Support NeoGAF

[llien]

The Supreme Court will review a 2011 class-action lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of operating an illegal monopoly by not allowing iPhone users to download mobile apps outside of its own App Store, reducing consumer choice. The case, being referred to as Apple Inc. v. Pepper., could have wide-reaching implications for consumers as well as other companies like Amazon. Wired reports:The dispute is over whether Apple, by charging app developers a 30 percent commission fee and only allowing iOS apps to be sold through its own store, has inflated the price of iPhone apps. Apple, supported by the Trump administration, argues that the plaintiffs in the case -- iPhone consumers -- don't have the right to sue under current antitrust laws in the U.S.

The case marks a rare instance in which the court has agreed not only to hear an antitrust case, but also one where no current disagreement exists in the circuit courts. The outcome could change decades of antitrust legal precedent -- either strengthening or weakening consumer protections against monopolistic power. The case also represents a huge source of revenue for Apple; the company raked in an estimated $11 billion last year in App Store commissions alone.The lawsuit centers around another Supreme Court case from 1977, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, "which established what is known as the Illinois Brick Doctrine," reports Wired. "That rule says you can't sue for antitrust damages if you're not the direct purchaser of a good or service."

wired


Notable rulings by SC:
2018: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that businesses can force employees to resolve disputes outside the court system, blocking potential class-action lawsuits in a victory for business interests.

2011: Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.

 

[Super Mario]

This will be an interesting ruling. While I wish Apple would be forced to allow other App stores, I don't see it happening.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Isn’t consumer choice to buy a non apple phone?

 

[diablos991]

I hope this pans out as having a single App Store but with looser restrictions on purchases from within apps.

 

[Keylime]

I view the App Store as a necessary evil.

From my POV Apple wants the App Store for a handful or reasons:
- Guaranteed income for Apple (I'm putting this first since this will be most of the dissenters biggest sticking point)
- Quality control over the content
- Security for the users
- Ease of use for the users

It's a very valid thing to exist, and wanting all apps that run on their device to be validated by the App Store process I think is a good one. Of course the App Store review process isn't 100% fair, 100% effective, 100% honorable...but I don't believe I've really seen any evidence of Apple abusing this.

Probably the most egregious thing they've done is make it so that apps can't link out to the web to sign up for services and instead demand that developers have to offer a way to pay through the App Store directly, or not advertise how to get the service at all from within the app. As a customer I WANT to be able to pay for everything and manage my subscriptions through the App Store. It makes managing my purchases and subscriptions stupid simple for me. But I can get how some apps don't want to give up that revenue to Apple just to have people use their products.

I'd argue that Apple being hard on this really rubs people the wrong way because it mostly comes off as greed, and it's hard to argue that that aspect of things isn't present. But regardless of Apple's intent, it DOES make my life easier if I can always transact with apps through the App Store model, so I embrace it.

If Apple allows side-loading of apps as a result of this ruling, it makes the entire ecosystem a less safe place. I know you can argue that you can just NOT side-load and you'll be fine...which is all well and good...until MAJOR apps start being side-loaded instead. Like what if Waze COULD ONLY ever be side-loaded? What's stopping Google from doing some shady ass shit that they normally wouldn't be allowed to get away with because they have to go through the App Store review process?

The OS level security features will protect the device to a large degree, but I wouldn't really like the idea of side-loading apps becoming the norm.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I don't use any Apple products but from people that do I know security is a big issue for them, and one of the reasons they invest in their products. Having control over every application that can be applied to a device is surely an important part of that process. That being said it obviously benefits Apple hugely and from a language perspective it is the very definition of a monopoly. Part of the reason I don't use their devices is the restrictions of their ecosystem and so I would welcome a ruling against them, but understand this is very much against what their customers want. I'm biased but can't really see a middle ground solution here.

 

[oagboghi2]

The market already has a solution for this. Don't buy an iphone

 

[Dontero]

Isn’t consumer choice to buy a non apple phone?

Yes and antri-thrust laws are made to counter choices that lead to lack of competition because anyone with gray matter under scalp realizes that monopoly or duopoly isn't "market".

 

[llien]

I'd argue that Apple being hard on this really rubs people the wrong way because it mostly comes off as greed, and it's hard to argue that that aspect of things isn't present. But regardless of Apple's intent, it DOES make my life easier if I can always transact with apps through the App Store model, so I embrace it.

And having alternatives to the App Store would somehow negatively impact your App Store activities, I presume, although, don't see how.

Overall, arguing no chice is better than having choice, is brave, but not too convincing.

