4 ms·

You really don't want the US Government to win its antitrust suit

16 points by CharlesW 3y ago

aurizon 3y ago
They will change their ways - some small, and some large, and that will enrich us and unrich Apple
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smoldesu 3y ago
"It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans." - Steve Jobs, on Apple's suit following his resignation (Newsweek, September 30, 1985)
jtriangle 3y ago
"you really don't want xyz" >offers zero reasons why you don't want xyz >offers zero reasons xyz is bad Trash clickbait. If apple is doing nothing wrong, let them prove it in court. If apple is doing something wrong, let the DOJ prove it in court. Anyone is free to comment on the legal aspects of what's occurring here, however none of that matters if it doesn't end up in that courtroom, which it won't.
Baguette5242 3y ago
“The process was eased, in part, by the ability of macOS, iPadOS, and iOS to work seamlessly with third-party systems like Microsoft Word, OneDrive, Google Drive, Google Docs, Gmail, and Chrome. To me, this is the best of both worlds, and not a single worldview that tries to force me to see things the Apple way.“ The author is a great FOSS and open-software advocate I see. Seriously, reading this kind of press article makes me tired, I go to bed. What a way to end the day…
miloignis 3y ago
I couldn't disagree more, and this feels very tired. Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures, which are detailed in the antitrust suit. It's also not like the government is trying to break Apple into multiple companies, like Standard Oil. Moreover, the author himself then goes on to detail for most of an article some of the ways that Apple doesn't play nicely with others (of which there are many many others) and how their own reasoning for why they need to be this way doesn't hold up (all those fake Sora apps), but then comes to the conclusion that it's not bad enough for him (who happens to be inside the Apple ecosystem). The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble), but just says they didn't feel any pressure. He doesn't even seem against the EU restrictions, but he still, without listing any concrete repercussions, doesn't want the government to make choices for Apple. Overall, it was a pretty unhelpful article to me, with a kinda odd stance of yes they do bad stuff but I like my iPhone so the government shouldn't try to make them play nicely.
- paholg 3y ago
  > It's also not like the government is trying to break Apple into multiple companies, like Standard Oil. If only.
  - drivingmenuts 3y ago
    Oh, that would be a goddamn security nightmare. Trying to get them all on the same page at the same time would be impossible and someone would always be slowing everyone else down. Consumers wouldn't know who to trust.
    - paholg 3y ago
      It's too bad we have no evidence of products from different companies working together. I can't imagine how we would get, say, software from one company to work on hardware from another. Or a device from one manufacturer to communicate with one from another through some kind of standardized protocol.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        Exactly. What separation of software and hardware is impossible to achieve by human means. Perhaps in true far future, some kind of Android will exist to create this ecosystem, but that kind of tech is at least a googol or so years away.
        drivingmenuts 3y ago
        How many distros of Android are there? And are they all current? Not bleeding edge, but at least up-to-date with current developments? Might want to see about that.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble), See women in fashion, see teens and card and clothing and Jordan's and... This is a weak argument. >>> Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures, " Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power" and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power." From: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... At 60 percent the DOJ's case is just over the practical limits. Its going to make the case that they seem to be wanting to present really tough. Using the watch as a form of lockin... is dumb. And the green bubbles thing is going to come up.. guess what that's about A) security and B) MMS being a 20 year old dumpster fire (the carriers not apple) ... Their tech working around the short comings of a protocol is going to be an easy argument to move them out of Market Power and into "Innovation". The DOJ has ONE very narrow case they can make... that would be around blocking of MMS/Texting alternatives. With signal no longer in the market (mms) there is going to be an argument that "there isnt a viable alternative with security first principals". I contend that the DOJ brought this case, and knows dam well its going to loose. Apple gets a day in court, wins and then every EU/china action after gets shouted down as Nationalism and anti free market by all of DC.
paholg 3y ago
Yes, I do. Don't assume you know what I want! I want not just the US Government to win its antitrust suit, but I want it to bring many more (against not just Apple). > On the other hand, I don't believe companies should be forced to make their products work with competitors' products To me, this is the crux of the issue. They shouldn't get to be competitors. No one company should be able to have such a large market share in so many different spaces. This is so obviously bad for consumers, as well as for smaller companies that might want to enter any of these spaces. > Everything worked fine and I never felt that, for instance, my iPhone was trying to nudge me to switch to a Mac, or that my Apple Watch harbored secret disdain for the Windows platform. I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on.
- rtfm_ 3y ago
  > I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on. Good thing you don't need any of their hardware to stream AppleTV+ on. You can go stream directly from their website, https://tv.apple.com https://tv.apple.com. Or maybe from your Samsung tv, or maybe from your Roku.
  - paholg 3y ago
    I currently have, and would want it to work on the following devices, with 3 being the most important: 1. A Linux computer 2. An Android phone 3. A Chromecast I believe 1 works, but not either of the others.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >>> I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on. My Samsung TV would like a word with you.
m3kw9 3y ago
If people want a crappier mobile experience, cheer on this suit. DOJ is forcing iOS to operate like Android
- miloignis 3y ago
  In what way? Also, I have a pretty flawless android experience because of the ability to use other app-stores - I happily run ad-free FOSS software from F-Droid.
  - drivingmenuts 3y ago
    There's a reason I don't use Android and it's because I have to futz around forever to get apps to work and they never work together seamlessly (iOS apps require much less work). My phone is for using - not managing. I have multiple desktops for playing around with configurations. And while Open Source may be more secure, it's usually horrible for actually using the software.
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      I don't really believe you've used android, not for a long time. I never futz around getting apps to work.
wbshaw 3y ago
[flagged]
wbshaw 3y ago
[flagged]
chomp 3y ago
Lance Ulanoff needs to find someone to sit him down and explain monopolies and antitrust to him, and then reread the DoJ filing. There’s so many inaccuracies in this article, if I were to enumerate them, I’d be rewriting his article. > iPhone has just 57% of the US market share (though I've also seen numbers closer to 70%), and globally, it has roughly 20%. You don't need to be a math major to know that, by any measure, those are not "monopoly" numbers. Sorry to break it to you bud, but market share is not monopoly power, and there is no rigid rule on market share, there’s some court cases that study companies with less than 50% market share as having sufficient monopoly power for antitrust! >Apple Watch rant It’s not illegal to make something incompatible with something else, it’s illegal to have a constellation of artificial barriers to attempt to monopolize, or maintain your monopoly. >There are other head-scratching parts of this case, such as the DOJ’s accusation that Apple is "Suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services". Obviously, the DOJ can't be talking about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and countless other streaming platforms, all of which work on my iPhone, iPad, and best MacBook. Probably the clearest evidence the author read nothing from the DoJ filing. At this point, I’m done, some people bask in willful ignorance, some people are paid for it.
kken 3y ago
>When I made the choice to switch to a MacBook in 2023, though, my life was transformed. Why does the article have sentences like this? Is this really an objective article? (obviously not)
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Feels like the guy is fixating on the word "monopoly" so as to avoid addressing the term "anticompetitive behavior."

