The Supreme Court Will Decide If Apple's App Store Is a Monopoly (wired.com) 256
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."
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."
I wonder why (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If they're determined not to be a monopoly, as in they're not
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the same place you get self-published console games, I presume?
Here's a list of mobile phone app stores for you (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Step 1.
Buy Android Phone:
...
Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:2)
https://www.samsung.com/us/mob... [samsung.com]
close enough. Functionally equivalent. More open policy toward apps. Use at own risk.
But a clear, simple option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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'
For enterprise, Apple is not the only source (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:I wonder why (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower court ruled against Apple (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Lower court ruled against Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no reason to believe you know what you are doing.
I have no reason to care what you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you post a response.
Yet you do as well.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re:Lower court ruled against Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [bbc.com]. 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: (Score:2)
Well put.
Clearly, disallowing side-loading benefits no cellphone user. Apple, on the other hand, may benefit, er, infinitesimally.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 of
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 Appl (Score:3)
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 ye
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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... [github.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Just for the record, I was specifically responding to the "why don't you write your own apps" complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Distribute your app as open source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Cool story Bro. I have to be the strangest Apple zealot around, having mostly other platforms.
Yeah, maybe you are.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not worldwide, they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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: (Score:2)
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 develop
Re: (Score:2)
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 ha
Re: (Score:2)
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 h
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's not a walled garden. It's a prison state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I can't see the SCOTUS (Score:2)
I owe PhantomFive $100. You owe me (Score:3)
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 l
PS - on a tangent (Score:2)
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 wee
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yea, it's weird they didn't grab some app developer, too e.g., Gab.
I hope Apple fails on this... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [engadget.com] 2 [stackexchange.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Ap
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Nintendo did the same shit (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Should be illegal (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 hate apple, but Android should face the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hoping for the win, next stop comcast (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Will slowing growth prompt more openness? (Score:2)
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 an
Stupid Lawsuit (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Which is a false claim anyway:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration deserves credit for supporting a company with whom they have an ongoing feud.