Supreme Court Allows Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against the App Store

[mr moose]

1 hour 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. 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...

 

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's not apples place to dictate what can and can't be installed on a private device.  It doesn't matter who made it, especially when it makes up a huge part of mobile computing devices in the market.   

 

If an app developer wants to sell mobile computing programs to 85% of the US market they have to go through apple, that is a forced monopoly that adds upto 30% to the cost of the app.    Apple have no right in this no matter how many times you say it.

 

 

[CiBi]

Wouldn't there be an increased chance of malicious websites being able to install something without your knowledge and thus lowering security in general?

 

I mean worst thing I've had now is an add or popup redirecting me to the app store

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, CiBi said:

Wouldn't there be an increased chance of malicious websites being able to install something without your knowledge and thus lowering security in general? 

 

I mean worst thing I've had now is an add or popup redirecting me to the app store

It depends on how it's implemented. Apple could make the default settings to just act exactly like it does now, but with an optional setting to allow sideloading, just like on Android.

 

On Android the way it works is that a user has to explicitly go into the security settings in the OS, choose to allow "apps from unknown sources" to be installed and from where (for example a browser or a third party app store), accept a popup warning, and then try to install the program.

If the average user clicks a shady link and they see a bunch of warning messages popup they usually don't click "allow", and then afterwards click "install".

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, CiBi said:

Wouldn't there be an increased chance of malicious websites being able to install something without your knowledge and thus lowering security in general?

 

I mean worst thing I've had now is an add or popup redirecting me to the app store

 

The difference in malware infections on android between users who side load and users who solely use the play store is 0.8%.  Keep in mind android has the highest target rate for malware of any OS across any device (including desktop) and the total number of infections is supposedly less than 1% total.  Also of interest is that older version shave significantly higher infection rates, indicating new OS's are much harder to infect.

 

According to google that is: https://android.gadgethacks.com/news/googles-security-report-shows-clear-pattern-among-malware-infected-users-0189794/

 

If we consider ios is targeted less, is always updated (unless specifically turned off) and could be set to not install apps from outside the app store (like google has that option in android).  I don't think malware/infection is really point of concern.  

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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.

And I worked with security software and people are dumb and clueless. Only people afraid are 60 years old grandmas who never used computer and is afraid to click things. People in their 20's and 30's who are tech savvy enough to use tech and think they got it and click shit just to get whatever they want. Even to an extent to turn off an antivirus because it keeps on blocking them from getting the thing they so desperately want even though they installed it in the first place (or Windows Defender coz it's already there). Been there, seen that countless times. Why do you think it's so desperately hard to turn antivirus apps off these days? It's not because AV devs want to be bitches, it's because people were doing exactly this. Same goes for adding things to AV exclusions. Back in the early days of late 90's and early 2000's, most AV's had "exclude item" within detection popups. Now most of them have it buried somewhere in the settings so people don't just exclude all the shit because they so desperately want to get whatever they were looking for.

 

No user says yes, I want this Insider program enabled and goes deep into settings to "enable it by mistake". They don't even look for it. When someone will want that hip game PUBGNITE that isn't on iOS because of 30% "tax", they'll desperately dig around to find it and download whatever shit bad people throw out in the public. That's the problem, not people randomly wandering into about:configs and Insider programs... But apparently none of you here understand that. Which is odd given you say you worked in IT support...

 

I was bitching over Apple before and still am despite having their device, but even if I don't like this either, I very well understand WHY they are doing this and while locking profits into them is part of it, it's not all of it at all.

[LAwLz]

32 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I was bitching over Apple before and still am despite having their device, but even if I don't like this either, I very well understand WHY they are doing this and while locking profits into them is part of it, it's not all of it at all.

Profits and control is 99.9% of the reason. Extra security (because the less you can do on something, the more secure it is) is 0.1% of the reason. 

[RejZoR]

You just excluded everyone who install questionable shit and then bug Apple's tech support about it. That costs money and time. And people blame shit for various other things that are not company's fault. Still remember endless Windows Vista crashing and BSOD's? Well, almost half of them were broken NVIDIA drivers. But everyone blamed Microsoft for it. That's a huge reason. Brand image.

[SADS]

On 5/14/2019 at 11:15 AM, LAwLz said:

I don't see how anyone, as a consumer, can be against this.

This can only benefit consumers, with 0 drawbacks.

 

I am all for it.

 

 

 

The app store isn't being removed. What might happen is that we might get alternative stores too, which might not even be preinstalled on the phone. I would not be surprised if 95% of all Android phones has installation of apps from outside the store enabled. I know for certain than for example my grandparents' phones and my mom's phone has it disabled, which means everything installed has to go through the Google Play Store.

 

It is entirely possible to give "tech savvy" people options, while at the same time defending non-savvy people through proper default settings.

I didn't think the app store was going to be removed.

 

Only stating that I am perfectly happy for apple to want to have control over their own product to ensure that what they provide is to a standard that they decide.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

You just excluded everyone who install questionable shit and then bug Apple's tech support about it. That costs money and time. And people blame shit for various other things that are not company's fault. Still remember endless Windows Vista crashing and BSOD's? Well, almost half of them were broken NVIDIA drivers. But everyone blamed Microsoft for it. That's a huge reason. Brand image. 

I do not believe that is a valid justification and it sounds to me like you're deliberately trying to come up with excuses for why Apple should be in control of what people are allowed to do with the devices they have bought.

You will never be able to fully get rid of people calling the wrong support number, or misattributing issues. Never.

 

Besides, you're again under the massive assumption that the average Joe will actually enable app sideloading, despite there being 0 evidence that it is common on the platforms which does allow for it. Prove that side loading is common on Android before you start making arguments as if it is.

 

And once you have proven that, it would be interesting to see some statistics from for example Samsung's support to see how many of the issues people call them about which can be attributed to sideloaded programs. My guess is that it's close to 0%, but judging by your arguments it seems like you believe it is a quite significant amount.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, SADS said:

I didn't think the app store was going to be removed.

 

Only stating that I am perfectly happy for apple to want to have control over their own product to ensure that what they provide is to a standard that they decide.

Do you believe that your ISP should be in total control over which websites you are and aren't allowed to visit?

If Verizon deems that Netflix is not up to the standard for what Verizon wants to deliver, should they have the moral and legal right to block their customers from accessing Netflix?

[RejZoR]

Lol, you're just assuming because you bought the device you can just do whatever the hell you want with it. Why is no one complaining why car manufacturers don't allow app sideloading on their infotainment systems? Why they don't allow modifications of ECU by default? Why they... there is billions of things that we can bitch about. Most of people use Apple "because it just works". It may not be the best at everything or have the most features and tweaks, but what it does, actually does reflect that exactly. It may be limited in some instances, but it actually just works. It was similar with Windows Phone. It was limited in functionality, but it also worked in a similar way. Why? I can assure you it wasn't because users could sideload shit on them...

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

If we used your analogy, this would be like Google blocking DailyMotion in Chrome because the site is virtually guaranteed to infect some users with viruses, and some of those people would blame Google for it.  It would know that this would boost YouTube viewership, but it also wouldn't have the security headaches of other browsers.

 

Besides, you said 99% would use the App Store.  That'd make the competitive impact virtually negligible.  Now, if you were just being hyperbolic and you think there would be significantly more people using third-party stores over time, then say so -- but 99% wouldn't exactly convince a court that action would be effective.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

It would keep Apple on its toes to a degree, no doubt -- with that said, I think it wouldn't change a whole lot.  Think of it as Google Play's dominance on Android (outside of China, that is), but considerably greater since there would be no rival hardware makers bundling competing stores.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Why not both?

I wouldn't be that upset if it was both, I'm just saying that regulating the terms of the App Store directly would have more of an impact.  If the App Store is still going to have a de facto monopoly, I'd say the priority should be on ensuring that developers have a competitive environment within that store.

[XenosTech]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

As some one who used to work as tech support, I'll have to agree 110%. You only end up with problems when the hot shot in house IT goes changing stuff thinking he knows what he's doing and boom, the whole network is in chaos.

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

Would you be on Microsoft's side if they pulled this crap? I mean, it's their platform and ecosystem after all.

I wouldn't stick with their product if doing it meant it was no longer fit for my needs.

 

But I would stand by their right to do so.

[XenosTech]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

When someone will want that hip game PUBGNITE that isn't on iOS because of 30% "tax", they'll desperately dig around to find it and download whatever shit bad people throw out in the public. That's the problem

That's a user problem, not an Apple or Android problem. If you go pirate software or a game and get a virus that's on you.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

you're just assuming because you bought the device you can just do whatever the hell you want with it.

Yes, because it is mine.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Why is no one complaining why car manufacturers don't allow app sideloading on their infotainment systems? Why they don't allow modifications of ECU by default?

