11 ms·

I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create h

I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-friendly that a monkey can use it, the trade-off is that you agree to my Terms of Service. There are other options out there.

josephcsible 1y ago
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because once I buy your phone/tablet/whatever, it stops being yours and starts being mine, so I should be in charge of what software it can run from then on.
fragmede 1y ago
Think about this for physical objects. If I bought your hardware, then decided to paint it bright pink in celebration of the fact that I like pink, but you don't like the color pink, should you be able to tell me not to paint it pink? I bought it, it's mine, so I can do just that. Why then, for digital objects, does that not follow?
cess11 1y ago
Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Why wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
  - ryoshoe 1y ago
    Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      Because companies compete globally, not just locally? Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features. And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
      - ThatPlayer 1y ago
        Companies may be global, but individual consumers are not. Anti-trust is about consumer harm. So that's why local markets matter.
        crazygringo 1y ago
        Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood. But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
        ThatPlayer 1y ago
        > It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer. So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions. And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch. While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.
wetpaws 1y ago
[dead]
8fingerlouie 1y ago
> There are other options out there. That's the catch-22, said ecosystem is what they want to use because it's considered "secure", but it's only considered secure because it's closed. It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled.
- wredcoll 1y ago
  This continues to be a wild take. People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers. Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now, they just have to pay apple their 30%.
  - 8fingerlouie 1y ago
    > People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers There are two scenarios to this (probably more) 1) A developer wants to use a 3rd party app store to distribute their apps, using 3rd party payment solutions. This is fine, it puts no load on Apple. That's what we've had in EU for a year or more, and truth be told, nobody uses 3rd party app stores. It's a desire that exists because vendors don't want to pay Apple 30%, users have no desire for it. 2) Which leads to the second scenario, where developers will want to publish their apps on the App Store, because that's where the users are, but still use 3rd party payment solutions, meaning Apple essentially hosts their apps for free. Even after a year in EU, there are literally no users (and not many 3rd party app stores): AltStore has about 1.5 million users, Epic Games Store has about 29 million users across iOS and Android, so best case they're all iOS users, or worst case it's less than half. There are 450 million people living in the EU. The Apple App Store is overwhelmingly dominant in EU, despite there being a free choice. So, which scenario do you think is most likely ? 1 or 2 ? The store where nobody shops, or the store where the users are, and developers wants to live rent free ? > Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now Facebook, and later Meta has been involved in several "controversies" over the past decade or so, too many to be an accident. In 2015-2018, people discovered that the Facebook app on Android had been collecting call logs and SMS metadata, presumably to help you connect with people you know, but it was being done without your consent. in 2016-2020, there were rumors that Facebook listened on conversations using the iOS and Android microphones for use with targeted ads. Nothing was proved, but it was verified in 2019 that Facebook kept the camera active on iOS while you browsed the feed. The Onavo VPN 2013-2019 (later Facebook Research) app collected various stuff like App usage stats, Web browsing, private messages and network activity on both iOS and Android, until the App was removed from Play Store and App Store in 2019. Facebook also tracks your location, despite you disallowing this, by using background access, Photo EXIF data, and WiFi//bluetooth beacon. All of the above were default on, without any informed consent, and the behavior of Meta (and others) are a large part of why both iOS and Android have severely hardened their cross application data access.
whstl 1y ago
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? In their own machines they can do whatever they want. Once they sell it to you, not anymore.
- _benton 1y ago
  Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    > Are you legally prevented from controlling your device The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance. When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?" Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
    - _benton 1y ago
      This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
      - whstl 1y ago
        You're wrong. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices after they drove away all Mom and Pop stores. > I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this Yes I can, legally and morally.
Zambyte 1y ago
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? If they wanted that right they shouldn't have sold the computer.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Sssh. Coming soon: "Leases, by Apple"
msgodel 1y ago
If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best. Doing this en mass with the goal of actually changing people's behavior is even worse IMO. We don't have a word for it because it's not something that could be done before now. Microsoft tried with Windows and IE but the technology at the time meant they couldn't really lock people out of their own devices the way Apple does.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  > If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best I believe that's why they're calling it "a phone", or "a tablet". The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like. A phone is not simply a computer, it's a regulated piece of hardware that must comply with local laws and regulations regarding radio transmissions and other stuff. You can't just peek and poke around anywhere you like in the system. Besides that, it must be able to talk to carefully tuned 3G/4G/5G cell towers, which sounds easy in theory, but it's not. When I made mobile phones 20 years ago, we had people driving around all countries where we sold it, with a test setup where the phone connected to every cell tower it could "see", and recorded logs and GPS coordinates, and that work (and that of countless others) is partially what became the beginning of A-GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS), which allows you to triangulate your phones location purely from the cell towers it can see. Of course that's not how it works today, as most carriers these days register their cell towers in a central database with GPS coordinates, so A-GPS these days is simply a database dump (and a whole lot of math). As a "fun" anecdote, when I wrote software for mobile phones, it was the only place I've ever worked that had a bug category for "potential harm to user". I'm certain companies working in Medicare and other critical industries also has that, but it was the first and only time I ever saw it.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Lol. If phones were actually considered critical devices like this implies Android would have been nuked from orbit. No. They're computers with a modem peripheral. This is like saying once you plugged your e machine into the phone line it could interfere with 911 calls so they need to be regulated by the FCC. We settled that one over 50 years ago.
o11c 1y ago
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Do you think the same about printer ink? Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering. Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).
- ls612 1y ago
  There has been absolutely no legal precedent about those DMCA carve-outs and previous cases that could have rested on them (eg Nintendo vs Yuzu) shouldn’t leave anyone optimistic about their strength.
wilsonnb3 1y ago
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Yes, except when they use that control to stifle competition. Competition is good, so we want to promote it. That is sort of the basis for all anti trust law, to my layman’s understanding at least.
surgical_fire 1y ago
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Was that not the sort of rationale Microsoft used to defend its IE shenanigans back in the day? It was considered to be a violation of antitrust laws then. I don't think Apple would be off the hook now. Especially considering how much more ubiquitous smartphones are in comparison to web browsers back then.
- JimDabell 1y ago
  Microsoft had >90% of the desktop computer market share back then. Apple has <30% of the smartphone market share now.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    While I am not a specialist on the matter, I don't think Antitrust regulations have anything to do with market share. It's whether you are engaging in anticompetitive behavior or not.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      Market share is a commmon practical enabler of anti-competitive behavior. It’s leverage.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        Well, wenare talking about what is essentially a duopoly in the smartphone market. Apple has enough market presence for their anticompetitive behavior to trigger antitrust laws, especially considering that smartphones are inevitable in current times.
