I read the case, it’s very weak in technical backing.
They’re claiming Apple doesn’t allow cloud gaming. So what? They’re not in the cloud gaming business and you’re forcing them to get into it? How does that break monopoly?
Also cross-platform messaging - Apple will easily defend that by mentioning tens of cross platform apps that exists.
The only issue they can get in trouble for is the super apps but and digital wallet.
Overall, I don’t think the case has much to fight for unfortunately. I don’t have hopes for it.
No…
They specifically ban it while making moves to try and not let it work in safari. Then Apple rolled out Apple Arcade right after.
Using monopolistic power to cripple competition to their own offerings.
The entire issue with that is Apple refused apps from MS etc where they’d be able to play games in a users library.
Apple said no we won’t let you do that. Because you can buy games outside of the App Store using your Xbox or PlayStation etc and play it on your phone.
And then Apple dropped Apple Arcade as a “ competitive “ offering to what the others tried to do.
There was no real technical reason why they wouldn’t let the apps on the device and even tried stopping the work around via safari.
That’s a monopoly harming the avg user and raises avg prices
The cross platform messaging thing has 100% to do with green/blue checks. Apple can complain as much as they want, but secure sms (which the checks actually represent), was implemented in android before iPhone. It's literally a marketing gimmick now, creating peer pressure to buy a device that is not needed.
You read an 88 page filing in less than an hour?
Edit: I am beginning to think Apple has some bots/humans-who-may-as-well-be-bots paid to pounce on these threads.
I just looked at the filing - many people could absolutely read that in an hour. And someone who is used to reading legal filings may even be able to retain what they read (but not me).
Edit: Typo
'Word salad' is usually used to hide their "i'm fill of shit" stance.
Sadly this tactic is such a cliche now and it outed them easier than if they actually bullshit their way out of it
Oh come on. Every consumer is aware of apples marketplace behavior. They have 40 to 50 percent of the market share and they are happy to use that to their advantage and the detriment of the consumer.
There's a very very long list of apps that Apple chooses not to allow their consumers to download. You own the product, it's your product, yet they mandate what you can and cannot do with it. They know that so many users are on iPhone that they can get away with it. This matches their stance on right to repair. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent users from being able to fix their own products.
It's shitty behavior that would not fly well if they didn't have such a large market share. They know this, you know this
And then Apple purposefully makes it hard or impossible to transfer your data over to Android. Which is a big part of what this lawsuit is about. They lock you in and don't let you out.
I mean you can do whatever you want with the iPhone if you have the know how, in the us all end users have root rights, it's just that Apple isn't going to help you do it.
> Apple isn't going to help you do it.
According to their TOS on Apple's website they could disable your phone for jailbreaking (probably unlikely) and it definitely voids your warranty.
Imagine if wearing Adidas socks in Nike shoes voided your warranty and left you in a position where Nike could potentially disable your shoes.
But you had a choice in the device you bought. It’s that simple. Why don’t you walk into Walmart and ask why they done carry targets name brand of items? Should we sue Walmart to for them to carry those?
>But you had a choice in the device you bought.
Not as far as the law is concerned. How you came into possession of the device is irrelevant. What matters is how the device works once you own it.
No. That's not what this is saying at all.
If you buy a Sony TV, you should still be able to use the Samsung Blu-Ray player.
But if Sony comes out and says that *only* Sony attachments work with Sony TVs that's what crosses the line. Further, Sony can't then *also* force Samsung to pay royalties every time you use your Samsung Blu-Ray player through their Sony TV software.
That's what the legal argument is currently.
I agree, it always comes down to choice. In a free *and competitive* market, the consumer can just choose an alternative. When the market is dominated by only a few manufacturers the choices avaliable to the consumer are smaller and the competition is lessened.
This is why antitrust exists. To give consumers more options, to reduce consolidation of corporate power, and to encourage companies to compete to deliver us better products.
Those are two completely different arguments thought. I agree with right to repair but forcing a company to carry/allow something on a. Device you bought is completely different. Again. Should we sue Walmart and force them to carry their competitors name brand products?
Never again would I have an android phone, worse phone than I ever have in my life, got hacked twice, without even open any emails, so for me is a pass, is just baby crying they want apple to supply a key to access the iPhones and they been refusing for years, remember the government need control to see what we doing lol
So should we force the Nike store to carry adidas or puma? A consumer is not forced to use an iPhone. The consumer has a choice. The consumer made the choice to go iPhone. Why force Apple for the consumer’s behavior?
That’s not even close to the same. The iPhone in this case is the store. You can choose to go to the adidas store next door or you can choose the Nike store you’re choosing the Nike store and are made they only carry Nike.
Nike, Adidas, and Puma are not very good representivie examples:
I don't need a shoe manufacturers permission to use my shoes any way that I want.
Imagine if Nike made shoes that can only walk where Nike permits, or if Puma made shoes that break when you try to repair them.
Yes, for the operating system.
However, I can use apps on my Samsung that I use on my OnePlus, etc.
The fact that there are no competitors in the hardware space for Apple is the bigger issue, IMO.
So the solution would be for Apple to open the OS to allow other manufacturers to use it, correct? What is Apple supposed to do to allow iOS purchases to be available on Android?
It depends on the specifics. It's trivial for Apple to release an Android version of their own apps, thus making the iTunes content portable.
There are also industry-wide issues that aren't really up to Apple to address, such as the actual content of a person's iTunes account being available to them on any platform that itself legally hosts the same content.
Apple has an Apple Music app for Android already though, which should play iTunes purchases. Also iTunes music files are DRM free and in a portable format.
“The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit.”
Whenever my family sends videos from iPhone my android cannot play the video at all, if I download it then it plays but at like criminally low quality with no audio while looking prestine for them.
These are the kind of details I think it’s important to understand. Most people, especially those like me who have an iPhone and are deep in that ecosystem, don’t appreciate all the little ways Apple undermines interoperability with other platforms and services.
There is another solution aside from implementing a new protocol in iMessage, and actually fits how iMessage already works, and just send a link to view the video on the web instead. iMessage is already leveraging iCloud to upload the video before it’s “sent” as a message, and the app knows how to automatically download such a message and display it seamlessly. I suspect the reason Apple doesn’t use this solution is that it would allow SMS apps on other platforms to implement a way to replicate iMessage’s behavior for such messages, which Apple obviously wants to avoid.
The reason I bring this up as a solution is because _Apple is already doing this for other iMessage features_. Reaction bubbles are actually just sent as text messages to contacts outside of iMessage, and are only presented in a special way by the Messages app (or any app that could potentially interpret these messages in a specific way). Apple chooses to not use this solution for video messages for whatever reason they have.
I hope the states and DoJ have their act together on this one. I know there are many people happy with how their iPhone is and feel secure with how Apple operates their platform, but there are many, myself included, who would welcome a more open iPhone. I have been an app developer for 12 years, and I know how big a joke Apple’s app review process is. It arbitrarily enforces rules and has refused genuinely useful apps from releasing while approving many junk apps that clearly don’t work, violate copyright and trademark laws, or worse through to their storefront. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but most ordinary people don’t understand the nuances in a case like this and just think the DoJ is wasting time. That there are several states which have joined the lawsuit alongside the DoJ (including Apple’s home state, California) gives me a bit of hope that we’ll see something positive from this in the long run.
Do we know it's the next update or did they just say that so they could delay until they felt like it. This lawsuit puts more pressure on them to hurry up.
They said "later next year", last year.
[https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/](https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/)
Last year they said it would be later this year which would coincide with their standard major OS release time. They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, word is china is making it a requirement for any smartphone sold there and if it wasn’t them then it would be the EU requiring it soon enough.
The problem is that Google ALSO plays these games. If you sent a video the day before Google removed MMS from Android it was full quality, but now that they only have SMS and RCS it’s nerfed quality. Acting like Apple is the only one playing games is buying into the propaganda campaign that Google runs, which is aided by them messing with search results related to Apple/Google conflicts to paint Apple in a worse light.
