73 ms·

U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

• for1nner 3y ago
  Inevitable settlement with no real change in the market dynamics, or am I too down on the U.S. Justice system?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• justrealist 3y ago
  IANAL but it's baffling to me that this one took so long. This has been the clearest-cut abuse of monopoly in tech for a long time. Why did they waste time trying to convince judges that "free" could be monopoly pricing, when this was in broad daylight?
  • Arkanum 3y ago
    Isn't part of the problem how US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs? In the case of Apple's monopoly, its not clear how you would measure that let alone prove it to a court.
    • Jensson 3y ago
      Consumer harm is pretty easy to argue, Apple doesn't tax macos programs but it does tax ios programs. That argument results in billions of dollars of consumer harm. There are many arguments against that view as well, but I just wanted to show that it is easy to argue for consumer harm.
      • Arkanum 3y ago
        I don't think that's enough though is it? To my mind the strong counter argument is that consumers are choosing to pay higher prices for "higher quality" (i know that often not the case with the scams on the app store) apps and if they want cheaper apps they are free to switch to android.
    • beeboobaa3 3y ago
      Here is a recent example of consumer harm posted to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39773736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39773736 > I am curious though, why is the iOS version €4.99 but the Android version is free ? I've seen this a lot actually and have always wondered, I figured it might just be Apple's annual developer license fee but not sure. Apple users are being forced to pay more for equivalent software because of Apple's tax.
      • Arkanum 3y ago
        Oh 100% I agree. My question/point is about how the US system treats monopolistic practices, and I worry that actually that example works in Apple's favour as they would likely argue that consumers are free to switch to android if they want cheaper apps.
        • beeboobaa3 3y ago
          If apple were to pay for the android replacement phone & perform the transfer of personal data to the new device then that might be a valid argument. As it is they do their best to lock users in to prevent them from ever switching.
    • pvg 3y ago
      US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs? This is more a matter of interpretation, policy and practice rather than statute and these things can change over time. The interpretation you're describing was itself an innovation at one time.
    • Scubabear68 3y ago
      “Your honor, my family has to suffer the Green Bubble when chatting with iPhone friends. This has caused us irreparable mental harm and anguish”.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      IANAL but that has been the modern interpretation whereas in the past that wasn't the case. Standard Oil was good for the consumer for example.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • D13Fd 3y ago
    How is this even a monopoly? That's like saying "Walmart has a monopoly on selling products at its stores." There are thousands of competing phones with their own software and app stores.
    • lokar 3y ago
      They have a remarkably durable market share. Some people are in effect forced to choose apple since apps they need (in some cases medical apps!) are iPhone only as the seller just does not bother with android.
    • kyledrake 3y ago
      There's approximately 2 app stores, I wouldn't call that competition. Even in the most egregious days of Microsoft's OS monopoly, you could still choose to install software. Apple makes it basically impossible to do this outside of the context of their app store, which they charge heavily for access to and have no qualms removing or preventing apps that compete with its own. If this doesn't constitute monopolistic behavior, the bar is so high I'm not sure anything would ever qualify for it.
    • ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      There is one competing phone platform with a store that has conveniently decided on identical fees. It's a duopoly. But also one where you can only shop with one of them. The comparison is this: Walmart and Target are the only two stores that exist. They've also basically agreed to set the same prices on everything. And once you buy from Target once, you must buy everything else from Target too, and if you want to switch to Walmart, you have to throw out everything you bought at Target.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • justrealist 3y ago
      If Walmart had a 60% market share then yes the JD would be on their balls for store brands.
• _chimmy_chonga_ 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20240321143739/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240321143739/https://www.nytim...
  • _chimmy_chonga_ 3y ago
    well, it still has the login stuff but just further down. -_-
    • SSLy 3y ago
      https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/ https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  Tim Sweeney didn't get it done, so the US government will pick up the slack. I imagine they were waiting to see if Epic won before trying the case themselves, but Biden may have wanted to make sure it got moving before the election may take it out of his hands. One of the most impressive successes in Epic's cases was just dragging the evidence into the open. A lot of illegal behavior is hidden in confidential agreements mostly to keep them out of regulators' view for as long as possible.
  • dagmx 3y ago
    This case has very little overlap with the Epic suite other than one of the defendants being the same. I’m also curious what illegal confidential behaviour you believe was found in the Epic case? The one count that the judge found in favour of Epic didn’t require any form of discovery as it was based on public policy.
• gnicholas 3y ago
  > The Justice Department, which began its investigation into Apple in 2019, chose to build a broader and more ambitious case than any other regulator has brought against the company. As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet. FWIW, I am a former lawyer and spent a little time doing antitrust law for the CA DOJ, a long time ago. Just my two cents.
  • ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty conclusively proving... it's all about collecting the rent.
    • mjhagen 3y ago
      > it's all about collecting the rent Which is not illegal.
      • trothamel 3y ago
        Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?
      • immibis 3y ago
        It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.
    • bink 3y ago
      Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing. It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.
• jms703 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• lokar 3y ago
  As an iPhone user I am willing (and believe I am) paying Apple a premium for a well curated and reviewed App Store (vs android). I just wish they would stop “double dipping “ and charging far in excess of their costs (and in excess of reasonable profit) to the app sellers.
  • miguelxt 3y ago
    You should be allowed to stay inside Apple's walled garden while the rest of users should be allowed to leave it whenever they want (at the very minimum at their own risk).
    • s3r3nity 3y ago
      > ...rest of users should be allowed to leave it whenever they want (at the very minimum at their own risk). You can, though? Just go buy an Android. There are a billion different options there. Heck, you can also still buy old-school type flip phones at Walmart.
      • skyyler 3y ago
        You know that they meant there should be an option to enable software sources other than Apple’s App Store.
      • HDThoreaun 3y ago
        If I switch to android I lose the apps I paid for and my ability to text American iPhone users is completely hamstringed
        • sedivy94 3y ago
          Completely hamstringed? SMS is the standard, and yes it sucks horribly. Elevating the experience with additional software features and cloud services on one platform does not immediately entitle all smartphone users on the globe to the same experience. Google made a push for RCS, botched it, service providers either didn’t adopt it or only partially implemented it. That was upsetting to me. Do we sue Google and service providers as well? I do agree that losing app licenses is upsetting. But this is no different than the licensing model for many softwares in the desktop market (e.g. per-user and per-install licenses).
• FredPret 3y ago
  Perhaps a hardware engineer can help me out here, but I don't think Apple makes an unreasonable margin on the iPhone. Overall they make 26% [0]. Really quite reasonable considering highly-developed proprietary software is bundled with the device They make a lot of money because they sell * a lot * of iPhones. [0] https://valustox.com/AAPL https://valustox.com/AAPL
  • lokar 3y ago
    And then, they make much much better margins on the App Store.
    • FredPret 3y ago
      You're right - I didn't think of the App Store. That's a proper monopoly. "Services" are 23b out of 120b in total sales for them last quarter, but at a much higher margin. It cost them 6b to provide those services, but 58b to make 96b worth of hardware. Looks like 1/3 of their gross comes from services. Only some of the services are App Store - some of that money is from Apple TV and iCloud storage. App Store income looks to be app fees and also advertising.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • flutas 3y ago
        > and iCloud storage. Which is itself another area where Apple forces consumers to use it. You can't back up your iPhone to Google Drive or Dropbox. So here's your 5GB of space for any and all Apple devices you own, make it last or pay us monthly.
  • snakeyjake 3y ago
    For practically any hardware startup if their margins aren't >33% they will fail to scale, wither on the vine, and die. My employer makes space hardware and our overhead R&D expenses are so high that if we made 26% margin we would be bankrupt in a year. So I think ~30% is probably a minimum floor to shoot for. Just looked it up and Samsung Electronics has a margin that has ranged from 30% to 46% over the last couple of years. I think the majority of people on HN are software guys who are completely oblivious to the challenges of building physical items that exist in the real world which is why your comment is downvoted. That and beyond its stated purpose it seems that HN exists to allow people to complain about Apple in a public forum. What makes all of this so strange is that large software vendors often have astronomical profit margins that hardware companies can only dream of. SAP (~70%) MSFT (~70%) TEAM (>80%) https://ycharts.com/companies/SAP/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/SAP/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/TEAM/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/TEAM/gross_profit_margin Perhaps it is good that software companies have such high margins because if they didn't HN would be flooded with stories about how every company they get hired at goes out of business and management is clueless.
• smoldesu 3y ago
  How do you think Apple will differentiate their case from United States v. Microsoft Corp., where Microsoft was implicated for almost identical monopoly misconduct? The complaint literally says verbatim, "But after launching the iPhone, Apple began stifling the development of cross-platform technologies on the iPhone, just as Microsoft tried to stifle cross-platform technologies on Windows."
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    On the browser front, it’s easy. iPhones have batteries so battery life is a concern. That’s why Apple treats them differently than Macintosh computers, which you can choose your own default browser engine for.
    • smoldesu 3y ago
      That's a reason someone might prefer Apple's first-party browser, sure. How does it justify banning third-party browser engines though? Are we ruling out the possibility that competitive browsers could offer better battery performance, too?
      • gnicholas 3y ago
        The argument would be that they didn’t want iPhone users, especially with early models, to end up choosing other engines that were much worse on battery life and that would hurt the image of the iPhone. Back then, there was no battery settings where you could see what was eating your battery. It was all opaque and could make people think the device had lousy battery life. And yeah, I think it’s unlikely someone could have made a more efficient browser than Apple since they didn’t give public access to all of their functionalities. And that might have been partly for security reasons, if there were less-secure aspects to hidden functions, for example. The counter-argument is that they should have opened everything up, but Apple will say they were going as fast as they could responsibly go, and that’s why there were limitations that have been relaxed over time.
        • 3y ago
• boringg 3y ago
  It looked surprisingly pretty weak to my non lawyer eyes. I mean I fully understand that apple business practices are building a moat through highly integrated software but its almost a feature for their system and you buy it knowing that. It feels like it goes back to Android vs Apple approach to their ecosystem.
  • ethbr1 3y ago
    > that apple business practices are building a moat through highly integrated software To me, this is the crux of modern antitrust, and the EU absolutely got it correct at a high level. In simplest form -- doing certain things as an almost-monopoly and/or extremely large business should be illegal, while doing them as a smaller company should not be. The scale of global businesses, in low-competition industries, allows them to engineer moats that are deeply injurious to fair competition, to their own profit and the detriment of everyone else. > you buy it knowing that. I think it's debatable whether the average iPhone customer buys it, knowing it allows Apple to heavily tax all AppStore developers.
    • ecshafer 3y ago
      I don't consider myself an Apple fan, but Apple users definitely buy into the idea that "it just works" compared to Android or Windows, which the highly integrated software is a key component of.
      • Y-bar 3y ago
        I’m an Apple user (own iPad, iPhone, Mac Studio, among other devices) since the 90:s and I buy into that. But I _also_ think Apple has grown way too much into a bully and way too much into disallowing third party developers to do things Apple allows themselves to do with competing apps. The “it just works” should be allowed to extend into the entire ecosystem.
        • skydhash 3y ago
          Same, I like Apple hardware and while the OS experience has suffered recently, it’s great as a tool to get things done. But making Music.app and other services part of the ecosystem has not been a great move. Some things should allow for interoperability so that the user can make his choices. I think Apple has been too heavily handed in imposing its services to users.
• bigtones 3y ago
  Here is the non-paywall link to the full NYT article I shared: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.eU0.rOGs.FT-h0cSMdBpB&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-laws...
  • colpabar 3y ago
    https://archive.is/SYlk5 https://archive.is/SYlk5
  • Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Direct link https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-antitrust-complaint.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-an...
    • dublinben 3y ago
      Here it is from Justice.gov as well: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
• rvz 3y ago
  Finally. It was about time that this would happen. Google got one anti-trust lawsuit, Meta should get another one (by owning too many social networks with billions of users each) and after the failed anti-trust lawsuit that Epic tried to sue Apple under, this time the DOJ is finally going after Apple. Good. I'm really looking forward to the United States v. Apple Inc. anti-trust lawsuit that will actually make some changes to stop the 30% commission scam once and for all. After that, now do Microsoft (again)
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • jwells89 3y ago
    Google could use another pass to put a stop to their aggressive cross-promotion of Chrome, which is difficult if not impossible to compete with given how many Google products people use on a daily basis. Every time I visit Google, YouTube, etc with a fresh non-Chrome browser profile there’s a barrage of, “Download Chrome!” popups to dismiss, not to mention how Google iOS apps use link taps as opportunities to promote Chrome or all the random third party Windows software that has Chrome bundled with it.
  • nottorp 3y ago
    > that will actually make some changes to stop the 30% commission scam once and for all. No. The change they should make is to allow sideloading. I don't care if the developer pays less than 30% when Apple can still censor what I run on my phone.
    • screamingninja 3y ago
      > I don't care if the developer pays I think you, as the consumer, are the one who pays.
      • nottorp 3y ago
        > I think you, as the consumer, are the one who pays. And you somehow think reducing the commission to, say, 5%, will reduce prices?
• newbie578 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Nifty3929 3y ago
  Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly. There are many non-apple phone options that many consumers easily avail themselves of. And at least one other OS choice as well. All of these are fully supported by the entire ecosystem of telcos. Seems like bullying to score political points to me.
  • jqpabc123 3y ago
    Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. This case is about the US marketplace, globally is irrelevant. And it is about more than just marketshare. Apple's tactics restrict the entire marketplace --- not just Apple captives. Whole classes of apps are simply not practically possible on Android without paying monetary tribute to Apple. For example, universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper. Few people will use a messaging app if it can't communicate with 60% of their friends. And the only to make this happen is to pay Apple.
    • Someone 3y ago
      Huh? Don’t WhatsApp, Signal, etc. work in the USA? Or does anybody pay for them?
      • s17n 3y ago
        In the US you can actually lose relationships if you don't have imessage. None of the other apps matter.
        • crop_rotation 3y ago
          The fact that people are shallow is not a reason to break up companies. Some social circles will kick you out if you don't wear luxury clothes, but you don't see the government forcing those companies to lower prices.
