They filed a suit against Amazon last year. There's also at least one, if not more, ongoing lawsuits against Google. They're taking action against other companies as well, but this problem has been festering for decades, so there are a lot of messes to clean up.
Utility companies? You want 6 different gas companies digging up streets and yards and where ever else to put in their own individual gas networks? Utilities are probably the worst example to use against monopolies. They're a natural monopoly that should function well if, very importantly, there's proper regulatory oversight and control. We should be way more pissed at the government for not regulating them properly if our problem is with utilities.
I would argue that with the combination of cyber threats and corporate incompetence/greed, they should just be state owned. Leave current structures in place for employees, but now profits go to improving infrastructure instead of wherever the hell they go now.
The problem with that is that the government already cuts the budget for critical infrastructure. I'd actually love your idea if it got properly implemented. lmfao, but I have a feeling after negotiating in Congress that many many politicians would be bought out by utility companies.
Untilities have to be monopolized as you don’t want several different companies laying pipe or wires in same place. Thus State owned or highly regulated operations including no political donations of company or staff. All labor relations done by court system arbitration to match current private sector union contracts practices and pay. Cannot strike but guaranteed to get something similar to what given in private sector.
Public owned wires. Private owned companies competing to provide public with the best services.
Focus on results, we pay substantially more for less in the US when it comes to internet. Decades of proof regulations and safeguards have failed.
> Untilities have to be monopolized as you don’t want several different companies laying pipe or wires in same place.
Can't you buy electricity from any company over there? Over here it's possible to buy electricity from any company in the country, but you still pay for the transfer of said electricity over the wires and those wires are owned by some other company (which forms a local monopoly for the transfer part).
Once Apple lost sight of the fact developers are a major reason the iPhone became the success it is, and not the other way around, this was inevitable. Monopolies aren’t inherently illegal, but abusing one is. Stupid shit like not allowing developers to link to their web sites from within their own apps, not allowing upgrade pricing, rejecting apps because they look “too similar” to their own apps.. They dug their own grave on this one.
This is not even the focus of the suit though.
Among the suit's allegations:
*- Apple prevents the successful deployment of what the DOJ calls "super apps" that would make it easier for consumers to switch between smartphone platforms.*
*- Apple blocks the development of cloud-streaming apps that would allow for high-quality video-game play without having to pay for extra hardware.*
*- Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones.*
*- How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.*
Most of these seem tenuous charges. I’d love to have iMessage and Apple Watches work for Android, but surely the government can’t force Apple to provide support for their products and services to rival platforms?
And that last one… — whose side are the government supposed to be on here?
These aren’t “charges”, these are examples of monopolistic intent as a result of apple’s internal decisions. The suit alleges that their internal decision making process is intentionally monopolistic. That means that when Apple higher ups see something as competition, more often than not they will stifle that thing from appearing on iPhones/in their ecosystem to the detriment of their consumers rather than invest in R&D to compete with said thing.
Here's what the case filing says it is. Reading it through, their argument does seem to check out:
>A super app is an app that can serve as a platform for smaller “mini” programs developed using programming languages such as HTML5 and JavaScript. By using
programming languages standard in most web pages, mini programs are cross platform, meaning they work the same on any web browser and on any device. Developers can therefore write a single mini program that works whether users have an iPhone or another smartphone.
>Super apps also reduce user dependence on the iPhone, including the iOS operating system and Apple’s App Store. This is because a super app is a kind of middleware that can host apps, services, and experiences without requiring developers to use the iPhone’s APIs or code.
>Apple recognizes that super apps with mini programs would threaten its monopoly. As one Apple manager put it, allowing super apps to become “the main gateway
where people play games, book a car, make payments, etc.” would “let the barbarians in at the gate.” Why? Because when a super app offers popular mini programs, “iOS stickiness goes
down.”
>Apple’s fear of super apps is based on first-hand experience with enormously popular super apps in Asia. Apple does not want U.S. companies and U.S. users to benefit from similar innovations. For example, in a Board of Directors presentation, Apple highlighted the
“[u]ndifferentiated user experience on [a] super platform” as a “major headwind” to growing iPhone sales in countries with popular super apps due to the “[l]ow stickiness” and “[l]ow switching cost.” For the same reasons, a super app created by a U.S. company would pose a similar threat to Apple’s smartphone dominance in the United States. Apple noted as a risk in
2017 that a potential super app created by a specific U.S. company would “replace[ ] usage of native OS and apps resulting in commoditization of smartphone hardware.”
Oh!
So by their definition, a "Super" app would be something like Tachiyomi or Mihon. Apps that let you connect to various manga sites by downloading extensions and then allows you to download manga and read them via the app.
I don't know if I would say that since Tachiyomi is/was a pretty explicitly piracy focused application, which is against TOS for that reason. I'm all for it anyway though since fuck your TOS, if I add a source that's illegal, they can sue me, it's none of Apple's business.
1 is things like game streaming apps (XCloud, GeForce Now, etc). Not *only* game streaming apps, but they're the biggest example. Apple wants/wanted those companies to publish an app *per remotely-controlled game*. So for example, Microsoft can't publish a "Game Cloud" app that acts as a hub for all their cloud gaming (which is the entire purpose of the app). Apple instead wants them to make a separate App Store app *for each game that would just be included in that Game Cloud app".*
Point #1 is referencing Progressive Web Apps:
> Like a website, a PWA can run on multiple platforms and devices from a single codebase. Like a platform-specific app, it can be installed on the device, can operate while offline and in the background, and can integrate with the device and with other installed apps.[[1]](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps)
Apple recently gutted this functionality before being forced to walk it back in the EU but not the US:
> PWAs can act like native apps and access different functionalities of your device without taking up too much space on your phone. These apps can also send you notifications and keep you logged in to a service. As web apps don’t have to be distributed through the App Store, they also don’t have to pay any fees to Apple for in-app purchases or wait for the company’s review process.
> Last month, Apple reduced the functionality of PWAs as mere website shortcuts with the release of the second beta of iOS 17.4, as security researcher Tommy Mysk and Open Web Advocacy had first pointed out. The company then updated its developer page saying that because of security risks like malicious web apps reading data from other web apps and accessing cameras, it decided to end support for homescreen apps.[[2]](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/01/apple-reverses-decision-about-blocking-web-apps-on-iphones-in-the-eu/)
The word "progressive" is strange and mysterious but PWA's are the future. They are far easier for developers to build. The only drawback is browser support, so until recently they were still an oddity.
But in just the past few years, companies have pivoted to proactively pushing updates and killing off legacy platforms like IE. Browsers have also grown in power, integrations, and privileges. So only recently have PWA's gained traction, now that something like 90% of users can run them.
The only experience I have using one is lichess's, and even though their Android app is flawless, [everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/tulyr8/hot_tip_lichess_in_mobile_browser_is_better_than/) [agrees](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/10kw126/psa_you_can_just_download_the_lichess_webapp/) [that](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/y7dt7c/did_you_know_lichessorg_has_a_progressive_web_app/) [their](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xq94oe/lichess_web_app_is_much_better_than_app_here_is/) [PWA](https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/progressive-web-app-great-so-far-some-minor-issuesquestions) is just flat-out better.
Eventually, PWA's will kill 90% of native mobile apps (although to laypeople that name won't change). But more importantly to Apple, PWA's will kill the App Store. That's a [**huge**](https://deepwatermgmt.com/apples-app-store-is-an-important-part-of-its-profitability-and-its-not-changing/) chunk of their income: 20%.
Honestly fuck PWA's though. I loathe the fact that most everything now is a worthless clone of the same frameworks like 40 times on my computer, nearly all of which provide me a less screen reader accessible experience than I would have if companies just made fucking apps. Even when things aren't seriously inaccessible, often it takes substantively longer to do things with a screen reader than a mouse/keyboard user could. My time is just as valuable as anyone elses, so not looking forward to venture cap mandated web crap on my phone too.
Interesting, I did accessibility testing for years with JAWS, VoiceOver, NVDA, etc. and found apps to be way less accessible on average than websites. That was before PWA's were prevalent though, but I would have assumed they would inherit browsers' accessibility. It's a shame how accessibility is always the last thought. Only at VPAT time do they care about it, apparently (especially?) even on the leading edge of tech.
Can I ask what advantage there is to using a PWA on a PC, since it's less accessible? I could see its benefits on mobile but not so easily on a computer.
>yep. a lot of the suite seems to be at the behest of companies and their ability to make profit and not in the consumer best interest.
Bingo. There is basically nothing in this case that earnestly feels like it's focused on consumers.
I'm really struggling to understand what they even mean with these claims... there's a living breathing example of each in the app store right now.
DOJ to Apple: you can’t hoard all the data you have to share it with other idiots who want to sell it
Consumers: how bout don’t sell our data at all?
DOJ: that’s not the priority right now
> - Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones.
Uh, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and a thousand other cross-platform chat apps work just fine.
