13 ms·
The best case outcome is to get publicity leading to US and EU antitrust regulators to file a lawsuit against Apple, both of which Apple loses. The conclusion o
by lacker 3y ago
The best case outcome is to get publicity leading to US and EU antitrust regulators to file a lawsuit against Apple, both of which Apple loses. The conclusion of this lawsuit is that not only must Apple allow access to iMessage, they also must allow changing the default for every component of iOS - messaging app, browser, app store, let you replace Siri with other voice assistants - and to lower the 30% app store fee to 10%. Same rules apply to Android.
Okay, that might not be likely, but you did ask about the best case outcome.
- pb7 3y agoIf we’re talking best case outcomes, then why settle for 10%? 0%! Free distribution for everyone.
- askonomm 3y agoYes! We don't need any moderation or policy enforcement, viruses for everyone!
- gkbrk 3y agoYou have a garbage sandbox if you can get viruses that easily. People expect much better from modern operating systems.
- askonomm 3y agoBy viruses I don't only mean them in the classical sense, but also apps that steal your data, apps that mislead you, apps riddled with ads everywhere. That's the future if you want app stores with no oversight, and you will have app stores with no oversight if you put 0$ as the budget for managing the stores.
- gkbrk 3y agoToday iOS doesn't allow running apps that were not vetted by Apple. And yet you can find loads of apps that steal your data, with ads everywhere. All approved by Apple. In contrast, Android has multiple app stores that exclusively host open-source, non-spyware and ad-free ads.
- pb7 3y ago> ad-free ads The future is here!
- askonomm 3y agoI have found the overall design aesthetic and user experience to be tremendously worse on Android however, and with a lot more ad-riddled apps.
- _v7gu 3y agoGod I miss F-droid, hope EU makes apple allow them in soon
- wkat4242 3y agoThat doesn't mean there will be an ecosystem of ethical FOSS app developers though. That will take much time to develop and it only being available in the EU will limit its growth. And you'll probably still have to invest in a Mac to compile for iOS. I think the excellent FOSS apps ecosystem will remain exclusive to android even after Apple is forced to open up.
- dwaite 3y agoOr even Apple paying developers a cut of iPhone sales, since apps provide so much value to the hardware ecosystem. And maybe a pony.
- misnome 3y agoUS? When has that ever happened in the last 30 years? I’d buy the EU stepping in to mandate interoperability though. I’d welcome that! But… shouldn’t mostly everyone here view needing the EU to force the behaviour of a US company kind of against the entire supposed benefit of the US system and the purpose of the domain this forum is hosted on?
- QuercusMax 3y agoMany of us on this site think modern hypercapitalism, the US system, and VC financing are basically evils, and are here for the general tech content. US regulators have been captured by monied interests, so rooting for the EU to do the job the US government won't is the best we can currently hope for.
- petemir 3y ago> US? When has that ever happened in the last 30 years? United States vs. Microsoft Corp, 2001? [0] And ongoing: United States vs. Google LLC (2020) [1] and United States vs Google LLC (2023) [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2... Edited: formatting
- misnome 3y ago> United States vs. Microsoft Corp, 2001? [0] As the wikipedia page you yourself are citing, overturned on appeal. > And ongoing: United States vs. Google LLC (2020) [1] and United States vs Google LLC (2023) [2]. Ongoing, so a bit hard to count these as evidence of successful market regulation.
- jimbob45 3y agoOverturned on appeal but MS was fined heavily over the years using the same justification. The one I remember off the top of my head was the WMP fine[0]. If you have an OS, everything within should be open for competition and courts have generally ruled as such for years. [0]https://www.npr.org/2007/09/17/14465160/eu-court-defeats-microsoft-in-antitrust-case https://www.npr.org/2007/09/17/14465160/eu-court-defeats-mic...
- dexwiz 3y agoApple is THE consumer tech company in the USA. Its their darling. The only way the USA will rule against Apple is that if they are losing them money elsewhere.
