Supreme Court Allows Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against the App Store

[Commodus]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What advantage does it have for us consumers that Apple are artificially locking out other stores on iOS?

Well, like it or not, security.  Malware on Android frequently gets through using third-party app stores, including major ones, that don't (or can't) properly screen apps.  And since these stores face little to no regulation, it's basically guaranteed that malware will thrive in these shops.  Chinese customers in particular frequently have to be on guard because they don't have Google Play, and many of the stores they visit don't do a good job of checking for malware, knock-offs and similar risks.

 

It may be difficult to completely avoid that while allowing competing stores, but it does explain Apple's rationale.  It'd be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle if it created the same security problems that Android has.  Apple's one consolation is that it has an infinitely better security update policy than Android (all eligible iOS devices get every update as soon as it's ready), so you'd see fewer exploits.

 

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Well, like it or not, security.  Malware on Android frequently gets through using third-party app stores, including major ones, that don't (or can't) properly screen apps.  And since these stores face little to no regulation, it's basically guaranteed that malware will thrive in these shops.  Chinese customers in particular frequently have to be on guard because they don't have Google Play, and many of the stores they visit don't do a good job of checking for malware, knock-offs and similar risks. 

 

It may be difficult to completely avoid that while allowing competing stores, but it does explain Apple's rationale.  It'd be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle if it created the same security problems that Android has.  Apple's one consolation is that it has an infinitely better security update policy than Android (all eligible iOS devices get every update as soon as it's ready), so you'd see fewer exploits.  

I don't see how allowing third party app stores would introduce any meaningful threat to security.

If you want exactly the same amount of security as you do today, then stick to the official Apple app store. That won't change. I am pretty sure 99% of people won't even touch third party stores, because most don't on Android.

The issues that exist on Android won't happen with iOS.

The issues being:

1) Mostly Chinese manufacturers loading their own app store onto phones they produce. This will not happen since Apple is the only one making iPhones.

2) Apps has much wider permissions to do things on Android, which they don't have on iOS.

3) Security updates are on most Android phones very slow to roll out, if at all. This is not a problem on IOS.

 

 

You can not compare iOS to Android. You just can't. They are way too different in those 3 different ways explained above.

 

Again, I genuinely do not see allowing side loading of apps as a threat. I just don't. Most people will not go into the settings and turn on something if a warning popup. They just won't.

The ones who do accept the risks and hopefully know what they are doing.

Even if something malicious gets installed on a phone, it is very limited in what it can actually do.

[Eniqmatic]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The reason for that is because the App Store does not allow third party browser engines. Opera Mini gets around this by executing the code on the Opera servers and then sending the result to the phone. Things like Firefox for iOS are just skins for Safari. I am not sure how it is now, but in the old days the Safari version available to third party developers were an older version than the stock browser as well.

 

With this ruling, we might be able to get other browser engines to iOS (through sideloading).

Really? Did not know this!

 

So genuine question, why is Apple allowed to do this when M$ got fined over the whole browser choice thing on Windows back in the day? How is it really any different? I mean technically there are different browsers but not really going by what you say above!

[Mindersteve]

20 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.

Well it's really not easy to switch to android. Apple makes it nearly impossible to transfer your photos easily, and to transfer music off of their deveices 

[Arika]

48 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Well, like it or not, security.  Malware on Android frequently gets through using third-party app stores, including major ones, that don't (or can't) properly screen apps.  And since these stores face little to no regulation, it's basically guaranteed that malware will thrive in these shops.  Chinese customers in particular frequently have to be on guard because they don't have Google Play, and many of the stores they visit don't do a good job of checking for malware, knock-offs and similar risks.

 

It may be difficult to completely avoid that while allowing competing stores, but it does explain Apple's rationale.  It'd be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle if it created the same security problems that Android has.  Apple's one consolation is that it has an infinitely better security update policy than Android (all eligible iOS devices get every update as soon as it's ready), so you'd see fewer exploits.

 

I'm going to have to go with @LAwLz on this. You're essentially saying that people should be happy if Microsoft only let you install things from the windows store, for exactly the same reasons you said, it's a locked down store with only approved apps and gets updated constantly with exploits constantly being fixed because anywhere else means you're  at a greater risk of malware. Yet there would be people exploding in their seats if this happened.

 

Apple doesn't get a free pass because they are Apple. 

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

Well it's really not easy to switch to android. Apple makes it nearly impossible to transfer your photos easily, and to transfer music off of their deveices 

I can literally plug my iPhone in and dump all the pictures in about five seconds.

