I would hope so. My decision to purchase an iPad was based, in part, on the availability of applications that would likely no longer be available if this policy were to go into effect. As a consumer, this feels completely deceptive. For me, the usefulness of the iPad is being arbitrarily reduced, quite drastically, only after I have purchased it. I may not have purchased it in the first place if not for the functionality I am on the verge of losing.
I understand Apple's position and desire to turn a profit, but these actions feel hostile towards me, as the consumer, and leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth. No matter how this shakes out I would be wary of committing to another Apple platform for fear that they will completely change the rules to make it an untenable situation.
I really hope they back down, but if they don't I would gladly join a class action lawsuit against them.
Personally, I wouldn't ever join a class-action lawsuit. But small claims court sounds perfect...
If Amazon ends up removing the Kindle app over these new policies, I would sue Apple (via my local Apple Store to establish jurisdiction) in small claims court for $139.
The case would be relatively straightforward: I purchased an iPad because it could do everything a Kindle could do as well as more; Apple then caused functionality to be removed, so I would like Apple to buy me a Kindle to replace the functionality.
I've been to small claims court 3 times in my life, and each time won a default judgment because the other side didn't show up. Then, I faxed my judgment to my credit card company, and they promptly credited me (and presumably issued a chargeback to the merchant). This was in Fairfax County, Virginia.
I suspect that Apple will quietly reverse themselves, just like they did on the "apps can only be written in C, C++, and Objective C" last year. But if they don't, your local small claims court provides a wonderful opportunity to make your dissatisfaction known. And it only takes about 4 hours.
Honestly, while I empathize, you would so lose that case. I'm fairly certain that Apple makes no guarantees about functionality other than some very narrow statements (like supporting 3g or WiFi). If you thought the iPad replaced your Kindle, that's on you.
And at worst, Apple will simply say that Amazon voluntarily decided to not abide by the terms of the app store. Any time they are willing they are invited back in.
As much as I despise many of Apple's business practices I think this is a case where they are fairly making their own call. I'd love to see some companies "man up" and say, "Lets go all in on Android, WP7, and WebOS -- screw iOS".
Also, small claims court is not based on tort law, it's quasi-contract [1]. So the judge (not a jury) uses the principle of equity. Even if Apple did send someone (unlikely), it's still a question of what is fair, not a question of what is contractually obligated.
I'd never heard of this, but it is interesting. For example:
"To illustrate, assume that a homebuilder has built a house on Alicia's property. However, the homebuilder signed a contract with Bobby, who claimed to be Alicia's agent but, in fact, was not. Although there is no binding contract between Alicia and the homebuilder, most courts would allow the homebuilder to recover the cost of the services and materials from Alicia to avoid an unjust result. A court would accomplish this by creating a fictitious agreement between the homebuilder and Alicia and holding Alicia responsible for the cost of the builder's services and materials."
As a home builder a great strategy is to work with fraudulent agents, and build homes on a bunch of plots. And then sue the landowners.
The key simply appears to give the appearance that you're working in good faith, but once you do that your entitled to all services rendered, whether or not the "customer" actually wants it or not.
Although since it is small claims, probably not worth it.
But may be worth it for web design companies. Do the same thing -- build crappy websites for companies, charge them for the service and product.
Increasingly, class action lawsuits are being settled with "Coupon Settlements", whereby the attorneys get millions of dollars, and the plaintiffs get -- no joke -- coupons.
Well, when you bought your iPad, weren't you fully aware of Apple's whimsical and capricious nature in dealing with the App Store? Even though Apple are just being assholes here, I have no sympathy for computer-literate people who would willingly take part in an ecosystem which has DRM built into its DNA.
> I have no sympathy for computer-literate people who would willingly take part in an ecosystem which has DRM built into its DNA.
I'm inclined to agree with this, but only until I consider other DRM-laden platforms that I take part in.
I have a Steam account, and have many games tied to that account. Steam is DRM.
I have a Kindle, and I have many books on it. Kindle books use a DRM protected file-format.
The difference betweens these, and Apple's, ecosystems is in the value provided to the user, as opposed to the alternatives. Amazon's Kindle gives me multi-platform access to my books, Steam allows me to install my games on any Windows (or Mac, for some games) computer that I interact with.
Apple, on the other hand, actively assaults the freedom to use your purchased data/products/info on any device that isn't made by Apple.
So while I think you have the right idea about DRM infused systems, I think that the intent of the system should be judged as well, and in a more vital role than the DRM itself.
Class action? Alright, let's see what a self-respecting judge would do in such a situation. Especially when your evidence is that Apple's actions "feel hostile" and "leave a bad taste" in your mouth.
When a customer purchases an Apple device, he/she knows what that Apple does not guarantee continued service. Apple does not contractually promise that apps will continue to be there, it does not promise it will work with developers, it does not promise it won't change the rules, it does not promise that it won't get out of business in six months and close the app store altogether. The customer is aware of all that beforehand but still buys the device.
Many people talk about user rights. The only rights a user has are 1) to sue Apple if the company violates a written contract between itself and the user and 2) to refuse to buy Apple's products in the future.
I understand Apple's position and desire to turn a profit, but these actions feel hostile towards me, as the consumer, and leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth. No matter how this shakes out I would be wary of committing to another Apple platform for fear that they will completely change the rules to make it an untenable situation.
I really hope they back down, but if they don't I would gladly join a class action lawsuit against them.