Apple is forced to allow installation of 3rd party Apps (outside of their official store) in the EU

[pablolie]

...
My issue with the "walled garden" and Apple as a whole is philosophical/cultural. In my opinion Apple's products and general business practices perpetuate dumb users, lazy, users, and rampant consumerism!

Welcome to the 21st century. As a whole we seem to obsess about the irrelevant yet are.lazy about the essential. People are more interested in the color of panties a Kardashian wears than China world domination moves.

 

[DLS79]

I disagree in spades and your attitude shows you think you are so much better than the average person, and that everyone but those like you are dumb and lazy.

Are you the pot or the kettle then?

 

[DLS79]

Welcome to the 21st century. As a whole we seem to obsess about the irrelevant yet are.lazy about the essential. People are more interested in the color of panties a Kardashian wears than China world domination moves.

Sadly I have to agree. I almost never watch broadcast television now because it seems reality tv is all anyone cares about! I miss the days when I could turn on Discovery, TLC, National Geographic, or A&E and watch something that was entertaining and educational or enlightening!

 

[pablolie]

Sadly I have to agree. I almost never watch broadcast television now because it seems reality is all anyone cares about! I miss the days when I could turn on Discovery, TLC, National Geographic, or A&E and watch something that was entertaining and educational or enlightening!

And the sad part is all of that "reality" is completely staged and fake garbage. And a large percentage of people dont get it...

Of course that also applies to our walled garden discussion here. We here know "you" don't necessarily get the safety guarantees you think you do.

But the big unanswered question remains why a totally open ecosystem improves safety. It doesnt.

 

[Ron Texas]

Are you the pot or the kettle then?

Neither, that's inappropriate and insulting given your elitist attitude which is unacceptable in a society where equality is a bedrock principle. I am tiring of your trolling. I would rather watch March madness than listen to you.

 

[DLS79]

The problem is not traditional antitrust law but ideological. It's bunch of sore loser developers and service providers like Spotify who want free access to the walled garden.

Neither, that's inappropriate and insulting given your elitist attitude which is unacceptable in a society where equality is a bedrock principle. I am tiring of your trolling. I would rather watch March madness than listen to you.

O please, you have zero room to talk about being insulting, elitism, or trolling!

The problem is not traditional antitrust law but ideological. It's bunch of sore loser developers and service providers like Spotify who want free access to the walled garden.

 

[tmtomh]

Man, the forum is really grumpy today - not just this thread either. Something's in the air.

 

[Keith_W]

I support your opinion. I am not in the Apple ecosystem, but I have zero interest in side-loading an app by a developer I don't know. I think a sales channel that also verifies your app is safe is good for customers. The only reason developers don't like it is because of the cut that channel takes, so basically greed.

Do you own a computer? Then you already "sideload". Imagine if Microsoft forced everybody to only purchase apps through the Windows Store and charged app developers 30% for it. Alternative app stores are not allowed, and the only way to get an app on your PC is through the Windows store. Oh, and they are not a monopoly either, because consumers can choose to use Linux, ChromeOS, or MacOS.

How is Apple's walled garden any different? You purchased the phone, you own it, and you should have the right to do anything you like with it. INCLUDING installing any app you please, from any source that you like. In fact, you already do this on your computer! Why shouldn't you have it on your phone or your tablet?

It boggles my mind that there are people defending Apple on this. Apple's only motivation is greed. They have managed to pull the wool over everybody's eyes saying it is about "security" when it is not. If they are not stopped now, imagine if Apple took the logical next step and forced everyone to purchase apps for MacOS through their app store to protect your "security". I would bet that some Apple useful idiots would celebrate it.

 

[pablolie]

Do you own a computer? Then you already "sideload". Imagine if Microsoft forced everybody to only purchase apps through the Windows Store and charged app developers 30% for it. Alternative app stores are not allowed, and the only way to get an app on your PC is through the Windows store. Oh, and they are not a monopoly either, because consumers can choose to use Linux, ChromeOS, or MacOS.

How is Apple's walled garden any different? You purchased the phone, you own it, and you should have the right to do anything you like with it. INCLUDING installing any app you please, from any source that you like. In fact, you already do this on your computer! Why shouldn't you have it on your phone or your tablet?