 

If the music is from iTunes (which is DRM free) then you can just open iTunes and transfer any music to iTunes/a folder.

[Mindersteve]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

I can literally plug my iPhone in and dump all the pictures in about five seconds.

 

If the music is from iTunes (which is DRM free) then you can just open iTunes and transfer any music to iTunes/a folder.

Umm what? The pictures thing is probably right, but on what planet is iTunes music DRM free?

[Commodus]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't see how allowing third party app stores would introduce any meaningful threat to security.

If you want exactly the same amount of security as you do today, then stick to the official Apple app store. That won't change. I am pretty sure 99% of people won't even touch third party stores, because most don't on Android.

The issues that exist on Android won't happen with iOS.

The issues being:

1) Mostly Chinese manufacturers loading their own app store onto phones they produce. This will not happen since Apple is the only one making iPhones.

2) Apps has much wider permissions to do things on Android, which they don't have on iOS.

3) Security updates are on most Android phones very slow to roll out, if at all. This is not a problem on IOS.

 

 

You can not compare iOS to Android. You just can't. They are way too different in those 3 different ways explained above.

 

Again, I genuinely do not see allowing side loading of apps as a threat. I just don't. Most people will not go into the settings and turn on something if a warning popup. They just won't.

The ones who do accept the risks and hopefully know what they are doing.

Even if something malicious gets installed on a phone, it is very limited in what it can actually do.

You're generally right, but I also anticipated that "stick to the App Store" thing, which... basically justifies Apple's stance, doesn't it?  This would basically ask Apple to make a change that wouldn't have much of a competitive impact, but would worsen security (however slightly).  I'm not even saying Apple shouldn't loosen up, but there'd be a better case for changing policies within the App Store than requiring access to third-party stores.

[CiBi]

7 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

I can literally plug my iPhone in and dump all the pictures in about five seconds.

 

If the music is from iTunes (which is DRM free) then you can just open iTunes and transfer any music to iTunes/a folder.

Yeah this is not true I think. As far as I know music only goes one way and that is from itunes to the device.

There is (used to be) a tool for this called DoubleTwist which would let you get the music off the device

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

Umm what? The pictures thing is probably right, but on what planet is iTunes music DRM free?

All songs on iTunes have been DRM free since 2009.

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

but on what planet is iTunes music DRM free?

Planet Earth. I can put every single song I’ve ever bought on iTunes on a flash drive and play them on any computer without signing into my Account. You can also put music purchased on other accounts on your iOS device or Mac and play them back without conflict. 

 

Apple stoped DRMing music a while ago because it just wasn’t worth it. 

[Mindersteve]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Planet Earth. I can put every since song I’ve ever bought on iTunes on a flash drive and play them on any computer without signing into my Account. 

 

Apple stoped DRMing music a while ago because it just wasn’t worth it. 

Oh well looks like I was wrong

Sorry about htat

[RejZoR]

I frankly don't understand this thing though, the logic behind it. It's Apple's ecosystem, Apple's platform. They can do whatever they want and no one forces anyone to use it. Not their phones or their App Store. They also don't hold monopoly over anything. You don't like iOS? Well, go with Android. Goes for users and developers. It's a bit different on PC where Linux is in a minority which is why Microsoft got slammed many times about it. Mobile devices have it a bit different in this regard...

[Commodus]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I frankly don't understand this thing though, the logic behind it. It's Apple's ecosystem, Apple's platform. They can do whatever they want and no one forces anyone to use it. Not their phones or their App Store. They also don't hold monopoly over anything. You don't like iOS? Well, go with Android. Goes for users and developers. It's a bit different on PC where Linux is in a minority which is why Microsoft got slammed many times about it. Mobile devices have it a bit different in this regard...

This is why the case could lean in Apple's favor.  There are no third-party phone makers for Apple to strong-arm, as Google does; you can argue that it strong-arms app developers, but that makes more of a case for loosening App Store policies than it does requiring third-party stores.  Say, limiting Apple's cut of subscription revenue to X amount (or zero), or letting developers link to websites to subscribe outside of the App Store.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, CiBi said:

Aren't ereaders like that usually? For example if you buy a Kobo reader you can only buy and read books from the Kobo store, if you buy an amazon one you can only read the books you bought on amazon.

I'm absolutly not sure it is in fact like this but I always thought it was.

 

I do know for a fact that there are/where laptops that were locked in their bios to only run windows 8 and up and no linux distro's either, which is kind off the same thing as app store on ios devices.