          • 3y ago
• Scubabear68 3y ago
  The point the suit misses is that one can simply buy an Android phone if they like. Millions of people literally do every year. Choice already exists.
  • Workaccount2 3y ago
    If you want to have a functional social circle in the US, choice doesn't really exist.
    • overstay8930 3y ago
      If your friends won't talk to you because you have an Android phone, you don't actually have any friends.
      • Workaccount2 3y ago
        Friends will still talk to you. But they won't include you in group messages because apple purposely sabotages group messages with anyone outside the garden. Unsurprisingly, a lot social planning and banter happens in those group messages.
    • nottorp 3y ago
      I'm sure you've seen this before, but only the US uses text messages any more. The rest of the world is on cross platform apps and couldn't care less what their friends type from.
      • Workaccount2 3y ago
        This lawsuit pertains to the US only... Also, most of the US doesn't use text messages either, they use platform dependent iMessage. Hence the lock in.
        • nottorp 3y ago
          They do on average, or they just think they're sending SMS messages that have somehow improved? :)
• oatmeal1 3y ago
  This article actually has the complaint: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/apple-sued-doj-antitrust-monopoly-biden-rcna144424 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/apple-sued-do...
  • KerrAvon 3y ago
    The actual complaint leads off with the iBooks thing, which is a terrible start. Apple lost that case and it shouldn’t have; to this day, that result enables Amazon’s effective monopoly on paid ebooks.
    • ayewo 3y ago
      IIRC, Apple lost that case because they colluded with publishers to raise ebook prices rather than lower them. I think they would have won if they hadn’t colluded to set prices.
• Ezhik 3y ago
  I just want to code and sideload my own silly little apps that aren't important enough to be in the App Store. I can do this on my Mac and it doesn't seem to explode because of it.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • sib 3y ago
    You can also do this for iPhone...
    • Ezhik 3y ago
      The apps need to be refreshed weekly though, requiring me to connect my phone to my Mac. Right now my preferred approach is to make web apps, but Apple already tried to take PWAs away in Europe...
• hbn 3y ago
  If Apple's iPhone "monopoly" is illegal then sue Google for continuing to make Android worse. That's why I switched to iPhone and have no desire to switch back. Apple's crime here is they made a good product and continued to iterate on it, while Google has churned for years, reinventing and rebranding every app, service, and product multiple times a year and only making them worse so POs can get promotions.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • modeless 3y ago
    Google was already found by a jury to have a monopoly on Android app distribution. And if Google has one, Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution is clearly stronger and more harmful in the US given their larger market share and complete prohibition of alternatives.
    • kmeisthax 3y ago
      Google's crime was not having a charismatic leader who could store all the mens rea solely in his own head and then conveniently die before legal scrutiny started over their App Store racket. All of Google's monopolistic intent was conveniently detailed out in loads of e-mails. They were caught failing to retain these e-mails, which in a civil suit where the 5th Amendment does not apply, means the judge gets to just assume the worst (make an "adverse inference"). To make matters worse, Google promised openness and then tried to privately walk it back. Legally, this is admitting that the "Android app distribution market" already exists and is the appropriate market definition for a monopoly claim. It's harder to argue that an "iOS app distribution market" should exist when Apple is using power words like "intellectual property" - aka "we have a right to supracompetitive profits." My personal opinion is that the DOJ probably will succeed where Epic failed, however, because of one other critical thing: standing. Epic did reveal market harms that are almost certainly cognizable under US law, but none of those harms were things Epic was allowed to sue over.
  • kmeisthax 3y ago
    I mean, you're not wrong, but the lawsuit isn't about the quality of the end product. It's about the economic leverage Apple has over other businesses by virtue of owning the chokepoints - i.e. the OS software and the signing keys it trusts. I personally would love to switch to iPhone if Apple wasn't so much of a control freak about the software you run on it.
• retskrad 3y ago
  I've heard all arguments against Apple's practices, and to me, they all basically come down to 'it's unfair that so many people like to live inside the Apple walled garden'. When it comes to the law, Apple is not a monopoly. When it comes to competition on the market, Apple is competing with Android and Windows, and the vast majority of the world's middle and upper class willingly choose Apple products. Even if you literally tried to block people from buying Apple products, people will find a way. So, obviously, Apple customers are having a great time in the Apple warden garden and made Apple a $3T company. But for some reason, other companies and regulators feel like Apple and its customers are having too much fun and need to call the cops on their party. Apple is no different than Google search. Even if you drowned people in search choice popups, 99% of the time people choose Google. Regulators say Google is doing something nefarious when in reality, their product is loved by billions of people. In these situations, like Apple products and Google search, we need to realize that both companies have won the game in certain markets they operate because they made products that people really enjoy using.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • rtkwe 3y ago
    They're not the same. The critical difference is people CAN choose not to use Google Search while keeping their same computer/phone, something you can't do with iPhone and the App Store/Wallet/etc laid out in the article. That's the critical difference that takes it from simply creating a superior product to monopoly, when you use your advantage in one space to lock in customers in a related space.
  • chickenpotpie 3y ago
    I think Google search and apples ecosystem are extremely different. Google search is trivial to leave, any one can switch to bing by just typing a different address in the URL bar. Switching off of apple products is painful and difficult and it's by design. My wife and I switched from iphone to Android over a year ago and we're still fighting with apple to stop routing some text messages to iMessage when it should be going to our phones over sms.
• tiahura 3y ago
  If Apple wanted to, they could drag this out for a decade. In the end, there are probably some details of what they've done with Imessage or the store that you could convince a jury are "unfair." It's good to know that with everything going wrong on this administration’s watch, they’ve got their laser focus on vacuums, video games, and phones.
  • tiahura 3y ago
    Realtime: I'm actually watching the US Attorney General crying about blue bubbles. I need a drink.
    • gnicholas 3y ago
      Their brief will surely cite NYT articles about how some Gen Z kids don't date people with green bubbles.
      • tiahura 3y ago
        That was part of his speech.
        • gnicholas 3y ago
          Wait seriously? I thought you were joking/hyperbolizing. That's hilarious.
          • suddenclarity 3y ago
            The dating argument seems outlandish but it's a legit problem that Android phones ruin group messaging functions that iMessage offers so they'll be left out.
  • lenerdenator 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • metabagel 3y ago
• flenserboy 3y ago
  The government does not want people to have secure devices. Whether or not Apple's are currently secure is not the point; that they are working to make them so is enough to make sure it doesn't happen.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • screamingninja 3y ago
    On the contrary, secure computational infrastructure furthers national security. US happens to have a very large footprint of vulnerable infrastructure as compared to other nations that tightly regulate their Internet. Believe it or not, more secure devices are actually good for the US. There have been several articles and discussions around it and the government has been working closely with the industry for years to improve the security posture.
    • amiantos 3y ago
      There's also a news article every few months talking about how the FBI or some other government agency wants to make encryption illegal and how iMessage is a boon to pedophiles all over the world and protects criminals. So, not sure how you can confidently say "On the contrary!"
  • bhelkey 3y ago
    From the complaint, "Apple is knowingly and deliberately degrading quality, privacy, and security for its users".
• Fgyu0909 3y ago
  Apple genuinely deserves this lawsuit. > By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field where it grants its products and services access to core features that it denies rivals. Once I read this I was not shocked. Apple is already pushing people to buy their separate apps that should have came in for free, with the purchase of the Iphone or at least make a bundle Apple users could buy. Disgusting Apple totally deserved.
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    Which apps are those?
    • Fgyu0909 3y ago
      Some of those apps are iMovie, imusic, Apple tv, Apple tv+, Final Cut Pro etc. Also the app store has apple arcade and other subscriptions.
      • kstrauser 3y ago
        TV and Music comes with the OS. iMovie is a free download. Apple Arcade is a subscription to games made by companies other than Apple. No way in hell would Apple TV+, a premium video service, be free. And in what world would Final Cut Pro be free? I'd love it if they threw in Ableton Live and Pro Tools, but that's also not happening.
• rsynnott 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• photochemsyn 3y ago
  One of the most annoying features of the iOS ecosystem is the great lengths they take to prevent easy export of data out of the iOS system to other non-Apple devices. E.g. ever tried exporting Safari bookmarks on iOS to a Linux system running Firefox? A simple JSON file is all it would take, but no, you have to sync with a MacOS computer or some such: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254567613 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254567613
  • CharlesW 3y ago
    > One of the most annoying features of the iOS ecosystem is the great lengths they take to prevent easy export of data out of the iOS system to other non-Apple devices. Not only do they not prevent it, but they facilitate it. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102208 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102208 Exported data includes users' bookmarks and Reading List.
    • phone8675309 3y ago
      Only works if you use iCloud, which I don't.
      • CharlesW 3y ago
        Then you'll need a 3rd-party product. https://imazing.com/iphone-safari-history-bookmarks-reading-lists https://imazing.com/iphone-safari-history-bookmarks-reading-...
    • hu3 3y ago
      Can't Safari just have an export bookmarks button like Firefox and Chrome? https://i.imgur.com/DIgddVn.png https://i.imgur.com/DIgddVn.png No need to ask Apple's website for some data dump and no need for iCloud. It's your data after all.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • jmholla 3y ago
• fidotron 3y ago
  Given iOS doesn’t have a monopoly, even in the US market, this is almost certainly a negotiation move thanks to Apple not being seen to be compliant enough with the US gov wrt privacy and security. Possibly App Store policies differences of opinion as well.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • timmg 3y ago
    What's interesting about the legal system is that it is intentionally vague. As in, you can make all different kinds of arguments and the judge and jury decide. iPhone is does not have an overwhelming market share of phones in the US. But Apple does have a complete monopoly on "iPhone apps" (and "app stores" and "iPhone payment services"). So the government certainly can make a case that they are abusing those monopolies. Whether or not the judge and juries will agree is the thing we are all going to be watching for.
• pokstad 3y ago
  [flagged]
• iosjunkie 3y ago
  This hard for me to understand. Apple hasn’t changed its approach their wall garden in ages. The consumer market decided to reward that model with adoption of Apple products.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • screamingninja 3y ago
    Market adoption is more than a function of ecosystem openness. Blackberry commanded a large chunk of the market back in the day, maybe or maybe not because of the value they generated for consumers, but definitely because of the network effect. Several factors at play here. Worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
    • creaturemachine 3y ago
      There was a time when teens had to be on BBM or be left behind.
  • toyg 3y ago
    > Apple hasn’t changed its approach their wall garden in ages. The same action might be legit with 10% marketshare but lesive of market competition when at 60% marketshare. Take golden-era Microsoft: bundling a default browser was anti-competitive for them, whereas it clearly wasn't for any Linux distribution out there.
• BeetleB 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• generj 3y ago
  I think it’s interesting this is one of the first large anti-tech anti-trust lawsuits that has actually materialized since the FTC/DOJ signaled interest in going after these giants. Perhaps the case is less complex and this could be brought earlier? Or there were some really damning things in discovery proving other justifications Apple has (security, performance, etc) are secondary to punishing competitors products. The case for consumer harm is much more vague than what other firms are doing in my view. iMessage incompatibility with Android group texts is going to be remedied and maybe deserves a slap on the wrist.
  • tarsinge 3y ago
    The Google monopoly seems way worst and straightforward to me. Why it isn’t addressed first and why does everyone seemingly ignore them and obsess with Apple is a mystery to me.
    • zamadatix 3y ago
      It has been already pursued and is being addressed. There's just a lot less divisiveness/attention in such cases: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... https://apnews.com/article/google-android-play-store-apps-antitrust-settlement-e4e2f422baa846c66deac90c7866c5fd https://apnews.com/article/google-android-play-store-apps-an... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-against-google-historic-trial-2023-11-16/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga... Note in some of these were chased even though Google has been less restrictive than Apple (e.g. on the Play Store payment case Google has always allowed 3rd party app stores on Android).
    • HDThoreaun 3y ago
      The downsides to the apple monopoly are much more straightforward. "Apples iMessage policy lead to this kid being bullied and because of that they did x" is a much easier sell than whatever sound bite you can come up with about google.
    • mcfedr 3y ago
• lumb63 3y ago
  What rubs me the wrong way about the Apple monopoly case(s?) is they sound to me like “we (the people) don’t want to actually solve the problem by through the totally-viable free market approach; we instead feel that we are owed some say in how this company chooses to develop its products; please strongarm them through legal means that don’t really apply, to make that a reality”. People who are interested in Apple’s “walled garden” can buy iPhones. People who aren’t, can choose not to. Nobody is making people buy iPhones. Nobody is making people buy Androids either. Any company which thinks there is a sufficient market to be had in providing an alternative platform that does not use a walled garden approach can develop the hardware and software which would allow their customers a more open platform. There is absolutely nothing stopping this from happening today. The failure of companies and individuals to do so proves to me that nobody cares enough about this to take real action. Contrast this with real trusts of days past like Standard Oil. If someone developed a competing company, they could undercut competitors by selling oil at a loss long enough to drive anyone else out of business. What would the parallel be in this universe? If someone developed a new smartphone, there is nothing in Apple’s walled garden approach that would prohibit that platform from taking off. IMO when consumers buy products, they are entitled to the product they knowingly bought, not the product that they want.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • kmeisthax 3y ago
    The free market approach went out the window when we decided software was copyrightable and DRM unlock tools are illegal. Otherwise Epic would just release a jailbreak that installed Epic Games Store and we'd be done with it.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• mudil 3y ago
  "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • kmeisthax 3y ago
    The problem is that private institutions can become their own mini-governments. Reagan denied this, but his quite could equally apply to Apple or Google as it did to, say, late-70s US government.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• bilekas 3y ago
  I know its a small thing, but isn't the phrase "an iPhone monopoly" a bit redundant ? I surely can't say shame on Mars for having a "A CocaCola monopoly" ? From established writers at NYT, I suspect I am wrong, but it seems a weird expression.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • airstrike 3y ago
    From established writers who are, perhaps, first solving for clicks rather than accuracy or journalistic integrity.