 

[llien]

don't use any Apple products but from people that do I know security is a big issue for them, and one of the reasons they invest in their products. Having control over every application that can be applied to a device is surely an important part of that process.

How is that different from anyone getting apps only from Google's store?

Dolphin browser fiasco affected both Android and iOS users, but the latter somehow felt "safer".

 

[Future]

Could potentially have a big impact. Not sure how an App Store alone stifles any competition as they aren’t the only phone in town, nor the most popular phone.

However some of those policies, like being unable to buy certain items on the phone like ebooks without paying additional 30%, while I can buy other things like other amazon products seems iffy. Especially when the rule seems to only make it inconvenient by forcing this only with an App Store app on certain items that Apple competes directly with.

 

[Fbh]

Not entirely on topic but couldn't this also end up affecting consoles? You are also limited to a single store (like PSN store on ps4 or the Eshop on switch).
I guess there's the argument that physical games exist and can be purchased in other places but there's a lot of games and add-ons that are digital only

 

[BibiMaghoo]

How is that different from anyone getting apps only from Google's store?

Any stock Android device can run a .apk from any source. I can create a malicious app, send it to your email and you can download and install it without any checks or intervention from Google, or knowledge of its contents. My understanding is that you cannot do this with iOS. That you need to install apps only from their store unless you are a registered developer. This means that:

a) Apple knows the details of each person with the ability to run an unsigned app on a stock device and a specific device ID for it.
b) Apple have to approve every single app available to a stock device for a non-developer.

This is clearly far more secure for the average user, who is unable to install my malicious app at all. I'm sure much smarter people than me have ways round such problems, but they are still barriers not present on Android devices. As I said, I don't use any, so if any of this is incorrect let me know, but this is my understanding of how they differ.

Of course if people chose to only use the store and never install from another source then there is not a great deal of difference, but that is a choice and not forced.

 

[llien]

Any stock Android device can run a .apk from any source. I can create a malicious app, send it to your email and you can download and install it without any checks or intervention from Google, or knowledge of its contents.

Oh dear god, where to start...

You need EXPLICITLY ENABLE installing APKs (it is buried behind scary "development options") for that to work.

And if you meant something, that can break through the sandbox, that's hacking, that's regularly happening in iOS as well.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Oh dear god, where to start...

You need EXPLICITLY ENABLE installing APKs (it is buried behind scary "development options") for that to work.

And if you meant something, that can break through the sandbox, that's hacking, that's regularly happening in iOS as well.

I know, but if you try and it is not enabled, it gives you instructions to enable it, a simple check box. And it is not obscure or hard to find. It is settings / security / allow unknown sources.

 

[Keylime]

And having alternatives to the App Store would somehow negatively impact your App Store activities, I presume, although, don't see how.

Overall, arguing no chice is better than having choice, is brave, but not too convincing.

The alternative to the App Store would be providing some other way to manage apps on my device, manage how those apps are paid for, puts security more on me than on Apple.

The App Store, like it or not, does a ton for customers in terms of ease of access, ease of use, ease of management, ease of security.

Bypassing it will break all of these things, as app developers may choose to just completely abandon the app store in the hunt for profits, and the customer loses that cohesive experience we've grown to love about Apple's ecosystem.

I get that FOR YOU it doesn't seem like a big deal, but TO ME, it very much would be. The moment the big boys abandon the app store and I'm starting to side-load essentially all of my applications by default, the apple ecosystem is fractured and broken to the point of not even being a meaningful feature anymore.

 

[TheMikado]

I think more interestingly is if this would affect consoles, especially if another console is technically capable of running another console manufacturers game.

 

[llien]

The App Store, like it or not, does a ton for customers in terms of ease of access, ease of use, ease of management, ease of security.

Uh, no, it doesn't have anything that Google's app store doesn't have.

Bypassing it will break all of these things, as app developers may choose to just completely abandon the app store in the hunt for profits, and the customer loses that cohesive experience we've grown to love about Apple's ecosystem.

How many developers have "abandoned" google's app store, I need to know.

I get that FOR YOU it doesn't seem like a big deal

It's just you guys sprinkle words like "ecosystem", "security", "access" around as if it was magic dust, as baseless as slurs, but somehow improving what exclusive app store actually means.

I know, but if you try and it is not enabled, it gives you instructions to enable it, a simple check box.

You said "without any checks". On top of not allowing to just install any apk, apps being sandboxed and explicitly asking you for access to this and that, google is actively scanning for malicious crap.

 

[Keylime]

All I'm saying is that all the convenience and security that comes with a singular location to get all your applications gets blown up if that is no longer a requirement.

In what way does my life get easier or better by this?