 

I think there are other similar situations where the hardware provider locks out software that it doesn't provide, I don't inheritly have a problem with this. In this case with iPhones I think there are more advantages then disadvantages.

In all those cases My stance is the same, that should not be the case, and I only have one caveat that would allow it, if the device was free (or heavily subsidized) and the trade of is using specific software/products to pay for it.  If neither of those are the case, then locking a device to any software/network/app is wrong.

 

Quote

//Also to continue with the far sought car comparison, no car company supports running other firmware than theirs on your car...

Phones don't breakdown in the middle of the highway endangering life and giving the manufacturer a bad name in the process.  Car analogies almost never work.

 

7 hours ago, CiBi said:

Less chances for my relatives to fuck up their device

Why does your relatives inability to stick with the app store mean all other users should have no other options?

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I frankly don't understand this thing though, the logic behind it. It's Apple's ecosystem, Apple's platform. They can do whatever they want and no one forces anyone to use it. Not their phones or their App Store. They also don't hold monopoly over anything. You don't like iOS? Well, go with Android. Goes for users and developers. It's a bit different on PC where Linux is in a minority which is why Microsoft got slammed many times about it. Mobile devices have it a bit different in this regard...

 

Because it is no different to desktop computers.  The mobile phone is a computer.    There is no line that separates them.   When I buy a phone it is my phone to use as I want (NOT APPLES), therefore I should be able to run any app that I am legally allowed to use.  But at the moment apple are deciding who can supply me those apps. There is no ability for a company to sell me an app 30% cheaper of their website because in order to sell it it has to go through the app store.

 

People aren't even asking for the app store to become free or charge less, they just want the ability to side load or use an alternative store.    Neither google nor apple have the right to demand a percentage of software sales,  they have a right to charge that if people want to use the app store for their distribution, but not demand it and block all  other methods of sale.

 

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

It's funny how people endlessly talk about how secure Apple is and then they'd throw that away and install apps from everywhere. You can't have a cake and eat it. It's this way BECAUSE of how Apple's App store works. Is it fair to everyone? No. Is it secure because of tight moderation? Yes. So, which one do you want? You literally can't have both.

[Chett_Manly]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Disagree. You might be correct. But you just saying "FACT" doesn't inherently make it a fact. You've drawn a conclusion based on the evidence - and that's totally acceptable. But unless you've got proof and hard evidence? In my experience, most apps that have a cost, are the same on iOS vs Android (Bar some exceptions no doubt).

How about all the developers who offer off the app store payment at less than on the app store? Or had to create a way to get people to pay off the App store to lower costs? 

https://mobilesyrup.com/2018/06/19/youtube-music-3-expensive-on-ios/

 

We have seen this time and again. YouTube, Spotify, Netflix... major apps moving payment off platform, or setting iOS only pricing. 

[Chett_Manly]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's funny how people endlessly talk about how secure Apple is and then they'd throw that away and install apps from everywhere. You can't have a cake and eat it. It's this way BECAUSE of how Apple's App store works. Is it fair to everyone? No. Is it secure because of tight moderation? Yes. So, which one do you want? You literally can't have both.

How is it throwing away security? No one would be forcing you to install apps from outside the app store. Your security on iOS would be exactly the same, unless you made the decision to go install something from a 3rd party source. You can have the option, and not use it. 

[Blademaster91]

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's funny how people endlessly talk about how secure Apple is and then they'd throw that away and install apps from everywhere. You can't have a cake and eat it. It's this way BECAUSE of how Apple's App store works. Is it fair to everyone? No. Is it secure because of tight moderation? Yes. So, which one do you want? You literally can't have both.

But you literally can have both, and it would be better for everyone, devs wouldn't be forced to pay 30% to Apple and users would be able to get apps cheaper if they want to. I don't see how being able to sideload an app would affect security, most people are going to stick to the app store anyway.

[Zando_]

inb5 Epic Games Store for iOS

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's funny how people endlessly talk about how secure Apple is and then they'd throw that away and install apps from everywhere.

Because in most cases they talk about how secure it is for the average person and no one is proposing a change that would make apple less secure.   It's incredibly irrational to assume that security conscious people will suddenly starting installing random apps and even less probably that the average user will stray from the app store anyway.

Quote

You can't have a cake and eat it.

Yes you can.

Quote

It's this way BECAUSE of how Apple's App store works. Is it fair to everyone? No. Is it secure because of tight moderation? Yes. So, which one do you want? You literally can't have both.

Both, we can have both,  There is a huge difference between being able to side load apps and reducing security.   There is absolutely no evidence to suggest being able to side load reduces security.

[RejZoR]

Oh boy, people here assuming "average" users are cautious and smart. No, they are dumb and reckless and if you give them option for something you can be sure they'll fuck something up. It's not me here defending Apple, it's just a fact. And again, this is Apple's own platform, own ecosystem, they don't really owe anyone anything because they AREN'T a monopoly in the mobile market. If they make some draconian demands, well there's Android. Users can switch, developers can switch. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. NO ONE. Everyone also knows by default by this point that Apple has such demands and such ecosystem. But people still buy it and then bitch about it. Ugh? Which is why this is even more baffling. I've bought iPhone for other reasons which I hated about Android and just accepted how Apple does things. I don't know, maybe people should do the same in other direction? I don't know, just brainstorming here. And if Apple will lose enough users for it to be a problem for them, they might change policies. Because you know, that's generally how market works and not by artificially forcing some company to do shit because some people are bitchy.

 

I mean, I also don't want to buy new Volkswagen at official dealer, I want to buy new one for 30% less. And while we're at it, I hate the fact Volkswagens only come with Volkswagen engines. We need to pressure Volkswagen into selling their cars 30% cheaper elsewhere and also offer them with Renault and Toyota engines. Demands here sound about as ridiculous as this...

 

Yeah, me as an advanced user would probably appreciate all this stuff, but on a top level where normies are the default and not us geeks, Apple wouldn't be doing themselves any favors and would only bring problems and I'm not talking about financial ones due to sales not being made on App Store...

[Arika]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Oh boy, people here assuming "average" users are cautious and smart. No, they are dumb and reckless and if you give them option for something you can be sure they'll fuck something up. It's not me here defending Apple, it's just a fact. And again, this is Apple's own platform, own ecosystem, they don't really owe anyone anything because they AREN'T a monopoly in the mobile market. 

 

Microsoft is also not a monopoly anymore, sure they used to be, but by definition in both the legal and economic sense, they are not anymore. Therefore they should be allowed to lock down every version of Windows to be like 10S where only apps can be downloaded and installed from the videos store. People would fly into a goddamn rage, but they can just switch to Linux or Macos right? Would you be on Microsoft's side if they pulled this crap? I mean, it's their platform and ecosystem after all.

[LAwLz]

15 hours ago, Commodus said:

You're generally right, but I also anticipated that "stick to the App Store" thing, which... basically justifies Apple's stance, doesn't it?

No it does not justify it.

"Most people will stick to the App Store only" does not justify "we forbid anyone from creating their own app store".

 

Just because most people will do one thing, does not mean you are justified to block everything else.

 

Most people only watch videos on Youtube. Does that mean Google should be justified in blocking sites like DailyMotion in Chrome? I don't think so.

 

 

15 hours ago, Commodus said:

This would basically ask Apple to make a change that wouldn't have much of a competitive impact, but would worsen security (however slightly).

I think it would have a major impact on competition. Right now Apple can do pretty much whatever they like on their platform without any risk of a competitor threatening them. If Apple are forced to allow competing app stores, they will have to stay competitive against fairly niche market places because they might start gaining traction if Apple just treading water.

It basically lights a fire under Apple's ass that they have to keep improving the app store or else a competitor might become the de facto standard on iOS.

 

 

16 hours ago, Commodus said:

I'm not even saying Apple shouldn't loosen up, but there'd be a better case for changing policies within the App Store than requiring access to third-party stores. 

Why not both?

[LAwLz]

41 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Oh boy, people here assuming "average" users are cautious and smart. No, they are dumb and reckless and if you give them option for something you can be sure they'll fuck something up.

I don't agree. Believe me, as someone who has worked first line IT support, the average user is deadly afraid of doing anything other than clicking on the things they are very used to. Things like "clicking the blue E which opens the Internet". People don't go into settings and change things they don't understand, much less something which displays a warning.

 

Firefox used to be pretty popular some years ago. How many average Joes do you think went into about:config and changed a bunch of settings there? You can completely wrench your browser if you change even a single thing in there, and yet people didn't do it.

In Windows it takes less than 10 mouse clicks to join the insider program which causes your computer to automatically download very early and unstable builds of Windows. How many average Joes do you think have done that?

 

 

People seriously need to stop assuming that the average Joe is a moron who just randomly goes into settings and changes things. They don't. The average user is actually very careful with what they do, because they are afraid to break things.