Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by jamesrr39 »

dfabulich wrote: post #568
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…

We do have "Super Apps" in the Western world. They're called "web browsers." Note that Apple doesn't allow alternative web browsers on iOS, so Safari/WebKit is the only Super App allowed on iOS. https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-browser-ban/ > When you download Chrome, Firefox or any other browser that isn't Safari on an Apple device, that browser is forced to use Safari's rendering engine WebKit. Chrome normally u…

Arguably, F-Droid is a (Android-only, not possible to make such an app on iOS) super app that very much exists in the western world.

> Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.

To be fair to Apple, both Google and Meta have loads of apps for iOS that compare to the Apple suite of apps. Although there is definitely a pre-installed advantage for the Apple apps.

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

#652

Post by yolo3000 »

hylaride wrote: post #359
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…

Some googling would find you several ways to do this (directly on the phone to external storage is possible, but yeah selecting all the photos on the iphone sucks as you have to click one and scroll-select them all): https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/iphone/iph480caa1f3/io... The easiest way is to export them via photos for mac. If you don't have a mac, then there's ways to get the photos on a PC: https://support…

If you have a Mac the easiest is to use the Image Capture app, which comes preinstalled. A lot better than the Photos app, in my experience.

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

#653

Post by cush »

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…

This has absolutely nothing to do with consumer choice. Apple device popularity among consumers has created a market of apps and technology that exists. That market is larger than the GDP of most countries. It is governed by Apple’s policies, and those policies are anti-competitive against companies wishing to participate in that market.

Spotify, just by virtue of the fact that someone installs their app, must pay Apple 30% of their revenue. Imagine trying to compete in a market where you have to pay your largest direct competitor 30%… And on top of all that, Apple keeps the internal fancy APIs all to themselves. It’s insane this hasn’t come sooner

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

#654

Post by djbelieny »

Ok, I understand this may be an unpopular stance and risk downvotes. However, I want to share my perspective on government intervention in business, particularly regarding anti-monopoly actions against companies with proprietary ecosystems.

Firstly, I'm no fan of monopolies. Yet, I'm conflicted about the idea of the government compelling anyone to divulge trade secrets or alter their services to simply foster competition, especially when the company in question has opted to create an ecosystem of products and services designed to be exclusive. For example, Apple's iMessage doesn't integrate with other platforms, and its smartphones are optimized for its ecosystem.

As consumers, we're aware of these limitations and have the "freedom" to choose products that better suit our needs instead. Labeling a company as a monopoly simply because its products don't play well with others overlooks the investment and innovation behind their development. After all, it's Apple's technology, infrastructure, and service on the line.

Why should these companies be forced to share or open their ecosystems? While there are valid arguments for promoting interoperability and open technology, the idea of mandating companies to share their proprietary advancements seems to contradict the essence of free enterprise. Should they then be compelled to 'open up' their infrastructure against their will?

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

#655

Post by numpad0 »

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…

Why don't twitter. com just do the super apps w/ e-commerce thing? It's financial regulations, not App Store regulations, isn't that the case?

What are challenges for implementing such "payment" system on iOS that can transfer, say Monopoly money vs real USD? Aren't those almost entirely legal or compliance matters for very good reasons? The Alaskan 737 MAX 9 landed largely intact thanks to still-working parts of regulations and we all value that.

So why not they just do that? Or CAN'T they?

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

#656

Post by kelnos »

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…

> This creates a disdain for SMS, and anyone who uses it over iMessage. It is such a strong feeling, that having green messages makes you "uncool", especially in the younger crowd.

The thing is, I think it's perfectly fine, reasonable, and correct to have a disdain for SMS. The problem is that people transfer this disdain onto anyone they are "forced" to communicate with over SMS.

> I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is to push people to use stand-alone apps...

Defaults matter. The friction to using iMessage on a brand-new iPhone is zero: it's right there, front and center, and doesn't require anyone to download anything new or confer with family and friends to figure out what the "right" other messaging platform is.

> ... like WhatsApp and FB Messenger

Oof, no thanks. I'd rather not be pushed toward using messaging apps owned by a company known to do shady things with user data. I've managed to get a few friends and group chats off those platforms and onto something else, but unfortunately there are still a few on them that I don't want to just cut ties with.

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

#657

Post by Fgyu0909 »

kstrauser wrote: post #212
Fgyu0909 wrote: post #72

Apple genuinely deserves this lawsuit. > By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field where it grants its products and services access to core features that it denies rivals. Once I read this I was not shocked. Apple is already pushing people to buy their separate apps that should have came in for free, with the purchase of the Ip…

Which apps are those?

Some of those apps are iMovie, imusic, Apple tv, Apple tv+, Final Cut Pro etc. Also the app store has apple arcade and other subscriptions.

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

#658

Post by travisgriggs »

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…

The one area I have concerns about is superapps. I’m of the opinion that user experience is better when an app does one thing and does it well. WeChat and Facebook as platforms or just a digital variant of platform lock-ins.

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

#660

Post by kelnos »

AnonHP wrote: post #642
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 main question I want addressed is: If SMS messages can be directly shown in iMessage, and are not secure, then the argument of not allowing "insecure" 3rd-parties to integrate with iMessage goes out the window. All I want is Android messages to be shown in iMessage. Sure we can make them green, but at least they will be sent over the data network and not SMS. There’s the Messages app and the iMessage protocol —…

> How would Apple allow messages from Android that are not SMS?

Quite easily: by releasing a standalone iMessage app on Android. The Beeper folks have shown this of course can be done (even if Apple doesn't like it and blocks them).

Doing this would certainly be orders of magnitude easier than implementing RCS. It's quite telling that Apple still wants to maintain iMessage as iOS-only. And if Apple doesn't work with Google to implement the E2EE extension (assuming Google is reasonable about it), that tells us all we need to know (and should have already known): Apple doesn't actually care about their users and user privacy. They just care about their market position and "prestige", and want to maintain these silly "class divisions".

Post reply on HN