16 points by CharlesW 3y ago

aurizon 3y ago

They will change their ways - some small, and some large, and that will enrich us and unrich Apple

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

smoldesu 3y ago

"It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans." - Steve Jobs, on Apple's suit following his resignation (Newsweek, September 30, 1985)

jtriangle 3y ago

"you really don't want xyz" >offers zero reasons why you don't want xyz >offers zero reasons xyz is bad Trash clickbait. If apple is doing nothing wrong, let them prove it in court. If apple is doing something wrong, let the DOJ prove it in court. Anyone is free to comment on the legal aspects of what's occurring here, however none of that matters if it doesn't end up in that courtroom, which it won't.

Baguette5242 3y ago

“The process was eased, in part, by the ability of macOS, iPadOS, and iOS to work seamlessly with third-party systems like Microsoft Word, OneDrive, Google Drive, Google Docs, Gmail, and Chrome. To me, this is the best of both worlds, and not a single worldview that tries to force me to see things the Apple way.“ The author is a great FOSS and open-software advocate I see. Seriously, reading this kind of press article makes me tired, I go to bed. What a way to end the day…

miloignis 3y ago

I couldn't disagree more, and this feels very tired. Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures, which are detailed in the antitrust suit. It's also not like the government is trying to break Apple into multiple companies, like Standard Oil. Moreover, the author himself then goes on to detail for most of an article some of the ways that Apple doesn't play nicely with others (of which there are many many others) and how their own reasoning for why they need to be this way doesn't hold up (all those fake Sora apps), but then comes to the conclusion that it's not bad enough for him (who happens to be inside the Apple ecosystem). The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble), but just says they didn't feel any pressure. He doesn't even seem against the EU restrictions, but he still, without listing any concrete repercussions, doesn't want the government to make choices for Apple. Overall, it was a pretty unhelpful article to me, with a kinda odd stance of yes they do bad stuff but I like my iPhone so the government shouldn't try to make them play nicely.