  • trothamel 3y ago
    I don't believe it is. I think we'd be upset if Tesla cars could only charge at Telsa charger (that charged 30% over the prices of electric supply). Using their position in phone sales to gain a monopolist position over apps and IAP feels wrong.
• endisneigh 3y ago
  I assert it is trivial to not buy Apple products, easy to make alternatives to Apple products and easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products. In lieu of this what is the problem? If the government has a problem why not say any code should be able to be run on any device? Honestly I’m curious - what’s the problem? There are android phones that are superior to iPhones and let you run anything you want. Why don’t people buy those? The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience, but why? There are open alternatives. It’s like complaining that Teslas don’t support CarPlay. Valid, but does it require legislation? Buy another car. FWIW I would love if the government made it so all devices should have an option to run any of your arbitrary code.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • endisneigh 3y ago
      Yes.
      • 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Okay, because the linked court documents explain why it's not that easy.
  • hexer303 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • globular-toast 3y ago
    > trivial to not buy Apple products Irrelevant. Monopoly doesn't mean coercing people into the market. > easy to make alternatives to Apple products and easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products It's not only not easy, it's not possible. Your mistake is thinking of phones as computers. They are not computers, at least not to the vast majority of users. They are devices that connect to other compatible devices to do telecommunications. It's just like if plain old telephones ran a proprietary protocol and only one vendor could make them.
• lenerdenator 3y ago
  I think there's a large contingent of people who want more access and choice with apps and services on their iOS devices. And frankly, that's what Android is for. Just go get a Samsung Galaxy. EDIT: You can downvote it all you want, but part of the appeal of iOS devices is that you have your workable service for the device and there's no real thought to be put into choosing that service. Not everyone wants different app stores, and on the software side of things, it adds a very thick layer of complexity and headaches, especially if you're helping, I don't know, your 64-year-old mother with her iPhone.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    A "simple" device isn't mutually exclusive with a configurable device. Just put it inside of the Settings app already available on the phone your mother already has. If she doesn't need it, she'll never see it. I'd argue that the default experience for some is still too complicated; that's why Apple has Assistive Access, which lets you dumb it down: https://support.apple.com/guide/assistive-access-iphone/set-up-assistive-access-devcd5016d31/ios https://support.apple.com/guide/assistive-access-iphone/set-...
• trynumber9 3y ago
  Good, computers should not be locked down by trillion dollar companies. The problem with having the App Store is there is still no opt out (in the US). It works on Mac OS; there's no technical reason for them to avoid giving the user choice. It's all about capturing and holding an entire market.
• scentoni 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• monkeydust 3y ago
  What kind of payout range is being anticipated here for settlement? Also remind me, where does all that money go exactly? ... could result in a massive redistribution of wealth... we had the banks now its big tech
• nottorp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• patwolf 3y ago
  > By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field, where it grants its own products and services access to core features that it denies rivals. I once worked on a large enterprise platform. We developed our own applications for the platform, and other third parties developed applications for the platform. We had to regularly scan our code to make sure we weren't inadvertently using internal or non-documented APIs that weren't available to third parties. I always assumed this was related to some anti-trust lawsuit, but it always boggled my mind that Apple never seemed to worry about that. Remember the brazenness in which they booted third-party screen time and parental control apps from the app store after the introduction of Screen Time.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • rgovostes 3y ago
    > Remember the brazenness in which they booted third-party screen time and parental control apps from the app store after the introduction of Screen Time. You misremember. Apple sherlocked RescueTime and brought it to iOS, where no such app existed because the platform security model prevents an app from snooping on other apps and websites. Developers were upset that Apple didn't give them access to the same functionality; Apple eventually released an API (but it doesn't look like RescueTime uses it, even today).
• Workaccount2 3y ago
  iMessage is the most egregious monopolistic tool in Apple's garden. If the DOJ accomplishes nothing else besides forcing Apple to open up iMessage, it will be a victory. The lock-in of having functional communication with your friends and family is insane. Take that away and it becomes almost a no-brainier for people to consider competing devices. And no, nobody with an iPhone is interested in switching to whatever messaging app you beg them to use, just so they can message you.
  • LargeWu 3y ago
    It already works with SMS, though. You can choose to use 3rd party apps like WhatsApp. I fail to see how users are meaningfully "locked-in" any more than an android
    • supergeek133 3y ago
      Your average iphone user has no idea what this is. All the know is "android makes the bubbles green and iMessage doesn't work as well with them, or at all".
    • pradn 3y ago
      Teens get bullied if they show up as green bubbles in group chats. I've had people tell me they wouldn't want to show up as green bubbles to potential romantic partners. The iMessage lock-in effects are real.
  • AlexandrB 3y ago
    I totally don't get this perspective. There are so many competing messaging platforms and they all work reasonably well on iOS. Because my various family and friend groups use different messaging apps I use all the following: WhatsApp, Signal, SMS, iMessage, Viber, and once in a while Facebook Messenger. I would say iMessage is kind of middle of the pack here. If I had to pick a favourite it's probably WhatsApp, but unfortunately it's owned by Meta - so I try to use Signal whenever I can. What's so special about iMessage that people think it's a monopolistic tool?
    • 3y ago
• anonymouse008 3y ago
  There are too many quotes 'from Apple management' in the compliant that need context. Something doesn't add up. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-antitrust-complaint.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-an... Either that, or Apple's management has become truly rotten. That would be the saddest realization.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • alex_suzuki 3y ago
    I started reading it but the line spacing is just so infuriating…
• dkobia 3y ago
  Apple getting sued in the US and EU is really about finding an equilibrium between 3 stakeholders - Apple, Users & Developers. The status quo favors Apple and Users. Developers led by companies like Epic just want a bigger piece of the pie. That's it.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • screamingninja 3y ago
    How does it favor the users? > https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/ > https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/
  • madeofpalk 3y ago
    The status quo does not favor users. How does it favor users that you cannot sign up for Netflix on iOS?
• tempnow987 3y ago
  It's weird that the focus is so heavily on businesses and alleged harms to businesses (to ie, scam customers with hard to cancel renewals). One reason folks LIKE apple is because apple has the market power to do things that yes - hurt other businesses but that make the consumer experience better. When I get my iphone it's not loaded with carrier crap. Seriously, android you might be getting tons of carrier junk on your phone. When I go to cancel a subscription its super easy. Apple even REMINDS me to cancel if I delete an app with a subscription tied to it (ie, that renews annually). They also notify me in ADVANCE of renewals to let me cancel. Trial offers with higher renewing rates, the renewal rate is at the same font size and right in the payment acknowledgement for any trials. And the list goes on. Look at this against the lack of enforcement against totally blatant scams (billions) from the elderly. Total ripoffs and dark patterns - unconcealable subscriptions etc etc. Of all the consumer harm - apple should be way way way down on the list.
• oliv__ 3y ago
  I don't get it. You build a successful product that people love, gain an important position in a market you basically created, offer a closed marketplace for apps to further provide value to your core product, again this is a resounding success and people vote with their $$$ to subsidize your growth. In the meantime, your competitor comes up with their own product and marketplace. Consumers are able to freely choose between both. Now your company is forced by the gov to integrate your products with the competition's inferior marketplace. Why? How is this not overreach? EDIT: easy to downvote, why don't you give me answers instead
  • bardak 3y ago
    It looks like the DOJ doesn't believe that the closed marketplace doesn't add value to consumers or businesses but only to Apple themselves. I think the crux of the DOJs argument is that apple is using their dominate marketshare to rent seek and create artificial restrictions preventing competition with their own products.
• inasio 3y ago
  I'm sure there's an argument to justify making it super complicated to move your Whatsapp content from IPhone to Android, but at the time I was having to dump the Whatsapp DB to recover the last messages from a dead relative it sure seemed like a convenient way to encourage people to stick around.
  • londons_explore 3y ago
    Whatsapp themselves could easily solve this if they wanted... Just add a "backup to file" button in settings. Then add a "restore from file" option in Android. Quite why they don't do this is a mystery to me - if a user loses all their chats in a phone migration, they're more likely to start using another messaging app.
    • inasio 3y ago
      I don't think Whatsapp gained anything by preventing this, if anything they gave people a little momentum to switching to another app. The one that clearly benefited was Apple, and I don't thing Whatsapp/Meta did it just to be nice.
      • londons_explore 3y ago
        I can see why they don't want to let it be possible to export from whatsapp and re-import into a competing chat app. They've gone to quite some efforts to encrypt databases etc. to make that hard. Allowing cross-platform transfers means they can't use the platforms secure storage features to achieve this - instead they need to write server side code to generate some per-user key, and some DRM-like scheme to validate that only the official client app is requesting the key to decrypt a backup. I can see why they want to just leave all of that to the platform.
  • toast0 3y ago
    Edit: Actually looks you can do iPhone to Android transfer now: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1295296267926284 https://faq.whatsapp.com/1295296267926284 or Android to iPhone https://faq.whatsapp.com/686469079565350 https://faq.whatsapp.com/686469079565350 Original response below: That's really a WhatsApp product issue, not an OS issue. There's some hints of an OS issue, because Android lets WA put a backup file on the 'sd card' that you can transfer across to a new (Android) phone, and iOS doesn't (or didn't), and with cloud backups the different OSes both tie into their own clouds. But the main issue is the WA iOS app and the WA Android app have different schemas for their on device database, which makes it not so easy to move. Maybe that has changed since I stopped working there, but that was the biggest issue with a switch platforms feature that I was aware of. It's a lot of coordination for a feature that most users are never going to use, and if they do use, likely aren't going to use it more than once. When I recently got a new Android, I did see there's a new transfer data flow for at least Android to Android, so maybe there's hope for cross OS data exchange in the future? It's also helpful that there's only two relevant platforms now, instead of 7 (s40, s60, blackberry, blackberry 10, windows phone are all dead)
• thxcvs 3y ago
  Posting anonymously. I worked on an app where Apple gave us special access to private APIs allow listed by the app ID and told us to keep it secret. This access gave the select few apps that got it a huge advantage in performance. I don't want to share too much details at the risk of identifying the app and getting it revoked.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    Tim Cook came to my house and made my Wi-Fi faster.
• coding123 3y ago
  Probably should take down the food giants first.
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    Not mutually exclusive.
• zer0zzz 3y ago
  While I hate losing the feeling that the AppStore and iOS security policy make my device less at risk I sure am tired of not having chromium and Fortnite on my iPad. I’m also torn on how the current locked down state of affairs is the only thing keeping chromium and v8 from achieving 100% market share.
• abhayhegde 3y ago
  I understand the evil practices of Apple to lock you up in their walled garden such as iMessage, easy sync between the devices etc. But, ultimately, wouldn't the choice of buying those products in the consumer's hand?
  • baal80spam 3y ago
    Of course it would - last I checked noone holds people at gunpoint saying "BUY THIS".
  • Workaccount2 3y ago
    Generally in the US, if you want to participate in friends and family group messages, it's either iPhone or be left out.
    • darkwizard42 3y ago
      Perhaps societal customs should change instead of infringing on the business practices (which don't violate a law). The anticompetitive preference for internal apps though is pretty bad and I think Apple should be nailed on that, but they shouldn't be punished for creating a "better" (in quotes because I think Android is on the better standard for messaging) messaging experience.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • multimoon 3y ago
      That doesn’t sound like something that’s against the law. A company shouldn’t be punished based on their success, but if they violate a law or not.
    • choxi 3y ago
      There are dozens of other popular (group) messaging apps
    • abhayhegde 3y ago
• micromacrofoot 3y ago
  The US should outright copy EU privacy and other related laws when it comes to big tech companies where possible, it's embarrassing how much we're lagging behind on this.
• brink 3y ago
  Apple frustrates the hell out of me with their deceptive tactics to create walled gardens while pretending not to. They feign ignorance to keep you stuck and create the illusion of open doors out of their walled garden that are actually broken and they have no interest in fixing. I've been paying for iCloud for my wife's iphone for the last several months because of how difficult Apple makes it for us to export our photos. Copying them off the phone with a usb cable is nearly impossible if you don't have a macbook, exporting them off of the website is nearly impossible if you have over 1k photos.. meanwhile google takeout allows me to download all of my photos in my browser in a couple clicks. In my experience, it feels like Apple makes getting out of their walled garden as difficult as legally possible.
  • londons_explore 3y ago
    Do they have a GDPR-like process where you can just export a .zip file of all your data?
    • mruszczyk 3y ago
      There is an option to request a copy of your data at: https://privacy.apple.com/ https://privacy.apple.com/
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    I exported my 27,000 photos to my Synology as a backup. There's not an inherent limit that makes what you're asking impossible.
    • applied_heat 3y ago
      What did you use to do that?
      • kstrauser 3y ago
        It has a Photos app that runs on the NAS, and there's a free iPhone app that connects to it.
• dev1ycan 3y ago
  It's so funny I'm gonna go out and say it, this is only because Microsoft threw its weight into Epics lawsuit. I believe, entirely, that Microsoft is the most important corporation in America, by far. In that anything they want, will get done. this is why the senators turned around on Sony claiming MS buying ActiBlizzKing was monopolistic and started threatening Sony instead, this is why Bill Gates gets to sit with Xi and Xi calls him a friend, this is why MS has unopposed access to sell its games in China. They are an "arm" of the government and not even Apple can counter it.
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    To say nothing of the fact that Github is the cornerstone of the open source world, and Microsoft owns it.
    • dev1ycan 3y ago
      Microsoft bought it. Microsoft is also allegedly using private repos to train AI, Microsoft is not a benevolent entity.
• mupuff1234 3y ago
  Why does it seem like Microsoft is flying under the DoJ radar this last decade?
  • pie420 3y ago
    Because Microsoft is the East India Company of the 21st century. It is the modern tool of american corporate imperialism.
• FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  What is the crux of argument on how they prevent people from using Samsung? EDIT: The title of the post is "Monopoly". I think it is ok to ask what the argument for this is, when iPhone is NOT the majority of the market. Company 4Q23 Market Share 1. Apple 24.7% 2. Samsung 16.3% 3. Xiaomi 4. Transsion
• stephc_int13 3y ago
  Apple top management should have seen this coming ~years~ ago. Both Apple and Google could have prevented this by being smarter and less greedy in the first place, understanding the central role of developers and third party companies in their ecosystems. Not sure about this lawsuit, I don't really care at this point, the whole process in unrolling and won't stop until this is over, and this won't end up in a nice place for Apple.
