17 ms·

U.S. moves closer to filing antitrust case against Apple

273 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

granzymes 3y ago
>Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said. I'm not sure if current U.S. antitrust law condemns this behavior from Apple. In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It can be anticompetitive to worsen access for competitors from a prior baseline without a procompetitive justification, but it's generally not anticompetitive to never offer access at parity with your own products (self preferencing) in the first place. While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Still, this article is helpful in that is tells us what areas are the focus of the government's case (notably: nothing about the App Store).
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  I think it is kind of funny that one arm of the government is saying Apple can't sell its watches, while another arm is saying the watches are furthering their monopoly position.
  - neogodless 3y ago
    And I don't think these two things contradict each other. Apple can't sell its watches because of intellectual property theft. So not only did they take features from a smaller potential competitor, but they lock their Watch buyers into the iPhone ecosystem.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  What? I remember microsoft getting into huge shit over mandating preinstalling internet explorer on their OS. This feels 100x worse because you can't install any alternative sms application afaik. I think the only mismatch is that lawmakers always 20 years behind the times, so it's taken them this long to realize that sms/imessage/whatever is just as fundamental as a browser for modern interconnectivity.
  - granzymes 3y ago
    Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors. Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration. Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.
    - zug_zug 3y ago
      I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Statutory antitrust law in the US is extremely broad, to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it to not prohibit anyone from so much as entering into a 30 day purchasing contract because it would restrain the buyer from patronizing a competitor for 30 days. By its terms that would nominally be a violation. As a result most of what you have to look at is case law. But antitrust cases are rare to begin with and ones dealing with this kind of "huge conglomerate that ties its products and services together with computer code" -- try to name one dealing with a company of that nature other than Microsoft. Maybe AT&T? It's not a lot of precedent until you're looking at cases of much smaller companies doing much narrower things, which leaves plenty of room for the judge to "distinguish" them (i.e. do whatever they want in this case). > In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It seems like a major difference here isn't just that they won't deal with competitors, it's that they don't allow their customers to deal with competitors. This is quite stark when you're looking at their products -- someone who owns an iPhone can't reasonably modify or replace the system software to integrate a competing payments system (or, for that matter, app store) because Apple doesn't allow it even on a piece of hardware they sold and is now owned by someone else. You could make that argument for services, i.e. iMessage, but there are at least two other ways to get at that. First, iMessage is tied to their other offerings and so then you get them for the tying. Second, maybe routing something with a network effect through a centralized service is a different kind of thing than refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you don't have a monopoly on delivery service. Maybe it's more like refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you do have a monopoly on delivery service. > I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Congress pretty much authorized the courts to do whatever they want on this. The real question is what they want to do. You have to go back to Congress if they do something dumb.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- majormajor 3y ago
  > While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. I would not be surprised if they are trying to push the envelope of the current law is fine and I think that's fine. If you're unwilling to try to enforce unless you're 100% sure no judge would ever disagree with you, you're going to let people get away with a LOT of stuff by default that could very well be found to be covered by existing statute. And the failures could galvanize additional legislation more than doing nothing.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The big issue is Apple air tags. They work so well because people own lots of iPhones, and there is nothing really equivalent that uses all Android phones to do the same. Air tags pretty much lock you into the Apple ecosystem given how useful they are, and the lack of an alternative from the competition.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    Why is this Apple's fault that they've built their devices from the ground up to work seamlessly together and other companies haven't? A competitor is free to make their own version of air tags that work with Android phones.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      The only reason AirTags work is because every iPhone runs code that tracks them. There are thousands of different models of Android phones, 99% of them have software that will never see another update again. How exactly do you add code that detects "their own version of air tags that work with Android phones"? The answer is you don't. AirTags took off because Apple had the ability to retroactively make every existing iPhone start to track them. No other company can pull that off.
      - pas 3y ago
        hm, they are BLE devices right? google can push out google play services updates to a lot of those phones anytime. it doesn't seem inconceivable. (recent nothing os update has some feature related to this, I have no idea if it's from stock android or not though.)
        LoganDark 3y ago
        I don't think it would be totally impossible for Google to try this, but even the percentage of phones that have functioning GMS (i.e. on a recent enough Android version, receiving updates, and even having GMS installed in the first place) is far lower than the percentage of iPhones that are still receiving updates. Sure, most phones you can buy in the US will have GMS, but part of the benefit of AirTags is being able to track things through, say, China, and you could be somewhat hard-pressed to find a chinese Android with GMS. Meanwhile, all sorts of people all around the world want the latest iPhone, and every single latest iPhone in the world gets the latest updates.
- ClassyJacket 3y ago
  >investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands This is such a misleading way to phrase it. The Apple Watch only works with the iPhone (unfortunately. I would buy one if it worked on Android. Android watches are universally hopeless) If you don't have it paired to an iPhone, an Apple Watch won't even tell you the time.
ProfessorLayton 3y ago
I really hope Big Tech, including but not limited to Apple, gets broken up, they've gotten too big and have expanded far beyond tech, and I'm not sure we're all the better for it.
- s3r3nity 3y ago
  >I really hope Big Tech, including but not limited to Apple, gets broken up, they've gotten too big and have expanded far beyond tech, and I'm not sure we're all the better for it. Many of our retirement and wealth portfolios would beg to differ. S&P minus FAANG is virtually flat for the past few years (and depending upon which estimate you observe, likely negative if you factor inflation); almost all of the growth in the S&P 500 is from tech growth.
  - checker 3y ago
    "Too big to fail"
  - pixl97 3y ago
    All hail Moloch, who giveth and taketh our money under threat of distress if we do not offer all to him.
    - ianbutler 3y ago
      What’s your preferred alternative?
      - Podgajski 3y ago
        Not financial capitalism?
  - waynesonfire 3y ago
    > S&P minus FAANG is virtually flat for the past few years I don't know if this is true or not; but regardless, that's the whole point of this. The US won't be moving to file sweeping anti-trust cases against failing companies. We need more competitors, we need more diverse tech companies. A few large players that are siphoning all the value and dictating how technology evolves isn't optimal for the things I value. The growth will happen regardless, don't worry.
s3r3nity 3y ago
>Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. I'm suspicious that much of this is a ploy to weaken the tight security controls & encrypted data so that the US government (and potentially other governments?) can get easier access to surveillance data on US citizens.
