5 ms·

I don't understand (1). Why is Apple legally required to approve any app?

raverbashing 11y ago
- Abuse of dominant economic position - Having had a history of having the app on their store already So they better have a very good reason for taking their app out of the store
greenyoda 11y ago
They're not legally required to approve any app. Banning Uber's app would not be cause for criminal action, but for a civil suit for damages or breach of contract. The argument might go something like this: 1. Uber's app had previously been approved. 2. Apple, by their previous policies, therefore led Uber to believe that they could build a business around an iOS app. Relying on that information, Uber invested billions of dollars into their business. 3. Apple, by now banning Uber's app, has committed an act that damages Uber. Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. This could be used as evidence that Apple intended to cause damage to Uber.
- Etheryte 11y ago
  They could simply update their policy and then continue to remove it, which would make all the above points moot.
- lnanek2 11y ago
  > Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. Not really. Apple already has draconian terms to submit apps. They've done things like ban pretty wallpaper weather apps before and released their own version of it. They even attacked Flux and then duplicated the feature. It's perfectly legal since their terms basically say anything that competes with them is not allowed. So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab.
  - saganus 11y ago
    But I think the point was that Uber also has a lot of money for lawyers so they could at least fight it and cause some stirr, media attention, etc, and then that in turn could damage Apple.
  - greenyoda 11y ago
    "So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab." - That argument would also apply to any other app that allowed you to order goods or services. - Apple doesn't offer phone service - they only sell phones. And they're certainly not in the taxi business. So I don't see how they could construct a convincing argument that Uber competes with them.
- karmacondon 11y ago
  Do you know of a previous case that's similar to what you're describing here? Because I'm having a hard time understand this. Unless Apple entered into an agreement with Uber, I don't see how Uber would have an expectation that their relationship with the App Store would continue in its same form into perpetuity. And I'm almost positive there is some condition in the apple developer agreement that says "We reserve the right to terminate without notice or reason" or something similar. What you're saying is reasonable, and I could see how a judge might agree with the arguments you've made. But it also seems like Apple could say, "We don't like the CEO of Uber's haircut", which is as valid as any other reason to terminate a non-contractual relationship. If Uber wanted protection for the billions they invested, they should have negotiated a proper agreement. Maybe I just don't understand how the law works.
- Mister_Snuggles 11y ago
  Regarding a criteria to disqualify Uber... I was under the impression that all purchases conducted within an iOS app had to go through Apple's in-app purchase framework. Uber let's me get a ride then bills me completely separately. Likewise, if I want to purchase movie tickets the Cineplex app shows me a web page (still inside the app) and lets me buy the tickets. Yet the Kindle app is not allowed to let me buy Kindle books, nor can it even provide a link to Amazon to buy Kindle books. Why are Cineplex and Uber able to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase policy but Amazon isn't? Or has this policy changed?
  - cstejerean 11y ago
    IAP is only required for purchasing digital content. This is why e-books, music, movies, game content and anything else you consume or watch on the phone requires IAP. Purchases for services or physical goods can be handled separately. Amazon has an app where I can buy physical stuff, but I can't buy Kindle or Audible content within the app.
    - Mister_Snuggles 11y ago
      Ahh, interesting! Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize they treated digital vs physical goods separately.
- ihinsdale 11y ago
  It's really cool that you outlined the argument here in a simple series of steps. That's the approach that I'd like to see more online discussions take, and I've created Sequiturs to promote that approach: https://sequiturs.com/arguments/apple-by-now-banning-uber-s-app-has-committed-an-act-that-damages-uber https://sequiturs.com/arguments/apple-by-now-banning-uber-s-.... I left you a comment there about step 2. If you're a fan of this argument format, I'd love to get your feedback about what you think of Sequiturs.

- Abuse of dominant economic position - Having had a history of having the app on their store already So they better have a very good reason for taking their app out of the store

greenyoda 11y ago

They're not legally required to approve any app. Banning Uber's app would not be cause for criminal action, but for a civil suit for damages or breach of contract. The argument might go something like this: 1. Uber's app had previously been approved. 2. Apple, by their previous policies, therefore led Uber to believe that they could build a business around an iOS app. Relying on that information, Uber invested billions of dollars into their business. 3. Apple, by now banning Uber's app, has committed an act that damages Uber. Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. This could be used as evidence that Apple intended to cause damage to Uber.

Etheryte 11y ago
They could simply update their policy and then continue to remove it, which would make all the above points moot.
lnanek2 11y ago
> Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. Not really. Apple already has draconian terms to submit apps. They've done things like ban pretty wallpaper weather apps before and released their own version of it. They even attacked Flux and then duplicated the feature. It's perfectly legal since their terms basically say anything that competes with them is not allowed. So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab.
- saganus 11y ago
  But I think the point was that Uber also has a lot of money for lawyers so they could at least fight it and cause some stirr, media attention, etc, and then that in turn could damage Apple.
- greenyoda 11y ago
  "So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab." - That argument would also apply to any other app that allowed you to order goods or services. - Apple doesn't offer phone service - they only sell phones. And they're certainly not in the taxi business. So I don't see how they could construct a convincing argument that Uber competes with them.
karmacondon 11y ago
Do you know of a previous case that's similar to what you're describing here? Because I'm having a hard time understand this. Unless Apple entered into an agreement with Uber, I don't see how Uber would have an expectation that their relationship with the App Store would continue in its same form into perpetuity. And I'm almost positive there is some condition in the apple developer agreement that says "We reserve the right to terminate without notice or reason" or something similar. What you're saying is reasonable, and I could see how a judge might agree with the arguments you've made. But it also seems like Apple could say, "We don't like the CEO of Uber's haircut", which is as valid as any other reason to terminate a non-contractual relationship. If Uber wanted protection for the billions they invested, they should have negotiated a proper agreement. Maybe I just don't understand how the law works.
Mister_Snuggles 11y ago
Regarding a criteria to disqualify Uber... I was under the impression that all purchases conducted within an iOS app had to go through Apple's in-app purchase framework. Uber let's me get a ride then bills me completely separately. Likewise, if I want to purchase movie tickets the Cineplex app shows me a web page (still inside the app) and lets me buy the tickets. Yet the Kindle app is not allowed to let me buy Kindle books, nor can it even provide a link to Amazon to buy Kindle books. Why are Cineplex and Uber able to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase policy but Amazon isn't? Or has this policy changed?
- cstejerean 11y ago
  IAP is only required for purchasing digital content. This is why e-books, music, movies, game content and anything else you consume or watch on the phone requires IAP. Purchases for services or physical goods can be handled separately. Amazon has an app where I can buy physical stuff, but I can't buy Kindle or Audible content within the app.
  - Mister_Snuggles 11y ago
    Ahh, interesting! Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize they treated digital vs physical goods separately.
ihinsdale 11y ago
It's really cool that you outlined the argument here in a simple series of steps. That's the approach that I'd like to see more online discussions take, and I've created Sequiturs to promote that approach: https://sequiturs.com/arguments/apple-by-now-banning-uber-s-app-has-committed-an-act-that-damages-uber https://sequiturs.com/arguments/apple-by-now-banning-uber-s-.... I left you a comment there about step 2. If you're a fan of this argument format, I'd love to get your feedback about what you think of Sequiturs.