wavemode 1y ago
I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple. In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]: > Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products. As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  > There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological.
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    It would be one thing to say "you must offer our payment method as an option to users". It's another to say "our payment method must be the only option you offer to users". Just the former would be enough to cover your use case.
  - scottjg 1y ago
    i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.
ghusto 1y ago
To an extent, yes. It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another "inferior" socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales. If their stuff is so superior, then people will see that and prefer it. They wouldn't need to make it impossible or deliberately painful to use competitors services.
shmerl 1y ago
Competition law exists for a reason, and it doesn't matter how much Apple invested, it's not negating that reason. If anything, it's the opposite - the bigger Apple is, the worse is the damage they cause.
socalgal2 1y ago
> There are other options out there. This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses. No government is going to accept that some company, Apple, gets that kind of control.
- INGSOCIALITE 1y ago
  so then i should be able to use any ink in my printer then...
  - danans 1y ago
    I routinely buy printer toner and ink from companies that are not my printer's manufacturer. Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
    - slater 1y ago
      > Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so? Not op, but the various "must use our genuine brand printer cartridges!" schemes that printer manufacturers have used over the past, oh, 2 decades might have something to do with it? edit to clarify: I mean the cartridges with their own chips that HP et al. tried to make happen a while back
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        Don't forget about the refrigerators with chips in the water filter cartridges. And the barcoded coffee pods. And ...
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party-ink-1850211997 https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party...
briandw 1y ago
I don't see people making the same arguments about Steam, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, etc. Why is Apple special here? Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do. That's fine apparently, just not for Apple.
- StrandedKitty 1y ago
  Maybe the reason is that the number of Apple users is an order of magnitude higher? Plus, they control both hardware and software. Apple is making very consumer-oriented products, and this comes with it's own downside of having to handle billions of users.
  - sadeshmukh 1y ago
    Steam has a near total monopoly on PC gaming and has an equivalent cut.
    - matkoniecz 1y ago
      Steam is not making basically impossible to install games on PC in other ways, unlike Apple does for their devices. Steam is not even controlling PCs as their fief so they cannot do this even if they would want to do it.
    - detaro 1y ago
      You are not required to use Steam to buy games on any device (even on the Steam Deck it's trivial to install games from other sources). It has big market power because gamers actually like it and actively choose it over alternatives (often even those that come pre-installed with the platform, the Windows store and the XBox app). It does not prevent devs from selling their games on multiple stores. It's dominant position for sure has market effects, but its a lot harder to argue it has the position for any nefarious or abusive reasons. (Although there are some lawsuits ongoing claiming that they did threaten devs over pricing, if those succeed it might change things)
      - 1y ago
bogtog 1y ago
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change (that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)
- devmor 1y ago
  If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it. That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
  - hks0 1y ago
    Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it". I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either. Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725
    - adastra22 1y ago
      No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.
      - thfuran 1y ago
        I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.
sandworm101 1y ago
>> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Apple can. They can retain ownership of "their" devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers.
callc 1y ago
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? I think general purpose computing devices should be open. This is a moralistic argument, putting legal and business reasons to the side. Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware. The practice of setting up fiefdoms to become the landlord is an abhorrent practice.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  > Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware. There are at least a few grey areas of such a carve-out that I'd like to ask about, but I wonder if it's even necessary. What if there simply weren't any exceptions? The ATM would still be locked down - the owner would possess the keys. Business as usual. The fridge and mouse either wouldn't be locked down or the keys might be physically present somewhere on them. Probably either neutral or a win for the consumer depending on the specific circumstances. Something like a fridge should either be running a proper OS (and thus fully under the control of the user) or else shouldn't be connected to the network in the first place. Unpatchable proprietary network connected black boxes expected to have a service life of well over a decade are a recipe for disaster after all.
kmeisthax 1y ago
[dead]
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no. > Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other. Meanwhile the premise of the government-granted copyright monopoly they've used to build their lock-in system is that you build something and in exchange you can charge money for it. Leveraging that into control over markets external to the one you developed is a thing that should be expressly prohibited.
bakugo 1y ago
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Does the manufacturer of your refrigerator have the right to control what food you're allowed to put into it? If not, why do you have different standards for computing devices? Why did it ever become okay for Apple to decide what you do with your device after they've sold it to you?
fc417fc802 1y ago
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here). Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?
benreesman 1y ago
The law is complicated, its a living thing, and we're living through one of the nastier episodes of its capture in living memory. So who knows there. Its also breaking sharply on this issue in what was once a fairly high-compatibility regime of US/EU common-ish values. So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle: - aggregate prosperity - broad prosperity and security from want - individual liberty You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process. So then it becomes about: - would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want - if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps. But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.
- Ray20 1y ago
  >pick two And if you pick wrong, you get nothing. >Rich people buy laws. A totalitarian government does not need to buy laws. Imposing punitive taxes on wealth - it's like express line to what you want to avoid with it. Breaking the backs of rich people and megacorporations or not, is not a choice about your chances of being wealthy, it is a choice about will you die from starvation or not. People choose not to break the backs of megacorporations because they don't want to starve to death in totalitarian regimes, not because they hope to get a corporation of their own some day.
  - benreesman 1y ago
    Look at marginal tax brackets at the top from WW2 to the present and say that again with a straight face. Real wages and purchasing power at the median are so strongly correlated with 90℅ income tax at the top that the causality digression is a waste of time we don't have. Unchecked executive power via a lockstep legislative apparatus and meek courts is not some unprecedented thing, its a totally predictable response to privatizing the commons and selling it off to oligarchs. It was a fucking disaster in Russia in 1992 and its shaping up no better here now. Conficistory taxes at the top work, they keep real assets broadly distributed throughout society which gives everyone a stake in democratic institutions which creates stability and growth. That's recent, robustly researched history.
like_any_other 1y ago
> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost. > There are other options out there. Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. You also ignore Apple's middle-man role - consumers can choose (among the very few) different options, but companies serving Apple's captured market cannot.
- Ray20 1y ago
  >Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. And it's a shame >Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. No, they shouldn't. Such stepping in is always vulnerable for abuse and always leads to results worse than original failing
  - thunderfork 1y ago
    [dead]
x3ro 1y ago
Ah finally someone coming to the rescue of criminally underrepresented multi-billion dollar companies and their inevitable tactics of building monopolies, because how else do you 10% revenue growth every year. I hear Shell is also in need of some help, maybe you can find a thread on them? /s But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  You pays your money and you makes your choice