Choice for the sake of choice isn't an improvement by default. It comes with pros and cons. And I'm saying that for me, the cons aren't things that I'd want to deal with. You're totally allowed to disagree, but you seem mighty offended that I don't like the idea of it.

As a consumer, I choose to live in the box that Apple gave me. I embrace what benefits it provides me, and acknowledge the limitations it puts on me. I've made an informed choice to stay in that world, and trust that Apple IS looking out for me as a consumer.

I can understand that if you don't trust Apple or you don't value being controlled in your actions by a corporation, that this would rub you the wrong way.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You said "without any checks". On top of not allowing to just install any apk, apps being sandboxed and explicitly asking you for access to this and that, google is actively scanning for malicious crap.

Yes, I was wrong to say no checks in general, as the device checks the apk is signed by them or not, but Google themselves do not in any capacity, they never see what that apk is. We can dance around the fundamentals of that, how hard it is to go two menus deep and check a box when you are told to check it, but it is not possible on iOS devices. That this makes them more secure would seem a fair point, unless you have a reason why making it impossible is less safe than allowing it. I can't think of one though.

 

[llien]

but Google themselves do not in any capacity

Google has standard malware scanning service enabled on most if not all phones.

We can dance around the fundamentals of that, how hard it is to go two menus deep and check a box when you are told to check it, but it is not possible on iOS devices

I find premise of "don't click on trust unknown sources AND THEN don't grant more and more and even more rights to it later on", to give up sideloading of apps an utterly ridiculous concept.

And it isn't even normal sandboxed apps we are talking about, to have something seriously malicious you need to break out of it, which is a hack on either devices.

J Lawrence also felt safe with an iPhone, remind me, how it turned out.

All I'm saying is that all the convenience and security that comes with a singular location to get all your applications gets blown up if that is no longer a requirement.

There is no "security" that "comes from single location" at all.
Sideloading APKs doesn't have anything to do with supporting more than one app store to begin with.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Google has standard malware scanning service enabled on most if not all phones.


I find premise of "don't click on trust unknown sources AND THEN don't grant more and more and even more rights to it later on", to give up sideloading of apps an utterly ridiculous concept.

And it isn't even normal sandboxed apps we are talking about, to have something seriously malicious you need to break out of it, which is a hack on either devices.

J Lawrence also felt safe with an iPhone, remind me, how it turned out.

I have built android apps and installed them, and you are wrong. Android devices do not scan local apps you have installed from an unknown source for any kind of virus or anything else. The Play store does this with apps it holds, not the device. You can install apps that check for you and perhaps your device has one already, but it is not a part of stock android to do this which is why they have the warning and the tick box in the first place.

By all means, be appalled that people are dumb and install viruses and run things they shouldn't, but don't misrepresent what it an obvious and easily verifiable difference between them. Google themselves state the dangers of installing apps from other sources are high, Apple simply do not allow it.

 

[llien]

I have built android apps and installed them, and you are wrong.

So did I.

Android devices do not scan local apps you have installed from an unknown source for any kind of virus or anything else

Google has generic malware scanner installed, it's not targeted at sideloaded apps in particular.
And one doesn't need to know these details to develop for Android (or iOS for that matter).

By all means, be appalled that people are dumb and install viruses

It is the third post that ignores the fact that apps are, in fact, sandboxed and you need a hack to break out and if you do have it, you can infect iOS too.

 

[camelCase]

Isn’t consumer choice to buy a non apple phone?

But where you buy your apps from is not a consumer choice?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

So did I.


Google has generic malware scanner installed, it's not targeted at sideloaded apps in particular.
And one doesn't need to know these details to develop for Android (or iOS for that matter).


It is the third post that ignores the fact that apps are, in fact, sandboxed and you need a hack to break out and if you do have it, you can infect iOS too.

I see, so you consider enabling that checkbox the same as hacking a device? This is where we disconnect then. I don't consider opening a shut door to be breaking out of a room.

 

[NahaNago]

This just seems weird that you can force someone to put in another app store on the product that you make.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I have not updated to iOS 11 yet. I'm staying on 10.3.3 as long as I possibly can. Locking people out of apps and blaming it on the developer is stupid. Apple should have another option, if not a compatibility mode. They're forcing me to update if I have over a GB worth of space. I stop that by having under a GB of free space. I don't want to update to iOS 11. I have quite a bit of money invested in my apps. A handful of them can't even run on anything after iOS 8.

I've looked at other options. You can take a Kindle Fire and add the Play Store without jail breaking it. I guess it's a big deal? I care about my purchases on the App Store. I feel like Apple is controlling their user base. They either lock you down or force you to up grade.

