4 ms·

> Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. There is no U.S. antitrust provision th

> Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. There is no U.S. antitrust provision that would force Apple to place a backdoor in iMessage. And if iMessage is compromised in certain countries where secure messaging apps are banned (such as China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...), iOS users would benefit from having the option to sideload apps like Signal and use them to communicate securely. Forbidding one company from taking anti-competitive actions against smaller companies that increase the prices its users pay for products and services is not taking away from your rights. If you don't want to download or purchase anything through means not endorsed by Apple, you're not being forced to do so. The App Store and Apple's payment system are still available to you. The idea that others should conform to and pay for your preferences is antithetical to the notion of freedom.

5ESS 5y ago
But why should Apple be forced by the government to make changes to its platform under anti-trust laws when they aren’t even a monopoly? If someone doesn’t like Apple‘s system, there are at least dozens of different phone manufacturers to choose from. Anti-trust laws are written to bust monopolies, which Apple doesn’t fit the definition of in any way, shape, or form. It is a bad-faith misinterpretation/misapplication of Anti-trust laws. Just because they are a popular choice doesn’t mean that users have no other choice. If you think they are a monopoly it means you think users are forced to use their product and have no other choice. How can you say that with a straight face that users have no other choice but to use Apple? It’s just plain wrong.
- commoner 5y ago
  Your questions are answered in the filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-Al-Acb-Iso-Epic-Games-Against-Apple https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-A... U.S. antitrust law does not require the existence of a monopoly for a violation, just sufficiently anti-competitive behavior. High market power strengthens an antitrust claim, and iOS being part of a duopoly fits the mold.

5ESS 5y ago

But why should Apple be forced by the government to make changes to its platform under anti-trust laws when they aren’t even a monopoly? If someone doesn’t like Apple‘s system, there are at least dozens of different phone manufacturers to choose from. Anti-trust laws are written to bust monopolies, which Apple doesn’t fit the definition of in any way, shape, or form. It is a bad-faith misinterpretation/misapplication of Anti-trust laws. Just because they are a popular choice doesn’t mean that users have no other choice. If you think they are a monopoly it means you think users are forced to use their product and have no other choice. How can you say that with a straight face that users have no other choice but to use Apple? It’s just plain wrong.

commoner 5y ago
Your questions are answered in the filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-Al-Acb-Iso-Epic-Games-Against-Apple https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-A... U.S. antitrust law does not require the existence of a monopoly for a violation, just sufficiently anti-competitive behavior. High market power strengthens an antitrust claim, and iOS being part of a duopoly fits the mold.