5 ms·

>> 9to5Mac’s Take... It’s not Apple’s fault that there’s no Apple Watch equivalent on Android. Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is g

>> 9to5Mac’s Take... It’s not Apple’s fault that there’s no Apple Watch equivalent on Android. Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch. The DOJ is going to argue about the Apple Watch being a lock-in? Isn't that like telling Toyota, you need to make engines for Ford cause theirs suck... Hey Tesla you need to make batteries For ford cause theirs suck. I dont think there is a real case here. I think this is going to be a big fat L for the DOJ. I think at that point in time the US will have the ability to say other countries actions around apple are anti free market/trade. This is political theater at its finest.

DustinBrett 3y ago
I think it's a bit easier to swap watches than engines or electric car batteries.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Very excited for the DOJ to finally require HP to support Brother toner.
  - barabba 3y ago
    I hope you don’t really believe that’s a fair comparison.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Ink is ink and paper is paper. How hard could it be? I accidentally bought a large inventory of toner during a sale, and it's really cost prohibitive for me to buy a new printer as a result. My comments might be a joke, but they're about as rigorous as the claims in the DoJ complaint. They invent a "performance smartphone market" and then claim Google is a distant third to Samsung and Apple because of iMessage lock-in.
  - jokowueu 3y ago
    Standardizing ink cartridges would be amazing
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Unlike smart watches where integrating the watch and phone probably has lots of opportunity for innovation left, I agree there isn't much value in proprietary printer inks and standardization probably has more consumer benefit.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  Exactly-- they're all built around standard protocols and technologies that should be mostly interoperable.
goosedragons 3y ago
The Apple Watch has it's own CPU, RAM, display, potentially even cell signal. Why should it need an iPhone to work? Should your Honda motorcycle stop working if you get rid of your Civic?
- bredren 3y ago
  This is a fair point. It should not need an iPhone. I think it did in the first several generations but not today. I suspect forcing Apple to allow this device to operate without an iPhone (even lacking features that might reasonably require an iPhone) could come out of this.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  Pretty sure my PlayStation 5 controller has its own CPU, RAM, wireless radio, speaker, microphone. Needs a PlayStation 5 in order to function. Does Sony have a monopoly?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceocoder 3y ago
    You can use the PS5 controller with a PC quite easily - across the three major OSes
  - righthand 3y ago
    I can use a Playstation 5 controller on my PC, so no.
  - Tronno 3y ago
    This is a terrible example given the PS5 controller is compatible with Windows machines.
  - __david__ 3y ago
    > Needs a PlayStation 5 in order to function. Is that true? I’m pretty sure they will connect up to desktops and work fine there with no PlayStation around.
bredren 3y ago
>Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch. Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?
- Urgo 3y ago
  > Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim? I was a Fitbit user from the day the initial fitbit went on sale for preorder. I used pretty much every 'flagship' fitbit since then until Google bought them. Ever since Google took over the Fitbit product got worse and worse. I decided a year ago I needed out when they got rid of the communities favorite feature, challenges. I'm pretty sure when I finally packed my fitbit away I had logged more days of usage then anyone else. I started exploring what the other options were but was not able to even consider the apple watch because I do prefer android to ios. If it had supported android I'd have potentially gotten one though. Anyway as apple placed themselves out of the running I explored other options and decided Garmin had the best offerings. The biggest issue there though was they had way too many models and way too many versions of each model and little help to figure out which one is the best for you beyond super high level titles like "runner". That said I ended up settling on the Fenix series and after a year of use I can say I'm quite happy with it! When I upgraded my phone this past fall to the latest Pixel Google actually was giving away free Pixel watch 2's with every purchase so I did wear a pixel watch for a couple of weeks to test it out. It was.. not great... especially the battery which was supposedly improved from the pixel watch 1. Anyway, yes, I do agree with the statement that Google hasn't created something good enough, but I don't think they've actually tried. Like other hardware they've bought (nest) they just let it die. Garmin needs some major marketing help, but I do feel like they got a great thing going over there.
  - bredren 3y ago
    It is important that you might have considered Apple Watch if it were available for Android. This gatekeeping seems the crux of the lawsuit. However, given your deep experience with Fitbit / Google's offerings and careful consideration of Garmin's as well, I'm curious: What do you think of the merit of suing Apple for antitrust for Apple Watch not supporting at least some set of Android devices?
busymom0 3y ago
Agreed. Government doesn't get to force a company to make their product compatible with another platform. Unless I am missing it, did the DOJ plead that Apple actively prevented Google from making Android work with Apple Watch? If so, then it would be a different story. Couldn't Apple also make a 1st amendment argument that the government can't force them to "speak" something (make iPhone work with Android)?
- shuckles 3y ago
  The government argued that Apple does not support Apple Watch on Android, which makes it cost prohibitive for Apple Watch users to switch to Android, since they'd have to buy a new smart watch. I wish this was made up, but it's 20% of their arguments for Apple violating anti-trust law.
  - busymom0 3y ago
    I don't think it should be the job of Apple to make Apple Watch work with Android. This should be Google's job.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Some would argue that Apple is obligated to provide all the API necessary to let Google implement support for Apple Watch on Android phones because anything short of that would be an abuse of its monopoly position in the "Apple Watch host device" market.
      - busymom0 3y ago
        I don't think DOJ is arguing that. Their argument seems to be that Apple isn't supporting Android. Providing an api is different from actively supporting another platform. API would usually be agnostic. Also, couldn't Apple make a first amendment argument?
        shuckles 3y ago
bhelkey 3y ago
From the Department of Justice: > 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 > Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs, to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/fossil-smartwatches-go-extinct-company-quits-wear-os-ecosystem/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/fossil-smartwatches-... Apple makes the only functional smart watch. Fossil got fucked over and left. Google did nothing with Fitbit (dead). Samsung as a product excites no one (I own a Samsung phone, I dont want a Samsung watch).
  - asdajksah2123 3y ago
    The argument has nothing to do with what Apple's competitors are doing. The DoJ claim you're responding to applies even if a non Apple smartwatch maker didn't exist. The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
    - zer00eyz 3y ago
      >>> The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore. Printer ink? Cpu sockets? Are we going to compel apple to support intel chips again? Should Intel and AMD be forced to support old ram standards cause you happen to want to use that particular combination. I dont think the DOJ has good enough lawyers to win this very tenuous argument. Im not even sure if they should. There are much better arguments to make both on merit and cause.
  - 3y ago
matwood 3y ago
Claiming CarPlay is anticompetitive along with blaming Apple for Windows and Amazon phones failures really makes the DOJ look clueless.
- MilaM 3y ago
  It's not too far-fetched, I think. Apple could have collaborated with Google and car OEMs to standardize an open interface for smartphone-car communication. Instead, we have two APIs that essentially do the same thing in every car OS.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    Car makers don’t want to collaborate. The DOJ should force them too. I don’t want their shitty UI with underpowered hardware, I want to use my phone
asdajksah2123 3y ago
This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said. Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch: > Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone. So, ifApple 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 > By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth. > Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.
LinAGKar 3y ago
Where do you live where you buy the engine separately from the car?

