3 ms·

"In the space of privacy-friendly phones, Apple has a monopoly." A. There's no legally recognized market for "privacy-friendly phones." B. "Privacy-friendly p

"In the space of privacy-friendly phones, Apple has a monopoly." A. There's no legally recognized market for "privacy-friendly phones." B. "Privacy-friendly phones" is an ill-defined category, with "privacy" meaning different things to different people. Does a phone that blocks trackers qualify? Or does it have to protect me from rogue governments? There's no legal standard for what makes a device "privacy-friendly." Because of that, you are complaining that Apple has a monopoly in a market you just made up, which would be laughed out of court. You might as well claim Apple has a monopoly on phones with Lightning ports. C. There's always GrapheneOS, which is free for anyone who wants it. There's also CalyxOS. You might claim they don't serve your purpose, but the law doesn't care an ounce about your specific purpose. There's generally-recognized competition in the vague category. D. Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. It's abusing your monopoly that's illegal. You would have to show Apple intentionally and specifically suppressed the development of alternative privacy-friendly phones by actively abusing their market power, which nobody is alleging.

amelius 4y ago
> A. There's no legally recognized market for "privacy-friendly phones." This is probably because when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. By the way, who decides what a legally recognized market is?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  > By the way, who decides what a legally recognized market is? Primarily, the legal system, courts do. However, they always draw in expertise and considering that privacy experts don't agree on what a "privacy phone" should be, good luck defining that market when the market can't define itself. (Does it need secure boot or not? Hardened malloc? Tracker blocking? Sideloading or no sideloading? Allow background processes or not? Hardware Microphone disable switches or not? Some or all of the above? Hardware-based assertions for auditing? Built-in YubiKey? Completely open source firmware? Completely open source modem? Fuzzing required? No C, only Rust?) But then, even if there was a standard for a "privacy-preserving phone," is that market large enough to legally matter? Currently, judging by how many people are using GrapheneOS... No. Again, Apple has a monopoly on smartphones with Lightning Ports, but I don't think anybody cares about the "Smartphones with Lightning Ports" market. And if you brought a lawsuit complaining about the Lightning Port monopoly, it would be dismissed immediately.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > This is probably because when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. In the 80s, I could literally pick up my phone and hear neighbor’s conversations sometimes. Also during the analog cell phone era, anyone could buy a receiver from Radio Shack and bypass the frequency block and listen to cell phone conversations.
- kube-system 4y ago
  > when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. That’s entirely false. The majority of telephone lines were party lines through the mid 20th century. The lack of privacy became a topic of pop culture of the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Wire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Wire

amelius 4y ago

> A. There's no legally recognized market for "privacy-friendly phones." This is probably because when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. By the way, who decides what a legally recognized market is?

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> By the way, who decides what a legally recognized market is? Primarily, the legal system, courts do. However, they always draw in expertise and considering that privacy experts don't agree on what a "privacy phone" should be, good luck defining that market when the market can't define itself. (Does it need secure boot or not? Hardened malloc? Tracker blocking? Sideloading or no sideloading? Allow background processes or not? Hardware Microphone disable switches or not? Some or all of the above? Hardware-based assertions for auditing? Built-in YubiKey? Completely open source firmware? Completely open source modem? Fuzzing required? No C, only Rust?) But then, even if there was a standard for a "privacy-preserving phone," is that market large enough to legally matter? Currently, judging by how many people are using GrapheneOS... No. Again, Apple has a monopoly on smartphones with Lightning Ports, but I don't think anybody cares about the "Smartphones with Lightning Ports" market. And if you brought a lawsuit complaining about the Lightning Port monopoly, it would be dismissed immediately.
scarface74 4y ago
> This is probably because when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. In the 80s, I could literally pick up my phone and hear neighbor’s conversations sometimes. Also during the analog cell phone era, anyone could buy a receiver from Radio Shack and bypass the frequency block and listen to cell phone conversations.
kube-system 4y ago
> when phones were first introduced in the previous century, people assumed that nobody would listen in on their conversations. That’s entirely false. The majority of telephone lines were party lines through the mid 20th century. The lack of privacy became a topic of pop culture of the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Wire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Wire