return to table of content

U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly

Fripplebubby
203 replies
2h25m

For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims:

1. "Super Apps"

Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.

2. Cloud streaming apps

Similar to "super apps", the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service.

3. Messaging interoperability

Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set.

4. Smartwatches

Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.

5. Digital wallets

It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement "tap to pay" on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.

airstrike
50 replies
1h57m

1. Super Apps are notorious for tracking the user across the "mini" apps within it, which is the argument made by Apple for making them hard to get approval for. I'm on Apple's side here

2. I was able to use PS Remote Play on my iPhone even many years ago (pre-COVID). A quick google search shows that Steam Link and Shadow PC (my ATF) are also available on iOS. I'm on Apple's side here too

3. I think the situation has recently changed here as someone else has commented, so this feels solvable without a lawsuit. Also it's hard to single out Apple here when everyone out there has their own messaging platforms. It's not like WhatsApp is encouraging third-party clients. An argument can be made that iMessage blurs the line between what's Apple-provided vs. carrier-provided, so I can see the user confusion and the issues that come with it. I'm on the FTC's side here

4. Who cares about smartwatches. It's niche at best. Besides, there are countless other watches you can use and they work with many devices. I'm on Apple's side here

5. It's not like you can't tap your card instead of your phone. I don't think the phone needs to be just a husk with apps created by third parties, especially for things like wallets. I'm happy to trade away that freedom for increased security, Benjamin Franklin's quote notwithstanding. The payments ecosystem is made up of players charging fees from the next player down the chain, so also hard to single out Apple here, but I can see why there's need for increased transparency (I wasn't explicitly aware they charged any fees, even if I would probably guess they were if prompted). I'm on neither side here.

So based on my biases and incomplete understanding of the facts, Apple wins 3-1

It's worth remembering that this administration is suing seemingly everyone in Tech, in what I can only assume is being done in the hopes they can make a name for themselves. Lena Khan literally said "you miss all the shots you don't take".

I would prefer a more focused approach with higher signal to noise ratio.

kubectl_h
14 replies
1h34m

3.

Every single group chat that I use on a day-to-day basis has a non iPhone participant. The biggest argument against the way apple treats SMS vs iMessage I see is people feel ostracized for having green bubbles. I just don't understand why this rises to anti-trust.

vundercind
5 replies
1h29m

What is this “having green bubbles” stuff? My messages are green on threads with Android users, to indicate the capabilities of the messages I am sending. Not theirs. I don’t even know how to tell who’s on what in a mixed-ecosystem thread.

airstrike
4 replies
1h22m

messages from Android users show up as green to iOS users in group chats with mixed users, so everyone invariably makes fun of them / complains about "the person with the green bubble"

vundercind
2 replies
1h20m

Do you have an iPhone? I do and my bubbles are green on group chats that involve Android users. Theirs look the same as everyone else’s.

harkinian
0 replies
1h10m

The bubbles are green if you talk to someone with an Android, and they're blue if you talk to someone with an iPhone. People simplify this by saying "you have blue bubbles."

airstrike
0 replies
1h15m

yes, and if we're in a chat with Bob Android, we will blame Bob for forcing all of us to be in this inferior chat that's green ewww

or so the argument goes

ssully
0 replies
1h10m

That isn’t how it works. Your own bubbles are green, all the “external” people in the chat have “regular” colors. Ex: I am using dark mode, so their bubbles show as dark for me, and mine are green.

iteria
4 replies
1h17m

Videos. Every time I get a video from an iphone user it is trash quality. Other iphone users don't have this problem. It's just me on the android. I cannot seem to get any iphone user to understand linking out from whatever icloud or whatever, so whenever someone sends me a video they took, i basically don't get to see. I'm sure there are more, but this the one that actually makes me mad.

From the iphone side, there has to be something, because my family keeps 2 group chats. One with android users and one without. Someone when using an iphone is annoying when group texting android users.

mrkstu
2 replies
46m

To be fair, on this particular point, you aren't Apple's customer in this scenario. This is like complaining that Tesla has supercharger stations and your non-Tesla has a different charging connector, so your interactions with Supercharging stations is degraded. This really wouldn't be Tesla's problem.

Apple supports the video standards that were available via MMS/SMS when iMessage rolled out, the higher res videos only available in the first place because Apple added it via iMessage. The newer 'standard' was a Google dominated way of trying to make inroads on Apple's superior implementation and in most of the world, Messages isn't even the top Messaging app.

Now that Apple has announced support for RCS incoming, even including messaging in the suit doesn't make sense in the slightest.

shkkmo
0 replies
11m

The newer 'standard' was a Google dominated way of trying to make inroads on Apple's superior implementation and in most of the world, Messages isn't even the top Messaging app.

The RCS standard was is just about as old as the iPhone and older than iMessage. Google began supporting and pushing the standard forward in a way that benefits everyone. Apple could have done the same, or made iMessage an open protocal or any of a number of things. Instead Apple has consistently chosen to go the anti-competitive route.

Apple's superior implementation

It was 'superior' in some ways inferior in other ways, such as communicating with people without an iphone. iMessage isn't particularly better than any other messaging app, but the benefits of user lock-in, and being the default, replaceable sms app. These anti-competitive behaviors do clearly harm users.

Now that Apple has announced support for RCS incoming

Perhaps once the support actually lands you'll have more of a point. However, I expect half-assed support and the bare minimum given Apple's previous reluctance.

Workaccount2
0 replies
18m

It remains to be seen how apple handles RCS. It's a pretty lax standard.

mattl
0 replies
1m

Why not use an app like WhatsApp?

harkinian
2 replies
1h10m

Not mine cause we leave those people out. It's not Apple's fault that SMS sucks, and RCS adoption was very slow even on Android. Even with all Android phones, a group chat is a disaster unless they use FB Messenger or WhatsApp, which is in fact what most people use. Market working as intended there.

magicalhippo
0 replies
1h4m

My new phone supports RCS, but I have several frinds who use dual SIM where only one of the devices support RCS. If I turn on RCS, only the device supporting RCS gets the message.

Since it's a global switch, I've had to turn it off...

MiddleEndian
0 replies
54m

My phone has RCS and sometimes my RCS messages just don't go through for hours. It will randomly switch between RCS and SMS/MMS. Honestly I find Android to iPhone texting to be more reliable than Android/Android texting nowadays because at least I know it will just be SMS/MMS.

It's pretty awful lol. You can say "it's the carriers" but if you make something that relies on some other people who won't do it right, you haven't made something good, you've made something where you can blame other people for it not being good.

FB Messenger is better and I try to use it over texting whenever I can (in part because I don't need my phone at all to use it)

ApolIllo
9 replies
1h50m

Who cares about smartwatches

219.43 million people use smartwatches

0xffff2
4 replies
1h26m

I assume that's worldwide? That definitely seems niche to me compared to the global population.

1shooner
1 replies
57m

I don't think global population is a factor in antitrust law.

0xffff2
0 replies
21m

It's a factor in whether "219.43 million people" is a lot of people. If that's 219 million people in the US (i.e. well over half the population), that's obviously massively more significant than 219 million people worldwide.

skeaker
0 replies
55m

How large does a business need to be on a global scale before we can smack down bad actors for abusing it? If you are a street corner business and your competitors down the street sell things at a loss just until they can put you out of business, should that be allowed because you were only a local business and didn't have millions of customers?

Draiken
0 replies
1h11m

Regardless of the size, it does that make it okay to hamper competition like they do.

If this was such an insignificant niche, Apple Watch wouldn't even exist, would it?

shuckles
3 replies
1h18m

This is irrelevant. The primary argument people have against Apple is their platform indirectly impacts how other businesses can operate generally. The smartwatch never took off as a platform, so it exercises no such influence.

badrequest
2 replies
1h4m

The smartwatch never took off as a platform

And you think Apple had no role to play in this by making most of them useless on their devices?

shuckles
0 replies
48m

There is no reason to believe lack of background activity support on iPhone is the reason smartwatches haven’t taken off as a computing platform.

harkinian
0 replies
47m

They're useless period

bearjaws
8 replies
1h47m

I love how whenever Apple makes a clearly anti-trust move it's always about privacy.

That would be true, if Apple couldn't literally write any TOS they want that allows other App stores or billing methods and then add "but you can't include tracking that invades our users privacy or resell their data".

That's just as enforceable on their end, and not anti-competitive, assuming Apple themselves don't launch their own ad platform and tracking...

throw0101c
2 replies
1h36m

I love how whenever Apple makes a clearly anti-trust move it's always about privacy.

Who else is going to care about privacy though?

For the payment situation for example, Apple Pay (and Google Pay) use EMV Tokenization so that your actual credit card number is obfuscated:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pay#Technology

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Pay_(payment_method)#Te...

Credit card numbers are used by retailers to data mine their customers:

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

pionar
1 replies
1h13m

For the payment situation for example, Apple Pay (and Google Pay) use EMV Tokenization so that your actual credit card number is obfuscated

As does Samsung Pay. As could any number of tap to pay providers, if Apple would let them on iOS.

shuckles
0 replies
55m

Actually Samsung Pay for the longest time supported MST which was not secure and supported transmission of payment credentials that could be intercepted by a MITM.

itopaloglu83
1 replies
1h41m

Apple having access to everything related to end user, every step they can take regarding privacy can be deemed as anti-competitive.

Here’s another example: Facebook knows exactly the 100 people they show my ads but not giving me their full name, relationship status, list of friends, their gender, sexual orientation, etc.

throw0101c
0 replies
1h34m

Apple having access to everything related to end user, every step they can take regarding privacy can be deemed as anti-competitive.

But does Apple have access to things? Or do they (sometimes?) design things so that even they don't have the information?

A lot of the time they do things 'on device'.

ethanbond
1 replies
1h39m

If I care about my privacy, I much prefer the world where Apple just restricts APIs/integrations that are harmful to it than that they have to employ armies of lawyers and auditors to go after TOS violations after the fact.

beeboobaa3
0 replies
55m

They are more than free to restrict any APIs/integrations they want, as long as these restrictions apply to their own apps as well.

LeafItAlone
0 replies
1h38m

It’s much easier to identify and detect an app that does multiple things than identify trackings across multiple parts of an app.

tapoxi
6 replies
1h40m

1) Apple makes an exception if you're China, unfortunately. This is how WeChat has taken off, and I bet WeChat could bully its way around the App Store rules to the detriment of competitors, another "special deal" from Apple.

2) This is about cloud gaming, when you're streaming the game from hardware in the cloud, like Xbox Game Pass. Streaming the game from your own hardware isn't as competitive to Apple since it requires you buy a $500 console or gaming PC.

3) The biggest issue was Apple not implementing RCS and defaulting every iOS user to iMessage, which has created a two-tier messaging system, friends getting locked out of chat groups, etc simply because Apple doesn't want to use the standard.

4) "Who cares" is not a valid argument in using your dominance in one market to dominate another, which is textbook anticompetitive behavior. They also do this with AirTags, Airpods, any accessory where the Apple product gets to use integrations with the OS and third-parties are forbidden from doing so.

5) Tapping your phone is more secure because the card number is randomized and single-use, protecting it from replay attacks.

airstrike
2 replies
1h23m

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

Re: #2 FWIW Shadow PC doesn't require a PC. You get a virtual one for like $20-50 / month depending on the level of virtual PC you'd like.

And Microsoft Cloud Gaming is still in beta. Why would Apple even need to consider supporting it?

santoshalper
0 replies
1h8m

Based on your biases and incomplete understanding of the facts, I think tapoxi wins 1-0.

AkBKukU
0 replies
1h9m

Apple doesn't need to support it, they need to not block it and let the user decide if they want to participate in a beta.

shuckles
0 replies
59m

1. Presumably it’s equally likely causality flows in the other direction: WeChat took off before Apple instituted strict controls but the cat was already out of the bag in that market. WeChat is an exceptionally user hostile app, and arguing for more of it is anti-consumer. It’s probably the best example of what can go wrong if you require the freedoms that give rise to superapps.

pow_ext
0 replies
15m

3) there are tons of other apps in which exluded users can have groups an use other features with other multiplatform users. You can't sue a company because in just their official app it won't support a protocol develop by others. Just install another app, no monopoly here.

nolongerthere
0 replies
47m

Apple Pay doesn’t offer single use card numbers for third party cards. They are different from your regular card number but they stay the same between purchases.

notnmeyer
3 replies
1h38m

in #2 you’re talking about something else. those are streaming games from a console you own.

_cloud_ streaming where the game is running a ms/sony owned server is only available in a browser.

i don’t know about the sony side of things, but apple rejected ms’s native cloud streaming app.

airstrike
2 replies
1h22m

Those barely exist... Microsoft Cloud Gaming is still in beta.

evandale
0 replies
1h3m

Does Apple have a rule that says beta apps aren't allowed on the app store?

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft cloud gaming is like a 1.0 version and works fine on Windows and Android. I had no idea it was a beta product until just now.

skeaker
1 replies
51m

1. Super Apps are notorious for tracking the user across the "mini" apps within it, which is the argument made by Apple for making them hard to get approval for. I'm on Apple's side here

Never heard this argument, could you name an example of this? I figured the reason for the ban was that it would sidestep most of the Apple software that comes with an iPhone, which Apple obviously wouldn't want since they would prefer to lock users in.

airstrike
0 replies
4m

I came across it somewhere I Apple developer docs, I think, when I was building my app. Or maybe it was RevenueCat docs or some tutorial... I'm on my phone now but will try to find it later

rufus_foreman
0 replies
1h38m

> Who cares about smartwatches

The Justice Department, 16 US states, and the District of Columbia, among others. Anti-trust violations are crimes.

jm4
0 replies
54m

It's not just this administration going after tech. The other guys got the ball rolling, although they use a different narrative to sell it. I think most people recognize there are various problems with the industry that essentially all boil down to the amount of power big tech has. There have been warnings from governments and other players in the private sector for years. I happen to like my iPhone a lot, but it's about time Apple and the rest of them get their teeth kicked in.

danaris
0 replies
7m

From what I'm seeing in other places, there are also some pretty weak claims being made beyond this.

The first is their attempt to redefine what the market is in order to declare Apple a "monopoly": they've posited a completely separate market for "performance smartphones", and tried to use total revenue rather than number of units sold in order to push Apple up to having a very high percentage of this invented market.

The second is their characterization of how Apple got to where they are. Like them or not, you have to be seriously down a conspiracy rabbit hole to believe that the iPhone became as popular as it is primarily through anticompetitive tactics, rather than because it's a very good product that lots and lots of people like. Regardless of whether you, personally, find that value proposition to be compelling.

They also point at some of Apple's offerings and make absolutely absurd claims about how they're anticompetitive—for instance, that they're going to somehow take over the auto market with CarPlay 2.0 and the fact that AppleTV+ exercises control over the content it serves.

There are some things Apple does that are genuinely concerning and deserve more antitrust scrutiny (for instance, their anti-steering provisions for the App Store are pretty egregious), but so far as I can tell, they're not even mentioned in this suit. I'm frankly disappointed in the DoJ for how they've put this together, and would have loved to see something that was narrower and much more robust.

ben7799
44 replies
1h46m

Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them.

I am curious what things the iPhone does that others aren't allowed to do.

Most of the differences between Garmin and Apple Watch seem like they were conscious decisions where they each decided to take a different direction.

It's one of those weird things where it seems like the case has a bunch of holes. You can use an iPhone with some but not all non-Apple Smart watches. You can use a non-Apple phone with non-Apple smartwatches. There are other non-Apple smart watches that those manufacturers have decided can't be used with an iPhone, no different than Apple. Lots of choices in the market, I certainly don't feel restricted.

I am not sure how requiring something like WeChat to break into multiple apps would be a big issue. Apple even breaks it's own apps up into different apps.

atourgates
26 replies
1h42m

My guess is around notifications and handoff to iPhone apps.

I tried Garmin watches, and they're certainly better as "exercise tracking devices" than anything Apple offers, but they weren't tightly enough integrated with my iPhone to make it "worth it" to me to wear them all the time.

An Apple Watch Ultra - on the other hand - is a poorer exercise tracking device, but gives me enough "integrated with my iPhone" benefit to become the first watch I've worn consistently in 30+ years.

I assumed this was the result of design and development choices by Garmin, but it'll be interesting to see if their are meaningful ways that Apple restricts smartwatch developers from including similar levels of integration.

0xffff2
25 replies
1h38m

Can you expand on what "integrated with my iPhone" means in concrete terms? I don't really understand what you mean.

InsomniacL
14 replies
1h27m

I don't use smart watches but I have an example on the trackers.

Tile created trackers and every so often I get an annoying popup

~"Tile has been using your location, do you want to stop this?"

Apple then created a competitor product, 'AirTags', but their product does not have these popups.

This is anti-competitive because Apple bypass the restrictions they made on their platform for their product that their competitive have to follow.

lotsofpulp
6 replies
1h21m

I would bet most people already know using an Apple product and agreeing to the Find My and other terms in intial setup means Apple is always tracking you. So a pop up from Apple saying that Apple is tracking you makes no sense, it is already known, and accepted by the device user.

Someone other than Apple tracking you, however, is notable, and so people (at least I) would always want to know if someone other than Apple is tracking me via software operating on the device.

Draiken
3 replies
1h17m

Why? Because a user allowed them to track them when using one app, it doesn't mean should extend automatically that to every app they ever develop.

This is clearly Apple apps being treated differently.

lotsofpulp
1 replies
1h4m

Why? Because a user allowed them to track them when using one app, it doesn't mean should extend automatically that to every app they ever develop.

The whole point of the notification is to notify you when an entity is tracking you. If you already know Apple is tracking you, then it does not make a difference if Apple's App A or App B or App C is tracking you, it is all Apple.

Draiken
0 replies
51m

I must be missing something because that's simply not true in Android. I can individually grant/revoke tracking permissions for each app. I assumed the same would be true for iPhone.

For me it makes no sense to make it only about the entity. It's like saying "the US government is tracking you", instead of saying "the US government is tracking you through this app right now"

positus
0 replies
14m

I'm pretty sure you're asked whether or not you want to enable Location Services when going through Setup Assistant during the initial device provisioning.

jchw
0 replies
1h0m

But, some Apple apps do in fact tell you that. This actually does make sense, too. When you collect information for one specific reason, it doesn't mean the user has granted you consent to use it for other purposes carte blanche.

One might retort "Fine, but then granting that permission once is enough." Apparently, that is only true sometimes, and only for Apple.

InsomniacL
0 replies
1h12m

I would bet most people buying tracking devices know those tracking devices are tracking location.

The point is Apple as a platform provider made something (location without warning) on the platform available to themselves as a platform user (Airtags), that they didn't make available to other platform users who are their competitors (Tile).

jorvi
3 replies
1h17m

Longest-running example is Apple Maps displaying mapping on the lockscreen and having special bespoke turn-by-turn notifications, using a private API to which no other navigation app has access to.

The other big one is Apple muscling itself into the music streaming market by converting Music.app into Apple Music. In a fair world, Apple would have been required to show a pop-up that offered Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, Deezer etc. in a random order. You can’t unmake an omelette, so I feel Apple should be forced to pay billions to these competing services as recompense.

positus
0 replies
10m

People know how to use the App Store. If they want Spotify they know how to find it. It is by no means unfair, immoral, or unethical for a company to prefer and promote their own products.

On a personal note, I never in my life want to see advertisements for third-party software by default.

mock-possum
0 replies
45m

RIP lala.com, my first and favorite music streaming service - bought out by apple and summarily closed with previous users encouraged to migrate to Apple Music. I think I got a $15 credit or something. As if I needed a reason to further resent Apple.

mattl
0 replies
16m

by converting Music.app into Apple Music

Apple made iTunes (which already supported Apple Music) into a dedicated Music app, and offloaded some of the other stuff iTunes could do into separate apps and the Finder.

ssully
1 replies
1h15m

Not saying this to defend Apple, but last week I had that same location tracking pop up for Apples Weather app.

rezonant
0 replies
34m

Yes but that doesn't distract from the airtags issue, because airtags are supported by the OS itself, not a specific app. Good on Apple for applying the same rules to it's apps, but not so good on Apple for not giving Tile a way to work in the same manner as airtags.

cpuguy83
0 replies
1h19m

Not really defending Apple here since they do have an unfair advantage over on these trackers.

But even the weather app triggers that same location pop up.

S_A_P
5 replies
1h27m

Not the original poster but for me it means not having to look at my phone for many tasks. I can see who texted or messaged me and the message without opening my phone. I can take or ignore a call. Basically anything that hits your message alerts can be displayed on the watch in most cases.

Maybe the Apple Watch is not the best fitness tracker watch but it’s plenty good for me and it’s health integration is pretty good especially with the ultra.

shagie
1 replies
49m

When setting up my Windows machine I was given the opportunity to pair it with my iPhone via Phone Link. In doing so, my Windows machine was able to get all of the notifications that I saw on the Lock Screen of my iPhone, and call history (make and receive calls too).

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/sync-across-your-dev... and https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2023/04/26/phone...

I assume that this functionality is available to other devices too.

afavour
0 replies
8m

It’s a poor subset of the functionality available to the Apple Watch. One obvious example is that you can reply to a message on an Apple Watch, not so over the API Windows uses.

mousetree
0 replies
1h18m

Does a Garmin watch not do that? I often see people looking at notifications on their non-Apple watch.

atourgates
0 replies
1h18m

Yep. That's exactly right.

When a phone call comes in, or I get a notification (text, calendar, app notification etc) - my Apple Watch does a really good job of (quite often) giving me enough info from my wrist that I don't need to pull my phone out of my pocket.

Garmin watches have some of this integration (IIRC you can definitely get texts, I don't remember what else) - but certainly not all of it. I haven't tried smartwatches from other manufacturers.

0xffff2
0 replies
20m

I can do all of that with my Garmin watch though?

bitcurious
1 replies
1h26m

A Garmin watch can’t track heart rate during an Apple Fitness Plus workout, an example.

SllX
0 replies
1h2m

Yeah but that’s a separate paid service tied to specific hardware, not so much an iPhone feature as an Apple TV and Watch feature. Garmin can integrate into HealthKit as well as any other fitness tracker.

wlesieutre
0 replies
19m

It's been years, but IIRC the main disparity was with responding to notifications.

On Android you could pick a pre-written reply to texts or even dictate a response.

On iOS you couldn't do anything but close the notification.

shrew
0 replies
1h18m

Not the parent, but just a few things I’d guess would be Apple Watch specific:

- I’ve had employers that require a confirmation step from an app as a form of 2FA. If my phone isn’t awake, the notification comes to my watch and I can approve my login from my wrist

- If some action requires typing on my watch, I get a prompt on my iPhone to do the typing there instead of on the tiny watch keyboard. The characters I type via the phone appear in real time on the watch as if I were typing directly

- Dismissing and snoozing notifications syncs so I don’t have to dismiss and snooze notifications on multiple devices

- Similarly, if I set an alarm on my phone, the alarm will ring on my phone and, if I’m wearing it, vibrate my watch without further setup. Again, actions I perform to that alarm can all be performed on the watch or phone.

I’d guess these are all tiny, tiny quality of life features, but I’d be very surprised if other non-Apple watches have the ability to implement them.

Wowfunhappy
4 replies
1h27m

The Pebble was very obviously hampered by iOS limitations. In order to offload any code to the phone, you either had to write the code in Javascript (so it was basically a web app) or direct the user to manually download a separate companion app from the App Store. If iOS killed the companion app because it hadn't been opened on the iPhone recently (because, y'know, you were using it on your watch and not your phone), you had to manually relaunch the app on your phone.

This is all before even getting into things like ecosystem integration.

shagie
3 replies
57m

The Pebble was released in 2013. The two way communication SDK with Pebble was released in May of 2013. In February of 2015, the 2.0 Pebble SDK was released with further integrations.

The first iWatch was announced in September 2014 and released in April of 2015.

The Pebble was discontinued in 2016.

What integrations are you expecting Apple to have released prior to its own release? What functionality did iOS lack that android provided that hampered Pebble's development on iOS?

daghamm
1 replies
25m

"The first iWatch was announced in September 2014 and released in April of 2015."

Just a side note: apple has in past started limiting other companies products as soon as they decide to create a competitor and sometimes years before it hits the market.

IIRC Spotify has been bitten by this at least once, which resulted in a lawsuit.

shagie
0 replies
17m

What limitations did Apple place in 2013 (or 2014 or 2015) that reduced the functionality of Pebble in light of a forthcoming iWatch?

If it was a "it worked and then Apple took away this API that we were going to use" that would be one thing. If it was "the iPhone didn't have the functionality for other devices to read messages over BlueTooth until 2015 with iOS 8" - that's a different claim.

Wowfunhappy
0 replies
22m

Well to begin with, it is my understanding that the specific limitations listed still exist. Can Bluetooth devices remotely start apps now, or keep them in the background? I only used Pebble as an example because I owned a Pebble, I'm not familiar with Garmen's watches.

But seperately, I think it's really bad for innovation if no new product categories can exist unless Apple makes them first! You can imagine a different type of company that would have been delighted to work with Pebble and add functionality to their operating system, because third party compatibility strengthens their core product.