- freedomben 3y agoNot to mention that virtually the entire ruling class in the USA has iphones and are largely tech illiterate so incapable of understanding nuance. Add some big lobbying money from Big Gray and Apple seems pretty safe
- dimitrios1 3y agoThe actual best case outcome is consumers become increasingly educated on these issues and use the market to not reward Apple for these practices, rather than relying on the coercive apparatus of the state that easily falls victim to corruption and regulatory capture, until such the time where we can have an actual functioning government again that isn't strangling small businesses, close the revolving door and get money out of politics and, yeah.. pigs flying and all that.
- blitz_skull 3y agoI don’t think relying on consumers to “not reward” anti-competitive behavior is a good strategy. I own several Apple devices primarily because the UX and ecosystem is so far beyond anything Android offers (in my opinion), that I’m simply not willing to switch. Of course, Apple’s anti-competitive behavior is a big reason for that. But I’m not willing to hurt my own daily interactions with the tech that enables my life just because the US Government isn’t willing to do its job.
- freedomben 3y agoI am the opposite of you, in that I refuse to buy Apple products, regardless the degraded UX I experience because of it. I will gladly suffer with a worse UX in order to vote with my $ and support vendors that align with my principles. But I fully agree with you on this. It would be ideal for consumers to change, but it's not going to happen and it's not reasonable to expect it or demand it IMHO. If we rely on consumer behavior then things are only going to get worse and Apple more entrenched. Machiavellian behavior in business works. We have long known that individuals making microeconomic (e.g. personal) decisions can have a negative macroeconomic (e.g. big picture) effect[1]. I don't think anything will change for the better if left entirely to the market. [1]: Tragedy of the Commons
- jwells89 3y agoI would hope that this “best case outcome” also comes with regulations to keep other giants (mostly Google) from marketing and cross-promoting their way into dominance on iOS, creating monopolies in the process. For instance, Google apps shouldn’t be able to drive Chrome installs by presenting a sheet offering to download Chrome every time I tap a link in them, as they do currently.
- Scarbutt 3y agoThis happens to me constantly when I use google search in ios safari.
- jwells89 3y agoChrome’s quality is what’s usually cited as being the primary driver behind its rise to its current position of most popular browser, but the reality is that Google’s intense marketing is at least as responsible. In-app prompts, prompts in Google search, and Chrome getting bundled in installers for every other Windows app were big contributors to its momentum. Of course it becoming the default browser on the majority of Android devices and Google web apps underperforming in other browsers also played a role but that’s a bit of a different topic.
- Zak 3y agoI have no doubt marketing played a role, but Chrome and Chromium-based browsers were the only ones with a multi-process architecture for over half a decade after Chrome's launch. That meant a bad web page couldn't crash the browser or block the UI, which used to happen frequently on other browsers. Firefox eventually caught up, but had lost much of its userbase and mindshare by that point.
- jwells89 3y agoWebKit went multiprocess with the release of WebKit2 around 14 years ago, with the difference being that the multiprocess architecture is part of WebKit itself and thus easily reusable — just embed a WebView in your app and you have it. This contrasts to the Chromium implementation where multiprocess is handled by Chromium rather than Blink, meaning to get multiprocess you have to ship the whole of Chromium and can’t just embed Blink. That said this really only relevant for Apple platforms and Linux/Android, unfortunately. WebKit for Windows is somewhat in a state of disrepair.
- sircastor 3y ago> and to lower the 30% app store fee to 10%. In danger of being an Apple apologist, the app store fee for the vast majority of sellers is 15%.
- toyg 3y agoOnly now, because they were forced to lower it. There is nothing stopping them from raising it again, once the prospects of antitrust prosecution disappear.
- chipgap98 3y agoWhen were they forced to lower it? It seems like you are saying they decided to lower it
- toyg 3y agohttps://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-store-small-business-program-commission-cut-15-percent-reduction https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-store... For context: Epic launched their lawsuit in August 2020, fighting the 30% cut, and less than 3 months later Apple lowered it to 15% for small businesses. Absolute coincidence, I'm sure.