  • cyclecount 3y ago
    Or, both Apple and Google did see this coming years ago, have been smart about supporting politicians in both major US political parties, and calculated that the amount of money they could make by maintaining their monopoly positions — even if only for a few more years — was likely far greater than any fine or other regulatory headache it might cause down the line.
    • stephc_int13 3y ago
      Time will tell, for sure. The thing is, they are both overflowing with cash, more than enough to afford being strategic about its use. If you're only looking at cash flow for the next few quarters, sure, that was the smart decision.
  • LordKeren 3y ago
    Apple and Google absolutely saw this coming and both have come to the conclusion that the outcome of this lawsuit will be less costly than trying to preemptively deal with the issue — and risk overshooting the target, leaving money on the table. Even if the DoJ wins on every aspect of this lawsuit, it still would hardly put a dent in apple’s profits. They aren’t going after the big ticket money makers in a way that is going to impact apple’s profits.
• kyleomalley 3y ago
  Security Engineering is mostly about control and minimizing attack surfaces. Apple iOS implements this exceedingly well, with defaults, while still being one of the most widely used platforms on the planet. I believe IOS gets it right the vast majority of the time with solid architectural changes and not just endless patches and knobs that are hidden and forgot about. This is the key difference of "It just works" verses other platforms. If someone wants to run another platform, go for it. Of course are shortcomings in iOS (as with any system), but viewing entire problem space of security and privacy, the default install of IOS + Safari could rarely be any better for the average consumer. This is why Security and Privacy is literally a paid feature of the IOS platform, and anecdotally everyone professional I know (who isn't in tech) is using IOS devices. Personally, I'm planning to blocking RCS and any third party app stores on any of my own (and families) devices -- again, control and minimizing attack surfaces and eliminating an entire class of issues is better than trying to manage them to no end.
  • nox101 3y ago
    Yes, if someone locks you in a prison cell you're safe. Except from the warden and guards. You get to read only what they let you, eat only what they let you. But, you're safe
    • kyleomalley 3y ago
      You have a choice here on your platforms, this isn't even remotely an honest comparison, is it?
      • throw10920 3y ago
        This isn't a very honest statement, either. Your choices for mobile platforms are Android and iOS. That's it. That is not a free market; that's a duopoly, and stating that you have a "choice" is, while literally true, misleading to the point of being disingenuous. Moreover, it's extremely clear that Apple is not pursuing the edge of the security-freedom efficient frontier, but is intentionally sacrificing freedom in order to lock consumers in to its ecosystems, acting in ways that are clearly anti-free-market and anti-competitive and are entirely deserving of lawsuits like the one in the posted article even if there was more competition than there is now.
• btown 3y ago
  Direct link to the complaint itself: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9765671b79f64ad9/6cfe3c6c-full.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9765671b... Pages 29-31 of the complaint are especially relevant to read for many of us in web development and who value open systems, as they detail the intentionality of Apple's strategy to restrict so-called "super apps" from becoming portals for arbitrary web applications. And page 42+ describes restrictions on alternate digital wallets. There's a lot here beyond the original headlines, and it's incredibly relevant to read or skim directly.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• synergy20 3y ago
  I'm working on some apple airplay on non-apple platforms, what a pain. Apple is worse than Microsoft from the past, I mean, 10x or more closed. I don't want to touch Apple's development ecosystem after this project. I don't even want to start on other items like PWA support, single app store, iTunes everything,etc.
• anonymouse008 3y ago
  > “all that matters is who has the cheapest hardware” and consumers could “buy[] a [expletive] Android for 25 bux at a garage sale and . . . have a solid cloud computing device” that “works fine.” This type of mindset will be the end of Apple.
• lkrubner 3y ago
  It's been many decades since the USA government attempted to go after a vertical trust. During my lifetime, almost all anti-monopoly action has been against horizontal trusts: companies that gain too much market share for some particular product or service. But there was a time, a long time ago, almost a century ago, when it was common for the government to do this kind of thing, for the benefit of the consumer.
  • Matticus_Rex 3y ago
    There's also a pretty large econ literature questioning that it actually benefited the consumer, much of which concludes that in cases where the trust's anticompetitive power didn't itself rest on government-granted monopolies, it probably hurt.
    • _pi 3y ago
      That's because the government's definition of anti-competitive is ticky-tacky and is rooted in bullshit. US anti-competitive policy and enforcement has always been dancing around the double standards of who can do market manipulation, the double standards of white collar crime enforcement, the double standards of "consumer benefit" in a capitalist system, etc. "Consumer benefit" for example is a cowardly way to say price controls. Consumer benefit is inversely correlated with price. That implies the US government should be doing price controls and setting acceptable profit margins for everyone, but in practice due to the enforcement issues and the way the law is constructed it means that the government regulates prices only in extremely detailed technical cases. Meaning you can manipulate consumer benefit AKA prices AKA extract profits all you want as long as you don't get into these narrowly defined, often unenforced technical cases. In fact all of these charges or facsimiles of them existed in different forms 10 years ago, they were there on launch 15 years ago. Apple is being sued now simply because other large powerful interests like Epic games, don't like the revenue split rules on the App store. Most of these laws are written not as regulations, but ways not to regulate.
      • Matticus_Rex 3y ago
        Well, price controls really are bad, actually. But Lina Khan does seem to want to push FTC governance into that realm.
• fundad 3y ago
  Competing phone companies give up revenue to set low prices. Apple meets those prices by monetizing commerce.
• crop_rotation 3y ago
  Great news. They should next should sue Ford for monopoly over the F150.
  • megaman821 3y ago
    If Ford only let you fill up at Exon stations and only allowed you to drive to Home Depot over Lowes, do you think they would get sued?
  • twodave 3y ago
    They probably would if Ford found a way to prevent any after-market accessories from being sold without taking a cut or made proprietary trailer hitches that you had to pay them directly for. Pickup trucks are some of the most hackable devices on the planet.
• Fripplebubby 3y ago
  For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims: 1. "Super Apps" Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps. 2. Cloud streaming apps Similar to "super apps", the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service. 3. Messaging interoperability Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set. 4. Smartwatches Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android. 5. Digital wallets It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement "tap to pay" on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.
  • segasaturn 3y ago
    The messaging interop point is probably DOA since Apple has stated that they will be adding RCS support to iMessage. The smartwatch point is interesting and not an argument I've seen made before, but it's a very good example of Apple's vendor lock-in.
    • baq 3y ago
      Quote from the article: > The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit. I read that as 'interop' is a secondary issue, if an issue at all; the actual case is the green/blue segregation. If Apple embedded a fingerprint in every interoperable message and shown blue messages for iMessage-sent content, green background for others, it'd still be a problem even if messages are otherwise identical - unless all the features truly work on both, in which case the color split is purely status signaling.
• ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  It's wild to me to see people defending Apple in the comments here. 60% of Americans own a phone they're not allowed to install third party apps on, and the ONLY way to get apps is to pay a 30% fee to Apple on every purchase. Imagine if Windows allowed you to only install apps acquired through their store, and with the same 30% fee. Microsoft literally had a huge anti trust case against them for simply setting a default browser, one you could have switched away from at any time. It's probably the clearest monopoly in America right now. The damage to consumers is immediately visible (30% fee leaves a lot of margin on the table for competitors). Just look at the number of apps that either don't allow you to purchase their subscription on Apple at all, or charge substantially more. It should be a slam dunk case.
  • darkwizard42 3y ago
    60% of Americans CHOOSE to own a phone that has those features... I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone. Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights. Amazon isn't forced to list your product and Apple shouldn't be forced to give you access to it's hardware/software users.
    • ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      >Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights. Is taxing every purchase on your platform for 30% not abusing your ecosystem? >I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone. iMessage is a non zero cause of this, and looking at the percentage of teens with iPhones, 85+%, likely a colossal cause. Which directly falls into Apple abusing their ecosystem.
      • darkwizard42 3y ago
        That isn't a tax. It is a cost. In the same way you probably don't look at the overhead a clothing store puts on every pair of jeans you buy. You don't have to buy those jeans from that store, but you should realize that every store has a "tax" on clothes they carry. Apple isn't abusing its ecosystem if users prefer it. I don't follow this logic on your second point.
• lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  What a waste of everyone’s money.
• visarga 3y ago
  I don't even want to open NYT after they sued for copyright infringement on their old news, after entrapping the models with the first phrase.
• throwaway743 3y ago
  Should this make it through, what would this mean for operating systems? Would it mean that Windows and Apple would have to be able to run Windows, Apple, and linux software? Side thought, many Americans will purchase an Apple products as a means of projecting their identity/lifestyle. Apple, to many, is a luxury tech product company and is used to project their self image to the world. Remove the exclusivity of their products only being able to integrate with one another, then the image of exclusivity ("part of the club") starts falling apart. If any of this happens then Apple's in a pretty shit spot. That's a big if tho
• shuckles 3y ago
  The super apps point is very interesting. The quotes in the complaint from Apple are exactly right: super apps are sucky and don’t follow native platform conventions. The DOJ then says this is a good thing and pro-consumer innovation. If only they knew the tactics WeChat and others use in China to keep users trapped. (For example: have you ever tried to send an Alipay link through WeChat? Good luck!)
  • Cornbilly 3y ago
    The government has been pretty adamant about wanting a backdoor placed in peoples' phones. A super-app probably seems a like pretty good option to them, as once they compromise it, they'll have access to a large amount of data or, more likely, pressure the super-app owner into placing a backdoor into their service.
• shudza 3y ago
  Looks like someone important didn't like that Apple placed a blatant backdoor in their CPUs.
• crop_rotation 3y ago
  The comments here seem extremely emotional against Apple. If you want a free device then the android ecosystem has many great examples. The S23/S24 ultra are phones which are as good as the iPhone. I have always been an Android user because of the freedoms. But forcing iOS to become like android makes no sense. Android already exists and you can already use it. The onboarding app will even move all your data. iMessage is even going to support the useless RCS standard. I am not sure what people in this thread have against Apple. Doing the things they require will simply make all the advantages of iPhone evaporate and it will be simply left in the dust. If you want android, buy android.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • throitallaway 3y ago
    > iMessage is even going to support the useless RCS standard What's useless about it? As I understand it, it will provide a massive upgrade over SMS/MMS. Exchanging videos via MMS (currently the only native OS option for Android <-> iOS communication) is an exercise in futility.
    • crop_rotation 3y ago
      It is extremely useless compared to Whatsapp/Signal. It is not even natively supported in android like SMS. Even in android the only app that supports it is Google Messages (unlike several for SMS). Nobody supports the protocol and everyone uses Google's implementation. Google's client, Google's servers, optional encryption. What is good about it. The only reason for it's existence is to make Google get a leg in the messaging clients after failures with their previous attempts (Gtalk, hangouts, allo). That is why nobody outside the USA would ever bother using it. It doesn't do anything that Whatsapp/Signal don't. And there is nothing native about it in Android, other than Google Messages is force installed on all devices, and the rich vibrant ecosystem of android SMS clients was killed off to make way for it.
      • e44858 3y ago
• shuckles 3y ago
  I like the part of the complaint where the government lawyers fantasize that their hard work is the reason why Microsoft allowed iTunes Store on Windows. Some real narcissism and lack of knowledge about technology on display.
• doctoboggan 3y ago
  US Attorney General Merrick Garland discussing the suit live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqKbl0vWzaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqKbl0vWzaU
• bedros 3y ago
  can someone explain how different is the iphone ecosystem anti-competitive practices vs sony playstation ecosystem?
  • pvg 3y ago
    I can't explain it but one fairly straightforward argument is just scale - everyone has a smartphone, few people (comparatively) have Playstations. There is a more obvious case for legitimate government interest in the regulation of a market that affects a much bigger proportion of consumers and consumer activity.
  • daveoc64 3y ago
    Nobody needs a games console, but a smartphone is increasingly an essential part of daily life - for things like accessing government services, transport, payments, identity, commerce etc. If you are a company or other organisation that depends on making your service available through smartphones, then you may be affected by Apple's policies.
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    a few hundred million users vs about 7 billion users tells you a few things, among them which is that game consoles don't effing matter one bit and smartphones are a necessity for modern life. do you not even think before posting stuff like this?
• davidham 3y ago
  Regarding the Apple Wallet: what about it is uncompetitive? I can add credit cards from many providers to it, and as far as I can tell Apple doesn't get anything if I add my Chase card and use it with Apple Pay. I don't think banks have to pay Apple anything for their cards to be used in the Apple wallet. Nor do non-financial cards like memberships.
  • padthai 3y ago
    They get 0.15% of the transaction from the card issuer. And they do not allow card issuers to use the hardware on their own.
    • davidham 3y ago
      That seems...fair to me? Apple makes a phone a lot of people want to buy, and adds NFC to it to enable mobile payment, and they provide security guarantees for the end user and the card issuer alike. I don't know why they should be obligated to provide this functionality to the card issuers for free.
      • gmm1990 3y ago
        You could also frame it as they sold you an NFC capable phone and not really providing NFC functionality, which doesn't seem fair or at least deceptive.
      • Topfi 3y ago
        Sure, but on my Android smartphone, my bank still has the ability to implement their own payment solution using NFC directly using their app, which is something they did and offer as an alternative next to Google Pay. It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay. On iOS, my bank does not get to offer that ability, and I do not get that choice. If I owned an iPhone and wanted to do something like deposit some cash, pickup or ship a package via the postal service (as our postal service has the same security measures) outside business hours without a physical credit or debit card, I'd be out of luck, because of Apple's restrictive nature. Having talked to a few of my friends and family, a lot of Apple Pay users are surprised and/or unaware that this is even an option they could have, and I am certain that at some point, Apple will implement something similar, whereupon Google Pay will also enable such functionality, cause the industry does follow Apple to a large extent when it comes to what is considered the minimum of neceessary features one has to offer. But until then, I see this as restricting innovation, similar to how AT&T prevented a lot of developments, and we got the internet in its current state in part thanks to antitrust action against them, which they promised, we'd regret in a similar manner to Apple today.