And of course, if this were the Mac, Pebble would not have needed Apple's cooperation...

hnburnsy
3 replies
1h17m

Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them. >

The two main differences are notifications filtering (choosing which apps can send notifications to the watch) and actioning notifications from the watch.

gnicholas
1 replies
1h0m

Huh? I can filter notifications with third-party smartwatches. Did it on Pebble, Fossil, and others.

hnburnsy
0 replies
20m

Maybe Garmin chooses not to implement it but it is all or nothing on iOS-> Garmin.

johnmaguire
0 replies
33m

Both of which are possible on Android, with a Garmin Fenix 6s.

eitally
2 replies
1h8m

With non-Apple Watches, you can't 1) reply to texts, 2) answer phone calls (or place calls), 3) interact with other native iPhone applications (like Apple Health).

You'll pry my Garmin from my cold, dead hands but there's no mistaking it for an actual "smart"-watch. I value it entirely for health & fitness, and the very few "smart" things it can do are just nice-to-have icing on the cake.

mscrivo
1 replies
46m

not sure "non-apple watches" is accurate here. I can do all of those things with my Pixel watch

edit: as comment below points out, I was missing the obvious context of paired with an iPhone.

rezonant
0 replies
40m

OP obviously meant non Apple watches paired with iPhones.

dktp
1 replies
1h36m

Interesting, I've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never felt like Apple was restricting them.

Sending messages from watch for example. Apple only allows that for Apple watches

LeifCarrotson
0 replies
1h4m

I've also had two Garmin watches and I've always been on Android. I also have had Tiles since long before Airtags existed.

Both Garmin and Tile work flawlessly on my Android devices. I've tried to help my wife add them to her iPhone and it's just not worked right, it's a fight to keep things connected and the Tile app only works when it's open and you can't reply to messages from the Garmin and on and on.

I appreciate the efforts to protect privacy and battery life, I can certainly imagine a different Bluetooth device than the Garmin with a worse app that would use the permissions granted it for nefarious purposes, or a worse tracker than the Tile that would wear down battery life with poorly-coded constant background activity, but Apple are clearly also acting in their own selfish interests.

gnicholas
0 replies
1h1m

You can't reply to text messages from other smartwatches, or at least not organically (only canned responses).

abawany
0 replies
1h18m

replying to sms is one: garmins can do this on Android but only recently (venu 2+, venu 3) got limited ability to do so on ios.

0xffff2
0 replies
1h39m

Likewise, I'm a happy Garmin watch owner. Wondering what I'm missing because I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

jacobr1
23 replies
1h43m

Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.

Not sure I buy this point. Competitors can also offer their own suite of apps. Apple has an advantage that they can come pre-installed. But they aren't really building super-apps, just a variety of default apps - nothing stops third parties from offering multiple apps on the platform, that is actually a common thing to do.

edanm
6 replies
1h38m

EDIT: My comment was wrong, please see helpful corrections below!

I think there are technical limitations when you have different apps vs. one app. Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.

idle_zealot
4 replies
1h32m

Apps on iOS are allowed to communicate and share data so long as they are published by the same developer.

edanm
3 replies
1h27m

I didn't know that, can they share logins across apps?

E.g. if I'm logged into Google Spreadsheets, am I also logged into Google Docs automatically?

shuckles
0 replies
1h21m

Yes all apps by the same developer have a shared container.

ahsteele
0 replies
1h17m

Yes, exactly.

atomicUpdate
0 replies
1h21m

Simples being you need to log in to multiple different apps, but things like data moving between them etc are also complications.

I don't think this is actually true. Specifically, once I've logged into one Google app (like Gmail), others automatically pick up the user (like Calendar), so it seems to at least be technically possible.

jabart
5 replies
1h33m

Having an app that competes with an existing Apple app is considered a duplicate app and you can be rejected because of it.

SllX
2 replies
57m

This was more of an issue early in the App Store’s history than later on. Apple’s relaxed on that a lot a long time ago and you can use any number of contacts, calendars, email clients, browsers, camera apps, messengers, maps apps and so on.

micromacrofoot
0 replies
5m

not really for browsers, they allow them but they all have to use Safari's engine

afavour
0 replies
6m

But it still exists in their rules. That they don’t enforce it as often as they used to is cold comfort: they still can whenever they feel the need to do so. So if you get too successful they can still very easily chop you down.

noahtallen
1 replies
1h3m

Wouldn't that rule out so many apps? E.g. Netflix competing with Apple TV, Goggle Photos vs Apple Photos, Google maps vs Apple maps, any note-taking app, camera, email client, browser, or weather app... What actually gets you rejected?

landryraccoon
0 replies
27m

Does Apple ever have to give you a reason why you're rejected, or tell the truth even if they give you a reason?

That's probably the biggest reason I think that Society (with a capital S) should rein in Apple a bit. They have a lot of power and money over the consumer, but on top of that they have no obligation to provide transparency and truthfulness. Given how dependent people are on their phones, I think it's perfectly fair for the state to step in and say that the power imbalance between consumers and Apple should be equalized a bit.

KptMarchewa
4 replies
1h18m

Either provide a platform or compete in one. Don't do both.

robertlagrant
2 replies
1h11m

The problem here is that platform is not precise. You could say this means that Apple should just make the iPhone hardware, and software vendors should compete to create operating systems for it. There's no hard line.

perlgeek
0 replies
1h2m

It's not really a hard problem.

Even if you argue that for example a phone and messaging app should/must be preinstalled on a phone, Apple could allow competing apps for that, and uninstalling or disabling the preinstalled one. Then it would be much harder to argue for that they are unfairly competing in the platform they provide.

Courts are used to arguing over problems where there are no hard lines, I don't think they take "there's no hard line" as an excuse to do nothing to enable competition.

advael
0 replies
55m

I also agree with this. Not permitting the owner of a device to use a different operating system on it should be illegal, by a similar principle

InsomniacL
0 replies
1h6m

Doing both is fine so long as you as a platform provider don't give any preferential treatment to you as a user of the platform.

skeaker
1 replies
1h6m

I think it refers more to a hypothetical app that, when you're using it, would allow you to completely ignore the entire Apple software ecosystem. It would have its own home screen with launchers to things like a web browser, office tools, media, etc. I think this sort of thing never came to fruition because (aside from it being very hard to make) it would be way too bulky what with having to come in the form of a single app package. The ban on third party stores means it wouldn't be able to offer its own app store or come in segments so you can pick only the apps you want.

wizzwizz4
0 replies
9m

I think this sort of thing never came to fruition because (aside from it being very hard to make) it would be way too bulky what with having to come in the form of a single app package.

Note that the Android equivalent (custom launchers) doesn't need to, and iOS's implementation (Springboard.app), while more integrated than that, is still more modular than you describe. It's only App Store restrictions that prevent you from having an app that opens other apps. (If all apps cooperate, you can use the custom URL handler mechanism to work around the App Store restrictions.)

elawler24
0 replies
17m

You also have to buy all apps through Apple's app store to natively download to a device. The Digital Markets Act addressed something similar, requesting that developers can sell through alternate marketplaces. Apple came back with a proposal to (1) stick with the status quo with 30 percent commission on sales, (2) reduce commission to 17 percent with a 50 cent charge on downloads over a million, (3) sell through a competing app store and pay the download fee every time. (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/technology/app-store-euro....)

I've designed several apps (Fitstar, Fitbit, theSkimm) that were dependent on the Apple ecosystem. While it's a huge tax to comply with their rules, they also do a TON to help developers succeed, especially early on. They maintain components, provide developer tools, build entire languages, design new paradigms, and ensure quality. I've had a respect for the tax on a service they provide to both developers and end users. At this point though - they're acting as a monopoly, and it feels anti-competitive.

It's not just the developer tax that's a problem. Hiding behind a veil of privacy also doesn't forgive the introduction of "dark pattern" end user experiences - such as the inability to have a group chat with non Apple users. And no non-Apple share links on Apple Photo albums. These create digital "haves" vs "have-nots" - and not everyone in the world can afford to buy physical Apple devices. There must be protocols that allow information to be more interoperable so people have optionality and control over their digital identities.

diggan
0 replies
1h11m

Apple has an advantage that they can come pre-installed.

Not only that, apparently updates automatically push their apps on you as well, without even asking. Suddenly I had a "Journal" app added to my homescreen from nowhere, and I thought my device had been hacked before I realized what was going on.

Apple also have the advantage of not having to follow their own rules. Their apps can send notifications without asking for permission about it. "Journal" again is an example here where the app sent me a notification asking if I could permit them to send more notifications.

RowanH
0 replies
18m

I bet the Apple apps have much, much, better background activity/services support. Doing "background" uploads is nothing short of painful compared to Android.

While we never want to compete with core Apple apps, we're constantly having to say 'sorry that's the restrictions running on Apple' with background support.

(our usecase is we have a B2B app that has visual progress reports - so we'll have the same people on a team - the Android ones get their progress reports uploaded instantly, the iOS ones 'sorry keep your phone open'.)

harkinian
15 replies
1h13m

One thing I hope they mention: Apple put in proprietary extensions to give Apple-made Bluetooth headphones an advantage over all others, then removed the headphone jacks.

shuckles
9 replies
39m

“Apple improved upon the notoriously unreliable Bluetooth standard and then slightly degraded wired listening by requiring a $9 dongle” is quite a weak anti-trust argument. Almost all innovation comes from this type of vertical integration.

rezonant
2 replies
16m

These days the reliability problems of Bluetooth are effectively gone. Sure, it's not a perfect technology, but Bluetooth devices work completely reliably for me across tons of vendors.

Saying Bluetooth itself is unreliable is an outdated view. There are shitty Bluetooth devices yes, but the protocol works fine when paired with good devices

shuckles
0 replies
4m

AirPods came out 8 years ago. It’s good to hear it’s better now, though that doesn’t comport with my experience. Are you saying you’d prefer a world where innovation was held from the market for almost a decade while standards caught up and made them available to everyone and every product simultaneously?

harkinian
0 replies
16m

I have high-end Bose headphones from 2020, a new iPhone, and a new Mac. Bluetooth sucks. You're far better off with AirPods than anything else if you're going to use BT.

By the way, it's so bad that I don't use headphones anymore with the iPhone. I use the phone in speaker mode. And the only reason I even have a new iPhone is because AT&T dropped support for my old one.

skeaker
1 replies
33m

Huh? It sounds more like they deliberately broke everyone's devices except their own so you either have to pay them more to continue using your existing headset with an adapter, or if you have a bluetooth headset you're just shit out of luck unless you buy an Apple headset. How is that not anticompetitive?

shuckles
0 replies
5m

No actually any iPhone with a headphone jack continued to have a functioning headphone jack. And competitors marketed their phones with headphone jacks for a year and ended up also abandoning that feature.

andjd
1 replies
5m

Almost all innovation comes from this type of vertical integration.

Really? That's a bold claim. Having a large number of companies that are able to offer competing products and services tends to lead to innovation.

shuckles
0 replies
2m

Vertical integration and competition are orthogonal. Vertical integration is when Apple improves upon Bluetooth with a proprietary enhancement to the standard. Competition is Pixel Buds advertising a similar feature set.

shkkmo
0 replies
29m

Almost all innovation comes from this type of vertical integration.

In what world?

harkinian
0 replies
8m

Do you actually use the dongle? It doesn't work with inline mics, making it useless even if you were to carry it around everywhere. It also doesn't work with previous iPhones, so you can't share say a car aux between an old and a new iPhone.

rootusrootus
4 replies
38m

It's hard to tie all that together. Generic Bluetooth devices work just like you are used to everywhere else -- that is, kinda shitty and unreliable. Must we suffer a universally crappy experience by preventing Apple from improving BT for their own headsets?

Maybe they should be required to license the tech, if they are not already. But I don't want to degrade my experience just because that's the only way to have a level playing field. Maybe the BT standards group could get off their ass and make the underlying protocol better.

rezonant
2 replies
21m

This isn't accurate, normal Bluetooth works much better than you might imagine. The kind of things that are added on top with Apple's solution are things like fast pairing and instant device switching. They also have their own custom codecs, but most other Bluetooth communication devices also support custom codecs which, on Android for example, are enabled by installing a companion app.

Re: Bluetooth being better than you portray: Don't get me wrong, you can certainly run into problems, but in normal usage it works just fine. And Apple isn't fundamentally improving on the potential issues with their proprietary solutions.

harkinian
1 replies
17m

Normal BT drops to very low sound quality when the mic is in use, because it goes into "headset" mode. Apple got around that with an extension. Combined with the jank pairing and device switching, the difference is pretty big.

midnightdiesel
0 replies
2m

AirPods also drop audio quality severely when their mic is active, just as with Bluetooth. Apple hasn’t solved that in any way with some nefarious extension.

harkinian
0 replies
19m

I'm fine with Apple implementing BT to spec (i.e. crap) and having their own extensions to improve it. I'm not fine with them eliminating the only alternative, the jack. Since the first iPhone, there's been both BT and jack, and people clearly preferred the jack until Apple decided it was time to grow their accessories sector.

segasaturn
11 replies
2h22m

The messaging interop point is probably DOA since Apple has stated that they will be adding RCS support to iMessage.

The smartwatch point is interesting and not an argument I've seen made before, but it's a very good example of Apple's vendor lock-in.

baq
8 replies
2h2m

Quote from the article:

The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit.

I read that as 'interop' is a secondary issue, if an issue at all; the actual case is the green/blue segregation. If Apple embedded a fingerprint in every interoperable message and shown blue messages for iMessage-sent content, green background for others, it'd still be a problem even if messages are otherwise identical - unless all the features truly work on both, in which case the color split is purely status signaling.

mopsi
7 replies
1h46m

Strage to see that as an issue; SMS is clearly an inferior protocol compared to iMessage and it's useful to know when messages have been downgraded.

throw0101c
4 replies
1h31m

Strage to see that as an issue; SMS is clearly an inferior protocol compared to iMessage and it's useful to know when messages have been downgraded.

Except that's not why the blue/green difference was created (at least historically).

It dates back to the time where SMS messages cost money for each one sent (though plans often came with x free messages), so the green message was telling you it was (potentially) costing you money when sending/receiving messages. (US$ = greenbacks -> green = cost)

baq
2 replies
40m

The intent of the color doesn't matter. The actual effect of the color is what matters. Hopefully to the courts, anyway.

tensor
1 replies
14m

The actual effect is to know when my message is secure. No, RCS or another protocol does not mean it’s secure, even if they have some encryption. The other app can still eavesdrop after the message has reached the end.

But perhaps the courts would want to weaken security. It’s definitely a thorn in their side.

baq
0 replies
1m

The actual effect is ostracism of green bubbles. You literally get kicked out of social circles and get peer-pressured into buying an iPhone.

danaris
0 replies
1h11m

That's also ahistorical.

The green bubbles came first.

iMessage didn't even exist for the first few years of the iPhone's life. All messages were green. Green could not have been chosen to indicate it cost money, because there was nothing to distinguish it from.

Then, in 2011 (IIRC), iMessage was introduced, and the blue bubbles were to indicate both that it doesn't cost money, and that it supports several other capabilities (which have changed over the years—IIRC, it did not start out with end-to-end encryption, so the people boldly asserting that that's the primary reason for the distinction are also wrong).

baq
0 replies
1h37m

I agree. That's why I'm saying interop is not the root of the problem. Segregation of people based on whether they are using iMessage or something else combined with inability to install iMessage on non-Apple devices causes a social problem and a significant smartphone market pressure.

TurningCanadian
0 replies
1h21m

iMessage is the monopoly part. They could make an App or even just an API available on other platforms but don't because they want the lock-in.

“The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in,” was how one unnamed former Apple employee put it in an email in 2016 > “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...

Not getting on board with RCS or any other way to improve SMS/MMS until they were (implicitly) forced was motivated by that desire to lock their users in to a messaging platform that only works on Apple devices.

mbreese
0 replies
1h39m

I’ve never understood the messaging interop angle when there are so many non-phone network based messaging apps available. It’s just always seemed the weakest of the arguments against Apple w.r.t. the iPhone. SMS/MMS/RCS standardization was historically a train wreck so it made sense to me for Apple to just support the minimum and be done with it. All of my groups chats that involve a mixture of iPhone and Android users has usually been on something like WhatsApp for this reason.

The other points seem much more specific and actionable.

Yizahi
0 replies
1h51m

That would be an interesting development, because apparently the other monopolist in this game is implementing RCS with some proprietary crap, and Apple will deliberately implement the current standard feature set. So they will continue being incompatible but now because of Google. I'll continue investing in the popcorn futures :) .

supportengineer
10 replies
44m

This makes me so angry. You have a choice in the market! Everything on this list is a feature which I am choosing as the customer. If I didn't want these features and benefits then I would make a different choice as a consumer. As a consumer I am not a victim. I can choose between iOS, Android, or something else.

jobs_throwaway
4 replies
39m

You are specifically choosing to not have message interoperability? Why?

supportengineer
3 replies
36m

We have message interoperability already. I can install any messenger of my choosing. I can install WeChat, Facebook Messenger, Slack, Signal, etc, etc.

But I don't need any of those because 99% of the people I communicate with are on iMessage.

skeaker
2 replies
30m

And again, you choose to not be able to communicate with that 1% over iMessage why? It sounds like being able to do so would only benefit you.

supportengineer
1 replies
18m

I actually offered to buy that person an iPhone. But regardless, no one is a victim here.

dleink
0 replies
4m

Android has a 70% global market share. You really only communicate with one person of that 70%?

baq
3 replies
38m

It isn't about you, it's about me who can't install iMessage on an Andorid phone or a Linux desktop and participate in your group chats in reasonable capacity.

supportengineer
2 replies
35m

One question: Who owns iMessage? Who pays to run the servers? Who pays for the bandwidth?

Do you allow your neighbors to use your yard and driveway that you pay for?

skeaker
0 replies
31m

If I had billions of dollars and a yard the size of a small country I probably wouldn't mind...

baq
0 replies
4m

I postulate people would gladly pay a cup of coffee's worth for a first party app and/or subscription. Certainly easier than shelling out a few hundred bucks for an iDevice.

skyyler
0 replies
39m

I wonder if people made comments like these in support of Internet Explorer when Microsoft was dealing with antitrust law in court.

theshrike79
5 replies
2h16m

All of these are pretty sane, except for:

Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android

Will they force Samsung and Google to have their watches interoperate with iOS too, or are they exempt because they are bit players in the field?

Fripplebubby
2 replies
2h3m

Here's a quote from the complaint:

Apple’s smartwatch—Apple Watch—is only compatible with the iPhone. So, if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new, Android-compatible smartwatch.
tombert
0 replies
51m

This actually kind of happened to me. My iPhone 12 Pro was stolen out of my hands last year in July. I had an Apple watch, but decided to replace the iPhone with a Pixel 7 Pro [1] since it was a bit cheaper than replacing the iPhone and I didn't have a job, and as a result my watch didn't work. Initially I was happy enough to use a dumb analog watch, but shortly after this happened, I was diagnosed with sleep apnea and wanted something that would track sleep. I ended up getting a Garmin Instinct (per a recommendation on HN actually).

I gotta admit that it would have been pretty nice to not have been forced to buy a new smartwatch, and just use the one I already had. I love the Garmin Instinct, more than I liked the Apple Watch [2], it's a very good, well-made product, and I'm happy that it appears to work fine on iOS and Android, but I really didn't need another watch. If there hadn't been an artificial limitation forcing me to get another watch, I would probably still be using the Apple Watch.

[1] I don't have that phone anymore because the Pixel 7 Pro is a horrible product that Google should be ashamed of themselves over.

[2] In no small part because the battery is like 16 days instead of the 1.5 days I was getting with the Apple Watch.

harkinian
0 replies
1h8m

Then don't buy an Apple Watch? They're pretty upfront about what it is.

pquki4
0 replies
1h50m

1. Samsung watch actually used to support iPhones. They dropped the support, likely due to business reasons and the limitations as described here 2. My naive understanding is that the question is not forcing anyone to support anything, but rather the ability to make it possible to do so. If Apple wants to have full support for Android phones, they are welcome to do so, but not vice versa -- nobody can possibly create a smartwatch that works as well as Apple Watch with iPhones.

n0us
0 replies
1h31m

I think no because an android compatible watch would be compatible with any other android phone, not only Google Watch <--> Google Phone.

madeofpalk
4 replies
1h38m

I believe Apple needs more regulatory action taken against it for abusing it's dominant position. But apart from cloud streaming apps (which they've resolved recently by allowing them), I find these claims to be pretty weak and not significantly market-affecting.

I strongly believe Apple is under no obligation to make iMessage cross-platform. It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose. SMS is the interoperable standard between different platforms, and RCS is the new standard which they've comitted to supporting.

I would much rather action taken on Apple for the anti-steering provisions restricting competition for payments. I think this has had a much bigger market impact than limitations on game streaming or smart watches.

rezonant
0 replies
8m

As sibling points out and I have argued strongly for in past discussions here, at issue is Apple's control of texting: That is, the ability for a phone to message any other phone with a text message without requiring the other participant to use a custom app. Only iMessage can do this on the iPhone.

In the consumer's eye, all phones can text, so it is a universal way to reach someone who has a phone number. It removes the complexity of having to coordinate ahead of time with a contact about what messaging service they both have. It's why texting is so popular in the US (along with historical actions by US carriers to make texting extremely cheap and ultimately free)

Once they had this control, they then used it to make texting better only when the conversation participants each had iPhones, which produced a network effect where friends would be incentivized to pressure their contacts to also use iPhones. Apple leveraged convenience, features and security to make this happen.

I don't anticipate Apple's upcoming RCS support to materially change this. If we're lucky, we'll get higher quality pictures out of it, but it's possible to support RCS while not supporting a lot of the features that make RCS better than SMS, such as read receipts, replies, typing indicators, and yes, encryption. Encryption is not a standard part of RCS yet, but it could be made so by Apple forcing Google to standardize their encryption and then implementing it. But it's not in Apple's interest given the above to bother. More likely they will do as their initial complaint/announcement about RCS hinted at: Not even engage on encryption because it's "not part of the spec", leaving iPhone/Android messaging unencrypted.

Google is not blameless here, it's insane that they haven't worked themselves to standardize encryption.

miloignis
0 replies
58m

That's one of the things I like about this complaint - it points out that they don't allow any other apps to support SMS, so only iMessage has the ability to message anyone with just a phone number, seamlessly upgrading if the other party has iMessage and using SMS otherwise.

It's not solely about iMessage not being open, it's about reserving key features for only iMessage to give it a significant advantage. (Also mentioned are other key bits like running in the background, etc)

carlosjobim
0 replies
31m

Where does that "dominant position" idea come from, that you and others are claiming in this thread? Apple is nowhere near having a dominant position in any of the markest where they compete, such as cell phones or computers.

amelius
0 replies
3m

I strongly believe Apple is under no obligation to make iMessage cross-platform. It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how they chose.

So if it were up to you all telecom operators would be on separate networks, because you can always use smoke signals to get your message across?

(I'm with you for niche applications where the number of users is small. But we're talking mainstream communication here.)

ryandrake
3 replies
1h28m

I just don’t understand the appeal of “Super Apps”. Do users really want to hire a taxi with the same application they use to message their friends, and have that be the same application they use to buy household goods, and have that be the same application they use to control their garage door? It doesn’t make sense to me. These are totally different tasks. Why would a user want to use the same app to do them?

Imagine the extreme end result of this: You buy a phone, and it’s OS comes with only one app installed: The Super App which you launch and do everything through it. How is that Super App not in fact the OS at that point?

skydhash
0 replies
2m

Google itself is a superapp at this point as you only have one account. But to answer your question, I think it’s because of interoperability issues. Why can’t my calendar services message me? Or why can’t I quickly create an event inside a chat? If you remember PDAs, they fell under the definition of one ecosystem to manage your communication and time, but now you have several services that refuses to talk to each other. One of the core strength of Apple is that kind of integration. It’s not that you want one company managing it all, you just want an integrated app ecosystem.

skeaker
0 replies
48m

The extreme result is indeed what Apple wants to avoid because you would more or less have a custom operating system at that point and could ignore Apple's software, which they would hate. Obviously it is not as good as being able to flash an actual new OS onto the device but it would still impact Apple's bottom line.

deegles
0 replies
1h26m

Do users really want ...

The answer is clearly yes in a lot of markets, even if purpose-built apps might be better at a specific tasks, a single app that does dozens of things "well enough" is more convenient than having to juggle dozens of login infos and para-relationships with app developers (managing graymail etc).

ChuckMcM
3 replies
56m

This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market. The first one I heard about[1] was IBM versus Memorex which was making IBM 360 "compatible" disk drives. IBM lost and it generated some solid case law that has been relied on in this sort of prosecution.

In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of money.

[1] I had a summer intern position in Field Engineering Services in 1978 and it was what all the FEs were talking about how it was going to "destroy" IBM's field service organization.

dmix
1 replies
48m

In the IBM case it opened up an entire industry of third party "compatible" peripherals and saved consumers a ton of money

I’m curious what market opportunities the Apple suit could open up.

- Xbox cloud game streaming

- WeChat like super apps w e-commerce (X wanted to do this play but more likely Facebook Messenger and the like)

- iMessage on android

- a receipt tracking app or something directly tied into Apple Pay tapping

ChuckMcM
0 replies
40m

From a hardware standpoint third party fitness trackers with full integration into iHealth and third party ear buds with the same (or better) features than airpods.

Part of the IBM settlement required them to document interoperability. That was used by the DoJ to force Microsoft to document their CIFS (distributed storage) and Active Directory (naming/policy) protocols.

The latter might be particularly instructive as my experience with CIFS when I worked at NetApp was the different ways that Microsoft worked to be "precisely" within the lines but to work against the intent. Documentation like "this bit of this word must always be '1'" Which as any engineer knows, if it really was always '1' then that bit didn't have to be in the protocol, so what did it do when it wasn't '1'?

xpe
0 replies
11m

This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against companies that are dominant in a market.

Not simply that a company is dominant; it is more about how and why they are dominant.

andy_ppp
2 replies
1h18m

Interesting! So this doesn’t include the 30% Apple tax in this lawsuit?

mrkstu
1 replies
39m

Epic losing their suit pretty much torpedoed that plank. The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.

dragonwriter
0 replies
32m

The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.

Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Epic v. Apple, even the exact same legal question with the exact same fact pattern would only be bound by that decision if it was (1) between the same parties (res judicata), or (2) in a district court under the Ninth Circuit.

Since US v. Apple is filed in the District of New Jersey, which is under the Third Circuit, the decision in Epic v. Apple is, at best, persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.

Funes-
2 replies
30m

What's stopping people from buying or using any other kind of phone, new or old? Or from producing one? None of what's listed here is relevant to that regard.

hyperbovine
0 replies
26m

Absolutely nothing. The claim that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market is just laughable. Android has 40% market share in the US and 70% globally.

shadowgovt
1 replies
1h16m

It's a good list, but I'll be interested to see how it becomes anti-trust actionable and not just "a good list of reasons not to buy an iPhone."

Why is any of this a problem when consumers who find all that too constraining can just use Android?

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
33m

Because its bad for consumers to have to choose a different device solely because of Apple's anti-competitive practices. This is exactly the sort of scenario when regulation is good - Apple is acting in their best interest, but its on-the-whole bad for the American consumer. We can have the good of Apple without the anti-competitive bullshit like a lack of message interoperability. We just need the government to enforce it

dathinab
1 replies
21m

They should have added claims for:

- NFC

apple does have full NFC support for their products but for other apps there are tons of road blocks for using anything close to full NFC functionality

- Bluetooth

same, similar more usable, but some functionality is still not available for 3rd party apps at all meaning certain things can only be provided 1st party by Apple

- Strange behaviour when releasing questionable competive Apps

There had been multiple cases where Apple released 1st party apps and it "happened" that the previous leader(s) of previous existing 3rd party apps "happened" to have issues with releasing updates around that time (or similar strange coincidental behavior). Additionally such new apps often had some new non-documented non public APIs which makes it harder for 3rd parties to compete.

- Questionable app store reviews

Stories of apps running in arbitrary you could say outright despotic harassment when wrt. the app store reviews are more then just few (to be clear legal non malicious apps which should be fully legal on the apple app store).

EDIT: To be clear for the first 2 points apple always have excuses which seem reasonable on the surface until you think it through a bit more (e.g. similar to there excuse for banning PWAs in the EU, I think they might have undid that by now). And for the other points it's always arbitrary enough so that in any specific case you could call it coincidence, but there is a pattern.

pksebben
0 replies
5m

Bluetooth remains my biggest gripe with my iphone. When I walk out of range of any connected device, my call switches from my headset to the phone, and I have to manually go in and reconnect to my headset every third or fourth time I want to connect to it.

It stands in stark contrast to literally everything else about the device, which is almost universally easy and thoughtless.

wkat4242
0 replies
23m

In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform.

But WeChat is available on iOS isn't it? If not the iPhone would be pretty impossible to sell there, just like Huawei's android without Google play don't sell here in the west.

wiremine
0 replies
28m

the case rests on specific claims

In this case, could a resolution involve resolving the individual claims, or are the plaintiffs looking for a more all encompassing solution?

slibhb
0 replies
10m

I'd be more sympathetic to the government's arguments if Android phones didn't exist. But they do, and people can use them if they don't like Apple's walled garden.

As things are, this lawsuit seems like the government striking an aggressive posture torwards tech companies for no good reason. It's almost like -- as the tech companies get bigger and more powerful -- the government wants to remind them who's really in charge.

screye
0 replies
25m

As someone who never uses Apple devices, iMessage is the only true form of monopoly based control that Apple imposes. Apple's 30% costs are harsh, but it is not like Google or MSFT charge anything less.

Such cases always seem to reach a pre-determined conclusion, that has more to do with the political winds of the era, than true legal determinism.

Looking at the accusations from that lens:

1. Super Apps - I don't see how 'Apple doesn't share enough data with Chinese super apps' is going to fly 2024 America. It also has huge security and privacy impliciations. This accusation seems DOA.

2. Streaming games is tricky, but it isn't a big revenue stream. The outcome for this point appears immaterail to Apple stock.

3. iMessage - This is the big one. I see the whole case hinging on this point.

4. Smartwatches. Meh, Apple might add inter-op for apple smartwatches on android. I don't think this will lead to any users switching over or an actually pleasing experience.

5. Digital Wallets. This seems tacked on. Apps are PhonePe and PayTm work just fine on Apple and Android. I have never heard of anyone using a Digital Wallet that is not Apple pay, Google Pay or Samsung Pay. Are digital wallets a big revenue stream for Apple ?

s1k3s
0 replies
28m

This is somewhat aligned with the recent trouble they had in EU as well, so now two different regulatory agencies call them out for the same topics. Are they going to claim "security reasons" again?

nozzlegear
0 replies
33m

Thanks for summarizing. As someone deeply entrenched in Apple's ecosystem, and who admittedly prefers the walled garden, I really have no problem if any of these five things were struck down.

Better competition for cloud streaming apps? Seems good for me as a user. Better messaging interoperability? I don't have anyone in my family or friends group who wasn't already on an iPhone, and I thought this was coming already with RCS anyway, but sure let's go. Better smartwatch support? If it makes Apple want to build even better Apple Watches, I'm all for it. And all of my cards already work with Apple Wallet so this has no bearing on me either.

The only one that's really ambiguous is "Super Apps". I'd be greatly inconvenienced if Apple things stopped working so well together, but I wouldn't be inconvenienced at all if others get a chance to build their own "super apps".

jajko
0 replies
16m

Yet the most important issue for many is missing (unless something changed recently) - inability to access filtered cesspool of scam, malware and annoyance that modern ad-infested internet is.

Jihad against anything actually working well (ie firefox and ublock origin) due to to be polite dubious reasons. Apple gatekeeping is just a move to ads for themselves, it was already multibillion business for them last year. Thats monopolistic behavior in plain sight.

empath-nirvana
0 replies
9m

I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.

If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.

emodendroket
0 replies
1h0m

Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.

Does Apple not let others offer a suite of apps?

djaychela
0 replies
2h13m

Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.

This is the reason I am now on an iPhone after being on Android since ~2009. But this could also apply to Samsung too. There were two watches I was considering - Samsung's and Apple's (for health monitoring reasons, I have a family history of heart problems, and am already nearly 10 years older than my dad was when he died). I would either have to buy a Samsung phone or an iPhone to get the functionality I wanted, and TBH I really don't like Samsung's take on Android (I've been either Cyanogenmod or Motorola for over a decade), so an iPhone it was. But I would have preferred to get an Apple Watch and have that work fully with my Android phone, but that's not even a starter, let alone the limited-functionality you would get with a Samsung watch with another Android phone.

I'm happy with the watch, and I now like a lot about the iPhone. But it was 4x the price of my previous phone.

dfabulich
0 replies
2m

We do have "Super Apps" in the Western world. They're called "web browsers."

Note that Apple doesn't allow alternative web browsers on iOS, so Safari/WebKit is the only Super App allowed on iOS.

https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-browser-ban/

When you download Chrome, Firefox or any other browser that isn't Safari on an Apple device, that browser is forced to use Safari's rendering engine WebKit. Chrome normally uses Chromium, and Firefox Gecko. However, Apple will not allow those browsers to use their own engines. Without the ability to use their own engines, those browsers are unable to bring you their latest and greatest features, and can only go so far as whatever WebKit has added.
brocket
0 replies
29m

Do they mention CarPlay? It drives me crazy that it only integrates notifications with Apple first party apps. It will send me notifications for iMessage or Apple calendar, but completely silences and hides Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google calendar, Google voice, etc no matter what settings I try. It's frankly dangerous because it forces me to check my phone while driving in case of an urgent message or call. Meanwhile Android auto will show me all notifications and I can silence them while driving if I choose.

boringg
0 replies
56m

In terms of (4) Why would the apple watch want to have to build and maintain their apple watch on the google platform. Its funny that a company not wanting to work on another platform (probably due to business costs of doing that) is being considered anti-competitive.

Making it difficult for 3rd party .. sure but trying to force apple to have their hardware work on other platforms is a business decision .

bloppe
0 replies
34m

I'm surprised no mention of Apple's forced 30% on all transactions, complete with hard requirement that you never mention the fee to your users.

Der_Einzige
0 replies
1h36m

Holy mother of based.

I love the current US government. Cracking down on pretty much all of Apples bullshit in one fell-swoop. Now just stop them from offering 8gb of ram on the base model macbooks, and apple might be the perfect tech company.

boringg
124 replies
3h36m

It looked surprisingly pretty weak to my non lawyer eyes. I mean I fully understand that apple business practices are building a moat through highly integrated software but its almost a feature for their system and you buy it knowing that.

It feels like it goes back to Android vs Apple approach to their ecosystem.

ethbr1
91 replies
3h16m

that apple business practices are building a moat through highly integrated software

To me, this is the crux of modern antitrust, and the EU absolutely got it correct at a high level.

In simplest form -- doing certain things as an almost-monopoly and/or extremely large business should be illegal, while doing them as a smaller company should not be.

The scale of global businesses, in low-competition industries, allows them to engineer moats that are deeply injurious to fair competition, to their own profit and the detriment of everyone else.

you buy it knowing that.

I think it's debatable whether the average iPhone customer buys it, knowing it allows Apple to heavily tax all AppStore developers.

whywhywhywhy
61 replies
2h49m

I think it's debatable whether the average iPhone customer buys it, knowing it allows Apple to heavily tax all AppStore developers.

I think if you explained it to the average iPhone customer you might be shocked they side with Apple. The concept of a platform where for free you can take advantage of it and just make 100% of the revenue without cutting in the owner of the platform is completely alien to how things work in what they consider the real world.

I can't just walk into Walmart and set up a stand and make money, if I want to sell in Walmart I have to work with them and give them a similar sized cut. If I even set my stall up on the street I have to pay for permits, certification, suppliers.

Not saying I agree with the App Store tax because I actually don't but I think the way they set it up as a "Store" was very clever in making it seem completely normal when it's completely abnormal compared to all personal computing up to that point, which maybe was an anomaly? Hope not.

_aavaa_
27 replies
2h39m

But even in real life this doesn't hold.

I can't just walk into Walmart and set up a stand and make money, if I want to sell in Walmart I have to work with them and give them a similar sized cut.

Apple's App Store might be Walmart, but the phone I bought is not Walmart.

Regular people understand the idea of "I bought a thing, and now the greedy company won't let me do what I want with it unless I buy their overpriced add-on", see printers.

Apple is no more entitled to a cut of everything I put on my iPhone anymore than Walmart is entitled to a cut of everything I put on my table simply because they made the table.

kemayo
12 replies
2h13m

Apple's App Store might be Walmart, but the phone I bought is not Walmart.

I don't know if that's inherently correct in people's eyes. For a counterexample, note that video game consoles are very popular, and I don't see any widespread opposition to the idea that e.g. Nintendo is controlling what you can play on a Switch.

_aavaa_
5 replies
1h53m

I wouldn't be so sure. A major reason people pick PC gaming over consoles is specifically because they have control over what they are allowed to do.

t888
2 replies
1h51m

And they are free to make that choice. Surely consumers who care about this choose Android.

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
14m

The point of the suit is, they should be free to make that choice on their iPhone. No one is going to remove the app store, and if you love sucking from the teat of Apple so much, you can continue to do so in an environment where there are competing app stores

_aavaa_
0 replies
1h47m

Rights are things that you cannot choose to give up. You explicitly cannot trade them away since the poorest people would be forced to do that in order to afford anything.

I assert that I have rights under the first sale doctrine which let me do whatever I want with the things I own. Apple has no more of a right to dictate what I put on my device than Walmart has a right to dictate when I put on my table simply because they sold it to me.

kemayo
1 replies
1h40m

I'm sort of skeptical about that being a major factor, though I'll admit I've not seen any good surveys about it.

(My money is on "I already have this computer for work" being the single biggest factor, with "the graphics can be better on the PC" being #2.)

_aavaa_
0 replies
1h35m

Anecdotally, the people I know who do console gaming are really fed up with the lack of backwards compatibility; New console comes out, all your old games are now incompatible.

Now PC games often lose backwards compatibility when upgrading OS versions, but patches, compatibility modes, and even VMs are realistic options and ones that people will use.

dotnet00
2 replies
1h42m

While interest in doing so on handhelds has lessened a little due to phones almost always being more capable, wanting to be able to run custom software on consoles is common enough that lots of effort is spent on the cat and mouse game between console hackers and console makers.

kemayo
1 replies
1h39m

Yes, piracy is admittedly very popular. (And maybe 0.02% of said custom software isn't piracy, but...)

dotnet00
0 replies
53m

You might think that, but at least back during the PSP and PSVita days (when I was into consoles), a large chunk of it was about the homebrew. For a decent chunk of the Vita's existence you only could do homebrew and emulators. Piracy is always just a service problem, with most other pirates being people who weren't going to be customers anyway.

bombcar
2 replies
1h39m

The consoles are the most obvious example, but there are other things, too.

Perhaps the "best" counter argument is the Mac App Store and Steam - both of which take a big cut, both of which can be "easily" bypassed for many apps, and both of which customers don't really seem to care about from a monetary point of view.

People care much more about what is or is not permitted, not where the money goes.

stale2002
0 replies
4m

both of which take a big cut, both of which can be "easily" bypassed for many apps, and both of which customers don't really seem to care about from a monetary point of view.

This isn't true. You cannot bypass the stream 30% fee from the consumer side.

Because of practices that stream does, which are arguably anti-competitive, I cannot buy the same exact game, from the game developer's website, and receive a 30% discount.

If such discounts were possible, and it was clearly advertised that I could just get the game for cheaper from a different location, customers would absolutely take that option almost always.

kemayo
0 replies
1h38m

In fairness, from everything I've heard the Mac App Store is really not doing well.

donny2018
5 replies
1h54m

As an iPhone user, if I wanted a phone with Samsung, Amazon, Epic and Huawei stores, 3 different preinstalled browsers and my workflows depended on sideloading some obscure app for a website in Turkey, I'd go with Android. Such an option exists for people who are into that.

But I chose iPhone (and I think many other customers do) specifically for it being a walled garden. Now some other corporations like Epic, who want to have a cake and eat it too, are going to ruin one of the platform's key selling points.

_aavaa_
4 replies
1h50m

my workflows depended on sideloading some obscure app

And if your workflow did require an obscure app, who is Apple to decided that you cannot install it on your own phone?

But I chose iPhone (and I think many other customers do) specifically for it being a walled garden.

People like this walled garden since apple promises that it's safe and they deal with all of the problems for you. But time and time again we see that their App Store features outright scams and mountains of knockoff garbage apps.

People buy into the marketing of the walled garden, not the reality of it.

donny2018
3 replies
1h30m

People like this walled garden since apple promises that it's safe and they deal with all of the problems for you.

I get the "safety" argument, but it's also about the user experience. What if now Microsoft makes me install Microsoft store to use M365 apps, Amazon makes me install whatever store to use their products, etc? What do I win here as a consumer?

I buy iPhone specifically for what it is. I get that some people don't like walled garden approach, so they have Android at their service. Apple is not a monopoly.

What is the point of buying a phone knowing what you are getting, and then complaining about something you knew full well it doesn't have?

_aavaa_
2 replies
1h24m

Apple is not a monopoly.

The lawsuits is literally about this.

What is the point of buying a phone knowing what you are getting, and then complaining about something you knew full well it doesn't have?

Because the thing the company is offering is a behaviour that overall is not one we as a society want (Apple being allowed to dictate what businesses will and will not succeed by either locking them out of 1/2 of the major mobile OS, or by taking a 30% tax from their revenue and then competing against them).

donny2018
1 replies
1h6m

Apple being allowed to dictate what businesses will and will not succeed by either locking them out of 1/2 of the major mobile OS, or by taking a 30% tax from their revenue and then competing against them

All app stores (and most real-world markets and stores) do that. This is a business model. And as a store owner who invested billions of dollars to build it, and the entire platform and infrastructure around it, you are in your full right to decide the rules on what is allowed there and what is not, and how much to charge. If your rules are unfair or disadvantageous to the competition, sellers and customers simply will not come. But as we can see, App Store is the most successful app marketplace on the planet, both for developers and consumers.

Just as Google is the most successful search engine on the planet for advertisers, website owners and consumers, regardless of the fact that Google can fully dictate what appears in its search results or what advertisers can put in their ads, and how much Google charges for it.

So I don't quite understand what exactly the argument here.

This this different argument than allowing sideloading apps (that one is quite fair, I'll admit).

_aavaa_
0 replies
58m

It is related to side loading. Apple for a long time disallowed side loading (even know it barely counts). So if you wanted to sell anything to iPhone users you had to go through Apple's store and potentially compete with them at a 30% tax disadvantage.

Even with the current side loading changes, which are EU only, they still take a major cut and still dictate who can and cannot run a store.

So I agree with you that the App Store, like author physical stores have the right to dictate what they do and do not sell. However, they do not have the right to say that they're the only store allowed, or that any new store that wants to open must pay them money.

Also, I'd be hesitant of using Google's behaviour, certainly its current behaviour or current market position as justification for what is okay for others to do.

eecc
4 replies
2h8m

I've been a loyal iPhone user since what? the iPhone 3.

The moment Apple is forced to "open up to the competition", all Meta apps are going to magically move to the Meta Store, where they'll likely be able to shove all sorts of tracking garbage down my throat.

Same for Alphabet, same for Samsung, same for Microsoft.

The experience will turn into a hopeless struggle against EULAs and consents, unless one refuses to install any third-party spyware and do the digital equivalent of moving into a forest cabin. The oddball, while everyone else sheepishly complies.

Evenyone loves to hate Apple, everyone forgets that the first commercial music store to sell unencrypted and hugh fidelity AAC files was Apple's. The rest was "squirting" tunes on Zune or inflicting Realmedia on their paying customers.

Nope.

_aavaa_
2 replies
2h4m

I don't think your points about Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Firstly. If they are doing things we don't want them to do, the solution is regulations, not a monopoly.

So if you're unhappy with their behaviour, that should be made illegal.

Secondly. Apple's protection against tracking comes from the OS level. The OS stops them from accessing my contacts and my GPS location, not apple's 30% tax.

sell unencrypted and hugh fidelity AAC files was Apple's.

So what. How unencrypted are those audio files now? They've since moved on to FairPlay.

katbyte
1 replies
1h35m

How about we regulate tracking apps etc first then force Apple to change?

_aavaa_
0 replies
1h23m

This argument leads nowhere since it just as well applies the other way around.

Both are problems, both need solving.

soygem
0 replies
1h55m

loyal iPhone user >tracking garbage
immibis
1 replies
2h21m

Apple users do not understand that. That was the comment's point.

_aavaa_
0 replies
2h7m

I don't think so. It seemed very strong about "Even if they would know, they still wouldn't care". Which I think is absolutely false. See people constantly complaining about having to buy expensive inkjet cartridges.

katbyte
0 replies
1h36m

But this is why the eu case made more sense? It went after Apple for not allowing side loading of app stores vs this one which seems to be going after what Apple does on its own store?

sleepybrett
11 replies
2h43m

Or any nintendo or playstation or xbox. I can't just sideload games into any of them either.. or any of my 'smarttvs' etc.

Would this mean that anyone must be able to load any software into any platform that runs on software, or are we just picking on apple because they are popular. And got popular while doing all these things.. if people didn't want it they wouldn't have bought into it in the first place.

dragonwriter
4 replies
2h21m

are we just picking on apple because they are popula

Well, yes, antitrust law specifically, by design, focusses more on large market players, not small ones (there are some aspects still relevant to any participant, though.)

That's kind of central to the whole problem it is intended to solve.

Foxhuls
3 replies
1h38m

So you would say that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are not large market players?

dragonwriter
1 replies
1h36m

Which of those has not faced significant antitrust scrutiny?

Foxhuls
0 replies
7m

You could have initially responded with that instead of reasoning that apple is being focused due to being a large player while dismissing other large companies being brought up.

asadotzler
0 replies
7m

Nope, 100M consoles in an internet of several billion where Apple has literal billions of devices in market are not at all the same thing and bringing that up suggests you don't think very hard before you post or you're trying to derail those who do.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
0 replies
2h24m

are we just picking on apple because they are popular

"Popularity" is a precondition to running afoul of antitrust law, yes..

metabagel
0 replies
2h26m

Apple convinced us that only they could keep us safe. Turns out their argument is specious - they can't keep us safe either. They haven't been able to keep malicious apps off of their App Store.

immibis
0 replies
2h19m

They are probably not monopolies in the legal sense, since there are three of them with comparable market share and they also compete with the PC, which is open. I suspect there would be more pressure to do something about it if those weren't the case.

Apple sells something like 70% of phones in the USA due to network effects that might not be apparent to users in other countries - social shaming for not using iMessage. The European equivalent is WhatsApp, which the EU is forcing to open up.

dzikimarian
0 replies
2h11m

I've Google TV and it allows sideloading. Yes, it should be allowed for all devices.

bombcar
0 replies
1h29m

I would love all hardware to have an "open option" that disables all security keys, doesn't let you run signed software, whatever, but lets you "hack" the device.

I'm also fine with Nintendo selling games via their store and physically, and taking whatever cut they can bear of it.

(80% of App Store revenue is "games" anyway, so it's a much closer analogy than people might expect. They may end up opening everything except games and only cost them 20% of revenue.)

Meanwhile you can get full advantage of the iPhone ecosystem "for $100/yr" which is nearly free, including App Store distribution, etc. If anything, Apple should be charged with dumping in those cases.

autoexec
0 replies
2h10m

Or any nintendo or playstation or xbox. I can't just sideload games into any of them either

Homebrew is a thing, and you should be able to use whatever software you want on a device that you paid for. I have no doubt that there are people who own an iphone and wish they could have a different browser, or wish they could use a game streaming app.

freedomben
6 replies
2h13m

I think if you explained it to the average iPhone customer you might be shocked they side with Apple. The concept of a platform where for free you can take advantage of it and just make 100% of the revenue without cutting in the owner of the platform is completely alien to how things work in what they consider the real world.

Who is arguing it should be free? Why create a false dichotomy where it's either the status quo (30%) or nothing (0%)?

I'm sure most people would accept a reasonable fee. It's hard to put an exact number on this because it would have emerged organically if Apple actually allowed fair competition in app stores. In the absence of fair competition, the best comparison I can think of is credit card processing which is about 3%

And don't forget that Apple receives enormous benefit from these apps being in their store. If not, consider what would have happened had Apple not allowed any apps in their store. Hint: Android would have eaten the world.

zer00eyz
3 replies
1h49m

> the status quo (30%)

Why is this number so bad? Steam: 30% https://medium.com/@koneteo.stories/how-much-money-does-stea...

> In the absence of fair competition, the best comparison I can think of is credit card processing which is about 3%

Sure 3%, + a flat fee of .02 to .10 per transaction. that flat portion is going to be HUGE if your charing under $5 for something. You get none of that money back for chargebacks, or refunds. And if your charge backs are high your going to pay more as a % or get dropped so your going to have to hire CS people to answer emails or phones, and say nice things to angry people. You're going to pay someone to pay cc compaines to give money back.

Meanwhile you're small, you have no clue if the person on the other end is a refund scammer. Apple (and Steam) have this habit of telling people to "fuck off" if they refund scam. They have the weight with CC processors to do that. you will not. They also have customer trust, because if your product (game/app) is shitty they give customers money back (See Epic 1/2 billion settlement for being bad about this, and kids).

Is 30 percent high. It is. Is it unreasonable... meh maybe not?

freedomben
2 replies
1h40m

Thanks that is a great question.

The thing with Steam that makes it different to me is the access control and gatekeeping. For example Steam hardware is so open that you can immediately install a different OS on it without even booting it. Steam hardware will happily run any third-party app store you want, including Epic Games their main rival. Steam also (AFAIK) don't do exclusivity BS like the consoles often do. So when it comes to Steam they are clearly competing fairly and evenly in a free market. If Apple were the same (iPhone could run 3rd party app stores, or you could install Android on you Apple hardware) I would have absolutely no problem with 30%. Hell I wouldn't even have a problem with 90%, because if they weren't providing that much value then a competitor would come in and take it from them.

zer00eyz
0 replies
34m

> So when it comes to Steam they are clearly competing fairly and evenly in a free market. If Apple were the same (iPhone could run 3rd party app stores, or you could install Android on you Apple hardware)

I can buy android devices that are as good as the iPhone or better in their own way and have all those features (side loading other app stores). Is that not the free market in action?

bombcar
0 replies
1h35m

That would be an interesting way for Apple to side-step the whole question: unlock the bootloaders and make it clear how you could do whatever you wanted with it (except run hacked iOS).