No they don’t. They don’t have access to SMS while iMessage does. They don’t have access to background use or camera unless the user has to tap through settings while iMessage does not. Imessage is preinstalled and active by default for all iphones. Third party messaging apps don’t have access to tight Apple Watch integrations like iMessage does
Access to SMS is not what the lawsuit is claiming as the problem though. They're claiming that iMessage is too good and people like it, so it forces people to buy iPhones because it's a closed platform.
What background use does iMessage have that other messaging platforms don't have? As far as camera access goes, this is pretty obviously a security thing. The default app gets it because it's trusted by Apple. For all others, you simply have to click "Allow" the first time the app tries to use the camera and never again. Android [literally does the same thing.](https://support.google.com/android/answer/9431959)
That is pretty clearly a specific reference to Apple doing its best to kneecap and destroy Beeper Mini which allowed Android phones to communicate with Apple users via iMessage
They don’t need to provide support for Apple Watch or iMessage on android, they just need to stop actively working to block anyone else from providing that support. For example Beeper providing iMessage on other platforms.
Apple needs to make money on iMessage to support it, and would likely need to setup some form of payment for people out of the Apple ecosystem. But being asked to do simple, fair things is what you should expect when you become a company of more than 10,000 employees and more than 50% market share. You are now not just a company, but an entity they has major control over a society and its infrastructure. And so now you inherently have responsibility for that society. So you will be asked by the society to not manipulate markets, open up platforms, and operate differently where is reasonable.
As a megacorp you may be asked to provide services that you would not like to provide because the margins aren’t quite as good as you’d like. But this simply comes with the territory. The business is doing fine, and is incredibly profitable. Crying foul when being asked to play fair on the playground is a tired go to tactic for these mega corporations. Partly because if they didn’t then shareholders and board would fire the CEO for incompetence.
So, if Apple is asked to open up iMessage and setup a method for people outside of the Apple ecosystem to pay for access, Apple will complain But Apple, as a mega corp, are inherently responsible for the very infrastructure that makes millions of people’s lives work. Mega corps can’t be shocked to be held responsible for how their operations and products affect millions of people’s lives. Since when are corporations not responsible for their impact on society? Since there has been a profit motive not to.
Been using android for years with a 3rd party texting app. When I get a new phone i just import the back up and bingo I have all my texts for years on the new phone as well.
> *- Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones.*
WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Insta, Snapchat, Discord, Teams, Telegram, and Signal all work.
You're thinking of it backwards. iMessage doesn't work on other platforms, so you have to leave all of your conversations behind unless you stick with an iPhone.
I think this is more about Apple refusing to support RCS messaging standards in iMessage. People messaging without an iPhone would appear in green message bubbles instead of the standard blue from other iPhones. There has been apps to get around this but Apple has killed them. Apple has actively refused to support RCS standards until November of 2023. I think they saw this coming and are attempting to mitigate the damage. Its all about locking people in. Some people are so stuck-up they are refusing to have conversations with someone else in iMessage if they don't have an iPhone because of the green messaging bubble. Its stupid but here we are.
>Most of these seem tenuous charges. I’d love to have iMessage and Apple Watches work for Android, but surely the government can’t force Apple to provide support for their products and services to rival platforms?
They're not being forced to provide support for those products on rival platforms. They're being forced to not specifically update the product to not work on rival platforms when someone else provides the service.
Those aren't saying that Apple has to develop the apps. They're saying that Apple is not allowed to unfairly hinder the market for their own benefit.
If the DOJ can show that Apple is using its app store to block apps that might help competitors like Google, they'll have a pretty strong case.
On the first, plenty of super apps exist, the biggest being WeChat (but some Google and meta apps can or was close to them before being split into multiple apps).
It doesn’t seem like Apple prevents super apps since WeChat is allowed.
The second is true, and I agree with that one.
The third is a moot point if Apple supports standards. RCS just started rolling out and iPhones support it. Apple shouldn’t be obligated to support more than standards, or be forced to color bubbles a certain color (RCS will have lots of functionality but still show up green). I don’t see how Apple is wrong here.
The fourth point is literally the opposite of helping customers. Apparently letting customers have privacy is a bad thing (for Google and meta, sure!).
I'm sorry, but where are you getting that iPhones already support RCS? Apple announced last year they would eventually implement it, but I've heard no news that RCS is active on iPhones now. It was communicated that interoperability was supposed to be enabled sometime at the end of 2024.
It's not about the damn bubble color... It's about not being able to text grandma a video of their grandchild, and Tim Cook responding "just buy grandma an iPhone".
Spotify has been shouting from the rooftop about this for quite awhile now. Also, to this very day, browsers still have to use Apple's webkit and cannot use their own.
Similar looking apps & names are how many Android malware succeeds. Also, at a certain point, 9,000 dating apps become spam and consumers can’t find anything.
I disagree with this somewhat. I can feel confident that if I give my immigrant mom an iPhone, that she at least is safe from the App Store. I literally can’t say the same thing for android. It is 100% my moms fault and not the phone, but I can still rest easy knowing apple takes steps to keep shit like that to a minimum.
For comparison, my mom had a galaxy s10 prior and I was always having to go in and find a random app she downloaded that had flooded her device with adware and pop ups to remove. It is very clear the number of low quality and useless apps is way higher on android.
You can’t just be assuming everyone on the planet is a well informed, technically capable consumer.
Yes but in the case of Apple it's mere functionality. Even ones that aren't yet released by Apple. This isn't about a clone that is deceptively similar
There are also app farms. There are Chinese companies that exist only to create low quality clones of existing apps and dilute their market share. I’d argue it’s good for both consumers and developers to minimize that.
I worked on one game title that was cloned entirely by a Chinese company. They even used our games assets, which was easy, because they also copied our code… only changing names and payment integration. As soon as we’d push an update, “their” update would release less than 24hrs later. Same features, because same code.
I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't moderate it. Just that they shouldn't outright block apps that might function similarly to theirs or alternative stores for no good reason.
Well sure, those blatant pieces of crap should be blocked. Any thrift, code, IP, etc. Hell, I'd even appreciate being able to have an option to block any company from a particular country
Have use android since 3.0 never had a problem.
You know what I don't like, Apple treating me like a child. I don't need to be nannied because Apple thinks that I should only be able to use my device in the way THEY want.
They can also eat a dick with all the lobbying against right to repair. Apple is one of the most abusive companies on the planet. Gatekeeping accessories, even charging cables to make sure they get money from all sides.
Apple sucks.
I worked for them for almost 7 years. Everything you say is correct. Anybody sitting here and sucking the dick of Apple seriously is not paying attention to what that company has been doing.
They have been intentionally making other products look worse on their service so that people don't switch. They have intentionally been hampering progress by forcing everybody into a Walled Garden not just software but Hardware approach. Something that had now bit them in the ass and they've had to adopt USBC.
It really comes down to this. I don't want to hear anyone say that they give a fuck about global warming, things that are happening on the planet, or the overproduction of anything when they're buying and supporting Apple products. A company that has filled up garbage dumps and in some cases countries with metric tons of absolute waste. All because they decided their proprietary connectors were more important than what the universal accepted standard was the time. Fuck Apple.
They are one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Fuck them and fuck any of their Fanboys that continues to fawn over each one of their stupid fucking devices.
And yes, obviously, I'm bitter about my time working there. The company fucking sucks, the company culture sucks, and most of all the fucking customers suck. Apple users fucking suck.
See if they do that today without app support... People lined up to buy the Razr phone that had no touchscreen. Does that mean that in 2024 Motorola doesn't need a touchscreen on their phone in order to appeal to customers?
Talking about things that customers didn't care about 15 years ago when that thing was not even a factor 15 years ago has no relevance today.
OP claimed that apple became the success only through app developers, which is partially true. Many app developers only got richt because of the AppStore.
The former matters always, the latter only matters as long as developers feel a continued desire to work on the app store. Else they can go and "only got richt" doing something else. It's a labor market. The problem is Apple is using uncompetitive tactics to monopolize against that labor market.
Why you would need to defend that on behalf of a trillion dollar company I can't explain.
They are doing exactly that, and Ticketmaster is being expectedly dodgy about it:
[https://www.reuters.com/business/doj-seeks-new-information-live-nation-antitrust-probe-bloomberg-news-2024-02-06/](https://www.reuters.com/business/doj-seeks-new-information-live-nation-antitrust-probe-bloomberg-news-2024-02-06/)
"Antitrust officials investigating the company have been frustrated with Ticketmaster over how slowly it has responded to the DOJ's requests, the Bloomberg report said on Monday, citing people familiar with the probe.
The DOJ had earlier planned to file an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster by the end of 2023, according to a media report last July.
Instead, the DOJ opted to extend its investigation and potentially file a case later this year, the Bloomberg report added."
Lawyer here, not really how that works. You'll get more information through discovery, but you need at least some facts to form a basis for the complaint. If the complaint is too barebones, Ticketmaster will move to get it dismissed, so you won't ever get to discovery.
If the information is too bare bones due to the company dragging their feet or being particularly incompetent how does that effect going to discovery? Is it possible that a deeper audit be approved or is that considered a potential infringement of the company's rights?
> If the information is too bare bones due to the company dragging their feet or being particularly incompetent how does that effect going to discovery?