• soygem 3y ago
  [flagged]
• smashah 3y ago
  Great next they should sue Meta and Whatsapp for anticompetitive and monopolistic practices
• multimoon 3y ago
  I don’t understand why Apple is the target and everyone - govts included - walk right past MS repeating what they’re best at. MS is currently pushing popup ads into windows that installs unsolicited extensions into google chrome and switches the search engine to bing - and will fear monger the user with vague security claims about switching back.
  • dgellow 3y ago
    Microsoft can be targeted but that’s a pretty slow process, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they are sued in a few years if they continue their behavior
  • choxi 3y ago
    Or Google or Amazon, how are those not way more blatant antitrust targets?
    • jvolkman 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Amazon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Amazon
• 1-6 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • hu3 3y ago
    [flagged]
• codemonkeysh 3y ago
  U.S. Government - "Hey Apple, can you stop selling so many phones because you're now becoming a monopoly; although there's Android."
• hermannj314 3y ago
  The takeaway here is that when a multi-trillion dollar company breaks a 130-year old law in a way that impacts over one hundred million people, our justice system and government is so broken and incompetent that it takes five years of investigation before anything happens. Probably years more before any action is taken. Cool, good job lawyers. The latency of your Leviathan ruins more lives than its power could ever hope to save.
  • bearjaws 3y ago
    I generally agree with your sentiment, maybe more when it comes to people like Donald Trump or SBF... But what do you want them to do? Build a shitty case in 1 year and get destroyed in court? Remember, Apple has thousands of lawyers too, they aren't going to settle this case.
    • hermannj314 3y ago
      I think that is a false dichotomy the lawyers have created: have a slow moving system or a system where justice isn't served. Our current system is slow and unjust. There are other options. My wife and I tried to be foster parents, we did it for about three months, but everything was so slow moving. We had to spend 30 days just to have a piece of paper signed that no one contested. That moment opened my eyes to the corruption the lawyers have willfully constructed and willfully participate in and I have hated the entire legal profession since that moment. The system from the simplest cast to the most complex is designed to pad billable hours without concern for latency, justice, or consistency. It is a sham system.
• modeless 3y ago
  The complaint doesn't talk much about alternative app stores or web browser engines. If Apple lost, would they even need to start allowing alternative stores or browsers? I guess it would be all up to a judge in that case, but the complaint isn't specifically stating that alternative app stores or browser engines should be allowed.
• aabajian 3y ago
  The blue background on messages sent between two iMessage users has to be one of the most brilliant vendor lock-in strategies. It is an artificial form of discrimination. I feel a slight annoyance whenever a non-Apple user forms a group chat as I know that person will limit the messaging functionality. In my opinion, the "monopolistic" aspect of it comes down to the fact that they tied it into an otherwise open messaging system - SMS. You cannot separate SMS messages from iMessages (to my knowledge). So, the only way to know a message was sent via SMS is the green background for incoming messages and the green background plus the "sent via SMS" for outgoing messages. This creates a disdain for SMS, and anyone who uses it over iMessage. It is such a strong feeling, that having green messages makes you "uncool", especially in the younger crowd. On the other hand, I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is to push people to use stand-alone apps like WhatsApp and FB Messenger. I think it'll be a hard sell at this point to convince a jury that iMessage is an overt monopoly. The main question I want addressed is: If SMS messages can be directly shown in iMessage, and are not secure, then the argument of not allowing "insecure" 3rd-parties to integrate with iMessage goes out the window. All I want is Android messages to be shown in iMessage. Sure we can make them green, but at least they will be sent over the data network and not SMS.
  • lvl102 3y ago
    That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues with those blue bubbles then they should’ve sued telecom back then. This entire suit is a joke.
    • Workaccount2 3y ago
      The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.
      • lvl102 3y ago
        That’s not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking, you would not be able to prove there’s economic harm. Apple’s share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT’s share of PC back in 90/00s.
• consultSKI 3y ago
  Maybe this will get Tim Cook's attention? P.S. Tim, you have gone to far. Even if you win the case. #justSayin
• brcmthrowaway 3y ago
  Who knew the US would try to destroy their biggest export market
• Foxhuls 3y ago
  I will never understand why people who don’t like the apple ecosystem just simply don’t buy apple products. It’s just really strange to me that it’s considered to be a monopoly when no one is forced to use the platform, there are other options out there.
• pquki4 3y ago
  Even if this eventually fails, I'll be very happy to read all the internal Apple documents that come out of this. It's going to be fun.
• thiago_fm 3y ago
  Meanwhile those monopolies can be good for the employees that work there, they are terrible for the rest of the Americans that don't, and they make up the majority of Americans. I hope that, in the end, America sees that it is feeding those monopolies itself and even considers joining the European Union in believing that regulations are important. When people come and say that regulations have an impact on innovation, I point out the fact that the object in question isn't that innovative. What is so innovative about the iPhone? They just made really good choices and got the rewards from consumers, on making it perhaps the biggest brand in the world. But just by doing great products don't give you the right to go against the interests of your own customers or developers that helped you build that platform. I'm sure by the end of this arc of those platforms that behave more monopolies, governments will realize that by regulating this space, it creates much more economic activity, jobs, and, of course, more space for innovation.
  • teitoklien 3y ago
    > I'm sure by the end of this arc of those platforms that behave more monopolies, governments will realize that by regulating this space, it creates much more economic activity, jobs, and, of course, more space for innovation. Like there are in the EU, with amazing tech salaries that too, far superior than the USA ! :(
• berniebro 3y ago
  [dead]
• ChildOfChaos 3y ago
  Seems rather unfair on Apple to me. You don't have to buy an Apple product, when you do, you know what you are getting, there is choice. These things always seem like some strange powerplay, if such bodies weren't happy, they should of been discussing this with Apple and changing the laws to match rather than making a big public spectacle out of it, this really hurts innovation. Of course the HN comment crowd are going to be happy with this though.
  • Glant 3y ago
    Talking things out and changing the laws went so well in the EU.
• nicechianti 3y ago
  [dead]
• ben7799 3y ago
  One thing I don't get about this is say DOJ wins and significantly weakens Apple. They'll basically hand the market to foreign companies. Seems odd. Google does not need an assist here, last I checked they are doing great, and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like about Android if they wanted to.
  • robgibbons 3y ago
    Not necessarily. If Apple allowed third-party app stores, alternative browser engines, had better cross-platform messaging support, et cetera, a lot of Android owners would buy iPhones. A significant reason why Android appeals to many folks is that it represents a more open alternative to the iPhone. By opening up their walled garden, Apple still stands to benefit by magically becoming more appealing to a big chunk of Android owners.
    • ZekeSulastin 3y ago
      I unfortunately think you're dramatically overstating how many people would actually switch after they're forced to open up rather than finding some other goalpost or simply not caring anyways.
  • amf12 3y ago
    > and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like about Android if they wanted to. What are those? And even if they were fixed, how would people move if Apple makes it so difficult to leave the ecosystem?
• MR4D 3y ago
  Some other sources about this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/us-justice-department-sues-apple-in-antitrust-case-over-iphone https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/us-justic... https://www.investors.com/research/apple-stock-warren-buffett-sp500-magnificent-seven-berkshire-hathaway/ https://www.investors.com/research/apple-stock-warren-buffet... https://www.tipranks.com/news/tech-titans-unite-with-epic-games-in-battle-against-apple-nasdaqaapl https://www.tipranks.com/news/tech-titans-unite-with-epic-ga... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doj-sues-apple-for-iphone-antitrust-violations-31670c36 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doj-sues-apple-for-iphone-... https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-antitrust-lawsuit-16066694 https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-antitrust-lawsuit-16066694
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• coolliquidcode 3y ago
  Cool. Now do google, amazon, fb, Verizon, att, chevron, exxon, gp, oracle, microsoft, etc.
• stephc_int13 3y ago
  Directly from the source, much better than the NYT paper. https://twitter.com/i/status/1770844623562547394 https://twitter.com/i/status/1770844623562547394
• oort-cloud9 3y ago
  [dead]
• oort-cloud9 3y ago
  [dead]
• amshukla 3y ago
  The important question is who loses if apple loses. A whole host of very affluent and powerful politicians and others in influential positions own Apple stocks. Apple's monopoly helps their portfolios. I am not expecting much by way of any significant outcome from this exercise.
• sneak 3y ago
  I wrote this essay about Apple’s anti-consumer practices in 2019: https://sneak.berlin/20190330/apple-is-not-trying-to-screw-you/ https://sneak.berlin/20190330/apple-is-not-trying-to-screw-y... It seems especially relevant given today’s news.
• skeptrune 3y ago
  This is awesome. If this goes through then I expect Apple to enter a slump similar to MSFT in the coming years. Their primary selling point in the U.S. for mobile is imessage and their integrated suite. If that open market starts to eat into that then thier edge is much narrower and I don't expect it to hold well.
  • jjtheblunt 3y ago
    > Their primary selling point in the U.S. for mobile is imessage and their integrated suite. Their primary selling point is excellent performance from mobile low power custom silicon, I'd say.
  • hkpack 3y ago
    And besides making you feeling good, how does it benefits anyone?
• asow92 3y ago
  Alternate coverage without a paywall https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/21/apple-allegedly-monopolized-smartphones-justice-department/73051961007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/21/appl...
• ChildOfChaos 3y ago
  I don't know why, but for some reason why I see something like this, I can't help but imagine what it must be like for Tim Cook receiving this news when he is randomly going about his day. It's got to be a huge punch to the face and I wonder how such people deal with such news.
  • Draiken 3y ago
    Realistically? They definitely expect it. They've been consistently anti-competitive for years and it's the kind of move that you know will eventually generate legal issues. For them it's just the cost of business. They'll litigate for years, pay a small fine (if they even lose) and keep doing the same.
  • smoldesu 3y ago
    I hope he's using it as an opportunity to reflect on FOMO-based business strategies and the impacts of regressive software censorship. Tim made a lot of tough choices in his tenure, and now his chickens are coming home to roost. Hopefully he's happy with the decisions he made.
• jupp0r 3y ago
  "The tech giant prevented other companies from offering applications that compete with Apple products like its digital wallet, which could diminish the value of the iPhone, the government said." They literally offer APIs for any company to integrate with their wallet. As a consumer, I wish more apps would do so instead of half-heartedly implementing their own thing.
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    And if I want to be a wallet provider on iOS and compete with Apple Wallet, what then, big brain?
    • jupp0r 3y ago
      Antitrust law is there to protect consumers, not your business model. As a consumer, I don't want to have to use 23 different wallet apps on my phone but am happy to have one secure implementation that's easy to use. You could argue that Apple Pay imposes lots of processing fees that will raise prices for consumers as vendors pass on processing fees to consumers and that prices would be lower if there was more competition, but I highly doubt this is the case in reality as Apple Pay processing fees are the same as regular payment processor fees for merchants.
      • asadotzler 3y ago
        no, it's to ensure healthy markets. you're so out of your league I'll leave it at that.
• asow92 3y ago
  As an iOS developer, this excites me! It seems like it will open up the market for new app development opportunities, which is a great thing indeed!
• luxuryballs 3y ago
  You have a monopoly on your product! I wonder what the real motive was here, did Apple not comply with something and now they’re getting slapped? I don’t believe for a second that this is purely good faith as I haven’t seen any actual harm being caused.
  • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    antitrust regulators haven't been acting in good faith for years. It devolved into a political game a long time ago. Part of it is the complexity of modern businesses - they simply don't understand what they are regulating. At that point the goal posts move.
    • luxuryballs 3y ago
      Seems like a trend across the entire government, the first amendment appears to not be working even though it was intentionally put as step 1 before the 2nd…
      • smoldesu 3y ago
        Historically, the first amendment has never been used as a defense in antitrust law (and for good reason). A business and it's self-expression is kinda besides the point when you're analyzing market harm and extrinsic impact. Microsoft was not within their means to "self-express" coordinated first-party limitations to stifle competing browsers. Apple using the same tactic does not automatically make it legal because they're percieved as some form of underdog. If Apple really wants to express themselves, United States law won't stop them from disincorporating and relocating their private assets to a nation they're more comfortable with like Russia or China. They could become a PRC-subsidiary and fulfill their destiny of being the man in the glasses on the grey TV.
        • luxuryballs 3y ago
          I was thinking more in general terms of how every possible art or endeavor has been hijacked by political corruption in one form or another and we’re just still rolling with it, with zero recourse through speaking out. Though perhaps we haven’t exhausted all the first amendment options yet as we’re all still pretty cozy and can’t be bothered yet to try and unravel it all. Unfortunately with that approach, by the time it becomes urgent enough to rouse us, it will be too late in many respects.
• danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  The doj doesn't have a basic understanding of how computers work, how networks work, how computer security works. They cannot effectively regulate a world they do not understand.
  • CharlieDigital 3y ago
    They are not regulating computers, they are regulating markets.
    • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      In this case... the largest submarket of....computers. If you think one can regulate the market for X without understanding how X works... you should work at the DOJ or FTC. Lina Khan has a job there waiting, I'm sure.
      • asadotzler 3y ago
        If you think computers get a special opt out from anti-trust checkbox, you should work for the Trump people.
        • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
          Have a real discussion. No one is suggesting an opt-out. The suggestion is for regulators to understand the markets they regulate. And, Trump is just as clueless and big tech bashing for political gain as Biden.
          • CharlieDigital 3y ago
            If you think the regulators understand nothing about computers, operating systems, app markets, privacy, and security, then I'd say you should go get a nice consulting gig with the DoJ because clearly you are more informed and insightful than even their most senior resources.
• sircastor 3y ago
  Lots of comments here about the duopoly of Apple and Google (and I'm of the opinion that one cannot have a monopoly of its own product) It's telling to me that not even Microsoft was able to make this work. There may have been some other internal interests at play, but their historical strength and background was in providing a platform, and then they dropped out when it didn't last. Likewise, Palm didn't last long in the space either. It's not clear to me if there simply is not room for 3+ operating systems in a widely distributed mobile market.