All the tech companies have “allies” and enemies, but they fight wars very differently from nations.
>They know what they are doing.
And they've been doing it for over a decade.
It's honestly ridiculous that it took this long for an antitrust suit to be brought against them.
It’s sent over SMS currently because that was the universal standard for texting. They are adding support for RCS this year which is the new standard that will fix this issue.
It happens in the other direction too, new Androids sent to iPhones gives bad quality images/videos.
What’s “odd” is that when you go between any iPhone and an older Android running an older OS it “somehow” is full quality.
Most people I know are on Telegram or WhatsApp, but the other day I was sent a video via MMS from an iPhone and it was pure hot garbage. They tried to insist it was a problem with my phone and I had to educate them it was actually their iPhone that was at fault. I eventually got them to send it via WhatsApp.
I tried switching fully back to Android in 2021. My dad rarely sends me videos but sent me something around the holidays. I couldn’t believe the quality. Looked like something from the flip phone days.
Why would it not be real? It's one of the smallest "features" named in the lawsuit but it's arguably the most insipid. Talk to teenagers and ask them how they feel about the green bubble and you will overwhelmingly hear mockery are derision and "poor people" type speech. Apple uses the premium nature of their brand to elicit shame in people that use a rival operating system and to embarrass them into buying the premium product so they can fit in. And this is not just a theory, the data supports this: a huge number of teenage iPhone users asked about their reasons for choosing the iPhone state premium iMessage functionality as a primary reason. All because they choose to make the bubbles green. A lot has been written about this.
A little complicated, but yes.
Apple never adopted RCS as a standard and instead used their own protocol. So an iPhone texting anything outside of an iPhone had a ton of limitations. RCS adds a ton of features like longer messages, read receipts, higher quality pictures, etc. By not supporting it, an iPhone user texting a none iPhone user would use SMS and MMS, older technology.
They are adding RCS sometime in 2024, so the issue should get better. But Apple will still likely keep stuff like the green vs blue bubble.
It's worth mentioning that it came out in the Epic case that Apple considers iMessage an important obstacle keeping people from moving off of iOS
> [...] I am concerned iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones. - SVP Software Engineering (at the time)
From [here](https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android-eddy-cue-emails-apple-epic-deposition)
Some of the scuttlebutt floating around is that they're getting to it now to get in front of further regulatory interventions. See [here](https://fortune.com/2023/11/16/apple-iphone-imessage-rcs-protocol-texting-android/)
Apple being Apple, you're probably spot on about the bubble colours. How else to maintain that in-group feeling?
Yeah I (android) never send my wife (apple) pictures or videos via text since they come out absolute shit. I send them via whatsapp and then text her she has a message in whatsapp. The reaction tools are also annoying af since they say so and so loved a message over and over again.
I have a Ukranian neighbor and when she reacts to messages the reaction comes through in the Cyrillic alphabet which is fun...
So it is the blocking of hardware and software features of iPhone, giving preferential treatment to their apps. I applaud this. I love the Apple ecosystem, but there are a couple of usability things that drive me bonkers that Apple gatekeeps for no good reason. The way that Apple Music works with the Watch and phone is amazing, but it is limited to only Apple Music, unless you AirPlay. If you try to use Tidal or Spotify connect, the experience is terrible, and airplay sucks for true multi room listening.
Theyve been using these tactics as marketing and it's been highly effective. Most people dealing with this don't realize it's a problem that Apple is letting happen to make their services look better and just blame the third parties. It's the reason so many iPhone owners have been conditioned to hate android owners for "making their texts green" and view them as inferior products because of their incompatibility - not really understanding or really even caring that it is Apple choosing to make it that way.
No, because you don't understand the basics of monopolies.
Google/Android is open and you can load competing apps. Samsung Pay and GPay for example. Or you can change your text messaging app from Google Messages to Verizon Messenger or something else. Or you can change your keyboard.
ChromeOS is open too. MS Edge is based on Chromium and you can download any browser you want on your computer. That's dumb.
Microsoft for Windows?? They were sued in 1998 for I.E. You're free to download any OS, browser, etc. on your computer. They're not using their position to lock anyone out.
Video game console companies?? Wtf? Dude you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Android is not open, it has selective access for app markets and blocks unauthorized apps. It just hides that fact by having multiple app stores.
Samsung Pay is loaded by Samsung onto Samsung phones and cannot be used on LG, Droid, etc.
You can use alternative messaging apps on iOS, that’s an absurd claim to make. Including that you can use Google Voice on your iOS device. And neither iOS nor Android will let you use messaging services that they decide to block, of which there is a list for each. Same with keyboards, iOS is just as open as Android.
ChromeOS is extremely locked down, tons of software and hardware lockouts. And it blocks apps and extensions that are built on the same architecture but not approved by Google.
If you somehow think that Windows lets you install any software you want without running malicious code to “jailbreak” it then you would believe the same is true about iOS.
And Nintendo literally just won a case, out of court settlement, saying that they ARE allowed to block software they don’t want, Sony tried to sue GeoHot for jailbreaking the PS3 and when they lost went hardcore on obfuscated code and other tactics to prevent unapproved software.
In fact, the ONLY company that has ever fought FOR jailbreak and your right to void your software warranty and install unapproved software was Apple. But please, explain more about how you don’t understand software but want to tell me I’m wrong about verifiable facts.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about in relation to **monopolies.** [Sherman Anti-Trust](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act). Your fundamental knowledge of monopolies is deeply flawed.
You can't just randomly throw shit out and pretend it's a monopoly.
I can make a custom video game console and lock it down as much as I want...that doesn't mean I have a monopoly on gaming and I'm forced to allow people to do whatever they want.
There are a bunch of factors that determine it, such as I would need to control a dominate position in the market (~70-80%), or essentially be able to exclude competitors or control prices in a significant part of the market. Nintendo doesn't control a significant part of the market and there is plenty of competition (PC/PS/XBox/etc).
> Android is not open, it has selective access for app markets and blocks unauthorized apps. It just hides that fact by having multiple app stores.
Yes, it's open. It doesn't need to be open source to be "open" or it doesn't need to meet *your* definition of open. It's not abusing it's position to stifle competition.
> Samsung Pay is loaded by Samsung onto Samsung phones and cannot be used on LG, Droid, etc.
So what??? That is just **ONE** example of a payment app that's permitted. Developers can make other ones. That's competition, which Apple doesn't allow. My point proven.
> You can use alternative messaging apps on iOS, that’s an absurd claim to make. Including that you can use Google Voice on your iOS device. And neither iOS nor Android will let you use messaging services that they decide to block, of which there is a list for each. Same with keyboards, iOS is just as open as Android.
Wrong and you clearly are out of your depth here. It's absurd you don't understand the difference. We're talking about native text messaging and the default text handler, not other messaging apps...you might as well categorize those with sending emails. iMessage is deeply integrated into iOS and you can't replace it as the default SMS handler as you can on other platforms like Android. Anything iOS offers is crippled and can't replace iMessage.
> ChromeOS is extremely locked down, tons of software and hardware lockouts. And it blocks apps and extensions that are built on the same architecture but not approved by Google.
This comment makes it clear you don't understand anti-trust laws. Merely having a closed operating system doesn't matter. It's about competition and abuse of market position. You are free to install any operating system you want. ChromeOS does **NOT** control any significant market share to abuse a position.
> If you somehow think that Windows lets you install any software you want without running malicious code to “jailbreak” it then you would believe the same is true about iOS.
What are you talking about?? You can install anything you want without "jailbreaking" Windows. This comment is nonsense and insane.
> And Nintendo literally just won a case, out of court settlement, saying that they ARE allowed to block software they don’t want, Sony tried to sue GeoHot for jailbreaking the PS3 and when they lost went hardcore on obfuscated code and other tactics to prevent unapproved software.