Idk cause a car could actually cause serious bodily harm or cause me to kill myself and others if the modification or side loaded app causes the systems to behave erratic. I mean the answer to that analogy is common sense.

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, Commodus said:

If we used your analogy, this would be like Google blocking DailyMotion in Chrome because the site is virtually guaranteed to infect some users with viruses, and some of those people would blame Google for it.  It would know that this would boost YouTube viewership, but it also wouldn't have the security headaches of other browsers. 

0.82% of all Android devices which has sideloaded apps (which is to say, has loaded one or more applications not from the Play Store) have been infected with malware.

So no, it's not "virtually guaranteed". It's pretty fucking unlikely. And that number is not even for how many has sideloaded a malicious app. Some of that statistic is people who has sideloaded safe apps, but then installed a malicious app from the Play Store.

 

31 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Besides, you said 99% would use the App Store.  That'd make the competitive impact virtually negligible.  Now, if you were just being hyperbolic and you think there would be significantly more people using third-party stores over time, then say so -- but 99% wouldn't exactly convince a court that action would be effective.

No I actually believe that it would be somewhere around the 99% mark, at least in the beginning and if Apple kept pushing the store forward.

If Apple were forced to allow third party stores and then didn't do any major changes to it, then that 99% number would probably drop quite a bit over the next ~10 years. However, if they are forced to open, and then make changes to stay on-par or ahead of the competing app stores then I believe it would remain at that 99% mark.

Even small competitors put pressure on larger distributors because those distributors are afraid that they will lose their dominance. Just look at Microsoft. Why do you think that they are doing so much to appease GNU/Linux users right now?

Because if they don't GNU/Linux might continue to become more and more popular.

 

32 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It would keep Apple on its toes to a degree, no doubt -- with that said, I think it wouldn't change a whole lot.  Think of it as Google Play's dominance on Android (outside of China, that is), but considerably greater since there would be no rival hardware makers bundling competing stores.

If it wouldn't change things a whole lot then why not do it? I think it would change a lot in terms of possibilities and probably lead to changes for the better inside the App Store, but in practice for most users they would not notice that much difference. Maybe lower fees which means more money to developers. Other app stores offering different services which the App store would have to adopt to stay competitive. Users who want to for example only install open source applications for philosophical reasons could do that. Things like that which are currently not happening or possible.

 

 

35 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I wouldn't be that upset if it was both, I'm just saying that regulating the terms of the App Store directly would have more of an impact.  If the App Store is still going to have a de facto monopoly, I'd say the priority should be on ensuring that developers have a competitive environment within that store.

But what regulation for the app store would you like to see? I think it's better to make sideloading mandatory and then the app store will self-regulate to stay competitive. That way we hopefully (and probably) get changes in the regulation within the app store, and at the same time get more room for innovation from third party app stores.

[RejZoR]

26 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

That's a user problem, not an Apple or Android problem. If you go pirate software or a game and get a virus that's on you.

 

Yes, because it is mine.

 

Idk cause a car could actually cause serious bodily harm or cause me to kill myself and others if the modification or side loaded app causes the systems to behave erratic. I mean the answer to that analogy is common sense.

I guess you never heard of such things as company image and reputation that are two critical things every company needs. When clueless people start breaking shit, they'll blame Apple, not their own incompetence. We're talking normies, not you and me. If  screw something up I'll know I did that because I flashed phone with some ROM or tweaked something that turned it into a paper weight. Normies don't know that. They just hear about things and try them. When things break they'll scream around "Omg Apple sucks because it breaks just like that". You just know that is exactly what would happen and if you don't, then you're just blissfully ignorant. And that's the kind f shit no company wants, because it's negativity with usually zero context so people only hear negativity. And that hurts company image (more than the fact it has tightly locked ecosystem which does the opposite for the normies).

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I guess you never heard of such things as company image and reputation that are two critical things every company needs. When clueless people start breaking shit, they'll blame Apple, not their own incompetence. We're talking normies, not you and me. If  screw something up I'll know I did that because I flashed phone with some ROM or tweaked something that turned it into a paper weight. Normies don't know that. They just hear about things and try them. When things break they'll scream around "Omg Apple sucks because it breaks just like that". You just know that is exactly what would happen and if you don't, then you're just blissfully ignorant. And that's the kind f shit no company wants, because it's negativity with usually zero context so people only hear negativity. And that hurts company image (more than the fact it has tightly locked ecosystem which does the opposite for the normies).