DustinBrett 3y ago

I think it's a bit easier to swap watches than engines or electric car batteries.

shuckles 3y ago
Very excited for the DOJ to finally require HP to support Brother toner.
- barabba 3y ago
  I hope you don’t really believe that’s a fair comparison.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Ink is ink and paper is paper. How hard could it be? I accidentally bought a large inventory of toner during a sale, and it's really cost prohibitive for me to buy a new printer as a result. My comments might be a joke, but they're about as rigorous as the claims in the DoJ complaint. They invent a "performance smartphone market" and then claim Google is a distant third to Samsung and Apple because of iMessage lock-in.
- jokowueu 3y ago
  Standardizing ink cartridges would be amazing
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Unlike smart watches where integrating the watch and phone probably has lots of opportunity for innovation left, I agree there isn't much value in proprietary printer inks and standardization probably has more consumer benefit.
miguelazo 3y ago
Exactly-- they're all built around standard protocols and technologies that should be mostly interoperable.

goosedragons 3y ago

The Apple Watch has it's own CPU, RAM, display, potentially even cell signal. Why should it need an iPhone to work? Should your Honda motorcycle stop working if you get rid of your Civic?

bredren 3y ago
This is a fair point. It should not need an iPhone. I think it did in the first several generations but not today. I suspect forcing Apple to allow this device to operate without an iPhone (even lacking features that might reasonably require an iPhone) could come out of this.
dgfitz 3y ago
Pretty sure my PlayStation 5 controller has its own CPU, RAM, wireless radio, speaker, microphone. Needs a PlayStation 5 in order to function. Does Sony have a monopoly?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ceocoder 3y ago
  You can use the PS5 controller with a PC quite easily - across the three major OSes
- righthand 3y ago
  I can use a Playstation 5 controller on my PC, so no.
- Tronno 3y ago
  This is a terrible example given the PS5 controller is compatible with Windows machines.
- __david__ 3y ago
  > Needs a PlayStation 5 in order to function. Is that true? I’m pretty sure they will connect up to desktops and work fine there with no PlayStation around.

bredren 3y ago

>Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch. Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?