globular-toast 1y ago
No, people should not be able to control other people.
archagon 1y ago
Any argument in this vein must also apply to the Mac. The hardware is mostly the same. The OS is mostly the same. The native apps and services are identical, as is the security story. So why should the Mac not be locked down if the iPhone is? Put another way, what prevents Apple from using the exact same reasoning to lock down my Mac in the future, perhaps under pressure from authoritarian governments? After all, the technology (notarization) is already in place and is actively being abused for iOS app review in the EU.
theknarf 1y ago
That's just an argument in favour of monopolization. Monopolization kills innovation and hurts the market. Companies are not individuals that should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they have already invested in R&D, thats a nonsensical argument. That's like saying that car companies don't have to put seatbelts in cars because they already invested in R&D for building the car. It doesn't matter what a company have or haven't done! Rules exists for creating a better society.
eloop 1y ago
Now imagine that instead of an iPad, you've just bought a new house with fantastic materials and an integrated software system. Should the company that built it have the right to control how and who interacts with your house?
wvh 1y ago
It doesn't stop at Apple's ecosystem. It also allows Apple to regulate the choices and privacy of the people and companies using their products. There's hardware, software, and there is data. Trying to control other people's data and taking away their freedom of choice regarding their data and services used is the issue. I don't own any Apple product, but I do admire occasionally how Apple tries to uphold the quality and security of their ecosystem, even as I principally disagree with the walled garden approach. I certainly hope Apple aspires to keep the quality of their hardware and software high. They should however never control user data or choice of third party services.
- al_borland 1y ago
  > I certainly hope Apple aspires to keep the quality of their hardware and software high. They should however never control user data or choice of third party services. These two things are often at odds with each other. If people bought into the Apple ecosystem because of the walled garden, the regulators want to rip down those walls and turn it into a fundamentally different product. Bad 3rd party experiences can break the illusion of the perfect walled garden, which is why Apple has many of its rules. Though, I’d say that illusion has already been broken for many, due to a bunch of apps with timed ad pop-ups and other such nonsense. I won’t allow any of that on my phone, but most people do. I’ve read articles from developers that say they offer options on iOS to go ad-free, while similar options don’t exist on Android for the same app, since not enough people do it and they can make more on ads (I believe I read this from the Angry Birds devs years ago). I would find this unacceptable as a user. I don’t think this is a rule from Apple, but rather differences in the types of users that gravitate to the various platforms; or maybe it’s simply comfort and trust in Apple to process all the payments. I think it should be a rule that any app with ads has the ability to remove them for a price. For smaller apps, I would have a lot less comfort doing this if it didn’t go through Apple (or some similarly large company). I would be very sad if the monkey paw from this lawsuit was that I end up with apps full of ads that I can’t remove, or don’t feel safe removing. This would fly in the face of Proton’s goals as well. There is also the registration side of things. Today, I can get an app without an account for it, buy it, delete it, and if I re-download it, I can restore that purchase. Going through the developer means yet another account to manage, track, and entrusting another 3rd party. I paid $30 a couple weeks ago for lifetime access to the “pro” version of an app I’ve been using. I don’t think I would have done that if I would have had to make an account and all that. It would be too much friction and I don’t know enough about the dev. So the dev got $21-25 from me, instead of the alternative, which would have been 0. And that’s what starts the downward spiral toward ads everywhere, which degrades the whole experience.
GuB-42 1y ago
It is complicated, but I think the big thing is that Apple is huge. Not a monopoly, but your may miss >50% of your potential revenue if you take the "other option" of not supporting the Apple ecosystem. But in this case, I still think Apple has a point. It is not a lawsuit so that consumers can truly own their device, it is not about opening bootloaders and things like that. It is just about not paying the 30% tax to Apple. And while not an Apple fan myself, I understand the appeal of Apple controlling the ecosystem, and paying 30% more for it is not a big deal. By simply buying an Apple device, you show that you are ready to pay a premium for this, so paying a premium for software too seems fitting. Proton has a point regarding ads though, but it can be seen the other way: maybe Apple should control the ad delivery service too and take its cut too. If Apple does it right, it could actually be a good thing for privacy. I repeat that it is not what I want, I like being able to do what I want with my hardware, but I see the value in what Apple offers. In this case, let the courts decide.
- thfuran 1y ago
  >Not a monopoly People get hung up on absolute 100% pure monopolies and how nothing meets that criterion. Monopoly power is a much better way of looking at things. Controlling 100% of a market with insurmountable barrier to entry of course grants a heaping pile of monopoly power, but any company that can influence the market price has some. Generally the higher the market share, the more monopoly power. UK monopoly regulation starts taking a closer look at companies once they have 25% market share.
rickdeckard 1y ago
Apple has not just created integrated HW/SW to sell as a product, with the AppStore they created a closed market within that product that only Apple controls. They invite others to sell on that market, but made themselves gatekeeper and simultaneously a player there, controlling the rules of that market in its favor. Market forces are unable to flow freely, to the point that it affects the "parent" market (in which the iPhone/iPad competes with others) as well as other markets (where other Hardware and Services are sold). Their closed market reached a significant size now, so it should be reasonable to step in and ensure fair competition also there. But thanks to those layers of abstraction, billions of dollar in lobbying and marketing, there is always room to argue that ensuring that free market is unjust, hinders innovation, restricts Apple from competing, etc.
thfuran 1y ago
>If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Of course not. Companies exist only because it is useful to have that sort of legal entity. They should be regulated to ensure that they remain more useful than harmful to society.
QuantumNoodle 1y ago
In the most respectful tone possible, I think if you read the article in its entirety you would get your answer. Laws are needed to keep in check powerful and influential companies so they don't take advantage. Your "devil's advocate" position is questioning 'why should consumers and those who create content for the ecosystem be treated fairly within the ecosystem a company built.' If you don't see an issue with taking advantage of people within the boundary of where you have influence/control, then perhaps let me frame it another way. Your "devil's advocate" position is essentially 'I've built a successful company, therefore I should be allowed to take advantage of the employees inside my company. While they are here, they are forced to endure. If they don't like it, they can go work for the only other employeer'
nashashmi 1y ago
Lots of responses here but none of them mention the Hollywood story! Thomas Edison and Company invented a patent system that separated their inventions from being able to be accessed by indie movie makers, and indie producers. Their lawyers would effectively shut down any such movements. This caused them to go all the way to Los Angeles because it was the furthest from New York and they built a movie studio on poverty row that later became the capital of Hollywood movie making. Once Hollywood became financially strong enough, the lawyers were sent over to shut it down, but the court sided with Hollywood and killed all of the patents because the courts thought that they had abused the pattern system to only benefit a few, what I would like to call the cartel. The cartel were chosen movie makers, and producers, who had access to the movie making stuff and cameras and equipment by which they would share a percentage of the revenue of the movie production and the theater income with Thomas Edison and Company. Effectively they had what Apple has currently.
windward 1y ago
You're not forced to do anything. There are no criminal outcomes of any anticompetitive legislation. For companies, there are civil outcomes. This may be undesirable if you have a large financial interest in the company, but it's a tradeoff for the same legislative body allowing you to create a shield from personal liability and taxation. If you are able to create an ecosystem on your own, do what you like with it.
acd 1y ago
No the US Sherman anti trust law prohibit monopolies. Its not a corporate right but right by citizens not to be affected by monopoly by rule of law or until tried. "The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. " source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