I'm having a wonderful time on 10.3.3 and I think one day I'll be forced off of it. It's stuff like this that make these lawsuits so believable.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I know, but if you try and it is not enabled, it gives you instructions to enable it, a simple check box. And it is not obscure or hard to find. It is settings / security / allow unknown sources.

Its up to the user though. Choice something Apple doesn't give you outside not buying their products.

 

[bitbydeath]

How's this not laughed out of court?

reducing consumer choice

Choice of what exactly?
Apps can be submitted to the app store at anytime, if it's rejected you will be advised why.
You fix it and you re-send it.

Are they seriously trying to enforce holes in Apple's security?

 

[llien]

I see, so you consider enabling that checkbox the same as hacking a device?

You are failing to comprehend, that even sideloading crap doesn't give crap root privileges, it is STILL SANDBOXED.

Apps can be submitted to the app store at anytime, if it's rejected you will be advised why.

Or not. Chuckle.

Are they seriously trying to enforce holes in Apple's security?

This has nothing to do with security. It doesn't imply allowing sideloading of packages from unknown source at all.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Its up to the user though. Choice something Apple doesn't give you outside not buying their products.

I know. I was simply pointing out that security matters to Apple customers, and this is one of the ways they achieve that.

You are failing to comprehend, that even sideloading crap doesn't give crap root privileges, it is STILL SANDBOXED.

I comprehend just fine. I just don't need to misrepresent the situation to make my point. I mean, you say it's "buried behind scary "development options", but it is two options deep and nothing to do with developer options. You insist they are scanning unknown source apps for viruses. I say this is false and you then agree they don't do this. I ask you to clarify that you consider allowing unknown sources the same, and you selectively quote and dodge again. You can keep telling me the failure to understand is mine, but it certainly doesn't read that way from your posts.

 

[llien]

I mean, you say it's "buried behind scary "development options", but it is two options deep and nothing to do with developer options.

I ask you to clarify that you consider allowing unknown sources the same

Ask again.

You insist they are scanning unknown source apps for viruses. I say this is false...

I never denied you said it was false.

Google Adds New Behavior-Based Malware Scanner To Every Android Device

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You know very well you had to enable those developer options, and that the allow unknown sources is under the security menu on stock devices, and has no mention of development options. I can give you a screenshot too, or you can google it in five seconds. Disingenuous at best.

Secondly, Play Protect scans apps from the store not from your device. A device checks metadata in the signing block for certification locally, hence the allow unknown sources as we have already been over.
It does not look at the contents of the application not from the Play Store despite what they claim, and this is evidenced by you having to specifically allow "Enable sending of unknown apps" which then vets the apk metadata against the Play Store data. It has done this since 2013, long before PP existed, which was a PR exercise. Without a connection to the play store, the process cannot function at all. They started rolling out offline checking of apk metadata this week. Do you know why they did this? Because it was a security issue and because the scan was not local to a device and cannot account for unknown sources that are actually unknown, ie, not marked with metadata they hold as malicious on the Play Store.

However much you want to reduce this issue, it does exist. I don't know why this is such a problem for you to accept. There are positives and negatives to both Apple and Google's position on this.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I don’t see how this can be described as monopolistic behaviour. The consumer choice is already there to buy an Android or other alternative.

These closed ecosystems where everything is unified and ‘just works’ are what most people want. There are already alternatives, plus any company is free to make something new and further add to the choice pile. This is just going after the company who did it best and became the most successful at it. You can’t punish them for that.

 

[llien]

You know very well you had to enable those developer options

This is the only way to enable it on an amazon device.

allow unknown sources is under the security menu on stock devices

It depends on device and android version:

Secondly, Play Protect scans apps from the store not from your device.

You are AGAIN making things up.

However much you want to reduce this issue, it does exist.

We didn't even get to the main point: SIDELOADING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU CAN ALLOW AMAZON SELLING IOS APPS, WITHOUT ALLOWING USERS TO SIDELOAD "SOME PACKAGES". Caps, because it keeps ignored otherwise.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

This is the only way to enable it on an amazon device.


It depends on device and android version:



You are AGAIN making things up.


We didn't even get to the main point: SIDELOADING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU CAN ALLOW AMAZON SELLING IOS APPS, WITHOUT ALLOWING USERS TO SIDELOAD "SOME PACKAGES". Caps, because it keeps ignored otherwise.

Fucking lol. It is not stock android then is it!

Everything I have said you can verify for yourself. If you don't want to accept any of it, then I guess we are done here. No problem.

 

[llien]

I guess we are done here.

We sure are.