It boggles my mind that there are people defending Apple on this. Apple's only motivation is greed. They have managed to pull the wool over everybody's eyes saying it is about "security" when it is not. If they are not stopped now, imagine if Apple took the logical next step and forced everyone to purchase apps for MacOS through their app store to protect your "security". I would bet that some Apple useful idiots would celebrate it.

Actually that already happened. Not sure.which Windows legacy version you are still.on, but check on verfied app store

 

[Keith_W]

Actually that already happened. Not sure.which Windows legacy version you are still.on, but check on verfied app store

I am on Windows 11 with all the latest updates. Microsoft has an app store, but you don't have to use it. I can download and run anything that I like. Windows might pop up a warning but it is easily bypassed.

 

[Ron Texas]

O please, you have zero room to talk about being insulting, elitism, or trolling!

That was weak. You truly believe anyone not as skilled or smart as you are is stupid or lazy. No go find someone else to annoy. There's nothing elitist about what I have said.

 

[Ron Texas]

Do you own a computer? Then you already "sideload". Imagine if Microsoft forced everybody to only purchase apps through the Windows Store and charged app developers 30% for it. Alternative app stores are not allowed, and the only way to get an app on your PC is through the Windows store. Oh, and they are not a monopoly either, because consumers can choose to use Linux, ChromeOS, or MacOS.

How is Apple's walled garden any different? You purchased the phone, you own it, and you should have the right to do anything you like with it. INCLUDING installing any app you please, from any source that you like. In fact, you already do this on your computer! Why shouldn't you have it on your phone or your tablet?

It boggles my mind that there are people defending Apple on this. Apple's only motivation is greed. They have managed to pull the wool over everybody's eyes saying it is about "security" when it is not. If they are not stopped now, imagine if Apple took the logical next step and forced everyone to purchase apps for MacOS through their app store to protect your "security". I would bet that some Apple useful idiots would celebrate it.

An iPhone is purchased with conditions, most computers are not. I believe Chromebooks and Windows S machines are locked down. If you don't like the conditions of an iPhone buy an Android phone. That's why this battle is completely outside of traditional antitrust law.

 

[popej]

Imagine if Microsoft forced everybody to only purchase apps through the Windows Store and charged app developers 30% for it.

Imagine that you don't have admin rights and you can't install a proper firewall.

 

[DLS79]

An iPhone is purchased with conditions, most computers are not. I believe Chromebooks and Windows S machines are locked down.

That is correct and also incorrect at the same time!

The cannot force customers to uses their operating system, The only "condition" they can put on the consumer is modifications potential void your warranty, or acess to free repair service. Hence why they on their official rooting/jailbreaking page they have this all the way at the bottom (underneath all their rhetoric to scare the average consumer).

Unauthorized modification of iOS

Unauthorized modifications to iOS (also known as “jailbreaking”) bypass security features and can cause numerous issues to the hacked iPhone.

support.apple.com

Apple strongly cautions against installing any software that modifies iOS. It is also important to note that unauthorized modification of iOS is a violation of the iOS and iPadOS Software License Agreement and because of this, Apple may deny service for an iPhone that has any unauthorized software installed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know this is some way related to the digital millennium copyright act, and if memory serves another law.

this 2010 Macworld article and a nice high-level overview for those who don't want to make their eyes bleed by reading through legal/federal law documents.

Jailbreaking officially granted DMCA exemption

The U.S. Librarian of Congress has issued the latest round of exemptions from the DMCA's anti-circumvention measures, and among them are an exemption for jailbreaking.

www.macworld.com

The proposed exemption on jailbreaking was first put forth in 2008 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which argued that users should be allowed to jailbreak their phones to install, for personal use, legally acquired third-party software. Apple, for its part, argued against the exemption in an extensive filing contending that an exemption for jailbreaking would lead to more widespread piracy and additional support costs for the company. Two software developers, the Mozilla Corporation and Skype Communications, filed documents in support of the EFF’s argument.

It’s worth noting that the jailbreak ruling does not force Apple or other handset makers to remove copy protection from their software. Rather, those users who do choose to circumvent the protections will not be subject to criminal prosecution for the act of circumvention. In addition, the ruling only provides for jailbreaking for the use of legally-acquired software, meaning that users cannot use it as a defense for installing pirated applications.

 

[DLS79]

Actually that already happened. Not sure.which Windows legacy version you are still.on, but check on verfied app store

This is not accurate, consumers can install applications via the app store or they can install them themselves.

