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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by paulpan »

xpe wrote: post #553
ChuckMcM wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market. Not simply that a company is dominant; it is more about how and why they are dominant. Update 2:40 pm ET: After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justice views unfavorably: * horizontal agreements between competitors such as price fixing and mark…

It boils down to the fact that iPhone is a pervasive computing device and similar to a "public good" should be regulated tightly.

For millions of people, it's their main/sole computing and internet access device so should be a neutral platform - with clear evidence as cited that Apple has not maintained its neutrality. As a neutral platform, customers should have the freedom to use their devices without undue interference or restrictions from Apple.

These are similar arguments made in the Microsoft vs. Netscape case. The lone example of being unable to install non-App Store apps is enough to justify the DOJ's case. Question is what would the verdict be? Similar to the EU's DMA rules would be a likely starting point.

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

#972

Post by boplicity »

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.

Here's my take on the App store:

Almost none of the "free" apps are actually free. However, the App store makes it impossible to find this out without first supplying credit card information and installing the app, and possibly setting up an account with an app.

It used to be great. Frankly, it's now abusive.

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

#973

Post by w10-1 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #900
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…

"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_. " But that's not a claim. It might be a fact that supports a claim. One which Apple might contest. It seems that no matter how many times web publications in spades remind readers that monopolies are not per se illegal, i.e., something more is requir…

Right. The legal theories are:

- Monopolization: actual, attempted, conspiracies, etc.

- Restraints of trade. Horizontal (rigging bids, fixing prices, allocating markets to avoid competition) and Vertical (resale price limits, exclusive deals)

- Tying: leveraging one monopoly to gain another

- Merger, where the resulting market would not be competitive

- other Unfair Competition (FTC)

While lawsuits are not uncommon, actual relief is rare, in part because the few judgments are overturned on appeal. Antitrust has been steadily eroded for decades.

Recent relief includes US v AT&T 2018 (imposed conditions on the Time Warner acquisition), but there are many more overturned.

So: 1. Super apps and 2 cloud streaming apps (restraint of trade): it's hard to compare all of apple to all of these multi-function apps. One question is whether all the apple functionality in fact complies with whatever constraints are imposed. I suppose the theory is restraint of trade. In NCAA v. Alston (2021) the NCAA lost their ability to restrict student compensation, but that was a blanket restriction.

3. Message interoperability: Apple also color-codes SMS messages, and will argue it helps to indicate the kind of data that can be transferred. That's a losing argument.

4. Smart watches (Restraint and tying): Unclear what limits are placed on other watches. Easy to fix with an updated API, but some risk the court will try to order Apple to license WatchOS. As with patent, watches may end up adding more legal exposure than the product is really worth in the portfolio.

5. Digital wallets (tying): Hard to see the courts requiring openness here when they have not done so for other financial networks, and the government doesn't really want this.

Most are based on tying, but tying has not been effective for some time. Virtually every successful tying case lacked a distinct business or technical rationale. (The right to repair and maintain (from Xerox on) is the furthest they go in rebutting technical rationale's, and they still permit technical standards.)

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

#974

Post by khazhoux »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #246
gnicholas wrote: post #13

> The Justice Department, which began its investigation into Apple in 2019, chose to build a broader and more ambitious case than any other regulator has brought against the company. As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to brows…

> Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice That's true, but odds are they have a lot of e-mails and a lot of employees who can testify to the browser choice decision being driven by lock-in. The iMessage emails were pretty unambiguous with regards to how it is used in an anti-consumer way. ( https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an..…

I don’t think those emails are so damning. A company should not be required to write software for its main competitor platform, just to make it easier for people to adopt its main competitor platform.

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

#975

Post by fennecbutt »

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,…

Lmao no. How will it increase tx volume.

And fine, let apple collect their fee, but also open up payments on iPhone to other providers. Why can't my native bank app use the nfc hardware itself, hmmmmmmmmm? Oh Apple lock in so they can collect their $$$ for literally no reason; the payment network already exists, Apple is just a middleman.

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

#977

Post by harkinian »

harkinian wrote: post #968
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…

Doesn't the iPhone present itself just like a camera to any PC? So you can use whatever you'd normally use on Mac or Windows to download the pics.

Guess it's less obvious than some Android phones, which mount as a filesystem. But most of them don't.

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

#978

Post by throwaway14356 »

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.

If you get the chance to dictate how the user of the chair uses it (without to much blowback) it would make good business sense.

If you can prevent manufacturers from gaining control over unrelated parts of the customers life it would make good sense as a law maker.

Can someone make a portable computer with networking a camera, mic and nothing else? It seems entirely possible.

Then there is no need for the chair maker to want a percentage of all food revenue eaten in the chair, no need to demand specific food vendors or demand they use a specific payment system they also happen to own. No need to control who you can talk to, which games you play.

There just isn't a need to allow it.

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

#979

Post by kineto »

dimask wrote: post #896
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…

It is interesting that in this case "pro-competitive" does not necessarily mean "pro-consumer". I am not sure how stuff like "super apps" are a good thing for consumers (sounds like a nightmare mass surveillance scenario to me). Similar cloud streaming apps where the whole fuss is really about microtransactions in games or less regulation. Message interoperability is not a bad thing, but not sure why we still talk ab…

Another vote for Airdrop, but with no strings attached please (i.e. no silent failing on MP3 containing folders)

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

#980

Post by pityJuke »

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.

Man that would so awesome. The lack of control over what I'm actually sending the message on is annoying as hell on iPhone's. I want to explictly send and receive SMSes at points.
Post reply on HN