So by your logic, Microsoft and Google should lock down their operating systems the same way then. Normies hardly tinker with stuff and the ones that do go into it knowing that there's a risk associated with doing such hence why we're considered niche cause we started as normies before we got to the point where we are. So Apple allowing me the user to side load apps or allowing third party stores doesn't reduce security. If you're supposed to be a person who works in security as you claim then you should already know the human element is the biggest security risk even if they don't allow it people jailbreak the iphone to do what the want either way.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

When clueless people start breaking shit, they'll blame Apple, not their own incompetence

And Apple will just blame the consumer as they always did with every hardware defect

[RejZoR]

12 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

And Apple will just blame the consumer as they always did with every hardware defect

Yeah, I'm sure Apple is chasing whiners on forums and "proving them wrong". But those whiners create negative image of the brand. Come on, you people really have no basic understanding of business or what?

[suicidalfranco]

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

But those whiners create negative image of the brand.

hasn't stopped them to shift the blame to the consumer

[RejZoR]

Which one? There is justifiable response from a company and unjustifiable. Just because someone blames the company it doesn't mean the accusations are automatically true...

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Lol, you're just assuming because you bought the device you can just do whatever the hell you want with it.

That's not an assumption, that's an absolute right.  

 

7 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I wouldn't stick with their product if doing it meant it was no longer fit for my needs.

 

But I would stand by their right to do so.

But change to what?  there is a reason monopoly laws exists in nearly every country.  Sometimes capitalism (bless it's life giving roots)  goes too far.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But what regulation for the app store would you like to see? I think it's better to make sideloading mandatory and then the app store will self-regulate to stay competitive. That way we hopefully (and probably) get changes in the regulation within the app store, and at the same time get more room for innovation from third party app stores.

 

Exactly, no one is asking for any regulation on the app store, just to have the ability to install apps without it.

[SADS]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do you believe that your ISP should be in total control over which websites you are and aren't allowed to visit?

If Verizon deems that Netflix is not up to the standard for what Verizon wants to deliver, should they have the moral and legal right to block their customers from accessing Netflix?

If they want to, sure why not. If that's their product, then I can just go to another, the wonders of a free market. If anything it promotes healthy competition in the market and people will decide with their wallets.

ISP's already block a bunch of sites (torrents for example), sure i can work around it if i wanted to or i could go to another provider.

 

I mean, it's not really a valid comparison because content to ISP isn't truely the same as security to device.

You don't generally buy into an ISP for the websites you can get to if most/all that you want to access are available, you buy for speed and reliability, and speed of connection is definitely something that ISP's are already controlling in their products.

 

It would be more similar to say that if somone had made a device that made the internet worse, less secure, slower etc, then would you have a problem with ISPs allowing that device to be connected to their network?

I would prefer an ISP that didn't allow that device and I would have a problem with people trying to force that device upon the ISP. The ISP can do what they want with their product.

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, SADS said:

If they want to, sure why not. If that's their product, then I can just go to another, the wonders of a free market. If anything it promotes healthy competition in the market and people will decide with their wallets.

ISP's already block a bunch of sites (torrents for example), sure i can work around it if i wanted to or i could go to another provider.

This might be okay in some countries, but in many places in the US, for example, there is effectively one choice of ISP.

 

Canada has a bit better rules when it comes to forcing the incumbents to allow third parties to resell access, but even then there are limitations, such as the third party companies not having access to the same speeds, etc.

 

[SenKa]

This is a very interesting case, and from a legal standpoint Apple is certainly in the wrong. They have a 100% monopoly over iOS apps, as the only legal way to attain them is through the app store. It could be argued (and this is something I do not have the information to prove, nobody but Apple does) that Apple is fixing their prices higher because they know they can, which is a big no-no in the US when talking about monopolization.

 

There aren't many precedents directly relating to this case, as the concept of a web-connected app store is really only about as new as the early 2000's. The only possible one I can think of is the case of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. In this case it has been ruled that this would create a monopoly. This is, though, a very different case and hopefully will not be referenced by either side of the argument.

 

As a techie and law student I will be very closely watching this.

 

I seem to remember Microsoft being under some legal heat for Windows 10 S blocking all non Windows Store apps. This may be a figment of my imagination, but if it isn't this would be a direct precedent.I only do not include it above because I do not remember if it is true.