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

Post by bhelkey » Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 3:39 PM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #629

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…

> Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay 15 basis points (0.15%) from the issuing bank on something that _undoubtably_ increases tx volume and associated interchange revenue. Sure, the issuing banks would like tx volume for absolutely free. Sure, DOJ should argue the point on NFC access. But 15bp from the party that's making more money on a service that's free and beneficial for {consumer, merchant,…

Post by perfectstorm » Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 3:40 PM UTC

Post by choccy » Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 3:44 PM UTC

bredren wrote: post #814

ants_everywhere wrote: post #548

This quote is pretty consistent with my take on what Apple has been up to: > In the end , Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests .

In the EU / app store ballyhoo, privacy / security has been used too often. But in general, Apple has relentlessly set standards for data privacy that no other business seemed willing or able to provide. Far from perfect, (CN datacenters) but still seemingly far out ahead. People don't normally pay for privacy or data security because they're not considered valuable until something bad happens. So I can at least unde…

Post by _justinfunk » Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 3:47 PM UTC

ineedaj0b wrote: post #719

throwaway14356 wrote: post #714

my mental analogy is this. Say someone produces a reading chair. Now say the company desires to restrict, shape or dictate which books one is allowed to read while sitting in the chair. One could argue they should have such rights but historically it is quite unusual. Similarly, if you pay for the chair and put it in your home it is tempting to think you've purchased it and that you own and control it. The tos could…

I don’t think this analogy works because you could have bought the competing chair - which proponents of loudly claim is better than the Apple chair - and gotten similar service. As a matter of fact I’m told the competing chair is much better, and not only that it’s cheaper! And I’m an idiot for buying the Apple chair Buy the competing chair. This is not a monopoly.

Post by tiltowait » Fri, Mar 22, 2024, 3:49 PM UTC

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.