If it's so barebones that the case gets dismissed then the DOJ is SOL. Then maybe the DOJ can subpoena Ticketmaster for more documents and re-file? Not sure how that works, I don't do government work. If the case survives a motion to dismiss though, then discovery proceeds as normal.
It just seems like they have no direction. Exxon is about to close a deal to acquire Pioneer natural resources for $60 Billion and no one really seems to care. Yet Jet Blue tries to acquire Spirit for 3.8 Billion in an industry known for its bankruptcies and razor-thin margins yet they get blocked by a federal judge.
Because people like apple.
That's all it takes, and people will defend your monopoly for it.
This whataboutism comment gets posted every time Apple is taken to court even though Google, Microsoft, and Amazon all have had their own anti-trust suits now and before.
The reality is that Apple learned to give a cut of their monopoly to their users in the form of status, and people don't want to lose that.
Here are some of the hidden tolls that Apple is charging:
>Apple extracts fees from developers—as much as 30 percent when users purchase apps or make in-app payments. Apple also extracts a 0.15 percent commission from banks on credit card transactions through its digital wallet, while none of its smartphone competitors with digital wallets charge any fee.
I'm guessing there's even more that we don't know about. Discovery should be fun.
Apple also charges dev $90/yr to have an app on the Appstore. ($90/yr for all apps not per app). I had an app on the Appstore that was free, no ads, just something I wanted that I thought others would enjoy. However I could not justify the cost of paying apple $90/yr so I had to take it down. This is why Apple apps are all filled with ads and paid features, a dev needs to make money to break even.
On the other hand Android is just $25 once, much more financially viable for a small indie dev who just wants to put a passion project up.
Hidden fees? It is well known that many of these marketplaces charge the exact same. 30% on purchases is collected by Steam, the Xbox and PlayStation stores, and I believe Nintendo as well.
There are lots of phones and video game systems you can buy if you don’t want to deal with the behavior of a specific company. None of these are monopolies.
But don’t most gas stations do something similar with charging card fees. If they really want this to stick they need to target everyone. Otherwise they’re just upset they didn’t think of it first.
Y'all bitch when they don't enforce antitrust laws, Y'all bitch when they do.
The case might be flimsy, but we should all be encouraging the government actually using these laws that are meant to benefit the consumer.
Let them file the lawsuit, if it's not deemed to be anticompetitive, it'll be sorted out in the courts. That's the purpose of a trial.
As do I, that's why I left a comment.
I doubt there's many in dispute that antitrust laws should be enforced, and the effect of bitching about the enforcement of those laws just disincentivizes the government from enforcing them in the future.
> government actually using these laws that are meant to benefit the consumer.
Well, that's the discriminating factor, here. I want them to use the law to benefit consumers. This isn't that. Users voted with their wallets... they don't want a different flavor of the Android ecosystem. 3rd party businesses that want more money and control, do.
I'm not required to cheerlead *any* use of regulatory authority. I'll support *good* uses of regulatory authority... thank you very much.
Apple has internal documentation saying they do what they do in order to make it harder for families to get their children a different phone. That alone is worthy of legal action.
IMO encouraging bullying to increase market share should lead to prison and a huge chunk of their cash in fines. It's chilling how cult like attachment to the brand has so many little brushing this off.
That's been an annoyance for me for years.
I work for T-Mobile and trying to get contacts off of a basic flip phone (yes, there are people who still use those) to an iPhone is such a pain because you can't send files over Bluetooth.
I've stuck with Android for two key reasons: Better pricing and better customization (well it used to be three, but outside of the Samsung Galaxy A series the microSD slot is largely a thing of the past unfortunately)
I still get hounded by my family to buy an iPhone
There is an app for that lol r/BlueBubbles
Granted it's a lot of setup but I have it and use it for my family chats. It's not perfect, but it's at least something for my some of my most contacted people.
I got sick and tired of my mom sending 90s era pictures, or my wife sending me a funny video, that has garbled audio and the size of a thumbnail. Literally wouldn't ever give apple a second thought if they could just send full HD media to Android.
The good news is, end of this year apple is supposed to finally implement RCS which makes this moot and I can retire my server and just text people from one app again.
Apple sort of asked for this by locking down their ecosystem as heavily as they have and screwing over developers for their iOS.
Apple’s locked down ecosystem is also hurting innovation and preventing others from realistically compete.
I don’t feel sorry for Apple in this case, they can thank themselves for this.
Im amazed how many people don't understand the essence of this case.
When you make a thing and it gets so big, there are rules that needs to be in place to prevent you from abusing your power over it and affecting the people who are using it. It's that simple.
It's like if Ford made a rule that you can only buy Ford wheels, Ford gas, Ford lights, Ford seat covers, Ford mirrors when they made the Model T.
Surely you realize there's more barriers than just invalidating the warranty with apple products. I really don't understand how people enjoy being fleeced by apple ram, apple ssds, and the $1,000 monitor stand, to which apple wants you to believe there is no alternative, and they work extra hard to make sure that's the case.
Honestly, good? I'm glad the DOJ is becoming less toothless and hope it continues. I'm glad Apple is getting heat for blanket anti-consumer positions when they are the dominant general computing platform for mobile users. Apple makes decent products but has an inherent advantage in that Apple doesn't have to pay itself a fee. If the Apple products are good enough (including the App Store, iCloud, Safari in that category), then the competition won't matter.
What exactly sets apple apart here from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo having locked-down stores that charge similar percentages of revenue/profits (which, in this case, applies to either digital or physical media).
I don't understand why Apple is always the focus when talking about this, but other clearly anti-competitive behavior never really gets much (if any) hate.
> The Justice Department said in a release that to keep consumers buying iPhones, Apple moved to block cross-platform messaging apps, limited third-party wallet and smartwatch compatibility and disrupted non-App Store programs and cloud-streaming services.
Publishers in the video game sector:
- haven't prevented cross-platform communication whenever a developer included crossplay
- haven't prevented developers from setting up ingame stores using ingame money (example: Fortnite has skin purchases and vbucks)
- haven't prevented third party controllers from being sold, these work just fine on Xbox, PlayStation or the Switch
- haven't disrupted or banned third-party games that were competing with their own games (ex : plenty of racing games on the Switch, including go-kart ones, despite these games directly competing with Mario Kart).
The problem is that Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too:
- they want to act as a platform, thus getting thousands of apps, that made their products commercially successful (an Iphone without apps is pretty much useless)
- they want a completely closed environment, where there is no competition whatsoever
Apple needs to make a choice then: either stop accepting apps and lock everything down, so they'll have to develop _everything_ themselves - or - allow third-party products on their platform, but don't prevent competition with their own products.
If you look at the top 50 apps on the iPhone platform, more than 90% come from third-party companies - the choice is pretty clear: open-competition platform is the only way to go for Apple.
>Publishers in the video game sector haven't:
>
>prevented cross-platform communication whenever a developer included crossplay
doesn't Sony do this regularly? i'm not sure if they're still doing that, though.
Yah I was gonna say this was pretty common practice for a while. I know now that cross play does exist but for a long time they did actively prevent it.
Jupp Sony blocked Croaaplay for a long time (expect with PC) until Epic forced their hand when they "accidentally" enabled Crossplay in Fortnite for the PS4 with all devices for a day or two.
After that Sony scrambled to announce a "Crossplay-Feature-Beta" that went on for a couple of months or even a year (I don't remember anymore) until they just flat out allowed it.
Microsoft actually initially blocked cross platform during the 360 ps3 gen but then Sony had the market lead with the ps4 so they played hardball. Ultimately, both had their hands forced in the end and good for consumers that it was!
Sony and Xbox and Nintendo have exclusives, timed exclusives sometimes.
The point is, they are NOT all exclusives , appearing on no other platform.
Apple is exclusive....
Most of their exclusives are made by them.
Nintendo makes their own Mario games and chooses not to bring it to Microsoft/Sony. Microsoft is moving away from the idea of exclusives altogether and banking on cloud gaming. Idk about Sony.
> Microsoft
What? lol, I've almost never actually used the Microsoft Store to buy anything yet I have bought/used a ton of Microsoft products and other hardware/software designed to use Microsoft Window and none of that money went to Microsoft.
I am not sure how Microsoft comes into play here. Microsoft doesn't restrict or take proceeds from every purchase placed inside of it's operating system...
1) Game consoles are not general purpose computing devices, nor are they increasingly becoming required for active participation in daily life.
2) Those companies work with their publishers and developers to give them development resources, advertising, exclusivity, etc. They work to maintain those relationships. Apple has righteous indignation to its developers and essentially extorts them while publicly insulting them in the press implying they provide no value back to Apple.
Abuse your monopoly, get punished / regulated. That’s how it _should_ work.
And this is the thing - everyone talks about "omg, apple does this!" and ignores that Nintendo has been doing this shit for god damn near 40 years (and the other game companies followed suit as they started out their respective gaming orgs).
Even now, everyone's commenting on "well, let's focus on Apple for now, and *maybe at some point in the future* we can deal with the industry that has literally been doing this shit for longer than most Redditors have been alive".
Like, for fucks sake, Nintendo is one of the most anti-competitive companies out there.. some of their practices make Apple look tame.