The number of people buying iPhones to run even a slick version of Android would probably be quite small.

bombcar
0 replies
1h37m

I was actually thinking about that - the number of paid non-game apps on my phone that I actually use? It's zero.

Most apps are free and are things like 2fa, chat apps, kindle, etc.

Would I be sad if the entire App Store shut down? Probably. Would it be enough to move me to Android? Uncertain, probably not.

MatthiasPortzel
0 replies
1h0m

I don’t know where this idea that 30% is an unreasonable monopoly-sustained fee comes from. Stripe’s fee is 2.9% plus 0.30, so it would be way more than 3% on small purchases, which I assume are a lot of App Store transactions. Steams is 30% even though there’s compition (Discord tried to run a store with a 90/10 split and shut it down very quickly). Google Play is the same as Apple’s, and they allow other payment processors (for non-games). On the other hand, Audible has no competition, and they have a 75% fee (as in they keep 75%).

Most App developers aren’t even paying 30%, they’re paying the lower 15%.

visarga
3 replies
2h20m

An iPhone is less like Walmart and more like a computer. We should run whatever we like on our own hardware.

FrustratedMonky
2 replies
2h7m

I think Nintendo would disagree.

davely
0 replies
1h52m

They would. But they’re wrong.

asadotzler
0 replies
9m

And with 100M users instead of billions, it also simply doesn't matter what Nintendo thinks.

jdminhbg
3 replies
2h19m

I think the way they set it up as a "Store" was very clever in making it seem completely normal

The App Store was not a business innovation by Apple to set expectations, it's how all cell phone software that preceded it worked. Apple's change was to lower the fees and open up access to everyone.

hamandcheese
1 replies
2h9m

General computing on a mobile device was never mainstream, or even common, before the iPhone. Smartphones are much closer to laptops than pre-smart phones, IMO.

jdminhbg
0 replies
2h2m

Sure, but that doesn't change the point. The App Store exists as it is because the iPhone was a phone and that's how things were done on phones. Apple didn't create the model, they just continued it.

zer00eyz
0 replies
1h59m

> Apple's change was to lower the fees and open up access to everyone.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that ring tones cost an arm and a leg, that "apps" were awful (I know I designed one)... You had to pay to get your app on a phone even if it was free.

kmeisthax
1 replies
2h13m

Most consumers are not even aware of how restrictive iOS is - for the same reason why they aren't aware game consoles do the same thing but way worse. All they know is where to buy compatible software.

If you told them "you have to pay 30% to the person who invented books every time you write something" they'd scream censorship and call for an armed revolution.

bombcar
0 replies
1h32m

Authors often receive much less than that for each book they sell - the best you can get is self-publishing on Kindle or something where you can net 70%: https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200634560

People generally know this, and they generally don't care.

Hikikomori
1 replies
2h14m

Walmarts cut is largely based on their costs to stock and sell the item. Appstores costs are not related to the cut they take as they have >80% profit margin.

andruby
0 replies
1h52m

Is it though? Or is it based on the value the seller gets?

It's both of course, but I think they price based on the value rather than on the cost. (ie: percentage of sales, not per shelfspace)

paulryanrogers
0 replies
2h43m

Arguably phones are becoming less like stores and more like a significant part of life. This is especially true as more and more of modern life demands a smart phone and apps.

And the only options are to take the deal -- modifiable at any time by the platform owner -- or burn down your digital life and start over on the only other practical competitor.

nonameiguess
0 replies
2h42m

This is a framing issue. I think your comment is a great comment and probably does reflect a popular understanding. A farmer can't just set up shop in a supermarket without first paying and submitting to some vetting by the store owner. The problem here is that Apple doesn't just own the store or the platform for publicity and distribution. They also own the platform on which the software is run. It is analagous to Walmart also owning your house and not allowing you to buy home goods from any store except Walmart. I don't believe an average consumer would find that to be an acceptable business practice.

ecshafer
22 replies
3h6m

I don't consider myself an Apple fan, but Apple users definitely buy into the idea that "it just works" compared to Android or Windows, which the highly integrated software is a key component of.

tikkabhuna
9 replies
2h57m

In my opinion, Apple have a choice. They go down the "just works", tight integration and lower the fees for other developers OR they open up for competition and keep the fees.

At the moment they're double dipping. They're saying they have to be the only app store for security and UX AND then charging high fees. If they're really providing a service for end users, they shouldn't be taking such a large cut from developers.

chiefalchemist
5 replies
2h44m

But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out? Sure, it's a nice profitable margin-padding fee but how else do they keep out the bottom feeders? Do Apple users what to pay a premium to get more useless noise?

Note: I'm not defending Apple. But the higher dev fees do serve a purpose other than revenue.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
2 replies
2h17m

Back in the day you used to have to pay a bunch of money upfront to buy the software that allows you to develop software for a particular platform, then you were free to distribute your software as you wish.

If Apple is really concerned about keeping out the riff raff they could raise the annual flat developer fees.

But we all know that's not what they're actually concerned about - the app store is estimated to have 80% margins right now. They're just charging what the market will bear, and the market will bear quite a lot right now as they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

chiefalchemist
1 replies
1h47m

they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

Well, that's another conversation then isn't it? If that's the case, then Apple and Google (Play) should be named then, yes?

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
0 replies
1h29m

Only if the justice department believes Google has been using its dominant market position to harm consumers.

ethbr1
0 replies
2h39m

If high fees (with high margins) are there to ensure the integrity of the store, then Apple could invest more of that margin into ensuring the integrity of the store.

autoexec
0 replies
2h1m

But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out?

It doesn't keep malware from getting in. If it's hurting people by limiting their choices and it isn't keeping people safe then what good is it?

barkerja
1 replies
2h38m

If I'm Apple, I just open the gates. I would be very surprised if they lose much "business" as a result, at least not for a very long time.

I'd suspect most users aren't going to venture outside the garden.

bdauvergne
0 replies
1h40m

No but their margin will reduce, their market cap too and a lot of money will start to flow to people really innovating.

ethbr1
0 replies
2h51m

If they're really providing a service for end users, they shouldn't be taking such a large cut from developers.

Bingo. If they're making an argument that they have to retain so much control because it's good for the users, then why are their margins so big?

I'm not saying companies shouldn't be able to run successful, highly-profitable businesses.

I'm saying they shouldn't be able to (a) have significant market share, (b) have significant size / market cap, (c) have high margins, AND (d) claim "but we're so efficient for our users!" as a defense against anti-trust.

One of those things is bullshit, and 3 out of 4 are facts...

bklyn11201
4 replies
2h52m

"It just works" except I have to remember to not pay inside the app to get the cheapest price because the app price is 30% higher to pay the Apple tax. I need to open my laptop to buy a Kindle book instead of continuing to use my phone.

Small, minor, annoying issues as a customer that make me think slightly less of Apple while continuing to be in awe of their hardware.

lotsofpulp
2 replies
2h26m

I need to open my laptop to buy a Kindle book instead of continuing to use my phone

You can buy in iOS Safari and not have to open your laptop.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
1 replies
2h10m

But how would you know to do this if they're gagged developers from informing users about Apple's cut, cheaper prices elsewhere, or from giving them a link.

I'm sure people will pay a bit more to use Apple pay and not get kicked out to a browser and possibly fiddle with re-logging in and re-typing in their payment info to a sketchy site.

Very few will pay 30% more though, because even the people that love Apple pay will be forced to acknowledge it's an obvious ripoff, in no way commensurate to the value provided.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
1h23m

I know because I compare the price on the vendors website versus the app. And I know that because I am up and up on how these things work, and I do not expect everyone else to be.

However, I was just making a factual statement that anyone can pay using their browser on iPhone or iPad on the vendor’s website, just the same as they can using their laptop.

bevekspldnw
0 replies
2h44m

I imagine that will be the crux of the case - they need to prove consumer harm, and it’s quite clear Apple’s policies result in consumers paying more.

apercu
2 replies
2h47m

It _used_ to just work. Now each release is full of features no one asked for, and there are more and more issues because of this feature bloat.

My M1 MacBook Pro is probably the second worst computer I've ever bought, and might have been the most expensive I've ever purchased.

selectodude
1 replies
2h15m

I'd be happy to trade you something you consider better.

apercu
0 replies
16m

I bought an Air (M1) at the same time and felt like the air was the better value. For one, the fact that you can't hit a button to volume up/down, but instead have to activate the Touchbar, click the sound icon, try to move the volume left or right to desired location is too many steps, not precise and a pain.

I bought another Air this year (M2), and again, it's a far better value.

trothamel
1 replies
2h55m

That hasn't been the case with Safari in a long time, has it? And of course, users can't switch to a browser they believe works better.

kemayo
0 replies
2h1m

I doubt that a regular user has any opinion on whether Safari "just works". Some developers care about Safari vs Chrome vs Firefox browser engine features, but the average end user at most is just going to think some website sucks if it doesn't work. (And, personally, I don't see any problems in day to day usage, so I doubt it comes up much to those less technical than myself.)

To the extent that they care, they seem satisfied by being able to switch to other iOS browsers that under the hood use the WebKit engine, but give them the ecosystem-integration with their desktop browser that they want. Shared Chrome bookmarks and tabs matter 1000x more to a random user than details of browser engines.

Y-bar
1 replies
3h2m

I’m an Apple user (own iPad, iPhone, Mac Studio, among other devices) since the 90:s and I buy into that. But I _also_ think Apple has grown way too much into a bully and way too much into disallowing third party developers to do things Apple allows themselves to do with competing apps.

The “it just works” should be allowed to extend into the entire ecosystem.

skydhash
0 replies
2h30m

Same, I like Apple hardware and while the OS experience has suffered recently, it’s great as a tool to get things done. But making Music.app and other services part of the ecosystem has not been a great move. Some things should allow for interoperability so that the user can make his choices. I think Apple has been too heavily handed in imposing its services to users.

baxtr
4 replies
2h39m

I’m a heavy and loyal Apple user AND an app developer.

I couldn’t care less about alternative App Stores. I don’t want them, I don’t need them.

I am very happy the way it is.

freedomben
1 replies
2h3m

> I think it's debatable whether the average iPhone customer buys it, knowing it allows Apple to heavily tax all AppStore developers.

I’m a heavy and loyal Apple user AND an app developer.

Do you really think you're representative of the average iphone customer? A heavy, loyal user AND an app developer? I don't think so. And even if you were, your personal situation isn't a rebuttal

baxtr
0 replies
1h19m

Totally agree.

However, let’s not assume what the majority of iPhone user thinks. To that end, I thought it is interesting to add my very personal perspective.

metabagel
0 replies
2h19m

Bear in mind that the article mentions other issues, such as preventing third party banks managing your NFC wallet, degrading interoperability with non-Apple products, etc.

Also, I'm not sure why you favor the App Store. It's not safe. Apple is unable to keep malicious apps off of it, and there is no warranty if you lose money due to a malicious app. People think there is some implied safety in the App Store. There is no such thing.

Safety comes from not giving permissions to apps which don't need them.

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
11m

Great. The beauty of an open market is that you can continue to solely suck on the teat of Apple if you so choose.

nvarsj
0 replies
1h58m

Indeed - it's modern day corporate feudalism.

Anyone arguing for Apple's side is akin to saying we should all be serfs for the King, because he takes care of us well and protects his kingdom.

mjburgess
25 replies
3h15m

Monopoly law needs to be reinterpreted in light of network effects.

It's not merely the integration which is a problem, it's how that + network effects gives apple undue market power to dictate terms to its users, devs, etc.

Being a middleman between users and devs, say, takes on a different character when you're a 2-3T biz at the heart of the economy.

starbugs
21 replies
3h4m

Exactly. From my point of view, nobody needs to be a lawyer to see that this can't stand as it is. There are two major operating systems for each form factor. In the last ten years, no other vendor has been able to successfully place a new OS on the market. If there wasn't a monopoly (or duopoly or oligarchy or whatever you wanna call it), then this would have happened. And this appears mainly to be due to network effects and the high complexity of the underlying systems.

gnicholas
16 replies
3h1m

You don’t need to be a lawyer to see that there’s a duopoly, but duopolies aren’t illegal. The DOJ has to prove illegal conduct, which is harder than just showing a lack of widespread competition.

starbugs
15 replies
3h0m

but duopolies aren’t illegal

They should be.

gnicholas
13 replies
2h56m

So if there are 3 competitors and one drops out, the other two are now guilty of something? In all my years studying economics and law, I never heard anyone suggest anything remotely this draconian.

starbugs
4 replies
2h54m

So if there are 2 competitors and one drops out, then it's hardcore illegal, but otherwise it's a-okay?

evilduck
3 replies
2h30m

Ugh, this entire thread will be a frustrating exercise in folks insisting their feel-feels are the law of the land because they hate Apple and that takes precedence over facts and reality.

So if there are 2 competitors and one drops out, then it's hardcore illegal, but otherwise it's a-okay?

No, it is absolutely not. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in the US. The government even explicitly and purposefully creates and grants monopolies pretty often. Natural monopolies are not illegal. Abusing your government-granted or natural monopoly is the illegal behavior.

I'm curious to see how they even construe a duopoly as a monopoly under current law, because this will have some profound impacts to the entire economy if they succeed.

starbugs
2 replies
2h2m

Ugh, this entire thread will be a frustrating exercise in folks insisting their feel-feels are the law of the land because they hate Apple and that takes precedence over facts and reality.

Typing this on one of many Apple devices I own. I don't hate Apple. But, you're right, comments like yours make this a frustrating exercise indeed.

No, it is absolutely not. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly in the US.

Yes yes, it may technically not be illegal per se, but then again, it's a problem. I am not a lawyer and I don't care about the details of the law. That's for other people. I am looking at this from a perspective of a consumer who feels actively harmed by what the tech industry has become. And as a member of society who cares for other people. If one company accrues that much by making it hard for others to compete, then they will rightfully be forced to give back if they don't do it out of their own free will.

You know that I have a point.

evilduck
1 replies
1h51m

Your point is not based on laws though, you're just wishing the laws were different. Which is fine, but the process here should be to change the laws first instead of warping the current laws' definition to punish Apple first, collateral damage be damned.

then it's hardcore illegal

You aren't a lawyer, you don't care about the laws as written, yet make false statements about what the law says according to how you feel anyways then back pedal when called out that it's not actually illegal. I think you've said everything you can.

starbugs
0 replies
59m

The parent to which I responded literally said:

Monopoly law needs to be reinterpreted in light of network effects.

This is the context of this discussion. If you think dragging me into details of the current law will distract me, sorry, no it won't. This thread is not about that.

yet make false statements about what the law says

Now you are making false statements. I didn't say that the law says that. What's more, you dragged that piece of a sentence out of its context to make it appear as if it wasn't part of a question. But it was. So it's not a statement. It's a question. Is it a false question, maybe? Sounds a bit laughable to me.

mschuster91
3 replies
2h49m

So if there are 3 competitors and one drops out, the other two are now guilty of something?

Well, Microsoft eventually got all but forced to port Office and, for a time, Internet Explorer to macOS to evade getting sanctioned by the EU.

In a similar vein, if the market is not healthy any more, the duopolists may be forced by regulatory authorities to make life easier for potential startup competitors: open up file format specifications, port popular applications with network effects (iMessage, Facetime, Find My in the case of Apple) to other platforms or open up specifications to allow others access/federation.

kergonath
1 replies
2h18m

Well, Microsoft eventually got all but forced to port Office and, for a time, Internet Explorer to macOS to evade getting sanctioned by the EU.

I have seen some people assert this a few times in the last couple of weeks and I don’t know where this comes from. This is not at all what happened.

This was part of an agreement between Apple and Microsoft in 1997, long before any EU decision. Microsoft bought some Apple shares and agreed to support office on MacOS for a few years, and Apple made IE their default browser.

One can argue whether they did it to improve the optics in their (American) antitrust lawsuit (and there are several details that do not make sense if it were the case), but it certainly was not forced on them by any court.

starbugs
0 replies
2h42m

Yea, that is pretty much what I meant. This would be good for everybody in the end.

bevekspldnw
3 replies
2h39m

Considering in the Google antitrust case it came out that the companies were working hand in glove for years, what were have is a duopoly where the participants collude. This is also the case in broadband where ISPs carved up neighborhoods between themselves to reduce competition.

So sure, duopoly of real competitors is one thing, but that’s rarely the case once players realize they can set prices and divide the spoils.

lotsofpulp
1 replies
2h17m

This is also the case in broadband where ISPs carved up neighborhoods between themselves to reduce competition.

The reason there is only 1 broadband ISP is because people are not willing to pay sufficiently more for fiber to offset the costs to install fiber to the home, especially in places with buried utilities.

Therefore, the existing coaxial connection is the only economically viable option.

Also, it rarely makes sense for 1 home to have multiple physical infrastructure connections, so they lend themselves to natural monopolies. If a house has access to fiber, it makes no sense to spend resources to run another fiber to the house.

Which is also why ISPs should be utilities, but that is not comparable to personal devices.

FireBeyond
0 replies
2h2m

is because people are not willing to pay sufficiently more for fiber to offset the costs to install fiber to the home

Which might be the case if, through taxes, we hadn't collectively paid for a lot of that in the way of subsidies and grants to those ISPs to do exactly that, subsidies and grants which resulted in, generally, more dividends, bonuses and stock buybacks than they did miles of fiber being laid.

kergonath
0 replies
2h22m

Considering in the Google antitrust case it came out that the companies were working hand in glove for years, what were have is a duopoly where the participants collude.

But then, the problem is that you have a cartel, not a duopoly. That’s the thing: you can only punish companies for their actions. A duopoly is a fact, in itself it does not imply any particular behaviour from either company. If there is collusion, then it’s anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of their dominant positions in the market, etc. Things that are already illegal and should be enforced.

FrustratedMonky
0 replies
2h1m

https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

The term “HHI” means the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is 2,600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2,600).

The HHI takes into account the relative size distribution of the firms in a market. It approaches zero when a market is occupied by a large number of firms of relatively equal size and reaches its maximum of 10,000 points when a market is controlled by a single firm. The HHI increases both as the number of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity in size between those firms increases.

The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,000 and 1,800 points to be moderately concentrated, and consider markets in which the HHI is in excess of 1,800 points to be highly concentrated. See U.S. Department of Justice & FTC, Merger Guidelines § 2.1 (2023). Transactions that increase the HHI by more than 100 points in highly concentrated markets are presumed likely to enhance market power under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. See id.

GenerWork
1 replies
2h30m

In the last ten years, no other vendor has been able to successfully place a new OS on the market.

How much of this is because of evil monopoly forces, and how much of it is because users prefer iOS and Android? It's not like the mobile device market snapped into existence overnight, both Android and iOS beat out Blackberry and managed to fend off Microsoft.

bregma
0 replies
1h15m

Most of it was because of the channels. People buy a phone from their carrier. They don't buy from an OS manufacturer. They don't even buy from a phone manufacturer. They get a plan and it comes with a phone. Carriers only distribute phones from a few proven vendors, and that decision involves a lot of games of golf and karaoke nights on company tabs.

Turns out the phone cartel is the phone company cartel in a trench coat.

samatman
0 replies
1h46m

However, there are many unsuccessful mobile OSes. Perhaps dozens, depending on how you'd like to slice the pie.

I don't see how Apple and Android's competitors failing is any sort of fact about Apple or Google, at all.

danaris
0 replies
1h53m

If there wasn't a monopoly (or duopoly or oligarchy or whatever you wanna call it), then this would have happened.

I...don't think that's sufficiently self-evident to stand on its own.

Fundamentally, it's hard to have a world with more than a very small number of operating systems for the major form factors of device—unless those operating systems are mandated to interoperate in significant ways.

Creating a new operating system for phones also requires some things that are not at all easy to get:

1) You need hardware. This means that either you're creating an OS for an existing hardware platform (in this case, Android or iOS) or you're building your own phones. Given the legal frameworks that existed over the past decade and a half (as distinct from the particular dominance of one platform or another), that basically means you're building your own phones. Some people have tried to do that, but it adds hugely to the up-front cost of getting an OS going.

2) You need to get a critical mass of people using it. Until and unless this happens, what you've created has to live or die based on the apps and services that you build for the phone. No one's going to dedicate their own time, effort, and money to creating software for a phone that only 10,000 people have ever bought.

Now, I can see a pretty strong argument for a new legal framework that would make #1 much easier—specifically, requiring all hardware platforms (possible "all hardware platforms over X sales") to provide a fully-open specification for third-party OS makers to use (with appropriate clauses about dogfooding the open API to prevent the hardware maker from just using a bunch of private APIs to preference their OS). This would allow people to create their own OS for the iPhone without Apple's interference.

But that's not what we've had since 2007, so your bold but unsupported statement that the lack of third choices for mobile OSes in and of itself proves that Apple is a monopoly (or at least that Apple/Google together make up an abusive duopoly) does not hold up to scrutiny.

giantrobot
1 replies
3h6m

Since market cap is a determinant in behavior (the speculative value of a secondary market) where's the case for forcing nVidia to open up CUDA or for Microsoft to let Nintendo open a store on the Xbox?

_aavaa_
0 replies
2h38m

NVIDIA and CUDA are not comparable. NVIDIA isn't preventing you from running OpenCL or Vulkan.

hgs3
0 replies
16m

We need proactive antitrust laws that break up companies beyond a certain size criteria. There are many markets beyond the tech sector that need a breakup. But no, lets wait until there is enough outrage before the DoJ laggardly assembles a case against them.

moralestapia
1 replies
3h3m

It looked surprisingly pretty weak to my non lawyer eyes.

* tin foil hat on *

That may be by design. If the outcome of this is "no monopoly", then it's a win for Apple.

jpadkins
0 replies
1h53m

the new form of corp + government collusion does these weak investigations and charges, tying up the space for years and ultimately losing. It allows politicians to claim they are doing something, while securing access for intel agencies and insuring pro status quo election messaging.

These charges also undercut the next administration's leverage to negotiate with Apple, now that the threat of anti-trust charges are taken off the table.

fifticon
1 replies
3h11m

Though the average hackernews reader knows all this, it is not my impression that the average apple consumer is aware of it. Anecdotally, many of the people in my social vicinity choosing apple, are the same people who make their choices based on what they presume the 'cool kids' believe is the 'in' choice. I don't experience iphone users as tech-savvy, as much as I seem them be 'anxious to be cool'.

Foxhuls
0 replies
1h24m

I think most people just like how simple the products are overall. I prefer that my family, who tends to need a lot of basic tech support, have iPhones because they’re able to figure most things out and there’s no real risk of them messing anything important up. I’ve also noticed this strange phenomenon that the majority of people who complain about iPhones and the apple ecosystem don’t even use them. If someone doesn’t like what the company offers, they’re not forced to buy any of their products. I hate the idea of needing to deal with multiple app stores in the future because people who don’t even use the products have some sort of issue with it.

hooverd
0 replies
2h45m

The problem with a software moat is that it's infecting physical objects. Hardware, sure. But things like your tractor refusing to work if you use a non-vendor approved component. Not sued, just bricked.

ericmcer
0 replies
2h41m

It is a feature, interfaces between pieces of software is some of the most expensive and challenging parts of writing it. When every piece of software is written specifically with that interfacing in mind it will just run better. Now Apple hardware is starting to do the same thing?

I am pretty bullish on Apple right now and could easily see a future where Windows isn't even used for gaming anymore. When Macbook Airs start to be capable of running high end games what is the point of getting a huge Desktop running Windows jammed with bloatware from 100 different companies?

gnicholas
98 replies
3h39m

The Justice Department, which began its investigation into Apple in 2019, chose to build a broader and more ambitious case than any other regulator has brought against the company.

As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet. FWIW, I am a former lawyer and spent a little time doing antitrust law for the CA DOJ, a long time ago. Just my two cents.

doctorpangloss
21 replies
2h38m

Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice

That's true, but odds are they have a lot of e-mails and a lot of employees who can testify to the browser choice decision being driven by lock-in. The iMessage emails were pretty unambiguous with regards to how it is used in an anti-consumer way. (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...) Similar stuff will exist for everything they do, because they cannot distort the reality that in 2024 their software kind of sucks, and that their customers only use it because they don't have alternatives and Apple prevents those alternatives from being viable.

ChildOfChaos
17 replies
1h53m

"the reality that in 2024 their software kind of sucks, and that their customers only use it because they don't have alternative"

That's an extremely hot take. When devices are mostly just slabs of glass and the interface and what is done, is entirely the software, customers are choosing the device based on the Apple software, not in spite of it.

CharlieDigital
6 replies
58m

I don't know if I'm the exception, but I also think Apple's software absolutely sucks.

UX is complete and utter trash.

But the M1 and onwards hardware is so good, I put up with it.

