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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by mrkeen »

hgs3 wrote: post #541

Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination o…

> Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria?

I've skimmed past a number of comments that say that Apple isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have a large enough share of the market. So is the DoJ too early or too late on this one?

Anyway, it shouldn't be about the size of the company, just how they act.

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

#592

Post by engeljohnb »

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.

Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?

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

#593

Post by amf12 »

ben7799 wrote: post #391

One thing I don't get about this is say DOJ wins and significantly weakens Apple. They'll basically hand the market to foreign companies. Seems odd. Google does not need an assist here, last I checked they are doing great, and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like about Android if they wanted to.

> and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like about Android if they wanted to.

What are those? And even if they were fixed, how would people move if Apple makes it so difficult to leave the ecosystem?

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

#594

Post by idle_zealot »

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 am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple's behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.

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

#595

Post by dragonwriter »

hgs3 wrote: post #541

Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination o…

> Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria

That's not proactive, that's just reactive to different indicators.

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

#596

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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.

Many victim are adamant that they are not actually a victim no matter what evidence is provided. Luckily anti-trust law doesn't care about your opinion.

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

#597

Post by mirzap »

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.

Is Macbook less secure because I can install whatever app I want, even my own app? No, it's not. I want to be able to do the same with my iPhone. It's as simple as that.

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

#598

Post by jedimind »

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.

if you like your prison, that's your thing, you have the right to stay in it, just don't force other people to live in misery under your preferences when they'd rather live in freedom. we also have rules and regulations which decide if something is lawful or not, so it's not just about what you personally like or not.

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

#599

Post by rezonant »

nozzlegear wrote: post #515
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…

Thanks for summarizing. As someone deeply entrenched in Apple's ecosystem, and who admittedly prefers the walled garden, I really have no problem if any of these five things were struck down. Better competition for cloud streaming apps? Seems good for me as a user. Better messaging interoperability? I don't have anyone in my family or friends group who wasn't already on an iPhone, and I thought this was coming alread…

> I don't have anyone in my family or friends group who wasn't already on an iPhone, and I thought this was coming already with RCS anyway, but sure let's go.

I'm skeptical that adding RCS will actually fix the problems because of how Apple is likely to implement it. Their malicious compliance in the EU strongly hints that they are going to hobble their RCS implementation just enough to maintain the status quo just like they are with the DMA requirements. Hopefully legal efforts like this push Apple more towards actual interoperability.

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

#600

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

hgs3 wrote: post #541

Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination o…

> leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses

I only partially agree. If you kill all big businesses your country will no longer be able to compete with outsiders in industries where economies of scale matter. A few examples: cars, computer chips, cloud computing. This in turn means a lot of jobs and talent will go elsewhere.

In the US during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis I had some pretty strong opinions about banks. Is there any justification for having a mammoth bank that is "too big to fail"? (Serious question.)

Approaching "too big to fail" status might be a good marker for when a corporate entity needs to be split. We should not be beholden to oversized companies.

Post reply on HN