  • bbarn 3y ago
    Palm and Microsoft both made incredible (for the time) smart phones. The iPhone (and to a lesser extent android phones) were just on a totally different level. While Windows CE and PalmOS phones were trying to fight off blackberry, the iPhone was a different animal all together. The later Microsoft phones trying to compete on that level made a massive mistake of trying to tie in a bad UI design (the windows 8 square tiles for days UI) to it's desktop. It was all timing, and by the time the war was over, MS would have had to become revolutionary in a field that pretty much every new thing had already been done, so it made sense for them to throw in the towel and get back to their money maker - business apps.
  • bogwog 3y ago
    > It's not clear to me if there simply is not room for 3+ operating systems in a widely distributed mobile market. I think there would be, if interoperability were a requirement. Microsoft and Blackberry both tried to make their own walled gardens, and maybe that's why it didn't work out. If consumers didn't feel locked in to one platform, they'd be more open to exploring other options. Smartphones aren't the sexy new tech they once were. They're just boring old utilities now, and it makes sense IMO to start regulating them. Forcing companies to implement open standards seems like a good idea, and maybe this lawsuit is a first step in that direction if it ends with Apple being forced to fix iMessage interoperability.
    • cglong 3y ago
      Microsoft employee, but no affiliation to Windows Phone other than a happy former user. How do you believe MS tried to create a walled garden?
• jupp0r 3y ago
  "The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit." Is this even factually true? Messages that are sent as texts appear green, whether it's to other iPhones or devices made by Apple's competitors. The green color warns me that messages are not end-to-end encrypted and can potentially be read by any man in the middle with access to telephony infrastructure.
  • cvdub 3y ago
    The problem is Apple is corrupting SMS, which should be a public and interoperable standard. Google/Gmail is doing the same thing to email. There’s no technical reason you couldn’t have end-to-end encrypted text messages between iOS and Android. I bet way more people would try Android if they could fully participate in group texts.
    • jupp0r 3y ago
      There are tons of apps that offer end-to-end encrypted messaging between iOS and Android (and Windows, MacOS, Linux fwiw). Apple offers APIs to allow you to associate your contacts with their ID in those apps so you can easily message them or share photos and files as part of iOS. The thing they are accused of is that they provide a great experience for users in their ecosystem on top of that.
• gregorygoc 3y ago
  Both Apple and Google are ruthless monopolies but when there was a post about an antitrust against Google you could’ve clearly seen a bias against them. Whereas Apple gets a free pass because their products are „cool”. This is a sad state of HN nowadays.
• jupp0r 3y ago
  "The government also said Apple had tried to maintain its monopoly by not allowing other companies to build their own digital wallets. Apple Wallet is the only app on the iPhone that can use the chip, known as the NFC, that allows a phone to tap-to-pay at checkout." NFC works fine with ChargePoint for example. There are APIs for app developers to take advantage of the chip if they want to use the functionality on their own hardware. This is merely about the level of abstraction that access is allowed to, and as a consumer, I appreciate Apple enforcing rigorous standards there vs dealing with 500 different buggy implementations.
• ursuscamp 3y ago
  I can't wait for this to take seven years to resolve, with the resolution being that the US government gets a big payday in bribes (er, sorry, fines) and nothing actually changes.
• stolsvik 3y ago
  As an iPhone user: Fantastic. I so hope Apple looses hard.
• fnord77 3y ago
  "apple is making too much money, so let's loot them"
• mbgerring 3y ago
  Another big, annoying one is password managers. I use an open source password manager with an iPhone app, but there’s no way to integrate it system wide, so the experience of using it on my phone is terrible. And yet! No matter how much worse third party integration is on iPhone, I still don’t want to use an operating system made by an advertising company.
  • aednichols 3y ago
    Are you sure the password manager is using all the APIs available to it? I use 1Password and it feels extremely well integrated.
• khazhoux 3y ago
  I hope this lawsuit fails. As a user, I’m very happy with the tight Apple ecosystem, and I don’t want my experience to be compromised just because some other companies wants to make money in Message or Photos space. The only place Apple needs to change, imho, is the app store tax.
• SaintSeiya 3y ago
  Of course it is a monopoly, I hope they sue them to the ground and force Apple to split like Microsoft was forced long ago.
  • hollerith 3y ago
    Microsoft was forced to split? I thought they only had to ensure that competing browsers would run on Windows.
• badgersnake 3y ago
  I guess all that Google lobbying cash finally paid off.
• andreygrehov 3y ago
  Can we stop feeding paywalled websites with free traffic? Does HN encourage me to create a paid account with NYTimes?
• hgs3 3y ago
  Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Corp's big money political influence.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria That's not proactive, that's just reactive to different indicators.
  • mrkeen 3y ago
    > Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? I've skimmed past a number of comments that say that Apple isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have a large enough share of the market. So is the DoJ too early or too late on this one? Anyway, it shouldn't be about the size of the company, just how they act.
  • MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
    > leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses I only partially agree. If you kill all big businesses your country will no longer be able to compete with outsiders in industries where economies of scale matter. A few examples: cars, computer chips, cloud computing. This in turn means a lot of jobs and talent will go elsewhere. In the US during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis I had some pretty strong opinions about banks. Is there any justification for having a mammoth bank that is "too big to fail"? (Serious question.) Approaching "too big to fail" status might be a good marker for when a corporate entity needs to be split. We should not be beholden to oversized companies.
  • itopaloglu83 3y ago
    Some of today’s big corporations and mega hedge funds are almost bigger than the good old British Empire. Are we definitely sure that they will not just use that power for their own good only.
• ants_everywhere 3y ago
  This quote is pretty consistent with my take on what Apple has been up to: > In the end , Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests .
  • fundad 3y ago
    Do you think? Is it in their financial and business interest to differentiate their product and keep working at it? I wonder if that’s expensive
    • kelnos 3y ago
      The sarcasm isn't really necessary. I think most of us would prefer to live in a world where the capitalist mentality didn't trump all other considerations. It's actually possible for a company like Apple to be laser-focused on privacy and giving their users the best possible options, and still make a more-than-healthy profit margin. Hell, with Apple's cash hoard, they could afford to give iPhones away for at least a couple years without much trouble. I'm not saying companies should be obligated to do crazy things like this once they have "enough" money, but I think it illustrates that there's no inherent reason why many companies need to take any particular action that increases revenue, regardless of the consequences. Apple's long-standing culture of secrecy and exclusivity is the problem, really.
    • ants_everywhere 3y ago
      The point of the quote was not that it's in their interest to differentiate. The point was that, according to the complaint and for reasons they lay out, their marketing is dishonest and they frequently put their users at increased risk when it's to their financial to do so. In other words, they're saying Apple's privacy and security stance is a bit like the trope of politicians saying "think of the children!" whenever they are selling a law that restricts liberty.
    • Hikikomori 3y ago
      Doesn't seem that expensive considering their profit margins.
• andreygrehov 3y ago
  Does U.S. make it simple to get into a mobile business so that I could compete with Apple? Can I easily manufacture a phone and get an approval from FCC? If not, then Apple should sue the hell out of DOJ in response.
• pksebben 3y ago
  It's gonna hurt me to say this because I'm one of those rabid lefty bust-up-the-corporations types, but the universe is a nuanced place so here it is; Whether Apple's practices are motivated by blocking competition or not (and I'm pretty sure that's part of their thinking if not the principal driver), there are other effects of a lot of these practices that I would hate to lose as a consumer. Not having to work to maintain compatibility with a bunch of stuff that might or might not work, and being able to focus on ecosystem interoperability, all adds up to my tablet being a seamless second monitor, being able to shuttle data between my devices, and being able to manage messaging and all sorts of other stuff on whatever device I happen to be looking at at the time, whether it's my tablet, phone, watch, or laptop. No one else does this even remotely well, and so much of what I do these days would fall under the effort watermark and never happen if it wasn't for this insane level of convenience and "it just works".
• gigatexal 3y ago
  Get the popcorn. This is gonna be good. It’s more or less tying or US v Microsoft no?
• tagyro 3y ago
  Maybe off-topic but it's really funny to read the mental gymnastics of John Gruber at Daringfireball. A week ago, the European Commission had something with Apple, now the US DOJ ...one might think that Apple really is doing something. To quote Francis Urquhart [the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart]: "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"
• ein0p 3y ago
  Makes me wonder what’s really going on. I don’t believe for a second this has anything to do with “antitrust” after watching Garland’s presser - they’re stretching the truth pretty bad and the language is along the lines of “they’re making too much money”. Like OK, what does the “GDP of countries” have to do with anything? I thought this is America and making a shit ton of money is legal here.
• gigel82 3y ago
  This is not enough. It's good, but definitely not enough.
• zackmorris 3y ago
  This makes me wonder who Apple ticked off at the DOJ, because it would be interesting to follow that money trail and see where their lobbying broke down. That's the chink in the armor of all these too-big-to-fail companies, and how we the people reclaim our power. But the real point that HN commenters seem to be missing is that the Apple we grew up with hasn't existed for a long time. They abandoned their charter decades ago. Which was originally to bring the power of computing to everyone, especially children, to liberate us all from Big Brother and the limits on creativity handed down to us by megacorps like IBM, Microsoft and now Amazon. I can't list everything that Apple has down wrong that caused me to stop endorsing them. But I can provide at least a start of a vision of what a real Apple would look like with today's technology and expertise. A real Apple would: * Strive to reduce the cost of technology through innovation and economies of scale. * Sell user-serviceable hardware with interchangeable parts and conveniences like no-tools battery replacement. * Use its vast access to capital and resources to innovate, rather than dump its R&D costs onto early adopters with stuff like VR headsets and "high end" computers costing 2-10 times the market rate. * Sell value-added services and leverage proven technologies like BitTorrent to provide users searchable access to every kind of media ever created, rather than bowing to the RIAA/MPAA and creating walled gardens like iTunes and yet another streaming service in Apple TV that locks users into a proprietary vendor providing limited usability. * Build handhelds with P2P wireless technology that "just works", the way early Kindle had free cellular access, to negate the monopoly power of 5G. * Empower users with real revolutionary technologies such as highly multicore processors, auto-scaling CPU clusters and parallelized functional programming languages, not just halfhearted evolutionary proprietary solutions like M1 and Metal which mostly just copy other monopolies like Nvidia. * Fund and maintain open source software ecosystems instead of endlessly deprecating previously working frameworks with no backwards compatibility or migration tools, to skim even more profit at tremendous expense to developers. * Encourage a developer-first mindset by providing up-to-date documentation instead of expired links and a drink-the-kool-aid mindset comprised of cookie cutter proprietary frameworks handed down from on high by middle managers and designers. * Stand up to authoritarianism by selling its products unmodified in foreign markets, rather than weakening encryption or bowing to censorship like Twitter/X did for China and India at the people's expense. * Pay the wealth forward into grants, trusts and UBI instead of hoarding an almost $3 trillion market cap that only benefits people of means who can afford to buy AAPL stock and sell it short for almost guaranteed profit at times like this. I could go on.. forever. I'm just so tired of everything that I'm not sure I can even endorse tech as a whole anymore, since this seems to be what always happens. I wish we could erase everything that happened after the Dot Bomb around the year 2000 and start over on a new timeline. Built and funded by us directly as free agents the way we always dreamed of, instead of pulling the yoke for an owner class whose only contribution is access to capital it vacuumed up from the rest of us through everything from gentrification to regulatory capture.
• amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Apple’s then-CEO about an ad for the new Kindle e-reader. The ad began with a woman who was using her iPhone to buy and read books on the Kindle app. She then switches to an Android smartphone and continues to read her books using the same Kindle app. The executive wrote to Jobs: one “message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch.” This attitude explains a lot. This logic applies to every app that's available on both iPhone and Android, and to every web app.
  • skeaker 3y ago
    This behavior is so overt that I am constantly baffled that otherwise rational people continue to make up excuses for Apple. See also this article where they overtly state that the green bubble thing is deliberately intended to cause lock-in: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-android-ecosystem-lock-in-epic-games-filings-app-store-dispute https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an... I have been called a "violent criminal" on this very site because I criticized Apple's decision to remotely brick swapped components to prevent DIY repairs. I do not understand what it is about Apple that causes this behavior in people when they make it so, so, so obvious that they are just trying to lock people in for cash.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • munchler 3y ago
      “Locking people in for cash” is a common business practice in tech and other industries. Try mounting a Nikon lens on a Canon camera, for example. You might not like it, but I’m not sure why Apple deserves special condemnation in this regard.
      • ragazzina 3y ago
        There's little you can do with a camera, even if you're able to swap lenses from another vendor. There are infinite things you could do with a modern smartphone if had access to it.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• epolanski 3y ago
  The number of people opposing these changes in this thread because "it will make their walled garden experience worse" without being able to bring up a single valid reason why would that be is astonishing.
  • dogleash 3y ago
    Apple is such boring stagnant soulless void, I don't know why people wouldn't want it chopped up just to see the component parts trying to innovate again. What have they done in the last few years? Minor incremental updates to existing products, release another screen-strapped-to-face product years late to the party while also failing to figure out what to do in the software space to justify the device, and started issuing credit cards because they needed to branch out from just getting a cut of all sales that happen on-platform.
    • harkinian 3y ago
      Apple Silicon Macs. Aside from that, yes very boring, especially the silly stuff like watches, pencils, and credit cards. That said, I'd rather our country respect private property, also it's not like there's a ton more innovation left in these spaces anyway.
  • data-ottawa 3y ago
    My one fear for this is the leverage it gives large tech companies. What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to download their own app store to use their apps? We kind of see this on PC already with every company having their own game or app store. When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search, what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web monopoly? It's not totally fair that Apple gives themselves special permissions and blocks competitors, or forces the prices they do from devs who would otherwise sell their apps through their website, but is that the lesser of two evils?