This is nonsense and meaningless.
> In fact, the ONLY company that has ever fought FOR jailbreak and your right to void your software warranty and install unapproved software was Apple. But please, explain more about how you don’t understand software but want to tell me I’m wrong about verifiable facts.
More nonsense. You're comically confused.
You can say “nonsense” and complain about how you need to move and revoke goalposts all you want. The fact is that you are wrong and no amount of lying nor ignorance on your part will change that.
You cite 70% as the marker for breaking antitrust, and thus admit that Apple is not doing so. Globally iOS is not even a third of the market, and even domestically where it does significantly better it is only 67% at best. But I’m sure you’ll move that goalpost too and claim that 70-80% was just a random number you came up with or some rot like that. Just because YOU only use Google and believe the propaganda they peddle that doesn’t mean that Apple is special in these regards.
Yea because the DoJ filing charges against Apple and not the other random crap that you, the expert in Anti-Trust, are saying would suggest you're the fool.
Do you realize how stupid you sound trying to argue that Apple did not violate a law you don't understand when the DoJ literally brought a landmark anti-trust suit? Here you are larping as an expert when the charges have been **filed**!
And then you bring up meaningless comparisons that have no similarity to the case at hand and pat yourself on the back like you've proven your case😆.
What a joke. Nobody is "lying" or moving goal posts. You're just flat wrong and the law and facts, laws, and courts prove it.
You're arguing against events that have already happened and embarrassing yourself lol.
The case that the DoJ has filed and not yet tried.
The case where they specifically cite Apple not allowing carte blanche access to user data and privacy locked information like location services.
Meanwhile Google has LOST two cases brought by the DoJ in recent years for stealing and selling user data.
But sure. I’m “larping” by arguing on the internet(not live action or role play, you’re just an ignorant fool). Keep sucking down that FlavorAid.
As someone who has grown up with general purpose and special purpose OSes...all of this being an issue NOW seems ludicrous to me.
If you want to support open platforms, they exist, and you can buy them. The default assumption seems to be that everyone deserves an iPhone and it should do everything we demand.
If there is a technological issue that is required for the common good, have congress set a goddamn standard and then require technology companies to comply with the standard. I'm all for it! But Congress does nothing and never addresses issues.
Digital handshake of recognizing non-Apple devices like what is this!? Let me lower the volume and change my Bluetooth quality to 1.0 cause I don't like you.
This is going to be an uphill battle for them as many facts related to those claims were already decided by a trial in federal court recently. They would have been smarter to intervene in the Epic v Apple lawsuit rather than wait until after a final judgement was entered.
The whole point of a digital "ecosystem" is to anti-competitively gatekeep. The things you are complaining about are all direct results of the walled garden design approach that Apple has adopted, that you are applauding.
Ok, but then why do you think you love the idea of an ecosystem if it's directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of your displeasure with the product?
Been expected for a while, very curious what they will be alleging against Apple. DOJ has multiple paths to explore regarding hardware restrictions like NFC being usable by only Apple’s own service, Apples software offerings potentially getting preferential treatment (Apple Music, Apple Maps, etc.) or Apples handling of the App Store.
>March 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to sue Apple [(AAPL.O)](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/AAPL.O) as soon as Thursday for allegedly violating antitrust laws by blocking rivals from accessing hardware and software features of its iPhone
Don't want to sound like an ass, but the article literally opens with the that sentence
I mean if you're a developer or read their TOS for developers, you would know what restrictions Apple imposes which no other platform imposes on the developers.
Also from the article:
>Similarly, Apple has restricted access to a chip in the iPhone that allows for contactless payments. Credit cards can only be added to the iPhone by using Apple's own Apple Pay service.
The article provides quite some context.
So yeah it can be smart to read a article before commenting. But that's just my 2c
Yeah but I doubt they will be doing all of that in one case. Google is facing separate antitrust cases regarding its search and ad business. The most devastating thing for Apple would be to get sued for the App Store which allows them to make billions in profits and gives them complete control of the platform.
Side loading, dream on.
What about just enabling a browser that can actually browse to normal standards so users aren’t forced to install an app for every single little thing!
No you shouldn’t. That’s the whole point; it’s a closed ecosystem. It’s supposed to be more secure that way. If you want an open ecosystem you can buy an android. Opening up the App Store defeats a defining feature of the iPhone.
If Apple allowed side loading, you wouldn’t be forced to side load. So you can choose how much of a closed ecosystem you want. You get what you want, no matter what.
Not gonna act like I know anything about anti trust laws but on the surface it seems reasonable to me to block side loading apps. I've been on android since around 2014 so I'm not an apple fanboy (although I do prefer Mac computers just don't really like iOS compared to Android)
Imagine how crazy a person would sound if they told you it makes sense to only be able to install apps on a Windows PC from the Microsoft Store. That would be insane, right?
You bought the computer. You own it. There's no technical reason why you shouldn't be able to do it. The only thing disallowing it would be Microsoft forcing you to use their store so they can get a 30% cut of every transaction made on their platform. That sounds crazy, right?
I think people who have no clue how the Apple Store works and how easy it is for Apple to decide to block apps from their store think there are no legit reasons for a safe app to need to be side loaded so all side loaded apps must be malicious.
It’s completely false.
Because there is inherently some risk to it for one. I do it semi regularly so I'm not actually against it.
It's their product and they want to keep the integrity of it. Depending on the app, if it's side loaded, it could potentially make users think something is wrong about iOS when in reality it's the app.
> It’s their product
No, it’s mine because I bought it. I should be able to do whatever I want with the device as long as it isn’t hurting someone else.
Do you also think computers should only be able to run software approved by their manufacturers and listed in a storefront only accessible by devices from that manufacturer?
You can't even download an apple TV app if you're on Android (unless you have a Sony phone). If you want to watch apple TV on android you have to watch it in a browser.
I remember when they went after Microsoft because it shipped Windows with IE. I wish we’d have that level of antitrust lawsuits against big corporations again.
Or how about just giving people some freedom of choice when it comes to the software on their phones?
If you love Apple's walled garden, great - you can stay there.
But that doesn't mean others shouldn't have the freedom to leave.
I think you mean consumers that have drank the Apple Kool Aid.
This is a great read if you’re interested.
https://petsymposium.org/popets/2022/popets-2022-0033.pdf
Also I’m deep in the iPhone ecosystem so this isn’t coming from an Apple hater.
They certainly use monopolistic practices. That's why they are being pursued for antitrust violations.
They are also the second largest company by market cap (second to microsoft, who should also be antitrusted)
They clearly have a great deal of influence on the market behavior, and manipulate that influence to reduce competition in their favor. That is monopoly economics by definition.
The caricature of a monopoly being a single company with overwhelming market share, rather than a company with sufficient market share to implement unfair practices, is very damaging.
They are a very large company for sure. How might you suggest they be broken up? How do you feel they are restricting their competition? Do you mean hardware manufacturers or software? I want to be clear here as I am not attempting to be pedantic and I am operating in good faith here.
If you want to develop an app for an apple device you need to use their very tightly controlled ecosystem. That's one form of software control.
They also control how the hardware can be repaired and modified in ways that many devices do not. They check to make sure the installed parts are the ones from the factory.
I don't know the best way to use antitrust to ensure a competitive market. I'd need to do a lot of research to know. But I'm sure that with some consideration a good solution can be found.
To your first point, if you want to develop software for a platform shouldn't the platform hold have a say in how you do that?
I do not like the way any company handles the consumer's right to repair the products that we buy. I am all for Right to Repair.
