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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by lijok »

supportengineer wrote: post #499
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 makes me so angry. You have a choice in the market! Everything on this list is a feature which I am choosing as the customer. If I didn't want these features and benefits then I would make a different choice as a consumer. As a consumer I am not a victim. I can choose between iOS, Android, or something else.

You're not buying a literal apple. Purchasing context does not stop at point of sale.

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

#662

Post by AlexandrB »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #288

It's wild to me to see people defending Apple in the comments here. 60% of Americans own a phone they're not allowed to install third party apps on, and the ONLY way to get apps is to pay a 30% fee to Apple on every purchase. Imagine if Windows allowed you to only install apps acquired through their store, and with the same 30% fee. Microsoft literally had a huge anti trust case against them for simply setting a defa…

What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. The "well they sell it at a loss" argument is not persuasive. That's Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's choice as a business, it's not the government's role to make their loss-leader business model possible.

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

#663

Post by burgessuk »

Is it Coincidence Apple just allowed EU to install 3rd party apps?

Personally I think Apple should never have allowed EU to infiltrate its devices /Apples software.

I always looked at an iPhone, like an Xbox, or PlayStation; locked down device; you have to use the brands own controllers, own App Store. There’s no way Microsoft/Sony would allow EU 3rd stores on their devices? I didn’t think Apple would either & that looks to have come back & bitten them!?

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

#664

Post by mutatio »

waltbosz wrote: post #659

Thought experiment: how would the world respond if Apple decided to go full Atlas Shrugged and just closed their business? Turned off all their servers, closed all the Apple stores, fired everyone, etc.

What are you trying to convey, something along the lines that we should be grateful?

I suspect unless they destroyed everything the gov would force them open, after all their products and services have layers upon layers of service agreements, SLAs etc.

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

#665

Post by data-ottawa »

epolanski wrote: post #621

The number of people opposing these changes in this thread because "it will make their walled garden experience worse" without being able to bring up a single valid reason why would that be is astonishing.

My one fear for this is the leverage it gives large tech companies.

What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to download their own app store to use their apps? We kind of see this on PC already with every company having their own game or app store.

When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search, what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web monopoly?

It's not totally fair that Apple gives themselves special permissions and blocks competitors, or forces the prices they do from devs who would otherwise sell their apps through their website, but is that the lesser of two evils?

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

#666

Post by kelnos »

aednichols wrote: post #589
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…

It seems like DOJ might force Apple to make separate "SMS" and "iMessage" apps, and perhaps forbid preinstalling iMessage so users have to download it from the App Store when they get a new phone (giving it equal footing with its competitors). This would diffuse the claim that iOS is downgrading Android users within the same app.

I would prefer they just require Apple implement RCS (which they've already agreed to do), and -- crucially -- require feature parity with Android's RCS implementation. Which means standardizing Google's proprietary E2EE extension, and implementing that as well.

While I'd prefer being able to install a standalone Android iMessage app over the current situation, I really don't need or want another chat app.

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

#667

Post by jimbob45 »

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 is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. They missed the one actual example of Apple abusing its ownership in one industry (the OS) to then give itself a monopoly over another industry (app stores/app store fees).

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

#668

Post by kelnos »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #643
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…

What I want to know is how there’s any legal basis to compel any business to implement and service specific, arbitrary software features. It would be one thing if there were a law that mandated a class of messaging apps interoperate on a certain standard if they use certain regulated communication networks. But “Apple messages must implement interoperability with Android messages” feels very hamfisted as an expressio…

Sure it is. Anti-trust law gives the government (assuming they prevail in court) broad authority to require that a specific company take specific, tailored actions that the government believes will make it so the company can't abuse its market position to harm consumers anymore.

There's a long history of this, with Microsoft being a fairly recent, famous example.

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

#669

Post by HumblyTossed »

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 annoying thing about any other messaging service except SMS is that if you're out in BFE, as long as you can ping a tower, you can get a message out ... or in.

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

#670

Post by AlanYx »

brocket wrote: post #523
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…

Do they mention CarPlay? It drives me crazy that it only integrates notifications with Apple first party apps. It will send me notifications for iMessage or Apple calendar, but completely silences and hides Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google calendar, Google voice, etc no matter what settings I try. It's frankly dangerous because it forces me to check my phone while driving in case of an urgent message or call. Mea…

CarPlay supports notifications with non-first party apps like Microsoft Teams. I don't use everything on your list, but WhatsApp definitely supports CarPlay notifications. You may have them muted. You can mute/unmute on a per-app basis -- go to the app settings and adjust the "Show in CarPlay" toggle.
Post reply on HN