But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.
Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP.
It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.
Apple is also benefiting from developers IP, as they enrich their value proposition.
Should Intel or AMD get a cut from any app (including Open Source) on Windows and Linux? Should MS get a cut of every app you run on Windows?
You buying the device compensates Apple IP. Commonly their marketing showcases heavily third party apps.
What makes the iOS situation different? Aren't apps essentially "digital accessories"?
Here's another caveat: assume the bundle I distribute is dynamically linked into the underlying operating system, such that I'm definitely distributing nothing except my own code that I wrote. Or, similarly: I ship nothing but my own code, plus a script I wrote the purchaser has to run to statically link the package with iOS libraries present on their Mac.
If you were to compile it yourself such that the end-user device would need to be jailbroken because it lacks the necessary digital signatures, IANAL but I think this would be totally fine on your part, and the end-user would be protected by the jail-breaking exception to the DMCA;
> Jailbreaking and Unlocking Smartphones and Tablets
Since 2010, the DMCA has allowed users to jailbreak their smartphones in order to execute lawfully obtained applications unauthorized by the phone manufacturer. Last week’s announcement reaffirmed the rationale that using unapproved applications on smartphones is fair use and limiting users’ ability to execute such applications hinders choice and impairs innovation.
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/latest-dmca-exemptions-r...
This is a non-solution.
A developer writing an app for iOS can use the APIs provided by Apple without agreeing to license them.
(Granted, you can't get your app into the App Store and onto iPhones/iPads without agreeing to whatever Apple wants you to agree to. Which... is part of the problem.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
If it were possible to run unsigned code on the average iDevice (and Apple's framework/drivers disabled for unsigned code) then this would have already been done, a long time ago.
Nobody has been able to build a new browser engine in 25 years. So what would be the dollar estimate of a similarly complex UI framework along with high quality device drivers, development tools, services frameworks like iCloud, etc.?
If that one person does it and lets everyone use it, will they do it for free or should they charge for it, perhaps as a percentage of revenue of the developers and applications who use the code?
Many free apps on the store who can get away with charging outside do it. Uber, Banks, etc...
Why can they use Apple's IP for a flat $99/yr and others don't? It's not a fair system. Paid apps are essentially subsidizing the free ones.
The consumer, who bought the device? Surely the cost of development of said IP is in total recouped from device sales? The device doesn't work without said framework.
The developers who provide a reason to buy the device? Why should they be forced to use a monopolistic platform only because Apple's marketing has successfully clouded consumers' heads?
Humans are terrible at actually boycotting, but I'd love to see what would happen if 90% of app store devs pulled their apps from app stores. Would people buy as many iPhones? Ooooh, now we realise the value proposition that devs are _offering_ Apple, not taking from them.
Watch and Mac are more or less failed developer platforms (how many native 3rd party apps exist for them?) yet are also both huge businesses just with Apple apps.
Of these Apple is only responsible for 2 of them: textedit I could replace with vscode tbf and activity monitor is only open for when the Macbook plays up (constantly) and doesn't even offer remotely useful _aggregate_ stats like "what the fuck is actually consuming all of my memory".
I use Android so let's see what's open on my phone: Ebay, Telegram, Firefox. Hmmm nothing specifically Samsung/Google related. Just because you make a device with an OS doesn't mean you get to charge rent. Flat charge app developers for the minor admin involved in them submitting apps but charging a percentage is a ludicrous anti-consumer money grab. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Google or anybody else.
The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars.
What analogy would you use to describe this situation that clarifies your position?
As a vehicle owner I'd like to be able to have a choice whether I want to install OEM parts or after market parts. The after market parts might be cheaper, or have features that the OEM parts lack. I would like to be able to purchase these parts without a 30% markup that goes to the car manufacturer.
As an iPhone user, I'd like to be able to install apps on my iPhone without having to pay the iPhone manufacturer a 30% markup.
I realize that this analogy doesn't directly address the issue of whether Apple has a monopoly on the market of iPhone apps, but it's how I think about it as a consumer.
