Anti-trust law requires having a monopoly(which Apple doesn't have) or acting together with other companies. So in this case it's probably legal.
EDIT: that's basically the opinion of Keith Rabois, who litigated several anti-trust laws.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
If we use cars as an analogy, we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics, but we don't require the same for phones (yet). Car manufacturers do not have monopolies.
At some point, asking, "Does Apple have a monopoly?" becomes the wrong question to ask.
True, but that required a new law, and sure a new law could also be deployed with regards to Apple.
Lots of android in the market but sold to people who couldn't tell the difference with iOS and wouldn't even know how to buy an app.
I don't think the government could force them to keep an app on their server and continue to serve it to consumers running their software if they didn't want to.
To be honest though it's also anti competitive for big brands like uber to be able to bully their way to negative publicity while mom and pops are helpless if they are removed from an App Store or Google.
2. No one would switch to Android just because of that.
3. Yes, lots of negative publicity. That's why 1. would never be reached.
Finally, one thing not mentioned: people would find a way to install the app without the app store. Every good hacker in the world would try to do it firstly, because every iphone user would be asking to be able to install Uber. And Apple doesn't want all bright minds trying to find flaws in their system for sure (I wouldn't at least)
Because of losing Uber? No.
Because they don't trust Apple not to remove other apps? Absolutely.
Consistency, stability and trust are quite important to maintaining a brand. Apple arbitrarily removing apps would definitely harm their brand image, especially as they're positioning themselves as a market leader in fighting for their customers privacy and trust at the moment.
But Apple would be required by users to give an explanation for those actions.
Still, all this post is kinda nonsense because it would never happen. It's more a karma bait lol
>2. Yes, they would. In 2016, android is fully feature equivalent to Apple's iDevices, only reason you may not switch is that you are too lethargic and don't want to unlearn the iOS way of things.
>3. Whether they will do it or not will depend on the negative publicity vis-a-vis impact on profits/bottom lines. If your bottom-lines hit the floor as no one is using an app to place cab booking orders, the last thing you will worry about is negative publicity. Apple, on the other hand, will worry about this publicity since it has a lot to loose from it.
If the CEO of Apple told the CEO of Uber over a recorded phone call, "The Board, the Shareholders, and I all agree on cutting your app out of the store for no reason other than we hate your guts and it'll bring us joy to watch you suffer", it still seems like that shouldn't be enough to win a lawsuit. It's Apple's store: They get to choose the apps they want in their store. What next - are we going to have judges force bookstores to stock books because "your reasons for not stocking the book aren't good enough"?
Of course, Uber surely has explicit agreements with Apple, Google, and even their hosting provider. You don't build a multibillion dollar business on top of someone without even calling them to make sure it's okay.
1. Uber's app had previously been approved.
2. Apple, by their previous policies, therefore led Uber to believe that they could build a business around an iOS app. Relying on that information, Uber invested billions of dollars into their business.
3. Apple, by now banning Uber's app, has committed an act that damages Uber.
Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. This could be used as evidence that Apple intended to cause damage to Uber.
What you're saying is reasonable, and I could see how a judge might agree with the arguments you've made. But it also seems like Apple could say, "We don't like the CEO of Uber's haircut", which is as valid as any other reason to terminate a non-contractual relationship. If Uber wanted protection for the billions they invested, they should have negotiated a proper agreement. Maybe I just don't understand how the law works.
Not really. Apple already has draconian terms to submit apps. They've done things like ban pretty wallpaper weather apps before and released their own version of it. They even attacked Flux and then duplicated the feature.
It's perfectly legal since their terms basically say anything that competes with them is not allowed. So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab.
- That argument would also apply to any other app that allowed you to order goods or services.
- Apple doesn't offer phone service - they only sell phones. And they're certainly not in the taxi business. So I don't see how they could construct a convincing argument that Uber competes with them.
If you're a fan of this argument format, I'd love to get your feedback about what you think of Sequiturs.
I was under the impression that all purchases conducted within an iOS app had to go through Apple's in-app purchase framework. Uber let's me get a ride then bills me completely separately. Likewise, if I want to purchase movie tickets the Cineplex app shows me a web page (still inside the app) and lets me buy the tickets.
Yet the Kindle app is not allowed to let me buy Kindle books, nor can it even provide a link to Amazon to buy Kindle books.
Why are Cineplex and Uber able to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase policy but Amazon isn't?
Or has this policy changed?
- Having had a history of having the app on their store already
So they better have a very good reason for taking their app out of the store
Uber's valuation is dependent on growth and market dominance. Losing convenient access to a big piece of the market would a deep wound.
1. Uber would file a lawsuit for a huge amount of damages. (They have enough money to be able to afford lots of lawyers.)
2. A large percentage of Apple's customers who are also Uber customers would be hugely pissed off and switch to Android phones.
3. There would be huge amounts of negative publicity. There would be congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior, and demands for government regulation. Apple's board might even fire the CEO.
It's almost inconceivable that Apple would do something so harmful to its own self-interest.