4 ms·

This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple, I'm not sure this would hold up as being legal. I see a situtation where Apple takes this to the supre

This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple, I'm not sure this would hold up as being legal. I see a situtation where Apple takes this to the supreme court, wins on first amendment grounds, and then everyone is royally f*cked for eternity because it's now unconstitutional to prevent a company from lockding down their proprietary hardware/software.

jjcon 5y ago
> This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple That is how antitrust legislation has always worked and it wasn’t until recently that congress/DOJ lost all spine to go after these companies
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Apple is not a monopoly, not even close. Anti-Trust against apple is a joke.
  - yxhuvud 5y ago
    Anti trust legislation doesn't require monopolies, just uncompetitive practices. Which is something monopolies can help facilitate, but it is not a requirement.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Where did I say they were? I said antitrust which means anticompetitive. If you don’t like the law take it up with the governments in the EU, US and Australia.
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Copy pasting a previous comment: Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.
michaelmrose 5y ago
You have no first amendment right to control what others use a device that you sold them. I mean how?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  The government doesn't control how Apple designs it's hardware and software, that's how.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Actually there are numerous regulations you have to follow to run pretty much any sort of business or sell product under the sun. None of this is a violation of the first amendment. It's a short amendment. Can you please quote the part which you believe this law runs affoul of and explain how?
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Freedom of association is not explicit in the first amendment but it is still widely understood, and tested in court that it protected by it. Financial transactions between two individuals or corporations is an exercise in free association. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. * Apple makes a phone, it works in X, Y, Z ways and asks someone to buy it. <- this is what people call "speech" for a corporation. * Someone says, ok - I will buy this. <- spending money in a consensual transaction is considered a form of speech. This is well established in American law. * Government later comes in and says - hey, you MUST provide feature A, even though Apple doesn't want to. <- this violates the "congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise theoreof" of the "free speech" portion of the first amendment. It's also an infringement on the first amendment right of the customer to engage in a consensual transaction with Apple as now the government is forcing them to pay for and use something that they did not agree to in said transaction. Apple is not being deceptive about how their walled garden works. If they were, then it's just fraud. Anti-trust in and of itself is an infringement of the first amendment, and is often counterproductive to the intended goal anyway. How did getting slapped with Antitrust work out for Microsoft? They are bigger and more powerful than ever, and they still ship two web browsers with their operating system, and nag you when you try to change it. Standard Oil got splintered and Exxon came out of it. Many such cases.

jjcon 5y ago

> This is clearly being done to specifically target Apple That is how antitrust legislation has always worked and it wasn’t until recently that congress/DOJ lost all spine to go after these companies

rubyist5eva 5y ago
Apple is not a monopoly, not even close. Anti-Trust against apple is a joke.
- yxhuvud 5y ago
  Anti trust legislation doesn't require monopolies, just uncompetitive practices. Which is something monopolies can help facilitate, but it is not a requirement.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.
- jjcon 5y ago
  Where did I say they were? I said antitrust which means anticompetitive. If you don’t like the law take it up with the governments in the EU, US and Australia.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Copy pasting a previous comment: Apple is not being anti-competitive, competitors are free to go play in Google's play ground. The iphone started with no third party apps, Apple has zero obligation to anyone. Apple's walled garden approach is differentiator against its competitors. Forcing them to act like everyone else is anti-competition because you are removing my choice to willingly buy into that walled garden.

michaelmrose 5y ago

You have no first amendment right to control what others use a device that you sold them. I mean how?

rubyist5eva 5y ago
The government doesn't control how Apple designs it's hardware and software, that's how.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Actually there are numerous regulations you have to follow to run pretty much any sort of business or sell product under the sun. None of this is a violation of the first amendment. It's a short amendment. Can you please quote the part which you believe this law runs affoul of and explain how?
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Freedom of association is not explicit in the first amendment but it is still widely understood, and tested in court that it protected by it. Financial transactions between two individuals or corporations is an exercise in free association. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. * Apple makes a phone, it works in X, Y, Z ways and asks someone to buy it. <- this is what people call "speech" for a corporation. * Someone says, ok - I will buy this. <- spending money in a consensual transaction is considered a form of speech. This is well established in American law. * Government later comes in and says - hey, you MUST provide feature A, even though Apple doesn't want to. <- this violates the "congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise theoreof" of the "free speech" portion of the first amendment. It's also an infringement on the first amendment right of the customer to engage in a consensual transaction with Apple as now the government is forcing them to pay for and use something that they did not agree to in said transaction. Apple is not being deceptive about how their walled garden works. If they were, then it's just fraud. Anti-trust in and of itself is an infringement of the first amendment, and is often counterproductive to the intended goal anyway. How did getting slapped with Antitrust work out for Microsoft? They are bigger and more powerful than ever, and they still ship two web browsers with their operating system, and nag you when you try to change it. Standard Oil got splintered and Exxon came out of it. Many such cases.