Just off the top of my head:

- Never had a $2000+ laptop that couldn't connect with more than 2 monitors without an expensive DisplayLink dock and drivers. And even then, it's janky AF

- Rendering on non-Apple external monitors sucks; night and day difference when I connect a Windows laptop to my Dell monitors

- Terrible with system font scaling

- Inconsistent usage of button sizes in their native dialogs

- Can't tab cycle through minimized windows

- Windowing system sucks compared to Windows

- Whatever is happening here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGT041xkGE

- I ship a PWA for one of my apps and by far Safari is the one that has the most issues with updating

evandale
3 replies
42m

Can't tab cycle through minimized windows

This drives me absolutely NUTS and I thought it was a me problem. Where the hell do things go when they're minimized on macos!!? There's all these questions asking about cmd+tabbing to minimized windows and the answer is to hold option while you hold cmd after selecting the minimized window and then let go of cmd.. but if there's 2 Chrome windows and one is minimized this doesn't work at all.

dagmx
1 replies
23m

Cmd+Tilde cycles through open windows of a single application

CharlieDigital
0 replies
18m

Except the minimized ones......

CharlieDigital
0 replies
37m

I agree. I've had people tell me "That's not the Mac way; use another desktop". Oh, OK; but it sure would be handy if I could somehow access my minimized windows easily with my keyboard can we have that, too?

blehn
1 replies
26m

"UX is complete and utter trash" is a bit hyperbolic — you listed a handful of nits that don't affect 99.9% of their users. On the other hand, iOS is undoubtedly more efficient, smoother, and more stable than Android. I have a Pixel phone where the Google camera app crashes about 10% of the time when I tap the shutter button. The cellular connection often gets stuck in a disconnected state, without telling me. The "Always on Display" stopped working entirely. Along the core dimensions where Apple invests their energy, their software can be pretty good.

CharlieDigital
0 replies
10m

Just my opinion -- I'm a daily MacBook Pro user; I really struggle to find one thing that Apple is doing better than Microsoft from a UX perspective. I'm struggling to think of a single thing that it does better from a UX perspective. Less options for customization; tiny buttons all over the place (very abundant in the system dialogs); the notch causing some apps to disappear from top bar on the right; the spatial distance between the window and the top bar as opposed to Microsoft where the app bar is attached to the window; the poor window snapping options for organizing desktops; the childish default animations; lots of issues with Finder versus Explorer; the seemingly random organization, sizing, and placement of windows in Mission Control; the weird behavior when you CLOSE all of your windows like Chrome and then CTRL+N creates a new Chrome window -- no, you need to quit the app, too.

I don't think there's anything macOS is doing better than Windows in so far as UX goes. Hardware is great, though.

ChildOfChaos
3 replies
1h46m

So the basis of the argument is a different coloured bubble for a messaging application?

that is a society issue, not an apple issue, the different messages should be different colours, so you understand the difference.

VyseofArcadia
1 replies
1h2m

Did it occur to you that Apple deliberately designed iMessages in such a way as to take advantage of the inevitable tribalism to further increase adoption of their own products?

Peer pressure is one of the strongest forces in sales.

ChildOfChaos
0 replies
53m

Yes, but how much software does something similar? if you are going to penalize Apple for this you will have to penalize a huge amount of companies, it's a very slippery slope, as what do you define as being anti-competitive and what do you define also being a genuine need to highlight the difference?

What are you saying Apple should have done/be made to do? Make all the messages the same colour? This causes issues for the user not being able to tell what features are available in messaging that person and then it can be even more confusing to them, you are going to have to mark it some way which is turn is going to have somewhat of the same affect. A lot of these measures from governments don't actually end up helping users, they end up just making the end user experience worse.

For Apple, this was likely a win-win, they need to show the difference and it has such knock on affect, but I think this is the problem, Apple has a way of looking at things and way of doing certain things, a lot of the things that people are upset about in this lawsuit and beyond area consequence of that, but isn't nessecery the sole purpose of why Apple is doing things this way in the first place, those people that get angry at Apple seem to miss those points or disagree with that way of doing it.

badrequest
0 replies
54m

If it's a society issue that Apple takes advantage of to carve a monopoly for itself, then that's an Apple issue.

int_19h
2 replies
59m

It really depends. With MacBooks, for example, many people who buy them these days do so because of things like battery life and quality of the trackpad, while quietly hating on macOS.

ChildOfChaos
0 replies
47m

I much perfer MacOS over Windows.

Windows is horrible, it's messy, overly cluttered and bloated. MacOS is so much cleaner and nicer, that with nice hardware is why people buy Apple devices, at least that is the same with everyone I know.

CharlieDigital
0 replies
53m

I'm in this camp. I find some of the UX to be really, really questionable. The default animations and sounds feel so unbefitting for a machine in a professional context. The stupid notch; when I use a screen recording app, it uses a slot on the right to stop recording once I start using the app but if there are just enough icons, that icon disappears under the notch......

If it weren't for the battery life and speed, I would not use it.

katbyte
0 replies
1h42m

I use apple products because of the software and consider it better then the alternatives.

EasyMark
0 replies
1h48m

Yeah this stuff usually ends up "I don't like the interface" when you press people. Which is fine. However my macbooks have been perfectly serviceable and still ticking while my former asus and dell laptops died after a few years right before I switched over to mac laptops and one is 7 years old and still ticking with not too bad battery life. That said I find apple has probably overstepped their social contract as a corporation and it's likely time for a little audit

gnicholas
2 replies
2h36m

Yeah it'll be interesting to see (via discovery) whether Apple has policies like Google's regarding "words not to use".

snotrockets
1 replies
2h6m

If a company doesn’t, I’d suspect the competence of their legal dept.

sanderjd
0 replies
1h39m

Yes, but I'd also be surprised by a company's employees doing a universally good job abiding by such guidelines.

andrewmutz
20 replies
2h59m

How do you think they would spin Messages interoperability as security or performance?

dagmx
11 replies
2h47m

Security: there’s no cross platform E2E messaging standard they could have adopted. Given that the DoJ is already breathing down their neck for working with Google on search, using Google’s RCS extensions and servers might also be problematic.

I don’t think the government could force them to adopt RCS without new legislation or bring iMessage to other platforms.

afavour
10 replies
2h43m

there’s no cross platform E2E messaging standard they could have adopted.

Could they not have made their own? I don't think they'd be required to use open standards for the argument to be made, they just need to release an iMessage app for Android.

bink
8 replies
2h35m

It seems weird to force a company to support their competitors products if there is no financial interest in them doing so.

metabagel
4 replies
2h16m

It seems weird to degrade their own users' experience (when receiving texts from friends with Android phones), but Apple does it deliberately as a nudge to get people to use Apple products.

There's no valid technical or security reason to do this. It's a tactical decision on Apple's part.

samatman
0 replies
1h56m

The argument that the color of a message bubble is tantamount to a "degraded experience" is truly bizarre.

misnome
0 replies
58m

Or how about if, I don't know, one of them you have to pay your carrier for, and one of them is free?

That might be worth letting the user know about it.

endemic
0 replies
2h3m

Why not both?

bombcar
0 replies
2h2m

If iMessages have benefits (they do) then there is a technical reason to show you the bubble colors - so you know the benefits apply. If sending video to a blue contact is better than sending it to green, there's a reason to know.

Does it ACTUALLY matter? Maybe not? But people really do complain about a non-iPhone "degrading" a group chat, so it is indicating something.

At the time they made iMessage at first? It was likely a real advance and only because they could control both ends. But now? They may be large enough that it's unfair use of their monopoly in one area to affect another, and get slapped or forced to interoperate.

input_sh
1 replies
2h7m

But they already do support Android to some extent. Apple Music (don't know if you can subscribe via the Android app), Shazam, and an AirTag detector are all already available.

dagmx
0 replies
30m

The point is “are they forced to do so”

afavour
0 replies
1h41m

There are many industries in the world regulated to be interoperable. I suspect the primary reason you find the notion weird is simply because you're not used to it.

dagmx
0 replies
31m

But that’s precisely why I mentioned the second point. I don’t believe there’s precedence to force a company to develop support for a competitor.

macintux
3 replies
2h52m

End to end encryption can only be guaranteed if you control both ends.

tomrod
1 replies
1h52m

How does PGP solve this?

danaris
0 replies
39m

PGP isn't an end-to-end encryption service; it's a public-key encryption package.

To clarify macintux's statement, you can only guarantee end-to-end encryption will both remain secure and allow your messages to be read if you control both ends. If you do not control the other end, but you give it the ability to decrypt your messages (and thus let them be read), then whoever does control the other end can save the plaintext, post it elsewhere, and generally do whatever they want with it.

To be "end-to-end encrypted", something has to actually be a service you are using, not merely a method of encryption. An end-to-end encrypted service could use PGP if it wanted (AFAIK), but PGP, in itself, is just a way for you to encrypt your messages, and then, optionally, share your public key to allow them to be decrypted by those you give it to, while also guaranteeing that those messages came from you (as long as you have kept your private key safe).

So I'm afraid your question, as it stands, doesn't really make sense, but I hope this has helped to answer the underlying questions for you.

__loam
0 replies
1h47m

Is the internet not built on public key encryption between two parties?

toast0
1 replies
2h50m

The messaging claim seemed to be about carrier based messaging; SMS and MMS, and I guess in theory RCS (but is that really carrier based if Google has taken it upon themselves to enroll most Android users on a Google server)

Apps that read inbound SMS may be malicious and use that ability to steal verification codes. Or they may not be actively malicious, and meerly handle the data in an insecure way that makes messages available to others.

Performance, I dunno. Maybe they could argue something about how time between user requesting an SMS be sent and it actually getting sent is very important, and similar for display, and that they're more likely to do that right. I've certainly seen some Android manufacturer provided SMS clients that do much better than others on that, although I have no recent performance notes since I no longer get massive floods of SMS from too simple monitoring systems.

FireBeyond
0 replies
2h7m

In the Epic lawsuit it was shown that Apple really actually more cared about this than "security":

“The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in,” was how one unnamed former Apple employee put it in an email in 2016, prompting Schiller to respond that, “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us, this email illustrates why.”

“iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi’s concern
gnicholas
1 replies
2h52m

I think they'll claim security for Messages. I don't have nearly enough information to know if they can win that particular issue, and it sounds like there are reasonable arguments on both sides. But they don't have a monopoly on messaging — WhatsApp is huge, Signal and others exist. I don't think Apple lets you use Siri to send messages via other services, or at least they didn't used to let you. But other than that they are granted near parity on iOS.

kemayo
0 replies
1h46m

Siri does let you send messages with other services these days. (I think it got added in the last year or two, and those apps need to be updated to support it, but it's there!)

oatmeal1
8 replies
3h16m

It seems easy to prove to me; anti-trust law is intentionally vague and broad to allow the government to prosecute all kinds of monopoly tactics. Apple had the option to give a warning to users that using an alternative app store may risk security. It doesn't have to block it all-together. Same with Apple Wallet.

gnicholas
6 replies
3h10m

Yes, there is a lot of discretion in what cases are brought, and if a new administration comes in next year this may be dismissed/deprioritized. Still, I doubt Tim or other Apple employees will be making many donations to Biden's challenger! (Shareholders might be a different story.)

Even if the case continues, it will be a challenge to win. Apple has asymmetric information and knows what they can use to defend the various allegations.

kccqzy
4 replies
2h54m

Biden's challenger was in office at the time when the Justice Department started the investigation.

gnicholas
3 replies
2h46m

Good point, although the decision to move forward with the case was made under the current administration.

gnicholas
0 replies
58m

The President selects the AG. He doesn't then have to direct every single decision. It's well known in legal circles that changes in administration affect DOJ behavior. Wall Street knows this too — it's why certain stocks pop after election surprises.

ysavir
0 replies
2h24m

Well damn, if ending Apple's monopoly is the key to uniting the country politically, sign me up.

oatmeal1
0 replies
2h42m

You could make the asymmetric information argument for any defendant.

EasyMark
0 replies
1h45m

it's quite often shot down by judges as well too because of the vagueries in laws, it's a two edge sword and you're commonly at the whim of the trial jurisdiction. Just look at recent 5th circuit vs most other circuits.

jwagenet
7 replies
1h54m

It seems to me the US would be better off copy-pasting EU regulation than trying to smush apples behavior into old school antitrust violations.

Wowfunhappy
4 replies
1h51m

Well, The Justice Department at least can't do that, because they can't write laws.

dragonwriter
2 replies
1h17m

Since when does “the US” consist exclusively of “the Justice Department” and not, e.g., the FTC (which writes antitrust regulations within existing law) and Congress (which writes laws).

Wowfunhappy
1 replies
1h15m

I honestly don't know much about this, but isn't it standard for government lawsuits to be "United States vs John Smith"?

dragonwriter
0 replies
44m

To the extent that is correct [0], that doesn't justify reinterpreting “the US should adopt regulations like X” to mean “the Justice Department and not any other part of the US government should adopt regulations like X”.

[0] Its essentially those actions where the DoJ is the agency representing the government interest, including all federal criminal cases and some federal civil cases. Civil cases by other agencies have the agency name; so the antitrust complaint by the DoJ, 15 state governments, and the District of Columbia is United States of America, et al. v. Apple, but the SEC action against Coinbase was Securities and Exchange Commission v. Coinbase, Inc., and Coinbase Global, Inc.

Muromec
0 replies
1h30m

If only US had a sort of a legislative body where you elect people to and then they actually can write laws? That would be great.

w1n5t0n91
1 replies
1h4m

But then who would EU leech off of during there slow decline into irrelevance?

richwater
0 replies
54m

Issuing fines to American big tech is essentially a revenue line item now

ocdtrekkie
6 replies
3h36m

They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty conclusively proving... it's all about collecting the rent.

mjhagen
2 replies
2h52m

it's all about collecting the rent

Which is not illegal.

trothamel
0 replies
2h39m

Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?

immibis
0 replies
2h15m

It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.

bink
2 replies
2h33m

Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing.

It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.

skeptrune
0 replies
1h14m

But sideloading is viable for everything else... I think that's the core argument that makes what Apple does criminal

arrosenberg
0 replies
41m

it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors

FWIW - this is further evidence of anticompetitive behavior. In a competitive market, entrants would be trying to drive distribution costs to 0. The fact that Apple makes its entire App Store revenue off those distribution revenues is highly telling.

It would only be considered predatory if they charging a rate below their own costs of distribution. I.E. If it costs Apple $0.10 to cover the costs of app distribution per download, then it would be completely legal for them to charge $0.11, but illegal and predatory to charge $0.09.

amelius
4 replies
3h4m

Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet

Then why, for the sake of the argument, do they allow third party browsers, messaging and payments on MacOS ?!?

Apple makes it sound like MacOS is horribly insecure.

basisword
1 replies
2h59m

Legacy decision? Would they do the same starting a new desktop OS today? Much more high risk personal data on an iPhone (e.g. health data, biometrics) requiring stricter security? Many more sensors which could be abused by nefarious actors on iOS (GPS, lots of mics, lidar, cameras, etc) and these are always with us?

amelius
0 replies
2h49m

They could easily ban these third party applications on MacOS too. So it is more likely that it's simply anti-competitive reasons.

gnicholas
0 replies
2h49m

Performance is less of an issue on computers because battery life isn’t as much of a concern. Also, they allow other messaging and payments on iOS just like they do on MacOS. They just don’t offer the unique payment chip access on iOS to third parties.

audunw
0 replies
31m

If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. Especially since the phone itself is considered a two factor authentication device by several services and my employer.

And the attack vectors are more numerous. I have ten times as many apps on my phones, it’s always on, always connected, and may frequently connect to wifi networks I don’t fully trust.

The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.

I’m on the side of wanting Apple to open up a bit more. But I it’s absolutely valid to want the iPhone to be more secure than a laptop. And I seriously hope Apple isn’t forced to let people install apps that aren’t signed and reviewed. I can guarantee you that critical services in your life will force you to install insecure and straight up dangerous apps. The banking sector in some countries is a prime example of that, especially back in the ActiveX era.

emodendroket
3 replies
2h11m

I agree and I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits, seems to be to make a grinding, years- (or even decades-) long push to shift the understanding of what antitrust is and make major changes to the landscape; kind of an inverse of what the conservatives have been able to do with various issues, where their positions were initially laughed out of the room but now have the weight of Supreme Court decisions behind them decades later.

zer00eyz
1 replies
1h44m

> I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits

We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors). Or lock ins where there is NO alternative (MS and browsers). This doesn't really meet those bars.

If Apple wins this one at home, then they can quickly cry about other countries regulations being "anti competitive".

I have to wonder if this political on some level.

emodendroket
0 replies
1h2m

We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors).

Not anymore... look at the failed action to stop MS acquiring Activision for instance. Was that "blatant"? I guess not since enforcement failed. Lina Khan's whole thing is aggressively broadening antitrust enforcement.

causi
2 replies
3h29m

The US government has let its definition for monopolistic behavior slip so much over the last few decades I don't think you could successfully prosecute for anything short of sending thugs to break your competitors' kneecaps. The days when the DOJ would prosecute a company for including a web browser with an OS are long gone.

rpdillon
0 replies
51m

A bit of hyperbole, but otherwise a fair assessment based on my readings. HBR has a piece from 2017 on this.

https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s...

The golden era of anti-trust was 1940s-1970s, but faded with the rise of the Chicago School of Economics.

It does indeed seem to be coming back more now.

nradov
0 replies
3h18m

The facts were different in the Microsoft case. If they had built in Internet Explorer as a "free" feature in a Windows upgrade it would have been tough to prove anticompetitive behavior. But they originally sold IE as a separate product, like as boxes in retail stores. They only bundled it with Windows later and there was clear evidence during the trial that they made the change specifically to kill Netscape.

RNAlfons
2 replies
2h13m

People waved the EU case away with the same argument. Actually it is a kind of iArgument.

However nobody buys it besides their most loyal customers.

sneak
0 replies
1h27m

Nah, users really are dumb and really will follow steps that will result in malware getting on their devices. This happens all of the time in Android-land. Burying the setting won’t change this, people will follow tutorials to disable the security protections if they think it will get them the content they want (and, in some cases, it will, wrt pirate apps etc).

There’s no real way to square the circle: either Apple (and the state) has realtime app censorship control (nominally for malware, as well as any other thing the state or Apple’s business model feels existentially threatened by), or the user can install any app they want, with all of the associated risks. Even with notarization and self-distribution you’re still in the first category because the state can compel Apple to treat protest apps or non-backdoored e2ee messaging apps the exact same as they do malware, and prevent them from launching.

Users mostly want the former, because most users aren’t worried about government censorship or oppression. Tech people and cypherpunks and pirates and protesters usually want the latter. Tech people usually want the former for their parents/grandparents for whom they serve as device sysadmin.

katbyte
0 replies
1h40m

The eu case seemed to make more sense and was pro consumer: open up messaging / App Store and switch to usb c.

This one seems different at first glance,

mariodiana
1 replies
1h36m

Perhaps this is essentially more lawfare against a party antagonistic to the political aims of Washington players. We know that our national (as well as state) law enforcement entities have been alleging for more than a decade now that Apple's encryption practices stymie their efforts to catch "bad guys." What better way to put back room pressure on a company.

sneak
0 replies
1h28m

This is a false narrative. iPhones back up full message history and all photos by default in a non-e2ee fashion that is easily readable by both Apple and the government unless the user and everyone they message with specifically opts into e2ee (which approximately nobody has, even in tech circles).

There is no “going dark” issue on iOS platforms. Apple has played ball in full with the USG on that front. In fact, Android backups are e2ee so the government can get more data from Apple on iPhone users than they can get from Google for Android users.

flutas
1 replies
3h32m

I'm (legitimately) curious could the fact that (almost) all of that is now open in the EU due to their laws but not the US. Would that hurt their argument since they blocked off the change from the US. Or would that all be solved by a statement along the lines of "Well, EU iPhones are now less secure."

wtallis
0 replies
3h26m

The arguments about performance and security aren't about whether Apple could open up, but about whether they should. The changes in the EU will answer the latter, but slowly.

anonymouse008
1 replies
2h42m

The article leaves out a ton over the actual compliant // filed in Eastern NJ for a reason. They must be going for Verizon or Samsung witnesses? If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple. If Apple can redefine things like 'Super Apps' and 'Mini Apps,' then this thing is a wet paper bag.

Personally I see avenues for both outcomes.

gnicholas
0 replies
2h37m

If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple.

This is a very low bar. It is of course the case that if you assume one party's definitions are accepted then they will win. The battlefield will be the definitions (just like in patent law the battlefield is the claim construction).

KKKKkkkk1
1 replies
2h10m

Every employee that joins Apple goes through a course that teaches a few case studies about Apple's culture. One of those is how Steve Jobs made the decision to kill Flash. IMHO it was a no brainer and if this sort of thing needs to be litigated in court, it's a travesty.

dartos
0 replies
2h9m

Everything needs to be litigated.

yieldcrv
0 replies
41m

yeah its a novel expansion of antitrust law to say that merely maintaining features that the market chose is an antitrust violation

if you weren’t anticompetitive to get to that place, thats been good enough?

quatrefoil
0 replies
2h56m

I'm guessing the plan is to cast a wide net, then hope that you can dredge up some incriminating or morally ambiguous quotes during discovery. When you have a company of 100,000+ people, there's probably some "haha we're killing the competition" in there, which you can then use to prop up the case.

And then either use that to win the trial, or force Apple into settling.

nradov
0 replies
3h23m

Sometimes these lawsuits are filed not strictly for legal reasons but to put pressure on companies, or as political payback to certain special interest groups (election year). Even if the case is eventually thrown out of court it may succeed in shifting Apple's behavior.

gcheong
0 replies
2h17m

Perhaps, but I'm glad they're at least trying.

devsda
0 replies
2h42m

As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove.

If this case is thrown off how long can it take for them to make another antitrust case with a different set of stronger arguments ?

Given that they started in 2019 for this one, if lost there is real risk of waiting another 5 years for any meaningful change.

danesparza
0 replies
1h59m

I'm not a lawyer, but I agree. I was alive and working when the US brought it's antitrust case against Microsoft back in the early 2000's.

This feels like a vastly different case, and not one that they'll likely be able to win against Apple.

cactusplant7374
0 replies
1h49m

Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice

Didn't work in Europe. The alternative browser growth in Europe is massive. Literally, an industry revitalized overnight.

bevekspldnw
0 replies
2h47m

They may or may not prevail, but in the meantime they will likely have to slam the brakes on any closed feature developments. That alone is good for consumers.

endisneigh
74 replies
3h5m

I assert it is trivial to not buy Apple products, easy to make alternatives to Apple products and easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products.

In lieu of this what is the problem? If the government has a problem why not say any code should be able to be run on any device?

Honestly I’m curious - what’s the problem? There are android phones that are superior to iPhones and let you run anything you want. Why don’t people buy those?

The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience, but why? There are open alternatives. It’s like complaining that Teslas don’t support CarPlay. Valid, but does it require legislation? Buy another car.

FWIW I would love if the government made it so all devices should have an option to run any of your arbitrary code.

beeboobaa3
22 replies
2h43m

easy to make alternatives to Apple products

Please, go do it. You'll be very rich very quick and I'll eagerly buy your products once you succeed.

Unfortunately you'll find out it's not actually easy at all when you realize that consumers care about weight, size, temperature and battery life which are all things apple excels at. Their hardware is really quite good, unfortunately the software is horribly crippled.

multimoon
10 replies
2h8m

This is how the free market is intended to work. This opens up the range for several android phones (which have a near split in the US, and a majority globally last I recall) to offer better hardware.

Modern Samsung phones are very good. You’re asserting that Apple should be punished purely because they make good hardware and are successful - and if their hardware wasn’t good and competitive then you wouldn’t care.

Part of why I have Apple devices as a tech enthusiast is the good software and the ecosystem that comes with it.

Would I like to run an IDE and code on an iPad? Absolutely. But I’d rather have the iPad than the android tablet.

aaomidi
5 replies
1h32m

The ecosystem doesn’t need to go away to be opened up.

Honestly, I am approaching this from another standpoint. Tech has made it more palatable to have walled gardens but battles similar to this have been fought before and the walled gardens have fallen.

I have two solutions for Apple here:

1. Either allow more open participation on your platform.

2. Allow other vendors to write OSes for the iPhone device if you don’t want to open your software.

Without one of these two, the amount of ewaste we’re generating from this hardware is astonishing.

I don’t think Apple the services, should dictate the OS running on Apple the hardware.

At that point, you can run the ecosystem you want. I can choose to run Android, or Linux on this hardware.

And before anyone brings up consoles: yes. This should also apply to consoles.

multimoon
4 replies
1h7m

You’ve just removed a massive financial incentive for making the kind of hardware Apple does. Their whole ‘thing’ is a unified experience between hardware and software.

The entire premise of punishing a company for success when they haven’t violated any laws is insane to me, and I think dangerous to the market because you’ll stifle companies wanting to try new things for fear of someone attacking them for success.

Antitrust means that the consumer has no choice - they do they can buy an android phone. Saying “you can’t use other software inside of apples hardware” is an irrelevant argument, since an alternative to that combination is available.

arrosenberg
1 replies
46m

The entire premise of punishing a company for success when they haven’t violated any laws is insane to me

The government is arguing they have violated the laws, that's the entire point of a lawsuit. Apple has become a private regulator in the mobile app space, and the government is correct to break this power.

