U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#551

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

lvl102 wrote: post #405

aabajian wrote: post #358

The blue background on messages sent between two iMessage users has to be one of the most brilliant vendor lock-in strategies. It is an artificial form of discrimination. I feel a slight annoyance whenever a non-Apple user forms a group chat as I know that person will limit the messaging functionality. In my opinion, the "monopolistic" aspect of it comes down to the fact that they tied it into an otherwise open messa…

That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues with those blue bubbles then they should’ve sued telecom back then. This entire suit is a joke.

The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#552

Post by mcfedr » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

teeray wrote: post #352

brink wrote: post #217

Apple frustrates the hell out of me with their deceptive tactics to create walled gardens while pretending not to. They feign ignorance to keep you stuck and create the illusion of open doors out of their walled garden that are actually broken and they have no interest in fixing. I've been paying for iCloud for my wife's iphone for the last several months because of how difficult Apple makes it for us to export our p…

I just want the auto-sync experience of iCloud photos to my own NAS. Paying Apple $2.99/mo forever just so I can have an offsite backup of my photos is so obnoxious.

I use photo sync for this, which was a one off payment. Of course you have to trigger it manually every few days because only Apple apps can actually work on iOS

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#553

Post by xpe » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #481

Fripplebubby wrote: post #287

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within…

This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market. The first one I heard about[1] was IBM versus Memorex which was making IBM 360 "compatible" disk drives. IBM lost and it generated some solid case law that has been relied on in this sort of prosecution. In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of…

> This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market.

Not simply that a company is dominant; it is more about how and why they are dominant.

Update 2:40 pm ET: After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justice views unfavorably:

* horizontal agreements between competitors such as price fixing and market allocation

* vertical agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain such as resale price maintenance and exclusive dealing

* unilateral exclusionary conduct such as predatory pricing, refusal to deal with competitors, and limiting interoperability

* conditional sales practices such as tying and bundling

* monopoly leveraging where a firm uses its dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another

Any of these behaviors undermines the conditions necessary for a competitive market. I'd be happy to have the list above expanded, contracted, or modified. Let me know.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#554

Post by slibhb » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:15 PM UTC

Fripplebubby wrote: post #287

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within…

I'd be more sympathetic to the government's arguments if Android phones didn't exist. But they do, and people can use them if they don't like Apple's walled garden.

As things are, this lawsuit seems like the government striking an aggressive posture torwards tech companies for no good reason. It's almost like -- as the tech companies get bigger and more powerful -- the government wants to remind them who's really in charge.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#555

Post by andreygrehov » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

Does U.S. make it simple to get into a mobile business so that I could compete with Apple? Can I easily manufacture a phone and get an approval from FCC? If not, then Apple should sue the hell out of DOJ in response.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#556

Post by empath-nirvana » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

Fripplebubby wrote: post #287

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within…

I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.

If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#557

Post by pksebben » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

It's gonna hurt me to say this because I'm one of those rabid lefty bust-up-the-corporations types, but the universe is a nuanced place so here it is;

Whether Apple's practices are motivated by blocking competition or not (and I'm pretty sure that's part of their thinking if not the principal driver), there are other effects of a lot of these practices that I would hate to lose as a consumer.

Not having to work to maintain compatibility with a bunch of stuff that might or might not work, and being able to focus on ecosystem interoperability, all adds up to my tablet being a seamless second monitor, being able to shuttle data between my devices, and being able to manage messaging and all sorts of other stuff on whatever device I happen to be looking at at the time, whether it's my tablet, phone, watch, or laptop.

No one else does this even remotely well, and so much of what I do these days would fall under the effort watermark and never happen if it wasn't for this insane level of convenience and "it just works".

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#558

Post by rezonant » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:17 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #403

Fripplebubby wrote: post #287

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within…

I believe Apple needs more regulatory action taken against it for abusing it's dominant position. But apart from cloud streaming apps (which they've resolved recently by allowing them), I find these claims to be pretty weak and not significantly market-affecting. I strongly believe Apple is under no obligation to make iMessage cross-platform. It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose. SM…

As sibling points out and I have argued strongly for in past discussions here, at issue is Apple's control of texting: That is, the ability for a phone to message any other phone with a text message without requiring the other participant to use a custom app. Only iMessage can do this on the iPhone.