josephcsible 1y ago

> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because once I buy your phone/tablet/whatever, it stops being yours and starts being mine, so I should be in charge of what software it can run from then on.

fragmede 1y ago

Think about this for physical objects. If I bought your hardware, then decided to paint it bright pink in celebration of the fact that I like pink, but you don't like the color pink, should you be able to tell me not to paint it pink? I bought it, it's mine, so I can do just that. Why then, for digital objects, does that not follow?

cess11 1y ago

Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?

crazygringo 1y ago
Why wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
- ryoshoe 1y ago
  Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Because companies compete globally, not just locally? Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features. And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
    - ThatPlayer 1y ago
      Companies may be global, but individual consumers are not. Anti-trust is about consumer harm. So that's why local markets matter.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        Sure if you're an ISP where you're the only choice in a neighborhood. But I don't see much that's local about Apple vs. Samsung. It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. Literally as one-size-fits-all global as you can get.
        ThatPlayer 1y ago
        > It's the same phones for sale in the US or in Thailand. They actually aren't. US iPhones no longer have SIM card slots. Most international phones don't support the same radio bands that US carriers use. This used to be a bigger issue with CDMA, but still an issue with the many 4G/5G bands and VoLTE. That'll be most Xiaomi and Oppo phones in the US. And there's Huawei phones that are banned and not allowed on US carriers; so it makes zero sense to include them into any marketshare calculations for a US consumer. So even an iPhone 16 Pro has different models: A3293 (International) A3083 (USA) A3292 (Middle East, Canada, Mexico) and A3294 (China, Hong Kong). The A3293 and the A3294 do not support T-mobile's 5G band 71. This isn't uncommon, and Samsung will do similar international vs US models. Samsung is even worse sometimes, having completely different CPUs between regions. And of course there's software differences too. Chinese iPhones can disable internet permissions for individual apps but not anyone else for some reason. Google Pixel's Gemini isn't available in EU countries. Apple Intelligence did similarly at launch. While local marketshare isn't the perfect indicator, it's definitely better than using global marketshare.