I think dangerous to the market because you’ll stifle companies wanting to try new things for fear of someone attacking them for success.

This is the corporate equivalent of "Oh won't someone pleeeeeeeease think of the children". Give me one example where innovation was stifled because of antitrust action. It almost always goes the other way - corporate regulation is broken and small businesses and new ideas are able to flourish in its' absence.

As to your last point - having a single alternative is hardly a flourishing marketplace where the best ideas win. Distributors should not have the power to determine winners in the marketplace, and Apple's private power as a distributor of hardware and mobile apps has become such that they can ensure their own success regardless of whether they innovate or their customers love them.

multimoon
0 replies
11m

This argument boils down to “does the maintainer of a platform have the right to maintain their controlling interest in their own platform if that platform itself is not a monopoly” and I’d argue the answer to that is a firm absolutely.

If I’m raising sheep on my farm it isn’t my duty to provide my land to my neighbor to also raise sheep.

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
27m

Oh no, will someone think of the checks notes $2.6 trillion dollar company. No one would try to do what Apple did for that little financial incentive!

Regulation =/= punishment. Its the government's job to look out for the whole of society, not to make the market as free as possible.

falcor84
0 replies
59m

The entire premise of punishing a company for success when they haven’t violated any laws is insane to me

I'm not clear on what you're implying here, this is a lawsuit, so a punishment will literally only apply if the judge finds Apple in violation of the law.

Is your issue with the law not being 100% specific about this ahead of time? Because I would argue that it's by design - law should lag behind innovation (in both tech and business practices) rather than try to predict and potentially stifle it.

raydev
1 replies
18m

This is how the free market is intended to work. This opens up the range for several android phones (which have a near split in the US, and a majority globally last I recall) to offer better hardware.

Then why isn't this happening? Google's platform is not meaningfully different from Apple's in enough ways to actually make me want to switch. Who's shipping an open phone with amazing cameras that match what the iPhone and Galaxy provide, that also allows sideloading without disabling all of Google's nice software features/cloud storage?

Workaccount2
0 replies
10m

Ironically, the pixel is the device you want.

moooo99
1 replies
51m

I don’t get why people obsess over the phones. Nobody here is trying to argue Apple has a monopoly on the phone market, that is very obviously not the case (although Apple very much contains a market leader position).

The argument is very simple: due to the dominant position on the overall phone market, Apple uses this power to mess with another market: the mobile app market. And here it is obvious how Apple is issuing bullying tactics to maintain its dominance (Apple TV vs. Netflix, Apple Music vs. Spotify, Apple Pay/iAP vs literally anything).

Wether the US courts come to a similar conclusion as the EU legislators remains to be seen, but there is a precedent

shuckles
0 replies
36m

Your list of services where you claim Apple has a dominant position is entirely products where it does not have a dominant position.

endisneigh
8 replies
2h41m

The Pixel 8 pro has superior battery life and camera to the iPhone 15. And that’s to say nothing of OnePlus or Samsung.

globular-toast
5 replies
2h38m

So in a free market you'd expect them to outcompete the iPhone, no? How do you explain the iPhone being dominant despite being inferior?

Edit: in case of confusion, I'm asking this rhetorically in reply to someone who argues there is no monopoly...

endisneigh
1 replies
2h31m

Marketing - android devices were notoriously janky in their beginning.

theshrike79
0 replies
2h19m

The vast majority of Android devices still are.

You can buy an "Android" phone, use it until EOL (no OS updates), get a new "Android" phone and it's a 100% different experience UI-wise and even the buttons are in different places.

Tinkerers love it, normal users just want a phone that works the same as the previous one.

nkohari
0 replies
2h11m

The Apple ecosystem is part of what you're buying with an iPhone. As a consumer, I really like that I can buy a MacBook, an iPhone, and AirPods, and have them all work seamlessly together because they were designed to do so. I'm even willing to pay extra for each product to ensure that they work together in concert, as well as a subscription for a service (iCloud) that glues them all together.

kergonath
0 replies
1h50m

Because a phone is not just a battery and a camera?

dutchCourage
0 replies
2h2m

Besides the fact that consumers aren't as rational as your question seems to imply, some of the reasons for the iPhone's dominance are the same reasons Apple are getting sued.

vundercind
0 replies
1h37m

Real battery life, or marketing spec sheet battery life?

One of the things that impressed me about Apple when I started using their products was that advertised battery life was usually within 10% of what I’d actually get. I was used to those being lies to the tune of 30-50% from other vendors (phone and laptop alike)

repler
0 replies
1h51m

and how’s the data privacy?

sekai
0 replies
2h19m

Unfortunately you'll find out it's not actually easy at all when you realize that consumers care about weight, size, temperature and battery life which are all things apple excels at. Their hardware is really quite good, unfortunately the software is horribly crippled.

They really don't. iPhone is a status symbol, especially for the new up-and-coming consumers (teens)

samatman
0 replies
1h34m

"Easy" means there are no barriers to entry, not that it's trivial to make a good product.

In particular, there are no barriers to entry imposed by Apple. For any product Apple sell, there are numerous competing products in the same category. Apple's versions uniformly dominate third party rankings of these products, but all that means is that they're good at what they do.

dmitrygr
9 replies
2h42m

My theory: the problem is iCloud encryption at rest. The solution is to hang this over Apple until they relent.

sedivy94
4 replies
2h21m

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The USA is a surveillance state and Apple’s security posture combined with its market share is a considerable hindrance. The arguments against anti-competitive and consumer-hostile mechanisms ad nauseam pale in comparison to this. I very much want to see real numbers, perhaps survey data, supporting the narrative that customers are locked in, unhappy with their experience, or otherwise underserved by Apple. Because IRL, I see nothing but happy customers.

Foxhuls
3 replies
40m

The majority of people I see complaining about apple’s walled garden ecosystem are people who are also proud to admit they don’t use apple products. It’s never made sense to me why people who don’t even use the products care so much about it. If people wanted to be able to do the things they claim they want to, they would switch to android but they don’t.

skeaker
2 replies
25m

I have never understood the inverse: Apple users defending their lack of features. Being able to send iMessages to your Android user friends or install software that you wrote without paying extra would only benefit you, yet you vehemently reject having the ability to do so for no apparent reason. "Security" is the word I see thrown around which doesn't make too much sense to me given that you can do all these things and be secure already on basically any desktop environment. What makes phones the special exception? Is phone architecture exceptionally insecure by default or something?

dmitrygr
1 replies
20m

given that you can do all these things and be secure already on basically any desktop environment

My grandma had her bank account drained by a scammer who walked her through how to install a bank-looking app on her phone because android allows sideloading. I cannot fix my grandma. I can get her an iPhone.

"Oh, but computers...."

No. No scammer will walk her through apt-getting something that will mess with her bank account access in firefox on the ubuntu linux box we left her. Too many variations. Phones are easier targets as there are only two OSs.

skeaker
0 replies
3m

Sorry that happened to you. I have worked with a lot of elderly people in the past and it is always a shame when that happens to them. You are right that you can't really "fix" them. Even if you lock down iMessage and prevent sideloading, scammers will still send them to phishing pages in their browsers, or get them to read out a gift card over the phone. These methods are actually way, way more common than getting them to install a malicious sideloaded app. Ultimately I think Apple's anticompetitive tactics had no bearing on your grandmother being scammed.

cyberlurker
2 replies
2h30m

If that were the case, why wouldn’t Apple come out and say this is what is happening?

dmitrygr
1 replies
2h3m

Same reason you don’t go to the cops when the mafia extorts you - it will only make it worse.

cyberlurker
0 replies
1h33m

But Apple did go public when the FBI was bothering them. They aren’t a little shop.

ergonaught
0 replies
2h38m

This is basically the only actual reason for the suit.

bardak
8 replies
2h50m

The most compelling argument I can see is that due to its market share businesses cannot avoid dealing with the app store and it's fees.

endisneigh
7 replies
2h47m

But they can though, there are plenty of apps that are android exclusive.

madsbuch
6 replies
2h41m

Would it be OK for your bank to exclusively support Android? Would it be OK for government apps to only support Android.

Of course not.

vundercind
2 replies
1h35m

Banking and government apps aren’t paying App Store fees, beyond trivial amounts in developer account fees.

madsbuch
0 replies
52m

This is irrelevant for the case. The question is if Apple has a monopolistic position.

beeboobaa3
0 replies
1h6m

Maybe not the App Store fees, but they are paying the apple tax.

* $100/year for the developer account. You may think this is nothing for a bank, and you may be right, but it's still $100 more than it should be.

* MacBooks for every developer that should be able to work on the mobile app and every QA person that should be able to test the app on an emulator, even if they already have a windows/linux laptop. The Apple devtools only run on macos. There is no choice. If the org was not already running MacBooks they will be forced to do so now, and invest in everything that comes with it.

endisneigh
2 replies
2h37m

What’s the relevance of that? If that were the case the law should be to make everything available by the web which is inherently interoperable, which I think we both agree with, but still doesn’t have anything to do with Apple.

zarzavat
0 replies
46m

If it is de facto mandatory for a business to make an app for Apple’s store because of Apple’s market share of smartphones, and Apple uses their market power to influence those markets for apps to their own advantage (for example, crippling other web browser apps except Safari), that is anti-competitive and may be against the law.

It is not legal to use your power in one market to gain an upper hand in another different market.

pzo
0 replies
2h15m

EU tries to force apple to allow different browser engine but apple still don't want that - safari mobile is crippled and support for PWA is half baked on purpose. Most businesses (such as banks, dating apps, music apps) who would stick to support only Web with half baked user experience on iOS would loose to anyone who would provide native mobile app.

globular-toast
7 replies
2h56m

trivial to not buy Apple products

Irrelevant. Monopoly doesn't mean coercing people into the market.

easy to make alternatives to Apple products and easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products

It's not only not easy, it's not possible. Your mistake is thinking of phones as computers. They are not computers, at least not to the vast majority of users. They are devices that connect to other compatible devices to do telecommunications. It's just like if plain old telephones ran a proprietary protocol and only one vendor could make them.

endisneigh
6 replies
2h53m

Let’s hear some examples? Even things like iMessage have fallback to SMS, not to mention dozens of alternatives that work on android, iOS and more. What’s the problem?

globular-toast
5 replies
2h40m

You know what the problem is. Nobody cares about technicalities, what matters is practicalities. You can't buy an iPhone from anyone but Apple. It's as simple as that. No, Android phones are not iPhone alternatives and you know damn well they are not.

crop_rotation
1 replies
2h23m

You can't buy an iPhone from anyone but Apple

You can't buy a Model 3 from anyone but Tesla either. But that is not what makes a monopoly.

globular-toast
0 replies
2h10m

The difference is cars don't interoperate with each other, they operate with the road and the road is an open and public platform. Not only do you not have to buy a Tesla to use the road, you don't even have to use a car.

Apple is the road in this analogy, not the car.

samatman
0 replies
1h29m

You can't buy anyone's product from anyone but the manufacturer of that product, what is this tautology meant to mean?

endisneigh
0 replies
2h35m

Why aren’t android phones equivalent? I had an iPhone and pixel and switched from both multiple times with no issues.

chung8123
0 replies
2h15m

There are a lot of android phone users that will disagree with you here.

dataflow
5 replies
2h50m

I assert it is trivial to not buy Apple products... Honestly I’m curious - what’s the problem?

Is it trivial to move to alternatives once you've already bought said Apple products?

endisneigh
3 replies
2h45m

I bought a pixel and there was a process that transferred everything over. Not sure how much easier it can be.

timmg
2 replies
2h18m

Including the apps you paid for on iOS?

samatman
1 replies
1h31m

There are precisely zero computing platforms in which one may expect to transfer application code to a device running a different operating system. None.

timmg
0 replies
1h3m

Funny. I use Steam every day. I can buy a game and play it on three different operating systems.

If Apple (and Google) didn't prevent competing stores, Steam would probably do the same -- and this is exactly what Epic wants to do.

sdfhbdf
0 replies
2h40m

1. That’s moving goalposts.

2. It is fairly trivial to move, there are dedicated apps for that for iOS->Android and macOS is still kind of BSD so it’s very compatible.

nox101
4 replies
2h21m

Your mobile device is a gateway to much of the world. You seem to think it would be okay for a car manufacture to make it impossible to use your car except to drive to business that pay the car maker 30% of every purchase. I'm guessing you'll say people should be able to opt into such a car if they want but if that car has 60% of the market now it's effectively influencing the entire economy. Prices of groceries are 30% higher. Prices of clothing are 30% higher. Any company who wants people to come to their store are forced to sign up to pay the car company 30% or else they won't have access to 60% of the population.

Can you see the issue now? It doesn't matter that people could by other cars. It matters that Apple's market is so large that its influence is too big to be left as is.

nomercy400
1 replies
1h28m

The question is, can you buy a car from a different manufacturer? When it comes to cars, yes you can.

Is apple a monopoly? Probably not, because you can also switch to android. Does Apple have a large enough share of the market to influence the market? Likely, which is why the EU has DSA and DMA now.

thunky
0 replies
47m

The question is, can you buy a car from a different manufacturer? When it comes to cars, yes you can.

You can, but why would you if you have no idea that your Apple purchase comes with all of these negative consequences?

I would guess that most Apple users don't know the implications of their purchase, and therefore they have no real incentive to look outside of Apple. Garland even addressed this in his speech: Apple disincentivizes you from choosing non-Apple products. They make it look like their products are better, but really it's the opposite: they make their competitors look worse due to their own purposefully terrible interoperability.

Contrast that to an Apple Car that only lets you drive to Apple Grocery stores with a 30% toll: the user is going to see how bad that is and naturally they'll find better alternatives on their own.

sedivy94
0 replies
1h54m

Poor analogy. This is already an issue with servicing automobiles. Overly-complicated construction and proprietary tools that can only be acquired by licensed dealerships. Read: Audi, Mercedes-Benz.

frabcus
0 replies
1h53m

Just a note that it is more like prices are 42% higher - because the 30% is a cut off gross, and 100 / 70 = 1.4287

pornel
1 replies
2h27m

Apple + Google form a duopoly. Apple has locked down iOS to let them do whatever they want and overcharge as much as they like, and Google has no incentive to be any better, because there's no serious 3rd contender*.

For typical users not buying Apple means having to compromise on privacy with Google, which isn't a great option either. Both are trying their best to create vendor lock-in and make it hard for users to leave.

From developer perspective not having access to iOS users is a major problem. Apple inserts themselves between users and developers, even where neither users nor developers want it. Users and devs have no bargaining power there, because Play Store does the same, and boycotting both stores has a bunch of downsides for users and devs.

*) I expect people on HN to say that some AOSP fork with f-droid is perfectly fine, but that's not mainstream enough to make Apple and Google worried, especially that Google has created its certification program and proprietary PlayStore Services to make degoogling phones difficult.

mrcwinn
0 replies
2m

It's an interesting perspective, but as I understand this case, the case is not interested in a developer's bargaining power against their distributor. The case is interested in the impact on consumers (fewer choices, higher prices). There's certainly no argument to make that consumers lack a variety of apps and app features.

I care about you as a developer, but I'm not sure this case does. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong.

__Joker
1 replies
2h43m

Can a argument be made that by not supporting other software on their platform, essentially platform is inhibiting competition, which hinders true price discovery and customer loses ? Like if cars don't allow other FSD on their platform, what choice does the customer has.

visarga
0 replies
2h3m

Yeah, cars should totally allow third party FSD integrations, provided they are certified to be safe. We can't risk pedestrians getting hurt just so we can have more app choices.

But side-loading apps or having an alternative App Store only exposes you to liability, not other people. So it's not the same thing. We should be free on our own risk.

Draiken
1 replies
1h22m

If their tight experience is so superior, why do they restrict competition? Wouldn't they win anyways?

IMO it's clear that without abusing its position, we would actually have competition for all of the bundled services from Apple.

But this is capitalism. The ultimate goal is always monopoly, so they'll keep chasing that by whatever means necessary.

easy to make alternatives to Apple products

What? This is plain false. Entering this market is extremely expensive and hard to do. The duopoly is there for a reason. Even giants like Microsoft tried to enter it and couldn't.

khazhoux
0 replies
40m

If their tight experience is so superior, why do they restrict competition? Wouldn't they win anyways?

iOS today regularly updates with improvements across the full software stack, up to the Apple apps themselves. Sometimes these changes are major. In the world the justice department is asking for, big changes to —for example, Messages app— would have to be coordinated with every app developer in that category. Changes would takes much, much longer, and in many cases would have to be watered down.

stale2002
0 replies
29m

The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience, but why? There are open alternatives.

Buy another car.

That argument goes both ways.

Once Apple is forced by law to allow other app stores, then you are free to continue to just use the Apple app store.

Just don't install other app stores. It is even more trivial to do that. So please don't complain about other app stores in the future, as your own exact argument refutes it.

skeaker
0 replies
40m

Their platform is big enough that it affects the market even if you never use their products. Idiotic decisions that they make can ooze into other unrelated products in order to compete with them. Try buying a flagship Android with a microSD slot and a headphone jack. Now recall where the trend of eliminating those two things came from. The average consumer is not very keen to these things. They see the biggest player, Apple, gut a feature and lie to them about it being a good thing, and they will believe it. Now to recapture the average consumer the other players in the market have to adhere to those changes.

hindsightbias
0 replies
2h28m

The 0.01% who hate apple anyway can't live without the need to turn the iphone into an android because it's what's good for the children (users). It's really amazing the lengths folks talk about how superior android on these threads and apple is the root of all evil.

The other 99.9% could care less and I predict they will be unhappy with the results of forced-enshitification of iOS.

dgellow
0 replies
2h4m

You could read the linked document and see for yourself what they think the problem is

bb86754
0 replies
2h10m

If you're genuinely interested in this below are a couple things you could read to help get some background. Its actually a pretty fascinating history.

Judging by your phrasing, your interpretation of antitrust stems from Robert Bork and has been the mainstream thought for a long time. Read The Antitrust Paradox by him to see how we got here and why the courts have acted how they have for the past 40 years.

The current chair of the FTC, Lina Khan, was actually an academic prior to working for the government and has a long paper trail of how she interprets the law. In short (and extremely oversimplified), it modernizes the Brandeis interpretation that bigness is bad for society in general, regardless of consumer pricing. EX: If Apple were a country its GDP would surpass the GDPs of all but four nations. They argue this is bad flat out.

Can't say it was the only cause, but Khan's paper, Amazon's Antitrust Paradox - note the reference to Bork's book - is partially what resparked a renewed interest in antitrust for the modern era if you want to check it out.

akira2501
0 replies
1m

In lieu of this what is the problem?

You assertions are immaterial to the fact that they are breaking the law. Monopolies and monopolistic practices are flatly illegal.

You're also viewing this exclusively through the lens of the "consumer" experience while fully ignoring the effects on the "labor" and "supplier" market.

The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience

Is there some evidence that a monopoly is absolutely required to have a "tight experience?"

afavour
0 replies
2h34m

I fear we're going to see this argument in absolutely every thread on this topic for the next few years and it's going to be argued ad nauseam. "You can just buy an Android phone" barely scratches the surface of the arguments being made.

For example (given the EU gives great context to this): Apple owns and maintains the only App Store that's allowed on the iOS platform. So they have a monopoly on the iOS app market. Is that right and fair? I'm sure plenty will read that want to reply "yes of course it's fair, Apple can do what they want with their own platform" but that's your opinion. Controlled app stores are a dramatic shift from the way software used to be distributed and as a society/whatever we've never actually had a discussion about it. It just happened.

The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience, but why?

I'd argue the government seems to want to make it illegal for a tight experience to be the only experience available. And it's not hard to see the argument for why: competition is good. Multiple app stores or whatever would open up the market, Apple would have to make the case for why they should get 15/30% of an app developer's revenue. They might be able to make that case very easily, they might not. But a monopoly means they don't even have to try.

IMO talking solely about Apple and/or arguing about whether they have a "monopoly" isn't going to be that effective (sorry DOJ). The reality is that we live in a world that requires us to be connected, that connection is currently controlled almost exclusively by two tech giants to the extent that even a slightly smaller tech giant, Microsoft, utterly failed in launching a competitive third platform. Is this duopoly good for us as a society? Is it what we actually want? It's fair to at least be asking the question.

smoldesu
65 replies
3h36m

How do you think Apple will differentiate their case from United States v. Microsoft Corp., where Microsoft was implicated for almost identical monopoly misconduct?

The complaint literally says verbatim, "But after launching the iPhone, Apple began stifling the development of cross-platform technologies on the iPhone, just as Microsoft tried to stifle cross-platform technologies on Windows."

bruce511
29 replies
3h28m

Is Apple even a monopoly though? In the Microsoft case Microsoft had 90+% of desktop market share. (And propped Apple up to create even a semblance of competition.) They were accused of leveraging that position to prevent manufacturers etc from getting out of line.

Apple, on the other hand shares the market with Android. Globally it's a minority share. Yes, in the US, Apple has a bigger market share than it has globally, but Android is a real competitor even there. So I'd suggest the two situations are quite different.

If it's not a monopoly (which would be fine by itself anyway), it's hard to make the case that they are leveraging that monopoly in unhallowed ways.

All that said, clearly the DOJ think they have a case, and I imagine they've spent a LOT of man-hours thinking about it and forming an argument. More than the no-time-at-all I've spent thinking about it.

screamingninja
7 replies
3h18m

You use the term Android like it is a corporation or a brand. Are you comparing iOS to Android OS or Apple to Samsung, Google etc.? I agree that Apple commands a relatively small share of the US mobile ecosystem, but where do the competitors stand?

metabagel
5 replies
2h9m

Android is a brand. It's trademarked by Google.

freedomben
4 replies
1h58m

Linux is trademarked as well. Is Linux a competitor to the iphone?

freedomben
2 replies
1h36m

Imagine you're an Apple lawyer, and you're explaining to the regulators that you are facing serious competition. You gonna send them that link?

samatman
1 replies
43m

I didn't say Linux was especially good competition for iOS.

But unless you can demonstrate that it sucks because Apple is doing something which qualifies as restraint-of-trade, which I would suggest is obviously not the case, that doesn't matter.

dragonwriter
0 replies
40m

It actually does matter if it has no practical bearing on Apple’s market (most easily seen in pricing) power.

Theoretical competition is not sufficient to demonstrate absence of a monopoly.

cow_boat
0 replies
2h25m

Apple sells over 60% of new smart phones in the US.

realusername
3 replies
3h22m

but Android is a real competitor even there

Is it though? On the hardware side sure but on the software side I don't see any competition. Both stores have close to identical practices and do not look like they compete over to get developers onboard. The only pricing change ever made was also made in reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied verbatim.

While not a strict monopoly, the lack of competition in this area between the only two players seems obvious.

fidotron
2 replies
3h11m

Edit: I give up trying to help people

realusername
1 replies
2h16m

When was the last exclusive deal like we have on console then? I never heard of one.

freedomben
0 replies
1h47m

This is maybe the first interesting/novel point I've read on this topic. (this Apple debate has mostly been beat to death and the whole thread here looks to be full of the same talking-point style arguments repeated ad nauseum by people on both sides who don't seem to be engaging any critical thinking).

I think Apple is clearly anti-competitive and is definitely powerful enough to warrant regulatory action given past standards, but the same exclusivity deals like consoles (and even audiobooks) have is certainly not a common thing (outside of Apple's first-party apps of course, but I would agree that isn't really what we're talking about here). I think this deserves some explanation, as it does seem like an obvious anti-competitive move that Apple could make but doesn't.

I tend to think Occam's Razor applied here is that Apple realizes their vulnerability to regulation and didn't wish to serve their critics evidence on a silver platter. I think that's why they announced that they will (finally) add (an inferior implementation of) RCS to the iPhone after many years of refusing and telling people to buy their mom an iPhone if they want to text her. Or the (inferior) implementation of PWAs. This is very much speculation of course, and I'd love to hear other theories.

megaman821
3 replies
2h26m

Why do the app store policies and prices look so similar between iOS and Android? What competitive forces are going to change a duopoly with soft collusion?

kergonath
2 replies
2h3m

Given the discovery both Apple and Google went through in their Epic trials, I would think that any collusion would have been documented by now. You don’t need collusion to have price convergence, just market forces. Are you arguing that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are conspiring to fix the prices of console video games? All of them have fairly similar licensing requirements.

megaman821
1 replies
1h49m

But we know the cost of providing app store services is quite low, so the convergence price is as high as the other party willing keep it at. If Apple lowered its cut to 8% tomorrow, Google would follow suit because it is still enough money to run the Play Store with. For video game consoles, the margins are slim (or negative), so the current cut is the natural price that lets developers sell games for a profit and the hardware companies to subsidize consoles to a level that people can afford them.

kergonath
0 replies
51m

But we know the cost of providing app store services is quite low, so the convergence price is as high as the other party willing keep it at.

Or what the developers would bear. Although I think the actual costs are higher than some people would like to think (with human reviewers and stuff, not just infrastructure).

If Apple lowered its cut to 8% tomorrow, Google would follow suit because it is still enough money to run the Play Store with.

Would they? Apple changing their fees has no effect on Android. Android suffered from the stigma of being a second-class citizen for a while, when apps were developed for iOS first. If it is as you say, why did they not drop their fees back then?

