3 ms·
> If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. I agree, because this is
by jdmichal 12y ago
> If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS.
I agree, because this is practically the same issue. The app store isn't just a way to get iOS software, it's the only way to get iOS software. Which means that being rejected from the app store means you cannot provide your product to those consumers. Which means Apple rejecting products from the store is the same thing as Apple stating that that company cannot provide that app to customers. You could see where this might become an issue when that reason for rejection has nothing to do with the actual application and everything to do with mentioning a competing product in the description.
If side-loading was permitted, then I think (2) would hold. However, in our current world without side-loading, (2) basically states that Apple has full control over what software products consumers may purchase for their device. IANAL, but to me, that fact could bring antitrust liability.
- ebbv 12y agoWe only differ on whether Apple should be compelled to host content it doesn't want to. I would say no, but it should be compelled to allow iPhone owners to modify their devices and install third party software.
- jdmichal 12y agoI actually haven't stated a position on solutions, only that IMO the current state opens them up to liability. I think allowing for applications to be side-loaded would be a fine solution.