Supreme Court Allows Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against the App Store

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

You still don't need an install wizard. There is countless way to install apps without the user even noticing but it is mostly done by malware's. 

You need to get malware on the device first - and yes, malware has been spotted on the play store but it's pretty rare. If you sideload malware, well... that's on you. I'm pretty sure the same would go for iOS if it allowed you to sideload stuff more easily. Exploits and malware are kind of beyond the scope of conversation here; pretty much any system can be abused and it's not like iOS has been completely clear of security holes in the past.

[poochyena]

17 minutes ago, wasab said:

Competition only exists for similar products.

Absolutely not true. Competition is when two or more people/companies are competing with each other. Would you say the horse and buggy companies didn't compete with car companies in the early 20th century since their products were so different?

 

19 minutes ago, wasab said:

You can't say Amazon app store or Google play store competes against apple appstore

You absolutely can because people make the choice between amazon/google store vs app store when buying a phone. The number one reason why no one bought windows phones was because lack of apps. If Apple's store had no apps, iphones wouldn't sell.

[pas008]

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you have a source for that? Because I would assume that even though it didn't cost you anything, the developer would likely have to pay some sort of fee when you redeemed that code on Steam.

If we're talking operating systems that allow direct installation? Sure, no problem. Not that I want to specifically encourage non-store based installations on mobile devices for the masses.

 

But we're specifically talking about platforms in which that is not the case. This is indeed like me buying a game on Steam (Google Play Store) and wanting to be able to redeem it for free on Microsoft Store (iOS App Store).

It is a thing - for good or bad. I don't necessarily have a problem with sideloading, as long as the OS developer isn't expected to provide official support for sideloaded apps. They can simply provide a means, but using it should entirely be at the users own risk.

You need to clarify between hardware and operating system. For example: If I bought a game on the MS Store, I cannot use it on Linux (barring some translation layers like WINE, etc, allowing it).

 

You also specifically mentioned between iOS and Android, are different Operating System platforms (you could also consider them different hardware platforms, despite the fact that they both run ARM SoC's of some variation).

Me the user have already paid for it, but App/Game platforms need to make their money (which I have no problem with). If they can work out a system where the developer gives them a cut (even if said cut is say, a smaller percentage compared to a normal sale's cut), I'd be okay with that. As long as all parties consented.

 

I'm not okay with forcing Steam to give you a copy just because you bought it on Microsoft Store.

 

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

 

This is all i have

[wasab]

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Absolutely not true. Competition is when two or more people/companies are competing with each other. Would you say the horse and buggy companies didn't compete with car companies in the early 20th century since their products were so different?

 

You absolutely can because people make the choice between amazon/google store vs app store when buying a phone. The number one reason why no one bought windows phones was because lack of apps. If Apple's store had no apps, iphones wouldn't sell.

Horses doesn't compete against cars. If I want to buy a horse, I don't go to a car retailer as an alternative. Similarly, If I am to shop around for a car, I go for a car, I don't visit a horse breeder. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

 

This is all i have

Having a quick look through the list, I'd say it's inconclusive. Doesn't confirm one way or the other.

Though I would imagine some keys are free to the developers (such as Dev keys, press/influencer keys, etc). Perhaps Steam really does give away free Steam keys when you - for example - buy a Retail copy, or a Humble copy.

 

But that seems very counter-intuitive and bad for business. And easy to abuse.

[wasab]

19 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

It's far closer to Toyota vs Honda than airplanes vs cars.

You can get Toyota cars without buying from  Toyata but can you get ios apps without app store?

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

But we're specifically talking about platforms in which that is not the case. This is indeed like me buying a game on Steam (Google Play Store) and wanting to be able to redeem it for free on Microsoft Store (iOS App Store).

Yes, although I don't expect apple or MS or even google to have to provide the service, But I do expect the software to be available from the developer.   This court case seeks to solve one issue in this.   Hence why I said I would like them to go further.

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It is a thing - for good or bad. I don't necessarily have a problem with sideloading, as long as the OS developer isn't expected to provide official support for sideloaded apps. They can simply provide a means, but using it should entirely be at the users own risk.

It would be no different from the current situation with mac or windows, where the developer provides the support for their software and the OS developer support the OS.  I don't see how why support would become a problem.

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You need to clarify between hardware and operating system. For example: If I bought a game on the MS Store, I cannot use it on Linux (barring some translation layers like WINE, etc, allowing it).

