Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Symbian apps were sold by mobile operators with margins up to 80%.

You could only install apps outside the store via the SDK.

Later on, during the Ovi Store days it was possible to buy applications and install them via the phone management software, which only technical inclined users did.



Carrier appstores aside, you could download apps directly from Google or any other website on any Symbian phone.


And people didn't want to do that so they bought an iPhone.


People also didn't think Apple would just stop updates to a game they paid Apple money for.


They paid money to Epic, which is the responsible for them not having the game in first place.


You should learn about Apple vs Pepper.


Why do you think that case is relevant to this discussion? The only issue that has been resolved in that case so far is a question about standing. The actual anti-trust questions are still unresolved.


It is completely irrelevant for this court case.


I don't need to be a lawyer to see that a case which determined that users can sue Apple because Apple is the direct seller, and in the dissent said developers would have an even better standing to sue Apple leads us to where we are. It's precedent.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: