49 ms·

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 s

• 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.
    • mopsi 3y ago
      Strage to see that as an issue; SMS is clearly an inferior protocol compared to iMessage and it's useful to know when messages have been downgraded.
      • baq 3y ago
        I agree. That's why I'm saying interop is not the root of the problem. Segregation of people based on whether they are using iMessage or something else combined with inability to install iMessage on non-Apple devices causes a social problem and a significant smartphone market pressure.
      • throw0101c 3y ago
        > Strage to see that as an issue; SMS is clearly an inferior protocol compared to iMessage and it's useful to know when messages have been downgraded. Except that's not why the blue/green difference was created (at least historically). It dates back to the time where SMS messages cost money for each one sent (though plans often came with x free messages), so the green message was telling you it was (potentially) costing you money when sending/receiving messages. (US$ = greenbacks -> green = cost)
        • danaris 3y ago
  • Yizahi 3y ago
    That would be an interesting development, because apparently the other monopolist in this game is implementing RCS with some proprietary crap, and Apple will deliberately implement the current standard feature set. So they will continue being incompatible but now because of Google. I'll continue investing in the popcorn futures :) .
  • mbreese 3y ago
    I’ve never understood the messaging interop angle when there are so many non-phone network based messaging apps available. It’s just always seemed the weakest of the arguments against Apple w.r.t. the iPhone. SMS/MMS/RCS standardization was historically a train wreck so it made sense to me for Apple to just support the minimum and be done with it. All of my groups chats that involve a mixture of iPhone and Android users has usually been on something like WhatsApp for this reason. The other points seem much more specific and actionable.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • babyshake 3y ago
    To be fair, Apple has said a lot of things. Wasn't FaceTime supposed to be an open standard and that never happened? If they give a specific target date I'd feel more encouraged.
• theshrike79 3y ago
  All of these are pretty sane, except for: > Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android Will they force Samsung and Google to have their watches interoperate with iOS too, or are they exempt because they are bit players in the field?
  • Fripplebubby 3y ago
    Here's a quote from the complaint: > Apple’s smartwatch—Apple Watch—is only compatible with the iPhone. So, if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new, Android-compatible smartwatch.
    • harkinian 3y ago
      Then don't buy an Apple Watch? They're pretty upfront about what it is.
    • tombert 3y ago
      This actually kind of happened to me. My iPhone 12 Pro was stolen out of my hands last year in July. I had an Apple watch, but decided to replace the iPhone with a Pixel 7 Pro [1] since it was a bit cheaper than replacing the iPhone and I didn't have a job, and as a result my watch didn't work. Initially I was happy enough to use a dumb analog watch, but shortly after this happened, I was diagnosed with sleep apnea and wanted something that would track sleep. I ended up getting a Garmin Instinct (per a recommendation on HN actually). I gotta admit that it would have been pretty nice to not have been forced to buy a new smartwatch, and just use the one I already had. I love the Garmin Instinct, more than I liked the Apple Watch [2], it's a very good, well-made product, and I'm happy that it appears to work fine on iOS and Android, but I really didn't need another watch. If there hadn't been an artificial limitation forcing me to get another watch, I would probably still be using the Apple Watch. [1] I don't have that phone anymore because the Pixel 7 Pro is a horrible product that Google should be ashamed of themselves over. [2] In no small part because the battery is like 16 days instead of the 1.5 days I was getting with the Apple Watch.
• djaychela 3y ago
  >Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android. This is the reason I am now on an iPhone after being on Android since ~2009. But this could also apply to Samsung too. There were two watches I was considering - Samsung's and Apple's (for health monitoring reasons, I have a family history of heart problems, and am already nearly 10 years older than my dad was when he died). I would either have to buy a Samsung phone or an iPhone to get the functionality I wanted, and TBH I really don't like Samsung's take on Android (I've been either Cyanogenmod or Motorola for over a decade), so an iPhone it was. But I would have preferred to get an Apple Watch and have that work fully with my Android phone, but that's not even a starter, let alone the limited-functionality you would get with a Samsung watch with another Android phone. I'm happy with the watch, and I now like a lot about the iPhone. But it was 4x the price of my previous phone.
  • ensignavenger 3y ago
    Was this before the Google Pixel Watch, or did you eliminate it for other reasons? Also, newer Galaxy watches run Androids WearOS instead of Tizen, and from what I understand, work much better with other Android phones.
• airstrike 3y ago
  1. Super Apps are notorious for tracking the user across the "mini" apps within it, which is the argument made by Apple for making them hard to get approval for. I'm on Apple's side here 2. I was able to use PS Remote Play on my iPhone even many years ago (pre-COVID). A quick google search shows that Steam Link and Shadow PC (my ATF) are also available on iOS. I'm on Apple's side here too 3. I think the situation has recently changed here as someone else has commented, so this feels solvable without a lawsuit. Also it's hard to single out Apple here when everyone out there has their own messaging platforms. It's not like WhatsApp is encouraging third-party clients. An argument can be made that iMessage blurs the line between what's Apple-provided vs. carrier-provided, so I can see the user confusion and the issues that come with it. I'm on the FTC's side here 4. Who cares about smartwatches. It's niche at best. Besides, there are countless other watches you can use and they work with many devices. I'm on Apple's side here 5. It's not like you can't tap your card instead of your phone. I don't think the phone needs to be just a husk with apps created by third parties, especially for things like wallets. I'm happy to trade away that freedom for increased security, Benjamin Franklin's quote notwithstanding. The payments ecosystem is made up of players charging fees from the next player down the chain, so also hard to single out Apple here, but I can see why there's need for increased transparency (I wasn't explicitly aware they charged any fees, even if I would probably guess they were if prompted). I'm on neither side here. So based on my biases and incomplete understanding of the facts, Apple wins 3-1 It's worth remembering that this administration is suing seemingly everyone in Tech, in what I can only assume is being done in the hopes they can make a name for themselves. Lena Khan literally said "you miss all the shots you don't take". I would prefer a more focused approach with higher signal to noise ratio.
  • ApolIllo 3y ago
    > Who cares about smartwatches 219.43 million people use smartwatches
    • 0xffff2 3y ago
      I assume that's worldwide? That definitely seems niche to me compared to the global population.
• ben7799 3y ago
  Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them. I am curious what things the iPhone does that others aren't allowed to do. Most of the differences between Garmin and Apple Watch seem like they were conscious decisions where they each decided to take a different direction. It's one of those weird things where it seems like the case has a bunch of holes. You can use an iPhone with some but not all non-Apple Smart watches. You can use a non-Apple phone with non-Apple smartwatches. There are other non-Apple smart watches that those manufacturers have decided can't be used with an iPhone, no different than Apple. Lots of choices in the market, I certainly don't feel restricted. I am not sure how requiring something like WeChat to break into multiple apps would be a big issue. Apple even breaks it's own apps up into different apps.
