Curious the general opinion here on this:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5cd97aa8e4b054da4e8d0b90
Personally I tend to be anti-trust, but on some level I feel like apple’s walled garden approach prevent nasty garbage from getting into people’s iPhones… (I don’t have my mind set on this, and I really am curious on the opinions of the tech savvy and politically progressive boingboing commenters here)
Looks like the issue here is overcharging on the commission. Apparently 30% is considered excessive, but that seems rather arbitrary.
The real problem here is that Apple refuses to allow sideloading without significant modification of the OS settings and essentially voiding the warranty.
The real anticompetitive move is apple’s decision that they won’t allow any software to run on the hardware except that which they approve.
I sorta feel like Apple protecting itself from garbage software is why it works so well… maybe if it was more like the current desktop/laptop OS: that it lets you install stuff but gives you a warning or makes you aware of it by making you actively accept that they aren’t responsible for it?
Very misleading headline on the HuffPo site implying that Apple’s lost their case. SCOTUS has simply agreed to hear the case rather than throw it out.
I have absolutely no issue with Apple preventing sideloading in order to maintain their products’ reputation as low-virus low-bug low-crash, etc and maintaining a level of quality assurance. If the issue here is the amount they charge on commissions, then perhaps they will end up altering the percentage. But if the end result is that they’re forced to allow anyone to add any apps they want from any source, I fear that iPhones/iPads will quickly be as virus-riddled and crash-prone as Android.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