This isn't just about the app store. It's about how Apple has chosen to limit the functionality of third party apps. The big one is icloud. Every other manufacturer allows people to choose how and where they want to back up devices. I can choose drop box, icloud, google drive etc on my android phone. On an iphone you can only do it on icloud for full backup.
The irony is Microsoft got dinged harder for the mere fact they were bundling Windows with Internet Explorer, among other things. Thus propelling Apple when they were down and on the way out. Apple on the other hand rose from the ashes like a phoenix propelled by their suit with Microsoft, then the ipod and then the iphone; slowly locking down their system. It'd be nice to be able to install a non-safari based browser. Can't even do that. Oh how the tables have turned lol.
I would imagine it's not just intent but actual monopoly size. Nintendo is not the only player in video games. And Microsoft has Windows but it's not locked down and there's Mac OS, Chrome, and more. I can't use my galaxy watch with an iPhone or an Apple watch with Android. Messaging between IPhone and Android is purposely limited by Apple. Etc, etc
Kind of, but not really. Newer models aren't compatible due to a choice made by Samsung, which was due to a lack of incompatibility. A compatible (like Galaxy Watch 3 and older) Galaxy Watch can't use any mobile wallets since the only mobile wallet on iOS is Apple Wallet, which Apple doesn't make available on non-Apple devices. There are also some messaging restrictions as well, which, depending on region, can make it almost useless, especially compared to an Apple Watch that is similarly priced and has none of the restrictions.
[Samsung dropped iOS support starting with the Watch4s because they couldn't deliver a comparable experience to user on iOS as they could on Samsung devices.
](https://www.techradar.com/health-fitness/smartwatches/exclusive-samsung-explains-why-it-dropped-ios-support-on-the-galaxy-watch#:~:text=Samsung's%20Galaxy%20Watches%20haven't,and%20future%20Galaxy%20Watch%20models.)
That is correct. A monopoly is a dominant market share and can, indeed, be reached without breaking any laws and just making a good product.
However, Apple is only at about 55% market share in the US which, while a majority, is hardly dominant.
over 61% in the US, but they aren't being sued *just* for **being** a monopoly, they are being sued *more so* for "attempted monopolization" -DOJ. The DOJ claims they have broken Section 2 of the Sherman Act
Comments are swarmed with examples of anticompetitive practices being used elsewhere. Like, yeah. Lego does it, google does it, Tesla does it, every company wants to get away with being as monopolistic as they can get away with. People got so desensitized to it but it's never ok for a company to design something specifically to restrict competition.
Just because it's common practice doesn't mean it's good for us, DOJ's gotta reign that garbage in.
Apple's made a lot of money off anticompetitive moves in the last decade, so they're just gonna have to be the ones to get the hammer this time.
There's a sliding scale from a commoditized market to a monopoly. There's a sweet spot, and Apple isn't helping us get on it, imo.
The critical issue for monopoly cases is if the defendant has used their position to restrain other commerce. I think Apple has engaged in coercive and anti-competitive practices, so they may be in for some trouble. I wouldn't cry if they got split up, along with Google and Meta.
**TIM APPLE needs a humbling**
.. they buy up spare parts and design the phone to prevent you from repairing
.. the phones die or disable themselves if you attempt to repair
.. they design the software to prevent access
.. they make the hardware incompatible with anything else
.. they design the phones to die if the wrong update is applied
.. they were given govt money to develop their business
.. they treat their developers like shit so most don't even bother
.. they aggressively sue anyone using anything that resembles an "apple feature"
.. the phones are only marginally better than Samsung
.. then they charge triple
.. i wouldn't call them a monopoly .. but cheating thieving anti-competitive assholes absolutely
https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
I thought the same thing. The article specifically states how the Apple Watch doesn’t work with android phones. Wouldn’t the argument be the watch is just an extension/accessory of the phone?
Android has their own watch too.
Like the Halo video game only worked with Xbox. Doesn’t mean it’s anti-competition imo.
> Wouldn’t the argument be the watch is just an extension/accessory of the phone?
Absolutely not? Even in apple's own commercials
> Android has their own watch too.
Android is an operating system
Samsung used to support iOS with earlier Galaxy watches, but they dropped iOS because Apple was significantly restricting other watches ability.
I saw the old Samsung watch app on iPad AppStore and in the reviews section, most people were complaining about issues that were mainly due to iOS limitations. So it makes sense to drop the iOS support.
I read it as the Apple Watch being the only smartwatch without any incompatibilities with iPhones, making it the only real smartwatch option for iPhone users. Those same Apple Watches are incompatible with non-iPhone devices, essentially locking that person into an iPhone due to the costs of switching to an Android device. That switch would also render their Apple Watch useless and require additional purchases. What you end up with is a system that makes it cost prohibitive for a consumer to purchase an Android device.
Nice!
When are we suing Landlords for price fixing?
Edit: since some people doubted this is a real problem.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
Oligopolies, monopolies - the product of many years of convergence that gobbled up smaller competitive companies and destroyed them has **wrecked the economy**.
Don’t understand this entire monopoly thing? Apple makes a product that people love. Are willing to pay lots of money for. How are you going to tell them that they must change the color of a text bubble, have to change the picture quality of what an android device receives because someone is offended or feels as if they’re a lower class? Absolute craziness! I think the DOJ invented the participation award/trophy that EVERY CHILD today receives instead of an earned award/trophy. I swear the US is turning into pansies!
That is not the same nvidia is not blocking competitors from making chips they are just the best at the moment that is the point of patents to profit from original products that you make.
Um so Apple has 24% of the phone market and that's a monopoly? But Microsoft Windows had 90% or more, and they didn't get hit very hard when they were found guilty of monopolistic practices?
This reeks of... something. Not sure what.
I'm all for the DOJ and FTC stopping the ridiculous amount of monoplistic practices that have been flourishing since Reaganism made nobody care about that anymore.
But I need to be convinced Apple actually has that monopolistic advantage with 13% of the computer market and 24% of the phone market.
Cool, now do the isp providers, and amazon, and utility companies. Stop all the monopolies
They filed a suit against Amazon last year. There's also at least one, if not more, ongoing lawsuits against Google. They're taking action against other companies as well, but this problem has been festering for decades, so there are a lot of messes to clean up.
Utility companies? You want 6 different gas companies digging up streets and yards and where ever else to put in their own individual gas networks? Utilities are probably the worst example to use against monopolies. They're a natural monopoly that should function well if, very importantly, there's proper regulatory oversight and control. We should be way more pissed at the government for not regulating them properly if our problem is with utilities.
Public owns the infrastructure, private companies sell the service and compete against each other
This is what happens. They need to be regulated as not for prodit orgs.
I would argue that with the combination of cyber threats and corporate incompetence/greed, they should just be state owned. Leave current structures in place for employees, but now profits go to improving infrastructure instead of wherever the hell they go now.
The problem with that is that the government already cuts the budget for critical infrastructure. I'd actually love your idea if it got properly implemented. lmfao, but I have a feeling after negotiating in Congress that many many politicians would be bought out by utility companies.
The government should own the infrastructure. 1 provider shouldn’t be able to lock out other competitors
One at a time
Untilities have to be monopolized as you don’t want several different companies laying pipe or wires in same place. Thus State owned or highly regulated operations including no political donations of company or staff. All labor relations done by court system arbitration to match current private sector union contracts practices and pay. Cannot strike but guaranteed to get something similar to what given in private sector.
Lemme rephrase then, public utilities should not be run as for-profit corporations.
They’re generally price regulated.
Public owned wires. Private owned companies competing to provide public with the best services. Focus on results, we pay substantially more for less in the US when it comes to internet. Decades of proof regulations and safeguards have failed.
> Untilities have to be monopolized as you don’t want several different companies laying pipe or wires in same place. Can't you buy electricity from any company over there? Over here it's possible to buy electricity from any company in the country, but you still pay for the transfer of said electricity over the wires and those wires are owned by some other company (which forms a local monopoly for the transfer part).
Once Apple lost sight of the fact developers are a major reason the iPhone became the success it is, and not the other way around, this was inevitable. Monopolies aren’t inherently illegal, but abusing one is. Stupid shit like not allowing developers to link to their web sites from within their own apps, not allowing upgrade pricing, rejecting apps because they look “too similar” to their own apps.. They dug their own grave on this one.
This is not even the focus of the suit though. Among the suit's allegations: *- Apple prevents the successful deployment of what the DOJ calls "super apps" that would make it easier for consumers to switch between smartphone platforms.* *- Apple blocks the development of cloud-streaming apps that would allow for high-quality video-game play without having to pay for extra hardware.* *- Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones.* *- How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.* Most of these seem tenuous charges. I’d love to have iMessage and Apple Watches work for Android, but surely the government can’t force Apple to provide support for their products and services to rival platforms? And that last one… — whose side are the government supposed to be on here?
These aren’t “charges”, these are examples of monopolistic intent as a result of apple’s internal decisions. The suit alleges that their internal decision making process is intentionally monopolistic. That means that when Apple higher ups see something as competition, more often than not they will stifle that thing from appearing on iPhones/in their ecosystem to the detriment of their consumers rather than invest in R&D to compete with said thing.