  • atourgates 3y ago
    My guess is around notifications and handoff to iPhone apps. I tried Garmin watches, and they're certainly better as "exercise tracking devices" than anything Apple offers, but they weren't tightly enough integrated with my iPhone to make it "worth it" to me to wear them all the time. An Apple Watch Ultra - on the other hand - is a poorer exercise tracking device, but gives me enough "integrated with my iPhone" benefit to become the first watch I've worn consistently in 30+ years. I assumed this was the result of design and development choices by Garmin, but it'll be interesting to see if their are meaningful ways that Apple restricts smartwatch developers from including similar levels of integration.
    • 0xffff2 3y ago
      Can you expand on what "integrated with my iPhone" means in concrete terms? I don't really understand what you mean.
      • S_A_P 3y ago
        Not the original poster but for me it means not having to look at my phone for many tasks. I can see who texted or messaged me and the message without opening my phone. I can take or ignore a call. Basically anything that hits your message alerts can be displayed on the watch in most cases. Maybe the Apple Watch is not the best fitness tracker watch but it’s plenty good for me and it’s health integration is pretty good especially with the ultra.
• jacobr1 3y ago
  > Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps. Not sure I buy this point. Competitors can also offer their own suite of apps. Apple has an advantage that they can come pre-installed. But they aren't really building super-apps, just a variety of default apps - nothing stops third parties from offering multiple apps on the platform, that is actually a common thing to do.
  • edanm 3y ago
    EDIT: My comment was wrong, please see helpful corrections below! I think there are technical limitations when you have different apps vs. one app. Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.
    • idle_zealot 3y ago
      Apps on iOS are allowed to communicate and share data so long as they are published by the same developer.
      • edanm 3y ago
        I didn't know that, can they share logins across apps? E.g. if I'm logged into Google Spreadsheets, am I also logged into Google Docs automatically?
        • shuckles 3y ago
          Yes all apps by the same developer have a shared container.
        • ahsteele 3y ago
          Yes, exactly.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • 3y ago
• madeofpalk 3y ago
  I believe Apple needs more regulatory action taken against it for abusing it's dominant position. But apart from cloud streaming apps (which they've resolved recently by allowing them), I find these claims to be pretty weak and not significantly market-affecting. I strongly believe Apple is under no obligation to make iMessage cross-platform. It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose. SMS is the interoperable standard between different platforms, and RCS is the new standard which they've comitted to supporting. I would much rather action taken on Apple for the anti-steering provisions restricting competition for payments. I think this has had a much bigger market impact than limitations on game streaming or smart watches.
  • WheatMillington 3y ago
    >It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose. That argument only works until there is market dominance, which is the point of anti-trust regulations.
    • ubermonkey 3y ago
      ...but Apple doesn't have dominance. They may have slightly more than half the market, but that's not usually considered antitrust territory.
      • madeofpalk 3y ago
        Apple is in a dominant position. It feels wrong to say that their behaviour does not impact the market.
        • ubermonkey 3y ago
          "Impacts the market" is not the same as "controls the market," which is the threshold (usually) for antitrust litigation. Microsoft, by comparison, OWNED desktop computing in the 90s. Apple was on the ropes badly, and Linux wasn't viable for most people. And they used that dominance to attempt to strangle the open web in its crib. People literally had no where else to go. Apple has nothing like that control today. Android enjoys a healthy chunk of the market. A host of other messaging tools exist if you don't like iMessage. You can avoid using Apple's tech at every turn if you like (and I know many people who do, as a matter of personal policy). This is not a situation that warrants governmental intervention. This is a situation where the government is overreaching, and if they succeed the precedent will be set that Washington gets to decide what features a vendor can control on their own platforms. That's not a good place to be.
• Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Holy mother of based. I love the current US government. Cracking down on pretty much all of Apples bullshit in one fell-swoop. Now just stop them from offering 8gb of ram on the base model macbooks, and apple might be the perfect tech company.
• ryandrake 3y ago
  I just don’t understand the appeal of “Super Apps”. Do users really want to hire a taxi with the same application they use to message their friends, and have that be the same application they use to buy household goods, and have that be the same application they use to control their garage door? It doesn’t make sense to me. These are totally different tasks. Why would a user want to use the same app to do them? Imagine the extreme end result of this: You buy a phone, and it’s OS comes with only one app installed: The Super App which you launch and do everything through it. How is that Super App not in fact the OS at that point?
  • deegles 3y ago
    > Do users really want ... The answer is clearly yes in a lot of markets, even if purpose-built apps might be better at a specific tasks, a single app that does dozens of things "well enough" is more convenient than having to juggle dozens of login infos and para-relationships with app developers (managing graymail etc).
    • AlexandrB 3y ago
      Does't this "the market is right" logic also apply to Apple itself and its walled garden? E.g.: "Do users really want a walled garden where they can't install 'everything apps'? The answer is clearly yes in a lot of markets..."
      • deegles 3y ago
        both things can be true, apple has over a billion users
  • skeaker 3y ago
    The extreme result is indeed what Apple wants to avoid because you would more or less have a custom operating system at that point and could ignore Apple's software, which they would hate. Obviously it is not as good as being able to flash an actual new OS onto the device but it would still impact Apple's bottom line.
  • 3y ago
• andy_ppp 3y ago
  Interesting! So this doesn’t include the 30% Apple tax in this lawsuit?
  • mrkstu 3y ago
    Epic losing their suit pretty much torpedoed that plank. The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law. Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Epic v. Apple, even the exact same legal question with the exact same fact pattern would only be bound by that decision if it was (1) between the same parties (res judicata), or (2) in a district court under the Ninth Circuit. Since US v. Apple is filed in the District of New Jersey, which is under the Third Circuit, the decision in Epic v. Apple is, at best, persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.
      • bubblethink 3y ago
        Unless there is legislation that forces something, the ship for the app store has sailed. Not to mention, several companies have some version of this, including game consoles. And even legislation in the area seems hard to draft, as seen by DMA.
        • dragonwriter 3y ago
          > Unless there is legislation that forces something, the ship for the app store has sailed. Simply asserting that doesn't make it true. Even if the app-store related claims in US v. Apple were identical, legally and in alleged facts, to those in Epic v. Apple, the ruling in the latter is not binding precedent for the former because Circuit Court decisions don't bind Districts in other Circuits. And, they aren't identical, anyway. > Not to mention, several companies have some version of this, including game consoles. So what? “Other companies do similar things” is not an argument against it being part of an illegal monopolization scheme when others do it. Like browser/OS bundling with Internet Explorer, its not the act in isolation, but its function in context and in conjunction with other business practices that is at issue. Its not a question of whether an app store fee is on its face illegal, its a question of whwther Apple’s app store fee is part of a broader anticompetitive effort to defend and extend monopoly intthe smartphone and/or performance smartphone markets.
