Supreme Court Allows Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against the App Store

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But they should be forced to allow third party app stores on their devices. Sideloading apps isn't enough, it needs to be something everyone can access.

I would be okay if they were forced to allow third party stores (TPS) being side loaded. I do not think Apple would need to allow TPS onto the iOS first party app store itself.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I would be okay if they were forced to allow third party stores (TPS) being side loaded. I do not think Apple would need to allow TPS onto the iOS first party app store itself.

That's what I meant, when I said "no sideloading" I meant the customer can't be expected to sideload every app they want to install outside the App Store - I think it's ok if you have to sideload the third party store once. Ideally you should also be able to do it directly from the phone after downloading the installer, though executing files downloaded off the internet directly on the phone might raise a few red flags... then again Android allows it and I don't know of any instance of a malicious app being installed on an android device through a PDF document (I wish that were a made up example). It's just a matter of making sure the user is aware of the risks and nothing is installed without their permission, beyond that the responsibility is on them.

[dalekphalm]

39 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's what I meant, when I said "no sideloading" I meant the customer can't be expected to sideload every app they want to install outside the App Store - I think it's ok if you have to sideload the third party store once. Ideally you should also be able to do it directly from the phone after downloading the installer, though executing files downloaded off the internet directly on the phone might raise a few red flags... then again Android allows it and I don't know of any instance of a malicious app being installed on an android device through a PDF document (I wish that were a made up example). It's just a matter of making sure the user is aware of the risks and nothing is installed without their permission, beyond that the responsibility is on them.

I'd say that's a fair compromise too.

[Trik'Stari]

Is it really necessary to put quotation marks around "honorable" in the OP?

 

If politics are not going to be allowed on here, the ban needs to be enforced fairly and evenly.

 

 

Obligatory: Screw Apple, they deserve to lose, 100%

[CarlBar]

Add me to the i';d be finde if apple where forced to allow  other apps and app stores on, but weren't required to open the apple store up.

[mr moose]

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.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I want them to go one step further and make software purchase platform agnostic,

That's way out of the scope of this case. It would be nice if that were the case, but IRL platform agnostic purchases are up to the developers. 

 

The only viable way for what you suggest to happen would be for a new App Store to come up for both iOS and Android. 

[Emberstone]

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

(with the infamous Brett Kavanaugh being the deciding vote)

 

The "Honorable" Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Can we stop beating this dead horse already?

 

As for the topic at hand, I think Apple has the right to keep the App Store as it is, but denying users the ability to use other apps/stores is what makes it anticompetitive. This right here is one of the reasons I switched to Android (that and iTunes is cancer. Just let me drag and drop my music like it's a flash drive, thanks).

 

Let iOS users install other stores or sideload apps as they desire, but leave it explicitely clear that they are unsupported.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

That's way out of the scope of this case. It would be nice if that were the case, but IRL platform agnostic purchases are up to the developers. 

 

The only viable way for what you suggest to happen would be for a new App Store to come up for both iOS and Android. 

Actually it could be forced through consumer law.  If a company makes the same software available on multiple platforms then it's not like they have to re write the code, it's already been done.   It is purely a consumer law issue.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, comander said:

And to expound - Apple can still maintain its app store and use the quality of what is on it as a selling point for iOS based hardware.
I don't think I'd want a non-tech savvy relative using some third party app store. 

The principle concern is that there needs to be competition - Apple has effectively created its own anti-competitive niche. 

How is it anti-competitive when to list your app it just need to fulfill certain rules, like be NSFW etc.

 

Its a fine line when you can either put it as a developer fee to develop on the iPhone or put your app on Apple’s App Store. That is the president the court will set.

 

IMO, Apple’s payout for apps is very fair. I doubt more app stores on iOS would get developers more revenue.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (with the infamous Brett Kavanaugh being the deciding vote) t

 

 

Why was it his vote specifically?  You could make that statement about the other 4  who voted in favor just as accurately.