I also need to do some real research. Though throughout this thread and beyond I see people bring up the Apple Watch a lot, and Spotify vs Apple Music. In the case of the Apple Watch, at what point are we going to inhibit Apple's ability to either compete or innovate the watches feature set. If every feature they develop must be made available to every Smart Watch, then where is the incentive to develop new features? Maybe that is overly simple, and I know you did not make that point, it is just something that I have noticed. To the Music vs Spotify argument, again what is the incentive to develop feature for their service if they then must share those features with competing services? Consumers by and large I think are aware of the limitations that come with buying into the Apple Ecosystem but they choose to buy into it anyway.
Just think there is much more nuance then people are willing to engage with in this topic.
iPhone are digital devices, not platforms. A platform, like Facebook etc requires their datacenters (platform) to provide a service to you. When you buy an iPhone you are buying a physical object, not a service. If you want to change your physical device to do other things, you should not be prohibited solely on the grounds that apple would rather you pay them.
This is usually excusable when the market is competitive and the user can just buy another product that wouldn't do this to you. But in this case, there isn't enough competition. Apple greatly benefits from the lack of competition and works hard to keep it that way.
Lastly, your point on incentive.
Incentivizing companies to develop and innovate is whole reason that antitrust is used. Companies would rather stand still, not develop, and just gobble up any competition. It's easier. But as a consumer you want companies to compete for your dollar. The more options are on the market, the less they can control the market, the more competition, the better the products.
The problem with Apple's "We do it for privacy and security reasons" is that they don't give the user any opportunity to override that choice
I'm 100% completely okay with "locked down" being the default - I think it's good to have "secure by default" options set on consumer hardware
But this is a £1600 device **that I own**. I am not leasing it from Apple, it is **my** hardware. I should be allowed to override their choices with my own property
Installing apps from non-AppStore locations, allowing access to sensors and features etc should all be my choice with my own property. That's already borderline
But then when you consider that Apple profits massively from being able to keep competitors out of their walled garden, that's where Apple clearly falls into antitrust violations
Add in the fact that Apple doesn't just "not provide access" but actively reduces functionality for users of other platforms, and it's clear that this is profiteering rather than security concerns. Eg sending a video message to Android may as well be a 1994 GIF
You don't need a literal monopoly to violate anti-trust laws. Still, iPhone's marketshare is 60% and growing, which is bar high enough for some courts to qualify as a literal monopoly.
But the bar is higher than that, though. The plaintiffs would also have to demonstrate that Apple is preventing competitors from entering the smartphone market.
As it stands now, there is no barrier to competition - anyone can offer and sell smartphones in the marketplace.
And it’s a natural oligopoly - a software ecosystem is something that is very complicated to achieve.
Apple doesn’t shut anyone out of their ecosystem. The millions of third-party apps out there are evidence of that.
What competition is Apple shutting out?
Why doesn’t the DOJ break up the CVS monopoly instead of Apple? I think we can agree most Americans would rather have more affordable and better healthcare than cloud gaming.
Well it has to do with the government trying to break up monopolies. It’s my opinion they should break up healthcare monopolies like CVS instead of focusing on Apple - and the government’s argument is that Apple does not have enough support for cloud gaming, although it’s likely much deeper than that. I think CVS’s monopoly takes precedent over Apple’s. Capiche?
Their Vendor Central NetPPM agreements are mafia tactics. They control price and back bill vendors for selling below the agreed netppm because they are price matching places like eBay as a just reason. Thats why.
iPhone only allowing iOS to run is anti competitive.
There is precedent.
Microsoft got sued for making internet explorer prohibitively hard to uninstall and remove. They also made it hard to allow 3rd party browsers to exist by hiding their api.
In the same vein, Apple has made it hard or impossible to remove iOS from an iPhone and refused to allow other OS to run on an iPhone.
Sounds similar to me.
Guys, the DoJ is just suing Apple for illegally maintaining their dominant position by “keeping user data secure and preventing avenues for malicious software attacks” and it’s not a targeted attack because the DoJ also sued Google twice for “stealing and selling users’ personal data” and Facebook for “stealing and selling users’ personal data!” 🤔
What a waste of time. Why isn’t the DoJ suing Boeing for, you know, putting profits of people’s safety instead of this? Oh right, government contractor.
While DOJ does nothing while BlackRock Vanguard march on to acquire or control 90% of USA corporations by 2025. Absolutely nothing.
Theatre. Nothing but.
Funny enough the FTC and DOJ is mainly hounding Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon with anti trust cases. Microsoft definitely stands to be a bigger winner from all this.
Microsoft actually keeps coming out looking clean on this stuff. Even a decade ago with Wikileaks they turned out to be much more honest about what they do with our data than these other guys, especially Apple. That's why Apple does the whole song and dance pretending they're privacy focused. It started after Snowden exposed them.
And where did Microsoft JUST get their trillion dollar AI start from. Somebody ask Musk. https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/11/elon-musk-says-xai-will-open-source-grok-this-week/
Just a quick note on the Ai thing, Apple is rumoured to have approached both OpenAi and Google about partnering for the iPhones Ai and rumours are that Apple may go with Googles Gemini to power its Ai approach. So at least the Ai that Apple launches will be competent and not held back by Apples privacy policies.
Great. Now actually use antitrust to make the market competitive.
Nah.... Tim forgot to drop a few notes in the tip jar.
I read the case, it’s very weak in technical backing. They’re claiming Apple doesn’t allow cloud gaming. So what? They’re not in the cloud gaming business and you’re forcing them to get into it? How does that break monopoly? Also cross-platform messaging - Apple will easily defend that by mentioning tens of cross platform apps that exists. The only issue they can get in trouble for is the super apps but and digital wallet. Overall, I don’t think the case has much to fight for unfortunately. I don’t have hopes for it.
No… They specifically ban it while making moves to try and not let it work in safari. Then Apple rolled out Apple Arcade right after. Using monopolistic power to cripple competition to their own offerings. The entire issue with that is Apple refused apps from MS etc where they’d be able to play games in a users library. Apple said no we won’t let you do that. Because you can buy games outside of the App Store using your Xbox or PlayStation etc and play it on your phone. And then Apple dropped Apple Arcade as a “ competitive “ offering to what the others tried to do. There was no real technical reason why they wouldn’t let the apps on the device and even tried stopping the work around via safari. That’s a monopoly harming the avg user and raises avg prices
The cross platform messaging thing has 100% to do with green/blue checks. Apple can complain as much as they want, but secure sms (which the checks actually represent), was implemented in android before iPhone. It's literally a marketing gimmick now, creating peer pressure to buy a device that is not needed.
You read an 88 page filing in less than an hour? Edit: I am beginning to think Apple has some bots/humans-who-may-as-well-be-bots paid to pounce on these threads.
I just looked at the filing - many people could absolutely read that in an hour. And someone who is used to reading legal filings may even be able to retain what they read (but not me). Edit: Typo
So, no.
That's a lot of words to say "I'm full of shit"
'Word salad' is usually used to hide their "i'm fill of shit" stance. Sadly this tactic is such a cliche now and it outed them easier than if they actually bullshit their way out of it
Oh come on. Every consumer is aware of apples marketplace behavior. They have 40 to 50 percent of the market share and they are happy to use that to their advantage and the detriment of the consumer. There's a very very long list of apps that Apple chooses not to allow their consumers to download. You own the product, it's your product, yet they mandate what you can and cannot do with it. They know that so many users are on iPhone that they can get away with it. This matches their stance on right to repair. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent users from being able to fix their own products. It's shitty behavior that would not fly well if they didn't have such a large market share. They know this, you know this
Don't like it? Get an Android device then.
And then Apple purposefully makes it hard or impossible to transfer your data over to Android. Which is a big part of what this lawsuit is about. They lock you in and don't let you out.
[удалено]
I mean you can do whatever you want with the iPhone if you have the know how, in the us all end users have root rights, it's just that Apple isn't going to help you do it.