In the consumer's eye, all phones can text, so it is a universal way to reach someone who has a phone number. It removes the complexity of having to coordinate ahead of time with a contact about what messaging service they both have. It's why texting is so popular in the US (along with historical actions by US carriers to make texting extremely cheap and ultimately free)

Once they had this control, they then used it to make texting better only when the conversation participants each had iPhones, which produced a network effect where friends would be incentivized to pressure their contacts to also use iPhones. Apple leveraged convenience, features and security to make this happen.

I don't anticipate Apple's upcoming RCS support to materially change this. If we're lucky, we'll get higher quality pictures out of it, but it's possible to support RCS while not supporting a lot of the features that make RCS better than SMS, such as read receipts, replies, typing indicators, and yes, encryption. Encryption is not a standard part of RCS yet, but it could be made so by Apple forcing Google to standardize their encryption and then implementing it. But it's not in Apple's interest given the above to bother. More likely they will do as their initial complaint/announcement about RCS hinted at: Not even engage on encryption because it's "not part of the spec", leaving iPhone/Android messaging unencrypted.

Google is not blameless here, it's insane that they haven't worked themselves to standardize encryption.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#559

Post by danaris » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #355

Fripplebubby wrote: post #287

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within…

1. Super Apps are notorious for tracking the user across the "mini" apps within it, which is the argument made by Apple for making them hard to get approval for. I'm on Apple's side here 2. I was able to use PS Remote Play on my iPhone even many years ago (pre-COVID). A quick google search shows that Steam Link and Shadow PC (my ATF) are also available on iOS. I'm on Apple's side here too 3. I think the situation has…

From what I'm seeing in other places, there are also some pretty weak claims being made beyond this.

The first is their attempt to redefine what the market is in order to declare Apple a "monopoly": they've posited a completely separate market for "performance smartphones", and tried to use total revenue rather than number of units sold in order to push Apple up to having a very high percentage of this invented market.

The second is their characterization of how Apple got to where they are. Like them or not, you have to be seriously down a conspiracy rabbit hole to believe that the iPhone became as popular as it is primarily through anticompetitive tactics, rather than because it's a very good product that lots and lots of people like. Regardless of whether you, personally, find that value proposition to be compelling.

They also point at some of Apple's offerings and make absolutely absurd claims about how they're anticompetitive—for instance, that they're going to somehow take over the auto market with CarPlay 2.0 and the fact that AppleTV+ exercises control over the content it serves.

There are some things Apple does that are genuinely concerning and deserve more antitrust scrutiny (for instance, their anti-steering provisions for the App Store are pretty egregious), but so far as I can tell, they're not even mentioned in this suit. I'm frankly disappointed in the DoJ for how they've put this together, and would have loved to see something that was narrower and much more robust.

Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

#560

Post by _pi » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #308

lkrubner wrote: post #270

It's been many decades since the USA government attempted to go after a vertical trust. During my lifetime, almost all anti-monopoly action has been against horizontal trusts: companies that gain too much market share for some particular product or service. But there was a time, a long time ago, almost a century ago, when it was common for the government to do this kind of thing, for the benefit of the consumer.

There's also a pretty large econ literature questioning that it actually benefited the consumer, much of which concludes that in cases where the trust's anticompetitive power didn't itself rest on government-granted monopolies, it probably hurt.

That's because the government's definition of anti-competitive is ticky-tacky and is rooted in bullshit.

US anti-competitive policy and enforcement has always been dancing around the double standards of who can do market manipulation, the double standards of white collar crime enforcement, the double standards of "consumer benefit" in a capitalist system, etc.

"Consumer benefit" for example is a cowardly way to say price controls. Consumer benefit is inversely correlated with price. That implies the US government should be doing price controls and setting acceptable profit margins for everyone, but in practice due to the enforcement issues and the way the law is constructed it means that the government regulates prices only in extremely detailed technical cases.

Meaning you can manipulate consumer benefit AKA prices AKA extract profits all you want as long as you don't get into these narrowly defined, often unenforced technical cases.

In fact all of these charges or facsimiles of them existed in different forms 10 years ago, they were there on launch 15 years ago. Apple is being sued now simply because other large powerful interests like Epic games, don't like the revenue split rules on the App store.

Most of these laws are written not as regulations, but ways not to regulate.