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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by hu3 »

harkinian wrote: post #969
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.

1. Allowing other app stores would immediately mean each app wanting you to go to a separate store. I barely use apps in the first place but would imagine this being bothersome for those who use them a lot. 2. I don't want my phone to run arbitrary code, that's what my Mac is for. People install unknown third-party apps on their iPhones all the time, which is safe enough. Now imagine Apple was forced to make iPhones…

> 1. Allowing other app stores would immediately mean each app wanting you to go to a separate store. I barely use apps in the first place but would imagine this being bothersome for those who use them a lot.

Except Android allows other stores since forever and that didn't happen so this is proven to be an incorrect assumption.

I see this and other blatantly wrong, easily verifiable, takes so often that I wonder if those who write even know how things work in Android or they just live in an iOS bubble and assume things about Android.

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

#982

Post by harkinian »

dogleash wrote: post #641
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.

Apple is such boring stagnant soulless void, I don't know why people wouldn't want it chopped up just to see the component parts trying to innovate again. What have they done in the last few years? Minor incremental updates to existing products, release another screen-strapped-to-face product years late to the party while also failing to figure out what to do in the software space to justify the device, and started i…

Apple Silicon Macs. Aside from that, yes very boring, especially the silly stuff like watches, pencils, and credit cards. That said, I'd rather our country respect private property, also it's not like there's a ton more innovation left in these spaces anyway.

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

#983

Post by majani »

pornel wrote: post #282
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…

Apple + Google form a duopoly. Apple has locked down iOS to let them do whatever they want and overcharge as much as they like, and Google has no incentive to be any better, because there's no serious 3rd contender*. For typical users not buying Apple means having to compromise on privacy with Google, which isn't a great option either. Both are trying their best to create vendor lock-in and make it hard for users to…

Google has a huge incentive to compete because Apple has 50% of the US market, which is the most consequential market in the world

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

#984

Post by hu3 »

Kerbonut wrote: post #750

Next do power tools manufacturers for purposefully making incompatible battery packs and printer manufacturers for incompatible ink cartridges.

Funny, an Apple printer would probably only accept Apple certified paper sheets and require an ink subscription.

Of course it would not support USB, favouring a proprietary connector so your printing can start 0.1 seconds faster.

Parts would be glued together so to make it compact (and impossible to fix).

All for the bargain of $999.

And yes, some people would gladly buy them.

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

#985

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

khazhoux wrote: post #494
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 simply installed Google Photos app and now every single iphone photo is automatically synced to my google account. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

The parent post wanted to export their photos, not send them to Google. Why does Google need to be part of this equation?

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

#986

Post by nickm12 »

harkinian wrote: post #969
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.

1. Allowing other app stores would immediately mean each app wanting you to go to a separate store. I barely use apps in the first place but would imagine this being bothersome for those who use them a lot. 2. I don't want my phone to run arbitrary code, that's what my Mac is for. People install unknown third-party apps on their iPhones all the time, which is safe enough. Now imagine Apple was forced to make iPhones…

> 2. I don't want my phone to run arbitrary code, that's what my Mac is for.

Then don't run it. Personally, I want all my devices that run third-party software to have strong sandboxing and defense-in-depth security. Even apps from developers I trust and admire can be compromised due to vulnerabilities and other types of attack.

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

#988

Post by nodamage »

toast0 wrote: post #121
Nifty3929 wrote: post #44

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly. There are many non-apple phone options that many consumers easily avail themselves of. And at least one other OS choice as well. All of these are fully supported by the entire ecosystem of telcos. Seems like bullying to score political points to me.

The FTC is perhaps a biased source, but they say [1]: > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at t…

I've seen this quoted multiple times now and I do not think it is the slam dunk people think it is. A literal monopoly is 100% market share, of course that is not required for antitrust law to apply. But the people who quote this intend to imply that 60% market share is sufficient to declare Apple a monopolist in violation of antitrust law, and that does not actually follow from a careful reading of this quote.

I will reply with a separate quote from the DOJ discussing what thresholds of market share are likely to be considered monopoly power:

> In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21) Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)

https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...

My reading of this is that below 50% is very unlikely to be considered monopoly power while above 70-80% is very likely. 60% appears to sit somewhere in between where it is possible but not likely. Historically, I have not seen any major cases where monopoly power was found at the market share level that Apple currently holds.

It is worth noting that the DOJ in their filing does not seem very confident in being able to prove that Apple's 60% of the smartphone market constitutes monopoly power either. They have instead opted to define a narrower market of "performance smartphones" where Apple apparently holds 70% market share, putting it above the thresholds quoted above. Whether this artificially narrowed market definition will be accepted by the courts will likely determine the outcome of this case.

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

#989

Post by dfawcus »

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.

Possibly split Messages and SMS in to distinct apps.

Have the latter handle SMS/MMS/RCS with options (in its settings area) to enable/disable each of the three, such that any or all of them may be individually allowed (or not).

Then also have an additional pair of options in the SMS app to indicate which other message app can operate as a proxy. Said proxy being able to send or receive SMS/MMS/RCS as appropriate. Possibly have the default set to Messages, but allow it to be set to any other app which has opted in.

Remove all of the SMS/MMS options from Messages, except the 'Send as SMS', which would then try to do the existing fall back when there is no data service.

The default behaviour would be as now. Disabling the 'Send as SMS' option would keep Messages and SMS as two distinct services, and one could then run the that way. Further flipping the config in SMS would allow any other app to be the preferred primary contact point.

I'm not sure how one would handle 'Group Chats' in such a situation.

With such a situation, I'd split the two and operate as distinct systems, iMessages in its own app, SMS/MMS/RCS in the SMS app, all other message facilities confined to their own playpen.

I know some relatives who would prefer to keep the proposed defaults such that everything appears in the Messages app.

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

#990

Post by dghughes »

khazhoux wrote: post #846
dghughes wrote: post #823

Stuff like Apple Vision Pro where you need an iPhone to scan your face is annoying. If you want a Apple Watch but have Android phone it's pretty much pointless. How does Apple get away with that? Worse than that from hardware to browsers over the years it all seems to be less open or to work with other systems, apps, OS. Linux being the exception of course.

> Stuff like Apple Vision Pro where you need an iPhone to scan your face is annoying. If you want a Apple Watch but have Android phone it's pretty much pointless. How does Apple get away with that? You think of the Apple Watch or AVP as independent pieces of hardware, but the Apple model is that they're all one integrated system, of which you can choose what components to buy or not. My biggest problem with this suit…

>My biggest problem with this suit is that it attacks the core premise of interoperability that is one of the reasons people like the Apple ecosystem to begin with.

I'm sure IBM would have loved to have made that claim in the early 1980s. Thankfully we now have a massive home computer market not just owned by IBM.

Post reply on HN