Earlier this week, the Supreme Court officially picked up the long-running antitrust case Apple v. Pepper. The court will decide whether iPhone users can sue Apple for locking down the iOS ecosystem, something the suit’s plaintiffs say is creating an anti-competitive monopoly.
Apple v. Pepper could theoretically affect how tech companies can build walled gardens around their products. The Supreme Court isn’t going to make a call on that specific issue, but its decision could affect people’s relationship with all kinds of digital platforms. Here’s what’s at stake when the Supreme Court case starts, which should happen sometime in the next year.
Sideloading code on a computer you own should not void any warranties.
Thom Holwerda,
This is the first I hear of this case. I have very little confidence that common sense will prevail. Still, there’s a glimmer of hope for consumers who would benefit from alternative app stores. I think it’s fair to say that both apple and google app stores are built for quantity over quality. If this case succeeds, it could be a boon for would-be competitors to come in and do a better job than the original manufacturers. Conceivably it could convince companies like steam and humblebundle to open new multiplatform mobile stores.
Hopefully this could put an end to the restrictions huge companies are imposing on user devices to deliberately impede consumer choice.
Edited 2018-06-20 23:47 UTC
I’m excited to see where this goes. The fundamental premise, that these kind of vertically integrated distribution models are bad for users, is definitely an argument that I can get behind.
One thing bugs me though, this part:
I just don’t see how any rationale person could come to that conclusion, and that viewpoint seems so disconnected from reality that I fear it actually will harm the case in the long run.
There are tons of things that are bad about Apple’s appstore, but the one thing you simply can’t rationally claim is that it has caused price tags to increase. Software in the app store is so under priced that it is farcical at this point.
Sure, 98% of it is crap that isn’t worth what it costs, but the problem with equating that with “overpriced” is that the fundamental issue isn’t the price tag, its that any of it even exists at all. Most of it shouldn’t, its mere existence is what causes all the problems.
All that crap creates downward pricing pressure on the 2% that isn’t utterly useless, to the point that no one can make any money without resorting to casino tactics and selling cosmetics or pay-to-win items on the side. Its a cesspool at this point. You can almost count on one hand the number of successful apps in the appstore that are actually priced realistically, everything else is freemium bullshit and/or so niche they don’t matter. No one makes or sells actual useful software anymore, because there is no way to make money doing it, the real money is in selling flavor of the day digital crack (or cosmetics for said digital crack). Sure, you can blame it on the users to a degree, they are the ones buying all the crap, but anyone can see it is not a healthy market for, you know, software developers. The attention all that stuff sucks up leaves no room for anything else, and building good software should be about servicing a need, not manipulating people’s psyches.
I really wish developers were the ones bringing this suit, because they have a way more compelling argument in my opinion. Apple’s app store model and it’s cup-of-coffee pricing devalued software to the point where the only people that make any money on it is Apple themselves (and the social engineering experts selling the digital crack). That is the real travesty imo.
Edited 2018-06-21 06:41 UTC
It sounds like it’s just one of those claims you have to include, almost as boilerplate, if you want to go the antitrust route.
You seem to be arguing that Apple somehow controls pricing in the App Store. It doesn’t.
You also seem to arguing that allowing a secondary non-Apple market place for apps to exist would somehow drive up prices and app quality. How?
I don’t know exactly, but the average ASP on Steam is about 20x higher than the Appstore, if you ignore all the in-app-purchase crap. You can reasonably sell an independently developed game on Steam for $10 or more, that is nigh impossible in the AppStore. Part of that is because its mobile of course, but that isn’t all of it…
ps. Steam has its own problems, not holding it up as a shining example or anything, but it is far more developer friendly imo.
Edited 2018-06-21 22:12 UTC
Demanding the ability to sideload apps onto your device is fine as long as the user accepts the risk that doing so may expose your device and you to malware, personal security and privacy problems. It also involves agreeing to absolve Apple or whoever makes the device in question of all responsibility if anything bad happens to you or your device as a result. You want complete freedom to do as you want with your device? Accept the risk and good luck to you.
