Cydia's Antitrust Case Against Apple Can Proceed, Judge Rules (engadget.com) 69
In 2018, Engadget described Cydia as the maker of an app store for jailbroken iPhones that shut down claiming it just wasn't profitable (after operating for nearly a decade).
But now Cydia has filed an antitrust case against Apple, Engadget reports: On Thursday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the same judge that oversaw the case between Apple and Epic Games, ruled Cydia's creator, Jay "Saurik" Freeman, could present his claim against the company after rejecting a bid by Apple to dismiss the complaint. [According to a paywalled article from Reuters.]
Freeman first sued Apple at the end of 2020, alleging the company had an "illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution." Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Cydia's initial complaint against Apple, ruling the suit fell outside the statute of limitations. But she also granted Freeman leave to amend his case, which is what he did. In its latest complaint, Cydia argues that iOS updates Apple released between 2018 and 2021 constituted "overt" acts that harmed distributors like itself. That's a claim Judge Gonzalez Rogers found credible enough to explore.
But now Cydia has filed an antitrust case against Apple, Engadget reports: On Thursday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the same judge that oversaw the case between Apple and Epic Games, ruled Cydia's creator, Jay "Saurik" Freeman, could present his claim against the company after rejecting a bid by Apple to dismiss the complaint. [According to a paywalled article from Reuters.]
Freeman first sued Apple at the end of 2020, alleging the company had an "illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution." Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Cydia's initial complaint against Apple, ruling the suit fell outside the statute of limitations. But she also granted Freeman leave to amend his case, which is what he did. In its latest complaint, Cydia argues that iOS updates Apple released between 2018 and 2021 constituted "overt" acts that harmed distributors like itself. That's a claim Judge Gonzalez Rogers found credible enough to explore.
Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:2, Informative)
So Cydia survived for a while on abusing security holes in Appleâ(TM)s phones. Apple fixed the security holes. How is this wrong doing by Apple?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple fixed the security holes. How is this wrong doing by Apple?
Yeah, Cydia is on pretty shaky ground with that argument. Just because I've previously been able to set up camp in your unoccupied vacation home's yard doesn't mean you've violated any of my rights by installing a fence.
If Cydia wants to make the argument that Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive manner by refusing to allow 3rd party app stores on iOS, that's the argument they should be making. Saying "I used to be able to do what I wanted when your security was more lax" just sounds too much like the
Re:Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple fixed the security holes. How is this wrong doing by Apple?
Yeah, Cydia is on pretty shaky ground with that argument. Just because I've previously been able to set up camp in your unoccupied vacation home's yard doesn't mean you've violated any of my rights by installing a fence.
If Cydia wants to make the argument that Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive manner by refusing to allow 3rd party app stores on iOS, that's the argument they should be making. Saying "I used to be able to do what I wanted when your security was more lax" just sounds too much like the argument of a petulant child whose parents just found their cigarette stash.
No, it's actually a pretty smart argument, assuming I'm understanding correctly.
The problem with the original case was that Apple's decision not to allow competing stores was made back in 2007, ostensibly, and they had been operating for a decade in spite of that, so the statute of limitations for that initial anticompetitive act had expired.
By showing that the harm was caused by an ongoing pattern of actions on Apple's part, rather than just a single act, the statute of limitations period begins from the most recent action by Apple that Cydia claims was anticompetitive, which, being more recent, would then still be eligible for legal action.
At least I *think* that's the argument.
Re:Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:4, Insightful)
> something that they never intend
This "intention" is based on their decision to ban competing stores, which is argued to be anticompetitive, but beyond the statue of limitations. Each act in pursuit of that intention is distinctly and equally anticompetitive.
They don't just get a pass in perpetuity because they ran out the clock on the setting an unlawful policy.
But I'm not going to argue or decide the case so we shall have to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
but beyond the statue of limitations.
That doesn't make any sense to me. IANAL, but it was my understanding that the clock doesn't start ticking until there is actual injury / the injury is discovered. Without actual injury, what claim could Cydia have made anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
> something that they never intend
This "intention" is based on their decision to ban competing stores, which is argued to be anticompetitive, but beyond the statue of limitations. Each act in pursuit of that intention is distinctly and equally anticompetitive.
They don't just get a pass in perpetuity because they ran out the clock on the setting an unlawful policy.
But I'm not going to argue or decide the case so we shall have to wait and see.
Apple didn't "run out the clock"; Cydia Failed To Prosecute within the Statute of Limitations.
Re: Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:2)
They don't just get a pass in perpetuity because they ran out the clock on the setting an unlawful policy.