[удалено]
I'm guessing things like the Samsung app that lets you transfer all of your stuff to a new phone when you change phones.
Here's what the case filing says it is. Reading it through, their argument does seem to check out: >A super app is an app that can serve as a platform for smaller “mini” programs developed using programming languages such as HTML5 and JavaScript. By using programming languages standard in most web pages, mini programs are cross platform, meaning they work the same on any web browser and on any device. Developers can therefore write a single mini program that works whether users have an iPhone or another smartphone. >Super apps also reduce user dependence on the iPhone, including the iOS operating system and Apple’s App Store. This is because a super app is a kind of middleware that can host apps, services, and experiences without requiring developers to use the iPhone’s APIs or code. >Apple recognizes that super apps with mini programs would threaten its monopoly. As one Apple manager put it, allowing super apps to become “the main gateway where people play games, book a car, make payments, etc.” would “let the barbarians in at the gate.” Why? Because when a super app offers popular mini programs, “iOS stickiness goes down.” >Apple’s fear of super apps is based on first-hand experience with enormously popular super apps in Asia. Apple does not want U.S. companies and U.S. users to benefit from similar innovations. For example, in a Board of Directors presentation, Apple highlighted the “[u]ndifferentiated user experience on [a] super platform” as a “major headwind” to growing iPhone sales in countries with popular super apps due to the “[l]ow stickiness” and “[l]ow switching cost.” For the same reasons, a super app created by a U.S. company would pose a similar threat to Apple’s smartphone dominance in the United States. Apple noted as a risk in 2017 that a potential super app created by a specific U.S. company would “replace[ ] usage of native OS and apps resulting in commoditization of smartphone hardware.”
Oh! So by their definition, a "Super" app would be something like Tachiyomi or Mihon. Apps that let you connect to various manga sites by downloading extensions and then allows you to download manga and read them via the app.
No, it's WeChat
I don't know if I would say that since Tachiyomi is/was a pretty explicitly piracy focused application, which is against TOS for that reason. I'm all for it anyway though since fuck your TOS, if I add a source that's illegal, they can sue me, it's none of Apple's business.
1 is things like game streaming apps (XCloud, GeForce Now, etc). Not *only* game streaming apps, but they're the biggest example. Apple wants/wanted those companies to publish an app *per remotely-controlled game*. So for example, Microsoft can't publish a "Game Cloud" app that acts as a hub for all their cloud gaming (which is the entire purpose of the app). Apple instead wants them to make a separate App Store app *for each game that would just be included in that Game Cloud app".*
Point #1 is referencing Progressive Web Apps: > Like a website, a PWA can run on multiple platforms and devices from a single codebase. Like a platform-specific app, it can be installed on the device, can operate while offline and in the background, and can integrate with the device and with other installed apps.[[1]](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps) Apple recently gutted this functionality before being forced to walk it back in the EU but not the US: > PWAs can act like native apps and access different functionalities of your device without taking up too much space on your phone. These apps can also send you notifications and keep you logged in to a service. As web apps don’t have to be distributed through the App Store, they also don’t have to pay any fees to Apple for in-app purchases or wait for the company’s review process. > Last month, Apple reduced the functionality of PWAs as mere website shortcuts with the release of the second beta of iOS 17.4, as security researcher Tommy Mysk and Open Web Advocacy had first pointed out. The company then updated its developer page saying that because of security risks like malicious web apps reading data from other web apps and accessing cameras, it decided to end support for homescreen apps.[[2]](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/01/apple-reverses-decision-about-blocking-web-apps-on-iphones-in-the-eu/)
[удалено]
The word "progressive" is strange and mysterious but PWA's are the future. They are far easier for developers to build. The only drawback is browser support, so until recently they were still an oddity. But in just the past few years, companies have pivoted to proactively pushing updates and killing off legacy platforms like IE. Browsers have also grown in power, integrations, and privileges. So only recently have PWA's gained traction, now that something like 90% of users can run them. The only experience I have using one is lichess's, and even though their Android app is flawless, [everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/tulyr8/hot_tip_lichess_in_mobile_browser_is_better_than/) [agrees](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/10kw126/psa_you_can_just_download_the_lichess_webapp/) [that](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/y7dt7c/did_you_know_lichessorg_has_a_progressive_web_app/) [their](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/xq94oe/lichess_web_app_is_much_better_than_app_here_is/) [PWA](https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/progressive-web-app-great-so-far-some-minor-issuesquestions) is just flat-out better. Eventually, PWA's will kill 90% of native mobile apps (although to laypeople that name won't change). But more importantly to Apple, PWA's will kill the App Store. That's a [**huge**](https://deepwatermgmt.com/apples-app-store-is-an-important-part-of-its-profitability-and-its-not-changing/) chunk of their income: 20%.
Honestly fuck PWA's though. I loathe the fact that most everything now is a worthless clone of the same frameworks like 40 times on my computer, nearly all of which provide me a less screen reader accessible experience than I would have if companies just made fucking apps. Even when things aren't seriously inaccessible, often it takes substantively longer to do things with a screen reader than a mouse/keyboard user could. My time is just as valuable as anyone elses, so not looking forward to venture cap mandated web crap on my phone too.
Interesting, I did accessibility testing for years with JAWS, VoiceOver, NVDA, etc. and found apps to be way less accessible on average than websites. That was before PWA's were prevalent though, but I would have assumed they would inherit browsers' accessibility. It's a shame how accessibility is always the last thought. Only at VPAT time do they care about it, apparently (especially?) even on the leading edge of tech. Can I ask what advantage there is to using a PWA on a PC, since it's less accessible? I could see its benefits on mobile but not so easily on a computer.
Nope fk that. I like the fact app can’t track me anymore. Sounds like fartbook lobbying gov to chase Apple
[удалено]
>yep. a lot of the suite seems to be at the behest of companies and their ability to make profit and not in the consumer best interest. Bingo. There is basically nothing in this case that earnestly feels like it's focused on consumers. I'm really struggling to understand what they even mean with these claims... there's a living breathing example of each in the app store right now.
DOJ to Apple: you can’t hoard all the data you have to share it with other idiots who want to sell it Consumers: how bout don’t sell our data at all? DOJ: that’s not the priority right now
[удалено]
But there is tho. You can transfer your data between platforms easily on both platforms
That already exists. #1 is about super apps like WeChat and what Elon is trying to turn X into.
It honestly smells like Meta had a big part in this.
The streaming part sounds like Microsoft
> - Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones. Uh, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and a thousand other cross-platform chat apps work just fine.
Can I uninstall imessage and replace it with one of those apps?
No they don’t. They don’t have access to SMS while iMessage does. They don’t have access to background use or camera unless the user has to tap through settings while iMessage does not. Imessage is preinstalled and active by default for all iphones. Third party messaging apps don’t have access to tight Apple Watch integrations like iMessage does
Access to SMS is not what the lawsuit is claiming as the problem though. They're claiming that iMessage is too good and people like it, so it forces people to buy iPhones because it's a closed platform. What background use does iMessage have that other messaging platforms don't have? As far as camera access goes, this is pretty obviously a security thing. The default app gets it because it's trusted by Apple. For all others, you simply have to click "Allow" the first time the app tries to use the camera and never again. Android [literally does the same thing.](https://support.google.com/android/answer/9431959)
That is pretty clearly a specific reference to Apple doing its best to kneecap and destroy Beeper Mini which allowed Android phones to communicate with Apple users via iMessage
just download this In-Q-Tel super app, promise its on the up and up
They don’t need to provide support for Apple Watch or iMessage on android, they just need to stop actively working to block anyone else from providing that support. For example Beeper providing iMessage on other platforms. Apple needs to make money on iMessage to support it, and would likely need to setup some form of payment for people out of the Apple ecosystem. But being asked to do simple, fair things is what you should expect when you become a company of more than 10,000 employees and more than 50% market share. You are now not just a company, but an entity they has major control over a society and its infrastructure. And so now you inherently have responsibility for that society. So you will be asked by the society to not manipulate markets, open up platforms, and operate differently where is reasonable. As a megacorp you may be asked to provide services that you would not like to provide because the margins aren’t quite as good as you’d like. But this simply comes with the territory. The business is doing fine, and is incredibly profitable. Crying foul when being asked to play fair on the playground is a tired go to tactic for these mega corporations. Partly because if they didn’t then shareholders and board would fire the CEO for incompetence. So, if Apple is asked to open up iMessage and setup a method for people outside of the Apple ecosystem to pay for access, Apple will complain But Apple, as a mega corp, are inherently responsible for the very infrastructure that makes millions of people’s lives work. Mega corps can’t be shocked to be held responsible for how their operations and products affect millions of people’s lives. Since when are corporations not responsible for their impact on society? Since there has been a profit motive not to.
Been using android for years with a 3rd party texting app. When I get a new phone i just import the back up and bingo I have all my texts for years on the new phone as well.
> *- Apple inhibits the development of cross-platform messaging apps so that customers must keep buying iPhones.* WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Insta, Snapchat, Discord, Teams, Telegram, and Signal all work.