Urgo 3y ago
> Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim? I was a Fitbit user from the day the initial fitbit went on sale for preorder. I used pretty much every 'flagship' fitbit since then until Google bought them. Ever since Google took over the Fitbit product got worse and worse. I decided a year ago I needed out when they got rid of the communities favorite feature, challenges. I'm pretty sure when I finally packed my fitbit away I had logged more days of usage then anyone else. I started exploring what the other options were but was not able to even consider the apple watch because I do prefer android to ios. If it had supported android I'd have potentially gotten one though. Anyway as apple placed themselves out of the running I explored other options and decided Garmin had the best offerings. The biggest issue there though was they had way too many models and way too many versions of each model and little help to figure out which one is the best for you beyond super high level titles like "runner". That said I ended up settling on the Fenix series and after a year of use I can say I'm quite happy with it! When I upgraded my phone this past fall to the latest Pixel Google actually was giving away free Pixel watch 2's with every purchase so I did wear a pixel watch for a couple of weeks to test it out. It was.. not great... especially the battery which was supposedly improved from the pixel watch 1. Anyway, yes, I do agree with the statement that Google hasn't created something good enough, but I don't think they've actually tried. Like other hardware they've bought (nest) they just let it die. Garmin needs some major marketing help, but I do feel like they got a great thing going over there.
- bredren 3y ago
  It is important that you might have considered Apple Watch if it were available for Android. This gatekeeping seems the crux of the lawsuit. However, given your deep experience with Fitbit / Google's offerings and careful consideration of Garmin's as well, I'm curious: What do you think of the merit of suing Apple for antitrust for Apple Watch not supporting at least some set of Android devices?

busymom0 3y ago

Agreed. Government doesn't get to force a company to make their product compatible with another platform. Unless I am missing it, did the DOJ plead that Apple actively prevented Google from making Android work with Apple Watch? If so, then it would be a different story. Couldn't Apple also make a 1st amendment argument that the government can't force them to "speak" something (make iPhone work with Android)?

shuckles 3y ago
The government argued that Apple does not support Apple Watch on Android, which makes it cost prohibitive for Apple Watch users to switch to Android, since they'd have to buy a new smart watch. I wish this was made up, but it's 20% of their arguments for Apple violating anti-trust law.
- busymom0 3y ago
  I don't think it should be the job of Apple to make Apple Watch work with Android. This should be Google's job.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Some would argue that Apple is obligated to provide all the API necessary to let Google implement support for Apple Watch on Android phones because anything short of that would be an abuse of its monopoly position in the "Apple Watch host device" market.
    - busymom0 3y ago
      I don't think DOJ is arguing that. Their argument seems to be that Apple isn't supporting Android. Providing an api is different from actively supporting another platform. API would usually be agnostic. Also, couldn't Apple make a first amendment argument?
      - shuckles 3y ago

bhelkey 3y ago

From the Department of Justice: > 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 > Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs, to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches

zer00eyz 3y ago
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/fossil-smartwatches-go-extinct-company-quits-wear-os-ecosystem/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/fossil-smartwatches-... Apple makes the only functional smart watch. Fossil got fucked over and left. Google did nothing with Fitbit (dead). Samsung as a product excites no one (I own a Samsung phone, I dont want a Samsung watch).
- asdajksah2123 3y ago
  The argument has nothing to do with what Apple's competitors are doing. The DoJ claim you're responding to applies even if a non Apple smartwatch maker didn't exist. The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >>> The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore. Printer ink? Cpu sockets? Are we going to compel apple to support intel chips again? Should Intel and AMD be forced to support old ram standards cause you happen to want to use that particular combination. I dont think the DOJ has good enough lawyers to win this very tenuous argument. Im not even sure if they should. There are much better arguments to make both on merit and cause.
- 3y ago

matwood 3y ago

Claiming CarPlay is anticompetitive along with blaming Apple for Windows and Amazon phones failures really makes the DOJ look clueless.

MilaM 3y ago
It's not too far-fetched, I think. Apple could have collaborated with Google and car OEMs to standardize an open interface for smartphone-car communication. Instead, we have two APIs that essentially do the same thing in every car OS.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Car makers don’t want to collaborate. The DOJ should force them too. I don’t want their shitty UI with underpowered hardware, I want to use my phone

asdajksah2123 3y ago

This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said. Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch: > Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone. So, ifApple 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 > By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth. > Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.

LinAGKar 3y ago

Where do you live where you buy the engine separately from the car?