This is changing the argument from Apple harming Cydia's business long ago to Apple harming software distribution competition today. I don't see how they could win either way, but whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
So their argument is that because Apple didn't fix the something that they never intend sooner, that Apple should somehow be obligated to never fix the issue? Because that's what the argument about suggesting there should be a statute of limitations seems to amount to.
No, the argument is that because Apple's actions, some which harmed Cydia's ability to operate on the platform, were ongoing, the statute of limitations should be tolled. It could reasonably be argued that Apple repeatedly figuring out which holes were used by the jailbreaking community and fixing them (even when those holes were not reported to Apple) was, in effect, a series of deliberate acts of ongoing harm against the jailbreaking community.
I have no idea whether it will actually fly, mind you, given
Re: (Score:1)
That's like arguing that teachers who discover cheaters and implement policies designed to catch those cheaters are harming the cheater community.
Apple never wanted third party app stores, and made no secret about it.
Re:Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should it matter what Apple wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why should it matter what Apple wants?
Why should it matter what Cydia wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Go do something and make a name for yourself. Develop a talent or skill. Before you know it, you will derive your self esteem from your own actions, and will not feel the need to attach your sense of self to a product or company,
I happen to have both talents and skills; but who the fuck are you to tell me whether I should pursue or demonstrate them to your satisfaction; or that I am not doing that already?
And even if every single Apple User is wearing a dog collar and drinking Tim Cook's piss every day (hint: They aren't) ; so what?!? You have no more right to say that is not a freedom of expression or their pursuit if happiness than those persons who choose to wear real dog collars and drink real piss every day!
So just buy Android
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what Apple wants is to control your personal property.
You own the hardware, you don't own the software. iOS is not your "personal property". This is the case for any and every proprietary platform that has ever been created. Apple has every right to control their platform however they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't love you. You can suck Tim's dick online all you want, but all you're going to get for your efforts is a boot to the face.
Oooh, such a reasoned response!
Re: (Score:2)
And even if every single Apple User is wearing a dog collar and drinking Tim Cook's piss every day (hint: They aren't) ; so what?!?
You're right that they aren't, it's really just you. But you enjoy that piss :P Make sure you post enough comments in defence of whatever Apple does though or you won't get it, remember you arent allowed to have your own opinion, only Apple's.
Who are You, Coward, to tell me what is the source of my opinions?
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to have both talents and skills
They do appear to be limited to spamming Apple stories on slashdot in support of the company but yes you certainly have a knack for it that nobody else seems to have. Certainly something I suppose Apple values, nobody would do that kind of shit for free.
Wish I was getting paid. But thanks for recognizing my debate skill's
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb.
Yeah, that's gotta be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Just independently wealthy from my Apple Stock. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Cydia represents a sizable group of owners who want to use their devices however they see fit. You might as well be asking "why should it matter what users want?" The users, who own the hardware, are the only ones that matter here.
Re: (Score:2)
Cydia represents a sizable group of owners who want to use their devices however they see fit. You might as well be asking "why should it matter what users want?" The users, who own the hardware, are the only ones that matter here.
If their group was so "sizeable", then why did Cydia go out of business? Why didn't they represent a large enough group of owners that Apple couldn't ignore?
Apple actually does listen to their device owners; and I assure you that, if iPhone sales started to suffer because iPhone owners were migrating to Android in significant numbers due on to Apple's App Store policies, you can rest assured that those Policies would change in fairly short order.
But they haven't so they haven't.
Cydia Users may be a "sizeabl
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who seem to be complaining about Apple's ecosystem are Android users. Almost everyone I know has an iPhone and I never hear anyone complain about not having a 3rd party app store. In fact, quite the contrary.
I really don't understand why Android users have such a vested interest in a platform they didn't choose, and yet somehow they claim they don't have a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Are all iPhone owners useless twats that spend their days defending multi-billion dollar multinationals for free online?
Apple actually does listen to their device owners;
LOL! You're so fucking delusional!
Bold words coming from an ANONYMOUS COWARD!
Re: (Score:2)
There are many kinds of apps which are simply not feasible in Apple's app store, often because it may violate app store rules, that would appeal to certain demographics. Emulators, pornographic apps, and private apps intended for limited distribution are just a handful of application types that come to mind.
Just because you don't know any iphone owners who might be interested in such applications
Re: (Score:2)
The very existence of Cydia contradicts your belief.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many kinds of apps which are simply not feasible in Apple's app store, often because it may violate app store rules, that would appeal to certain demographics. Emulators, pornographic apps, and private apps intended for limited distribution are just a handful of application types that come to mind.
Just because you don't know any iphone owners who might be interested in such applications does not mean that they are not out there, nor does it mean that there wouldn't be a lot of them.