Apple represents the town government, and the App Store is the only general store in the entire town; other stores have been banned. Don't like it? You're free to pack up and move to another city!
The reason I'd characterize it this way is that changing phone platforms is nontrivial. It's not as simple as just going to another store that day.
I'm sorry, but how is it "nontrivial" to change phone platforms? Google says it's easy and all you need is a cable to get the best experience: https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/
You shouldn't. It's a marketing page.
This argument doesn't work if you don't believe the part about getting all the same apps, which is objectively not true.
It's a fun way to mock google, but it has nothing to do with the merits of this issue with apple.
Your iMessage history disappears; Google can't transfer that to your Android phone. They claim to be able to transfer SMS/MMS history, which surprises me: I'm not sure how they accomplish that. I'm sure there's a ton of other user data that they also can't transfer. (Speaking of iMessage, any group chats you were in are now broken.)
Google of course has an interest in telling people that switching is easy and painless. It's not, though.
Everything else you mention is part of the nature of changing operating systems: software incompatibility / unavailability. That never has and unfortunately never will be solved. It’s hard enough to keep old software working on new releases of the same OS.
You can't force everything to be uniform and support all of the same features to make switching between manufacturers of a product-class "trivial". How's that part of a healthy free market? Requirements to that effect kills all creativity and specialization of products for different purposes. Android and iOS are different and that's a good thing!
not saying it's good (in fact, it's much worse than what Apple is doing), but no one contested its legality
This unethical model is not any better in our modern world.
I'm not making the argument from a legal perspective, but from a reality perspective, I think that's a very poor analogy to the way operating systems (and "platforms" generally) work.
The very nature of operating systems is that they have much more control than a simple store. For example, if you want to switch from Kroger to Safeway, just go to Safeway. There are almost zero switching costs. I actually was strongly considering switching from Android to iPhone solely to get iMessage access (that's a whole different ball of Apple anti-competitiveness, but I digress...) But in the end, even after buying the iPhone, I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I just couldn't stomach how painful switching would be after a decade-plus history on Android: I'd lose all my Android apps, I'd lose all the easiest access to things that live in Google's ecosystem, I'd lose my day-to-day familiarity with my phone, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store.
Note the government has often developed special laws for "platform businesses", for example railroads, telecoms, etc., understanding the unique positions these companies are in when it comes to controlling the larger economy. I wish they would regulate operating system platforms in a similar manner.
That very much depends on how much you're invested in a particular platform.
Using the store analogy, if you decide not to shop at Walmart anymore because you detest their policies, and the closest store that carries the products you're used to getting is 20 minutes away, or maybe you now have to go to multiple different stores to get everything you need, making an extra 50 minutes of driving, that's a considerable burden of switching as each time you make your purchases (plus pay higher prices).
There are no other stores, or other bazaars. If you want to sell an iOS app, your only option is the Apple App Store.
Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. I disagree with that reasoning; to me that's like if Whole Foods also exists in addition to Kroger, but if you want to switch to Whole Foods, you have to get an expensive operation to swap out your stomach, because the groceries at Whole Foods don't work with the stomach that works with the groceries at Kroger.
You also have the entire internet, no tossing required.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224401179/kroger-albertsons-...
Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed.
Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges confirmed her ruling?
Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime?
The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.
That’s not how monopolies are defined under US law, so no it’s not, by definition.
It’s always possible to define an arbitrarily narrow market such that one company owns 100% of it. The legal definition of a monopoly requires specific criteria to be met which have not been met in this case.
I quoted the specific line I disagreed with?
> Can you please link to the definition you are using?
To be honest this issue is too complicated to be boiled down to a simple definition as the criteria have evolved over time across multiple Supreme Court (and lower court) cases. In this particular case the "iOS app distribution" market is considered an "aftermarket" in antitrust law (the foremarket being smartphones), and single-brand aftermarkets are rarely allowed by the courts.
If you are genuinely curious about the topic this is a good primer:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-...
As are these two court cases:
https://casetext.com/case/eastman-kodak-company-v-image-tech...
https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-so...
(Which were precedent setting and indeed referenced in the Epic v. Apple case.)