wetpaws 1y ago

[dead]

8fingerlouie 1y ago

> There are other options out there. That's the catch-22, said ecosystem is what they want to use because it's considered "secure", but it's only considered secure because it's closed. It's the same with all the other stuff like frequent locations, photos, etc. It's a walled garden yes, but one that protects your data from bad actors (like Meta heisting whatever they can get their grubby little hands on), and the price is that you can't let others into your garden, or it's no longer walled.

wredcoll 1y ago
This continues to be a wild take. People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers. Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now, they just have to pay apple their 30%.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  > People aren't demanding that the app store host every application someone submits, they're asking for apple not to take a cut of things other people sell their own customers There are two scenarios to this (probably more) 1) A developer wants to use a 3rd party app store to distribute their apps, using 3rd party payment solutions. This is fine, it puts no load on Apple. That's what we've had in EU for a year or more, and truth be told, nobody uses 3rd party app stores. It's a desire that exists because vendors don't want to pay Apple 30%, users have no desire for it. 2) Which leads to the second scenario, where developers will want to publish their apps on the App Store, because that's where the users are, but still use 3rd party payment solutions, meaning Apple essentially hosts their apps for free. Even after a year in EU, there are literally no users (and not many 3rd party app stores): AltStore has about 1.5 million users, Epic Games Store has about 29 million users across iOS and Android, so best case they're all iOS users, or worst case it's less than half. There are 450 million people living in the EU. The Apple App Store is overwhelmingly dominant in EU, despite there being a free choice. So, which scenario do you think is most likely ? 1 or 2 ? The store where nobody shops, or the store where the users are, and developers wants to live rent free ? > Also, facebook can already be a "bad actor" right now Facebook, and later Meta has been involved in several "controversies" over the past decade or so, too many to be an accident. In 2015-2018, people discovered that the Facebook app on Android had been collecting call logs and SMS metadata, presumably to help you connect with people you know, but it was being done without your consent. in 2016-2020, there were rumors that Facebook listened on conversations using the iOS and Android microphones for use with targeted ads. Nothing was proved, but it was verified in 2019 that Facebook kept the camera active on iOS while you browsed the feed. The Onavo VPN 2013-2019 (later Facebook Research) app collected various stuff like App usage stats, Web browsing, private messages and network activity on both iOS and Android, until the App was removed from Play Store and App Store in 2019. Facebook also tracks your location, despite you disallowing this, by using background access, Photo EXIF data, and WiFi//bluetooth beacon. All of the above were default on, without any informed consent, and the behavior of Meta (and others) are a large part of why both iOS and Android have severely hardened their cross application data access.

whstl 1y ago

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? In their own machines they can do whatever they want. Once they sell it to you, not anymore.

_benton 1y ago
Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
- bitpush 1y ago
  > Are you legally prevented from controlling your device The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance. When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?" Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
  - _benton 1y ago
    This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.
    - whstl 1y ago
      You're wrong. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices after they drove away all Mom and Pop stores. > I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this Yes I can, legally and morally.

Zambyte 1y ago

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? If they wanted that right they shouldn't have sold the computer.

ethbr1 1y ago
Sssh. Coming soon: "Leases, by Apple"

msgodel 1y ago

If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best. Doing this en mass with the goal of actually changing people's behavior is even worse IMO. We don't have a word for it because it's not something that could be done before now. Microsoft tried with Windows and IE but the technology at the time meant they couldn't really lock people out of their own devices the way Apple does.

8fingerlouie 1y ago
> If you sell me a computer and I don't have a shell on it that's false advertising at best I believe that's why they're calling it "a phone", or "a tablet". The computer they actually sell has plenty of shells available, and lets you tinker with whatever you like. A phone is not simply a computer, it's a regulated piece of hardware that must comply with local laws and regulations regarding radio transmissions and other stuff. You can't just peek and poke around anywhere you like in the system. Besides that, it must be able to talk to carefully tuned 3G/4G/5G cell towers, which sounds easy in theory, but it's not. When I made mobile phones 20 years ago, we had people driving around all countries where we sold it, with a test setup where the phone connected to every cell tower it could "see", and recorded logs and GPS coordinates, and that work (and that of countless others) is partially what became the beginning of A-GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GNSS), which allows you to triangulate your phones location purely from the cell towers it can see. Of course that's not how it works today, as most carriers these days register their cell towers in a central database with GPS coordinates, so A-GPS these days is simply a database dump (and a whole lot of math). As a "fun" anecdote, when I wrote software for mobile phones, it was the only place I've ever worked that had a bug category for "potential harm to user". I'm certain companies working in Medicare and other critical industries also has that, but it was the first and only time I ever saw it.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Lol. If phones were actually considered critical devices like this implies Android would have been nuked from orbit. No. They're computers with a modem peripheral. This is like saying once you plugged your e machine into the phone line it could interfere with 911 calls so they need to be regulated by the FCC. We settled that one over 50 years ago.

o11c 1y ago

> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Do you think the same about printer ink? Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering. Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).

ls612 1y ago
There has been absolutely no legal precedent about those DMCA carve-outs and previous cases that could have rested on them (eg Nintendo vs Yuzu) shouldn’t leave anyone optimistic about their strength.

wilsonnb3 1y ago

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Yes, except when they use that control to stifle competition. Competition is good, so we want to promote it. That is sort of the basis for all anti trust law, to my layman’s understanding at least.

surgical_fire 1y ago

> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Was that not the sort of rationale Microsoft used to defend its IE shenanigans back in the day? It was considered to be a violation of antitrust laws then. I don't think Apple would be off the hook now. Especially considering how much more ubiquitous smartphones are in comparison to web browsers back then.

