# Apple v Pepper



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2019)

> An appeal by Apple to escape an antitrust lawsuit involving consumer claims that the company is monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications resulting in higher prices.


Oral arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/17-204.mp3
Legalese: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/
In between: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-with-8th-is-boon-to-consumers-idUSKBN14X2HV
Non-legalese: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/...s-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer

The first question the court has to answer is whether or not Pepper et. al. even have standing to sue.  If yes, then the question becomes whether or not the 1977 ruling of Illinois Brick v. Illinois applies.  If SCOTUS overturns Illinois Brick v. Illinois, it could open a legal Pandora's box against not only Apple, but Google and Ticketmaster.  It could even extend to digital stores that mimic Apple App Store like Valve's Steam.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 23, 2019)

Basically they are monopolising their App market, even Microsoft aren't as bad as they allow external Apps not downloaded through their App store.

If it's not Apple approved or in their App store, you can't install it on an Apple device (legally).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2019)

Caring1 said:


> Basically they are monopolising their App market, even Microsoft aren't as bad as they allow external Apps not downloaded through their App store.


But the Microsoft Store is as much of a monopoly for UWP as Apple's App Store is for iOS.


----------



## bonehead123 (Apr 23, 2019)

Oh my, here we go again with this monopoly lawsuit crap...... what slippery slope are we on this time around and for how many decades is this gonna drag on.... 2, 5, 10 ???????

This nonsense is getting *real* old *real* fast


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2019)

Should have an answer within the year.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 23, 2019)

Caring1 said:


> Basically they are monopolising their App market, even Microsoft aren't as bad as they allow external Apps not downloaded through their App store.



So does google.

F-droid, anyone?



bonehead123 said:


> Oh my, here we go again with this monopoly lawsuit crap...... what slippery slope are we on this time around and for how many decades is this gonna drag on.... 2, 5, 10 ???????
> 
> This nonsense is getting *real* old *real* fast



It's not always nonsense.  There have been some genuine good rulings like that one that basically saved Java from a steamy death as a language when MS tried to license it from Sun only to "extend" it into uselessness on other platforms.



FordGT90Concept said:


> But the Microsoft Store is as much of a monopoly for UWP as Apple's App Store is for iOS.



No, because you CAN load external apps.  On an apple device you literally cannot, no workarounds.  It's all signed.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 23, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> On an apple iOS device you literally cannot, no workarounds. It's all signed.


Fixed that for you. You can in OS X, which also has an app store.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 23, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Fixed that for you. You can in OS X, which also has an app store.



meh, that thing still exists?

Yes, you are correct.  Apple will change it in a few releases if they get past this though, watch...


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 23, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Apple will change it in a few releases if they get past this though, watch...


Apple has actually made it easier to allow unsigned software to run in OS X in the last few years by doing things like letting you selectively allow unsigned software instead of just flat out allowing everything, which you can still do. They haven't been making this worse on the OS X side, but sure... I'm certain they'll get right to that.


----------



## R-T-B (Apr 23, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Apple has actually made it easier to allow unsigned software to run in OS X in the last few years by doing things like letting you selectively allow unsigned software instead of just flat out allowing everything, which you can still do. They haven't been making this worse on the OS X side, but sure... I'm certain they'll get right to that.



I just remember when I dabbled in it.  I'm pleased things have changed since then.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 23, 2019)

I think the whole argument over taking a cut from the developer versus charging a fee to the buyer will be the winning point. Charging the developer to put its app on the store shelves and then charging the iphone customer to pay for the App Store by increasing the price of a new iphone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 23, 2019)

9th Circuit said that the distinction is purely academic:


			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> “Whether a purchase is direct or indirect does not turn on the formalities of payment or bookkeeping arrangements...”


In practice, there's a clear monopoly:


			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> “Third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own ‘stores,’” the opinion said “Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own ‘stores,’ Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.”


