Apple v Pepper

[Zareek]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

Then you agree with Pepper et. al.

 

[moproblems99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

Just don't hold it wrong!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.