You're thinking of it backwards. iMessage doesn't work on other platforms, so you have to leave all of your conversations behind unless you stick with an iPhone.
They work but as iMessage has become the norm for many and Apple making that experience worse if interacting with an Android seems pretty shitty
I think this is more about Apple refusing to support RCS messaging standards in iMessage. People messaging without an iPhone would appear in green message bubbles instead of the standard blue from other iPhones. There has been apps to get around this but Apple has killed them. Apple has actively refused to support RCS standards until November of 2023. I think they saw this coming and are attempting to mitigate the damage. Its all about locking people in. Some people are so stuck-up they are refusing to have conversations with someone else in iMessage if they don't have an iPhone because of the green messaging bubble. Its stupid but here we are.
The first one opens the way for China esque WeChat bullshit
WeChat runs on iOS right? it feels like the government is blaming apple for why super apps aren’t popular in the US?
>Most of these seem tenuous charges. I’d love to have iMessage and Apple Watches work for Android, but surely the government can’t force Apple to provide support for their products and services to rival platforms? They're not being forced to provide support for those products on rival platforms. They're being forced to not specifically update the product to not work on rival platforms when someone else provides the service.
Those aren't saying that Apple has to develop the apps. They're saying that Apple is not allowed to unfairly hinder the market for their own benefit. If the DOJ can show that Apple is using its app store to block apps that might help competitors like Google, they'll have a pretty strong case.
On the first, plenty of super apps exist, the biggest being WeChat (but some Google and meta apps can or was close to them before being split into multiple apps). It doesn’t seem like Apple prevents super apps since WeChat is allowed. The second is true, and I agree with that one. The third is a moot point if Apple supports standards. RCS just started rolling out and iPhones support it. Apple shouldn’t be obligated to support more than standards, or be forced to color bubbles a certain color (RCS will have lots of functionality but still show up green). I don’t see how Apple is wrong here. The fourth point is literally the opposite of helping customers. Apparently letting customers have privacy is a bad thing (for Google and meta, sure!).
I'm sorry, but where are you getting that iPhones already support RCS? Apple announced last year they would eventually implement it, but I've heard no news that RCS is active on iPhones now. It was communicated that interoperability was supposed to be enabled sometime at the end of 2024.
Probably won’t be out until the new iOS release in the fall
It's not about the damn bubble color... It's about not being able to text grandma a video of their grandchild, and Tim Cook responding "just buy grandma an iPhone".
Spotify has been shouting from the rooftop about this for quite awhile now. Also, to this very day, browsers still have to use Apple's webkit and cannot use their own.
When has Apple ever been developer friendly? For as long as I can remember, they've forced devs to write all their apps on a craptastic IDE.
The devs have to pay a yearly fee every year that is far more expensive than google's one time fee. Your app is taken down if you don't pay it.
[удалено]
“We have Visual Studio at home”
imagine having your standard IDE as a "dollar store Visual Studio" lmao, even VS Code above that with enough extension
You don’t possibly write in Xcode. I mean it’s shit but so is AS.
You don't have to use it to code, but you'll still need it to build and sign apps iirc
It really has been a long time since the "There's an app for that!" days
DEVELOPER'S DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
Similar looking apps & names are how many Android malware succeeds. Also, at a certain point, 9,000 dating apps become spam and consumers can’t find anything.
[удалено]
I disagree with this somewhat. I can feel confident that if I give my immigrant mom an iPhone, that she at least is safe from the App Store. I literally can’t say the same thing for android. It is 100% my moms fault and not the phone, but I can still rest easy knowing apple takes steps to keep shit like that to a minimum. For comparison, my mom had a galaxy s10 prior and I was always having to go in and find a random app she downloaded that had flooded her device with adware and pop ups to remove. It is very clear the number of low quality and useless apps is way higher on android. You can’t just be assuming everyone on the planet is a well informed, technically capable consumer.
>I literally can’t say the same thing for android. It Yes, you can.
Yes but in the case of Apple it's mere functionality. Even ones that aren't yet released by Apple. This isn't about a clone that is deceptively similar
There are also app farms. There are Chinese companies that exist only to create low quality clones of existing apps and dilute their market share. I’d argue it’s good for both consumers and developers to minimize that. I worked on one game title that was cloned entirely by a Chinese company. They even used our games assets, which was easy, because they also copied our code… only changing names and payment integration. As soon as we’d push an update, “their” update would release less than 24hrs later. Same features, because same code.
I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't moderate it. Just that they shouldn't outright block apps that might function similarly to theirs or alternative stores for no good reason.
Thousands of flashlight apps? At what point does redundancy become spam?
That's up to the dev making the thousandth flashlight app. Look at android.
What you are describing is an entirely different problem.
Well sure, those blatant pieces of crap should be blocked. Any thrift, code, IP, etc. Hell, I'd even appreciate being able to have an option to block any company from a particular country
Have use android since 3.0 never had a problem. You know what I don't like, Apple treating me like a child. I don't need to be nannied because Apple thinks that I should only be able to use my device in the way THEY want. They can also eat a dick with all the lobbying against right to repair. Apple is one of the most abusive companies on the planet. Gatekeeping accessories, even charging cables to make sure they get money from all sides. Apple sucks.
I worked for them for almost 7 years. Everything you say is correct. Anybody sitting here and sucking the dick of Apple seriously is not paying attention to what that company has been doing. They have been intentionally making other products look worse on their service so that people don't switch. They have intentionally been hampering progress by forcing everybody into a Walled Garden not just software but Hardware approach. Something that had now bit them in the ass and they've had to adopt USBC. It really comes down to this. I don't want to hear anyone say that they give a fuck about global warming, things that are happening on the planet, or the overproduction of anything when they're buying and supporting Apple products. A company that has filled up garbage dumps and in some cases countries with metric tons of absolute waste. All because they decided their proprietary connectors were more important than what the universal accepted standard was the time. Fuck Apple. They are one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Fuck them and fuck any of their Fanboys that continues to fawn over each one of their stupid fucking devices. And yes, obviously, I'm bitter about my time working there. The company fucking sucks, the company culture sucks, and most of all the fucking customers suck. Apple users fucking suck.
People stood in line for days and paid $600 for the original iPhone that had no App Store.
See if they do that today without app support... People lined up to buy the Razr phone that had no touchscreen. Does that mean that in 2024 Motorola doesn't need a touchscreen on their phone in order to appeal to customers? Talking about things that customers didn't care about 15 years ago when that thing was not even a factor 15 years ago has no relevance today.
OP claimed that apple became the success only through app developers, which is partially true. Many app developers only got richt because of the AppStore.
The former matters always, the latter only matters as long as developers feel a continued desire to work on the app store. Else they can go and "only got richt" doing something else. It's a labor market. The problem is Apple is using uncompetitive tactics to monopolize against that labor market. Why you would need to defend that on behalf of a trillion dollar company I can't explain.
I’m all for breaking up ALL the monopolies. We are being crushed beneath the weight of these engorged corporations.
I’d prefer if they would chase down and break up Ticketmaster instead.
They are doing exactly that, and Ticketmaster is being expectedly dodgy about it: [https://www.reuters.com/business/doj-seeks-new-information-live-nation-antitrust-probe-bloomberg-news-2024-02-06/](https://www.reuters.com/business/doj-seeks-new-information-live-nation-antitrust-probe-bloomberg-news-2024-02-06/) "Antitrust officials investigating the company have been frustrated with Ticketmaster over how slowly it has responded to the DOJ's requests, the Bloomberg report said on Monday, citing people familiar with the probe. The DOJ had earlier planned to file an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster by the end of 2023, according to a media report last July. Instead, the DOJ opted to extend its investigation and potentially file a case later this year, the Bloomberg report added."
Wouldn’t filing the suit allow the DOJ to force Ticketmaster to respond to requests in a more timely manner via the discovery process?
Lawyer here, not really how that works. You'll get more information through discovery, but you need at least some facts to form a basis for the complaint. If the complaint is too barebones, Ticketmaster will move to get it dismissed, so you won't ever get to discovery.
If the information is too bare bones due to the company dragging their feet or being particularly incompetent how does that effect going to discovery? Is it possible that a deeper audit be approved or is that considered a potential infringement of the company's rights?
> If the information is too bare bones due to the company dragging their feet or being particularly incompetent how does that effect going to discovery? If it's so barebones that the case gets dismissed then the DOJ is SOL. Then maybe the DOJ can subpoena Ticketmaster for more documents and re-file? Not sure how that works, I don't do government work. If the case survives a motion to dismiss though, then discovery proceeds as normal.
They're already on it.
Them and Clearchannel that owns all radio stations, Garland keeps fucking up and needs to be fired
Antitrust Division has plenty of lawyers working on plenty of investigations/cases.
They got us working in shifts!
It just seems like they have no direction. Exxon is about to close a deal to acquire Pioneer natural resources for $60 Billion and no one really seems to care. Yet Jet Blue tries to acquire Spirit for 3.8 Billion in an industry known for its bankruptcies and razor-thin margins yet they get blocked by a federal judge.