I think Google will evade litigation stemming from this because they do support APKs.  That said, the act of manufacturers enforcing a walled garden prohibiting the use of APKs without jailbreaking may be litigated.  The manufacturers are basically enforcing a group boycott through which Google is the benefactor.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2019)

SCOTUS ruled that the lawsuit against Apple can proceed (Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices in a 5-4 decision):








						In setback for Apple, U.S. Supreme Court lets App Store antitrust suit proceed
					

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave the go-ahead to an antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple Inc of forcing consumers to overpay for iPhone software applications, a decision that could lead to billions of dollars in damages and put at risk the company's lucrative way...




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2019)

Just another money grab by some failed developers. EU does it too to Google. When they need money just create a lawsuit!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2019)

App Store is anti-competitive in design and this lawsuit is fundamentally anti-trust in nature.



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf
		

TL;DR: SCOTUS ruled that consumer app purchasers are "direct purchasers" under Illinois Brick ruling so they have standing to sue.

Illinois Brick (1977) is the excuse that these types of arrangements sought refuge from antitrust suits.


Gorsuch makes a good argument in the dissent:


			
				Dissent said:
			
		

> To evade the Court’s test, all Apple must do is amend its contracts. Instead of collecting payments for apps sold in the App Store and remitting the balance (less its commission) to developers, Apple can simply specify that consumers’ payments will flow the other way: directly to the developers, who will then remit commissions to Apple.


I think the point Gorsuch et. al. missed is that they're ignoring all of the damage that Illinois Brick has done (there are monopolies everywhere because all they have to do is hide behind a distributor to get protection from lawsuit via Illinois Brick).


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 13, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> App Store is anti-competitive in design and this lawsuit is fundamentally anti-trust in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They created a store and they set the rules. It's not like developers/buyers were unaware of the rules or Apple switched the rules.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2019)

Illinois Brick -> e.g. Menards -> consumer
where consumer buys product from Menards and Menards buys product from Illinois Brick.

Apple App Store doesn't fit that scheme, it's more like:
e.g. Mojang -> Apple -> consumer
where consumers buy Mojang's product from Apple whom buys a license on demand from Mojang.

Apple isn't making the product you're buying, they're acting as a gate keeper for the publishers/developers.  This is why the majority believes Illinois Brick doesn't work here while the dissenting opinion wants to force Apple into the Illinois Brick mold (Apple untouchable).  Keep in mind that over 30 states joined Texas submitting an amici brief saying they want Illinois Brick gone because it prohibits strong actions against monopolistic practices.  The most any state can do right now is a slap on the wrist which makes it not even fiscally worth it to pursue which ultimately leads to megacorps like Apple.


Why do publishers agree to crappy terms at Apple App Store? Because it's the only option to reach those customers.  They won't bite the hand that feeds.  In the case of Illinois Brick, Menards could just get bricks from somewhere else.  The only option for a company like Mojang is to flat out ignore the tens of millions of users iOS has.  They can't afford to do that so they bite their lip and sign the contract.


I think what it fundamentally comes down to is if you're creating a digital marketplace, you have to create an open ecosystem around it.  It can't be a walled garden where the creator becomes the gatekeeper because you're creating a monopoly.  Think Microsoft pushing Internet Explorer on everyone: Microsoft didn't get in trouble in the USA because they didn't prohibit the use of other browsers.  It was a barrier to entry but not much of one because one could point IE to Chrome/FireFox, download it, and the operating system itself did nothing to stop them from installing or using it.  The only barrier was discovery.  Apple does everything it can (licensing, discovery, access, installation, etc.) to stop it.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 14, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Keep in mind that over 30 states joined Texas submitting an amici brief saying they want Illinois Brick gone because it prohibits strong actions against monopolistic practices.



This is one where I feel law needs to stay out of.  Apple creates product (iPhone).  Apple makes rules on how software gets to product (AppStore).  This has been the status quo from Apple for iPhones for 16 years.  Developers are choosing to develop for iPhone.  People are choosing to buy iPhone.  There are no secrets here.  No one is being forced.  There is choice.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2019)

I'll counter with the auto industry: most states prohibit car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers.  They require third party dealerships which incentivizes competition among dealers to get consumers a better deal, even on the exact same vehicle.