- paxys 3y ago
  There are dozens of messaging apps out there with equal or better encryption than iMessage and also multi OS support. Vendor lock-in doesn't mean better security.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    Quality of security aside, I'd be curious which encrypted messaging apps have the highest quantity of (encrypted—some support unencrypted, also, as Messages does) messages flowing through them in a given day—for, say, US users, as that's the jurisdiction of the government whose motives are being questioned, so seems the most relevant. One can imagine a case of a particular app drawing law enforcement's and/or intelligence services' ire not because it's the best, but because they're seeing a lot more conversations they wish they could read, but can't (easily), going over that channel than any other single one.
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      I'd say Facebook Messenger is probably near the top of that in the US now that they've defaulted to end to end encryption.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- apapapa 3y ago
  Apple is a joke when it comes to security... They are all speech.
jeffbee 3y ago
As a person who uses almost all of Apple's hardware, and almost all of Google's services, and none of Apple's services, the behavior that always strikes me as the most harmful to consumers is the constant nagging of users about the intended behavior of their chosen third-party apps, while their operating systems remain silent about the exact same behaviors of first-party apps. For example iOS has several silent default-opt-in location data features that I do not want or need, and at the same time it regularly tries to trick me into disabling location features of Google Maps, that I've used daily since 2005. The other issue is the constant nagging, that can't be disabled, about iCloud backups being full, when in fact I never wanted them in the first place and as far as I can tell or recall they stole that data from me.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  > it regularly tries to trick me into disabling location features of Google Maps, that I've used daily since 2005. Citation needed. I periodically get popups for even Apple's own first-party apps asking if I still want to share location. "Do you still want Weather to know where you are?" Yes, I do, because I use it. You may very well be getting the same message for Google apps, but that's not special anti-Google behavior. > The other issue is the constant nagging, that can't be disabled, about iCloud backups being full Then turn off iCloud backups. It's an optional feature that makes sense to be on by default, but that's trivially easy to disable if you don't want it.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    > Citation needed. Apple launders the location features of Apple Maps through platform location service controls. iOS will never, ever prompt you about Maps' own background location access. The controls for Maps' background location access are buried in System Services, and are defaulted on, and do not produce the tracking nag. The fact that the first-party Weather app is not also immune to the nag doesn't seem material. The whole situation is in stark contrast to Android, where if you throw the phone in a drawer for a few months the platform will automatically revoke all of the privacy allowances of Google's own apps. Which is maybe not great, since resuming the use of such a device is sort of impossible (it will prompt you for shit like whether Phone is allowed to record audio), but you can't say it's anti privacy.
shmerl 3y ago
Good, very long overdue. Blast them for forbidding competing browsers on iOS.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  I really feel like the browser ban is one of their biggest unforced errors here. They could have utilized their discretion to ban Chrome[1] while allowing alternative browser engines like Firefox or classic Opera onto their store, which would have helped Mozilla compete against Google and slowed down their eventual takeover of the entire internet. Instead they decided to go it alone, making iOS a Safari-only territory, which helped establish Chrome's dominance due to their shared technical foundations and common nonstandard features. 1: There's a bunch of stuff the commercial Google Chrome does that they could easily ban through store policy. They could also just arbitrarily refuse to approve it.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > which would have helped Mozilla compete against Google and slowed down their eventual takeover of the entire internet Why would one assume this when Chrome took over on non iOS and ipadOS machines? > Instead they decided to go it alone, making iOS a Safari-only territory, which helped establish Chrome's dominance due to their shared technical foundations and common nonstandard features. Logically, the fact that the only place Chrome did not dominate is iOS and ipadOS means making those Safari only is the only thing that stopped Chrome’s dominance.
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      The only browsers on iOS are webkit browsers, and when Chrome was new it was also webkit. Because of this, the ideal target for a web developer became webkit, including webkit-only features and workarounds for webkit bugs. This automatically pushed Firefox, Opera, Edge, IE out of the picture, because we basically had an emerging browser monoculture already. If the people who were already using Firefox could have kept using it on their new phone or tablet as well, syncing bookmarks and history, that would have probably slowed its defeat a little bit and perhaps slowed Chrome's growth. We eventually got a Firefox-branded wrapper around Safari's webviews but Apple's architecture guarantees that those webview frames will always be inferior to Safari. Safari being available on Windows might've helped too, but I understand why Apple chose not to do that.
Dioxide2119 3y ago
> The company has previously said that its practices do not violate antitrust law. In defending its business practices against critics in the past, Apple said that its “approach has always been to grow the pie” and “create more opportunities not just for our business, but for artists, creators, entrepreneurs and every ‘crazy one’ with a big idea.” Tell that to Beeper Mini who had the crazy idea of growing the pie of iMessage users, following the original protocol seamlessly through adversarial interoperability. It is quite debatable over whether Apple should be forced to allow another company to make money using adverse interoperability and server runtime costs etc. In the same way it was quite debatable over whether IBM should be forced to allow another company (Compaq) to make money using adverse interoperability and reverse engineering IBM's BIOS. I'd argue that the second debate was settled in the right way, and am partial to Apple being forced to interoperate as well. If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. Pidgin / Blackberry Inbox / WP7 homescreen / Matrix bridges and other services that unify incoming and outgoing text and binary messages for 1x1/group chats should be table stakes, not selling points. Email and IM, whether on PC, mobile, XR, whatever, vendor agnostic!
- zug_zug 3y ago
  > If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. I think this would create a whole new generation of tech startups in a stalled/captured industry.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. I would love to see iMessage available to people not on Apple devices. However, I am not enthusiastic about a government defining what "interoperate" means in general. By way of example, I can think of many definitions of "interoperate" that would prevent the use of end-to-end encryption, or prevent upgrading the protocol and not supporting old versions, or prevent fixing security issues because some third-party client was relying on the insecure behavior, or prevent setting requirements on acceptable client behavior... I want interoperability. I don't want to end up in a world in which, once you get large enough, it's impossible to innovate without slowing down and waiting for the slowest and most recalcitrant/adversarial folks who want to interoperate with you to catch up.
eruleman 3y ago
The US should focus on breaking up the app store duopoly that charges 30% on all digital items. Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut! Apple & Google don’t have to pay the app store tax & have products that compete with books, audiobooks, Spotify etc — this is the most blatant antitrust issue. I hope the US lawsuit leads with this.
- whatever1 3y ago
  And they definitely increase the prices for the customers. Apps charge you more when you buy from the app/play store vs if you buy from the internet.
- darklion 3y ago
  > Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut! What business in their right mind would want to sell or stock a product that comes with a label that says, in effect, “Don’t spend your money here, go somewhere else”?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here.
    - darklion 3y ago
      > Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here. It's not in contention: it's both of those things. It's just that some people want it to be exclusively one of those things.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Why should the business value of my smartphone impede it's functionality as a computer?
  - 3y ago
oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
flax 3y ago
About time. Apple has been getting a free pass on the exact same things that Microsoft was slapped down for. Notably: unchangeable default apps (browser, email, text messaging in particular). I don't believe that they necessarily are violating antitrust by choosing to make imessage or apple watch ios only, but it would be obviously better for consumers in my opinion if they were more open. One aspect which keeps annoying me is how hostile Apple is to developers that want to use anything other than Apple hardware to publish on the app store. The requirement to use xcode, and the fact that xcode only runs on Mac means they are leveraging their control of ios app stores to force hardware sales. I was particularly annoyed to find that even if I have a compiled .ipa file, the app store requires xcode to even upload it. It's a file upload! This has been working cross platform since before the advent of the web.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Apple has been getting a free pass on the exact same things that Microsoft was slapped down for. Notably: unchangeable default apps (browser, email, text messaging in particular). I think this is due to regulators not understanding that phones are computers. Apple definitely lets you change the default apps in macOS. If it didn't, that would be a problem. But until recently, both Google and Apple were given an exception on mobile computing, i.e. tablets, phones.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    I think it's less to do with regulators not understanding that phones are computers and more to do with genuine disagreement over what constitutes a computer and even more so what societal and economic effects regulation might have on these changes. For example, if the United States says that the iPhone is an arbitrary computer and as such is subject to thus and thus regulations, why wouldn't that include other arbitrary computation devices like the Nintendo Switch, Steamdeck, TV, or Alexa device? I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that would say this definition stops at "phones and tablets". So now you're not just regulating phones and "opening them up" and instead you're regulating broad swaths of trade with not just American companies but global companies as well and that has much more important considerations than whether or not you can install a 3rd-party app store or access a manufacturer-only API. Even if you are just regulating phones and tablets, you still have to consider more than the American companies.
eli 3y ago
Google and Apple simply shouldn't be allowed to operate exclusive App Stores on their devices.
- dazilcher 3y ago
  Google's app store is not exclusive.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    It is not exclusive if you are tech literate. But then again, Google paid billions to manufacturers so their store was the only option preinstalled in their devices, which meant that the vast majority of users would just stick with it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jsnell 3y ago
      The majority of Android phones sold in the US have multiple app stores on them.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        If you mean the Galaxy Store, it requires a Samsung account to be used. Google positioned itself so it is the de facto default for pretty much every Android phone.
        jsnell 3y ago
        I don't really understand your point. Doesn't basically every app store in the world on any platform require an account? It seems like a fairly basic requirement for a functioning system (people need to be able to reinstall the apps they bought on a new device). And if having an app store that doesn't require an account is actually somehow desireable, is your suggestion that Google somehow strong-armed Samsung into requiring an account rather than going with the ostensibly superior option of not requiring accounts? Or is the suggestion that the store should be using some other account than a Samsung account, but they weren't allowed to do that.
AlbertCory 3y ago
Apple's been a walled garden since the early 80's. They let vendors make Mac-compatibles and then screwed them, IIRC. They've always preferred to have their own everything until absolutely forced to open up, e.g. USB ports. They had their own networking architecture in the 90's (AppleTalk). Does that mean it's OK? Definitely not. But I think a general mandate of interoperability would be preferable to any point solutions. It's not clear how a court could rule that way, so it might require legislation.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  The MS antitrust settlement included a "general mandate of interop" wrt. the issues that were raised there, such as web browsers as part of the OS and the use of private API's.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > They've always preferred to have their own everything until absolutely forced to open up, e.g. USB ports. You must not have been alive at the time. Apple's early adoption of USB is why USB became the dominant peripheral interface. People were quite upset to have lost their legacy ports in 1998. And of course, Apple's contributions to and early support for USB-C were also industry-leading. Apple has played a key role in creating and/or mainstreaming many standards: FireWire, Thunderbolt, Wi-Fi, ISOBMFF/MPEG-4, AAC, Mini-SIM/Nano-SIM, and I'm sure more I'm forgetting.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - wharvle 3y ago
    > And of course, Apple's contributions to and early support for USB-C were also industry-leading. And still on the... bleeding edge. Most of the USB peripherals one can go buy right off the shelves at, say, Target are still USB-A.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
jcomis 3y ago
I know it seems absurd, but as an android user I really do get cut out of group message convos due to not being on imessage. I realize many other countries use whatsapp or whatever, but my social circle in the US explicitly does not and won't. Even my parents have issues and frequently try to send me large videos. I've had to to completely decouple my phone number from my imessage email to be able to chat with people. Frequently things get messed up because iOS will always default to imessage over sms, so if your primary way to talk is via sms, but you do have an imessage and the person has both in your contact card you don't actually get anything on your phone. I can't really see how it isn't anticompetitive.
- hangonhn 3y ago
  As an iPhone user, I find it super annoying too. I love my iPhone and Apple products in general but it's not fair to expect all my friends to be the same. One of my friends has an iPhone but turned off iMessage out of an abundance of caution. As a consumer, I would really like it if non-iMessage user can get the same experience as all the iMessage users. We know there is a way. The standard wasn't great when it was new but it has matured a lot. I would really like it if Apple supported it. Its behavior seems needlessly antagonistic.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    > One of my friends has an iPhone but turned off iMessage out of an abundance of caution In my experience, iMessages have far greater delivery reliability than SMS text messages. I've actually gotten into inadvertent fights with people over undelivered SMS text messages.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The issue isn't that Apple should be using SMS in particular -- SMS sucks. But they should either use some standardized protocol, or publish a protocol standard for iMessage. Someone willing to do the work should be capable of producing an interoperable implementation.
diziet 3y ago
https://archive.is/F3LN0 https://archive.is/F3LN0
- neonate 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20240105204348/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-apple-lawsuit-us.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240105204348/https://www.nytim...
flenserboy 3y ago
This seems to be far more about breaking security barriers than helping consumers.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  If you need anti-competitive tactics or the freedom to violate the law in order to protect your customers I'm not sure you're very good at protecting your customers. And even so, why should I trust you to use your "i'm violating the law for a good reason" blank check responsibly in the future?
stevenjgarner 3y ago
It will be interesting to see any growth of short activity against APPL with this release by NY Times. This does not seem to have had a significant hit yet, as the put-call ratio for APPL is within its normal range? https://www.alphaquery.com/stock/AAPL/volatility-option-statistics/30-day/put-call-ratio-volume https://www.alphaquery.com/stock/AAPL/volatility-option-stat... https://marketchameleon.com/Overview/AAPL/VolatilitySkew/ https://marketchameleon.com/Overview/AAPL/VolatilitySkew/
barelysapient 3y ago
With enough litigation and legislation, we can make Apple products as amazing as the other competitors in the marketplace.
- stephenr 3y ago
  > as amazing as the other competitors in the marketplace Do you mean worse?
  - m463 3y ago
    if you can install whatever app you please without asking permission, you would have a better platform. (I would love to firewall my phone - especially against apple)
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    That's contingent on how Apple implements the features. When Apple works with standards and local computing, we get great user-respecting software like the OG iTunes and QuickTime. When Apple works against standards and local computing, we get headscratchers like Apple Music and AppleTV.
  - zappb 3y ago
    I believe that’s the joke, yeah.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Yes, government's definitely the answer here. Once the government forces Apple to open iMessage, then competitors (RCS, Signal, Telegraph, etc.) can all just die in peace, making life simpler for everyone.
ckbishop 3y ago
The fact that they do not have a platform agnostic version of iMessage -- even if it requires 2FA from an Apple device like the $1200 iPhone that I was forced to buy -- is utter bullshit. I had to convert my friends one-by-one over to Telegram because I prefer Windows/Linux PCs and I don't really check my phone that much. I'm knee-deep in Apple's ecosystem, because I like all of their other products, but I can't use iMessage because I prefer to use a PC. This has been a thorn in my side for years. There can be only one reason that iMessage is available on Apple devices exclusively and it's at least antitrust adjacent. For this alone, I hope they get fined a gigantic amount of money.
- tiltowait 3y ago
  > I had to convert my friends one-by-one over to Telegram because I prefer Windows/Linux PCs and I don't really check my phone that much. I'm sorry, but this sounds pretty obnoxious as presented. You made your friends adopt a new messaging service because you don't want to check your phone?
  - dqv 3y ago
    On one hand it's "obnoxious" to ask people to switch to another messaging app, on the other hand, the solution if you want people to not use iMessage is to "simply" use a different messaging app. But if it's obnoxious, it doesn't really seem that simple.
  - ckbishop 3y ago
    How did you parse forced adoption out of that sentence? Heh. For most of them, all it took was me telling them it would make my life easier. For the others, the animated middle finger stickers.
iamthirsty 3y ago
I don't see Apple ever capitulating to opening iMessage unless absolutely forced, which will take a while even if it succeeds. Almost everyone I know (less than 30 and outside of tech, in the south Florida area to be specific) uses an iPhone, specifically for iMessage. If you don't have an iPhone, people will avoid talking to you over text. Your social standing will also take a hit. While I personally think it would be cool, since it would basically open the door to buying an Android phone Apple is not going to let it happen voluntarily.
- kderbyma 3y ago
  and til that people are living sad realities....won't talk to someone because of android....wow....you obviously don't know intelligent people haha
  - windowsrookie 3y ago
    Android is not the reason they won't message you, The lack of iMessage is. Nobody I know cares what kind of phone you have. But they do care if you have iMessage or not. Lack of iMessage essentially breaks group chats. So if you don't have iMessage, and everyone else does, you will intentionally not be added to the chat. Lack of iMessage also means sending videos to you is going to take additional steps compared to other iMessage users. So they likely just won't send you the video. Over time, the additional steps required to include a non-iMessage user, means you will receive less messages from your friends. I don't like the situation, but that's how it is. If the majority of your friends/contacts use iMessage but you don't, then you will be excluded from chats. Not because you use Android, but because it is just more difficult to include you without iMessage.
- gwright 3y ago
  > Your social standing will also take a hit. I can wrap my head around the usability and interoperability arguments but this idea that "social standing" is contingent on iOS vs Android just seems alien to me. Are there really people that adjust their social circles based on what type of phone someone is using?
saddayiguess 3y ago
[dead]
nova22033 3y ago
Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands Apple is under no obligation to make sure that the Apple watch works well with an android phone. Unless they have specific evidence that Apple is doing something to explicitly block non-iOS devices, this is weak.
- matwood 3y ago
  Yeah, if that's really what they are looking at, then it's a very weak case. Next up, why won't my AirPod case charge my Google Buds?
- neogodless 3y ago
  An Apple Watch does not pair with anything but an iPhone. You cannot call the product a "smart watch." All you can all it is an iPhone accessory. Let's check in with Apple's marketing department[0] > Apple Watch can do what your other devices can’t because it’s on your wrist. When you wear it, you get a fitness partner that measures all the ways you move, meaningful health insights, innovative safety features, and a connection to the people you care about most. So how many of those things work without a paired iPhone? Even Family Setup (which requires at least one family member to own an iPhone) doesn't give the watch full functionality. > Not all features will be available if the Apple Watch is set up through Family Setup From a third party[1] > In short, anyone can wear an Apple Watch, including Android phone users. However, the reality is that anyone looking to have a proper smartwatch experience should stay within their own OS lanes. Android users should use Wear OS or third-party platform watches, iPhone users should use Apple Watches, and that's what it all really boils down to. [0] https://www.apple.com/watch/why-apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/watch/why-apple-watch/ [1] https://screenrant.com/apple-watch-android-phone-pairing-compatibility-issues-explained/ https://screenrant.com/apple-watch-android-phone-pairing-com...
- m463 3y ago
  They seem to be giving preferential treatment to the apple watch: "Users of Garmin devices have complained in Apple’s support forums about being unable to use their watches to reply to certain text messages from their iPhones or tweak the notifications they receive from the iPhone that they have connected to their watch."
MichaelTheGeek 3y ago
How will this help.
chewmieser 3y ago
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-apple-lawsuit-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LU0.n3n5.g0j0cTKEkpbT&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-appl...
theLastOfCats 3y ago
Folks, just use Telegram
turquoisevar 3y ago
If I would get a dollar every time the media reports antitrust action is coming for Apple and people who insist Apple is “going to get rekt,” I could buy up 100% of the Apple stock and turn the iMessage bubbles purple and make iMessage only accessible to me and a select few so everyone on earth could complain forever how they’re being excluded. At this point, let’s get it over with. Let the DOJ sue them with 1200 pages of alleged violations, everything they could possibly think of and then some, and have the courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS, decide once and for all if Apple is violating antitrust laws and what, if anything, needs to be done to remedy it. They could pull Apple apart into 20 companies for all I care. Let’s just get it over with so we know, once and for all if Apple was naughty in the eyes of the law or not. But somehow, I suspect we will never get this sweet release because the next (and already held) debate will then be about how there needs to be new legislation to make them naughty in the eyes of the law, even though there’s no constitutional way of doing so in such a way that it would only affect Apple and not the latest hot startup on Silicon Valley.

