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

#571

Post by akira2501 » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #129

I assert it is trivial to not buy Apple products, easy to make alternatives to Apple products and easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products. In lieu of this what is the problem? If the government has a problem why not say any code should be able to be run on any device? Honestly I’m curious - what’s the problem? There are android phones that are superior to iPhones and let you run anything you want. Wh…

> In lieu of this what is the problem?

You assertions are immaterial to the fact that they are breaking the law. Monopolies and monopolistic practices are flatly illegal.

You're also viewing this exclusively through the lens of the "consumer" experience while fully ignoring the effects on the "labor" and "supplier" market.

> The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience

Is there some evidence that a monopoly is absolutely required to have a "tight experience?"

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

#572

Post by asadotzler » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:25 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #453

"The tech giant prevented other companies from offering applications that compete with Apple products like its digital wallet, which could diminish the value of the iPhone, the government said." They literally offer APIs for any company to integrate with their wallet. As a consumer, I wish more apps would do so instead of half-heartedly implementing their own thing.

And if I want to be a wallet provider on iOS and compete with Apple Wallet, what then, big brain?

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

#573

Post by shuckles » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

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…

My guess is even if iMessage bubbles were green, the sheer horribleness of SMS would still make communicating with Android a second class experience in a way everyone found frustrating. Sure RCS might make that better (I’m skeptical — standards support in the Android ecosystem is very inconsistent and varying in quality), but it’s a decade late. The basic argument is: Apple can’t make anything better for iPhone users until they can make it a standard for every mobile computing platform and competing service provider. About as absurd as it sounds.

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

#574

Post by drivingmenuts » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:28 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…

My 2 cents:

1 - Might have an argument there.

2 - OK, but only if the user is willing to accept the security risk to their apps, Apple and non-Apple. Apple has an interest in keeping the apps they create, or sell for others, secure but should bear no responsibility if a third-party fails to keep to the same standard.

3 - OK. I personally kind of like it because I am a bad person, but OK.

4 - Aren't most of them behind Apple's watches, anyway? I don't have an issue with Apple Watch not being compatible with Android - while Apple shouldn't prevent a third-party (see 2 above) from creating a bridge, they should, in no way, be forced to do it themselves.

5 - (see 2 above) And I don't have an issue with Apple torquing the nuts of banks - the banks do the same to us. And yes, it's my money they're taking from banks, but the banks don't like that, so ... I'm gonna call that one a tie.

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

#575

Post by tagyro » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

Maybe off-topic but it's really funny to read the mental gymnastics of John Gruber at Daringfireball.

A week ago, the European Commission had something with Apple, now the US DOJ ...one might think that Apple really is doing something.

To quote Francis Urquhart [the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart]: "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"

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

#576

Post by WheatMillington » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:28 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…

>It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose.

That argument only works until there is market dominance, which is the point of anti-trust regulations.

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

#577

Post by parl_match » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

eitally wrote: post #460

ben7799 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them. I am curious what things the iPhone does that others aren't allowed to do. Most of the differences between Garmin and Apple Watch seem like they were conscious decisions where they each decided to take a different direction. It's one of those weird things where it seems like the case has a bunch of holes. You can use an iPhon…

With non-Apple Watches, you can't 1) reply to texts, 2) answer phone calls (or place calls), 3) interact with other native iPhone applications (like Apple Health). You'll pry my Garmin from my cold, dead hands but there's no mistaking it for an actual "smart"-watch. I value it entirely for health & fitness, and the very few "smart" things it can do are just nice-to-have icing on the cake.

FWIW you can answer and place calls via smartwatches on ios.

Also, you can interact with Apple Health from any smart device via a companion app. You just have to grant permission.

#1 is valid though.

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

#578

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:29 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #493

ChuckMcM wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of money I’m curious what market opportunities the Apple suit could open up. - Xbox cloud game streaming - WeChat like super apps w e-commerce (X wanted to do this play but more likely Facebook Messenger and the like) - iMessage on android - a receipt tracking app or something directly tied into Apple P…

Forget iMessage, I just want media messages from iPhone to not be sub-144p pictures/videos. I know sms is limited but I doubt that's a technical limitation.

And yea, Gamepass was an immediate thought of something a company wanted to ship but Apple blocked. Between that and the Epic Games store it looks like there's gonna be a lot more options to game on IOS by the turn of the decade.

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

#579

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:32 PM UTC

empath-nirvana wrote: post #556

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.

Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play could.

And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust angle being that you can't compete with apple's native software

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

#580

Post by eYrKEC2 » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:34 PM UTC

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…

The blue background isn't lock-in -- it's branding and fashion. It's labeling the in-group and the out-group. The cool kids with their Nike shoes and the kids who got their shoes from Payless Shoe Store. The Abercrombie & Fitch wearing kids vs Costco or Walmart wearing kids.

The sooner it can be learned that a symbol on a shoe is ... kind of a silly status symbol, the better. Same with blue background or blue check mark.