4 ms·

Apple uses their own technology to make their products better. That’s not a scandal. Their products aren’t the most dominant in streaming, maps, or payment. Mos

Apple uses their own technology to make their products better. That’s not a scandal. Their products aren’t the most dominant in streaming, maps, or payment. Most of the complaints are about what they aren’t doing (going out of their way to make proprietary features available to 3ps), not what they are doing (say: giving themselves special push notification permissions). So what influence are they exerting exactly? Why is it so pernicious?

Drew_ 3y ago
They're exerting the same influence that Google did over their Android partners. They created a faux-open market with arbitrary rules that ensure their products always win. Google lost their case because of this and Apple should too.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  Google lost their case because, among other things, they offered back room deals which favored a blessed few and were not available to all. E.g. you could not get the rate Spotify was getting charged for in app purchases (zero%).
  - Drew_ 3y ago
    You are correct and Apple is offering very similar back room deals in the App Store. It was revealed as such in their last suit.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Did you miss the list of Apple products that were not winning earlier in the thread?
  - Drew_ 3y ago
    Do you think if any Apple product isn't "winning", suddenly their competition stifling rules and backroom deals don't exist anymore?
    - shuckles 3y ago
      I think the people who say the following should have to engage with the fact that its implication is obviously not true: > They created a faux-open market with arbitrary rules that ensure their products always win.
      - Drew_ 3y ago
        Have fun toting around your goal post my friend.
cush 3y ago
The article and linked 90 page document outline precise answers to your questions
- shuckles 3y ago
  The DOJ's 90 page lawsuit is a lot of things, but precise or even factual it is not. For example, it doesn't even cite the selling price or terms of the original iPhone correctly (off by almost 2x) and invents vague terms like "the performance smartphone market."
  - cush 3y ago
    You didn’t ask “what was the price of the original iPhone”. Your questions were… > So what influence are they exerting exactly? Why is it so pernicious? Which are both answered in the document. Almost the entire document is defining the performance smartphone market. It’s mentioned in the document 88 times. The definition isn’t “phones over $400” because it’s defined by the market forces that Apple creates - there’s a feedback loop

Drew_ 3y ago

They're exerting the same influence that Google did over their Android partners. They created a faux-open market with arbitrary rules that ensure their products always win. Google lost their case because of this and Apple should too.

jonhohle 3y ago
Google lost their case because, among other things, they offered back room deals which favored a blessed few and were not available to all. E.g. you could not get the rate Spotify was getting charged for in app purchases (zero%).
- Drew_ 3y ago
  You are correct and Apple is offering very similar back room deals in the App Store. It was revealed as such in their last suit.
shuckles 3y ago
Did you miss the list of Apple products that were not winning earlier in the thread?
- Drew_ 3y ago
  Do you think if any Apple product isn't "winning", suddenly their competition stifling rules and backroom deals don't exist anymore?
  - shuckles 3y ago
    I think the people who say the following should have to engage with the fact that its implication is obviously not true: > They created a faux-open market with arbitrary rules that ensure their products always win.
    - Drew_ 3y ago
      Have fun toting around your goal post my friend.

cush 3y ago

The article and linked 90 page document outline precise answers to your questions

shuckles 3y ago
The DOJ's 90 page lawsuit is a lot of things, but precise or even factual it is not. For example, it doesn't even cite the selling price or terms of the original iPhone correctly (off by almost 2x) and invents vague terms like "the performance smartphone market."
- cush 3y ago
  You didn’t ask “what was the price of the original iPhone”. Your questions were… > So what influence are they exerting exactly? Why is it so pernicious? Which are both answered in the document. Almost the entire document is defining the performance smartphone market. It’s mentioned in the document 88 times. The definition isn’t “phones over $400” because it’s defined by the market forces that Apple creates - there’s a feedback loop