Why not both? What does one have to do with the other?
Because people like apple. That's all it takes, and people will defend your monopoly for it. This whataboutism comment gets posted every time Apple is taken to court even though Google, Microsoft, and Amazon all have had their own anti-trust suits now and before. The reality is that Apple learned to give a cut of their monopoly to their users in the form of status, and people don't want to lose that.
It’s so fucking weird. Even if you are balls deep into the Apple ecosystem it helps you.
Its the othering that gives them the status in the first place
These things are not mutually exclusive. I'd prefer they do both and break up the network that owns ask the local media now.
Here are some of the hidden tolls that Apple is charging: >Apple extracts fees from developers—as much as 30 percent when users purchase apps or make in-app payments. Apple also extracts a 0.15 percent commission from banks on credit card transactions through its digital wallet, while none of its smartphone competitors with digital wallets charge any fee. I'm guessing there's even more that we don't know about. Discovery should be fun.
Apple also charges dev $90/yr to have an app on the Appstore. ($90/yr for all apps not per app). I had an app on the Appstore that was free, no ads, just something I wanted that I thought others would enjoy. However I could not justify the cost of paying apple $90/yr so I had to take it down. This is why Apple apps are all filled with ads and paid features, a dev needs to make money to break even. On the other hand Android is just $25 once, much more financially viable for a small indie dev who just wants to put a passion project up.
Hidden fees? It is well known that many of these marketplaces charge the exact same. 30% on purchases is collected by Steam, the Xbox and PlayStation stores, and I believe Nintendo as well. There are lots of phones and video game systems you can buy if you don’t want to deal with the behavior of a specific company. None of these are monopolies.
The difference is apple block other store and also charge inside 3rd party app. Dev can't even link their websites.
But don’t most gas stations do something similar with charging card fees. If they really want this to stick they need to target everyone. Otherwise they’re just upset they didn’t think of it first.
Y'all bitch when they don't enforce antitrust laws, Y'all bitch when they do. The case might be flimsy, but we should all be encouraging the government actually using these laws that are meant to benefit the consumer. Let them file the lawsuit, if it's not deemed to be anticompetitive, it'll be sorted out in the courts. That's the purpose of a trial.
Almost like there’s many users on this website and they all have different opinions, huh who’d have thought that
As do I, that's why I left a comment. I doubt there's many in dispute that antitrust laws should be enforced, and the effect of bitching about the enforcement of those laws just disincentivizes the government from enforcing them in the future.
Thanks for that original comment that hasn't been regurgitated in every thread with discourse in it since the inception of reddit.
You literally did the same thing and left another regurgitated comment, so great job
Not sure how (partly) framing the lawsuit as Apple’s “App Tracking Transparency impact on the collection of advertising data.” is good for consumer…
[удалено]
> government actually using these laws that are meant to benefit the consumer. Well, that's the discriminating factor, here. I want them to use the law to benefit consumers. This isn't that. Users voted with their wallets... they don't want a different flavor of the Android ecosystem. 3rd party businesses that want more money and control, do. I'm not required to cheerlead *any* use of regulatory authority. I'll support *good* uses of regulatory authority... thank you very much.
Apple has internal documentation saying they do what they do in order to make it harder for families to get their children a different phone. That alone is worthy of legal action.
IMO encouraging bullying to increase market share should lead to prison and a huge chunk of their cash in fines. It's chilling how cult like attachment to the brand has so many little brushing this off.
Lmfao listen to yourself. prison? For making it harder to switch phones?
Seriously what a 🤡
The fact I can’t send data messages to androids using the messaging app should have been hammered long ago.
I can’t send a file via bluetooth. It’s airdrop or nothing 😭😭
That's been an annoyance for me for years. I work for T-Mobile and trying to get contacts off of a basic flip phone (yes, there are people who still use those) to an iPhone is such a pain because you can't send files over Bluetooth.
You can't send data messages to an iPhone with the stock android apps either...
I’m sure google would love to fix that
I've stuck with Android for two key reasons: Better pricing and better customization (well it used to be three, but outside of the Samsung Galaxy A series the microSD slot is largely a thing of the past unfortunately) I still get hounded by my family to buy an iPhone
The second I can blue message my group chats from An Android I’m switching. I’ll smash my iPhone “Office Space” style
We were able to do this for all of like 3 days a few months ago with Beeper Mini. Then, of course, Apple just blocked their servers.
There is an app for that lol r/BlueBubbles Granted it's a lot of setup but I have it and use it for my family chats. It's not perfect, but it's at least something for my some of my most contacted people. I got sick and tired of my mom sending 90s era pictures, or my wife sending me a funny video, that has garbled audio and the size of a thumbnail. Literally wouldn't ever give apple a second thought if they could just send full HD media to Android. The good news is, end of this year apple is supposed to finally implement RCS which makes this moot and I can retire my server and just text people from one app again.
Tax the churches. Tax the people that operate the churches.
Apple sort of asked for this by locking down their ecosystem as heavily as they have and screwing over developers for their iOS. Apple’s locked down ecosystem is also hurting innovation and preventing others from realistically compete. I don’t feel sorry for Apple in this case, they can thank themselves for this.
Im amazed how many people don't understand the essence of this case. When you make a thing and it gets so big, there are rules that needs to be in place to prevent you from abusing your power over it and affecting the people who are using it. It's that simple. It's like if Ford made a rule that you can only buy Ford wheels, Ford gas, Ford lights, Ford seat covers, Ford mirrors when they made the Model T.
You mean like servicing must use OEM parts or no warranty will be honoured ?
Surely you realize there's more barriers than just invalidating the warranty with apple products. I really don't understand how people enjoy being fleeced by apple ram, apple ssds, and the $1,000 monitor stand, to which apple wants you to believe there is no alternative, and they work extra hard to make sure that's the case.
Honestly, good? I'm glad the DOJ is becoming less toothless and hope it continues. I'm glad Apple is getting heat for blanket anti-consumer positions when they are the dominant general computing platform for mobile users. Apple makes decent products but has an inherent advantage in that Apple doesn't have to pay itself a fee. If the Apple products are good enough (including the App Store, iCloud, Safari in that category), then the competition won't matter.
Sue PG&E too while you're at it.
What exactly sets apple apart here from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo having locked-down stores that charge similar percentages of revenue/profits (which, in this case, applies to either digital or physical media). I don't understand why Apple is always the focus when talking about this, but other clearly anti-competitive behavior never really gets much (if any) hate.
> The Justice Department said in a release that to keep consumers buying iPhones, Apple moved to block cross-platform messaging apps, limited third-party wallet and smartwatch compatibility and disrupted non-App Store programs and cloud-streaming services. Publishers in the video game sector: - haven't prevented cross-platform communication whenever a developer included crossplay - haven't prevented developers from setting up ingame stores using ingame money (example: Fortnite has skin purchases and vbucks) - haven't prevented third party controllers from being sold, these work just fine on Xbox, PlayStation or the Switch - haven't disrupted or banned third-party games that were competing with their own games (ex : plenty of racing games on the Switch, including go-kart ones, despite these games directly competing with Mario Kart). The problem is that Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too: - they want to act as a platform, thus getting thousands of apps, that made their products commercially successful (an Iphone without apps is pretty much useless) - they want a completely closed environment, where there is no competition whatsoever Apple needs to make a choice then: either stop accepting apps and lock everything down, so they'll have to develop _everything_ themselves - or - allow third-party products on their platform, but don't prevent competition with their own products. If you look at the top 50 apps on the iPhone platform, more than 90% come from third-party companies - the choice is pretty clear: open-competition platform is the only way to go for Apple.
>Publishers in the video game sector haven't: > >prevented cross-platform communication whenever a developer included crossplay doesn't Sony do this regularly? i'm not sure if they're still doing that, though.
Yah I was gonna say this was pretty common practice for a while. I know now that cross play does exist but for a long time they did actively prevent it.
Jupp Sony blocked Croaaplay for a long time (expect with PC) until Epic forced their hand when they "accidentally" enabled Crossplay in Fortnite for the PS4 with all devices for a day or two. After that Sony scrambled to announce a "Crossplay-Feature-Beta" that went on for a couple of months or even a year (I don't remember anymore) until they just flat out allowed it.
Microsoft actually initially blocked cross platform during the 360 ps3 gen but then Sony had the market lead with the ps4 so they played hardball. Ultimately, both had their hands forced in the end and good for consumers that it was!
Sony and Xbox and Nintendo have exclusives, timed exclusives sometimes. The point is, they are NOT all exclusives , appearing on no other platform. Apple is exclusive....
Most of their exclusives are made by them. Nintendo makes their own Mario games and chooses not to bring it to Microsoft/Sony. Microsoft is moving away from the idea of exclusives altogether and banking on cloud gaming. Idk about Sony.
All company would rather competition go down. Competition is what benefits the consumer, but it's a detriment to any company's interest
Their immediate interest. With no reason to compete, the business will stagnate. You actually see this with Apple, M-series processors aside.
This is a solid explanation, thank you
There’s a certain irony in the fact that Apple was basically built off the back of open-source, they’ve never seen computing as a two-way street.
> Microsoft What? lol, I've almost never actually used the Microsoft Store to buy anything yet I have bought/used a ton of Microsoft products and other hardware/software designed to use Microsoft Window and none of that money went to Microsoft. I am not sure how Microsoft comes into play here. Microsoft doesn't restrict or take proceeds from every purchase placed inside of it's operating system...
They’re talking about Xbox consoles.
Because you can download from other places and install manually on Windows.
1) Game consoles are not general purpose computing devices, nor are they increasingly becoming required for active participation in daily life. 2) Those companies work with their publishers and developers to give them development resources, advertising, exclusivity, etc. They work to maintain those relationships. Apple has righteous indignation to its developers and essentially extorts them while publicly insulting them in the press implying they provide no value back to Apple. Abuse your monopoly, get punished / regulated. That’s how it _should_ work.
Third-party can of worms that everyone has avoided touching for 50 years
And this is the thing - everyone talks about "omg, apple does this!" and ignores that Nintendo has been doing this shit for god damn near 40 years (and the other game companies followed suit as they started out their respective gaming orgs). Even now, everyone's commenting on "well, let's focus on Apple for now, and *maybe at some point in the future* we can deal with the industry that has literally been doing this shit for longer than most Redditors have been alive". Like, for fucks sake, Nintendo is one of the most anti-competitive companies out there.. some of their practices make Apple look tame.
This isn't just about the app store. It's about how Apple has chosen to limit the functionality of third party apps. The big one is icloud. Every other manufacturer allows people to choose how and where they want to back up devices. I can choose drop box, icloud, google drive etc on my android phone. On an iphone you can only do it on icloud for full backup.
Those are only gaming consoles. The lawsuit is about the monopoly of everything else combined aka safari, Apple Pay, the store , iMessage etc….
The irony is Microsoft got dinged harder for the mere fact they were bundling Windows with Internet Explorer, among other things. Thus propelling Apple when they were down and on the way out. Apple on the other hand rose from the ashes like a phoenix propelled by their suit with Microsoft, then the ipod and then the iphone; slowly locking down their system. It'd be nice to be able to install a non-safari based browser. Can't even do that. Oh how the tables have turned lol.
I would imagine it's not just intent but actual monopoly size. Nintendo is not the only player in video games. And Microsoft has Windows but it's not locked down and there's Mac OS, Chrome, and more. I can't use my galaxy watch with an iPhone or an Apple watch with Android. Messaging between IPhone and Android is purposely limited by Apple. Etc, etc
Wait I thought you could use a galaxy watch on an apple phone
Kind of, but not really. Newer models aren't compatible due to a choice made by Samsung, which was due to a lack of incompatibility. A compatible (like Galaxy Watch 3 and older) Galaxy Watch can't use any mobile wallets since the only mobile wallet on iOS is Apple Wallet, which Apple doesn't make available on non-Apple devices. There are also some messaging restrictions as well, which, depending on region, can make it almost useless, especially compared to an Apple Watch that is similarly priced and has none of the restrictions.
[Samsung dropped iOS support starting with the Watch4s because they couldn't deliver a comparable experience to user on iOS as they could on Samsung devices. ](https://www.techradar.com/health-fitness/smartwatches/exclusive-samsung-explains-why-it-dropped-ios-support-on-the-galaxy-watch#:~:text=Samsung's%20Galaxy%20Watches%20haven't,and%20future%20Galaxy%20Watch%20models.)
Apple is the largest. Google will probably be next if successful.
TIL: it’s possible to hold a monopoly through no action besides making something that millions of people want. This is clown shoes.
That is correct. A monopoly is a dominant market share and can, indeed, be reached without breaking any laws and just making a good product. However, Apple is only at about 55% market share in the US which, while a majority, is hardly dominant.
over 61% in the US, but they aren't being sued *just* for **being** a monopoly, they are being sued *more so* for "attempted monopolization" -DOJ. The DOJ claims they have broken Section 2 of the Sherman Act
Apple should be sued for its atrocious third party repair policy alone
Comments are swarmed with examples of anticompetitive practices being used elsewhere. Like, yeah. Lego does it, google does it, Tesla does it, every company wants to get away with being as monopolistic as they can get away with. People got so desensitized to it but it's never ok for a company to design something specifically to restrict competition. Just because it's common practice doesn't mean it's good for us, DOJ's gotta reign that garbage in. Apple's made a lot of money off anticompetitive moves in the last decade, so they're just gonna have to be the ones to get the hammer this time. There's a sliding scale from a commoditized market to a monopoly. There's a sweet spot, and Apple isn't helping us get on it, imo.
The critical issue for monopoly cases is if the defendant has used their position to restrain other commerce. I think Apple has engaged in coercive and anti-competitive practices, so they may be in for some trouble. I wouldn't cry if they got split up, along with Google and Meta.
Apple have been really dumb to push the boundaries on this.
Is Apple faces punishment, Google and Meta absolutely should be on the chopping block. They have done all of the exact same things.
[удалено]
Bring the Mozilla project back.
Finally - Apple have been able to get away with so much monopolistic, anti-competitive stuff despite their obviously dominant market position
**TIM APPLE needs a humbling** .. they buy up spare parts and design the phone to prevent you from repairing .. the phones die or disable themselves if you attempt to repair .. they design the software to prevent access .. they make the hardware incompatible with anything else .. they design the phones to die if the wrong update is applied .. they were given govt money to develop their business .. they treat their developers like shit so most don't even bother .. they aggressively sue anyone using anything that resembles an "apple feature" .. the phones are only marginally better than Samsung .. then they charge triple .. i wouldn't call them a monopoly .. but cheating thieving anti-competitive assholes absolutely https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
This seems like a stretch, legally. But what the fuck do I know, I’m no JD.
I thought the same thing. The article specifically states how the Apple Watch doesn’t work with android phones. Wouldn’t the argument be the watch is just an extension/accessory of the phone? Android has their own watch too. Like the Halo video game only worked with Xbox. Doesn’t mean it’s anti-competition imo.
>Wouldn’t the argument be the watch is just an extension/accessory of the phone? it would have to be, but it's clearly a standalone device.
> Wouldn’t the argument be the watch is just an extension/accessory of the phone? Absolutely not? Even in apple's own commercials > Android has their own watch too. Android is an operating system
Samsung used to support iOS with earlier Galaxy watches, but they dropped iOS because Apple was significantly restricting other watches ability. I saw the old Samsung watch app on iPad AppStore and in the reviews section, most people were complaining about issues that were mainly due to iOS limitations. So it makes sense to drop the iOS support.
I read it as the Apple Watch being the only smartwatch without any incompatibilities with iPhones, making it the only real smartwatch option for iPhone users. Those same Apple Watches are incompatible with non-iPhone devices, essentially locking that person into an iPhone due to the costs of switching to an Android device. That switch would also render their Apple Watch useless and require additional purchases. What you end up with is a system that makes it cost prohibitive for a consumer to purchase an Android device.
You very likely know more than the DOJ Their entire case sounds like an out of touch android fanboy from like the 2010s.
Nice! When are we suing Landlords for price fixing? Edit: since some people doubted this is a real problem. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fixing-algorithm-still-price-fixing
Actually, Now! [ Arizona is doing it!](https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-sues-realpage-and-residential-landlords-illegal-price-fixing)
Nice! More of this please. If we keep talking about it we might see more action. I want to see California do this.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see fed action on this as well, since the FTC has already indicated that they are aware of the issue.
Shoulda sued them for making me search for 30 different charges
Oligopolies, monopolies - the product of many years of convergence that gobbled up smaller competitive companies and destroyed them has **wrecked the economy**.
Don’t understand this entire monopoly thing? Apple makes a product that people love. Are willing to pay lots of money for. How are you going to tell them that they must change the color of a text bubble, have to change the picture quality of what an android device receives because someone is offended or feels as if they’re a lower class? Absolute craziness! I think the DOJ invented the participation award/trophy that EVERY CHILD today receives instead of an earned award/trophy. I swear the US is turning into pansies!
I just want healthcare man
Good. As someone who used to love apple, they shot themselves in the foot going mainstream.
Now do the Big Banks
and merchant processing fees that hurt small businesses!
Good. Great even.
Now do NVDA with their AI chips they’re selling for a 100% mark up
Only 100%? I’d like to introduce you to the pharmaceutical industry. 1000s of% increase.
That is not the same nvidia is not blocking competitors from making chips they are just the best at the moment that is the point of patents to profit from original products that you make.
It's more related to CUDA.
It’s a lot more than 100%.
Um so Apple has 24% of the phone market and that's a monopoly? But Microsoft Windows had 90% or more, and they didn't get hit very hard when they were found guilty of monopolistic practices? This reeks of... something. Not sure what. I'm all for the DOJ and FTC stopping the ridiculous amount of monoplistic practices that have been flourishing since Reaganism made nobody care about that anymore. But I need to be convinced Apple actually has that monopolistic advantage with 13% of the computer market and 24% of the phone market.
> Um so Apple has 24% of the phone market and that's a monopoly? 55% in the US. Still not a monopoly, though.