    • epolanski 3y ago
      I don't see how any of the things you describe is necessarily a bad thing for users. And if other large tech companies (as if Apple wasn't one of the biggest monopolies itself) have to be broken down, so be it. I too consider companies like Google way too big. But as a user, and a small developer, I have more pressing issues with the iOS ecosystem than "what ifs" about Google.
• KingLancelot 3y ago
  [dead]
• jagged-chisel 3y ago
  > The government even has the right to ask for a breakup… I really dislike statements like this. They could ask even without the “right to ask.” Having the “right to ask” doesn’t guarantee the request will be honored. How does this “right to ask for a breakup” actually affect the story?
  • asadotzler 3y ago
    But if they didn't have the right and asked there'd be almost no chance of success while if they do have the right to ask there's a positive chance of success. So of course it's meaningful. It's an available avenue and one worth mentioning.
• rqtwteye 3y ago
  I don’t know about the legal situation here but I welcome every effort to slow down these super mega corporations. They kill a lot of innovation with their market power. I think we would be way better off if we had many smaller companies. When was the last time something truly innovative came from Apple, Google or MS? They either buy a little innovation or suppress it.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• standardUser 3y ago
  The way Apple purposefully aims to ostracize young people who don't own/can't afford an iPhone by defaulting to a proprietary, non-interoperable messaging system has been enough to turn me entirely against the company.
  • khazhoux 3y ago
    How are they ostracized? I hear people gripe about green versus blue and all I can think is: are we all suddenly grade schoolers who think the color of your clothes makes you cool?
    • pms 3y ago
      Maybe you and me are not like that, but most iPhone users are like that and that's what Apple wanted from the start (to artificially discriminate for the good of their business)?
    • BlackFly 3y ago
      When did we as a society stop behaving like that? The scarlet letter was from 1800s, but at no time since then would I say that society suddenly realized that the designation of pariahs was problematic. You talk about the color of your clothes as if people are someone enlightened about it, but the whole plot of American Psycho is essentially a lens on 1980s Yuppie culture where what you are wearing is more interesting and memorable to people than your name [and who you are]. Such attitudes persist in tech circles although flipped: wear an AC/DC t-shirt = one of us, show up in a 3 piece suit = outsider. Absolutely, designating someone as different because of how they connect is enough to create a designation as an outsider. Almost by definition.
    • milkytron 3y ago
      I've been left out of family and friend group chats for not having an iPhone. I nearly missed a birthday party for my friend that his girlfriend organized because she didn't want to lose iMessage features when sending out the group invite. I only found out the day before because my friend asked if I would be coming to his party the day before. I only got added to my family group chat after I got a mac and installed AirMessage.
• summerlight 3y ago
  I wonder what would be Apple's reaction to this case. They've been publicly provoking EU since none of the available options can be an existential threat to Apple thanks to its jurisdiction. Even kicking them off the EU market would be very hard and politically infeasible actions. But the US is different. They actually have the power to do whatever they want, from small fines to breaking up. It's much more of existential threat to Apple and they probably don't want to piss off those prosecutors and politicians too much?
  • m000 3y ago
    The question for the case of US is "why now?". Could this be tightening the screw to make Apple more cooperative with 3-letter agencies, after other methods have failed?
• djbelieny 3y ago
  Ok, I understand this may be an unpopular stance and risk downvotes. However, I want to share my perspective on government intervention in business, particularly regarding anti-monopoly actions against companies with proprietary ecosystems. Firstly, I'm no fan of monopolies. Yet, I'm conflicted about the idea of the government compelling anyone to divulge trade secrets or alter their services to simply foster competition, especially when the company in question has opted to create an ecosystem of products and services designed to be exclusive. For example, Apple's iMessage doesn't integrate with other platforms, and its smartphones are optimized for its ecosystem. As consumers, we're aware of these limitations and have the "freedom" to choose products that better suit our needs instead. Labeling a company as a monopoly simply because its products don't play well with others overlooks the investment and innovation behind their development. After all, it's Apple's technology, infrastructure, and service on the line. Why should these companies be forced to share or open their ecosystems? While there are valid arguments for promoting interoperability and open technology, the idea of mandating companies to share their proprietary advancements seems to contradict the essence of free enterprise. Should they then be compelled to 'open up' their infrastructure against their will?
• waltbosz 3y ago
  Thought experiment: how would the world respond if Apple decided to go full Atlas Shrugged and just closed their business? Turned off all their servers, closed all the Apple stores, fired everyone, etc.
  • mutatio 3y ago
    What are you trying to convey, something along the lines that we should be grateful? I suspect unless they destroyed everything the gov would force them open, after all their products and services have layers upon layers of service agreements, SLAs etc.
    • waltbosz 3y ago
      I was sincere in my thought experiment idea. I'm curious what would happen. I expect they would be in beach of contract because of the underlying SLAs, but then what happens if they refuse to comply? Could the board go to jail or be sued? Could company assets be seized? ... I'm not trying to convey anything. At least nothing along the lines of you should be grateful to Apple. But it's their ecosystem and their vision for how it all fits together. And there are alternative smartphone vendors, consumers have choices. Maybe I don't understand anti trust law well enough to see what Apple has done wrong and why they should have to compromise their vision.
      • mutatio 3y ago
        My provocative take of your thought experiment is that there might be social strife from the fallout, from the mass bricked devices and effects on communications. This in itself implies anti-monopoly investigation is warranted, I'd also argue it's a failure of government to allow it to get this far in the first place. That is to say the government itself should be interrogated as to why this took so long, I don't like how the gov is cheered in these circumstances whilst allowing it to get to this. I don't think consumer choice is an argument for the allowance of these walled gardens because it's mostly an illusion of choice, that's what these corporations are experts at, and this applies to the Android ecosystem too. I say all this as a Adam Smith fanboy and general fan of free market economics.
• burgessuk 3y ago
  Is it Coincidence Apple just allowed EU to install 3rd party apps? Personally I think Apple should never have allowed EU to infiltrate its devices /Apples software. I always looked at an iPhone, like an Xbox, or PlayStation; locked down device; you have to use the brands own controllers, own App Store. There’s no way Microsoft/Sony would allow EU 3rd stores on their devices? I didn’t think Apple would either & that looks to have come back & bitten them!?
• Andrex 3y ago
  Finally.
• ubermonkey 3y ago
  Next up: suing Sony for having a Playstation monopoly, and suing Tesla for having a Tesla monopoly.
  • nvarsj 3y ago
    It has a lot to do with scale. There are 5 million Teslas. There are 2 billion iPhones. If Tesla had 60%+ of the car market and engaged in anti competitive/trust-like behaviour, it would also be ripe for action.
• bsimpson 3y ago
  Totally procedural, but… I wonder how they select a venue for these cases. Looks like it's being heard in New Jersey, even though the California attorney general is on board. Since Apple is based in California, it seems like the case ought to default to being heard there. Would suck if you were a smaller company and had to pay to fly your legal team to wherever whim the DOJ selected, for however long a case takes to hear.
• jtotheh 3y ago
  A big part of what makes a phone platform competitive is the apps for it. In the Netscape/ie days, Netscape ran on many platforms and made the underlying OS less important.this led to Microsoft going to great lengths to make windows/ie a walled garden. I saw this in working developing intranet apps. Things that “just worked “ on windows/ie didn’t work for Mac/linux/unix users. The “super app” part of this lawsuit seems to me to describe a sort of layer that allows smaller apps —- “mini programs”— to program to that layer instead of to android/ios, and makes the app the same on either OS. It seems apple is being anticompetitive in its actions to prevent this.its sort of like QT letting you have one code base for various os’s. I think apple can try and make the native apps for iOS be better through innovation, but anticompetitive behavior is not ok. From page 29 of the lawsuit: “Apple did not respond to the risk that super apps might disrupt its monopoly by innovating. Instead, Apple exerted its control over app distribution to stifle others' innovation. Apple created, strategically broadened, and aggressively enforced its App Store Guidelines to effectively block apps from hosting mini programs. Apple's conduct disincentivized investments in mini program development and caused U.S. companies to abandon or limit support for the technology in the United States.” If apple has capabilities on iPhones that androids don’t have, then native iOS apps that use them will be more desirable . That would be beneficial competition. If apple makes it hard to write cross platform lowest common denominator apps, that is anticompetitive.
• devwastaken 3y ago
  Apple has removed competitors apps and taken their markets in the past. They are not a neutral party, and the weights of public interest must be to sustain open markets. It is good for everyone, it's unfortunate Apple has to be forced to do it but they only did it to themselves.
• pmarreck 3y ago
  People think iMessage has entrenched iOS but what's actually happened is that iMessage has entrenched the POTS phone number system, which is (frankly) unregulated shit. You can actually iMessage people with just an email address, but in practice I don't think anyone actually does that since you can't also call them by that identifier (but now you can use any number of services to call digitally while skipping POTS phone numbers entirely)
• browningstreet 3y ago
  Irony alert: “YouTube TV rolling out Multiview on iPhone and iPad; Android ‘in the coming months’” https://9to5google.com/2024/03/20/youtube-tv-multiview-iphone-ipad-android/ https://9to5google.com/2024/03/20/youtube-tv-multiview-iphon...
• throwaway14356 3y ago
  my mental analogy is this. Say someone produces a reading chair. Now say the company desires to restrict, shape or dictate which books one is allowed to read while sitting in the chair. One could argue they should have such rights but historically it is quite unusual. Similarly, if you pay for the chair and put it in your home it is tempting to think you've purchased it and that you own and control it. The tos could state that the company may at nay time introduce a monthly fee, render the chair unusable or force you to return it without providing a reason. They may revoke the unisex version and force the user to choose a sex or limit the license to a single user. It could introduce tools to measure the weight of the user and use that to determine a violation of the single user agreement. A popular book vendor might require you own one of their competing reading chairs and disallow reading in other chairs. The company building the house can also grant it self all kinds of privileges. You must buy compatible appliances. They can put some weird connectors on them with some drm logic. np The only reason not to have such possibly wonderful eco systems imho is that we already have hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. If we are to use and make products it should be as simple as possible. Using your weight to check if you are the registered user is not the point to start fixing it. The law should simply state that chair and subscription are separate products.
  • ineedaj0b 3y ago
    I don’t think this analogy works because you could have bought the competing chair - which proponents of loudly claim is better than the Apple chair - and gotten similar service. As a matter of fact I’m told the competing chair is much better, and not only that it’s cheaper! And I’m an idiot for buying the Apple chair Buy the competing chair. This is not a monopoly.
    • _justinfunk 3y ago
      Also, in the analogy your chair comes with regular visits to do maintenance, improvements and add new features to your chair. Also whenever you sit in the chair, there are real monetary costs to the chair maker.
    • throwaway14356 3y ago
• shmerl 3y ago
  Good. It's hilarious how Apple complains that it "threatens our core practices". If their core practices are based on anti-competitive behavior (and they are), they should be totally threatened. I want to see ban on competing browsers being mentioned in this case.
• apatheticonion 3y ago
  Wow I am surprised to see this coming from the US. Though this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to actions the government could take to empower competition/innovation in the space. I wonder how far they will go? Right to repair? Unlocked boot loaders? Driver schematics? After seeing the EU crack down on monopolistic practices, I'm starting to feel hopeful that we might one day see competition, choice and innovation return to the modern computers.
• kovacs_x 3y ago
  apple should simply allow to replace ios with Android or Linux on iphone (without any support obviously) for those who "feel restricted" and let them have it.. for all the remaining let us keep using Apples walled garden on apples terms (i like having good night sleep knowing that my family members wont fck up their phones, get hacked or their data be used for profit by google, fb and any other "competitor").
• kovacs_x 3y ago
  Whats interesting that most of iphone users i know (eastern europe), doesnt use iMessage at all or only for sms type of messaging only and for rich messaging we use whatsapp, messenger, telegram, signal, slack, discord, viber (?) and my almost first / only question question over sms (imessage) always is- do you have whatsapp? apparently its different in states.
• Kerbonut 3y ago
  Next do power tools manufacturers for purposefully making incompatible battery packs and printer manufacturers for incompatible ink cartridges.
  • hu3 3y ago
    Funny, an Apple printer would probably only accept Apple certified paper sheets and require an ink subscription. Of course it would not support USB, favouring a proprietary connector so your printing can start 0.1 seconds faster. Parts would be glued together so to make it compact (and impossible to fix). All for the bargain of $999. And yes, some people would gladly buy them.
    • vmladenov 3y ago
      > Of course it would not support USB, favouring a proprietary connector so your printing can start 0.1 seconds faster. The company that shipped the first laptop to go all-in on USB-C in 2016?
      • hu3 3y ago
        2016? HP announced their USBC supporting laptop in 2015: https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8800583/hp-first-usb-c-device-release-date https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/18/8800583/hp-first-usb-c-de... Apple is the company that had to be forced by EU to support USB in their phones.
• kovacs_x 3y ago
  so.. based of these claims by US government, would it be good and required for Apple to give full access to users data, financials, health and everything-else-data to say Huaweii smartwatch?
  • nakedrobot2 3y ago
    if you paid for the phone and the watch and they belong to you, then yes, of course.
    • kovacs_x 3y ago
      I'm not sure you get the reference here.. it's not about what you want or not, but how US government feels about certain (chinese) company.
• ddxv 3y ago
  I wish they took Apple to task for "privacy" SKAN which forces everyone to let Apple run a blackbox advertising.
• mikhael28 3y ago
  Man, it must be tough to work in Apple's legal department.
• devaiops9001 3y ago
  An iPhone should be like a Macbook. A user should be able to load a cryptographic key to the bootloader and boot any OS of their choosing. I'm kind of more on the extreme "Free Market" way of thinking, but even I think that government should step in and force an iPhone to be like a Macbook in this way.
• ch4s3 3y ago
  This seems like such a waste of time for the Justice Department. Despite what we may think about Apple's walled garden, the case for consumer harm is very limited. There are only so many anti-trust cases they can pursue, and I don't know why they aren't digging into things that clearly damage consumers. For example CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts control 80% of the consumer drug market as PBMs. CVS Caremark controls 1/3 of the market and that control definitely drives up prices and bottlenecks drug availability. You can also easily identify how delays with PBM adversely effect patient outcomes. Why did it take a person injury lawyer to finally take on the national association of realtors on fees? One could go on at length.
• Lamad1234 3y ago
  [dead]
• lyu07282 3y ago
  > The Justice Department has the right under the law to ask for structural changes to Apple’s business — including a breakup, said an agency official Sometimes neoliberalism feels like it's gaslighting us, like am I really supposed to believe this is going to lead to any substantial change? That this ideology isn't completely delusional?
• gavmor 3y ago
  I'd like to see them chastised/regulated for their anticompetitive browser policies which cripple PWAs and web technologies in general. I was truly thrilled to hear about this month's UK and European legislation on the matter.[0] 0. Interview with Alex & James Moore, founding members of the Open Web Advocacy (OWA) — https://pca.st/episode/62ae3300-16e1-47bb-af24-759c980ba671 https://pca.st/episode/62ae3300-16e1-47bb-af24-759c980ba671
• kmbfjr 3y ago
  There is a lot to complain about Apple’s business practices, but the fact that the green bubble rage has turned into an interoperability monopoly case is laughable. How much did that one set back Google after their ADHD killed off how many messaging platforms? Fine, open it up, open them all up. Give me sliders to deny messages from SMS, Whatsapp and anyone else looking for compatibility. Same in the other direction, allow users to choose from which originating platform they’ll accept messages. As far as the rest, yeah, Apple needs an adjustment. I should not have to pay to run my own app on my own phone. But I do.
• gwenwiener 3y ago
  This comment is an experiment to test the website's error prevention methods
• ArthurAardvark 3y ago
  Of all the goliaths and titans of industry...Apple....really? Perhaps its a matter of applicable laws/cases...but why not Amazon, Google and Microsoft? They have their tentacles in every direction, I consider that sort of broad-spectrum corporation to be the worst kind. It is not even similar sectors in the case of Amazon (well there are plenty of Google subsidies without the "Google" brand on it) which I find more frightening but hey, I welcome our new corporate overlords!
  • jmholla 3y ago
    > but why not Amazon, Google and Microsoft? I'm pretty sure the DOJ is going after them as well. This suit is just about Apple.
• unethical_ban 3y ago
  Yes, Apple and Google have what we call super app capability on their own phones. However unless or until mobile OS permissions structures can grant permissions at a sub app level, I think it's good that random Joe schmo, or worse, someone like meta, cannot make a combination banking-messaging - social credit - maps application that insists on total phone access all the time.
• camdenlock 3y ago
  This is some EU-smelling shite.
  • Ylpertnodi 3y ago
    How so?
    • camdenlock 3y ago
      State overreach, wasting enormous productivity in the process.
• m3kw9 3y ago
  It seems like they do not like vertical integration
• xyst 3y ago
  Whoever is handling the legal for Apple is about to see a shit ton more billable hours for the next decade.
• ActualHacker 3y ago
  Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon should be 500 companies, not 5
• lukeplato 3y ago
  When is a good time to buy AAPL on the dip?
• jaimex2 3y ago
  Good, tear them apart.
• nektro 3y ago
  while I love to see the government finally getting a sliver of an appetite to go after monopolies, why Apple when there's so many others that are so much more insidious?
• dghughes 3y ago
  Stuff like Apple Vision Pro where you need an iPhone to scan your face is annoying. If you want a Apple Watch but have Android phone it's pretty much pointless. How does Apple get away with that? Worse than that from hardware to browsers over the years it all seems to be less open or to work with other systems, apps, OS. Linux being the exception of course.
  • khazhoux 3y ago
    > Stuff like Apple Vision Pro where you need an iPhone to scan your face is annoying. If you want a Apple Watch but have Android phone it's pretty much pointless. How does Apple get away with that? You think of the Apple Watch or AVP as independent pieces of hardware, but the Apple model is that they're all one integrated system, of which you can choose what components to buy or not. My biggest problem with this suit is that it attacks the core premise of interoperability that is one of the reasons people like the Apple ecosystem to begin with.
    • dghughes 3y ago
      >My biggest problem with this suit is that it attacks the core premise of interoperability that is one of the reasons people like the Apple ecosystem to begin with. I'm sure IBM would have loved to have made that claim in the early 1980s. Thankfully we now have a massive home computer market not just owned by IBM.
• ggregoire 3y ago
  Can Apple win?
• cushpush 3y ago
  Listening to Merrick Garland US AG all I can say is, let the man cook.
• jmholla 3y ago
  For those asking why just Apple: > Google, Meta and Amazon are all facing similar suits, and companies from Kroger to JetBlue Airways have faced greater scrutiny of potential acquisitions and expansion.
• aidog 3y ago
  My biggest complaint is that they don't even let you send photos over bluetooth to a non-apple device! There is no way to share files wirelessly.
• raminf 3y ago
  "Super Apps" raise two technical issues: 1. Allowing such apps to handle their own payment processing across multiple applications. This means Apple doesn't get to force everyone through the in-app purchasing funnel and collect a transaction fee. There could be an exception made that the fee is waived for purchasing physical goods and services through the super-app. This shouldn't be a hard change. The big fight will be over selling digital content and what is a fair percentage. 2. Allow users to install binary plugins or extensions into a single app without going through an AppStore review. Apple does not currently allow this unless the plugins or extensions are web-based and can run inside the webkit sandbox. They'll have a strong argument that forcing them to allow running arbitrary, unreviewed code will open up big security holes.
• JaceLightning 3y ago
  Thank. God. Fuck evil Apple.
• idkdotcom 3y ago
  [dead]
• sieborg 3y ago
  If you don't want the app store, just buy an android. sick of this
• FixThisPOS 3y ago
  [dead]
• matt3210 3y ago
  If I didn't like the Apple ecosystem, lock-in and walled garden, I would use android.
• Walden98 3y ago
  thanks for sharing..
• dohello 3y ago
  [flagged]
• dohello 3y ago
  [flagged]
• pickleberto 3y ago
  [dead]
• minroot 3y ago
  this feels so stupid.
• minroot 3y ago
  will this prevent people from not buying apple phones?
• Sparkyte 3y ago
  It's not an iphone monopoly it is a platform monopoly. The lawsuit is over the ecosystem not allowing users to pick or choose and being forced into a dependency with Apple products.
• dariosalvi78 3y ago
  I don't understand what people don't understand about this. Comments like "you are free to buy another phone" or "regulating is only going to stifle innovation" show an utter ignorance about how tech industry works and a very naive view about capitalism. Apple, as all other big tech companies, grow and thrive because of the ecosystem of companies, suppliers, consumers, researchers, and (importantly) those who offer products and services on top of them. They have built a very successful "platform": the iPhone. Because a mobile phone is not a "device" any longer, it's part of an infrastructure, used by companies, banks, healthcare and governments to offer consumers and citizens services, on which often life depends on. If you build a platform to keep it half-opened, at your convenience, with aggressive lock-in strategies, favouring your own products (apps) at the damage of others, you are playing dirty. No matter how much consumers love and trust you, you are playing dirty at the expenses of all those companies, banks, healthcare and governments that rely on you and at the expenses of consumers and society at large. Apple can still have its own wonderful walled garden for its iPhone, but give the possibility to others to create their own gardens too. Regarding interventionism (ruling, punishing etc.), that's done for _protecting_ capitalism. I often read comments on HN that criticise the EU for creating pointless regulations that are anti-competitive or a burden and what not. What these people completely get wrong is that the EU institutions are as capitalistic as they can be. Capitalism is excellent at creating wealth, but it's also excellent at destroying itself as proven multiple times. Those regulations are meant to create a _healthy_ capitalism, one that fosters competition, creates jobs and favours consumers. Something that the US used to worry about in the past, but then got too lobbied (or maybe too nationalistic?) and stopped doing it. I am happy that someone is starting to wake up now. Making iPhones more open comes with some risks, yes, but the current situation is unsustainable and something must be done about it.
• minhdanh72 3y ago
  I believe that the best solution would be for Apple to open up iMessage to other platforms. This would allow users to choose the messaging app that they prefer, regardless of what type of phone they have. It would also promote competition and innovation in the messaging market.
• nojvek 3y ago
  Suing is the easy part. Getting courts to rule that Apple is a monopoly is a much bigger deal. And Apple will surely appeal, and that appeal has to also result in same ruling. Otherwise it’s a performance like Lina Khan does with FTC with little to to show.
• bigbacaloa 3y ago
  [dead]
• spacecadet 3y ago
  Focus less on monopoly and they may not have built a flawed chip... The sun sets once again on Apple.
  • spacecadet 3y ago
    Downvotes but true. Hacker news hates truth.
• amelius 3y ago
  Break them up into a software, hardware and services company.
• twodave 3y ago
  Dr. Seuss wrote a book about the blue iMessage bubble. It’s called “The Sneetches”. There are lots of other chat app options that work just as well as iMessage and are cross-platform, but some people like to lord even very superficial superiority over others. And of course Apple fuels this by making it the default. But what would it be like if we all had “stars upon ours”?
• briandear 3y ago
  Why doesn’t the U.S. sue GM for their plan to eliminate CarPlay for most of their cars? GM is creating a monopoly on GM in-car infotainment systems. Or why aren’t software makers being sued when they release Windows-only versions of their products? This whole thing is absurd. Don’t like iPhone or Apple, people can choose alternatives. Basically Apple’s being sued because it’s too good?
• teddyh 3y ago
  The case against Microsoft basically vanished after an election happened.
• Blackstrat 3y ago
  So I'm guessing Apple didn't agree to collude with the government as Google, Facebook, et al has. It's not a monopoly. No one has to buy Apple. Globally, Android phones have a larger share of the market. In the US, Apple is around 55%. As for it's business practices? About like the rest of the tech industry, or industry generally.
• ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  For folks that have worked with Apple, since the 1980s, it’s sort of surreal, to see this happening. We remember Apple as this scrappy, scruffy outfit, struggling to stay alive. We never dreamed that they would ever get to the place, where they would be sued as a monopoly. I remember the old WWDCs, when you could just walk up to anyone at Apple (including Steve), and just start chatting. If you did talk to Steve, he might not be so nice, responding, but you didn't have bodyguards or bouncers. Those days, they are long gone. I have a friend that worked for Apple for a while. He told me that his onboarding training had a special section on dealing with "The Principals." Basically, if you passed Tim or Craig, or somesuch, in the hallway, you were to act as if they weren't there. Avoid eye contact, don't say hi, no nods, etc.
  • throwup238 3y ago
    > Basically, if you passed Tim or Craig, or somesuch, in the hallway, you were to act as if they weren't there. Avoid eye contact, don't say hi, no nods, etc. It is believed within the upper echelons of the Cult of the Executive that employees' eyes are the windows to their souls, a dangerous place for any sociopath to gaze lest a tiny drop of empathy develop and ruin the quarterly numbers.
  • justin66 3y ago
    > We remember Apple as this scrappy, scruffy outfit, struggling to stay alive. I don’t know. For those of us who were bitter when Apple killed the Apple II… we put the notion of “scrappy” Apple behind a long time ago.
• perfectstorm 3y ago
  i don't expect anything to come out of this (really a cash strapped government department trying to take on a trillion dollar company), but at the very least i expect Apple to settle for some things like better interoperability between iMessages and RCS. My SO uses an iPhone and i converted to Android and messages sent between our devices are always a hit or miss. I really like my old Apple watch but i can't use it anymore because i switched to a Google Pixel. My hope is that Apple settles this outside of court and agrees to more interoperability.
• blondie9x 3y ago
  The most dangerous monopoly Apple maintains is iMessage. Everyone hates to be the non-blue message recipient. The reason customers are loyal to Apple iPhones is simple. iMessage and iCloud. It is definitely anti-competitive the way iMessage and iCloud function to lock out other cloud backup alternatives and to make subordinate non-iPhone recipients. Like the lightning cable to USB-C migration. There should be 1 message platform for phones that builds upon SMS.
• sashank_1509 3y ago
  I guess this is what it feels like to see the country and institutions you love decay in real time and go to the dogs. The number of HN comments here supporting the government and arguing against Apple boggle my mind, yet I can’t help but notice that I’ve seen this trendline for a while and should honestly be expecting it until something drastic happens. For those with a more open mind, look at the wasteland of America and try to find the few institutions that houses the most productive, smart and creative people of the world and actively develops and nurtures them. You will find that one of those institutions is Apple, probably the biggest and arguably among the best in the computer industry. Any sane government would decide its first priority is to protect and nurture these institutions as they represent the cream of the crop of institutions in the country. If Apple started in China, you bet the Chinese government would pull all stops to try and subsidize Apple if its business starts to die, that will also kill Apple albeit in a different way. Yet in our government we have decided it’s time to ruin this institution. Quick, what’s the easiest way to take your most productive and motivated employees and make them quit in frustration. Easy, you keep chipping away at their autonomy, narrowing it in scope and replacing all the tasks where they used to think decide with a long complex labyrinthe of rules and processes. Any time they take initiative, make them go through a long and arduous approval by committee and anytime they make an infraction micromanage them in that area for an excessive amount of time. You will find that they will quit in due time.The government seems determined on putting Apple on that diet. In its ideal world, Apple should be another Boeing, a company that exists to embody its regulation. Alas we are fortunately a bit far away from that, Apple I reckon has a few good years of its life left, but I won’t be surprised if we see this happen to the tech industry in 20 years.
  • gigel82 3y ago
    > Apple should be another Boeing, a company that exists to embody its regulation That is pretty funny because you're right, Apple is becoming another Boeing - a profit-above-all-else corporate asshole and just like Boeing what we need is a hell of a lot more regulation, not less: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
    • sashank_1509 3y ago
• foobaw 3y ago
  I just want Apple to release RCS already
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  The "non-paywall link" did not work me. This worked instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20240321143551if_/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240321143551if_/https://www.ny...
• bfrog 3y ago
  Plenty of monopolies, the iPhone at least to this armchair analyst doesn’t look even close to being one.
• arctac 3y ago
  Long overdue, markets should be free.