7 ms·

I think what’s missing here is sideloading. The new terms apple set are ridiculous, but it’s their App Store, so whatever. However, this iPhone is my device an

by jmole 3y ago

I think what’s missing here is sideloading. The new terms apple set are ridiculous, but it’s their App Store, so whatever. However, this iPhone is my device and I should be able to install whatever app I’d like on it. Without that freedom, Apple has no competition and can set their fees as high as they please.

robertlagrant 3y ago
They do have competition. Most phones aren't iPhones.
- jmole 3y ago
  Considering this case is in the USA, iPhones have a >53% market share and iPads >55%. But regardless of that, they have no competition in iOS app distribution. Keeping my fingers crossed that the EU will help solve that problem.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I doubt the EU has the mindset or ability to cultivate companies that are able to compete with Apple.
    - Jyaif 3y ago
      The companies that offer alternative (and likely cheaper) appstores could be american or asian for all the EU cares. The point is to allow competition.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        What I mean is that this is regulating at the wrong level, or perhaps that regulation is a poor substitute for what might be more useful. If there were more competitors in the phone side of things, then mono app stores would matter less, and if people cared about them, eventually get competed out. The problem I'm highlighting is that the EU itself hasn't created any phone OSes that have survived to this point. If it were more conducive to that, then regulation, which is a very poor substitute for actual competition, wouldn't be needed.
      - tekknik 3y ago
        Will the EU also dictate customer experience so when they force apple to allow others i don’t have to use 10 different websites to manage subscriptions and store my payment information on who knows who’s servers? i’d personally rather have security and peace of mind that the company holding my information will not use it nefariously. is the EU thinking of the consumer in that regard or just focused on the simple minded “more competition is more better”?
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Most phones in the US are iPhones, and I wouldn't call a duopoly healthy competition.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  The relevant market is iOS app distribution, not smartphones.
  - nodamage 3y ago
    No, US antitrust law does not allow a single company's product to be considered a relevant market unless very specific criteria are met. Epic attempted to make this very argument in court and failed. "iOS app distribution" is not a valid relevant market for antitrust purposes.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      You haven't been following Google's case closely enough.
      - nodamage 3y ago
        The details of the two cases are very different and here, details matter. The courts have already rejected "iOS app distribution" as a valid antitrust market. Edit: In case you're wondering why "Android app distribution" can be considered a relevant market whereas "iOS app distribution" was rejected even though they both sound like the same thing, the key difference is "iOS app distribution" is a single-brand aftermarket, and single-brand aftermarkets have stricter requirements in order to be accepted by the courts.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    There isn't a public market for iOS app distribution, and I don't see how you can force a business to create a public market inside its own products, or call it a monopoly when it doesn't. Does Disneyworld have a monopoly on food carts within its park?
- MerManMaid 3y ago
  Just because most consumers outside the US use android instead of apple doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help protect hundreds of millions of users. There is a large enough portion of market along with all the businesses built around catering to this market that are unfairly being taken advantage of.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    You know one of the techniques to rip off consumers is to hide in their transaction log. Get them to sign up for a subscription and help them forget they’re paying, that way they’re less likely to cancel. Apple handles this quite well, having all your subscriptions in one place easily canceled and non of this shenanigans about losing access if you cancel mid subscription. Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? If apple were abusing their position, you may have a point. But you’re preemptively regulating them when they’ve been nothing but pro consumer. It’s clear this has nothing to do with the consumer.
    - MerManMaid 3y ago
      >Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? Hey there friend, I really don't appreciate your assumptions and negative tone. I never once mentioned alternative app stores as they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I believe a 30% fee for other developers to innovate on their platform ultimately bad for everyone but Apple. Either the developer eats the cost and thus has less resources to work with or they offload this cost onto their consumers which results in artificially high costs for the consumer, the only one that truly benefits here is Apple. Here you have a market used by hundreds of millions of people controlled by one company with practically zero government oversight. Even if we take the optimistic view that no one in Apple is currently taking advantage of these people (unlikely as that may be) what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage? (Let a fox into the hey pen as it were) To me it's ridiculous that consumers don't have any meaningful financial protections in this market given the sheer size, scale, and daily activity it sees.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Apple can’t legally stop you from doing whatever you want with your phone. However I don’t see any reason Apple should be compelled to help you in using it with your own software.
- yazzku 3y ago
  You shouldn't have to jailbreak a phone to sideload your own software. There is a long stretch between not helping you and making it practically impossible.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    you don’t, pay the $100 a year and build / sign your own iOS apps
turquoisevar 3y ago
I think that anno 2024 it’s well known that you own the physical device but you license the software it runs on in exchange for agreeing with the license agreement. So I don’t think there’s much insight to be added there. But you do bring up an interesting point by mentioning sideloading. The courts have established in this case that Apple can charge their commission regardless on the premise that it’s a payment in exchange for the use of their IP. All in all not a shocking decision really because it just continues on the standing law regarding property rights. But it might have ramifications for sideload apps, unless you really want to get down and dirty those will be using Apple’s IP as well and in some cases there’s not even an alternative unless the iPhone is jailbroken. Because the developers of those app will be using Apple’s IP, Apple can extract payment from them. Perhaps not the full 30% because presumably they wouldn’t have agreed to Apple’s developer agreement, but it won’t be $0 either. Similar legal gaps exist in the impending EU regulation. Believe it or not, they too have well established property rights surrounding IP and there too there are courts who will be the final arbiters in this. Many seem to think that just because the EU says or does something it’s the law of the land, but like with legislation in the US it can be fought and I’d say even more so there because a lot of the regulations originate from the EU Commission, which is just the EU’s sparkling executive branch. While the dust is starting to settle here in the US, we will more than likely see some cases starting in the EU.