A more similar analog is looking broadly at operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux, nor Windows have restrictive app stores like iOS has (only exception is UWP but that's an walled ecosystem inside of an unwalled ecosystem so consumers opt into it by choice).  Why is that?  What is the justification for it?  Why is because of the internet.  When all of these earlier operating systems were invented, the internet wasn't this accessible thing everyone connects to.  Having all of your applications sourced through one internet source wasn't technically feasible.  Because iPhone was being sold through Cingular/AT&T, being connected to an internet source was guaranteed by contract.  The why turned into "why not?"  It's another source of revenue for Apple long after the purchase was made.  It's low risk and high reward thanks to the 30% fixed revenue share model and forced exclusivity through app signing.  These points also serve as the justification for it.  Instead of eliminating the competition, Apple embraced them and charging them for it.  There's no way Apple loses from this arrangement...except through legal action.

This particular legal case was filed in 2011 so it has been bouncing around the court system for half of the iPhone's existence.

Developers are making apps for iPhone because they want/need access to the hundreds of millions of devices that run iOS.  This represents a barrier to entry (no alternative means of access) which is a staple of anti-trust law.

To quote the ruling:


			
				Kavanaugh said:
			
		

> According to the plaintiffs, when iPhone owners want to purchase an app, they have only two options: (1) buy the app from Apple’s App Store at a higher-than-competitive price or (2) do not buy the app at all. Any iPhone owners who are dissatisfied with the selection of apps available in the App Store or with the price of the apps available in the App Store are out of luck, or so the plaintiffs allege.


Think of it from the perspective of participation in a market.  The first choice is Apple product or a competitor's product (e.g. Samsung).  There is a healthy market here with lots of options even if most of them operate on the same underlying principles.  Let's pretend you choose Apple so now you want to expand what you can do with your device via software.  Now you don't have a choice because it's literally (1) bend over and take it from Apple or (2) opt out of the market entirely.  The latter isn't a choice because choosing Apple automatically enrolls you in the former.  Even if you don't buy anything from the App Store, all of your preinstalled apps are updated through it.  There's only one choice here: Apple or don't.  In effect, they created a monopolistic marketplace inside of their product.

Why is the fact it is a marketplace is important?  Because we're talking the exchange of money here.  If apps were all free then this would be a non-issue but no, you got multiple publishers here selling their software and competing with other publishers.  It's a market which means anti-trust laws apply.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 14, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Why do publishers agree to crappy terms at Apple App Store? Because it's the only option to reach those customers.



So? If it were a problem publishers would avoid Apple. It is almost as if Apple purposefully built the app store to make money off of their platform! God forbid!


----------



## moproblems99 (May 14, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'll counter with the auto industry: most states prohibit car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. They require third party dealerships which incentivizes competition among dealers to get consumers a better deal, even on the exact same vehicle.



Yep, unless you want to sell directly to the public - a la Tesla.  And you can't.  Which sucks because why do you need the middle man?  A middle man should never be able to give the consumer a better price straight from the manufacturer.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Developers are making apps for iPhone because they want/need access to the hundreds of millions of devices that run iOS.



They don't need them.  There are billions of devices available for app purchases on Android alone. Granted not all of them are of app purchasing grade.  They want Apple users because they want that...special...demographic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 14, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Which sucks because why do you need the middle man?


Because, as I said, there's over 18,000 dealerships in the USA and they're all competing for your business.  They do that by offering services, incentives, and financing so that the consumer, in the end, gets a better deal.  EGS, GOG, Steam, Origin, uPlay are all like dealers.  They're all selling the same products and they offer incentives to get you to do business with them.

