apple should simply allow to replace ios with Android or Linux on iphone (without any support obviously) for those who "feel restricted" and let them have it.. for all the remaining let us keep using Apples walled garden on apples terms (i like having good night sleep knowing that my family members wont fck up their phones, get hacked or their data be used for profit by google, fb and any other "competitor").
U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
731–740 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#732For 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 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…
[dead]
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#733Thought 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.
How would you respond if Apple started requiring access to all your data to let you keep using your phone? Reading the thread, many people would probably still defend them.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#734Next up: suing Sony for having a Playstation monopoly, and suing Tesla for having a Tesla monopoly.
It has a lot to do with scale. There are 5 million Teslas. There are 2 billion iPhones. If Tesla had 60%+ of the car market and engaged in anti competitive/trust-like behaviour, it would also be ripe for action.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#735For 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…
> 3. Messaging interoperability > 4. Smartwatches [interoperability] Where do you draw the line on forcing interoperability? This is kind of like (in-person) movie theaters. Movie theaters don't allow you to bring your own food, you have to buy their food/drink. Why should a movie theater be forced to allow patrons bring their own food? Why should Apple be forced to allow it's patrons to brining competitive things to…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#736For 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…
> 3. Messaging interoperability > 4. Smartwatches [interoperability] Where do you draw the line on forcing interoperability? This is kind of like (in-person) movie theaters. Movie theaters don't allow you to bring your own food, you have to buy their food/drink. Why should a movie theater be forced to allow patrons bring their own food? Why should Apple be forced to allow it's patrons to brining competitive things to…
Even better analogies:
- Should the government force marketplaces to allow competing marketplaces to set up shop within their area, collect fees, but not pay any fees to the larger market?
- Should the government make laws to require restaurants to allow competing chefs to bring a hot plate and start cooking food at the tables and serve them to their customers?
- Should Google be forced by the government to include support for formats in Android that are used by Apple such a HEIF and HEIC? What about Microsoft and Linux?
These rules are not about individual choice or freedom. This is about giant corporations using the government to give them a way into the walled garden built by a competing mega corporation. This is completely self-serving and in no shape, way, or form serves the common good.
As an iPhone user I do not want government interference in a market place that has been kept mostly free of malware precisely because it keeps out the riff-raff. I want the hucksters and the scammers blocked. I really don't care if they scream "unfair!" at the top of their lungs from outside of the fence.
Similarly, general SMS messaging is a cesspit of unceasing spam precisely because it is so interoperable. Because Apple keeps out garbage devices with zero security, I've seen precisely zero iMessage spam in the last decade. I got a spam SMS in the last hour. I'll get several more today.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#737The 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's not artificial. SMS is terrible on its own, and that's none of Apple's fault. It's not like Android users are getting together and happily having SMS/RCS group chats.
> It's not artificial. SMS is terrible on its own, and that's none of Apple's fault. It's not like Android users are getting together and happily having SMS/RCS group chats.
What? RCS is a real thing that works between Android users. It is Apple's choice to not support (or contribute to it or improve the standard) it because it locks people in and creates a very cozy, very real in-group sentiment.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#738For 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…
> 3. Messaging interoperability > 4. Smartwatches [interoperability] Where do you draw the line on forcing interoperability? This is kind of like (in-person) movie theaters. Movie theaters don't allow you to bring your own food, you have to buy their food/drink. Why should a movie theater be forced to allow patrons bring their own food? Why should Apple be forced to allow it's patrons to brining competitive things to…
I presume the question is about impact: At Apple's scale, restricting competition has a very broad impact on the economy. In contrast, a movie theater not allowing outside food is probably not reducing all that much food-related competition in aggregate.
I don't think there's a good real-world "venue/food" analogy. However, hypothetically: Imagine if half of all homes/apartments were controlled by the same company and they also happened to be the largest food producer. They then decided to limit what food could be brought into your home, saying "We have the safest food, so you can only buy our food." Now, they might even be right that their food is the safest, but the market impact would be significant enough to warrant anti-trust action.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#739For 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…
Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them. I am curious what things the iPhone does that others aren't allowed to do. Most of the differences between Garmin and Apple Watch seem like they were conscious decisions where they each decided to take a different direction. It's one of those weird things where it seems like the case has a bunch of holes. You can use an iPhon…
> Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them.
Apple block Garmin watches from replying to text messages as they do on Android for example.
Only Apple Watches are allowed to do that.
I also note that iOS regularly tries to nag me into blocking Garmin Connect from sending notifications to my watch.
Ostensibly that’s to preserve battery life but they don’t do that for their own watches either.
Re: U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
#740I 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…
You seem to totally misunderstand the whole concept of what the competition law is about.
It's not about whether people can choose not to buy an iPhone, really at all. It's about once they do choose iPhone, is Apple unfairly using their control of the platform to influence whether they choose Apple's product vs a competitor for future things they buy.