For video game consoles, the margins are slim (or negative), so the current cut is the natural price that lets developers sell games for a profit and the hardware companies to subsidize consoles to a level that people can afford them.

Right, but that’s a moral argument, not a legal one. Negative margins on hardware is a business decision. The law does not discriminate depending on your business plan. If 30% is extorsion, then whatever you do on the side does not make it stop being extorsion.

dragonwriter
3 replies
3h15m

Is Apple even a monopoly though?

Do they have pricing power? You can select any boundaries you want for markets to come up with any market share number you want, but the key empirical test is is there actual substitution effect or does Apple have the ability to charge monopoly rents. One of the major points of walled gardens is to create vendor lock-in and prevent price conpetition, and Apple has been masterful at that.

SmarsJerry
2 replies
2h59m

In their App Store they absolutely have pricing power. They take a high tax, which is higher than most actual taxes, on nearly every single application installed despite doing basically nothing. Things like denying a application the ability to even mention services can be bought elsewhere are the worst offender of their misconduct and other offenses would be forcing apps to use their payment system, again with an extremely high fee, even on recurring subscription charges. Normally a payment processor takes 2 to 3 percent, not 30 %.

Foxhuls
1 replies
1h15m

Sony (PlayStation store), Microsoft (Xbox store), and Valve (steam) all take 30%. No one can speak on what Nintendo takes due to NDA. Why are they never brought up?

dragonwriter
0 replies
13m

Sony is currently facing antitrust lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions over the Playstation Store.

InsomniacL
3 replies
1h45m

Is Apple even a monopoly though?

Apple has a monopoly though it's AppStore on over 2 billion devices though which it conducts $90,000,000,000 a year. That's more than a lot of countries GDP combined.

Saying Apple doesn't have a 90%+ share of phone market is irrelevant.

The question though, is if Apple as the Platform (phone) provider, maintains it's monopoly (AppStore) though anti-competitive means.

misnome
2 replies
55m

This is exactly the same argument Epic made, and lost.

Just like you have an illegal monopoly of 100% of the market of people posting on HN with the username "InsomniacL".

smoldesu
0 replies
42m

Epic's sentiment certainly resonated with the European Commission, and apparently the DOJ as well. Do any of us really believe Apple's App Store control is harmless?

InsomniacL
0 replies
7m

1. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse it or gain it though anti-trust means

2. people posting on HN with the username "InsomniacL" is not a 'market' in any sense

Market: an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted.

I don't know the details of Epic's case, they may have lost the battle but seems they might not have lost the war...

rtkwe
1 replies
3h12m

You're mixing the literal definition of monopoly with anti-trust laws. They have over half the market as a single company and the rest of the market is actually a fragmented zone of other companies so yes I think they are. You don't have to own the entire market to run afoul of monopoly laws they don't require there to be literally only one choice in the market.

0xcde4c3db
0 replies
26m

Not a lawyer (let alone one specializing in antitrust law), but it looks like the relevant legal standard is "dominant position". Basically, it's legal to have a dominant position, but that position can be abused through certain categories of actions. By contrast, under the Sherman Act it's nominally a felony to even attempt to become a monopoly (although the application of this by courts has apparently been both complex and contentious).

makeitdouble
1 replies
3h18m

What is meant by "monopoly" has been evolving, and a majority share acquired through anticompetitive means could be enough to warrant government action.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
2h13m

Anticompetitive != monopoly.

patapong
0 replies
2h55m

This depends on one important question: What is the relevant market? This is a fundamental question in all antitrust law cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market

If the relevant market is found to be "Apps on iOS", or "Flagships phones in the US", Apple is more likely to be considered having a monopoly position than if the market is "phones in the world". The courts will have to decide on what the market is before deciding if Apple has monopoly power or not.

gnicholas
18 replies
3h33m

On the browser front, it’s easy. iPhones have batteries so battery life is a concern. That’s why Apple treats them differently than Macintosh computers, which you can choose your own default browser engine for.

beeboobaa3
10 replies
3h32m

Why do you think that apple should get to make this choice for their users?

If they are so concerned with not letting their users drain the battery if they wish, why do they allow games on their store?

detourdog
6 replies
3h14m

The user is choosing the Apple ecosystem and is happy to make these rules. They allow games because some people like to spend their battery power on games.

beeboobaa3
2 replies
3h11m

The user is choosing an iphone because their friends have one. Do you actually think the average person thinks about these things before buying a phone? No. They are just told by apple "you don't get to do that" once they realize they want to try it.

Remember, you (nor apple) are not their parent.

detourdog
1 replies
1h35m

Most of the things I see Apple stop developers from doing I'm grateful for. Most developers have really bad ideas.

beeboobaa3
0 replies
1h2m

Feel free to not install their apps. Or in the case of the EU, feel free to only install apps from the official marketplace. That is your choice.

Other people should still be able to decide for themselves.

potatototoo99
1 replies
2h57m

The user is choosing out of an artificial lack of better options, which Apple can only get away with by having a big share in the US market. In markets where they are not dominant, the consumer benefits.

detourdog
0 replies
1h36m

I'm the user and I know what I'm doing. I'm not being tricked into anything. I'm trying to avoid a certain type of personality that thinks they are saving the world.

Someone
1 replies
2h54m

I think Apple’s argument would be that making choices as to what you sell and for what price more or less is the core of what running a company is. If users don’t like the choices they make, they can shop elsewhere. That’s capitalism 101.

That brings us back to the question whether they’re a monopoly. The justice department seems to say they have a monopoly on iOS, so that users cannot shop elsewhere.

If such a thing can exist, of course they have a monopoly on iOS, just as Coca Cola has one on Coca Cola, Mercedes has one on Mercedes cars, etc. Next question would be whether they misuse that monopoly.

Apple will argue that ‘a monopoly on iOS’ doesn’t make sense as a concept and that, if you want to run Firefox or Chrome on a smartphone, there’s plenty of choice in the market, and even if there weren’t, there’s no obligation for them or any company to make a product that users want.

In the end, the outcome of this will depend less on logical arguments than about what ‘the people’ want. Laws and their interpretation will change if the people want that. That, I think, is what Apple should be worried about.

beeboobaa3
0 replies
2h45m

Apple sells a computing device. They also sell apps. They are free to choose what phone to sell, and they are free to choose what apps to sell.

They should not be free to prevent others from selling (or providing for free) apps for the computing device that consumers bought.

The problem is that user's can't shop elsewhere, because apple locked the operating system down to prevent that from happening.

gnicholas
0 replies
3h25m

I’m not saying I think they should be able to, I’m saying this is unlikely to be proven as an antitrust violation under the Microsoft precedent.

smoldesu
4 replies
3h32m

That's a reason someone might prefer Apple's first-party browser, sure. How does it justify banning third-party browser engines though?

Are we ruling out the possibility that competitive browsers could offer better battery performance, too?

gnicholas
3 replies
3h27m

The argument would be that they didn’t want iPhone users, especially with early models, to end up choosing other engines that were much worse on battery life and that would hurt the image of the iPhone. Back then, there was no battery settings where you could see what was eating your battery. It was all opaque and could make people think the device had lousy battery life.

And yeah, I think it’s unlikely someone could have made a more efficient browser than Apple since they didn’t give public access to all of their functionalities. And that might have been partly for security reasons, if there were less-secure aspects to hidden functions, for example.

The counter-argument is that they should have opened everything up, but Apple will say they were going as fast as they could responsibly go, and that’s why there were limitations that have been relaxed over time.

generj
1 replies
2h39m

The real justification for browser engine restrictions is not battery life but security.

If you look at any iOS vulnerability reporting, Safari is a big weakness and often the source of zero day attacks. Browsers are hugely complex pieces of software with a lot of attack surface. A large part of Apple’s value proposition is being secure. It sounds like the new approach (in the EU only) that allows additional browser engines requires specific security measures to be taken.

Rightly or wrongly device security is going to be a strong defense Apple has against some of these allegations.

apantel
0 replies
1h41m

Then by the same argument, it should be ok for Microsoft to prevent users from installing any other browser on Windows besides Edge because it could make that person’s device less secure…

No, a user should be allowed to take the security risk of installing whatever they want on their computers. Security-conscious users will have clean phones, and ordinary users will have phones full of viruses like their computers.

Let people choose.

makeitdouble
0 replies
3h11m

That feels like an argument that could apply to bar any category of apps to compete with Apple ones on the phone.

For instance giving a special placement to Apple Music and not allowing other apps to get the same privileges, because music playback needs to be efficient, and a bad music experience would hurt the iPhone's image. Same for movies, same for ebooks, same for spreadsheets (including needing to execute macros, so security risk is through the roof)

I feel I could get paid by Apple to come up with excuses for each app they need any.

gbear605
1 replies
2h35m

Most Macs sold are Macbooks that also have batteries

gnicholas
0 replies
2h27m

Battery life is more of a concern on mobile devices because if your phone dies you can't call 911, get an uber, navigate with maps, or message a friend. There's more reason to protect mobile batteries than laptop batteries.

dagmx
6 replies
3h30m

One of the big factors was that Microsoft were doing things like paying OEMs to not include other browsers. This was also the crux of the issue in Epic v Google recently.

acdha
5 replies
3h23m

Or operating systems: things like BeOS, OS/2, and Linux couldn’t be offered on a given model without paying for a Windows license or giving up volume pricing for the entire line.

weberer
3 replies
2h15m

That's still the case. Its still almost impossible to buy a Linux laptop from one of the big vendors. Even the rare models that they do sell, like the Dell XPS Developer edition, are hidden so deep in their website that they're almost impossible to find unless you're sure it exists.

kergonath
0 replies
2h2m

The issue was not the lack of computers with alternative OSes. It was Microsoft using its dominant status in the market to enforce it.

doublepg23
0 replies
2h3m

Have you looked recently? It's pretty easy to get models from Dell and Lenovo.

acdha
0 replies
1m

That’s Dell’s management problems. What I was referring to was the policy Microsoft had in the 90s of, say, telling Dell that they could license Windows for the XPS line at, say, $10/unit if it was on every device sold or list price if they offered a different OS. That was very effective at making it cost more not to use Windows and did exactly what they intended.

codehalo
0 replies
2h9m

A whole generation of people who don't know how horrible Microsoft was. Two decades later, people are still bitter. The amount of great tech that got stifled.... SMH.

ruined
5 replies
3h33m

yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser (in this jurisdiction) so there's technically no precedent yet

mcphage
2 replies
2h40m

yes safari is preinstalled but on an iphone you aren't allowed to install another browser

A browser is a product, and you can install many other browsers.

A HTML rendering engine is a software library, and you can not install another HTML rendering engine.

The justice department definitely cares about products. It's not clear to what degree it cares about software libraries.

metabagel
1 replies
2h0m

This is an artificial distinction. A browser normally comes with its own rendering engine.

In my experience, Firefox does not work as well on the iPhone as does Safari. It's obviously a rendering issue, because large pages will reload on their own over and over again while I'm trying to read them. My guess is it's a sneaky broken part of webkit which Apple knows how to fix in Safari and deliberately leaves broken for the other browser makers to suffer the consequences. Because, that's just the kind of bullshit which Apple is down for.

mcphage
0 replies
7m

This is an artificial distinction. A browser normally comes with its own rendering engine.

You're right that a browser normally comes with its own rendering engine, but I don't think it's an artificial distinction. There are plenty of components that most programs call out to the OS for—form elements, drop downs, save/load windows, file system access, and whatnot. The rendering engine is a much larger component, but I don't think it's cut-and-dried that it is categorically different.

My guess is it's a sneaky broken part of webkit which Apple knows how to fix in Safari and deliberately leaves broken for the other browser makers to suffer the consequences

"Apple sabotages webkit for other Browsers" is a different—and to me at least, much stronger—argument than "Apple requires other browsers to use Webkit".

dagmx
0 replies
3h29m

Nit: you can install other browsers, but not other browser engines.

It might prove to be a significant difference in terms of how it affects competitors as a product.

overstay8930
0 replies
3h2m

Because unlike the Microsoft case, you have the option to buy a smartphone from a company other than Apple. 1990s Microsoft was quite literally a monopoly, nothing like what is going on today.

Apple is not stopping their competitors from making good phones, just like how Apple is not stopping you from buying a phone that wasn't made by Apple. Microsoft was doing both of those things, Apple isn't. The cases aren't even close really.

madeofpalk
0 replies
2h53m

It's really worth a read about what that case was actually about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

It's reasonably clear why the Microsoft case was different

The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

Microsoft made deals with other companies to restrict competition. Apple doesn't need to make up a contract to prevent NFC payments as they just don't offer it in the first place. The Microsoft case actually has a lot more similarities to why Google lost the Epic case, by Apple won.

adolph
0 replies
3h29m

iOS started out closed and stayed that way for various reasons. Windows OS started with the ability of users to make various choices. One of those choices had to do with web browsers. MS's crime was "the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

Nifty3929
30 replies
3h29m

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally. That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly. There are many non-apple phone options that many consumers easily avail themselves of. And at least one other OS choice as well. All of these are fully supported by the entire ecosystem of telcos.

Seems like bullying to score political points to me.

AlotOfReading
13 replies
3h13m

Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. Absolute market share isn't the only factor that goes into determining monopoly. You also get different numbers from different definitions. Apple controls 100% of the iOS market, or ~80% of the mobile subscription market, etc.

CharlesW
6 replies
3h4m

Apple controls 100% of the iOS market…

This is like saying Y Combinator controls 100% of the Hacker News market, or that Amazon controls 100% of the AWS market. It's a non-sensical argument.

skeaker
1 replies
14m

Yeah! Microsoft owns 100% of the Windows market, so users shouldn't be able to install software on their Windows devices unless they use the Microsoft store. Installing your own software from the internet or writing your own code would be non-sensical because Microsoft owns that.

CharlesW
0 replies
3m

You used the phrase “Windows deceives” to mean “general purpose PCs”, and I think it’s worth noting this because Windows Phone was a Windows device. I acknowledge that this is not cognitive dissonance if you also believe PlayStation is a monopoly.

jonwinstanley
1 replies
2h37m

Of course it's non-sensical, right up until that thing grows to be a large part of the US economy.

I have no idea what the numbers are, but if 80% of all commerce on mobile is going through Apple's devices then yes, it's likely that the Government will want to ensure there is "fairness" in that eco-system.

misnome
0 replies
47m

You are agreeing with the parent poster, who is saying that the 80% matters, and it's nonsensical to call the 80% 100%.

throw_a_grenade
0 replies
2h17m

On the contrary, it's exactly on the spot. EU used the term "gatekeeper" for such a market position, where you can dictate the terms of the market (and have oversized influence over other participant's behviour), while dodging classification of "monopolist" on technicality. It's exactly the point.

afavour
0 replies
2h41m

Perhaps the more sensical version is "Apple controls 100% of the iOS app store market". Because no other app stores are allowed.

bigyikes
2 replies
3h1m

“Apple controls 100% of the iOS market” as an argument sounds like satire lol. What point does this make?

Is the implication that Apple should allow iOS on non-Apple devices? There is not a single hardware company in the world that would integrate iOS to the degree that Apple does. A requirement like this would immediately enshittify Apple’s brand.

amiantos
0 replies
2h44m

They're using emotional arguments, not rationale ones. Like calling Apple's cut of app sales a "tax", as it is literally not a tax but a normal part of doing business. Similarly the lawsuit claims that iPhone users somehow are "undermined" from messaging other phones, when in reality there are zero restrictions on messaging to and from any phone. None of these arguments are based on the reality of the situation, but some emotional response to it.

AlotOfReading
0 replies
2h24m

I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was simply trying to illustrate that market share is relative to the definition of "market" you use with extreme examples. Frankly, I'm not even saying that defining iOS/the app store as a market unto itself is a good definition.

dmitrygr
1 replies
2h43m

Apple controls 100% of the iOS market

“AlotOfReading” controls 100% of your HN posts.

edward28
0 replies
2h6m

The call is coming from inside the house.

Topfi
0 replies
2h20m

> Standard oil was at 64% when it was broken up in 1911. [...] Apple controls 100% of the iOS market [...]

I find it maddening that a lot of people replying to your fair point have chosen to ignore the first half and decided to exclusively focus on the latter, when that part was clearly meant as an example of how market definitions can have an impact.

A fairly recent example of the latter being a commonly mischaracterized or (by members of the public) outright dismissed concern was MSFTs dominance in the Cloud Gaming market, which was often met either with "but MSFTs share of the gaming market overall is less" or the even less applicable "but nobody uses Cloud Gaming anyway", even though neither should count towards whether something rises to anti-competitive behavior in a given market.

jqpabc123
7 replies
3h14m

Apple has about 60% of the smartphone market in the US, and about 25% globally.

This case is about the US marketplace, globally is irrelevant.

And it is about more than just marketshare. Apple's tactics restrict the entire marketplace --- not just Apple captives.

Whole classes of apps are simply not practically possible on Android without paying monetary tribute to Apple.

For example, universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper. Few people will use a messaging app if it can't communicate with 60% of their friends. And the only to make this happen is to pay Apple.

Someone
5 replies
2h41m

Huh? Don’t WhatsApp, Signal, etc. work in the USA? Or does anybody pay for them?

s17n
4 replies
2h27m

In the US you can actually lose relationships if you don't have imessage. None of the other apps matter.

misnome
1 replies
49m

*Teenagers, who are of course known for being perfectly rational in such things.

Next you can sue designer clothing companies for not handing their products out for free to poor teens.

s17n
0 replies
38m

I'm not talking about teenagers. If you think that your social life is the same with and without imessage you're wrong, regardless of how old you are.

Using any other app just adds friction - obviously your best friend isn't going to stop talking to you because of it but weaker relationships might not survive.

crop_rotation
1 replies
2h21m

The fact that people are shallow is not a reason to break up companies. Some social circles will kick you out if you don't wear luxury clothes, but you don't see the government forcing those companies to lower prices.

jobs_throwaway
0 replies
19m

No one is suggesting breaking up apple over this, merely forcing them to allow interoperability

roamerz
0 replies
2h39m

>universal messaging is not possible without paying the Apple gatekeeper

There is in fact universal messaging - it's called SMS. You don't need to pay Apple to use it. If you would have added secure to your example then yes that would be correct.

toast0
2 replies
3h7m

The FTC is perhaps a biased source, but they say [1]:

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

The US doesn't have antitrust authority for the world, only for the US. iPhone has had 60% market share (or similar) for a long time now, so it's fair to consider that Apple has significant and durable market power in mobile phones.

Is it a complete monopoly? No, but it doesn't need to be.

From a very brief skim of the claims, the clearest one that stands out to me is the one about smartwatches. If Apple does provide better integrations to Apple Watches than 3rd party watches, that's pretty clearly 'tying' which is prohibited when using a market dominant product to create market dominance in a new market (smartwatches). OTOH, it wouldn't have been a big deal if the Microsoft Band had better integrations than other watches on Windows Phone, because tying is allowed without market dominance.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

graeme
1 replies
1h53m

that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

Apple doesn't have this power though. If they raised prices they'd lose sales. And they haven't been able to exclude competitors, there is a robust ecosytem of Android manufacturers.

There's a reason the FTC has been losing almost all of their cases recently. They internalized the idea that a large successful company is inherently bad and focus on that rather than any objective legal standard.

amadeuspagel
0 replies
25m

Apple doesn't have this power though. If they raised prices they'd lose sales.

Yes, that's true for every company. So monopolies don't exist?

pquki4
0 replies
1h48m

60% sounds good enough for DoJ to sue, as a US government agency. Why do you even bother to quote "25% globally", it's meaningless here.

nox101
0 replies
2h29m

You realize the world market is irrelevant. If some company has a monopoly in France, they don't care whether or not that company has less market in other countries. Apple has a monopoly in the USA and so the USA is going to try to break that monopoly. Google has already been sued and lost on it's app store market share. Apple's is larger.

nottorp
0 replies
2h57m

There are many non-apple phone options

One non-apple phone option. Or you're somehow deluded into thinking the hardware matters any more?

bogwog
0 replies
3h7m

That's a pretty big stretch to call it a monopoly

The word "monopoly" needs to be banned from these types of discussions because it always derails the conversation into pointless semantic bickering. There is no definition of that word that will make everyone happy. Even if Apple had 99.999% marketshare, as long as there's some hacker selling DIY linux phones under a bridge somehwere, someone's going to say Apple CAN'T be a monopoly because they have a competitor.

There are many reasons why antitrust laws exist, and these lawsuits tend to be really complex. There's not a simple `if(company.is_monopoly()) sue(company);` program that the FTC and DOJ use to decide when to sue.

InsomniacL
0 replies
41m

The smartphone market is irrelevant.

If my water provider said "We're the only water provider so we're raising rates 1000%, take it or leave it", you would still say that's a monopoly even though i could move house to an area with another water provider.

Apple has a 100% monopoly though it's AppStore on 2 billion devices though which $90,000,000,000 in trade is conducted. If that's not a market big enough to be considered for Anti-Competitive practices and illegally maintaining a monopoly then i don't know what is.

That's more trade than the entire GDP of Luxembourg!

lokar
29 replies
3h37m

As an iPhone user I am willing (and believe I am) paying Apple a premium for a well curated and reviewed App Store (vs android). I just wish they would stop “double dipping “ and charging far in excess of their costs (and in excess of reasonable profit) to the app sellers.

miguelxt
12 replies
3h29m

You should be allowed to stay inside Apple's walled garden while the rest of users should be allowed to leave it whenever they want (at the very minimum at their own risk).

s3r3nity
7 replies
3h25m

...rest of users should be allowed to leave it whenever they want (at the very minimum at their own risk).

You can, though? Just go buy an Android. There are a billion different options there.

Heck, you can also still buy old-school type flip phones at Walmart.

HDThoreaun
4 replies
2h23m

If I switch to android I lose the apps I paid for and my ability to text American iPhone users is completely hamstringed

sedivy94
3 replies
2h0m

Completely hamstringed? SMS is the standard, and yes it sucks horribly. Elevating the experience with additional software features and cloud services on one platform does not immediately entitle all smartphone users on the globe to the same experience. Google made a push for RCS, botched it, service providers either didn’t adopt it or only partially implemented it. That was upsetting to me. Do we sue Google and service providers as well?

I do agree that losing app licenses is upsetting. But this is no different than the licensing model for many softwares in the desktop market (e.g. per-user and per-install licenses).

HDThoreaun
2 replies
1h55m

Emails from apple executives have made clear that iMessage is purposefully used as a lock in tool. whether thats legal or not idk, what I do know is that it prevents me from switching to android and I would like the government to make apple stop.

samatman
1 replies
1h10m

It quite literally does not. Step one: walk into any store and buy an Android. Step two: have your phone service transferred to that Android. Step three: there is no step three.

People do this every day. Hundreds of them, at least. Every day.

HDThoreaun
0 replies
40m

Apple is using their market power to degrade their competitors product. Of course I could switch to android, but I dont want to, solely because texting iPhone users would become a much worse experience

skyyler
0 replies
3h8m

You know that they meant there should be an option to enable software sources other than Apple’s App Store.

layer8
0 replies
2h3m

That’s a Hobson’s choice.

pb7
1 replies
3h22m

The problem with this is that going outside of Apple's walled garden benefits 3rd parties who would prefer to do whatever they want so to use the same apps as before, everyone will have to submit to that risk. Apple's walled garden is a type of regulation.

amenhotep
0 replies
36m

But I thought all of Apple's users were extremely rational actors who freely chose for their experience to be restricted because they knew it was better. Surely if the alternative app stores were so inferior and dangerous all of these discerning users would reject them, and paying the 30% tax would be well worth the competitive advantage of offering your product at the only marketplace that notoriously lucrative cohort would accept. You're not insinuating that Apple's userbase isn't that sophisticated and doesn't make purchasing choices based on factors other than social vibes?

lokar
1 replies
3h23m

I’m fine with more app stores, let others compete, and ideally compete on review security.

giantrobot
0 replies
2h36m

If you want Fortnite then you need the Tencent...sorry the Epic Game Store. That comes with all of the PII leaks[0]. Because their game store will require permissions/privileges to install system wide apps, it won't be constrained on what data it can leak about users or what it can decide to install in the background. I for one can't wait for a dozen app stores to pop up all installing Sony root kits or Denuvo malware on people's phones.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...

Pfhortune
4 replies
3h26m

I am willing (and believe I am) paying Apple a premium for a well curated and reviewed App Store (vs android)

There is a plethora of evidence that this is not the case. See this recent example: https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/08/a-fake-app-masquerading-as...

(Yes, it was pulled, but that was _after_ the public noticed and LastPass had to issue a warning)

I just wish they would stop “double dipping “ and charging far in excess of their costs (and in excess of reasonable profit) to the app sellers.

That quarterly growth has to come from somewhere! Line goes up!

samatman
1 replies
1h13m

It's always easy to show that something isn't perfect: just find a counterexample.

It's also easy to multiply that tactic by insinuating that this means that it isn't good, or isn't better than the competition. Which is what you're doing here.

dns_snek
0 replies
1h9m

That tends to happen when your entire argument hinges on something being (close to) perfect, like the app store review process.

overstay8930
1 replies
2h58m

There is a plethora of evidence that this is not the case.

