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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by pchristensen »

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.

I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse.

Some examples:

  - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it.

  - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes.

  - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market.

  - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser). 

  - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails
I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.

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

#582

Post by asadotzler »

bedros wrote: post #317

can someone explain how different is the iphone ecosystem anti-competitive practices vs sony playstation ecosystem?

a few hundred million users vs about 7 billion users tells you a few things, among them which is that game consoles don't effing matter one bit and smartphones are a necessity for modern life. do you not even think before posting stuff like this?

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

#583

Post by ein0p »

Makes me wonder what’s really going on. I don’t believe for a second this has anything to do with “antitrust” after watching Garland’s presser - they’re stretching the truth pretty bad and the language is along the lines of “they’re making too much money”. Like OK, what does the “GDP of countries” have to do with anything? I thought this is America and making a shit ton of money is legal here.

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

#584

Post by karmelapple »

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…

> iPhone has had 60% market share (or similar) for a long time now, so it's fair to consider that Apple has significant and durable market power in mobile phones.

It has market power, but it's not significantly larger than its competition. It's not 60% for iPhone, and 10% split up amongst 4 other competitors. It's 60% vs 40%... and probably more like 58% vs 42% [1].

Does 8% truly make Apple "dominant" to the point that integrating their software with watches in a better manner is illegal? I find that wildly difficult to believe.

> that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

Apple has been able to raise its own prices, but it hasn't been wildly out of line with competitors.

And Apple both makes phones and the software on them. They might be excluding or making competitors to their software have a harder time, but excluding? Not really - they have only excluded other large companies who have distinctly decided to run afoul of their guidelines (specifically, Epic).

1. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users

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

#585

Post by CubsFan1060 »

akira2501 wrote: post #571
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 evid…

Your first sentence is incorrect. Monopolies are not illegal.

From the press conference this morning: "It is not illegal to hold a monopoly, Garland said. "

"That may sound counterintuitive in a case intended to fight monopolies. But under US antitrust law, it is only illegal when a monopolist resorts to anticompetitive tactics, or harms competition, in an effort to maintain that monopoly."

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/doj-apple-antitrust-l...

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

#586

Post by Cheer2171 »

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.

So was the Bell telephone network.

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

#587

Post by tamirzb »

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…

> On the other hand, I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is to push people to use stand-alone apps like WhatsApp and FB Messenger

I find it amusing that in 2024 people in the US still talk about WhatsApp as a future step. Where I'm from already 10+ years ago every single person you know would have a WhatsApp account.

With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really only the US is behind here.

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

#588

Post by bradgessler »

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.

I want iOS to be like macOS in that there's one "blessed" store, but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut.

macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App Store. There's even third-party App Stores on macOS like Steam, Homebrew, and a few more that Indie developers use to distribute apps.

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

#589

Post by aednichols »

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.

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

#590

Post by sf_rob »

davidham wrote: post #318

Regarding the Apple Wallet: what about it is uncompetitive? I can add credit cards from many providers to it, and as far as I can tell Apple doesn't get anything if I add my Chase card and use it with Apple Pay. I don't think banks have to pay Apple anything for their cards to be used in the Apple wallet. Nor do non-financial cards like memberships.

I find it somewhat entertaining that the press conference, and to a lesser extent the brief, argues that giving 3rd party dev access to Wallet functionality would result in a more security for the user. I don't always trust monoliths (might be the wrong word?) but I trust Apple Wallet integrations more than anything my bank would try to roll out.

I'm fine with the claim of more competition and more privacy (although I'm not particularly worried about Apple here).

Post reply on HN