6 ms·

Ehh, no matter how much I dislike Apple and hate everything they stand for, I must stand with them in this particular case (with the information the article gav

Ehh, no matter how much I dislike Apple and hate everything they stand for, I must stand with them in this particular case (with the information the article gave). They are suing Apple, yet the only thing Apple did in regards to them was make jailbreaking more difficult? I don't see a real case here... If anyone has more insight, please do share.

chungus_khan 6y ago
All the Bell Telephone company did was prevent other products/services from working with their system.
- macjohnmcc 6y ago
  In a time that you could only get phone service from Bell. Now you have many vendors that sell Android based phones that you can choose if you want a wide open market.
  - echelon 6y ago
    The same market where Apple controls 50% under tight lock and key? And access to those consumers is controlled by a non-government entity for everything they do? All commerce impacting their entire life up and down the stack? Apple is the biggest monopoly since Ma Bell and Standard Oil. They're owning people. Whole entities. You have to go through Apple to do business with them.
    - kolinko 6y ago
      I, for one, keep choosing iPhone exactly for this reason - I want only apple to control the app review process. Without this, you’d have every single major company pishing their own installers with a ton of crapware on top of them. To give an example - Epic on Windows requires you to install their own store, with their own update system and notifications, plus ads showing each time you open up their game. I don’t want this on my phone - battery aside, I want the device to be 100% secure, and such crapware has a poor track record of security. I’m really for strong antitrust laws - Google and Facebook are monopolosts who abuse their position. But in case of the phones, both users and devs have a choice - they can use either Apple or Google. Unless both companies are guilty of the same thing (and in this case they are not), how this is an issue?
    - slinkyblack 6y ago
      Apple only controls 50% of the market because consumers keep buying their products. They are free to chose android, there are even plenty of androids phones are comparable in build quality and specs.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      What 50% ?
    - macjohnmcc 6y ago
      People who knew it is what it is right from the get go. They didn't do any bait and switch.
    - adamcstephens 6y ago
      Apple is far from the biggest monopoly of today much less since the others. Amazon probably takes the cake, but Facebook and Google are right there too. Furthermore there are plenty of monopolies in non tech industries that do the same things.
restingrobot 6y ago
The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can install on their phone. For example, if you have a company with millions of users and Apple decides you are a threat to their business, (or whatever reason they make up), they can ban your apps from the store, (e.g. Epic Games). This is monopolistic behavior. If apple were to allow third party store options, (without jailbreaking required), there wouldn't be an issue. The root issue isn't jailbreaking, (that's still possible and required to install non-store apps), but rather the requirement that ONLY store apps can be installed in the first place.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  That would be a completely legitimate argument except that people buy their devices with the understanding that APple is the sole controller of what they can install. It's not monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior or even anti-trust.
  - restingrobot 6y ago
    That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of jailbreaking. >Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase. It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit. Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits. https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beverages/keurig-agrees-to-settle-indirect-buyers-antitrust-class-action-lawsuits-for-31m/#:~:text=Keurig%20has%20agreed%20to%20a,September%202010%20and%20August%202020 https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....

chungus_khan 6y ago

All the Bell Telephone company did was prevent other products/services from working with their system.

macjohnmcc 6y ago
In a time that you could only get phone service from Bell. Now you have many vendors that sell Android based phones that you can choose if you want a wide open market.
- echelon 6y ago
  The same market where Apple controls 50% under tight lock and key? And access to those consumers is controlled by a non-government entity for everything they do? All commerce impacting their entire life up and down the stack? Apple is the biggest monopoly since Ma Bell and Standard Oil. They're owning people. Whole entities. You have to go through Apple to do business with them.
  - kolinko 6y ago
    I, for one, keep choosing iPhone exactly for this reason - I want only apple to control the app review process. Without this, you’d have every single major company pishing their own installers with a ton of crapware on top of them. To give an example - Epic on Windows requires you to install their own store, with their own update system and notifications, plus ads showing each time you open up their game. I don’t want this on my phone - battery aside, I want the device to be 100% secure, and such crapware has a poor track record of security. I’m really for strong antitrust laws - Google and Facebook are monopolosts who abuse their position. But in case of the phones, both users and devs have a choice - they can use either Apple or Google. Unless both companies are guilty of the same thing (and in this case they are not), how this is an issue?
  - slinkyblack 6y ago
    Apple only controls 50% of the market because consumers keep buying their products. They are free to chose android, there are even plenty of androids phones are comparable in build quality and specs.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    What 50% ?
  - macjohnmcc 6y ago
    People who knew it is what it is right from the get go. They didn't do any bait and switch.
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    Apple is far from the biggest monopoly of today much less since the others. Amazon probably takes the cake, but Facebook and Google are right there too. Furthermore there are plenty of monopolies in non tech industries that do the same things.

restingrobot 6y ago

The issue isn't that apple made jailbreaking harder, its that apple shouldn't be the sole controller of what apps people can install on their phone. For example, if you have a company with millions of users and Apple decides you are a threat to their business, (or whatever reason they make up), they can ban your apps from the store, (e.g. Epic Games). This is monopolistic behavior. If apple were to allow third party store options, (without jailbreaking required), there wouldn't be an issue. The root issue isn't jailbreaking, (that's still possible and required to install non-store apps), but rather the requirement that ONLY store apps can be installed in the first place.

dkonofalski 6y ago
That would be a completely legitimate argument except that people buy their devices with the understanding that APple is the sole controller of what they can install. It's not monopolistic behavior because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. The only unique thing in this lawsuit is that Cydia is claiming to be a competitor to the App Store and I firmly believe that it'll be tossed because Cydia's entire existence is predicated on a process that, at the time it was operating, is illegal and violates the DMCA. I don't necessarily think Cydia is bad and people should be able to jailbreak their devices if they want but that can't be used as the basis for a lawsuit that alleges monopolistic behavior or even anti-trust.
- restingrobot 6y ago
  That's not true though, Apple does make the devices, but the user owns them, and therefore has the legal right to install whatever they wish. Apple does not have control over this, as evidenced by the legality ruling of jailbreaking. >Apple makes the devices, they are 100% legally allowed to only allow apps from their own App Store and that precedent has already been set. This is false. As proven time and time again, the Device Owner has full legal control after purchase. It is monopolistic behavior due to the scope of the control from Apple. The devices are the owner's property, and it is monopolistic for them to implement software/policies/hardware blocks, that prevent users from using the devices as they see fit. Take a simplistic example, Keurig. Keurig tried to prevent users from using any other coffee pod besides theirs. There is precedent to these monopoly lawsuits. https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://time.com/2913062/k-cups-war/ https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/beverages/keurig-agrees-to-settle-indirect-buyers-antitrust-class-action-lawsuits-for-31m/#:~:text=Keurig%20has%20agreed%20to%20a,September%202010%20and%20August%202020 https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro....