6 ms·

You had the choice to buy another phone.

by cedws 1y ago

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...
        dialup_sounds 1y ago
        I'm not seeing how other phones are being held back by any of this. Google and Samsung have design patents, too, and my Pixel Watch also has a blood oxygen sensor.
        gpm 1y ago
        All phones aren't equivalent, we agree on that right? Apple has legitimate hardware advantages in places. Faster more energy efficient chips. Better earbuds. Various camera components with various advantages. So on and so forth. All of the minor improvements Apple has made will have patents behind them. All of these patents hold all other phone manufactuers back. Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing. All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
  - 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?

You had the choice to buy another phone.

by 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...
      - dialup_sounds 1y ago
        I'm not seeing how other phones are being held back by any of this. Google and Samsung have design patents, too, and my Pixel Watch also has a blood oxygen sensor.
        gpm 1y ago
        All phones aren't equivalent, we agree on that right? Apple has legitimate hardware advantages in places. Faster more energy efficient chips. Better earbuds. Various camera components with various advantages. So on and so forth. All of the minor improvements Apple has made will have patents behind them. All of these patents hold all other phone manufactuers back. Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing. All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
- 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?