JimDabell 1y ago
Microsoft had >90% of the desktop computer market share back then. Apple has <30% of the smartphone market share now.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  While I am not a specialist on the matter, I don't think Antitrust regulations have anything to do with market share. It's whether you are engaging in anticompetitive behavior or not.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    Market share is a commmon practical enabler of anti-competitive behavior. It’s leverage.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      Well, wenare talking about what is essentially a duopoly in the smartphone market. Apple has enough market presence for their anticompetitive behavior to trigger antitrust laws, especially considering that smartphones are inevitable in current times.

wavemode 1y ago

I think it's specifically anticompetitive for Apple to force app developers to go through Apple Payments (with a 30% fee to Apple) for all purchases, otherwise their app is disallowed from being sold on the App store. There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors - it's purely a strategy for increased revenue for Apple. In antitrust terms, it is a form of Vendor Lock-In[0], and could be seen as a form of Tying[1]: > Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products. As an example, Apple was sued successfully in the early 200s for selling music in a format that could only be played on iPods. iTunes is a platform Apple controls and invented, yet still it was deemed illegal for them to unfairly lock in customers and prevent them from using competing portable music players. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  It would be one thing to say "you must offer our payment method as an option to users". It's another to say "our payment method must be the only option you offer to users". Just the former would be enough to cover your use case.
- scottjg 1y ago
  i think there are a lot of folks who would be willing to have a 27% discount (allow for ~3% card processing fee) and forego those features. if apple was saying you had to support their payment processor alongside others (so you could opt into paying +27% and getting easy cancellations), that would be one thing, but they don't allow you to have any other options available in the app, which i think is where the anticompetitive complaints start to feel more valid.

ghusto 1y ago

To an extent, yes. It's one thing to design and built an iKettle in such a way that every aspect from the water filter to the power cord is well thought out but propitiatory. It's another to refuse to plug in to another "inferior" socket because that cuts into your cut of propitiatory cable sales. If their stuff is so superior, then people will see that and prefer it. They wouldn't need to make it impossible or deliberately painful to use competitors services.

shmerl 1y ago

Competition law exists for a reason, and it doesn't matter how much Apple invested, it's not negating that reason. If anything, it's the opposite - the bigger Apple is, the worse is the damage they cause.

socalgal2 1y ago

> There are other options out there. This isn't about the a consumer's right to buy a different phone. It's about a business's right to do business with customers without Apple in the middle. And it's specifically about Apple's monopoly power over those businesses. No government is going to accept that some company, Apple, gets that kind of control.

INGSOCIALITE 1y ago
so then i should be able to use any ink in my printer then...
- danans 1y ago
  I routinely buy printer toner and ink from companies that are not my printer's manufacturer. Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?
  - slater 1y ago
    > Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so? Not op, but the various "must use our genuine brand printer cartridges!" schemes that printer manufacturers have used over the past, oh, 2 decades might have something to do with it? edit to clarify: I mean the cartridges with their own chips that HP et al. tried to make happen a while back
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Don't forget about the refrigerators with chips in the water filter cartridges. And the barcoded coffee pods. And ...
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party-ink-1850211997 https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party...

briandw 1y ago

I don't see people making the same arguments about Steam, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, etc. Why is Apple special here? Other companies make stores that deliver application and developers don't get to tell them what to do. That's fine apparently, just not for Apple.

StrandedKitty 1y ago
Maybe the reason is that the number of Apple users is an order of magnitude higher? Plus, they control both hardware and software. Apple is making very consumer-oriented products, and this comes with it's own downside of having to handle billions of users.
- sadeshmukh 1y ago
  Steam has a near total monopoly on PC gaming and has an equivalent cut.
  - matkoniecz 1y ago
    Steam is not making basically impossible to install games on PC in other ways, unlike Apple does for their devices. Steam is not even controlling PCs as their fief so they cannot do this even if they would want to do it.
  - detaro 1y ago
    You are not required to use Steam to buy games on any device (even on the Steam Deck it's trivial to install games from other sources). It has big market power because gamers actually like it and actively choose it over alternatives (often even those that come pre-installed with the platform, the Windows store and the XBox app). It does not prevent devs from selling their games on multiple stores. It's dominant position for sure has market effects, but its a lot harder to argue it has the position for any nefarious or abusive reasons. (Although there are some lawsuits ongoing claiming that they did threaten devs over pricing, if those succeed it might change things)
    - 1y ago

bogtog 1y ago

> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change (that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)

devmor 1y ago
If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it. That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
- hks0 1y ago
  Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it". I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either. Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725
  - adastra22 1y ago
    No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.

sandworm101 1y ago

>> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Apple can. They can retain ownership of "their" devices. Instead of selling electronics, they can rent iPhones and iPads to users and thereby retain all control over how/when/if they are used. But good luck pitching that to consumers.

callc 1y ago

> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? I think general purpose computing devices should be open. This is a moralistic argument, putting legal and business reasons to the side. Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware. The practice of setting up fiefdoms to become the landlord is an abhorrent practice.