Actually, considering that Cydia was both a Commercial Failure as well as a Failure as a Disruptive Force, it does.
Re: (Score:3)
It's sort of a catch-22. iphone owners don't tend to complain about it that much because the kinds of people who might do so would already have chosen android in the first place, not necessarily because they preferred android to the iphone specifically, but simply because of the particular ability to sideload apps.
There are distinct classifications of applications that are simply not feasible on Apple's app store, and no small number of people that would like such applications. These people have, how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This would most likely be the case if sideloading were the *ONLY* desirable feature that the iPhone lacked for a particular person, and they cared enough about that capability to decide to settle on Android. To such a person, it can feel at least a little like there wasn't a whole lot of choice. They may have actually had one, to be sure, but you don't always completely control the things you necessarily like or sometimes even want.
Fwiw, These are the people who are most likely to also go out and buy a
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, It only means there aren't a lot of iphone users that want it badly enough that they are willing to jailbreak with the knowledge that the jailbreak could fail on the next iOS update.
Insufficiently Compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain how you can possibly conclude that?
Given that there are enough reasons for one to find sideloading as desirable, it follows that people who might like to have it but have nonetheless settled on the iPhone necessarily fall into two camps: those who were willing to jailbreak, which wasn't enough for Cydia to be commercially viable, or those who were not, accepting that they made a compromise on one particular feature that they wanted in exchange for what they perceived was still an overall
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain how you can possibly conclude that?
Given that there are enough reasons for one to find sideloading as desirable, it follows that people who might like to have it but have nonetheless settled on the iPhone necessarily fall into two camps: those who were willing to jailbreak, which wasn't enough for Cydia to be commercially viable, or those who were not, accepting that they made a compromise on one particular feature that they wanted in exchange for what they perceived was still an overall greater net value in using Apple's ecosystem. They may not be particularly vocal about the lack of sideloading because they usually know that was the compromise they chose to accept in order to use iOS, and it's silly to bitch about the lack of choice when you know that you made that choice. That doesn't mean they wouldn't find it desirable if Apple suddenly allowed it.
Are you asserting that the latter group is no larger than the former? Is that just a blind hunch, or do you actually have some kind of reasoning behind that?
The most vocal users who complain about iPhone's lack of sideloading support are developers, and the demographic of users for whom sideloading capability may have been the *ONLY* reason that they ultimately chose Android over the iPhone. If Apple were to suddenly allow sideloading without jailbreaking, I expect that at least some of this demographic would switch to iPhone when they are next updating their smartphone.
But the answer is still not Outrageous Government Intervention. The last thing we need is another set of Nanny-State Laws.
The Free Market should logically take care of this.
Adults vote with their feet.
Afterall, this isn't something of Great Political and Societal Import; like making sure laws are swiftly passed, assuring that pregnant Women of all ages, including those that are victims of rape, incest, or are in medical danger are forced to give birth to a child against their will, and possibly even at the
Re: (Score:2)
sorry for the dupe comment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea whether it will actually fly, mind you, given that Apple's actions were principally intended to prevent harm to users by preventing those bugs from being exploited for actual nefarious purposes, but it is at least a novel argument.
Frivolous Argument, you mean.
Apple can easily show that their intention was improving the Security of iOS; which has obvious benefit to their User base. Afterall, if Cydia can use those vulnerabilities to install their Malware (Loader), it doesn't take much tech savvy to conclude that another, more malicious Malware, could use those same vulnerabilites to inject arbitrary code.
The fact that Cydia's business model was predicated on those vulnerabilities is if no moment. Just because I have a broken lock on a back window, doesn't make it legal for someone to complain that they can't sneak in and steal food anymore when I fix it.
Serious question to the mods.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By showing that the harm was caused by an ongoing pattern of actions on Apple's part, rather than just a single act, the statute of limitations period begins from the most recent action by Apple that Cydia claims was anticompetitive, which, being more recent, would then still be eligible for legal action.
You are thinking of RICO law. And AFAIK, "Anticompetitive Behavior" is not a "Predicate Act", necessary to trigger the RICO Statutes.
Also, a Petitioner/Plaintiff has a Duty to "minimize harm"; which waiting for years on end to file their Complaint is most assuredly not!
If Cydia knew or should have known way back when that Apple's patching the vulnerabilities they were using to Jailbreak iOS was detrimental to their "business", they are nit allowed to "Sit on their Hands" and wait until the alleged "Damages"
Re: Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:1)
Yeah, Cydia is on pretty shaky ground with that argument. Just because I've previously been able to set up camp in your unoccupied vacation home's yard doesn't mean you've violated any of my rights by installing a fence.