- mmanfrin 3y agoIronically, if Google were ever allowed to replace siri on iPhones, I would probably never buy an android again.
- graphe 3y agohttps://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-chatgpt-as-a-siri-shortcut-on-your-iphone-or-ipad/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-chatgpt-as-a-siri-s... https://www.howtogeek.com/713498/how-to-launch-google-assistant-with-siri/ https://www.howtogeek.com/713498/how-to-launch-google-assist... I remember doing something like this a while ago.
- UseStrict 3y agoSiri is so incompetent it's basically unusable. I would love if they were forced to allow 3rd party assistants.
- snakeyjake 3y agoHow is this an actionable anti-trust issue? iMessage doesn't even register as a messaging platform in the minds of most users globally. In the US is it dwarfed by at least three other platforms. Globally, do any of the other top ten (Apple is nowhere near the top ten) messaging apps allow third parties to spoof their service? The purpose of anti-trust is to increase competition and prevent unlawful monopolies. Apple is a flea on the tail of an ox when it comes to messaging, as capable of influencing the market as I am.
- Xenoamorphous 3y ago> In the US is it dwarfed by at least three other platforms Maybe because it comes preinstalled?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sroussey 3y agoThis makes no sense. “Because it comes preinstalled it is dwarfed by at least three other platforms”??
- cstrahan 3y agoWhich other 3 platforms come preinstalled? Edit: wait, are you talking about iMessage being preinstalled? If so, how does iMessage being preinstalled make it dwarfed by other non-preinstalled platforms? Are you suggesting it’s human nature to use third party apps, or maybe you mistook the meaning of “dwarfed by”?
- cmiles74 3y agoI am very curious what three other messaging application are available on iOS and have more market share than Apple Messages! Nearly every member of my family has an iPhone and they all use Apple Messages.
- Psyonic 3y ago
- zffr 3y agoLet's say that Apple is forced to allow third parties to use iMessage. Can't Apple just make the cost prohibitively high?
- loloquwowndueo 3y agoThe “forcing” would likely come with conditions and some oversight. See how big phone companies in some countries are “forced” to allow competitors (eg. MVNOs) to connect to their networks at wholesale prices - do you think they chose that price point themselves?
- vhold 3y agoThat's the best case for most of us, but probably not Beeper Mini, since the cat-and-mouse game is their killer competitive advantage. With the barriers gone the space will be totally flooded with options, not to mention just normal Android integration.
- hjkdgshkdfjhg 3y agoBest case outcome for who? Super happy user of Apple here, I would hate that outcome. Apple shit just works, I like my wallet garden, don't want third party trash or getting spammed from android clients.
- ksclarke 3y agoHa, "wallet garden" gave me a good chuckle. I usually hear it expressed as a "walled garden", but this might be the perfect typo (or clever twist / word play). I'm guessing it was a typo, but well done nonetheless.
- kanbara 3y agothis might be the “best outcome” for some nerds or android users, but it certainly isnt the best outcome for most consumers. iOS has resisted a lot of the crap and cruft of windows and android because of its opinionated nature. sure, siri could use improvement, but at least iPhones never fail to call 911.
- Keegs 3y agoI’ll admit I’m one of these nerds but I disagree. There’s a difference between being opinionated and not allowing me to change the defaults on a device I own.
- GeekyBear 3y agoWhile they are at it, can they file an antitrust action against Google for making changes that break ad blockers and third party clients for YouTube?
- idonotknowwhy 3y agoReminds me of how bleemcast made game console emulators officially legal
- mlindner 3y agoA lawsuit to do what exactly? Require Apple release an iMessage client on Android for free? That'd get thrown out pretty quick anywhere with a functioning legal system. The only antitrust comparison I can see was Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer, but that doesn't really work because that was Microsoft preventing other competing chat clients from accessing the wider internet, not Microsoft's own servers. There has never been an antitrust lawsuit won anywhere that forces a company to open its own servers that its paying for open to anyone who wants to access them.