fc417fc802 1y ago
> Go ahead and lock down specific purpose computing devices, like ATMs, fridge, mouse firmware. There are at least a few grey areas of such a carve-out that I'd like to ask about, but I wonder if it's even necessary. What if there simply weren't any exceptions? The ATM would still be locked down - the owner would possess the keys. Business as usual. The fridge and mouse either wouldn't be locked down or the keys might be physically present somewhere on them. Probably either neutral or a win for the consumer depending on the specific circumstances. Something like a fridge should either be running a proper OS (and thus fully under the control of the user) or else shouldn't be connected to the network in the first place. Unpatchable proprietary network connected black boxes expected to have a service life of well over a decade are a recipe for disaster after all.

kmeisthax 1y ago

[dead]

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? You're asking a rhetorical question without providing any argument for why the answer should be yes, which makes it pretty easy to just answer the question with the word no. > Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? The premise of this question is that they have the right to interfere with how other people choose to interact with each other. Meanwhile the premise of the government-granted copyright monopoly they've used to build their lock-in system is that you build something and in exchange you can charge money for it. Leveraging that into control over markets external to the one you developed is a thing that should be expressly prohibited.

bakugo 1y ago

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Does the manufacturer of your refrigerator have the right to control what food you're allowed to put into it? If not, why do you have different standards for computing devices? Why did it ever become okay for Apple to decide what you do with your device after they've sold it to you?

fc417fc802 1y ago

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here). Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?

benreesman 1y ago

The law is complicated, its a living thing, and we're living through one of the nastier episodes of its capture in living memory. So who knows there. Its also breaking sharply on this issue in what was once a fairly high-compatibility regime of US/EU common-ish values. So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle: - aggregate prosperity - broad prosperity and security from want - individual liberty You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process. So then it becomes about: - would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want - if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps. But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.

Ray20 1y ago
>pick two And if you pick wrong, you get nothing. >Rich people buy laws. A totalitarian government does not need to buy laws. Imposing punitive taxes on wealth - it's like express line to what you want to avoid with it. Breaking the backs of rich people and megacorporations or not, is not a choice about your chances of being wealthy, it is a choice about will you die from starvation or not. People choose not to break the backs of megacorporations because they don't want to starve to death in totalitarian regimes, not because they hope to get a corporation of their own some day.
- benreesman 1y ago
  Look at marginal tax brackets at the top from WW2 to the present and say that again with a straight face. Real wages and purchasing power at the median are so strongly correlated with 90℅ income tax at the top that the causality digression is a waste of time we don't have. Unchecked executive power via a lockstep legislative apparatus and meek courts is not some unprecedented thing, its a totally predictable response to privatizing the commons and selling it off to oligarchs. It was a fucking disaster in Russia in 1992 and its shaping up no better here now. Conficistory taxes at the top work, they keep real assets broadly distributed throughout society which gives everyone a stake in democratic institutions which creates stability and growth. That's recent, robustly researched history.

like_any_other 1y ago

> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost. > There are other options out there. Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. You also ignore Apple's middle-man role - consumers can choose (among the very few) different options, but companies serving Apple's captured market cannot.

Ray20 1y ago
>Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. And it's a shame >Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. No, they shouldn't. Such stepping in is always vulnerable for abuse and always leads to results worse than original failing
- thunderfork 1y ago
  [dead]

x3ro 1y ago

Ah finally someone coming to the rescue of criminally underrepresented multi-billion dollar companies and their inevitable tactics of building monopolies, because how else do you 10% revenue growth every year. I hear Shell is also in need of some help, maybe you can find a thread on them? /s But seriously though: why do people argue that „investing money“ leads to „I can do whatever the hell I want to my client base“? Even if this argument were to hold for all future customers, companies change their TOS all the time. Can I ask for all my money that I paid them back, to exit their ecosystem?..

robertlagrant 1y ago
You pays your money and you makes your choice

globular-toast 1y ago

No, people should not be able to control other people.

archagon 1y ago

Any argument in this vein must also apply to the Mac. The hardware is mostly the same. The OS is mostly the same. The native apps and services are identical, as is the security story. So why should the Mac not be locked down if the iPhone is? Put another way, what prevents Apple from using the exact same reasoning to lock down my Mac in the future, perhaps under pressure from authoritarian governments? After all, the technology (notarization) is already in place and is actively being abused for iOS app review in the EU.

theknarf 1y ago

That's just an argument in favour of monopolization. Monopolization kills innovation and hurts the market. Companies are not individuals that should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they have already invested in R&D, thats a nonsensical argument. That's like saying that car companies don't have to put seatbelts in cars because they already invested in R&D for building the car. It doesn't matter what a company have or haven't done! Rules exists for creating a better society.

eloop 1y ago

Now imagine that instead of an iPad, you've just bought a new house with fantastic materials and an integrated software system. Should the company that built it have the right to control how and who interacts with your house?

wvh 1y ago

It doesn't stop at Apple's ecosystem. It also allows Apple to regulate the choices and privacy of the people and companies using their products. There's hardware, software, and there is data. Trying to control other people's data and taking away their freedom of choice regarding their data and services used is the issue. I don't own any Apple product, but I do admire occasionally how Apple tries to uphold the quality and security of their ecosystem, even as I principally disagree with the walled garden approach. I certainly hope Apple aspires to keep the quality of their hardware and software high. They should however never control user data or choice of third party services.