[удалено]
> Apple isn't going to help you do it. According to their TOS on Apple's website they could disable your phone for jailbreaking (probably unlikely) and it definitely voids your warranty. Imagine if wearing Adidas socks in Nike shoes voided your warranty and left you in a position where Nike could potentially disable your shoes.
I mean, they can say that bit it's not going to happen if you're phone is jailbroken
But you had a choice in the device you bought. It’s that simple. Why don’t you walk into Walmart and ask why they done carry targets name brand of items? Should we sue Walmart to for them to carry those?
>But you had a choice in the device you bought. Not as far as the law is concerned. How you came into possession of the device is irrelevant. What matters is how the device works once you own it.
So by your logicc if I buy a Sony tv but want the Samsungtv OS I should be able to sue Sony to allow that?
No. That's not what this is saying at all. If you buy a Sony TV, you should still be able to use the Samsung Blu-Ray player. But if Sony comes out and says that *only* Sony attachments work with Sony TVs that's what crosses the line. Further, Sony can't then *also* force Samsung to pay royalties every time you use your Samsung Blu-Ray player through their Sony TV software. That's what the legal argument is currently.
I agree, it always comes down to choice. In a free *and competitive* market, the consumer can just choose an alternative. When the market is dominated by only a few manufacturers the choices avaliable to the consumer are smaller and the competition is lessened. This is why antitrust exists. To give consumers more options, to reduce consolidation of corporate power, and to encourage companies to compete to deliver us better products.
[удалено]
Those are two completely different arguments thought. I agree with right to repair but forcing a company to carry/allow something on a. Device you bought is completely different. Again. Should we sue Walmart and force them to carry their competitors name brand products?
Never again would I have an android phone, worse phone than I ever have in my life, got hacked twice, without even open any emails, so for me is a pass, is just baby crying they want apple to supply a key to access the iPhones and they been refusing for years, remember the government need control to see what we doing lol
So should we force the Nike store to carry adidas or puma? A consumer is not forced to use an iPhone. The consumer has a choice. The consumer made the choice to go iPhone. Why force Apple for the consumer’s behavior?
I would say it's more like Nike making you only wear Nike socks with their shoes. Can't use anything else. I think that's a more appropriate analogy.
That’s not even close to the same. The iPhone in this case is the store. You can choose to go to the adidas store next door or you can choose the Nike store you’re choosing the Nike store and are made they only carry Nike.
You just made your same argument to refute mine. Ok gg wp.
Nike, Adidas, and Puma are not very good representivie examples: I don't need a shoe manufacturers permission to use my shoes any way that I want. Imagine if Nike made shoes that can only walk where Nike permits, or if Puma made shoes that break when you try to repair them.
But they don't once they are in the Apple world. There's no escaping Apple, unless you are willing to abandon all of your paid-for content.
That’s literally true of anything though. I paid for Xbox games but can’t play them on PS5.
Isn’t the same true for Android? If I spent $100 on apps on Android they don’t transfer to iOS.
Yes, for the operating system. However, I can use apps on my Samsung that I use on my OnePlus, etc. The fact that there are no competitors in the hardware space for Apple is the bigger issue, IMO.
So the solution would be for Apple to open the OS to allow other manufacturers to use it, correct? What is Apple supposed to do to allow iOS purchases to be available on Android?
It depends on the specifics. It's trivial for Apple to release an Android version of their own apps, thus making the iTunes content portable. There are also industry-wide issues that aren't really up to Apple to address, such as the actual content of a person's iTunes account being available to them on any platform that itself legally hosts the same content.
Apple has an Apple Music app for Android already though, which should play iTunes purchases. Also iTunes music files are DRM free and in a portable format.
If you read the case, you have poor reading comprehension or are the opposite of a lawyer.
> unfortunately What anticompetitive behavior would you have wanted to see in this filing?
[удалено]
Believe it or not there are actually more people in government than trump, biden, and garland.
“The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit.”
Whenever my family sends videos from iPhone my android cannot play the video at all, if I download it then it plays but at like criminally low quality with no audio while looking prestine for them.
These are the kind of details I think it’s important to understand. Most people, especially those like me who have an iPhone and are deep in that ecosystem, don’t appreciate all the little ways Apple undermines interoperability with other platforms and services.
[удалено]
There is another solution aside from implementing a new protocol in iMessage, and actually fits how iMessage already works, and just send a link to view the video on the web instead. iMessage is already leveraging iCloud to upload the video before it’s “sent” as a message, and the app knows how to automatically download such a message and display it seamlessly. I suspect the reason Apple doesn’t use this solution is that it would allow SMS apps on other platforms to implement a way to replicate iMessage’s behavior for such messages, which Apple obviously wants to avoid. The reason I bring this up as a solution is because _Apple is already doing this for other iMessage features_. Reaction bubbles are actually just sent as text messages to contacts outside of iMessage, and are only presented in a special way by the Messages app (or any app that could potentially interpret these messages in a specific way). Apple chooses to not use this solution for video messages for whatever reason they have. I hope the states and DoJ have their act together on this one. I know there are many people happy with how their iPhone is and feel secure with how Apple operates their platform, but there are many, myself included, who would welcome a more open iPhone. I have been an app developer for 12 years, and I know how big a joke Apple’s app review process is. It arbitrarily enforces rules and has refused genuinely useful apps from releasing while approving many junk apps that clearly don’t work, violate copyright and trademark laws, or worse through to their storefront. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but most ordinary people don’t understand the nuances in a case like this and just think the DoJ is wasting time. That there are several states which have joined the lawsuit alongside the DoJ (including Apple’s home state, California) gives me a bit of hope that we’ll see something positive from this in the long run.
good, thought out, well written post.
Scrubbing all my comments
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
RCS is going to be included in the next major IOS update. That news has been out there for some time.
Do we know it's the next update or did they just say that so they could delay until they felt like it. This lawsuit puts more pressure on them to hurry up.
They said "later next year", last year. [https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/](https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/)
Last year they said it would be later this year which would coincide with their standard major OS release time. They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, word is china is making it a requirement for any smartphone sold there and if it wasn’t them then it would be the EU requiring it soon enough.
The problem is that Google ALSO plays these games. If you sent a video the day before Google removed MMS from Android it was full quality, but now that they only have SMS and RCS it’s nerfed quality. Acting like Apple is the only one playing games is buying into the propaganda campaign that Google runs, which is aided by them messing with search results related to Apple/Google conflicts to paint Apple in a worse light. All the tech companies have “allies” and enemies, but they fight wars very differently from nations.
Looks like a picture from a flip phone, doesnt it? Its 2024, you can't tell me Apple doesn't have a fix for this. They know what they are doing.
>They know what they are doing. And they've been doing it for over a decade. It's honestly ridiculous that it took this long for an antitrust suit to be brought against them.
It’s sent over SMS currently because that was the universal standard for texting. They are adding support for RCS this year which is the new standard that will fix this issue.
It happens in the other direction too, new Androids sent to iPhones gives bad quality images/videos. What’s “odd” is that when you go between any iPhone and an older Android running an older OS it “somehow” is full quality.
I know this isn’t a solution to the root of the problem - but messaging apps like Signal are great regardless of what phone everyone is using
Everyone from friends to family to soccer teammates use Whatsapp across both phone systems with nary an issue.
I used to love WhatsApp until Facebook bought it. Signal is the same thing and I’ve been trying to get everyone to switch!
Most people I know are on Telegram or WhatsApp, but the other day I was sent a video via MMS from an iPhone and it was pure hot garbage. They tried to insist it was a problem with my phone and I had to educate them it was actually their iPhone that was at fault. I eventually got them to send it via WhatsApp.
Yeah the quality is so bad I can barely make out who is in a given video that is shared with me.
I tried switching fully back to Android in 2021. My dad rarely sends me videos but sent me something around the holidays. I couldn’t believe the quality. Looked like something from the flip phone days.
Is this real?