Apple not only is the only portal through which to legally acquire applications for iOS, they also have a price fixing regime in place by requiring $#.99 increments which means sellers on the store can't apply competitive pricing.  Apple not only prohibits competing stores from being established, they price fix at their store.  Both of these are anti-trust behaviors.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 14, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because, as I said, there's over 18,000 dealerships in the USA and they're all competing for your business.



LOL, I used to work at a dealership.  The only competition was how to swindle as much money possible out of targets.

Some joking, but mostly not.


----------



## Aquinus (May 15, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> So? If it were a problem publishers would avoid Apple. It is almost as if Apple purposefully built the app store to make money off of their platform! God forbid!


Considering that's like cutting yourself off from half of the market, I would argue that to be successful, you can't really avoid Apple. The problem is that the only way into the Apple ecosystem is through the App Store. I can't just get a package and install it outside of the App Store like I can with Android devices. It's not really too much different than people wanting right to repair legislation.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Considering that's like cutting yourself off from half of the market, I would argue that to be successful, you can't really avoid Apple. The problem is that the only way into the Apple ecosystem is through the App Store. I can't just get a package and install it outside of the App Store like I can with Android devices. It's not really too much different than people wanting right to repair legislation.



I understand your argument, especially coming from the perspective of the developer. However, just because Company A creates an ecosystem does not mean Developer B has some sort of right to access that ecosystem that runs counter to the model of said ecosystem. I look at it from the perspective of a company trying to make an ecosystem that drives profit.


----------



## Zareek (May 15, 2019)

Let's face it if Apple wasn't so greedy this would not be an issue. It really isn't the fact that they want a cut to distribute your product, which is completely reasonable. It is the cut they want and the fact that they want a constant cut of something like a subscription service for instance. Consider Spotify, Apple distributes an installation package a one time transaction or perhaps monthly including updates. Then Spotify distributes content through their network and pays royalties on that content and Apple thinks it is fine and dandy to take a cut of the subscription fees. That is plain wrong, pure and simple GREED! Those of us in the tech community without the Apple blinders on have been sitting back and waiting for them to get theirs. Hopefully SCOTUS can see through their BS and holds them accountable for their unfair business practices. Notice that is plural because the app store barely scratches the surface of their evil.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 15, 2019)

Zareek said:


> Let's face it if Apple wasn't so greedy this would not be an issue. It really isn't the fact that they want a cut to distribute your product, which is completely reasonable. It is the cut they want and the fact that they want a constant cut of something like a subscription service for instance. Consider Spotify, Apple distributes an installation package a one time transaction or perhaps monthly including updates. Then Spotify distributes content through their network and pays royalties on that content and Apple thinks it is fine and dandy to take a cut of the subscription fees. That is plain wrong, pure and simple GREED! Those of us in the tech community without the Apple blinders on have been sitting back and waiting for them to get theirs. Hopefully SCOTUS can see through their BS and holds them accountable for their unfair business practices. Notice that is plural because the app store barely scratches the surface of their evil.



F*ck Apple


----------



## moproblems99 (May 15, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> I understand your argument, especially coming from the perspective of the developer. However, just because Company A creates an ecosystem does not mean Developer B has some sort of right to access that ecosystem that runs counter to the model of said ecosystem. I look at it from the perspective of a company trying to make an ecosystem that drives profit.



I look at it as a company managing the ecosystem for the product they created.  Much like restaurants have the ability to refuse service for political associations, product makers should have the right to refuse software entry into their ecosystem.

Look at the Android ecosystem as an example.  Look how many malware infested apps have been discovered on that store.  Think of how many malware infested apps get side loaded.

If anything, this should put the Apple store at a competitive disadvantage to Android because they have less apps that people want.  This shouldn't be a problem.

For the record, I dislike the principles that generally guide Apple and I am a developer.  But, I stand by their right to filter what is in their store.

However, I believe side loading and right to repair should be allowed.



Easy Rhino said:


> It's not really too much different than people wanting right to repair legislation.



Side loading is the only equivalent here to right to repair.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2019)

I think you're misunderstanding what the lawsuit is fundamentally about: choice.  The plaintiff wants Apple to keep their App Store but they can't prohibit competitive app stores from being created nor hinder their operation. It is true that malware may stop competing app stores from being used but that's for the market to decide, not Apple.



moproblems99 said:


> However, I believe side loading and right to repair should be allowed.


Then you agree with Pepper et. al.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 15, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think you're misunderstanding what the lawsuit is fundamentally about: choice.  The plaintiff wants Apple to keep their App Store but they can't prohibit competitive app stores from being created nor hinder their operation. It is true that malware may stop competing app stores from being used but that's for the market to decide, not Apple.
> 
> 
> Then you agree with Pepper et. al.



Ah, perhaps I misunderstood.  My understanding was that they wanted to modify how the Apple AppStore does business.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Ah, perhaps I misunderstood.  My understanding was that they wanted to modify how the Apple AppStore does business.



They do. And so does right to repair. Whenever you insist a company open up their proprietary eco system based on some poorly thought out moral argument you essentially say that your right to access something they created trumps their ability to control how they make a profit.


----------



## Aquinus (May 16, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Whenever you insist a company open up their proprietary eco system based on some poorly thought out moral argument you essentially say that your right to access something *you bought* trumps their ability to control how they make a profit.


I fixed that for you. If it was just merely a service, I would agree with you. The problem is that buying an iPhone isn't a service, it's hardware. I have a problem with this as much as I have a problem with Subaru requiring me to go through a dealership to get an updated ROM for the stereo in my car, which requires me to pay money to them to do something as stupid as putting a file on a flash drive, plugging it into my car, and pressing a button in the interface that I have access to.

Also another note is that Apple doesn't do this in OS X, yet that's still a relatively closed and proprietary OS that's more similar to iOS than anything else, yet OS X doesn't burst into flames when you install an unsigned package.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 16, 2019)

Speaking of monopolys. 

People should look into the whole thing with 'right to repair' because what apple are trying to do is limit the choices where you can get your devices repaired so you end up going to them anyway and pay stupid amounts to get your shit fixed.

A guy i know broke his 2013 macbook pro. He went to the genius bar - they charged him £800 ($1027USD) to replace the motherboard.

There are places out there with skilled technicians that could of fixed that macbook for £50-60 or maybe more depending what needs to be replaced?? But no - Apple insists on chucking the faulty board into landfill and charging you £800 for most likely a refurbed one.

Ontop of that, theyve made all sorts of anti-consumer actions which includes limiting the parts that 3rd party repair shops can get their hands on. digital authorization codes on part numbers that syncronise with apple servers and if its not a part that is registered with them then Apple sends out some sort of signal to your phone that bricks it.

I dont know about you. but £800 to me is a new laptop. Its not worth spending £800 on 3-4year old tech unless it was absolutely mission critical and something that really had to be saved and kept working.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Ah, perhaps I misunderstood.  My understanding was that they wanted to modify how the Apple AppStore does business.


The only change Apple v. Pepper may change at the App Store itself is elimination of the $#.99 pricing scheme.



FreedomEclipse said:


> Speaking of monopolys.
> 
> People should look into the whole thing with 'right to repair' because what apple are trying to do is limit the choices where you can get your devices repaired so you end up going to them anyway and pay stupid amounts to get your shit fixed.
> 
> ...


Trudat, but that's not in the scope of Apple v. Pepper.  In general, I think the problem is proving in a court that it should be cheaper because Apple would point to all of the contracts you broke by not having Apple service it.

I think FTC only spoke on "warranty void if removed" stickers being a farce.  A warranty is a warranty and it is not voidable.


----------



## Aquinus (May 16, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A warranty is a warranty and it is not voidable.


I think that's a grey area because there are modifications you can make to devices or vehicles that can cause damage to other components. It's not reasonable to expect a business to warranty, say, replace a catalytic converter if you modify the car to run rich. You kind of did that to yourself. However, software doesn't tend to be destructive (usually,) to the device so much as it is to everything stored on the device and how the software on it operates. If a factory reset or clean install fixes the problem, it's a non-issue and the cost to Apple is actually quite minimal. To me, that's a big motivating factor that you should be at least able to install packages manually without the assistance of the App Store.

To be frank, I own an iPhone 7 and the ability to install packages on my own will not impact how I use it in any way, shape, or form. I do, however, believe that the option should be there. I'm certain there are plenty of people like me, but don't really care about their freedoms when it comes to technology, they want it to just work, and that's what Apple kind of offers. I honestly think there is a very simple middle ground where Apple can have their cake and eat it too. Just let people install packages, signed or otherwise and be done with it.

Edit: I will say this. Having used Apple products for a while, I can say that they do tend to "just work" and they're very hands off. That's appealing to a lot of people who don't want to screw around with their devices. Not everyone has the same priorities when it comes to what they demand from technology.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 16, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Its not worth spending £800 on 3-4year old tech



Hell, it was 3-4 year old tech when it fell off the assembly line.



Aquinus said:


> I can say that they do tend to "just work" and they're very hands off.



Just don't hold it wrong!



Aquinus said:


> That's appealing to a lot of people who don't want to screw around with their devices.



The only time you have to screw with an Android phone is if you buy a $50 one or root it.



Easy Rhino said:


> They do. And so does right to repair. Whenever you insist a company open up their proprietary eco system based on some poorly thought out moral argument you essentially say that your right to access something they created trumps their ability to control how they make a profit.



Not necessary.  Now your arguing about if you own the device or a renting it.  If I'm dropping a stupid amount on a lackluster iPhone, are you telling me that I don't own it?  I cannot repair it where I want and do what I want with it?  If you are, that is telling me I don't own it and am only renting it.

Now, I don't expect them to open their app store but I expect to be able to take my device down the road and get it serviced.  I also expect to be able to put a screensaver with jiggly boobs on it, regardless of where I got it from.

If you were to buy a Lexus but you happen to like Joe's Garage down the street, I am guessing you wouldn't be happy about Lexus saying sorry but you can only take it to us.  And you likely would tell them to Fuck Off.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I fixed that for you. If it was just merely a service, I would agree with you. The problem is that buying an iPhone isn't a service, it's hardware. I have a problem with this as much as I have a problem with Subaru requiring me to go through a dealership to get an updated ROM for the stereo in my car, which requires me to pay money to them to do something as stupid as putting a file on a flash drive, plugging it into my car, and pressing a button in the interface that I have access to.



I agree with you in principle. The problem is when you buy something, even a physical thing, you agree to terms of use or forfeit whatever warranty or support you would normally get. I don't really see how anyone can argue that they the purchaser have a right to do something to a product they purchased and then expect the producer to open up the system to allow any competing company to create tools for it and steal IP.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 16, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> I agree with you in principle. The problem is when you buy something, even a physical thing, you agree to terms of use or forfeit whatever warranty or support you would normally get. I don't really see how anyone can argue that they the purchaser have a right to do something to a product they purchased and then expect the producer to open up the system to allow any competing company to create tools for it and steal IP.



What stops them from buying one and stealing the IP?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> I agree with you in principle. The problem is when you buy something, even a physical thing, you agree to terms of use or forfeit whatever warranty or support you would normally get.


You're forgetting the role of the government: to establish and maintain a fair market.  Consumer protection law also can void illegal contracts.

If a company chooses to create a marketplace inside of their product, they have to abide by general market protection rules including anti-trust.  Just because they choose to play gatekeeper doesn't make them immune to antitrust law.

The only reason why Apple (and others) haven't been successfully sued yet is because the 1977 Illinois Brick ruling made it extremely difficult to pursue any kind of antitrust lawsuit.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 17, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're forgetting the role of the government: to establish and maintain a fair market.  Consumer protection law also can void illegal contracts.
> 
> If a company chooses to create a marketplace inside of their product, they have to abide by general market protection rules including anti-trust.  Just because they choose to play gatekeeper doesn't make them immune to antitrust law.
> 
> The only reason why Apple (and others) haven't been successfully sued yet is because the 1977 Illinois Brick ruling made it extremely difficult to pursue any kind of antitrust lawsuit.



I do believe there is a *limited* role of government to play in the cases of vertical monopolies, etc. But the argument that apple is anti competitive falls apart when developers (who benefit from Apple's marketplace, btw) can simply choose to stick with android only. Principles matter more than government.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 17, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Speaking of monopolys.
> 
> People should look into the whole thing with 'right to repair' because what apple are trying to do is limit the choices where you can get your devices repaired so you end up going to them anyway and pay stupid amounts to get your shit fixed.
> 
> ...



If you take a iphone into the genius bar for a new battery, and the screen has a tiny crack in it, they will not replace the battery unless you allow them to charge you for a new screen too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 17, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> But the argument that apple is anti competitive falls apart when developers (who benefit from Apple's marketplace, btw) can simply choose to stick with android only.


Nope, markets are supposed to be accessible to all--the choice is exclusively the customer's.  The decision to buy an iOS or Android product is in the consumers' hands which is as it should be.  The problem is that once you buy especially an iOS product, you're henceforth locked into their ecosystem.   Everyone (developers and consumers) at that point must acquiesce to Apple's will or be removed from the market.  Government is supposed to regulate markets, not businesses.  It's illegal per se (regardless of circumstances) for any entity that isn't a government to act as a gatekeeper for any market.


----------



## R-T-B (May 18, 2019)

tigger said:


> If you take a iphone into the genius bar for a new battery, and the screen has a tiny crack in it, they will not replace the battery unless you allow them to charge you for a new screen too.



That's a safety issue.  You have to remove the screen/glue to get at the battery and if the screen is already compromised it will become glass shards real fast due to the force involved.

Of course, the whole design of the iphone is designed to prevent third party repair...


----------



## WhiteNoise (Jun 6, 2019)

The main reason I only buy iphones is because apple does not allow all those garbage apps on their store. I never have any issues with apps on my iphones unlike all the crap on android. This has always been a big selling point for me.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2019)

WhiteNoise said:


> The main reason I only buy iphones is because apple does not allow all those garbage apps on their store. I never have any issues with apps on my iphones unlike all the crap on android. This has always been a big selling point for me.



So you'd never be sideloading apps anyways, and completely unaffected by this.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 6, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> That's a safety issue.  You have to remove the screen/glue to get at the battery and if the screen is already compromised it will become glass shards real fast due to the force involved.
> 
> Of course, the whole design of the iphone is designed to prevent third party repair...



I have replaced lots of iphone batteries on phones with cracked or shattered screens. If it has a tiny crack on the corner, there is no reason for them to insist on replacing the screen. It is just another way to get more money out of you. When i am out and about, i see sooo many people with iphones that have cracked screens, why? because Apple charge £156+ to replace it, no wonder there is a massive market for cheap knock offs on Ebay.

I have had lots of iphones from 4/4s to 7/plus, generally they are good, but iphones need screen widgets and drag and drop for music. The worst thing is using itunes to add one album and have it have to remove the lot and replace it all including the new album. I don't use a iphone anymore, as itunes is a bunch of turd berries.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 6, 2019)

tigger said:


> I have replaced lots of iphone batteries on phones with cracked or shattered screens. If it has a tiny crack on the corner, there is no reason for them to insist on replacing the screen. It is just another way to get more money out of you.



I used to do cellphone repair.  When you are an employer insuring employees who replace a lot of screens every day, the policy quickly becomes "cracked?  Do not repair" or the insurance premiums will go up.

I'm certain that is Apple's reasoning.  Just because you can get a few off without cutting yourself is irrelevant if it happens even once.  Besides, what happens when you damage the screen further furing the repair and the customer insists you now replace their screen that was "fine before?"

It's just a ball of wax they don't want to deal with.  I'd be surprised if anyone does without a lengthy TOS being signed.


----------