[DrMacintosh]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

It's just a matter of making sure the user is aware of the risks and nothing is installed without their permission, beyond that the responsibility is on them.

Lucky for iOS users, consent does not have to be requested by the app, it's demanded by the operating system. 

 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes 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.

Consider what you're saying. That's like saying I bought something on Steam, therefore I'm entitled to it on the Epic Store or on GoG as well. There are inherent operating costs associated with a digital platform. Those costs maybe aren't massive, but they still exist - particularly bandwidth, storage space, servers/infrastructure, etc.

 

Cross platform purchases should be voluntary. If I buy something on the Microsoft Store, it should be up to the developer whether I can redeem a copy of the same game on Steam. And Steam should have the right to demand their cut of what would otherwise have been a sale, from the Developer.

 

I'm okay with "Steam" being allowed to operate on the Xbox store (in my scenario), but not with forcing Steam to essentially give a game away for free against their will.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why was it his vote specifically? 

He sponsored the case and went against traditional partisan lines. So that's why I and the news media went out of the way to mention him specifically. 

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Consider what you're saying. That's like saying I bought something on Steam, therefore I'm entitled to it on the Epic Store or on GoG as well. There are inherent operating costs associated with a digital platform. Those costs maybe aren't massive, but they still exist - particularly bandwidth, storage space, servers/infrastructure, etc.

 

Cross platform purchases should be voluntary. If I buy something on the Microsoft Store, it should be up to the developer whether I can redeem a copy of the same game on Steam. And Steam should have the right to demand their cut of what would otherwise have been a sale, from the Developer.

 

I'm okay with "Steam" being allowed to operate on the Xbox store (in my scenario), but not with forcing Steam to essentially give a game away for free against their will.

Steam isn't giving the game away they got their cut from the sale if the consumer purchased there the developer/publsher is Judy allowing you to use another platform

Steam didn't get a cut when i bought off humble though but i activated on steam

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Consider what you're saying. That's like saying I bought something on Steam, therefore I'm entitled to it on the Epic Store or on GoG as well.

Not at all, what I am saying is if I bought it for PC and I decide to change to mac I should be allowed to use the mac version instead.  In fact many software companies allow this, you buy the software then you just download whichever version you need.   I am not talking about platform as in steam/epic I am talking about the hardware pc/mac or ios/android.   Where they already have said software on those other platforms.

Quote

There are inherent operating costs associated with a digital platform. Those costs maybe aren't massive, but they still exist - particularly bandwidth, storage space, servers/infrastructure, etc.

Side loading is a thing.  Costs to use a platform is only a thing because developers have no alternative to the app store for ios, they can side load on android if they want.

Quote

Cross platform purchases should be voluntary. If I buy something on the Microsoft Store, it should be up to the developer whether I can redeem a copy of the same game on Steam. And Steam should have the right to demand their cut of what would otherwise have been a sale, from the Developer.

Why would you want to buy the same software twice for your pc? If you have bought it from the MS store then you don't need to buy it from steam, again I am talking about hardware platforms.

Quote

I'm okay with "Steam" being allowed to operate on the Xbox store (in my scenario), but not with forcing Steam to essentially give a game away for free against their will.

It's not for free, you have already payed for it.

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

He sponsored the case and went against traditional partisan lines. So that's why I and the news media went out of the way to mention him specifically. 

So, his vote was garrunteed that, just means the deciding vote was definable one of the others.

[wasab]

I see justice isn't dead. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Steam isn't giving the game away they got their cut from the sale if the consumer purchased there the developer/publsher is Judy allowing you to use another platform

Steam didn't get a cut when i bought off humble though but i activated on steam

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.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Not at all, what I am saying is if I bought it for PC and I decide to change to mac I should be allowed to use the mac version instead.  In fact many software companies allow this, you buy the software then you just download whichever version you need.   I am not talking about platform as in steam/epic I am talking about the hardware pc/mac or ios/android.   Where they already have said software on those other platforms.

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).

