Because the phone belongs to the consumer, and the courts have already said that it is perfectly legal to jailbreak your phone, even though apple attempted to sue people who were doing this.
It is pretty horrible that Apple was trying to sue people, for modifying property that the consumer owned, and it required the courts to get involved, to clarify that it is perfectly legal to jail break your own property.
> Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer.
Of course, going by evidence in these threads, people would defend Scissors Corp to the death, arguing "but that's a feature which makes these scissors safe so people don't injure themselves, and sure they own half of the scissors (and paper) market but you can always bring your own scissors (and paper) and avoid interacting with people who use Scissors Corp stuff, so what's the problem?"
If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper, thickness or proprietary paper, I wouldn’t later complain about their inability to cut all paper.
“Ownership” of a tool has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. This entitlement over the tools Apple creates, accurately advertises, and legal sells is the only problem I see.
> If I bought scissors that could only cut certain types of paper
If there was a scissors duopoly, in which a company that controls 50% of the market, implemented practices that are anti-competitive, then this could be illegal.
> has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it.
Actually, no. Once you purchased the item, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of what the manufacture wants.
> This entitlement
This is about anti-trust law. Apple should follow the law. They are not entitled to break the law, without consequences.
If you want to jailbreak your iPhone you can and you should! I even agree Apple should be forced to create more tools to create jailbroken iPhones.
However, the warranty should be void. Same as if you use scissors as a hammer, which is your right, the warranty is void. Expecting the original warranty to hold, or expecting the manufacturer to help you misuse the tool is the entitlement.
If their actions are anti-competitive, then they absolutely have obligations, under anti-trust law, which does not require a literal monopoly, and only instead requires significant market power for these laws to apply.
Apple is subject to the law. They have to follow it, or they will suffer consequences.
This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true.
> where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf.
They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved.
You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone.
> I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely
They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away.
> than the alternatives of allowing sideloading
If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.
Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.
Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
You are trying to make the argument, that Epic making a voluntary transaction with me, is somehow an infridgement on you, who is an unrelated, 3rd party.
Thats is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make.
The fact that I would be allowed to easily install apps on my phone, that I paid for, is a ridiculous claim that this is somehow taking away your choice.
No. That is dumb. It is my phone. Not yours. Don't install apps that you don't like, if you don't want them. But me installing them on my phone, does not infringe on your rights.
> of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
Those customers don't have to install anything that they don't want to install on the phones that they own. Easy. Me, as a 3rd party, being allowed to modify the phone that I own 100% is not related to that.
> It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.
You did not make a single argument against the idea that Apple has significant market power.
Because you did not make a single argument against that, I am going to assume that you agree that Apple has significant market power, and has used it to harm competition. (Which would mean that Apple's actions are illegal)
I encourage you to improve your discourse, but I’ll participate anyways.
My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts.
I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried both Android and iOS in earnest, or else you’d feel similarly.
However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market. I play Fortnite on my PS4 and always have.
Additionally, Apple has overall increased competition rather than hamper it. That said, I would like to see Apple compensate applications when it replaces poorer quality apps with better in-house versions, even though it doesn’t need to.
It would be a sincere set back for the entire economy if Apple was forced to sideload applications on iOS.
> However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market
A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power.
And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).
For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.
Edit:
Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit).
I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply.
And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply.
> yet Epic is still suing Google
Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)
I no longer find this discussion productive. I respect the process of learning for you and me, but the last few comments have had no new information. It doesn't seem like you have the right experience with these different companies/platforms/technologies for me to learn anything new. As such its no longer worth our time.
> So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
I have done my best to respond to you respectfully and with my best ability.
I have previously responded to your specific questions with, “If then yes. But it seems unlikely” and “It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.”, etc.
> We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
The entire discussion of all of this, is about anti-trust law....
Also, we can absolutely make reasoned judgements on things, based on the evidence.
I am not sure why people have a tendency to think that law, precedent, and court cases are somehow completely impenetrable to people who have not spent decades of their life studying it.
In fact, speaking as someone who has read the legal documents in this court case, as well as attended the public zoom call court case (The epic vs apple trial is public! You, yourself can listen in on it in a zoom call!), what I can tell you is that the arguments that people are making are not complicated legalese. Instead, the lawyers and judges are making reasonable, and understandable arguments, that are pretty easy to follow along.
In fact, our entire justice system is built on the concept of juries, which are full of people who are not legal professionals, just like you and I, who decide based on listening to the arguments, and making a judgement themself on who was right or wrong.
If a jury is entrusted with the legal power, to determine the outcome of our justice system, then I think it is ok for individuals, who have listened to the trials, read the court documents, and done research on the law, to make reasonable judgements themselves on the matter, when having casual conversations regarding the topic.
> But it seems unlikely
For which you provided poor supporting arguments.
> answer the questions I asked
You tried to ignore the main point that I was trying to make, regarding anti-trust law, for which I providing well reasoned arguments, and you tried to ignore it by engaging in what was effectively an implied ad hominem by trying to attack me based on perceived (and false!) notion regarding how much I may or may not use certain devices.
You even literally used the word "character" to describe this. Which was effective admitting that you were not attacking the substance of my comment, but were instead trying to investigate my "character".
I reject that. When you cannot respond to the substance of someone comments, I do not think it is valid to try and switch things up by interrogating someone's character, based on false perceived notions of their character or experience.
This is false, modern cars contain equipment capable of transmitting EM waves and thus regulated by the FCC and equivalent agencies in most other countries. These regulations apply even on private property. You can not arbitrarily change that legally.
The same applies to all private houses, installing in a home a powerful transmitter to broadcast noise is certainly illegal without approval.
Because the phone belongs to the consumer, and the courts have already said that it is perfectly legal to jailbreak your phone, even though apple attempted to sue people who were doing this.
It is pretty horrible that Apple was trying to sue people, for modifying property that the consumer owned, and it required the courts to get involved, to clarify that it is perfectly legal to jail break your own property.