273 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

>Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said. I'm not sure if current U.S. antitrust law condemns this behavior from Apple. In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It can be anticompetitive to worsen access for competitors from a prior baseline without a procompetitive justification, but it's generally not anticompetitive to never offer access at parity with your own products (self preferencing) in the first place. While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Still, this article is helpful in that is tells us what areas are the focus of the government's case (notably: nothing about the App Store).

oh_sigh 3y ago
I think it is kind of funny that one arm of the government is saying Apple can't sell its watches, while another arm is saying the watches are furthering their monopoly position.
- neogodless 3y ago
  And I don't think these two things contradict each other. Apple can't sell its watches because of intellectual property theft. So not only did they take features from a smaller potential competitor, but they lock their Watch buyers into the iPhone ecosystem.
zug_zug 3y ago
What? I remember microsoft getting into huge shit over mandating preinstalling internet explorer on their OS. This feels 100x worse because you can't install any alternative sms application afaik. I think the only mismatch is that lawmakers always 20 years behind the times, so it's taken them this long to realize that sms/imessage/whatever is just as fundamental as a browser for modern interconnectivity.
- granzymes 3y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors. Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration. Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Statutory antitrust law in the US is extremely broad, to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it to not prohibit anyone from so much as entering into a 30 day purchasing contract because it would restrain the buyer from patronizing a competitor for 30 days. By its terms that would nominally be a violation. As a result most of what you have to look at is case law. But antitrust cases are rare to begin with and ones dealing with this kind of "huge conglomerate that ties its products and services together with computer code" -- try to name one dealing with a company of that nature other than Microsoft. Maybe AT&T? It's not a lot of precedent until you're looking at cases of much smaller companies doing much narrower things, which leaves plenty of room for the judge to "distinguish" them (i.e. do whatever they want in this case). > In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It seems like a major difference here isn't just that they won't deal with competitors, it's that they don't allow their customers to deal with competitors. This is quite stark when you're looking at their products -- someone who owns an iPhone can't reasonably modify or replace the system software to integrate a competing payments system (or, for that matter, app store) because Apple doesn't allow it even on a piece of hardware they sold and is now owned by someone else. You could make that argument for services, i.e. iMessage, but there are at least two other ways to get at that. First, iMessage is tied to their other offerings and so then you get them for the tying. Second, maybe routing something with a network effect through a centralized service is a different kind of thing than refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you don't have a monopoly on delivery service. Maybe it's more like refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you do have a monopoly on delivery service. > I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Congress pretty much authorized the courts to do whatever they want on this. The real question is what they want to do. You have to go back to Congress if they do something dumb.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 3y ago
> While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. I would not be surprised if they are trying to push the envelope of the current law is fine and I think that's fine. If you're unwilling to try to enforce unless you're 100% sure no judge would ever disagree with you, you're going to let people get away with a LOT of stuff by default that could very well be found to be covered by existing statute. And the failures could galvanize additional legislation more than doing nothing.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The big issue is Apple air tags. They work so well because people own lots of iPhones, and there is nothing really equivalent that uses all Android phones to do the same. Air tags pretty much lock you into the Apple ecosystem given how useful they are, and the lack of an alternative from the competition.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Why is this Apple's fault that they've built their devices from the ground up to work seamlessly together and other companies haven't? A competitor is free to make their own version of air tags that work with Android phones.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    The only reason AirTags work is because every iPhone runs code that tracks them. There are thousands of different models of Android phones, 99% of them have software that will never see another update again. How exactly do you add code that detects "their own version of air tags that work with Android phones"? The answer is you don't. AirTags took off because Apple had the ability to retroactively make every existing iPhone start to track them. No other company can pull that off.
    - pas 3y ago
      hm, they are BLE devices right? google can push out google play services updates to a lot of those phones anytime. it doesn't seem inconceivable. (recent nothing os update has some feature related to this, I have no idea if it's from stock android or not though.)
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        I don't think it would be totally impossible for Google to try this, but even the percentage of phones that have functioning GMS (i.e. on a recent enough Android version, receiving updates, and even having GMS installed in the first place) is far lower than the percentage of iPhones that are still receiving updates. Sure, most phones you can buy in the US will have GMS, but part of the benefit of AirTags is being able to track things through, say, China, and you could be somewhat hard-pressed to find a chinese Android with GMS. Meanwhile, all sorts of people all around the world want the latest iPhone, and every single latest iPhone in the world gets the latest updates.
ClassyJacket 3y ago
>investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands This is such a misleading way to phrase it. The Apple Watch only works with the iPhone (unfortunately. I would buy one if it worked on Android. Android watches are universally hopeless) If you don't have it paired to an iPhone, an Apple Watch won't even tell you the time.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago

I really hope Big Tech, including but not limited to Apple, gets broken up, they've gotten too big and have expanded far beyond tech, and I'm not sure we're all the better for it.

s3r3nity 3y ago
>I really hope Big Tech, including but not limited to Apple, gets broken up, they've gotten too big and have expanded far beyond tech, and I'm not sure we're all the better for it. Many of our retirement and wealth portfolios would beg to differ. S&P minus FAANG is virtually flat for the past few years (and depending upon which estimate you observe, likely negative if you factor inflation); almost all of the growth in the S&P 500 is from tech growth.
- checker 3y ago
  "Too big to fail"
- pixl97 3y ago
  All hail Moloch, who giveth and taketh our money under threat of distress if we do not offer all to him.
  - ianbutler 3y ago
    What’s your preferred alternative?
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Not financial capitalism?
- waynesonfire 3y ago
  > S&P minus FAANG is virtually flat for the past few years I don't know if this is true or not; but regardless, that's the whole point of this. The US won't be moving to file sweeping anti-trust cases against failing companies. We need more competitors, we need more diverse tech companies. A few large players that are siphoning all the value and dictating how technology evolves isn't optimal for the things I value. The growth will happen regardless, don't worry.

s3r3nity 3y ago

>Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. I'm suspicious that much of this is a ploy to weaken the tight security controls & encrypted data so that the US government (and potentially other governments?) can get easier access to surveillance data on US citizens.

paxys 3y ago
There are dozens of messaging apps out there with equal or better encryption than iMessage and also multi OS support. Vendor lock-in doesn't mean better security.
- wharvle 3y ago
  Quality of security aside, I'd be curious which encrypted messaging apps have the highest quantity of (encrypted—some support unencrypted, also, as Messages does) messages flowing through them in a given day—for, say, US users, as that's the jurisdiction of the government whose motives are being questioned, so seems the most relevant. One can imagine a case of a particular app drawing law enforcement's and/or intelligence services' ire not because it's the best, but because they're seeing a lot more conversations they wish they could read, but can't (easily), going over that channel than any other single one.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    I'd say Facebook Messenger is probably near the top of that in the US now that they've defaulted to end to end encryption.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
apapapa 3y ago
Apple is a joke when it comes to security... They are all speech.