Why?  it's not about defining that end, if the software you buy has a linux version or a mac version then you should be entitled to use that version, if they don't then it doesn't matter.  I really don;t see what the complication is.

 

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You also specifically mentioned between iOS and Android, are different Operating System platforms (you could also consider them different hardware platforms, despite the fact that they both run ARM SoC's of some variation).

I don't see how this matters.  

 

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Me the user have already paid for it, but App/Game platforms need to make their money (which I have no problem with). If they can work out a system where the developer gives them a cut (even if said cut is say, a smaller percentage compared to a normal sale's cut), I'd be okay with that. As long as all parties consented.

If for some reason the software has to go through an app store and can't just be downloaded from the company and installed like all software on windows is, then a small fee to license that software on the app store would be appropriate, however I don't see why that is even necessary,  imaging if MS insisted you have to only install through the MS store a pay a fee for software  even though you can download it direct from the developer.

 

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not okay with forcing Steam to give you a copy just because you bought it on Microsoft Store.

 

Again steam and the MS store operate inside the same OS and on the same device.  Not only is no one going to buy it twice because they already have a working copy in that device, but it unnecessary.   in what situation could this even occur?

[poochyena]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

If I want to buy a horse, I don't go to a car retailer as an alternative.

Thats the point, instead of shopping at a car retailer, you go to a place that sells horses. The car retailer loses business.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Horses doesn't compete against cars. If I want to buy a horse, I don't go to a car retailer as an alternative. Similarly, If I am to shop around for a car, I go for a car, I don't visit a horse breeder. 

Context is key my friend.

 

He said:

Quote

 Would you say the horse and buggy companies didn't compete with car companies in the early 20th century since their products were so different?

Emphasis mine.

 

In the 1920's for example, if I wanted to shop for a "transportation mechanism", I would have to compare between Horse and Buggy vs a relatively newly invented Car. They would have 100% been competing products.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

The number one reason why no one bought windows phones was because lack of apps.

MS did them no favors by locking WP down as hard as iOS. Both Android and the previous most popular phone OS (Symbian) both allowed app sideloading and third party stores (though with Symbian and early Android the phones were a bit too limited to truly take advantage of that). Apple can pull the lockdown thing off exclusively because they've been in the smartphone market since the beginning and have a powerful brand which attracts developers. And also because with their huge margins having 10% of the market is enough.

 

As for whether or not you can say that the Play Store competes with the App Store, the answer is no. A phone is hardware, in theory there's no reason for it to be directly tied to specific software. Using one product you sell (a phone) to push another product or service you sell with an unfair advantage over the competition is against antitrust law. Microsoft was sued (and lost) over this back when Internet Explorer was firmly tied to Windows' functionality and had a massive unfair advantage over the competition - they were using Windows to push IE and the courts rightfully ruled that it couldn't be allowed. iOS itself can maybe be considered firmware (and therefore part of the device itself) but the App Store definitely cannot.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, wasab said:

You can get Toyota cars without buying from  Toyata but can you get ios apps without app store?

I can also get a Boeing airplane without buying from Boeing. The entire point is that it's not comparing cars vs planes, it's comparing cars vs cars.

[wasab]

Just now, 79wjd said:

I can also get a Boeing airplane without buying from Boeing.

You can. In fact me pay me a couple billion dollars and I will procure a Boeing jet for you. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

You can. In fact me pay me a couple billion dollars and I will procure a Boeing jet for you. 

Or I'll just buy direct from Boeing for a tenth of that. (since you apparently want to keep up the incredibly flawed exaggerated analogy)

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As for whether or not you can say that the Play Store competes with the App Store, the answer is no. A phone is hardware, in theory there's no reason for it to be directly tied to specific software.

 

Imagine if you bought a PC and the only software you were allowed to run was windows unless you jailbroke it? 

[Sauron]

Just now, mr moose said:

Imagine if you bought a PC and the only software you were allowed to run was windows unless you jailbroke it? 

Imagine if you could only install software from the UWP store

 

wait

[wasab]

2 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Or I'll just buy direct from Boeing for a tenth of that. (since you apparently want to keep up the idiotic analogy)

I guess you don't know planes can be sold on the 2nd hand market.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, wasab said:

I guess you don't know planes can be sold on the 2nd hand market.

I'm well aware that you can, but that's not the point you were making. The point you were making was that saying iOS and Android are in competition is like saying cars and planes are in competition. When that is a completely idiotic analogy and the far more aprt analogy would be two different manufacturers in the same market (e.g. Toyota vs. Honda OR Boeing vs. Airbus).