Personally I appreciate Apple’s efforts to protect my privacy and security, I think it’s much better than the low-security Android free-for-all approach. To each his own.
Edited 2018-06-21 10:30 UTC
Exactly. Want to sideload your own applications? Buy an Android phone!
It’s not like there isn’t competition in the smartphone space. I see no reason why this antitrust case is happening.
At least in the areas you list, malware, personal security and privacy problems, doesn’t Apple (and others of course) already absolves itself basically of all responsibility with quite standard EULAs? (so other than some class action…) As far as we can tell nothing came out of for example this http://www.osnews.com/comments/29863 successfull, top-grossing malware in Apple appstore.
Given that the consensus is that the current Apple App Store model has delivered a vast quantity of cheap software to end users, all delivered with a high degree of security and consumer confidence, I am not sure I can actually see any benefits for end users of allowing sideloading.
I can see that a very small number of users who want to either sideload on principal or use some sort of apps that are not available on the App Store, might have their experience enhanced by an end to the current exclusive App Store model but I would imagine that these benefits would be for a very small number of people.
The main criticism I am seeing is that the current model has produced too much software, that its too cheap, that there is too much crap. Again I am not sure I can see how adding yet another software distribution mechanism would improve on this.
Perhaps I am missing something but I can’t see what benefits most users would get from an end to App Store exclusivity.
Tony Swash,
I can’t believe we’re dismissing the right for owners to choose different software stores so trivially. It’s disappointing because this is where all computing is headed if we allow companies to get away with it, not just mobile phones.
Edited 2018-06-21 14:40 UTC
You DO have the ability to choose app stores. If you don’t like Apple’s then choose Google’s or Amazons or even f-droid. Basically nobody said you have to use an iPhone, if you don’t like their polcies use another phone.
th3rmite,
This is a bad justification for anti-competitive restrictions. Obviously you don’t have the ability to choose app stores on IOS, only the phone. With cars, we have laws protecting owners from unscrupulous manufactures locking us into authorized dealers. We should have similar rights for computers and mobile device owners.
Edited 2018-06-21 15:11 UTC
This is on the nail. The issue isn’t a monopoly issue, it’s an anti-competitive issue that locks customers into a particular platform – and this in itself increases the cost of changing platform (beyond the cost of a new phone).
If current anti-competition law is not able to deal with this kind of issues, the law simply needs updating.
I note that you did not offer examples of how allowing sideloading would benefit the average user.
The issue is trivial for the vast number of users. Almost nobody cares about it. If you happen to be a member of the tiny minority that wants to sideload apps why not just use another platform?
Tony Swash,
My answering that is irrelevant because I believe it should be up to consumers to decide for themselves which app store is best for themselves. If they want the walmart experience, then great, stick with apple. If they want the tiffany’s experience, that’s fine too. If they want the game stop experience, great. Niche and specialized stores can cater to user needs in ways that apple is unwilling/unable to. Let the free market decide what consumers want.
Granted, I completely understand why apple wants to resist this, they enjoy being the middle man and don’t want to loose their control over users or developers. But frankly companies shouldn’t be entitled to this control, they should grow users and developers through merit rather than coercion.
Edited 2018-06-21 18:23 UTC
Why not, the platform belongs to Apple and they can develop and support in any way they choose and if consumers don’t like it they can buy a different brand.
The endless whining about the Apple App Store is just a form of nostalgia for PC days, when you could put any old rubbish from anywhere on your computer and software was expensive, mixed in with irritation that iOS is the most successful mobile platform.
Tony Swash,
This is very naive especially when you look at the long term damage to the free market for software. For the sake of my industry, I hope that the supreme court judges aren’t so short sited.
Edited 2018-06-21 20:17 UTC
But it is the best. The Apple App Store has better software – more pro apps, more top end apps, and more apps in general – than any other App Store. The software available for iOS devices is better – in both quality and quantity – than the software for Android devices. Software specifically designed to work on iPads is an order of magnitude better than the software available for Android tablets.
You seem to think that Apple is somehow restricting competition amongst app developers which it clearly isn’t. Developers are free to compete with each other in the App Store and do so with great gusto. You seem to think that creating another market to run parallel to the Apple app market would somehow bring a new sort of competition to iOS app development that is currently missing and that this will, through some sort of vague process, lead to better apps. How?
Your entire argument is based on abstractions and ill understood and misapplied economic slogans with no substance. Try to be specific. In what specific ways would non-Apple app stores operate that was different to how the Apple App Store operates and how would those differences concretely lead to a better software offering to end users? Give some examples of how this might work in practice. Exactly what economic mechanism would operate via a parallel independent App Store that would lead to ’better’ software? In what ways exactly would this better software offering from independent app stores be better that the current offering? Price? Quality? And exactly how would these improvements flow from the mere existence of a new parallel market?
Tony Swash,
On the contrary, the importance of competition to healthy markets is well understood by economists and apple is no exception. I’m sorry you don’t get it, really I am because the increasing amount of control in decreasing number of hands hurts all of us in the long run. But if you choose to remain ignorant, that’s on you. I’m afraid I can’t help you there.
Edited 2018-06-22 04:20 UTC
One final question. Do you use iOS devices and if so what software would you hope to sideload that you can’t get from the Apple App Store right now?
Tony Swash,
Last time was about two years ago, mostly as projects require it.
It sucks that apple blocks competing browsers. This is especially problematic considering that apple only supports proprietary codecs from the patent pools of which it is a member, but refuses to support open codecs or allow users to sideload browsers that do. The restrictions on open codecs have been detrimental not just for apple users, but for all of us.
Apple stops flash: +1 apple, +1 users
Apple stops webm: +1 apple, -1 users
In short, apple does what’s best for apple, even when it’s not good for users.
Edited 2018-06-22 19:38 UTC
Emulators, they’re outright banned from Apple appstore… (I guess all those old great games could be competition for crap pay-to-win games from the current Apple appstore…)
Furthermore, it’s not only strictly about what apps – 3rd party shops could offer better service, for example easy cancelling of purchase within a day or two with full refund (something Apple has a vested financial incentive not to do); or app stores could be multiplatform, so you wouldn’t be locked into phone platforms / could change it without re-buying your apps… (but Apple for sure very much likes locking people into their platform…)
And it’s always funny how you’re defending walled garden of a company which once made the 1984 commercial, in which big brother was a metaphor for PC…
It doesn’t, at least in Australia. It obviously voids portions of the warranty relating to things you affect (the software) but they still have to support the hardware unless they can prove your sideloading or jailbreaking damaged the hardware.
I know America has abysmal consumer protection laws though.
What about in the EU Thom? If you jailbreak and sideload apps into an iPhone in the EU, is your warranty still (mostly) valid?
If Apple had a monopoly position, or even a dominant position, this argument may have some merit to it. However, with Android accounting for the majority of smartphones (as Android fans insistently point out every time the subject comes up) I don’t see how the argument can hold water. Consumers have a choice in smartphones. Apple is only one of those choices. If you don’t like Apple’s practices, don’t buy Apple products. The situation really is as simple as that.
darknexus,
You are talking about the choice of hardware, but obviously the argument is about the choice of software channels. It’s this choice which is being restricted by mechanisms designed to explicitly be anti-competitive. That’s the problem.
It’s similar to the car manufacturers increasing their profits by forcing owners to use manufacturer controlled channels. Legislators recognize that denying owners a choice of mechanics is extremely anti-competitive. When consumers are denied the choice of mechanics, even though they chose to buy the car, it still hurts competition in the after-sale industry. The choice of a car is not a good proxy for the choice of a mechanic. Coercing owners into using a service that’s not best for their needs is bad, which is why lawmakers told car makers they aren’t allowed to restrict owner rights after point of sale. We just need similar rights for consumer technology.
Edited 2018-06-22 14:33 UTC