jeffbee 3y ago

As a person who uses almost all of Apple's hardware, and almost all of Google's services, and none of Apple's services, the behavior that always strikes me as the most harmful to consumers is the constant nagging of users about the intended behavior of their chosen third-party apps, while their operating systems remain silent about the exact same behaviors of first-party apps. For example iOS has several silent default-opt-in location data features that I do not want or need, and at the same time it regularly tries to trick me into disabling location features of Google Maps, that I've used daily since 2005. The other issue is the constant nagging, that can't be disabled, about iCloud backups being full, when in fact I never wanted them in the first place and as far as I can tell or recall they stole that data from me.

kstrauser 3y ago
> it regularly tries to trick me into disabling location features of Google Maps, that I've used daily since 2005. Citation needed. I periodically get popups for even Apple's own first-party apps asking if I still want to share location. "Do you still want Weather to know where you are?" Yes, I do, because I use it. You may very well be getting the same message for Google apps, but that's not special anti-Google behavior. > The other issue is the constant nagging, that can't be disabled, about iCloud backups being full Then turn off iCloud backups. It's an optional feature that makes sense to be on by default, but that's trivially easy to disable if you don't want it.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  > Citation needed. Apple launders the location features of Apple Maps through platform location service controls. iOS will never, ever prompt you about Maps' own background location access. The controls for Maps' background location access are buried in System Services, and are defaulted on, and do not produce the tracking nag. The fact that the first-party Weather app is not also immune to the nag doesn't seem material. The whole situation is in stark contrast to Android, where if you throw the phone in a drawer for a few months the platform will automatically revoke all of the privacy allowances of Google's own apps. Which is maybe not great, since resuming the use of such a device is sort of impossible (it will prompt you for shit like whether Phone is allowed to record audio), but you can't say it's anti privacy.

shmerl 3y ago

Good, very long overdue. Blast them for forbidding competing browsers on iOS.

kevingadd 3y ago
I really feel like the browser ban is one of their biggest unforced errors here. They could have utilized their discretion to ban Chrome[1] while allowing alternative browser engines like Firefox or classic Opera onto their store, which would have helped Mozilla compete against Google and slowed down their eventual takeover of the entire internet. Instead they decided to go it alone, making iOS a Safari-only territory, which helped establish Chrome's dominance due to their shared technical foundations and common nonstandard features. 1: There's a bunch of stuff the commercial Google Chrome does that they could easily ban through store policy. They could also just arbitrarily refuse to approve it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > which would have helped Mozilla compete against Google and slowed down their eventual takeover of the entire internet Why would one assume this when Chrome took over on non iOS and ipadOS machines? > Instead they decided to go it alone, making iOS a Safari-only territory, which helped establish Chrome's dominance due to their shared technical foundations and common nonstandard features. Logically, the fact that the only place Chrome did not dominate is iOS and ipadOS means making those Safari only is the only thing that stopped Chrome’s dominance.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    The only browsers on iOS are webkit browsers, and when Chrome was new it was also webkit. Because of this, the ideal target for a web developer became webkit, including webkit-only features and workarounds for webkit bugs. This automatically pushed Firefox, Opera, Edge, IE out of the picture, because we basically had an emerging browser monoculture already. If the people who were already using Firefox could have kept using it on their new phone or tablet as well, syncing bookmarks and history, that would have probably slowed its defeat a little bit and perhaps slowed Chrome's growth. We eventually got a Firefox-branded wrapper around Safari's webviews but Apple's architecture guarantees that those webview frames will always be inferior to Safari. Safari being available on Windows might've helped too, but I understand why Apple chose not to do that.

Dioxide2119 3y ago

> The company has previously said that its practices do not violate antitrust law. In defending its business practices against critics in the past, Apple said that its “approach has always been to grow the pie” and “create more opportunities not just for our business, but for artists, creators, entrepreneurs and every ‘crazy one’ with a big idea.” Tell that to Beeper Mini who had the crazy idea of growing the pie of iMessage users, following the original protocol seamlessly through adversarial interoperability. It is quite debatable over whether Apple should be forced to allow another company to make money using adverse interoperability and server runtime costs etc. In the same way it was quite debatable over whether IBM should be forced to allow another company (Compaq) to make money using adverse interoperability and reverse engineering IBM's BIOS. I'd argue that the second debate was settled in the right way, and am partial to Apple being forced to interoperate as well. If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. Pidgin / Blackberry Inbox / WP7 homescreen / Matrix bridges and other services that unify incoming and outgoing text and binary messages for 1x1/group chats should be table stakes, not selling points. Email and IM, whether on PC, mobile, XR, whatever, vendor agnostic!

zug_zug 3y ago
> If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. I think this would create a whole new generation of tech startups in a stalled/captured industry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> If you run a service with more than, say, 5% of a market, and that market has a network lock-in effect, you should eventually be considered a public service and have to interoperate. I would love to see iMessage available to people not on Apple devices. However, I am not enthusiastic about a government defining what "interoperate" means in general. By way of example, I can think of many definitions of "interoperate" that would prevent the use of end-to-end encryption, or prevent upgrading the protocol and not supporting old versions, or prevent fixing security issues because some third-party client was relying on the insecure behavior, or prevent setting requirements on acceptable client behavior... I want interoperability. I don't want to end up in a world in which, once you get large enough, it's impossible to innovate without slowing down and waiting for the slowest and most recalcitrant/adversarial folks who want to interoperate with you to catch up.

eruleman 3y ago

The US should focus on breaking up the app store duopoly that charges 30% on all digital items. Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut! Apple & Google don’t have to pay the app store tax & have products that compete with books, audiobooks, Spotify etc — this is the most blatant antitrust issue. I hope the US lawsuit leads with this.