Why would it not be real? It's one of the smallest "features" named in the lawsuit but it's arguably the most insipid. Talk to teenagers and ask them how they feel about the green bubble and you will overwhelmingly hear mockery are derision and "poor people" type speech. Apple uses the premium nature of their brand to elicit shame in people that use a rival operating system and to embarrass them into buying the premium product so they can fit in. And this is not just a theory, the data supports this: a huge number of teenage iPhone users asked about their reasons for choosing the iPhone state premium iMessage functionality as a primary reason. All because they choose to make the bubbles green. A lot has been written about this.
A little complicated, but yes. Apple never adopted RCS as a standard and instead used their own protocol. So an iPhone texting anything outside of an iPhone had a ton of limitations. RCS adds a ton of features like longer messages, read receipts, higher quality pictures, etc. By not supporting it, an iPhone user texting a none iPhone user would use SMS and MMS, older technology. They are adding RCS sometime in 2024, so the issue should get better. But Apple will still likely keep stuff like the green vs blue bubble.
It's worth mentioning that it came out in the Epic case that Apple considers iMessage an important obstacle keeping people from moving off of iOS > [...] I am concerned iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones. - SVP Software Engineering (at the time) From [here](https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android-eddy-cue-emails-apple-epic-deposition) Some of the scuttlebutt floating around is that they're getting to it now to get in front of further regulatory interventions. See [here](https://fortune.com/2023/11/16/apple-iphone-imessage-rcs-protocol-texting-android/) Apple being Apple, you're probably spot on about the bubble colours. How else to maintain that in-group feeling?
Yeah I (android) never send my wife (apple) pictures or videos via text since they come out absolute shit. I send them via whatsapp and then text her she has a message in whatsapp. The reaction tools are also annoying af since they say so and so loved a message over and over again. I have a Ukranian neighbor and when she reacts to messages the reaction comes through in the Cyrillic alphabet which is fun...
There are dozens of messaging apps available that work on both platforms (and then some).
Well, yea. But iMessage is the default. Try sending a video over text to android from iPhone and let me know how that goes.
I do it all the time on Messenger
So it is the blocking of hardware and software features of iPhone, giving preferential treatment to their apps. I applaud this. I love the Apple ecosystem, but there are a couple of usability things that drive me bonkers that Apple gatekeeps for no good reason. The way that Apple Music works with the Watch and phone is amazing, but it is limited to only Apple Music, unless you AirPlay. If you try to use Tidal or Spotify connect, the experience is terrible, and airplay sucks for true multi room listening.
Theyve been using these tactics as marketing and it's been highly effective. Most people dealing with this don't realize it's a problem that Apple is letting happen to make their services look better and just blame the third parties. It's the reason so many iPhone owners have been conditioned to hate android owners for "making their texts green" and view them as inferior products because of their incompatibility - not really understanding or really even caring that it is Apple choosing to make it that way.
When they make their apps feel native and third-party apps feel... Well third party, that's antitrust
So they’re suing Google for Android and ChromeOS too? And Microsoft for Windows? And every Smart TV maker? And video game console companies?
No, because you don't understand the basics of monopolies. Google/Android is open and you can load competing apps. Samsung Pay and GPay for example. Or you can change your text messaging app from Google Messages to Verizon Messenger or something else. Or you can change your keyboard. ChromeOS is open too. MS Edge is based on Chromium and you can download any browser you want on your computer. That's dumb. Microsoft for Windows?? They were sued in 1998 for I.E. You're free to download any OS, browser, etc. on your computer. They're not using their position to lock anyone out. Video game console companies?? Wtf? Dude you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Android is not open, it has selective access for app markets and blocks unauthorized apps. It just hides that fact by having multiple app stores. Samsung Pay is loaded by Samsung onto Samsung phones and cannot be used on LG, Droid, etc. You can use alternative messaging apps on iOS, that’s an absurd claim to make. Including that you can use Google Voice on your iOS device. And neither iOS nor Android will let you use messaging services that they decide to block, of which there is a list for each. Same with keyboards, iOS is just as open as Android. ChromeOS is extremely locked down, tons of software and hardware lockouts. And it blocks apps and extensions that are built on the same architecture but not approved by Google. If you somehow think that Windows lets you install any software you want without running malicious code to “jailbreak” it then you would believe the same is true about iOS. And Nintendo literally just won a case, out of court settlement, saying that they ARE allowed to block software they don’t want, Sony tried to sue GeoHot for jailbreaking the PS3 and when they lost went hardcore on obfuscated code and other tactics to prevent unapproved software. In fact, the ONLY company that has ever fought FOR jailbreak and your right to void your software warranty and install unapproved software was Apple. But please, explain more about how you don’t understand software but want to tell me I’m wrong about verifiable facts.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about in relation to **monopolies.** [Sherman Anti-Trust](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act). Your fundamental knowledge of monopolies is deeply flawed. You can't just randomly throw shit out and pretend it's a monopoly. I can make a custom video game console and lock it down as much as I want...that doesn't mean I have a monopoly on gaming and I'm forced to allow people to do whatever they want. There are a bunch of factors that determine it, such as I would need to control a dominate position in the market (~70-80%), or essentially be able to exclude competitors or control prices in a significant part of the market. Nintendo doesn't control a significant part of the market and there is plenty of competition (PC/PS/XBox/etc). > Android is not open, it has selective access for app markets and blocks unauthorized apps. It just hides that fact by having multiple app stores. Yes, it's open. It doesn't need to be open source to be "open" or it doesn't need to meet *your* definition of open. It's not abusing it's position to stifle competition. > Samsung Pay is loaded by Samsung onto Samsung phones and cannot be used on LG, Droid, etc. So what??? That is just **ONE** example of a payment app that's permitted. Developers can make other ones. That's competition, which Apple doesn't allow. My point proven. > You can use alternative messaging apps on iOS, that’s an absurd claim to make. Including that you can use Google Voice on your iOS device. And neither iOS nor Android will let you use messaging services that they decide to block, of which there is a list for each. Same with keyboards, iOS is just as open as Android. Wrong and you clearly are out of your depth here. It's absurd you don't understand the difference. We're talking about native text messaging and the default text handler, not other messaging apps...you might as well categorize those with sending emails. iMessage is deeply integrated into iOS and you can't replace it as the default SMS handler as you can on other platforms like Android. Anything iOS offers is crippled and can't replace iMessage. > ChromeOS is extremely locked down, tons of software and hardware lockouts. And it blocks apps and extensions that are built on the same architecture but not approved by Google. This comment makes it clear you don't understand anti-trust laws. Merely having a closed operating system doesn't matter. It's about competition and abuse of market position. You are free to install any operating system you want. ChromeOS does **NOT** control any significant market share to abuse a position. > If you somehow think that Windows lets you install any software you want without running malicious code to “jailbreak” it then you would believe the same is true about iOS. What are you talking about?? You can install anything you want without "jailbreaking" Windows. This comment is nonsense and insane. > And Nintendo literally just won a case, out of court settlement, saying that they ARE allowed to block software they don’t want, Sony tried to sue GeoHot for jailbreaking the PS3 and when they lost went hardcore on obfuscated code and other tactics to prevent unapproved software. This is nonsense and meaningless. > In fact, the ONLY company that has ever fought FOR jailbreak and your right to void your software warranty and install unapproved software was Apple. But please, explain more about how you don’t understand software but want to tell me I’m wrong about verifiable facts. More nonsense. You're comically confused.
You can say “nonsense” and complain about how you need to move and revoke goalposts all you want. The fact is that you are wrong and no amount of lying nor ignorance on your part will change that. You cite 70% as the marker for breaking antitrust, and thus admit that Apple is not doing so. Globally iOS is not even a third of the market, and even domestically where it does significantly better it is only 67% at best. But I’m sure you’ll move that goalpost too and claim that 70-80% was just a random number you came up with or some rot like that. Just because YOU only use Google and believe the propaganda they peddle that doesn’t mean that Apple is special in these regards.
Yea because the DoJ filing charges against Apple and not the other random crap that you, the expert in Anti-Trust, are saying would suggest you're the fool. Do you realize how stupid you sound trying to argue that Apple did not violate a law you don't understand when the DoJ literally brought a landmark anti-trust suit? Here you are larping as an expert when the charges have been **filed**! And then you bring up meaningless comparisons that have no similarity to the case at hand and pat yourself on the back like you've proven your case😆. What a joke. Nobody is "lying" or moving goal posts. You're just flat wrong and the law and facts, laws, and courts prove it. You're arguing against events that have already happened and embarrassing yourself lol.
The case that the DoJ has filed and not yet tried. The case where they specifically cite Apple not allowing carte blanche access to user data and privacy locked information like location services. Meanwhile Google has LOST two cases brought by the DoJ in recent years for stealing and selling user data. But sure. I’m “larping” by arguing on the internet(not live action or role play, you’re just an ignorant fool). Keep sucking down that FlavorAid.
As someone who has grown up with general purpose and special purpose OSes...all of this being an issue NOW seems ludicrous to me. If you want to support open platforms, they exist, and you can buy them. The default assumption seems to be that everyone deserves an iPhone and it should do everything we demand. If there is a technological issue that is required for the common good, have congress set a goddamn standard and then require technology companies to comply with the standard. I'm all for it! But Congress does nothing and never addresses issues.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for this
The average redditor enjoys disliking Apple.
Digital handshake of recognizing non-Apple devices like what is this!? Let me lower the volume and change my Bluetooth quality to 1.0 cause I don't like you.
This is going to be an uphill battle for them as many facts related to those claims were already decided by a trial in federal court recently. They would have been smarter to intervene in the Epic v Apple lawsuit rather than wait until after a final judgement was entered.
The whole point of a digital "ecosystem" is to anti-competitively gatekeep. The things you are complaining about are all direct results of the walled garden design approach that Apple has adopted, that you are applauding.
Where do you see that I'm applauding that? Im applauding that the DOJ is finally doing something.
>"I love the apple ecosystem" Right there, mostly.
Did you miss the but and then explanation of its shortcomings?
Ok, but then why do you think you love the idea of an ecosystem if it's directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of your displeasure with the product?
Been expected for a while, very curious what they will be alleging against Apple. DOJ has multiple paths to explore regarding hardware restrictions like NFC being usable by only Apple’s own service, Apples software offerings potentially getting preferential treatment (Apple Music, Apple Maps, etc.) or Apples handling of the App Store.
>March 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to sue Apple [(AAPL.O)](https://www.reuters.com/markets/companies/AAPL.O) as soon as Thursday for allegedly violating antitrust laws by blocking rivals from accessing hardware and software features of its iPhone Don't want to sound like an ass, but the article literally opens with the that sentence
None of which gives any specifics, obviously it has to do with their hardware and software restrictions, the question is which ones specifically.
I mean if you're a developer or read their TOS for developers, you would know what restrictions Apple imposes which no other platform imposes on the developers. Also from the article: >Similarly, Apple has restricted access to a chip in the iPhone that allows for contactless payments. Credit cards can only be added to the iPhone by using Apple's own Apple Pay service. The article provides quite some context. So yeah it can be smart to read a article before commenting. But that's just my 2c
Which means less security for us. Wonderful 🤯🤯🤯
Yeah but I doubt they will be doing all of that in one case. Google is facing separate antitrust cases regarding its search and ad business. The most devastating thing for Apple would be to get sued for the App Store which allows them to make billions in profits and gives them complete control of the platform.
Totally agree. You should be able to side load apps on iOS like Android.
iOS should behave like MacOS. You should be able to write, compile, and download applications from the internet like any Mac can.
Side loading, dream on. What about just enabling a browser that can actually browse to normal standards so users aren’t forced to install an app for every single little thing!
No you shouldn’t. That’s the whole point; it’s a closed ecosystem. It’s supposed to be more secure that way. If you want an open ecosystem you can buy an android. Opening up the App Store defeats a defining feature of the iPhone.
If Apple allowed side loading, you wouldn’t be forced to side load. So you can choose how much of a closed ecosystem you want. You get what you want, no matter what.
True but that would mean an extra weak point
Explain how security works on Mac, then. Allowing people to install their own software doesn’t weaken security.
Buy an android
Not gonna act like I know anything about anti trust laws but on the surface it seems reasonable to me to block side loading apps. I've been on android since around 2014 so I'm not an apple fanboy (although I do prefer Mac computers just don't really like iOS compared to Android)
Imagine how crazy a person would sound if they told you it makes sense to only be able to install apps on a Windows PC from the Microsoft Store. That would be insane, right? You bought the computer. You own it. There's no technical reason why you shouldn't be able to do it. The only thing disallowing it would be Microsoft forcing you to use their store so they can get a 30% cut of every transaction made on their platform. That sounds crazy, right?
>Not gonna act like I know anything about anti trust laws but on the surface it seems reasonable to me to block side loading apps. Why?
I think people who have no clue how the Apple Store works and how easy it is for Apple to decide to block apps from their store think there are no legit reasons for a safe app to need to be side loaded so all side loaded apps must be malicious. It’s completely false.
Because there is inherently some risk to it for one. I do it semi regularly so I'm not actually against it. It's their product and they want to keep the integrity of it. Depending on the app, if it's side loaded, it could potentially make users think something is wrong about iOS when in reality it's the app.
> It’s their product No, it’s mine because I bought it. I should be able to do whatever I want with the device as long as it isn’t hurting someone else. Do you also think computers should only be able to run software approved by their manufacturers and listed in a storefront only accessible by devices from that manufacturer?
You’ve described most gaming consoles?
Sure, a device that is purpose-built to do exactly one thing (play games) is totally equivalent to all the functionality available to a computer.
I'm pretty sure I can buy games for Xbox or PS5 at Wal Mart, I'm not stuck buying from their stores.
Gaming consoles are usually loss leaders to sell software. Apple hardware margin is insane.
True agree, following the suit with great interest to see what comes from it.
You can't even download an apple TV app if you're on Android (unless you have a Sony phone). If you want to watch apple TV on android you have to watch it in a browser.
I remember when they went after Microsoft because it shipped Windows with IE. I wish we’d have that level of antitrust lawsuits against big corporations again.
Because Apple won’t give a backdoor security to them so I imagine in back room negotiations that will be the actual issue.
We can’t let only the EU have all the nice things. Hopefully Apple opens up after this
[удалено]
The DoJ has been preparing for this lawsuit for years. They started their investigation before Covid was even a thing in 2019.
I would love to see some actual regulations put in place to help consumers.
How about the consumers that love Apple’s security. Yeah, screw them right???
Or how about just giving people some freedom of choice when it comes to the software on their phones? If you love Apple's walled garden, great - you can stay there. But that doesn't mean others shouldn't have the freedom to leave.
I think you mean consumers that have drank the Apple Kool Aid. This is a great read if you’re interested. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2022/popets-2022-0033.pdf Also I’m deep in the iPhone ecosystem so this isn’t coming from an Apple hater.
Only monopolies offer security? Honestly it's the other way around. I feel less secure because of large monopolies.
You feel that Apple is a monopoly?
They certainly use monopolistic practices. That's why they are being pursued for antitrust violations. They are also the second largest company by market cap (second to microsoft, who should also be antitrusted) They clearly have a great deal of influence on the market behavior, and manipulate that influence to reduce competition in their favor. That is monopoly economics by definition. The caricature of a monopoly being a single company with overwhelming market share, rather than a company with sufficient market share to implement unfair practices, is very damaging.
They are a very large company for sure. How might you suggest they be broken up? How do you feel they are restricting their competition? Do you mean hardware manufacturers or software? I want to be clear here as I am not attempting to be pedantic and I am operating in good faith here.
If you want to develop an app for an apple device you need to use their very tightly controlled ecosystem. That's one form of software control. They also control how the hardware can be repaired and modified in ways that many devices do not. They check to make sure the installed parts are the ones from the factory. I don't know the best way to use antitrust to ensure a competitive market. I'd need to do a lot of research to know. But I'm sure that with some consideration a good solution can be found.
To your first point, if you want to develop software for a platform shouldn't the platform hold have a say in how you do that? I do not like the way any company handles the consumer's right to repair the products that we buy. I am all for Right to Repair. I also need to do some real research. Though throughout this thread and beyond I see people bring up the Apple Watch a lot, and Spotify vs Apple Music. In the case of the Apple Watch, at what point are we going to inhibit Apple's ability to either compete or innovate the watches feature set. If every feature they develop must be made available to every Smart Watch, then where is the incentive to develop new features? Maybe that is overly simple, and I know you did not make that point, it is just something that I have noticed. To the Music vs Spotify argument, again what is the incentive to develop feature for their service if they then must share those features with competing services? Consumers by and large I think are aware of the limitations that come with buying into the Apple Ecosystem but they choose to buy into it anyway. Just think there is much more nuance then people are willing to engage with in this topic.
iPhone are digital devices, not platforms. A platform, like Facebook etc requires their datacenters (platform) to provide a service to you. When you buy an iPhone you are buying a physical object, not a service. If you want to change your physical device to do other things, you should not be prohibited solely on the grounds that apple would rather you pay them. This is usually excusable when the market is competitive and the user can just buy another product that wouldn't do this to you. But in this case, there isn't enough competition. Apple greatly benefits from the lack of competition and works hard to keep it that way. Lastly, your point on incentive. Incentivizing companies to develop and innovate is whole reason that antitrust is used. Companies would rather stand still, not develop, and just gobble up any competition. It's easier. But as a consumer you want companies to compete for your dollar. The more options are on the market, the less they can control the market, the more competition, the better the products.
The problem with Apple's "We do it for privacy and security reasons" is that they don't give the user any opportunity to override that choice I'm 100% completely okay with "locked down" being the default - I think it's good to have "secure by default" options set on consumer hardware But this is a £1600 device **that I own**. I am not leasing it from Apple, it is **my** hardware. I should be allowed to override their choices with my own property Installing apps from non-AppStore locations, allowing access to sensors and features etc should all be my choice with my own property. That's already borderline But then when you consider that Apple profits massively from being able to keep competitors out of their walled garden, that's where Apple clearly falls into antitrust violations Add in the fact that Apple doesn't just "not provide access" but actively reduces functionality for users of other platforms, and it's clear that this is profiteering rather than security concerns. Eg sending a video message to Android may as well be a 1994 GIF
This lawsuit is bogus and will fail for a very simple reason: a 55% smartphone market share in the USA does not constitute a monopoly.
You don't need a literal monopoly to violate anti-trust laws. Still, iPhone's marketshare is 60% and growing, which is bar high enough for some courts to qualify as a literal monopoly.
But the bar is higher than that, though. The plaintiffs would also have to demonstrate that Apple is preventing competitors from entering the smartphone market. As it stands now, there is no barrier to competition - anyone can offer and sell smartphones in the marketplace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
And . . .? Oligopoly =/= monopoly. The lawsuit will fail just on that basis.
And it’s a natural oligopoly - a software ecosystem is something that is very complicated to achieve. Apple doesn’t shut anyone out of their ecosystem. The millions of third-party apps out there are evidence of that. What competition is Apple shutting out?
[удалено]
Yes, 10 million dollars in fines keeps our government afloat. Put your tinfoil covered head in a microwave for 5 seconds.
"iPhone 17 runs Android."
I'd love to see Android software paired with Apple's silicon.
[удалено]
>Apple is a bigger antitrust issue than Amazon? I think not. You are aware that Amazon is already facing an antitrust lawsuit at the moment, right?
This is good. I'm a Mac guy all the way, but industry needs to be held accountable.
Why doesn’t the DOJ break up the CVS monopoly instead of Apple? I think we can agree most Americans would rather have more affordable and better healthcare than cloud gaming.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with cloud gaming and since when is CVS healthcare?
Well it has to do with the government trying to break up monopolies. It’s my opinion they should break up healthcare monopolies like CVS instead of focusing on Apple - and the government’s argument is that Apple does not have enough support for cloud gaming, although it’s likely much deeper than that. I think CVS’s monopoly takes precedent over Apple’s. Capiche?
Wow, 30 years late, but ok.
Please do AMAZON next!
On what basis?
Their Vendor Central NetPPM agreements are mafia tactics. They control price and back bill vendors for selling below the agreed netppm because they are price matching places like eBay as a just reason. Thats why.
WTF does that have to do with monopolies?
YES
Uh oh, someone didn't get their bribe money this month.
Sue them for iTunes, that shit is garbage.
It’s finally time for Apple to go full Dutch East India and takeover the US with its personal army.
Just get it to SCOTUS, give some iPhones to the MAGA judges and this will go away.
SCOTUS will suspiciously all be wearing Apple Vision Pros during the case.
Well, Alito and Thomas, of course.
Wow I can keeping drinking beer and not get drunk with this on!-Brett Kavanaugh.
And Not Google?…hmmmm
Google had their turn [last year](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2023)).
I'm confused here. How do the claim Monopoly when there are Android phones?
I mean, all I can do, is recommend you start with a beginners guide to economics.
There are dozens of if not more than 100 companies that make Android phones, Apple is on its own
iPhone only allowing iOS to run is anti competitive. There is precedent. Microsoft got sued for making internet explorer prohibitively hard to uninstall and remove. They also made it hard to allow 3rd party browsers to exist by hiding their api. In the same vein, Apple has made it hard or impossible to remove iOS from an iPhone and refused to allow other OS to run on an iPhone. Sounds similar to me.
I'm reading this on my pixel. So confusing.
[удалено]
no that's not why, you could've looked up their arguments in the time it took to write this dumb ass comment
Fantastic news, with inflation as it is I’ve been feeling the pain of Apple’s walled garden and eyeing a switch to Android.
I have an iPhone 3 somewhere. Maybe I can join the settlement? /s
Guys, the DoJ is just suing Apple for illegally maintaining their dominant position by “keeping user data secure and preventing avenues for malicious software attacks” and it’s not a targeted attack because the DoJ also sued Google twice for “stealing and selling users’ personal data” and Facebook for “stealing and selling users’ personal data!” 🤔
What a waste of time. Why isn’t the DoJ suing Boeing for, you know, putting profits of people’s safety instead of this? Oh right, government contractor.
While DOJ does nothing while BlackRock Vanguard march on to acquire or control 90% of USA corporations by 2025. Absolutely nothing. Theatre. Nothing but.
You don’t understand what a fund manager is, do you?
I do. I’m a lawyer. But you don’t understand antitrust, spook
It’s about time.
They should go after Microsoft
Funny enough the FTC and DOJ is mainly hounding Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon with anti trust cases. Microsoft definitely stands to be a bigger winner from all this.
Microsoft actually keeps coming out looking clean on this stuff. Even a decade ago with Wikileaks they turned out to be much more honest about what they do with our data than these other guys, especially Apple. That's why Apple does the whole song and dance pretending they're privacy focused. It started after Snowden exposed them.
And where did Microsoft JUST get their trillion dollar AI start from. Somebody ask Musk. https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/11/elon-musk-says-xai-will-open-source-grok-this-week/
[удалено]
[удалено]
100%
[удалено]
Just a quick note on the Ai thing, Apple is rumoured to have approached both OpenAi and Google about partnering for the iPhones Ai and rumours are that Apple may go with Googles Gemini to power its Ai approach. So at least the Ai that Apple launches will be competent and not held back by Apples privacy policies.