• shadowgovt 3y ago
  It's a good list, but I'll be interested to see how it becomes anti-trust actionable and not just "a good list of reasons not to buy an iPhone." Why is any of this a problem when consumers who find all that too constraining can just use Android?
  • jobs_throwaway 3y ago
    Because its bad for consumers to have to choose a different device solely because of Apple's anti-competitive practices. This is exactly the sort of scenario when regulation is good - Apple is acting in their best interest, but its on-the-whole bad for the American consumer. We can have the good of Apple without the anti-competitive bullshit like a lack of message interoperability. We just need the government to enforce it
    • shadowgovt 3y ago
      Consumers would have to choose a different device if, say, Apple saved money by putting in a lousy screen or a cellular radio that was unreliable... What transitions these ecosystem misfeatures to anti-consumer in a way that an inferior screen isn't? (I submit they aren't anti-consumer; they're ecosystem control and some consumers find that to be a feature. I know I feel safer recommending my grandma an iPhone because scammers won't trick her into side-loading a root kit into it or loading some fake banking app that she pays money into that just disappears).
• harkinian 3y ago
  One thing I hope they mention: Apple put in proprietary extensions to give Apple-made Bluetooth headphones an advantage over all others, then removed the headphone jacks.
  • rootusrootus 3y ago
    It's hard to tie all that together. Generic Bluetooth devices work just like you are used to everywhere else -- that is, kinda shitty and unreliable. Must we suffer a universally crappy experience by preventing Apple from improving BT for their own headsets? Maybe they should be required to license the tech, if they are not already. But I don't want to degrade my experience just because that's the only way to have a level playing field. Maybe the BT standards group could get off their ass and make the underlying protocol better.
    • rezonant 3y ago
      This isn't accurate, normal Bluetooth works much better than you might imagine. The kind of things that are added on top with Apple's solution are things like fast pairing and instant device switching. They also have their own custom codecs, but most other Bluetooth communication devices also support custom codecs which, on Android for example, are enabled by installing a companion app. Re: Bluetooth being better than you portray: Don't get me wrong, you can certainly run into problems, but in normal usage it works just fine. And Apple isn't fundamentally improving on the potential issues with their proprietary solutions.
      • harkinian 3y ago
        Normal BT drops to very low sound quality when the mic is in use, because it goes into "headset" mode. Apple got around that with an extension. Combined with the jank pairing and device switching, the difference is pretty big.
        • midnightdiesel 3y ago
          AirPods also drop audio quality severely when their mic is active, just as with Bluetooth. Apple hasn’t solved that in any way with some nefarious extension.
• emodendroket 3y ago
  > Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps. Does Apple not let others offer a suite of apps?
  • alt227 3y ago
    Individually, yes. But each app has its own app store approoval process and fees. Also they are jailed privately so they cannot share information with each other. Only Apple Apps are the ones that can do that.
    • Yodel0914 3y ago
      > Also they are jailed privately so they cannot share information with each other This is one of my favourite things about iOS vs Android.
    • emodendroket 3y ago
      > Also they are jailed privately so they cannot share information with each other. If the information isn't just stored on the device then it should work fine, right?
• boringg 3y ago
  In terms of (4) Why would the apple watch want to have to build and maintain their apple watch on the google platform. Its funny that a company not wanting to work on another platform (probably due to business costs of doing that) is being considered anti-competitive. Making it difficult for 3rd party .. sure but trying to force apple to have their hardware work on other platforms is a business decision .
• ChuckMcM 3y ago
  This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market. The first one I heard about[1] was IBM versus Memorex which was making IBM 360 "compatible" disk drives. IBM lost and it generated some solid case law that has been relied on in this sort of prosecution. In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of money. [1] I had a summer intern position in Field Engineering Services in 1978 and it was what all the FEs were talking about how it was going to "destroy" IBM's field service organization.
  • dmix 3y ago
    > In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of money I’m curious what market opportunities the Apple suit could open up. - Xbox cloud game streaming - WeChat like super apps w e-commerce (X wanted to do this play but more likely Facebook Messenger and the like) - iMessage on android - a receipt tracking app or something directly tied into Apple Pay tapping
    • ChuckMcM 3y ago
      From a hardware standpoint third party fitness trackers with full integration into iHealth and third party ear buds with the same (or better) features than airpods. Part of the IBM settlement required them to document interoperability. That was used by the DoJ to force Microsoft to document their CIFS (distributed storage) and Active Directory (naming/policy) protocols. The latter might be particularly instructive as my experience with CIFS when I worked at NetApp was the different ways that Microsoft worked to be "precisely" within the lines but to work against the intent. Documentation like "this bit of this word must always be '1'" Which as any engineer knows, if it really was always '1' then that bit didn't have to be in the protocol, so what did it do when it wasn't '1'?
      • anonymouse008 3y ago
        > From a hardware standpoint third party fitness trackers with full integration into iHealth and third party ear buds with the same (or better) features than airpods. As someone who makes apps in the health space, I couldn’t care less if other tracker data was integrated into HealthKit. HealthKit honestly sucks - it's some bastard of objc naming schemes and methods jammed into Swift. The async is horrible to debug, too. No one has a good time in HK. The issue with other trackers is that they are more locked down than Apple. You can't just get HR from Oura for instance - and that's not a health kit issue either.
• supportengineer 3y ago
  This makes me so angry. You have a choice in the market! Everything on this list is a feature which I am choosing as the customer. If I didn't want these features and benefits then I would make a different choice as a consumer. As a consumer I am not a victim. I can choose between iOS, Android, or something else.
  • tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    Many victim are adamant that they are not actually a victim no matter what evidence is provided. Luckily anti-trust law doesn't care about your opinion.
    • 8fingerlouie 3y ago
      But are you really a victim ? While the smartphone market is not exactly a broad selection of competing standards, you can chose between Android and iPhone, and over time they've more or less come to represent opposing poles, where Android initially embraced openness and iPhone was the walled garden. People picked based on preferences, but it's not like any of the platforms lock you in. They even have tools to facilitate easy switching between platforms. Many companies, especially in highly regulated industries, specifically pick iPhone over Android for the ability to lock down the device. In my industry, our IT department has essentially given up getting Android "certified" to comply with regulations. Apple recently opened up the App Store in the EU, in theory allowing 3rd party stores, but despite almost everybody i know using iPhones, i have yet to see anything 3rd party installed.
  • baq 3y ago
    It isn't about you, it's about me who can't install iMessage on an Andorid phone or a Linux desktop and participate in your group chats in reasonable capacity.
    • supportengineer 3y ago
      One question: Who owns iMessage? Who pays to run the servers? Who pays for the bandwidth? Do you allow your neighbors to use your yard and driveway that you pay for?
• bloppe 3y ago
  I'm surprised no mention of Apple's forced 30% on all transactions, complete with hard requirement that you never mention the fee to your users.
• nozzlegear 3y ago
  Thanks for summarizing. As someone deeply entrenched in Apple's ecosystem, and who admittedly prefers the walled garden, I really have no problem if any of these five things were struck down. Better competition for cloud streaming apps? Seems good for me as a user. Better messaging interoperability? I don't have anyone in my family or friends group who wasn't already on an iPhone, and I thought this was coming already with RCS anyway, but sure let's go. Better smartwatch support? If it makes Apple want to build even better Apple Watches, I'm all for it. And all of my cards already work with Apple Wallet so this has no bearing on me either. The only one that's really ambiguous is "Super Apps". I'd be greatly inconvenienced if Apple things stopped working so well together, but I wouldn't be inconvenienced at all if others get a chance to build their own "super apps".
  • rezonant 3y ago
    > I don't have anyone in my family or friends group who wasn't already on an iPhone, and I thought this was coming already with RCS anyway, but sure let's go. I'm skeptical that adding RCS will actually fix the problems because of how Apple is likely to implement it. Their malicious compliance in the EU strongly hints that they are going to hobble their RCS implementation just enough to maintain the status quo just like they are with the DMA requirements. Hopefully legal efforts like this push Apple more towards actual interoperability.
  • fouc 3y ago
    I suspect the "Super Apps" is the real reason for this lawsuit. The other giant tech companies are probably pushing for this. This would let Google get rid of dedicated apps like Gmail or Google Maps, and then just force everyone to go through a central Google app itself.
• Funes- 3y ago
  What's stopping people from buying or using any other kind of phone, new or old? Or from producing one? None of what's listed here is relevant to that regard.
  • hyperbovine 3y ago
    Absolutely nothing. The claim that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market is just laughable. Android has 40% market share in the US and 70% globally.
    • alt227 3y ago
      To reverse your statistic, Apple has 60% of mobile market share in US and Canada, meaning the whole of North America. On top of that, 87% of the teen mobile market in the US own an iPhone. Apple definitely has a dominant position in the western smartphone market.
      • tatrajim 3y ago
        I keep seeing references here to the teen market and teen attitudes toward green bubbles. Should the anti-monopoly law toward a large, but globally minority market-share company hinge on the attitudes of US teenagers?
        • alt227 3y ago
          In 10 years, teenagers will be the adult population.
  • catlikesshrimp 3y ago
    https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-survey-2023... 90% of marketshare with monopolistic practices is relevant?
• brocket 3y ago
  Do they mention CarPlay? It drives me crazy that it only integrates notifications with Apple first party apps. It will send me notifications for iMessage or Apple calendar, but completely silences and hides Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google calendar, Google voice, etc no matter what settings I try. It's frankly dangerous because it forces me to check my phone while driving in case of an urgent message or call. Meanwhile Android auto will show me all notifications and I can silence them while driving if I choose.
  • AlanYx 3y ago
    CarPlay supports notifications with non-first party apps like Microsoft Teams. I don't use everything on your list, but WhatsApp definitely supports CarPlay notifications. You may have them muted. You can mute/unmute on a per-app basis -- go to the app settings and adjust the "Show in CarPlay" toggle.
    • brocket 3y ago
      I haven’t used WhatsApp for while so maybe I’m wrong about that one, but Messenger definitely doesn’t work. I wish it was opt in by default for all notifications, it’s annoying so many don’t work.
• wiremine 3y ago
  > the case rests on specific claims In this case, could a resolution involve resolving the individual claims, or are the plaintiffs looking for a more all encompassing solution?
• s1k3s 3y ago
  This is somewhat aligned with the recent trouble they had in EU as well, so now two different regulatory agencies call them out for the same topics. Are they going to claim "security reasons" again?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• screye 3y ago
  As someone who never uses Apple devices, iMessage is the only true form of monopoly based control that Apple imposes. Apple's 30% costs are harsh, but it is not like Google or MSFT charge anything less. Such cases always seem to reach a pre-determined conclusion, that has more to do with the political winds of the era, than true legal determinism. Looking at the accusations from that lens: 1. Super Apps - I don't see how 'Apple doesn't share enough data with Chinese super apps' is going to fly 2024 America. It also has huge security and privacy impliciations. This accusation seems DOA. 2. Streaming games is tricky, but it isn't a big revenue stream. The outcome for this point appears immaterail to Apple stock. 3. iMessage - This is the big one. I see the whole case hinging on this point. 4. Smartwatches. Meh, Apple might add inter-op for apple smartwatches on android. I don't think this will lead to any users switching over or an actually pleasing experience. 5. Digital Wallets. This seems tacked on. Apps are PhonePe and PayTm work just fine on Apple and Android. I have never heard of anyone using a Digital Wallet that is not Apple pay, Google Pay or Samsung Pay. Are digital wallets a big revenue stream for Apple ?
  • NekkoDroid 3y ago
    > Google or MSFT charge anything less. Google: true, BUT you can install and publish other app stores MSFT: false, they charge 15% for apps and 12% for games (talking about the Microsoft Store)
  • Panzer04 3y ago
    You can't possibly equate the situation on windows or android with iOS. It's trivial to install an app from outside of the app stores on both, whereas it's entirely impossible on iOS.
• wkat4242 3y ago
  > 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. But WeChat is available on iOS isn't it? If not the iPhone would be pretty impossible to sell there, just like Huawei's android without Google play don't sell here in the west.
• dathinab 3y ago
  They should have added claims for: - NFC apple does have full NFC support for their products but for other apps there are tons of road blocks for using anything close to full NFC functionality - Bluetooth same, similar more usable, but some functionality is still not available for 3rd party apps at all meaning certain things can only be provided 1st party by Apple - Strange behaviour when releasing questionable competive Apps There had been multiple cases where Apple released 1st party apps and it "happened" that the previous leader(s) of previous existing 3rd party apps "happened" to have issues with releasing updates around that time (or similar strange coincidental behavior). Additionally such new apps often had some new non-documented non public APIs which makes it harder for 3rd parties to compete. - Questionable app store reviews Stories of apps running in arbitrary you could say outright despotic harassment when wrt. the app store reviews are more then just few (to be clear legal non malicious apps which should be fully legal on the apple app store). EDIT: To be clear for the first 2 points apple always have excuses which seem reasonable on the surface until you think it through a bit more (e.g. similar to there excuse for banning PWAs in the EU, I think they might have undid that by now). And for the other points it's always arbitrary enough so that in any specific case you could call it coincidence, but there is a pattern.
  • pksebben 3y ago
    Bluetooth remains my biggest gripe with my iphone. When I walk out of range of any connected device, my call switches from my headset to the phone, and I have to manually go in and reconnect to my headset every third or fourth time I want to connect to it. It stands in stark contrast to literally everything else about the device, which is almost universally easy and thoughtless.
    • dathinab 3y ago
      my biggest gripe is NFC, through more then their not-so-competitive parts but also that they didn't support it at all until they had their own 1st party use-case for it (which isn't anti-competive just sucks) the reason is that it crippled a whole industry of smart door looks NFC is (by far!) technically the best way to handle them (for many of the common security levels). (Through I mean proper secure application of NFC, something you often do not get in a satisfying way with a lot of the RFID card solutions. And I'm aware that a ton (most?) of smart door room solutions are a complete security nightmare, but that is companies cheeping out and/or not hiring anyone who know anything about security etc.) EDIT: stuff like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 is what I mean with most RFID based solutions are shit. Through not sure how much this specific case was very competent hackers and how much bad security.
• jajko 3y ago
  Yet the most important issue for many is missing (unless something changed recently) - inability to access filtered cesspool of scam, malware and annoyance that modern ad-infested internet is. Jihad against anything actually working well (ie firefox and ublock origin) due to to be polite dubious reasons. Apple gatekeeping is just a move to ads for themselves, it was already multibillion business for them last year. Thats monopolistic behavior in plain sight.
• slibhb 3y ago
  I'd be more sympathetic to the government's arguments if Android phones didn't exist. But they do, and people can use them if they don't like Apple's walled garden. As things are, this lawsuit seems like the government striking an aggressive posture torwards tech companies for no good reason. It's almost like -- as the tech companies get bigger and more powerful -- the government wants to remind them who's really in charge.
  • kelnos 3y ago
    If phone OSes and ecosystems were fungible, then I'd agree. It's reasonable to prefer iOS for many reasons, but still be disappointed in the walled-garden, non-interoperable aspects. Customers don't really have great choices right now when it comes to smartphones: 1. One OS is locked down, has a walled-garden ecosystem, but has many privacy-protecting features. 2. The other OS more open (interop & user-choice-wise, not really in the FOSS sense), but is run by a company that seems hell-bent on eroding user privacy. These properties are dictated by Apple and Google. But due to the barrier for entry, there are no alternatives that come even close to duplicating Android's and iOS's feature sets. Even simply using a community-developed Android-based OS can cause you to lose access to many useful features Android provides. I guess I went off on a little tangent here, but my position is that the existence of Android is only a defense if switching between the two doesn't incur high costs, both financial and non-. That's demonstrably not the case.
    • interpol_p 3y ago
      > 1. One OS is locked down, has a walled-garden ecosystem, but has many privacy-protecting features. I wonder, if you open up iOS, do you lose the privacy-protecting features? One of the benefits of iOS is that it makes good privacy decisions for you, where it can If you take away the defaults, you kind of take away the design choices that were made to improve privacy. People (myself included) are not the best at making decisions that preserve their own privacy Many people will hit whatever button gets them to the next stage of whatever it is they are trying to achieve. If Apple is not allowed to intervene in that experience, will we see a lot more people being taken advantage of by dark patterns and other software tricks?
• empath-nirvana 3y ago
  I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it. If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.
  • johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play could. And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust angle being that you can't compete with apple's native software
    • scarface_74 3y ago
      No Google got dinged because they claimed their ecosystem was “open” and changed it after the fact. The reason that Google lost the same type of cases that Apple won was because consumers knew iOS was closed before they bought it.
  • pchristensen 3y ago
    I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse. Some examples: - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it. - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes. - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market. - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser). - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.
• dfabulich 3y ago
  We do have "Super Apps" in the Western world. They're called "web browsers." Note that Apple doesn't allow alternative web browsers on iOS, so Safari/WebKit is the only Super App allowed on iOS. https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-browser-ban/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-browser-ban/ > When you download Chrome, Firefox or any other browser that isn't Safari on an Apple device, that browser is forced to use Safari's rendering engine WebKit. Chrome normally uses Chromium, and Firefox Gecko. However, Apple will not allow those browsers to use their own engines. Without the ability to use their own engines, those browsers are unable to bring you their latest and greatest features, and can only go so far as whatever WebKit has added.
  • epolanski 3y ago
    This is no longer correct I believe at least in the European union.
  • lucasverra 3y ago
    Not the case anymore in EU thx/because DMA (since ios 17.4)
    • agust 3y ago
      Although Apple now has to allow alternative browsers to ship their engines in the EU, they actually set out ridiculous conditions for browser vendors to be able to do so. Therefore, as of now, none have done it. This is malicious compliance from Apple to try and make the law ineffective.
      • Andrex 3y ago
        It'll get done sooner than later, that's money just left on the table right now for EU browser makers. And the enforcement of the DMA correcting Apple's most obvious malicious compliance has been swift (backtracking on EU PWAs).
      • pmarreck 3y ago
        Does enforcing a single rendering engine make things like Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) possible? (It's not just a link to a web app on the homepage, it can also hold state, receive notifications, and (within reason) take over most of the screen.) https://web.dev/explore/progressive-web-apps https://web.dev/explore/progressive-web-apps
• drivingmenuts 3y ago
  My 2 cents: 1 - Might have an argument there. 2 - OK, but only if the user is willing to accept the security risk to their apps, Apple and non-Apple. Apple has an interest in keeping the apps they create, or sell for others, secure but should bear no responsibility if a third-party fails to keep to the same standard. 3 - OK. I personally kind of like it because I am a bad person, but OK. 4 - Aren't most of them behind Apple's watches, anyway? I don't have an issue with Apple Watch not being compatible with Android - while Apple shouldn't prevent a third-party (see 2 above) from creating a bridge, they should, in no way, be forced to do it themselves. 5 - (see 2 above) And I don't have an issue with Apple torquing the nuts of banks - the banks do the same to us. And yes, it's my money they're taking from banks, but the banks don't like that, so ... I'm gonna call that one a tie.
• stephc_int13 3y ago
  The NYT article is making the case look weaker than it really is, especially for armchair lawyers. You can read the full document but of course very few of us would do that. Instead, I think this Youtube video of the US Attorney General is giving a good summary of the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6JycDyYj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6JycDyYj4
• mikepurvis 3y ago
  All of these look important to me, but I've been particularly frustrated recently by the smartwatch issue. I've been a Fitbit user for several years and briefly tried an Apple Watch before returning it and resume Fitbit use— I had a few issues with the Apple Watch, most notably around battery life. But that brief experience showed me really starkly how much Apple is able to lock out third parties from doing things that their own stuff can do trivially by hooking right into private operating system APIs: - Apple Watch can directly use your credit cards without needing to separately add them to Fitbit/Google Pay. - Apple Watch can "find my" your phone, whereas Fitbit's version of this is limited to just making it beep, and even that only works if the phone is running the Fitbit app in the background (which it often isn't). - Apple Watch can stream data to the phone all the time, whereas Fitbit relies on the app being opened, meaning your morning sleep data isn't available immediately since opening the app (to look at it) just enables it to begin transferring. - Apple Watch can unlock itself when your phone unlocks. - Apple Watch gets much richer notification integration. And yeah, you can argue that all of this is optional "extra" stuff that is just Apple's prerogative to take advantage of as the platform holder, and maybe that's so to some degree... but these little things do add up. Particularly when Apple doesn't even have a device that competes with Fitbit, it feels unfair that they shouldn't be made to open up all the APIs necessary for this kind of interoperability.
  • GnarfGnarf 3y ago
    My Apple Watch tracks Afib (atrial fibrillation) much more consistently and reliably than my Charge 5 did.
• Aloisius 3y ago
  I don’t see Messaging interoperability of the iMessage protocol in the complaint. I see: * third-party apps not being able to send/receive carrier messages (SMS) * only Messages getting background running * blue/green colored bubbles. The background running thing is a bit of a surprise. If you had asked me, I’d have said iMessages didn’t run in the background given it’s load delay for new messages.
  • lxgr 3y ago
    Yeah, iMessage completely craps out when sending messages without signal. A red dot and manual “retry now” button? What is this? ICQ in 1995? WhatsApp on iOS does a much better job, ironically (it just sends all queued outgoing messages once connectivity is back in the background, like every email client did back in dialup days).
• LastTrain 3y ago
  They probably could have avoided all this if they’d caved on messaging interop.
• kristjansson 3y ago
  > Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay 15 basis points (0.15%) from the issuing bank on something that _undoubtably_ increases tx volume and associated interchange revenue. Sure, the issuing banks would like tx volume for absolutely free. Sure, DOJ should argue the point on NFC access. But 15bp from the party that's making more money on a service that's free and beneficial for {consumer, merchant, card network} just seems like good business.
  • bhelkey 3y ago
    > Sure, DOJ should argue the point on NFC access. That's the point of the lawsuit. Chase can't currently make Chase Pay to compete with Apple Pay and offer a mobile payment service with less than 15 basis points.
  • fennecbutt 3y ago
    Lmao no. How will it increase tx volume. And fine, let apple collect their fee, but also open up payments on iPhone to other providers. Why can't my native bank app use the nfc hardware itself, hmmmmmmmmm? Oh Apple lock in so they can collect their $$$ for literally no reason; the payment network already exists, Apple is just a middleman.
• Fgyu0909 3y ago
  Thanks this simplifies things a lot.
• standardUser 3y ago
  > 3. Messaging interoperability The richest company in the world is purposefully generating social and psychology stress for young people so they can edge up their market share just a little bit more. In a just world, people would be imprisoned over this.
  • tpmoney 3y ago
    Or alternatively in a just world we would teach our children not to be little shits to each other because of their tech choices. I just can't wrap my head around how the whole SMS vs iMessage color thing has become such a dominant "problem". It's been that way for as long as there was any distinction to be made between SMS and non SMS messaging. It's valuable information to the end user, and it's easily dealt with by using any other messaging system other than SMS to communicate, like apparently the entire rest of the world does. But somehow it's too difficult for american teenagers to figure out how to install Signal, or Whats App, or Telegram, or Facebook Messenger, or use email, or Discord, or IRC, or Matrix, or Skype, or Google Chat or literally any other of a few hundred messaging / chat systems that are out there.
  • ksec 3y ago
    Even though I am somewhat gainst Apple I dont think that is a fair assessment. I do however find them extremely hypocrite of suggesting how they "care" about young people and yet not acting on it while causing this problem.
• travisgriggs 3y ago
  The one area I have concerns about is superapps. I’m of the opinion that user experience is better when an app does one thing and does it well. WeChat and Facebook as platforms or just a digital variant of platform lock-ins.
• jimbob45 3y ago
  This is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. They missed the one actual example of Apple abusing its ownership in one industry (the OS) to then give itself a monopoly over another industry (app stores/app store fees).
• kemayo 3y ago
  > Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps. ...if that counts, is the suit claiming that they somehow don't let other developers have multiple related apps? Because it seems that something like Meta's suite of apps (Facebook, Instagram, Threads) that all share login data and suchlike should qualify if "the Apple ecosystem of apps" does.
• la64710 3y ago
  [flagged]
• Menu_Overview 3y ago
  Thats for the writeup. I tend to agree with most of those, although the "super app" things is weird to me...I don't like the idea of "super apps" because it is hard for the user to share only the minimal permissions.
• ubermonkey 3y ago
  Most of this sounds like the DOJ doesn't understand the tech at all. iMessage is an Apple service, created as a way to provide additional value to people on Apple platforms so that they aren't limited by SMS. The DOJ argument appears to be "oh, you made a better mousetrap, and now you have to let people outside your platform use it." Why? What's the rational argument there? They then extend that argument to the watch, which is just bananas. It's designed to work with one set of platforms. The tightly coupled nature of Watch/Phone/Mac provides benefits, but Apple is never going to open the technical kimono up to Samsung (e.g.) watches to use the same hooks, and they shouldn't be required to do so.
• KorematsuFredt 3y ago
  None of these arguments are very satisfactory to me as a consumer and this appears to be more Mafia like behaviour than a genuine concern for market based competition.
  • tristan957 3y ago
    Are you an Apple customer currently?
    • KorematsuFredt 3y ago
      Yes. Thought customer means a lot of things. I have purchased their MacBooks recently, iphones for family and such.
    • gmiller123456 3y ago
      Why would that matter? It's completley possible to be harmed by a companies market manipulation without being a customer of theirs.
      • tristan957 3y ago
        I'm trying to understand bias. I don't think you read the GP comment correctly.
        • KorematsuFredt 3y ago
          Ah if that is your true point, then no, I am not an Apple fanboy. My daily primary use phone is Android but my work machine is typically the highest available MacBook. (I can not stand windows). I buy iPhones for my family members.
  • wiseowise 3y ago
    How so?
• synergy20 3y ago
  Apple is the old Microsoft but much worse. WinTel PC was so much more open comparing to Apple.
• tiffanyh 3y ago
  > 3. Messaging interoperability > 4. Smartwatches [interoperability] Where do you draw the line on forcing interoperability? This is kind of like (in-person) movie theaters. Movie theaters don't allow you to bring your own food, you have to buy their food/drink. Why should a movie theater be forced to allow patrons bring their own food? Why should Apple be forced to allow it's patrons to brining competitive things to their business? Note: I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity. Not to troll/stir-the-pot.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • jiggawatts 3y ago
    Even better analogies: - Should the government force marketplaces to allow competing marketplaces to set up shop within their area, collect fees, but not pay any fees to the larger market? - Should the government make laws to require restaurants to allow competing chefs to bring a hot plate and start cooking food at the tables and serve them to their customers? - Should Google be forced by the government to include support for formats in Android that are used by Apple such a HEIF and HEIC? What about Microsoft and Linux? These rules are not about individual choice or freedom. This is about giant corporations using the government to give them a way into the walled garden built by a competing mega corporation. This is completely self-serving and in no shape, way, or form serves the common good. As an iPhone user I do not want government interference in a market place that has been kept mostly free of malware precisely because it keeps out the riff-raff. I want the hucksters and the scammers blocked. I really don't care if they scream "unfair!" at the top of their lungs from outside of the fence. Similarly, general SMS messaging is a cesspit of unceasing spam precisely because it is so interoperable. Because Apple keeps out garbage devices with zero security, I've seen precisely zero iMessage spam in the last decade. I got a spam SMS in the last hour. I'll get several more today.
    • bezier-curve 3y ago
      > I do not want government interference in a market place This is just not the world we live in. The Play store is also malware-free, and yet you can sideload apps on Android phones.
• yeeeloit 3y ago
  I always wonder why safari doesn't get more attention in these sorts of claims against apple.
• onethought 3y ago
  1. Seems odd, given WeChat is on iOS… the example you used is literally a counterpoint for the allegation. 3. Messages do interop. But it’d be hilarious if the US created some kind of precedent where everything has to work on everything. 4. Samsung, and Google both fall into this trap, where more functionality is available between like devices. 5. So when my Amex isn’t accepted, that’s Visa or Mastercard restricting APIs - and causing lock in right? These strange legal cases are odd to me. If we think these large tech conglomerates should be regulated, then write laws for them, don’t use the court system to muck things up for no reason.
• siggen 3y ago
  Did they mention copying photos from your phone to a PC via USB? This is intentionally crippled and such an unpleasant experience in comparison to the experience if you have a Mac, for me at least.
  • fsflover 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39781722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39781722
• al_borland 3y ago
  One of the big reasons I buy into the Apple ecosystem is for that next level of first-party interoperability. It works far better than any collection of more open systems I’ve even seen/used. I don’t use Apple in spite of this, I use it because of this. Trying to support everything will likely lead to a worse experience for everyone in a multi-device world. Apple is a hardware company making their own software to run that hardware, much like a game console. It seems like many of the criticisms here could be adapted and applied to Nintendo, Xbox, and PlayStation. Why can’t my PS VR work with my Xbox… it’s a Sony monopoly /s There are areas where I think Apple can improve, such as right to repair and reliability in general. But it seems like some of what these governments are trying to kill is the very reason some people went to Apple in the first place. That doesn’t lead to more choice, it leads to less choice… as the government tries to turn iOS into an Android clone. Kind of odd that Apple is being told to act more like the platform that has the lead in global market share.
• TheGRS 3y ago
  I remember how Apple Watch wouldn't let you download podcasts or songs on Spotify. Apparently they changed that to allow some recently, but that change did get me to switch to the Apple Podcast app for awhile, which I feel like is inferior.
• tecoholic 3y ago
  I am sure each of these items are a pain for a different sets of people. The most irritating one for someone who moved recently is: NFC lock down. Like my Xiaomi phone was able to store any card I wanted and do a Tap to Pay, but I have to use Apple Pay and I can’t do that because my region is locked to somewhere Apple Pay isn’t a thing. Here in Melbourne even public transport is affected by this. The local myki transport cards can be digitally carried on an Android phone but not an iPhone.
• Nevermark 3y ago
  Thanks for the summary. My "Open Apple" wishlist includes: • Allowing alternate web browser implementations, including alternate Javascript and WebAssembly implementations. • Which would include third party developer access to the memory allocation/permissions API used for JIT compilers. Make iOS a first class ARM development OS. Please. Perhaps removing restrictions to general APIs for competitive apps and "Super apps" would implicitly include those changes? Interesting that this doesn't address Apple's iOS "taxation" of tangential non-web transactions, or the lack of App Store alternatives. If Apple has monopoly power, those seem like suitable concerns.
• Reason077 3y ago
  > "Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps" ... In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments." The WeChat super-app is available on iOS, complete with installable "mini apps", and most of the same functionality that is available on Android. So it's not clear exactly what the complaint is here. Unless Apple makes exceptions for WeChat and China that are not available to developers elsewhere?
• zie 3y ago
  For a second, let's just assume that Apple is 100% guilty. What will the fine be? If it's anything less than many billions of dollars, there is zero incentive for Apple to do anything at all different in the future. Suing Apple(or any other company over stuff like this) when the fines will be a tiny slap on the wrist at worst will not incentivize proper behaviour, so there is literally zero reason for doing this except for the govt to feel good about itself, see!! we got a few hundred million from that evil corp for doing bad things. LOL. Apple could plead guilty tomorrow, pay the fine and continue doing business and not even notice.
  • extraduder_ire 3y ago
    Ongoing fines until they achieve compliance, or legally barring them from operating in the US. I think that's usually how rulings go in these kinds of cases. Page 76 of the lawsuit PDF goes into some specifics under the section "Request for relief".
    • zie 3y ago
      The US govt would never ever bar the worlds largest, most profitable public company from operating in the US. That's ridiculous and nowhere in the Request For Relief that I just read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-antitrust-complaint.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-an... It basically boils down to: stop doing the bad things and pay a fine. The fine being an amount equal to it's costs for bringing the suit, pennies on the dollar next to the dollars Apple made. There is no incentive to change future behavior here. When the govt broke up AT&T's monopoly, there was an incentive to change behavior. Since then it's weakly enforced "fines" that do nothing to curtail future monopolistic behavior. I imagine this will happen: Some of this will stick, but it will be stuff Apple has already promised (like adopting RCS) and they will pay a small(to them) fine and will continue on business as usual with no actual changes being made, just like all the other lawsuits of this type the US govt has done in the last few decades. Some people will feel better I suppose, even though absolutely nothing of substance will have changed.
• unclebucknasty 3y ago
  Does it indicate what the trigger was on the timing? As far as I can tell, most if not all of this has been Apple SOP for some time.
• whateveracct 3y ago
  >Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps. Isn't this .. not "super apps" then? If it's multiple apps? Said 3rd party super apps could instead be multiple apps people install a la carte. But companies want to do uber apps for funnel purposes etc.
• downrightmike 3y ago
  I specifically prefer apple because they don't let others fuck around like android does.
• jll29 3y ago
  Thanks for this excellent summary. With regards to the "super apps", Apple can just as well argue that it aspires to retain access for multiple players ("avoiding monopoles", ironically), so naturally it does not want only a single app becoming the majority of all downloads, which leads the app store idea ad absurdum. Makes you wonder about something else: Could Apple one day be broken apart like "Ma Bell"? It seems the Apple brand is inconsistent with notions of modularity and openness (which brings with itself a certain messiness), everything is supposed to look at feel alike up to the slightly silly (as a problem to solve, as long as there are still children starving on this planet at the same time) device unpacking experience. It's good that the U.S. government are doing their job as expected, in this case that's relevant for all other countries, where a lot of the device owners/users are based. My ultimate wish would be some someone to launch a third mobile platform - beside Apple IOS and Alphabet-Google Android - based on a new open W3C standard (not HTML). Such a standard would get a chance to grow with the support of the legal apparatus: judges should force the oligopolists to implement said standard, and then people might just say "hey, I can just implement ONE app, and catch all THREE platforms."
• hunterrr 3y ago
  Super Apps sounds like an app that takes away resources from other apps
• Walden98 3y ago
  [flagged]
• dimask 3y ago
  It is interesting that in this case "pro-competitive" does not necessarily mean "pro-consumer". I am not sure how stuff like "super apps" are a good thing for consumers (sounds like a nightmare mass surveillance scenario to me). Similar cloud streaming apps where the whole fuss is really about microtransactions in games or less regulation. Message interoperability is not a bad thing, but not sure why we still talk about "MMS" in 2024 when so many different chat apps are around. I don't know about smartwatches, maybe that is a fair point. And as for digital wallets, I already trust apple for the OS, I would not see why I would put the effort to download an extra app from a third party I would need to also trust to put bank details, except if we were talking about some open source gold standard of trust and privacy. I do not care if it is apple or a third party that gets a commission from banks or who gets my transaction history to sell to brokers. On the other hand, I would like to see interoperability in stuff like airdrop. But that would not be something that other FAANG would make money of, so that is probably not so interesting for these regulators.
  • bhelkey 3y ago
    > And as for digital wallets, I already trust apple for the OS, I would not see why I would put the effort to download an extra app from a third party I would need to also trust to put bank details Do you think no one else should be able to build a mobile payment service? Should banks be block from making, say, ChasePay? It's fine to prefer Apple Pay and to choose Apple Pay even if there are other options. The question is, should everyone be locked into Apple Pay vs choosing Apple Pay because it is better than ChasePay?
    • dimask 3y ago
      I don't think nobody else should be able to build a "mobile payment service", I just do not care and I do not think this is about consumers. If it was just up to me, the "mobile ecosystem" would just burn to the ground.
  • kineto 3y ago
    Another vote for Airdrop, but with no strings attached please (i.e. no silent failing on MP3 containing folders)
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 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_. " But that's not a claim. It might be a fact that supports a claim. One which Apple might contest. It seems that no matter how many times web publications in spades remind readers that monopolies are not per se illegal, i.e., something more is required, e.g., anti-competitive conduct, forum commenters remain convinced of some other reality.
  • w10-1 3y ago
    Right. The legal theories are: - Monopolization: actual, attempted, conspiracies, etc. - Restraints of trade. Horizontal (rigging bids, fixing prices, allocating markets to avoid competition) and Vertical (resale price limits, exclusive deals) - Tying: leveraging one monopoly to gain another - Merger, where the resulting market would not be competitive - other Unfair Competition (FTC) While lawsuits are not uncommon, actual relief is rare, in part because the few judgments are overturned on appeal. Antitrust has been steadily eroded for decades. Recent relief includes US v AT&T 2018 (imposed conditions on the Time Warner acquisition), but there are many more overturned. So: 1. Super apps and 2 cloud streaming apps (restraint of trade): it's hard to compare all of apple to all of these multi-function apps. One question is whether all the apple functionality in fact complies with whatever constraints are imposed. I suppose the theory is restraint of trade. In NCAA v. Alston (2021) the NCAA lost their ability to restrict student compensation, but that was a blanket restriction. 3. Message interoperability: Apple also color-codes SMS messages, and will argue it helps to indicate the kind of data that can be transferred. That's a losing argument. 4. Smart watches (Restraint and tying): Unclear what limits are placed on other watches. Easy to fix with an updated API, but some risk the court will try to order Apple to license WatchOS. As with patent, watches may end up adding more legal exposure than the product is really worth in the portfolio. 5. Digital wallets (tying): Hard to see the courts requiring openness here when they have not done so for other financial networks, and the government doesn't really want this. Most are based on tying, but tying has not been effective for some time. Virtually every successful tying case lacked a distinct business or technical rationale. (The right to repair and maintain (from Xerox on) is the furthest they go in rebutting technical rationale's, and they still permit technical standards.)
• 3327 3y ago
  [dead]
• vorticalbox 3y ago
  4. Smartwatches This is true, my wife and I have Huawei smart watches. After my wife's android phone broke she got an iPhone and the watch is basically useless. It can't receive notifications, can't control music playback, it can't use "find my phone" which makes the phone shout "I'm here" really loud. The only thing it can do is sync the step counter.
• WhyNotHugo 3y ago
  The "messaging interoperability" point strikes me as a weird one. In the US, people tend to use iMessages, which is not interoperable with other ecosystems. But iPhone place no limitation on third party messaging apps. Indeed, the rest of the world simply ignores the existence of iMessages and uses other applications for messaging (these vary per country/region, but I don't think that iMessages has any significant market share in any other country). There's not technical reason preventing people in the US from using another messaging platform, and there are no limitations imposed on third party messaging apps. It's really just a cultural issue of people _choosing_ iMessages. Probably just network effect.
• bossyTeacher 3y ago
  To be honest, I never got why the message interop was such a big deal. Do people still use text messages in 2024 as opposed to a third party app like Signal, Discord, Whatsapp, Telegram, etc? I just find it a bit questionable that Apple is being forced open this much. If you want a super app, why don't you just use the browser? Also, is cloud streaming apps such a big deal? And re smartwatches, isn't it somehow expected that apps made by the same company will always have an edge? You can see this in the Windows+Microsoft Auth combo where Microsoft apps can do stuff that non-Microsoft apps can't just because it is a Microsoft app. Maybe iPhones are much more popular in the US, but I feel Apple doesn't have such a strong hold of the mobile market in Europe. My worry is that Apple is be forced open and will have to allow everyone to access the same APIs with all the security implications of it. Surely, if people don't like the way iPhones work they can move to Android or Tizen. I personally wish people moved away from iPhones AND Androids so we could have the thriving and healthy competition we had at the beginning of the smartphone revolution with Android, iOs, Symbian and similar. Support a market full of mobile OSes competitors and not a duopoly with open APIs.
• burrish 3y ago
  Thank you for the summary
• 1oooqooq 3y ago
  is a browser a super app? a cloud streaming app?