whatever1 3y ago
And they definitely increase the prices for the customers. Apps charge you more when you buy from the app/play store vs if you buy from the internet.
darklion 3y ago
> Apps are not even allowed to link out to their website or tell users that Apple/Google is taking a 30% cut! What business in their right mind would want to sell or stock a product that comes with a label that says, in effect, “Don’t spend your money here, go somewhere else”?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here.
  - darklion 3y ago
    > Is my phone a business, or hardware that I own? That seems to be in contention here. It's not in contention: it's both of those things. It's just that some people want it to be exclusively one of those things.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Why should the business value of my smartphone impede it's functionality as a computer?
- 3y ago

oldpersonintx 3y ago

[dead]

flax 3y ago

About time. Apple has been getting a free pass on the exact same things that Microsoft was slapped down for. Notably: unchangeable default apps (browser, email, text messaging in particular). I don't believe that they necessarily are violating antitrust by choosing to make imessage or apple watch ios only, but it would be obviously better for consumers in my opinion if they were more open. One aspect which keeps annoying me is how hostile Apple is to developers that want to use anything other than Apple hardware to publish on the app store. The requirement to use xcode, and the fact that xcode only runs on Mac means they are leveraging their control of ios app stores to force hardware sales. I was particularly annoyed to find that even if I have a compiled .ipa file, the app store requires xcode to even upload it. It's a file upload! This has been working cross platform since before the advent of the web.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Apple has been getting a free pass on the exact same things that Microsoft was slapped down for. Notably: unchangeable default apps (browser, email, text messaging in particular). I think this is due to regulators not understanding that phones are computers. Apple definitely lets you change the default apps in macOS. If it didn't, that would be a problem. But until recently, both Google and Apple were given an exception on mobile computing, i.e. tablets, phones.
- ericmay 3y ago
  I think it's less to do with regulators not understanding that phones are computers and more to do with genuine disagreement over what constitutes a computer and even more so what societal and economic effects regulation might have on these changes. For example, if the United States says that the iPhone is an arbitrary computer and as such is subject to thus and thus regulations, why wouldn't that include other arbitrary computation devices like the Nintendo Switch, Steamdeck, TV, or Alexa device? I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that would say this definition stops at "phones and tablets". So now you're not just regulating phones and "opening them up" and instead you're regulating broad swaths of trade with not just American companies but global companies as well and that has much more important considerations than whether or not you can install a 3rd-party app store or access a manufacturer-only API. Even if you are just regulating phones and tablets, you still have to consider more than the American companies.

eli 3y ago

Google and Apple simply shouldn't be allowed to operate exclusive App Stores on their devices.

dazilcher 3y ago
Google's app store is not exclusive.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  It is not exclusive if you are tech literate. But then again, Google paid billions to manufacturers so their store was the only option preinstalled in their devices, which meant that the vast majority of users would just stick with it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsnell 3y ago
    The majority of Android phones sold in the US have multiple app stores on them.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      If you mean the Galaxy Store, it requires a Samsung account to be used. Google positioned itself so it is the de facto default for pretty much every Android phone.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        I don't really understand your point. Doesn't basically every app store in the world on any platform require an account? It seems like a fairly basic requirement for a functioning system (people need to be able to reinstall the apps they bought on a new device). And if having an app store that doesn't require an account is actually somehow desireable, is your suggestion that Google somehow strong-armed Samsung into requiring an account rather than going with the ostensibly superior option of not requiring accounts? Or is the suggestion that the store should be using some other account than a Samsung account, but they weren't allowed to do that.

AlbertCory 3y ago

Apple's been a walled garden since the early 80's. They let vendors make Mac-compatibles and then screwed them, IIRC. They've always preferred to have their own everything until absolutely forced to open up, e.g. USB ports. They had their own networking architecture in the 90's (AppleTalk). Does that mean it's OK? Definitely not. But I think a general mandate of interoperability would be preferable to any point solutions. It's not clear how a court could rule that way, so it might require legislation.

zozbot234 3y ago
The MS antitrust settlement included a "general mandate of interop" wrt. the issues that were raised there, such as web browsers as part of the OS and the use of private API's.
CharlesW 3y ago
> They've always preferred to have their own everything until absolutely forced to open up, e.g. USB ports. You must not have been alive at the time. Apple's early adoption of USB is why USB became the dominant peripheral interface. People were quite upset to have lost their legacy ports in 1998. And of course, Apple's contributions to and early support for USB-C were also industry-leading. Apple has played a key role in creating and/or mainstreaming many standards: FireWire, Thunderbolt, Wi-Fi, ISOBMFF/MPEG-4, AAC, Mini-SIM/Nano-SIM, and I'm sure more I'm forgetting.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  [flagged]
- wharvle 3y ago
  > And of course, Apple's contributions to and early support for USB-C were also industry-leading. And still on the... bleeding edge. Most of the USB peripherals one can go buy right off the shelves at, say, Target are still USB-A.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago

jcomis 3y ago

I know it seems absurd, but as an android user I really do get cut out of group message convos due to not being on imessage. I realize many other countries use whatsapp or whatever, but my social circle in the US explicitly does not and won't. Even my parents have issues and frequently try to send me large videos. I've had to to completely decouple my phone number from my imessage email to be able to chat with people. Frequently things get messed up because iOS will always default to imessage over sms, so if your primary way to talk is via sms, but you do have an imessage and the person has both in your contact card you don't actually get anything on your phone. I can't really see how it isn't anticompetitive.

hangonhn 3y ago
As an iPhone user, I find it super annoying too. I love my iPhone and Apple products in general but it's not fair to expect all my friends to be the same. One of my friends has an iPhone but turned off iMessage out of an abundance of caution. As a consumer, I would really like it if non-iMessage user can get the same experience as all the iMessage users. We know there is a way. The standard wasn't great when it was new but it has matured a lot. I would really like it if Apple supported it. Its behavior seems needlessly antagonistic.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  > One of my friends has an iPhone but turned off iMessage out of an abundance of caution In my experience, iMessages have far greater delivery reliability than SMS text messages. I've actually gotten into inadvertent fights with people over undelivered SMS text messages.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The issue isn't that Apple should be using SMS in particular -- SMS sucks. But they should either use some standardized protocol, or publish a protocol standard for iMessage. Someone willing to do the work should be capable of producing an interoperable implementation.

diziet 3y ago

https://archive.is/F3LN0 https://archive.is/F3LN0

neonate 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20240105204348/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-apple-lawsuit-us.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240105204348/https://www.nytim...

flenserboy 3y ago

This seems to be far more about breaking security barriers than helping consumers.

kevingadd 3y ago
If you need anti-competitive tactics or the freedom to violate the law in order to protect your customers I'm not sure you're very good at protecting your customers. And even so, why should I trust you to use your "i'm violating the law for a good reason" blank check responsibly in the future?

stevenjgarner 3y ago

It will be interesting to see any growth of short activity against APPL with this release by NY Times. This does not seem to have had a significant hit yet, as the put-call ratio for APPL is within its normal range? https://www.alphaquery.com/stock/AAPL/volatility-option-statistics/30-day/put-call-ratio-volume https://www.alphaquery.com/stock/AAPL/volatility-option-stat... https://marketchameleon.com/Overview/AAPL/VolatilitySkew/ https://marketchameleon.com/Overview/AAPL/VolatilitySkew/

barelysapient 3y ago

With enough litigation and legislation, we can make Apple products as amazing as the other competitors in the marketplace.