With that being said, Microsoft has this to say about why developers and consumers might want to use the ap store.

Benefits of distributing your apps via Microsoft Store - Windows apps

This section will help you understand the benefits of distributing your apps through Microsoft Store.

learn.microsoft.com

```
Microsoft Store applies quality and policy checks to all apps before they are published and provides an automatic update mechanism. This means that users can trust that the apps they download from the Store are free of malware, viruses, and other harmful or unwanted software.
```

Something I do not believe you will find in the apple app store, are programs that allow you to override os functionality. Microsoft however has no issue with this. for example this is a simple application that's I use to modify how the taskbar looks.

TranslucentTB - Official app in the Microsoft Store

A lightweight (uses a few MB of RAM and almost no CPU) utility that makes the Windows taskbar translucent/transparent on Windows 10 and Windows 11. Runner up for the Microsoft Store App Awards 2022 - Community Choice Award: Open Platform! Thank you for voting for us!

apps.microsoft.com

 

[somebodyelse]

An iPhone is purchased with conditions, most computers are not. I believe Chromebooks and Windows S machines are locked down. If you don't like the conditions of an iPhone buy an Android phone. That's why this battle is completely outside of traditional antitrust law.

Android is purchased with conditions too. If you don't like this company town you can move to that company town, but you'll have to leave behind anything you bought in the company store. Google do allow other companies to have a store, but they'll keep reminding you how dangerous it is to go to that part of town.

It depends how you define the market. Both Apple and Google argue the market is 'mobile apps' or even 'apps' so they can excuse their anticompetitive conduct by pointing to the other as a competitor. That conveniently ignores the significant barriers to migration that both have erected so that few people move from one to the other. Epic's argument is that the barriers are sufficient to have separated the markets so there are two monopolies instead one one duopoly. Europe seems slightly more open to the idea that both members of a duopoly can have power to distort the market enough for antitrust law to apply.

 

[mhardy6647]

Man, the forum is really grumpy today - not just this thread either. Something's in the air.

I'm pretty much always grumpy.

... You purchased the phone, you own it ...

Are you sure about that? And what exactly is it that you own?
EDIT: I doubt, for example, that you own (i.e., that one owns) the operating system. I suspect that one has some sort of user agreement setting the conditions under which one may use the O/S, and I (again) suspect that the O/S belongs to Apple.
I suppose tha one could write and install one's own O/S if the user agreeement's not acceptable to one -- but the phone itself is kind of useless sans O/S and software.

Told ya I was grumpy!

 

[DLS79]

It depends how you define the market. Both Apple and Google argue the market is 'mobile apps' or even 'apps' so they can excuse their anticompetitive conduct by pointing to the other as a competitor. That conveniently ignores the significant barriers to migration that both have erected so that few people move from one to the other. Epic's argument is that the barriers are sufficient to have separated the markets so there are two monopolies instead one one duopoly. Europe seems slightly more open to the idea that both members of a duopoly can have power to distort the market enough for antitrust law to apply.

Excellently written!

 

[DLS79]

From the offical DOJ press release!

Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets

The Justice Department, joined by 16 other state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

www.justice.gov

As alleged in the complaint, Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone and performance smartphones markets, and it uses its control over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct. This anticompetitive behavior is designed to maintain Apple’s monopoly power while extracting as much revenue as possible. The complaint alleges that Apple’s anticompetitive course of conduct has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve today, including:

• Blocking Innovative Super Apps. Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms.
• Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware.
• Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.
• Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.
• Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.

The complaint also alleges that Apple’s conduct extends beyond these examples, affecting web browsers, video communication, news subscriptions, entertainment, automotive services, advertising, location services, and more. Apple has every incentive to extend and expand its course of conduct to acquire and maintain power over next-frontier devices and technologies.

 

[blueone]

Are you sure about that? And what exactly is it that you own?
EDIT: I doubt, for example, that you own the operating system. I suspect that one has some sort of user agreement setting the conditions under which one may use the O/S, and I (again) suspect that the O/S belongs to Apple.
I suppose tha one could write and install one's own O/S if the user agreeement's not acceptable to one -- but the phone itself is kind of useless sans O/S and software.

Told ya I was grumpy!

You are correct. You purchase the hardware but you only license the software.