor adults) WON'T PAY for Apps, and only look to see what they can leech for Free, or PIRATE. Conversely, although iOS owners certainly enjoy a good, free App, they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to reward Devs. that produce a useful App with their actual MONEY.

There are many premium smartphones running Android that cost just as much if not more than iPhones, and they often have hardware that is arguably or just straight out superior to an equivalently priced iPhone.

There are plenty of paid apps on Android marketplaces and plenty of people that have no issues paying money for them. Using broad categorizations and name calling does not help your argument.

You will just argue that iOS owners are duped into purchasing Apps they don't like, because Apple doesn't have "Free Trials". Well, that argument ignores the fact that Apple has ALWAYS had a 14-day money-back for ALL purchases, INCLUDING iOS APPS. They don't make a big deal about it; but it is there, and you don't have to "be

Re:Lower court ruled against Appl

[TheFakeTimCook]

From what I have heard, due to fragmentation and zillions of versions in the field at any one time, Android is significantly harder to both Develop AND QA-for than iOS. YOMV (Your Opinion May Vary)...

Apple has hands-down the most performant mobile hardware and OS. That's not fanboyism; that's been shown year-after-year in benchmark after benchmark. Sorry! But what I was referring to is the fact that, the only reason Android's marketshare beats Apple's AT ALL is the proliferation of low-end cheap/free phones, although Apple has made some serious inroads in the past few years on that score.

I'm almost positive my cable-provider's Spectrum TV App will let me Rent Pay-per-View movies/programs for viewing on my iPhone/iPad, but running it just now, I might have to retract that statement. Hmm. I will have to do some more research...

No, I wasn't talking about Pirate-ware sites. I am not condoning those, either.

Cydia Impactor does not require a jailbroken iOS device. In fact, I think it will only work with a non-jailbroken device (but don't quote me on that).

I agree it isn't as easy as flipping a switch in Android; but it isn't horrible, either. Keep in mind that a Developer ID from Apple is FREE, unless you plan on Publishing to the App Store (that's when it is $99/yr). But here are the steps to install an .ipa file on iOS without jailbreaking, using Impactor:

http://www.shoutpedia.com/use-...

Apparently, iOS 11 broke Impactor; but from what I read, it is all better now... ;-)