[captain_to_fire]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Should Apple be forced to allow competing app stores on their platform?

No. One of the reasons why people choose the iPhone/iPad is security and allowing other stores in the App Store would result to sketchy applications without the knowledge of the user.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I want them to go one step further and make software purchase platform agnostic, if you buy angry birds for IOS you and they make it for Android you should automatically get it there too.  You should have to buy your software twice because you want to swap from apple to android or vice versa.   That is why technically neither android nor ios is in competition with each other beyond the very initial hardware purchase.

I would be fine with that, there are plenty of apps that work with Windows,Mac and Linux, and I think it shouldn't be any different with iOS or Android.

3 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

No. One of the reasons why people choose the iPhone/iPad is security and allowing other stores in the App Store would result to sketchy applications without the knowledge of the user.

If a user decides to install some sketchy app then its their own fault.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

No. One of the reasons why people choose the iPhone/iPad is security and allowing other stores in the App Store would result to sketchy applications without the knowledge of the user.

Some of us had to buy ipads because it was school requirement.  Which after a few years ceased to be a thing (The school realised there was nothing exclusive to ios that they didn't have an alternative to), which means the learning curve and exclusive app store is something many of us are stuck with.  

 

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

 

If a user decides to install some sketchy app then its their own fault.

I just don't see why the rest of us should be limited to where and what apps we get because a few people are afraid of dodgy apps.  I really don't think security plays a large role in why people buy apple,  but for those who do buy it for that reason they can continue to exclusively use the app store.

[wasab]

2 hours ago, 79wjd said:

I'm well aware that you can, but that's not the point you were making. The point you were making was that saying iOS and Android are in competition is like saying cars and planes are in competition. When that is a completely idiotic analogy and the far more aprt analogy would be two different manufacturers in the same market (e.g. Toyota vs. Honda OR Boeing vs. Airbus).

No, what's idiotic is that you find google play store or any other app store can be swap in as an alternative on iOS. For there to be competition, an alternative needs to exists which it doesn't on iOS. 

 

If I want to travel by plane, I can go American airlines, if I don't like that company due to higher price, poor service or any other reason, morale, ethical, or irrationale, I can get jet blue as the alternative choice. On iOS I don't and to point out Android play store as a competitor is akin to pointing out airlines as a competitor when you need an alternative taxi service. 

 

Know what Google says about Amazon competition? Over 80% of user searches for a merchandise goes to Amazon so Amazon is a valid competing search engine. I think you will find something stupid in that logic but somehow that logical part of your brain turns off when it comes to apple products. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, comander said:

They lock out competing app stores. In order to access a different repository one needs to go out of their way and specifically act to circumvent things Apple has put into place. 

 

Most competing App Stores, such as Vshare, are able to work fine on iOS. However they feature apps that are not suitable for the App Store. Why should Apple have to allow App Stores which go against their terms of service.

 

The only reason for third party app stores, because you need to buy access to the App Store anyway to develop on iOS, is to get pirated or NSFW applications.

 

Note: Cydia is not an App Store.

1 hour ago, comander said:

 

The analogy would be automobile manufacturers creating software to prevent the use of parts made by third parties. 

That’s entirely suitable, and done by many companies. You don’t want some internet mechanic trying to fix his car, and when it breaks complain to the company his YouTube fix didn’t work. That’s not how life works.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, floofer said:

 Why should Apple have to allow App Stores which go against their terms of service.

Because their terms of service are anti consumer.   Who are they to dictate where I get my apps from.  It would be exactly like MS only allowing apps through the MS store on windows.

 

19 minutes ago, floofer said:

The only reason for third party app stores, because you need to buy access to the App Store anyway to develop on iOS, is to get pirated or NSFW applications.

BS, absolute BS.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to want third party apps on your phone or to not want to use the app store for distribution.

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because their terms of service are anti consumer.   Who are they to dictate where I get my apps from.  It would be exactly like MS only allowing apps through the MS store on windows.

 

BS, absolute BS.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to want third party apps on your phone or to not want to use the app store for distribution.

 

 

So if you already have access to publish on the App Store, why go somewhere else? 

[mr moose]

Just now, floofer said:

So if you already have access to publish on the App Store, why go somewhere else? 

????  because not everyone owns an ios device.  And what about those who don't want to use the app store or google play?  should they just not be allowed to distribute their own apps on their own website?