Actually depending on the jurisdiction, it very well could be a violation of your rights. If you've established residency there, even if it's in the front yard, anything the homeowner does to prevent you from having access would be illegal. They'd have to go through the courts to have you removed, and again depending on the jurisdiction, as well as how well they know the laws (and some squatters know them quite well) that can take years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Cydia is on pretty shaky ground with that argument. Just because I've previously been able to set up camp in your unoccupied vacation home's yard doesn't mean you've violated any of my rights by installing a fence.
Actually depending on the jurisdiction, it very well could be a violation of your rights. If you've established residency there, even if it's in the front yard, anything the homeowner does to prevent you from having access would be illegal. They'd have to go through the courts to have you removed, and again depending on the jurisdiction, as well as how well they know the laws (and some squatters know them quite well) that can take years.
Adverse Possession doesn't apply here.
Re: Patching security holes is an "overt act"? (Score:2)
No that's not adverse possession, it's simple landlord/tenant laws. In some cases it only takes two or three days to establish "residency".
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not adverse possession, it's simple landlord/tenant laws. In some cases it only takes two or three days to establish "residency".
Perhaps; but it still doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether it applies, my point is that it's a bad analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether it applies, my point is that it's a bad analogy.
Ok, you win.
Life's too short.
Apple controls jailbreaks.... (Score:3)
Apple can quickly squash a jailbreak with an update.
Back in the day of the iPhone 3G/4 Apple let a jailbreak slip, allowing Cydia to work. Cydia offered apps like 3G Teathering, WiFi Hotspot, and other things that weren't yet in the iOS interface work, despite carriers wanting to charge fees for such things. It was a usage test to see if this would crash networks, and as 4G and now 5G became typical now allow these things to work.
So, what's the "killer app" in the Cydia store now? Apple's approving just about anything legal that doesn't involve in-app transactions that bypass their TOS-required iTunes billing.
Cydia's devalued to zero now... so all that's left is the lawyers.
Re:Apple controls jailbreaks.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know the merits of Cydia's case but Apple does not approve "just about anything legal".
Most obvious issue is the lack of independent browser implementations.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I see Mozzila, Edge, and Chrome for iPhone here. There's right now only two ways to the web, Google's and Mozzila's... anything else fell out of support years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
They are all Safari with different user interface layers. Apple does not allow other browser implementations.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what's the "killer app" in the Cydia store now? Apple's approving just about anything legal that doesn't involve in-app transactions that bypass their TOS-required iTunes billing.
Emulators, torrent clients, some restrictions involving cryptocurrency apps that I'm not entirely clear on, Kodi, and porn apps. Also, you can't roll back a bad app update, which is incredibly annoying.
Apple is really restrictive. Thing is, most of the people who find the restrictions particularly irksome have moved on to Android years ago or just got tired of complaining about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the problem? Users had a choice to move to another platform to get the features that they wanted and they did. I don't understand the obsession of non-Apple users over what Apple does to their platform.
Also offered Apps without paying. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this wasn't really Cydia's fault, since Cydia was a package manager. The fact you could point it at a repository housing pirated apps was an inevitable consequence of allowing all apps in. Nothing elss hosted by Cydia itself - it was an independent repository.
It's like blaming Debian for having non-free stuff because a user can set their apt sources to a non-free repo - it's nothing the developers of Debi
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "sideloading" on iphones (try to be offline for more than 7 days with altdaemon...).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. You can deploy apps to your device via Xcode.
Previously you needed a mobileprovision file to do it, but now anyone with a Mac, Xcode and such can build and deploy an app to a real device or multiple devices.
The same mechanism is done via the non-jailbreak pirate app installers as well
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing something? As far I know, iOS will run only signed code (altdaemon signs ipa the same way xcode does, except it does so directly on the device, so it can survive without a PC tether). Dev signatures are valid for 7 days. Further, only 10 apps (iirc) can be signed simultaneously per apple id.
This is extremely controlled environment, a far cry from letting user run their own code on the device unencumbered (just turning off your phone for a week will wipe out everything) compared to actual sidelo
Emulators. (Score:3)
How about emulators? Not having RetroArch available on a device is a deal-breaker for me; half of the reason I have a phone is so if I'm stuck for an hour without anything to do, I can play Golden Sun or something. I have an iPad that I originally bought for my mom that I re-inherited when she passed, it sits on a shelf collecting dust because (unless they've changed it) sideloading on iOS without an enterprise account requires you to re-sign the app ever
Yet another liberator (Score:1)
Cydia was powerful (Score:1)