by jmole 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

They do have competition. Most phones aren't iPhones.

jmole 3y ago
Considering this case is in the USA, iPhones have a >53% market share and iPads >55%. But regardless of that, they have no competition in iOS app distribution. Keeping my fingers crossed that the EU will help solve that problem.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I doubt the EU has the mindset or ability to cultivate companies that are able to compete with Apple.
  - Jyaif 3y ago
    The companies that offer alternative (and likely cheaper) appstores could be american or asian for all the EU cares. The point is to allow competition.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      What I mean is that this is regulating at the wrong level, or perhaps that regulation is a poor substitute for what might be more useful. If there were more competitors in the phone side of things, then mono app stores would matter less, and if people cared about them, eventually get competed out. The problem I'm highlighting is that the EU itself hasn't created any phone OSes that have survived to this point. If it were more conducive to that, then regulation, which is a very poor substitute for actual competition, wouldn't be needed.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Will the EU also dictate customer experience so when they force apple to allow others i don’t have to use 10 different websites to manage subscriptions and store my payment information on who knows who’s servers? i’d personally rather have security and peace of mind that the company holding my information will not use it nefariously. is the EU thinking of the consumer in that regard or just focused on the simple minded “more competition is more better”?
heavyset_go 3y ago
Most phones in the US are iPhones, and I wouldn't call a duopoly healthy competition.
asadotzler 3y ago
The relevant market is iOS app distribution, not smartphones.
- nodamage 3y ago
  No, US antitrust law does not allow a single company's product to be considered a relevant market unless very specific criteria are met. Epic attempted to make this very argument in court and failed. "iOS app distribution" is not a valid relevant market for antitrust purposes.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    You haven't been following Google's case closely enough.
    - nodamage 3y ago
      The details of the two cases are very different and here, details matter. The courts have already rejected "iOS app distribution" as a valid antitrust market. Edit: In case you're wondering why "Android app distribution" can be considered a relevant market whereas "iOS app distribution" was rejected even though they both sound like the same thing, the key difference is "iOS app distribution" is a single-brand aftermarket, and single-brand aftermarkets have stricter requirements in order to be accepted by the courts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  There isn't a public market for iOS app distribution, and I don't see how you can force a business to create a public market inside its own products, or call it a monopoly when it doesn't. Does Disneyworld have a monopoly on food carts within its park?
MerManMaid 3y ago
Just because most consumers outside the US use android instead of apple doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help protect hundreds of millions of users. There is a large enough portion of market along with all the businesses built around catering to this market that are unfairly being taken advantage of.
- tekknik 3y ago
  You know one of the techniques to rip off consumers is to hide in their transaction log. Get them to sign up for a subscription and help them forget they’re paying, that way they’re less likely to cancel. Apple handles this quite well, having all your subscriptions in one place easily canceled and non of this shenanigans about losing access if you cancel mid subscription. Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? If apple were abusing their position, you may have a point. But you’re preemptively regulating them when they’ve been nothing but pro consumer. It’s clear this has nothing to do with the consumer.
  - MerManMaid 3y ago
    >Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? Hey there friend, I really don't appreciate your assumptions and negative tone. I never once mentioned alternative app stores as they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I believe a 30% fee for other developers to innovate on their platform ultimately bad for everyone but Apple. Either the developer eats the cost and thus has less resources to work with or they offload this cost onto their consumers which results in artificially high costs for the consumer, the only one that truly benefits here is Apple. Here you have a market used by hundreds of millions of people controlled by one company with practically zero government oversight. Even if we take the optimistic view that no one in Apple is currently taking advantage of these people (unlikely as that may be) what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage? (Let a fox into the hey pen as it were) To me it's ridiculous that consumers don't have any meaningful financial protections in this market given the sheer size, scale, and daily activity it sees.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Apple can’t legally stop you from doing whatever you want with your phone. However I don’t see any reason Apple should be compelled to help you in using it with your own software.

yazzku 3y ago
You shouldn't have to jailbreak a phone to sideload your own software. There is a long stretch between not helping you and making it practically impossible.
- tekknik 3y ago
  you don’t, pay the $100 a year and build / sign your own iOS apps

turquoisevar 3y ago

I think that anno 2024 it’s well known that you own the physical device but you license the software it runs on in exchange for agreeing with the license agreement. So I don’t think there’s much insight to be added there. But you do bring up an interesting point by mentioning sideloading. The courts have established in this case that Apple can charge their commission regardless on the premise that it’s a payment in exchange for the use of their IP. All in all not a shocking decision really because it just continues on the standing law regarding property rights. But it might have ramifications for sideload apps, unless you really want to get down and dirty those will be using Apple’s IP as well and in some cases there’s not even an alternative unless the iPhone is jailbroken. Because the developers of those app will be using Apple’s IP, Apple can extract payment from them. Perhaps not the full 30% because presumably they wouldn’t have agreed to Apple’s developer agreement, but it won’t be $0 either. Similar legal gaps exist in the impending EU regulation. Believe it or not, they too have well established property rights surrounding IP and there too there are courts who will be the final arbiters in this. Many seem to think that just because the EU says or does something it’s the law of the land, but like with legislation in the US it can be fought and I’d say even more so there because a lot of the regulations originate from the EU Commission, which is just the EU’s sparkling executive branch. While the dust is starting to settle here in the US, we will more than likely see some cases starting in the EU.