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Side loading is a thing.  Costs to use a platform is only a thing because developers have no alternative to the app store for ios, theey can side load on android if they want.

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.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why would you want to buy the same software twice for you pc? If you have bought it from thee MS store then you don;t need to buy it from steam, again I am talking about hardware platforms.

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).

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's for free, you have already payed for it.

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.

 

[wasab]

4 hours ago, poochyena said:

It doesn't make sense to me, apple and their app store already has lots of competition. This would maybe make sense if apple was in microsoft's position in the 90s of being the overwhelmingly dominate force, but thats not true for apple. Its incredibly easy to switch from apple to android. If you don't like that you can't use 3rd party app stores on apple products, then just don't buy apple products.

Competition only exists for similar products. You can't say Amazon app store or Google play store competes against apple appstore just as you can't say car manufacturer monopoly are competing against the railroad or airline companies. Products are not similar even if serving the same function. 

 

Your rhetoric is the same as Google and Facebook. One points to Amazon as big competitor in web search and another points to something equally ridiculous. (Watch how zuckerberg respond to EU parliament grilling for specifics).

 

I say it is time to dismantle Apples use of their product to force a choice onto the end users. Imagine they force you to use apple cloud only and ban all Google services like maps, drives, gmails, and more. How is app store any different?

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Lucky for iOS users, consent does not have to be requested by the app, it's demanded by the operating system.

That's how it works on Android too. Third party app stores still have to go through the system installer which will ask the user if they really want to install the app.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

That's how it works on Android too. Third party app stores still have to go through the system installer which will ask the user if they really want to install the app.

Does it only ask if they want to install the app? Or does it also mandate warnings and prompts about access to contacts, location services, etc.? 

[wasab]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's how it works on Android too. Third party app stores still have to go through the system installer which will ask the user if they really want to install the app.

No. There are many phones that ship without Google apps at all. E.g. all Chinese Android handsets since Google is literally being banned by the Chinese government due to economic protectionism. 

 

There is no such thing as operating system forcing anyone on Android. 

 

Since Android 9, users can also disable app permissions. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Does it only ask if they want to install the app? Or does it also mandate warnings and prompts about access to contacts, location services, etc.? 

Both, though only since android 6 (iirc) you can actually deny access to individual services - before that if you didn't like it you'd have to not install the app.

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

No. There are many phones that ship without Google apps at all.

I'm not talking about Google apps, I'm talking about the installation wizard. It's not a part of the play store afaik - it also pops up on my completely de-googled nexus 7.

5 minutes ago, wasab said:

There is no such thing as operating system forcing anyone on Android.

That's not what we're saying, we're talking about what warnings and agency the user gets when sideloading an android app or installing one from a third party store.

6 minutes ago, wasab said:

Since Android 9, users can also disable app permissions. 

My phone has android 6 and I can do that.

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, wasab said:

Competition only exists for similar products. You can't say Amazon app store or Google play store competes against apple appstore just as you can't say car manufacturer monopoly are competing against the railroad or airline companies. Products are not similar even if serving the same function. 

 

Your rhetoric is the same as Google and Facebook. One points to Amazon as big competitor in web search and another points to something equally ridiculous. (Watch how zuckerberg respond to EU parliament grilling for specifics).

 

I say it is time to dismantle Apples use of their product to force a choice onto the end users. Imagine they force you to use apple cloud only and ban all Google services like maps, drives, gmails, and more. How is app store any different?

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

[wasab]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Both, though only since android 6 (iirc) you can actually deny access to individual services - before that if you didn't like it you'd have to not install the app.

I'm not talking about Google apps, I'm talking about the installation wizard. It's not a part of the play store afaik - it also pops up on my completely de-googled nexus 7.

That's not what we're saying, we're talking about what warnings and agency the user gets when sideloading an android app or installing one from a third party store.

My phone has android 6 and I can do that.

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. 

 

Idk. I heard it is an operating system wide feature but many custom ROM had it before Android 6 or 9