5 ms·

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent

• cedws 1y ago
  You had the choice to buy another phone.
  • gpm 1y ago
    I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones. If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
    • cedws 1y ago
      Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.
      • gpm 1y ago
        Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better. If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
        • cedws 1y ago
          It sounds like your problem is with the patent system then. The point of patents is to grant exclusive rights to a technology in exchange for sharing information.
          • gpm 1y ago
            I'm not taking any issue with patents existing here. I'm taking issue with anti-competitive behavior that Apple is executing on top of the patent system. If Apple merely wanted to use their monopoly on features of devices to sell devices with those features I would have no issue. My issue is only when they leverage that monopoly to get a monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices and then leverages their monopoly on the distribution of software to those devices to extract fees for doing so. Edit: I don't, for instance, have issues with how they use patents with macbooks. There they don't abuse their monopoly on certain hardware features to get and extract money from a secondary monopoly on software.
        • dialup_sounds 1y ago
          You seem to be confusing Masimo's patent infringement case against Apple over Apple Watch with the notion that Apple has some kind of a patented blood oxygen sensor in the iPhone. I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent. For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a rounded rectangle, so I'm skeptical that patent is really holding other phones back, either
          • gpm 1y ago
            You're typing that on a Pixel with a bump sticking out the back, which would mean it doesn't violate the design patent. I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxygen+Sensor)&assignee=Apple+Inc&oq=(Oxygen+Sensor)+assignee:(Apple+Inc) https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxyge...
      • stale2002 1y ago
        > Equivalent in what way? Equivalent as in a literal exact copy of an iPhone. Lots of factories can produce those, seeing as Apple contracts out production. If we get rid of those patents and give free choice to those factories and consumers, well they would be glad to produce a modified "Open" iPhone. Lets make a free market by stopping this government intervention of the patent system that supports monopolies.
    • sehansen 1y ago
      I don't think you're entitled to an equivalent phone. If we're talking patents on essential things like a cryptographic algorithm required for banking or a technology required to implement 5G, sure, the patent holder should be required to license the patent to anyone at a reasonable price. But not licensing patents on non-essential features like Face ID or health monitors are OK. And all of that is independent of whether or not you can install your own software. What matters is the competitive situation. Given that you're practically required to have either a Google or Apple device to participate normally in modern society, Apple and Google should be precluded from forcing customers and suppliers[0] to use their other services, like payment services, app stores, delivery networks, ad networks, etc. But if Apple were the 4th biggest phone platform with at most 10% of the market, Apple would definitely be entitled to remain a walled garden. Even if their phones had features no-one else can implement due to patents.[1] 0: E.g. app developers 1: I'd claim this is the only position that is consistent with being in favor of patents. But I'm mildly anti-patent, so YMMV.
      • gpm 1y ago
        I don't think I'm entitled to an equivalent phone either. I merely think I'm entitled to either (at Apple's option) an equivalent phone OR apple not using it's monopoly on producing equivalent phones to extract further money from me after patent rights are exhausted at the time of the purchase of the phone from Apple. I.e. I'm entitled to anti-trust protection. Or I'm entitled to patent-misuse protection. I don't really care which set of laws you put it under. Even if Apple were 10% of the phone market they would still have 100% of the distributing software to devices with Apple's patented technology market, and that should be enough for anti trust protection to kick in. (I'm also mildly anti patent, but I've been carefully selecting only arguments in this thread that I believe are entirely consistent with a pro patent belief system. E.g. if Apple treated their phones like their laptops - where they also have patents - all the positions and arguments I've taken would not have an issue with their behavior)
  • bitpush 1y ago
    When you plug in a non-Apple USB cable to charge your iPhone, or use a third-party phone case, or use Anker power bank .. do you wish you had none of these choices, but only use whatever Apple branded cables, and phonecase and power banks existed? If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense. You shouldnt say 'buy a different phone' if you want to use ugreen cables. If you're a consumer, you should be on the side of more choice and more competition. If you're a Apple/Apple employee, you should 100% say what you just did :)
    • cedws 1y ago
      Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.
      • kadoban 1y ago
        > If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants. And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?
        • cedws 1y ago
          This is the actual problem to be solved. The bureaucracy of forcing the hand of tech companies every time consumers scream loud enough is a shitty solution.
          • kelthuzad 1y ago
            And that is exactly the problem that is being solved. It's not about "consumers screaming", but companies, consumers and governments realizing that anti-competitive behavior is harming everybody except the gatekeeper. The solution is competition. Since Apple is such a great and innovative company, they surely won't be afraid of competing on merit.
  • makeitdouble 1y ago
    And Apple now have the choice to change their business practices.
  • furyofantares 1y ago
    We also have the choice to make different laws.
  • fruitworks 1y ago
    not really. I have two options: android or ios. And android is following ios lockstep with practices like the recent changes to play integrity.
  • echelon 1y ago
    There are two phones on the market. Android and iPhone. The Government needs to break up this duopoly. Mobile should have hundreds of choices, three or four OS options, and free web-based installs without a gatekeeper or taxation. Mobile providers shouldn't be able tyrannically set defaults for search, payments, or anything else either.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • bloppe 1y ago
    This (1) ignores the extremely strong network effects purposely engendered by Apple's chronic refusal to implement interoperable standards in any of their products and (2) this is as much about app developers as it is about app consumers, and developers clearly have no choice but to meet their users where they are, which is on Apple devices. The other choice is going out of business.
  • heavyset_go 1y ago
    Google has successfully boiled the frog and implemented all of the App Store's same fees and its most draconian features and policies. A duopoly is not a choice.
  • lozenge 1y ago
    As a developer, you have to offer your app on both phones otherwise your business won't get anywhere. There's no choice there.
  • timeon 1y ago
    Since Google is also moving to this direction can I ask you which phone can I buy that is not part of this cartel and works with banks and public services?
• itake 1y ago
  Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.
  • kelthuzad 1y ago
    This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves. >I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution. [0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-passcode-can-ruin-your-digital-life/ https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...
    • itake 1y ago
      Super confused. What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated. Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples. Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"? Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
      • kelthuzad 1y ago
        >Super confused. You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' >What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated. It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA. More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation: https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-consumer-move-yet https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c... https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook >Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples. Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia. Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected. "A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1 https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1 >Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"? For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel" As Cory Doctorow writes: "In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out: https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-judiciary-regarding-app-store-security https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju... But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01-fulu-i-am-altering-the-deal-5e41c63f563f https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01... >Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised. There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.
• BrenBarn 1y ago
  > As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes. $2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
  • laughing_man 1y ago
    That's a big enough number that the likely result is Apple would pull out of the UK altogether.
    • kataklasm 1y ago
      Does it matter? Apple paid around 300 million pounds of corporation tax in 2024. If the UK poses a landmark penalty of say 50 or 100 billion pounds, thats 167x or 333x the annual corporation tax paid by Apple in the UK.
      • laughing_man 1y ago
        I'm assuming if they pulled out they wouldn't pay.
      • pertymcpert 1y ago
        What on earth makes you think that Apple would pay if they leave the UK?
    • BrenBarn 1y ago
      Then good riddance.
    • TheCoelacanth 1y ago
      That would be an amazing opportunity for competitors who chose to continue operating in the UK.