stephenr 3y ago
> as amazing as the other competitors in the marketplace Do you mean worse?
- m463 3y ago
  if you can install whatever app you please without asking permission, you would have a better platform. (I would love to firewall my phone - especially against apple)
- smoldesu 3y ago
  That's contingent on how Apple implements the features. When Apple works with standards and local computing, we get great user-respecting software like the OG iTunes and QuickTime. When Apple works against standards and local computing, we get headscratchers like Apple Music and AppleTV.
- zappb 3y ago
  I believe that’s the joke, yeah.
CharlesW 3y ago
Yes, government's definitely the answer here. Once the government forces Apple to open iMessage, then competitors (RCS, Signal, Telegraph, etc.) can all just die in peace, making life simpler for everyone.

ckbishop 3y ago

The fact that they do not have a platform agnostic version of iMessage -- even if it requires 2FA from an Apple device like the $1200 iPhone that I was forced to buy -- is utter bullshit. I had to convert my friends one-by-one over to Telegram because I prefer Windows/Linux PCs and I don't really check my phone that much. I'm knee-deep in Apple's ecosystem, because I like all of their other products, but I can't use iMessage because I prefer to use a PC. This has been a thorn in my side for years. There can be only one reason that iMessage is available on Apple devices exclusively and it's at least antitrust adjacent. For this alone, I hope they get fined a gigantic amount of money.

tiltowait 3y ago
> I had to convert my friends one-by-one over to Telegram because I prefer Windows/Linux PCs and I don't really check my phone that much. I'm sorry, but this sounds pretty obnoxious as presented. You made your friends adopt a new messaging service because you don't want to check your phone?
- dqv 3y ago
  On one hand it's "obnoxious" to ask people to switch to another messaging app, on the other hand, the solution if you want people to not use iMessage is to "simply" use a different messaging app. But if it's obnoxious, it doesn't really seem that simple.
- ckbishop 3y ago
  How did you parse forced adoption out of that sentence? Heh. For most of them, all it took was me telling them it would make my life easier. For the others, the animated middle finger stickers.

iamthirsty 3y ago

I don't see Apple ever capitulating to opening iMessage unless absolutely forced, which will take a while even if it succeeds. Almost everyone I know (less than 30 and outside of tech, in the south Florida area to be specific) uses an iPhone, specifically for iMessage. If you don't have an iPhone, people will avoid talking to you over text. Your social standing will also take a hit. While I personally think it would be cool, since it would basically open the door to buying an Android phone Apple is not going to let it happen voluntarily.

kderbyma 3y ago
and til that people are living sad realities....won't talk to someone because of android....wow....you obviously don't know intelligent people haha
- windowsrookie 3y ago
  Android is not the reason they won't message you, The lack of iMessage is. Nobody I know cares what kind of phone you have. But they do care if you have iMessage or not. Lack of iMessage essentially breaks group chats. So if you don't have iMessage, and everyone else does, you will intentionally not be added to the chat. Lack of iMessage also means sending videos to you is going to take additional steps compared to other iMessage users. So they likely just won't send you the video. Over time, the additional steps required to include a non-iMessage user, means you will receive less messages from your friends. I don't like the situation, but that's how it is. If the majority of your friends/contacts use iMessage but you don't, then you will be excluded from chats. Not because you use Android, but because it is just more difficult to include you without iMessage.
gwright 3y ago
> Your social standing will also take a hit. I can wrap my head around the usability and interoperability arguments but this idea that "social standing" is contingent on iOS vs Android just seems alien to me. Are there really people that adjust their social circles based on what type of phone someone is using?

saddayiguess 3y ago

[dead]

nova22033 3y ago

Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands Apple is under no obligation to make sure that the Apple watch works well with an android phone. Unless they have specific evidence that Apple is doing something to explicitly block non-iOS devices, this is weak.

matwood 3y ago
Yeah, if that's really what they are looking at, then it's a very weak case. Next up, why won't my AirPod case charge my Google Buds?
neogodless 3y ago
An Apple Watch does not pair with anything but an iPhone. You cannot call the product a "smart watch." All you can all it is an iPhone accessory. Let's check in with Apple's marketing department[0] > Apple Watch can do what your other devices can’t because it’s on your wrist. When you wear it, you get a fitness partner that measures all the ways you move, meaningful health insights, innovative safety features, and a connection to the people you care about most. So how many of those things work without a paired iPhone? Even Family Setup (which requires at least one family member to own an iPhone) doesn't give the watch full functionality. > Not all features will be available if the Apple Watch is set up through Family Setup From a third party[1] > In short, anyone can wear an Apple Watch, including Android phone users. However, the reality is that anyone looking to have a proper smartwatch experience should stay within their own OS lanes. Android users should use Wear OS or third-party platform watches, iPhone users should use Apple Watches, and that's what it all really boils down to. [0] https://www.apple.com/watch/why-apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/watch/why-apple-watch/ [1] https://screenrant.com/apple-watch-android-phone-pairing-compatibility-issues-explained/ https://screenrant.com/apple-watch-android-phone-pairing-com...
m463 3y ago
They seem to be giving preferential treatment to the apple watch: "Users of Garmin devices have complained in Apple’s support forums about being unable to use their watches to reply to certain text messages from their iPhones or tweak the notifications they receive from the iPhone that they have connected to their watch."

MichaelTheGeek 3y ago

How will this help.

chewmieser 3y ago

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-apple-lawsuit-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LU0.n3n5.g0j0cTKEkpbT&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-appl...

theLastOfCats 3y ago

Folks, just use Telegram

turquoisevar 3y ago

If I would get a dollar every time the media reports antitrust action is coming for Apple and people who insist Apple is “going to get rekt,” I could buy up 100% of the Apple stock and turn the iMessage bubbles purple and make iMessage only accessible to me and a select few so everyone on earth could complain forever how they’re being excluded. At this point, let’s get it over with. Let the DOJ sue them with 1200 pages of alleged violations, everything they could possibly think of and then some, and have the courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS, decide once and for all if Apple is violating antitrust laws and what, if anything, needs to be done to remedy it. They could pull Apple apart into 20 companies for all I care. Let’s just get it over with so we know, once and for all if Apple was naughty in the eyes of the law or not. But somehow, I suspect we will never get this sweet release because the next (and already held) debate will then be about how there needs to be new legislation to make them naughty in the eyes of the law, even though there’s no constitutional way of doing so in such a way that it would only affect Apple and not the latest hot startup on Silicon Valley.