4 ms·
Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors
by Shivetya 6y ago
Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device.
So do we also force any app store owner to also provide access to their payment services as well? If Apple is forced to open the iPhone do they also have to grant access to the phones secure means of payments? This sounds like a paradise for world intelligence agencies.
So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run?
- ViViDboarder 6y agoWhy would they have to open up secure payments? Is that an API that first party apps on the App Store access? Or are the apps that access it part of the operating system? This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps.
- eigen 6y ago> This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to competing apps. it seems that, according to Spotify, Siri works with Spotify. https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/siri/
- ViViDboarder 6y agoThey added support in the last year or so on iOS an CarPlay if you say “Play something on Spotify”, but it will not be default. They gave themselves an advantage there for years. Here’s a timeline on Spotify and Apple https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
- stale2002 6y ago> which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device. Nope! This is not true. The court case is only regarding companies that have significant market power. So, if a device manufacturer does not have significant market power, then the court case, which is regarding section 2 if the Sherman anti trust act, would not apply and they would not be forced to do anything. > So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run? What prevents them is that they have significant and durable market power, and that their behavior is anti competitive.