paholg 3y ago
> It's also not like the government is trying to break Apple into multiple companies, like Standard Oil. If only.
- drivingmenuts 3y ago
  Oh, that would be a goddamn security nightmare. Trying to get them all on the same page at the same time would be impossible and someone would always be slowing everyone else down. Consumers wouldn't know who to trust.
  - paholg 3y ago
    It's too bad we have no evidence of products from different companies working together. I can't imagine how we would get, say, software from one company to work on hardware from another. Or a device from one manufacturer to communicate with one from another through some kind of standardized protocol.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      Exactly. What separation of software and hardware is impossible to achieve by human means. Perhaps in true far future, some kind of Android will exist to create this ecosystem, but that kind of tech is at least a googol or so years away.
      - drivingmenuts 3y ago
        How many distros of Android are there? And are they all current? Not bleeding edge, but at least up-to-date with current developments? Might want to see about that.
zer00eyz 3y ago
>> The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble), See women in fashion, see teens and card and clothing and Jordan's and... This is a weak argument. >>> Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures, " Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power" and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power." From: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... At 60 percent the DOJ's case is just over the practical limits. Its going to make the case that they seem to be wanting to present really tough. Using the watch as a form of lockin... is dumb. And the green bubbles thing is going to come up.. guess what that's about A) security and B) MMS being a 20 year old dumpster fire (the carriers not apple) ... Their tech working around the short comings of a protocol is going to be an easy argument to move them out of Market Power and into "Innovation". The DOJ has ONE very narrow case they can make... that would be around blocking of MMS/Texting alternatives. With signal no longer in the market (mms) there is going to be an argument that "there isnt a viable alternative with security first principals". I contend that the DOJ brought this case, and knows dam well its going to loose. Apple gets a day in court, wins and then every EU/china action after gets shouted down as Nationalism and anti free market by all of DC.

paholg 3y ago

Yes, I do. Don't assume you know what I want! I want not just the US Government to win its antitrust suit, but I want it to bring many more (against not just Apple). > On the other hand, I don't believe companies should be forced to make their products work with competitors' products To me, this is the crux of the issue. They shouldn't get to be competitors. No one company should be able to have such a large market share in so many different spaces. This is so obviously bad for consumers, as well as for smaller companies that might want to enter any of these spaces. > Everything worked fine and I never felt that, for instance, my iPhone was trying to nudge me to switch to a Mac, or that my Apple Watch harbored secret disdain for the Windows platform. I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on.

rtfm_ 3y ago
> I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on. Good thing you don't need any of their hardware to stream AppleTV+ on. You can go stream directly from their website, https://tv.apple.com https://tv.apple.com. Or maybe from your Samsung tv, or maybe from your Roku.
- paholg 3y ago
  I currently have, and would want it to work on the following devices, with 3 being the most important: 1. A Linux computer 2. An Android phone 3. A Chromecast I believe 1 works, but not either of the others.
zer00eyz 3y ago
>>> I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on. My Samsung TV would like a word with you.

m3kw9 3y ago

If people want a crappier mobile experience, cheer on this suit. DOJ is forcing iOS to operate like Android

miloignis 3y ago
In what way? Also, I have a pretty flawless android experience because of the ability to use other app-stores - I happily run ad-free FOSS software from F-Droid.
- drivingmenuts 3y ago
  There's a reason I don't use Android and it's because I have to futz around forever to get apps to work and they never work together seamlessly (iOS apps require much less work). My phone is for using - not managing. I have multiple desktops for playing around with configurations. And while Open Source may be more secure, it's usually horrible for actually using the software.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    I don't really believe you've used android, not for a long time. I never futz around getting apps to work.

wbshaw 3y ago

[flagged]

wbshaw 3y ago

[flagged]

chomp 3y ago

Lance Ulanoff needs to find someone to sit him down and explain monopolies and antitrust to him, and then reread the DoJ filing. There’s so many inaccuracies in this article, if I were to enumerate them, I’d be rewriting his article. > iPhone has just 57% of the US market share (though I've also seen numbers closer to 70%), and globally, it has roughly 20%. You don't need to be a math major to know that, by any measure, those are not "monopoly" numbers. Sorry to break it to you bud, but market share is not monopoly power, and there is no rigid rule on market share, there’s some court cases that study companies with less than 50% market share as having sufficient monopoly power for antitrust! >Apple Watch rant It’s not illegal to make something incompatible with something else, it’s illegal to have a constellation of artificial barriers to attempt to monopolize, or maintain your monopoly. >There are other head-scratching parts of this case, such as the DOJ’s accusation that Apple is "Suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services". Obviously, the DOJ can't be talking about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and countless other streaming platforms, all of which work on my iPhone, iPad, and best MacBook. Probably the clearest evidence the author read nothing from the DoJ filing. At this point, I’m done, some people bask in willful ignorance, some people are paid for it.

kken 3y ago

>When I made the choice to switch to a MacBook in 2023, though, my life was transformed. Why does the article have sentences like this? Is this really an objective article? (obviously not)

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Feels like the guy is fixating on the word "monopoly" so as to avoid addressing the term "anticompetitive behavior."