al_borland 1y ago
> I certainly hope Apple aspires to keep the quality of their hardware and software high. They should however never control user data or choice of third party services. These two things are often at odds with each other. If people bought into the Apple ecosystem because of the walled garden, the regulators want to rip down those walls and turn it into a fundamentally different product. Bad 3rd party experiences can break the illusion of the perfect walled garden, which is why Apple has many of its rules. Though, I’d say that illusion has already been broken for many, due to a bunch of apps with timed ad pop-ups and other such nonsense. I won’t allow any of that on my phone, but most people do. I’ve read articles from developers that say they offer options on iOS to go ad-free, while similar options don’t exist on Android for the same app, since not enough people do it and they can make more on ads (I believe I read this from the Angry Birds devs years ago). I would find this unacceptable as a user. I don’t think this is a rule from Apple, but rather differences in the types of users that gravitate to the various platforms; or maybe it’s simply comfort and trust in Apple to process all the payments. I think it should be a rule that any app with ads has the ability to remove them for a price. For smaller apps, I would have a lot less comfort doing this if it didn’t go through Apple (or some similarly large company). I would be very sad if the monkey paw from this lawsuit was that I end up with apps full of ads that I can’t remove, or don’t feel safe removing. This would fly in the face of Proton’s goals as well. There is also the registration side of things. Today, I can get an app without an account for it, buy it, delete it, and if I re-download it, I can restore that purchase. Going through the developer means yet another account to manage, track, and entrusting another 3rd party. I paid $30 a couple weeks ago for lifetime access to the “pro” version of an app I’ve been using. I don’t think I would have done that if I would have had to make an account and all that. It would be too much friction and I don’t know enough about the dev. So the dev got $21-25 from me, instead of the alternative, which would have been 0. And that’s what starts the downward spiral toward ads everywhere, which degrades the whole experience.

GuB-42 1y ago

It is complicated, but I think the big thing is that Apple is huge. Not a monopoly, but your may miss >50% of your potential revenue if you take the "other option" of not supporting the Apple ecosystem. But in this case, I still think Apple has a point. It is not a lawsuit so that consumers can truly own their device, it is not about opening bootloaders and things like that. It is just about not paying the 30% tax to Apple. And while not an Apple fan myself, I understand the appeal of Apple controlling the ecosystem, and paying 30% more for it is not a big deal. By simply buying an Apple device, you show that you are ready to pay a premium for this, so paying a premium for software too seems fitting. Proton has a point regarding ads though, but it can be seen the other way: maybe Apple should control the ad delivery service too and take its cut too. If Apple does it right, it could actually be a good thing for privacy. I repeat that it is not what I want, I like being able to do what I want with my hardware, but I see the value in what Apple offers. In this case, let the courts decide.

thfuran 1y ago
>Not a monopoly People get hung up on absolute 100% pure monopolies and how nothing meets that criterion. Monopoly power is a much better way of looking at things. Controlling 100% of a market with insurmountable barrier to entry of course grants a heaping pile of monopoly power, but any company that can influence the market price has some. Generally the higher the market share, the more monopoly power. UK monopoly regulation starts taking a closer look at companies once they have 25% market share.

rickdeckard 1y ago

Apple has not just created integrated HW/SW to sell as a product, with the AppStore they created a closed market within that product that only Apple controls. They invite others to sell on that market, but made themselves gatekeeper and simultaneously a player there, controlling the rules of that market in its favor. Market forces are unable to flow freely, to the point that it affects the "parent" market (in which the iPhone/iPad competes with others) as well as other markets (where other Hardware and Services are sold). Their closed market reached a significant size now, so it should be reasonable to step in and ensure fair competition also there. But thanks to those layers of abstraction, billions of dollar in lobbying and marketing, there is always room to argue that ensuring that free market is unjust, hinders innovation, restricts Apple from competing, etc.

thfuran 1y ago

>If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Of course not. Companies exist only because it is useful to have that sort of legal entity. They should be regulated to ensure that they remain more useful than harmful to society.

QuantumNoodle 1y ago

In the most respectful tone possible, I think if you read the article in its entirety you would get your answer. Laws are needed to keep in check powerful and influential companies so they don't take advantage. Your "devil's advocate" position is questioning 'why should consumers and those who create content for the ecosystem be treated fairly within the ecosystem a company built.' If you don't see an issue with taking advantage of people within the boundary of where you have influence/control, then perhaps let me frame it another way. Your "devil's advocate" position is essentially 'I've built a successful company, therefore I should be allowed to take advantage of the employees inside my company. While they are here, they are forced to endure. If they don't like it, they can go work for the only other employeer'

nashashmi 1y ago

Lots of responses here but none of them mention the Hollywood story! Thomas Edison and Company invented a patent system that separated their inventions from being able to be accessed by indie movie makers, and indie producers. Their lawyers would effectively shut down any such movements. This caused them to go all the way to Los Angeles because it was the furthest from New York and they built a movie studio on poverty row that later became the capital of Hollywood movie making. Once Hollywood became financially strong enough, the lawyers were sent over to shut it down, but the court sided with Hollywood and killed all of the patents because the courts thought that they had abused the pattern system to only benefit a few, what I would like to call the cartel. The cartel were chosen movie makers, and producers, who had access to the movie making stuff and cameras and equipment by which they would share a percentage of the revenue of the movie production and the theater income with Thomas Edison and Company. Effectively they had what Apple has currently.

windward 1y ago

You're not forced to do anything. There are no criminal outcomes of any anticompetitive legislation. For companies, there are civil outcomes. This may be undesirable if you have a large financial interest in the company, but it's a tradeoff for the same legislative body allowing you to create a shield from personal liability and taxation. If you are able to create an ecosystem on your own, do what you like with it.

acd 1y ago

No the US Sherman anti trust law prohibit monopolies. Its not a corporate right but right by citizens not to be affected by monopoly by rule of law or until tried. "The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. " source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act