Do you have actual evidence for this claim? Because it's pretty widely accepted that the App Store has higher standards and quality, and you just cited a single case.

kmeisthax
3 replies
3h9m

When the iPhone App Store first launched, Steve Jobs claimed[0] the 30% was to cover the cost of certifying software as functional, well-designed, and nonmalicious. Part of it was an ego thing too: he didn't want people fucking up apps and making his pet project look bad, so early App Review focused on a lot of UI polish things in order to make people think iPhone software was just inherently better than Android.

Even a few years in there's already evidence that Apple was entirely aware of how much of a cash cow owning the distribution market for your apps is. There's an internal letter asking about reducing the percentage because someone was worried about the Chrome Web Store (?) eating their lunch. Today, App Review is far too inadequate for the level of software submissions Apple gets, and they regularly let garbage onto the store that's specifically supposed to be curated.

I occasionally hear people complain about how Tim Cook "ruined the company" and that Jobs would never do the kind of control freak shit that he literally pioneered and is literally the selling proposition of the Mac all the way back in 1984. The only thing Tim Cook did was scale the business from "luxury compute" to it's inevitable conclusion as a monopolistic nightmare. The way that the App Store business game is played is specifically that you don't keep spending all your money on better app review. Once you have users and developers mutually hooked on one another, you siphon money out of them for your other projects (or your shareholders).

At one point, you were paying a premium for a better App Store, but not anymore. The business relationship just doesn't work out that way long-term.

[0] I personally think this belief was genuine at first.

FullyFunctional
2 replies
3h1m

To add more evidence to your point: SJ loved wall gardens and consistently fought against extensibility. The Apple II only got extension slots because the other Steve insisted. All of the compact Macs have very limited to no extensibility.

It's so ironic that Apple was pushing the (open) Web apps in the early days of the iPhone (out of necessity of course).

samatman
0 replies
1h18m

Jobs loved excellent user experiences, and, rightly or wrongly, saw walled gardens as an important part of providing them. Sometimes.

The counterexample is the iPod, with its advertising slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn.". The first iPod used Firewire and was Mac-only, every edition since then used entirely industry-standard technology, USB and MP3. The value proposition was, as the slogan illustrates, easily taking your CDs and putting the music on the iPod. That too was in pursuit of an excellent user experience.

Later, Jobs fought the entire music industry for the right to buy digital music, not just rent it. And won.

kmeisthax
0 replies
2h23m

Jobs wanted webapps because it tied the hands of third parties more - it was harder to write a webapp that would burn your battery (and hands).

jocoda
3 replies
3h22m

As long as I have to pay Apple a yearly developer fee so that I can load my own software (that no one else will use) on to 'my' phone, it does not belong me. Yes I know you can reload it every week. Not my phone.

I do not understand why Microsoft stepped out of the mobile market.

usernamed7
1 replies
3h8m

I do not understand why Microsoft stepped out of the mobile market.

Because they failed. And not just once!

pjc50
0 replies
2h32m

It's a pity really. The phones were quite good. But they failed for the exact issue under discussion: app store compatibility! They didn't have access to either Android or iOS apps.

999900000999
0 replies
2h56m

This is apart of why I use Android.

It's understood that you can install random APKs from anywhere. As a hobbyist developer, I want to be able to set up a GitHub pipeline and then just download my APKs from that without fighting Apple or paying for an Apple developer account.

I'm actually open to buying an iPhone as well, iPhones are much better when it comes to music production, by understand I have to abide by Apple's rules and not be able to install my own software.

kbf
0 replies
3h24m

That used to be my stance as well, but the App Store has gotten so bad in recent years. These days if there’s an app I want to install, it’s much easier to find the app store link on the developers page than to search in the App Store. At this point the “user experience” argument isn’t really there beyond easy payments and subscription management.

brink
24 replies
2h45m

Apple frustrates the hell out of me with their deceptive tactics to create walled gardens while pretending not to. They feign ignorance to keep you stuck and create the illusion of open doors out of their walled garden that are actually broken and they have no interest in fixing.

I've been paying for iCloud for my wife's iphone for the last several months because of how difficult Apple makes it for us to export our photos. Copying them off the phone with a usb cable is nearly impossible if you don't have a macbook, exporting them off of the website is nearly impossible if you have over 1k photos.. meanwhile google takeout allows me to download all of my photos in my browser in a couple clicks. In my experience, it feels like Apple makes getting out of their walled garden as difficult as legally possible.

nouryqt
4 replies
54m

If you're on linux I can only recommend ifuse with the libimobiledevice package. I followed the guide on the arch wiki[0] and could simply mount my iPhone to a directory[1] and then just drag and drop them over. For some reason there were 1000 pictures per folder so I had a few different folders, but otherwise it was super simple.

[0]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/IOS

[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/IOS#Manual_mounting

badrequest
2 replies
45m

This is like that comment on the launch post for Dropbox all over again.

skyyler
0 replies
30m

The Dropbox comment was a highly technical person belittling an app without realising that it solves problems for normal people. They thought that normal people would have no problem finding and purchasing a managed FTP service, mount it with curlftpfs, and then use SVN to get a Dropbox-like service.

The comment you’re responding to is a technical person offering advice on a way out of a sticky situation to another (assumed) technical person. It didn’t feel like they were trying to say that the average person should be able to read archwiki and use libimobiledevice to pull pictures off an iPhone… but I could be misreading the situation

Spivak
0 replies
34m

Look, they're clearly trying to help someone deal with a real problem using the tools available today. They're out here offering someone sunscreen and you're mad they're not yelling at God instead.

uticus
0 replies
37m

Can also testify to this, also works for transferring files to the device from Linux if app supports (ref VLC, etc). However, the speed is mind-numbingly slow.

Faster and easier to just sync with iCloud, then download from iCloud.

So, why not just vote with my wallet, and get a device that either is more friendly to 3rd party software interaction or simply allows saving to a movable SD card? Because overall things work very smoothly, and it is easy to find and manage settings. These things balance out well against the frustrations, especially when I know from experience that non-Apple devices will present their own frustrations.

To be fair, the philosophical/theoretical/economic foundations of antitrust legislation confuse me. This has not been helped by media bites a la NYT. Maybe if I had months and years of free time and good material I could form a worthy opinion. But for now, I just have trouble seeing how statements like this from OP are contradictory: "The company says this makes its iPhones more secure than other smartphones. But app developers and rival device makers say Apple uses its power to crush competition."

teeray
3 replies
1h57m

I just want the auto-sync experience of iCloud photos to my own NAS. Paying Apple $2.99/mo forever just so I can have an offsite backup of my photos is so obnoxious.

brink
0 replies
1h49m

I'll give this a shot, thank you!

mcfedr
0 replies
11m

I use photo sync for this, which was a one off payment. Of course you have to trigger it manually every few days because only Apple apps can actually work on iOS

samatman
2 replies
1h22m

It's amusing how often you see this sort of substantive claim which can be trivially disproven.

"Apple operates a walled garden! I can't get my photos out of iCloud!" [half a dozen ways to get the photos off the phone are proffered] "Well. Nevertheless!"

mcfedr
0 replies
12m

But none of them work like iCloud. No one but Apple is allowed to make an app that reliably ships your photos to the cloud.

kstrauser
0 replies
35m

True. It's one thing to say "I can't do a thing", and another to say "thing can't be done".

khazhoux
2 replies
47m

I simply installed Google Photos app and now every single iphone photo is automatically synced to my google account.

Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

mrtksn
1 replies
25m

Do you have to open the Google Photos app to sync or you set it and forget it, like take a photo and in a few moments its available everywhere?

mcfedr
0 replies
13m

You have to open it at least every few days. Only Apple apps can work reliably on iOS.

userabchn
1 replies
26m

I also suspect that there isn't an easy way to reduce the resolution that the default iPhone camera app takes photographs at (that I could find) because Apple wants them to be big so that you will need to buy cloud storage.

kstrauser
0 replies
18m

You mean other than Settings > Camera > Formats > Photo Mode?

Of the reasons I can imagine why Apple might want the camera to default to its best settings, "sell moar cloud" isn't in the top 10.

londons_explore
1 replies
2h42m

Do they have a GDPR-like process where you can just export a .zip file of all your data?

mruszczyk
0 replies
2h26m

There is an option to request a copy of your data at: https://privacy.apple.com/

rubatuga
0 replies
2h20m

Not the answer you want but with an iPhone backup you can extract all the images .

kstrauser
0 replies
2h38m

I exported my 27,000 photos to my Synology as a backup. There's not an inherent limit that makes what you're asking impossible.

hylaride
0 replies
1h55m

Some googling would find you several ways to do this (directly on the phone to external storage is possible, but yeah selecting all the photos on the iphone sucks as you have to click one and scroll-select them all): https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/iphone/iph480caa1f3/io...

The easiest way is to export them via photos for mac.

If you don't have a mac, then there's ways to get the photos on a PC: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT201302#importpc

You can also setup icloud on windows and download them, then move them wherever. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/108994

You can also connect the phone direct to PC and download them.

So it's not nearly impossible if you don't have a macbook.

abawany
0 replies
21m

an option for easy backup in addition to the already-mentioned google photos is to use a hosted nextcloud instance (hetzner, shadow.tech) to backup photos from your phone. the nextcloud app available on the ios store will backup to the configured remote nextcloud instance and the corresponding nextcloud app on your laptop etc. can then sync these photos to you.

justrealist
17 replies
3h42m

IANAL but it's baffling to me that this one took so long. This has been the clearest-cut abuse of monopoly in tech for a long time. Why did they waste time trying to convince judges that "free" could be monopoly pricing, when this was in broad daylight?

Arkanum
8 replies
3h41m

Isn't part of the problem how US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs? In the case of Apple's monopoly, its not clear how you would measure that let alone prove it to a court.

beeboobaa3
2 replies
3h29m

Here is a recent example of consumer harm posted to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39773736

I am curious though, why is the iOS version €4.99 but the Android version is free ? I've seen this a lot actually and have always wondered, I figured it might just be Apple's annual developer license fee but not sure.

Apple users are being forced to pay more for equivalent software because of Apple's tax.

Arkanum
1 replies
3h25m

Oh 100% I agree. My question/point is about how the US system treats monopolistic practices, and I worry that actually that example works in Apple's favour as they would likely argue that consumers are free to switch to android if they want cheaper apps.

beeboobaa3
0 replies
3h10m

If apple were to pay for the android replacement phone & perform the transfer of personal data to the new device then that might be a valid argument. As it is they do their best to lock users in to prevent them from ever switching.

Jensson
1 replies
3h32m

Consumer harm is pretty easy to argue, Apple doesn't tax macos programs but it does tax ios programs. That argument results in billions of dollars of consumer harm. There are many arguments against that view as well, but I just wanted to show that it is easy to argue for consumer harm.

Arkanum
0 replies
3h28m

I don't think that's enough though is it? To my mind the strong counter argument is that consumers are choosing to pay higher prices for "higher quality" (i know that often not the case with the scams on the app store) apps and if they want cheaper apps they are free to switch to android.

pvg
0 replies
3h27m

US anti-monopoly law is worded requiring proof of "consumer harm" which is normally measured in increased costs?

This is more a matter of interpretation, policy and practice rather than statute and these things can change over time. The interpretation you're describing was itself an innovation at one time.

Scubabear68
0 replies
3h19m

“Your honor, my family has to suffer the Green Bubble when chatting with iPhone friends. This has caused us irreparable mental harm and anguish”.

2OEH8eoCRo0
0 replies
2h17m

IANAL but that has been the modern interpretation whereas in the past that wasn't the case. Standard Oil was good for the consumer for example.

D13Fd
7 replies
3h39m

How is this even a monopoly? That's like saying "Walmart has a monopoly on selling products at its stores." There are thousands of competing phones with their own software and app stores.

justrealist
3 replies
3h27m

If Walmart had a 60% market share then yes the JD would be on their balls for store brands.

ribosometronome
2 replies
3h19m

How sure are you about that?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/252678/walmarts-net-sale...

It looks like roughly 60% of groceries are sold at Walmart in the US. And unlike phones, where you can choose Android easily, many regions have only Walmart to shop at.

justrealist
0 replies
3h15m

That's the wrong metric. It should be obvious that the US market share of walmart on groceries, merchandise, and health don't conveniently sum to 100%, and that's not how you would present that data. You're looking at the % of WalMart's sales, not market share.

The answer is more like 25%: https://www.axios.com/2023/04/20/most-popular-grocery-stores

COGlory
0 replies
2h51m

This is saying 58% of Walmart's sales are groceries. Not 58% of grocery sales are through Walmart.

ocdtrekkie
0 replies
3h31m

There is one competing phone platform with a store that has conveniently decided on identical fees. It's a duopoly. But also one where you can only shop with one of them.

The comparison is this: Walmart and Target are the only two stores that exist. They've also basically agreed to set the same prices on everything. And once you buy from Target once, you must buy everything else from Target too, and if you want to switch to Walmart, you have to throw out everything you bought at Target.

lokar
0 replies
3h34m

They have a remarkably durable market share. Some people are in effect forced to choose apple since apps they need (in some cases medical apps!) are iPhone only as the seller just does not bother with android.

kyledrake
0 replies
3h34m

There's approximately 2 app stores, I wouldn't call that competition.

Even in the most egregious days of Microsoft's OS monopoly, you could still choose to install software. Apple makes it basically impossible to do this outside of the context of their app store, which they charge heavily for access to and have no qualms removing or preventing apps that compete with its own. If this doesn't constitute monopolistic behavior, the bar is so high I'm not sure anything would ever qualify for it.

Workaccount2
16 replies
2h54m

iMessage is the most egregious monopolistic tool in Apple's garden.

If the DOJ accomplishes nothing else besides forcing Apple to open up iMessage, it will be a victory.

The lock-in of having functional communication with your friends and family is insane. Take that away and it becomes almost a no-brainier for people to consider competing devices.

And no, nobody with an iPhone is interested in switching to whatever messaging app you beg them to use, just so they can message you.

AlexandrB
7 replies
2h45m

I totally don't get this perspective. There are so many competing messaging platforms and they all work reasonably well on iOS. Because my various family and friend groups use different messaging apps I use all the following: WhatsApp, Signal, SMS, iMessage, Viber, and once in a while Facebook Messenger. I would say iMessage is kind of middle of the pack here. If I had to pick a favourite it's probably WhatsApp, but unfortunately it's owned by Meta - so I try to use Signal whenever I can. What's so special about iMessage that people think it's a monopolistic tool?

supergeek133
4 replies
2h38m

Are your various friends/family all tech-y people?

My "normal" friends and family are majority iPhone users. I'm Android.

I "literally ruin" their group texts. I've seen people actually reject relationships because they don't date people with "green bubbles".

Don't even get me started about work group texts.

I know restaurants where some of the servers have group iMessage chats with customers for early notification about nightly specials, Android users literally can't be added.

Likely not maliciously, but this has created almost a "second/lower class" of phone users that encompasses ~50% of the country.

AlexandrB
3 replies
2h34m

Are your various friends/family all tech-y people?

Not at all. A few of my friends are techies and they use Android/iPhone about 50/50. Family is mixed as well. No one in family uses iMessage.

I've seen people actually reject relationships because they don't date people with "green bubbles".

This seems like a feature, not a bug. I don't think you want to date someone who makes important life choices based on Apple marketing.

Edit: Is this a "Bay Area" problem or something? Or maybe a "young people" problem? I just can't imagine caring about whether someone messages me with "blue" or "green" text bubbles.

supergeek133
2 replies
2h32m

I'm not saying I run into these people, and I agree with your take.

Not at all. A few of my friends are techies and they use Android/iPhone about 50/50. Family is mixed as well. No one in family uses iMessage.

I would bet money this is the opposite of the majority experience.

AlexandrB
1 replies
2h20m

I would bet money this is the opposite of the majority experience.

As with ICQ/AIM/MSN Messenger back in the early 2000s I bet it's regional. WhatsApp seems extremely popular in my age/peer group where I live.

Workaccount2
0 replies
1h44m

So you don't live in the US?

npteljes
0 replies
2h4m

There are so many competing messaging platforms and they all work reasonably well on iOS

And I'd love to have all of them opened up.

Workaccount2
0 replies
2h40m

Its the default iPhone messenger and it works really well when messaging your friends and family, who all also have iphones because it works really well when messaging your friends and family.

HN chronically forgets that the average american cell phone user might know what iMessage actually is. Nevermind even having the faintest idea what a WhatsApp is. Or ever even heard of signal.

jonwinstanley
2 replies
2h44m

How is this a monopoly though? Everyone is free to move their family to WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Facebook messenger...

Workaccount2
1 replies
2h39m

Sure, just set up the seminar to convince people to stop using what already works great so that they can include just you in their group messaging.

jonwinstanley
0 replies
2h34m

Haha agreed! I'm not saying it's easy - but I don't see how it's a monopoly

LargeWu
2 replies
2h48m

It already works with SMS, though. You can choose to use 3rd party apps like WhatsApp. I fail to see how users are meaningfully "locked-in" any more than an android

supergeek133
0 replies
2h34m

Your average iphone user has no idea what this is.

All the know is "android makes the bubbles green and iMessage doesn't work as well with them, or at all".

pradn
0 replies
1h19m

Teens get bullied if they show up as green bubbles in group chats. I've had people tell me they wouldn't want to show up as green bubbles to potential romantic partners. The iMessage lock-in effects are real.

mrweasel
0 replies
2h30m

If the DOJ accomplishes nothing else besides forcing Apple to open up iMessage, it will be a victory.

Couldn't Apple just make the shittiest Android iMessage client anyone could ever imaging and the go "See, there it is, nobody wants it"

My take is that Apple has engineered iMessage in such a way that if anyone could just use it, then Apple would be stuck with a massive bill for running the infrastructure, without any benefits. They could in theory charge people a small amount to cover the cost, but that would also just keep people of the platform. WhatsApp made next to nothing when they attempted to charge people and Signal rely on donations. There's no way to push a for-pay messaging app.

iMessage being Apple only isn't what keeps me from buying an Android phone (Google manages to do that all by themselves). I already have three messaging apps on my phone, and four on my laptop, there's plenty of choice on that front.

jsight
0 replies
2h26m

Agreed. I remember seeing a YT review of the camera on the S23U and really raving about it.

Then he said that he wouldn't use it, because his family and friends won't let him... said they practically staged an "intervention" last time he used a device without imessage.

This wasn't a small YouTuber. Among teens, the pressure is even more real. imessage is being used to drive adoption in a really bizarre way.

retskrad
14 replies
3h23m

I've heard all arguments against Apple's practices, and to me, they all basically come down to 'it's unfair that so many people like to live inside the Apple walled garden'. When it comes to the law, Apple is not a monopoly. When it comes to competition on the market, Apple is competing with Android and Windows, and the vast majority of the world's middle and upper class willingly choose Apple products. Even if you literally tried to block people from buying Apple products, people will find a way. So, obviously, Apple customers are having a great time in the Apple warden garden and made Apple a $3T company. But for some reason, other companies and regulators feel like Apple and its customers are having too much fun and need to call the cops on their party.

Apple is no different than Google search. Even if you drowned people in search choice popups, 99% of the time people choose Google. Regulators say Google is doing something nefarious when in reality, their product is loved by billions of people. In these situations, like Apple products and Google search, we need to realize that both companies have won the game in certain markets they operate because they made products that people really enjoy using.

atonse
4 replies
3h10m

I'm not so sure. We are fully bought in to the Apple Ecosystem (Apple One, Apple Fitness, Music, everything). In most cases (like Apple Home), I did enough research and found that it was much more well thought out security-wise and was good enough, compared to the wild west that is the Google/Amazon smart home ecosystem. Again, for the most part, the walled garden is way superior to what I see outside the garden.

Even the app store, I have all my complaints about Apple's arbitrary enforcement of App Review guidelines as an iOS developer. However, as a consumer, I love that I can spend _less_ time worrying about my non-tech loved ones finding garbage in the app store. Yes there's coercive "buy this game" garbage, and tons of it, but I'm less concerned about financial scam apps than I would be for third party app stores.

However, in certain cases (like only Apple Music supported on the HomePod speakers, or Apple Watch only sending fitness data to Apple Fitness), we feel kind of "forced" to use the Apple product when there are superior competitors, because of the (manufactured) ease of use of full integration.

oflannabhra
1 replies
2h49m

Just FYI, HomePod actually supports multiple music services, and Apple Health (the data store for Fitness) supports integrations with other providers (both input and output).

atonse
0 replies
17m

I'll have to check this out because my wife much prefers the Peloton app to Apple Fitness.

atonse
0 replies
17m

Good to know! Will check it out. Was this something they added later?

ianlevesque
2 replies
3h8m

I like my iPhone, and want to be able to use Kagi as my search engine. Why can't I?

AlanYx
1 replies
2h59m

That seems like something they'd be willing to fix. They allow users to select Ecosia, an extremely niche search engine. Kagi should be on that list too.

ianlevesque
0 replies
1h14m

It's not. And you can't add any more.

andix
1 replies
3h11m

I think the position oft the European Union is a good approach. It classifies companies like apple not as a "monopoly" but as a "gate keeper".

I don't have a very deep understanding of that topic, but it's possible to regulate those companies a bit. In the EU similar things were already done for the car industry. The manufacturers are required to allow third party repair shops the same access to documentation, diagnostics software and parts like their own shops (not for free, but for a reasonable price). And repairs at a third party shop doesn't void the warranty.

For computers, cloud providers and smartphones similar regulations could improve everybody's life by giving us more flexibility and cheaper products by creating more competition.

In the end apple is collecting a lot of money and seems to just put it on huge piles in their bank accounts. I don't see any reason to increase competition by introducing regulations. Give startups and smaller companies a chance!

mruszczyk
0 replies
2h36m

I feel like there's a difference between the car regulation you state and the regulation approach being taken in the EU. Specifically the ability of third parties to limit end user choice.

With vehicle repair, I can still choose to use the manufacturer operated/approved repair shops. I truly am gaining additional choice and can continue to service my car as I always have.

The EU regulations allow third parties to remove my choice to live in the walled garden if they wish. So while it could enhance competition for developers I don't know if it greatly improves the users choice, or experience.

tarboreus
0 replies
3h16m

From a legal perspective, monopoly just means holding undue market power. People seem to really focus on the "mono" part, it's irrelevant from a US legal perspective.

rtkwe
0 replies
3h17m

They're not the same. The critical difference is people CAN choose not to use Google Search while keeping their same computer/phone, something you can't do with iPhone and the App Store/Wallet/etc laid out in the article. That's the critical difference that takes it from simply creating a superior product to monopoly, when you use your advantage in one space to lock in customers in a related space.

chickenpotpie
0 replies
3h16m

I think Google search and apples ecosystem are extremely different. Google search is trivial to leave, any one can switch to bing by just typing a different address in the URL bar. Switching off of apple products is painful and difficult and it's by design. My wife and I switched from iphone to Android over a year ago and we're still fighting with apple to stop routing some text messages to iMessage when it should be going to our phones over sms.

Spivak
0 replies
3h5m

This is correct for one side of Apple's market but not the other. You're right that Apple doesn't have monopoly power on the consumer side because there are alternatives and if you cared a whole heck of a lot you could create your own. It's capital intensive sure but being expensive to enter a market and having a moat doesn't mean you have a monopoly. If all your friends hung out on Discord then you're gonna have to use Discord to talk to them, if all your friends play a Windows exclusive game then you're gonna need a PC to play with them, the green bubble thing is nonsense.

But Apple does wield real monopoly power on the other side of their market which is app developers. I don't think large developers have any real choice but to bite the bullet and take whatever terms Apple offers and be on iOS because that's where your users are. Developers aren't choosing Apple as the better product in the way consumers are.

davidham
14 replies
2h11m

Regarding the Apple Wallet: what about it is uncompetitive? I can add credit cards from many providers to it, and as far as I can tell Apple doesn't get anything if I add my Chase card and use it with Apple Pay. I don't think banks have to pay Apple anything for their cards to be used in the Apple wallet. Nor do non-financial cards like memberships.

padthai
12 replies
1h55m

They get 0.15% of the transaction from the card issuer. And they do not allow card issuers to use the hardware on their own.

davidham
9 replies
1h42m

That seems...fair to me? Apple makes a phone a lot of people want to buy, and adds NFC to it to enable mobile payment, and they provide security guarantees for the end user and the card issuer alike. I don't know why they should be obligated to provide this functionality to the card issuers for free.

Topfi
7 replies
1h12m

Sure, but on my Android smartphone, my bank still has the ability to implement their own payment solution using NFC directly using their app, which is something they did and offer as an alternative next to Google Pay. It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay.

On iOS, my bank does not get to offer that ability, and I do not get that choice. If I owned an iPhone and wanted to do something like deposit some cash, pickup or ship a package via the postal service (as our postal service has the same security measures) outside business hours without a physical credit or debit card, I'd be out of luck, because of Apple's restrictive nature.

Having talked to a few of my friends and family, a lot of Apple Pay users are surprised and/or unaware that this is even an option they could have, and I am certain that at some point, Apple will implement something similar, whereupon Google Pay will also enable such functionality, cause the industry does follow Apple to a large extent when it comes to what is considered the minimum of neceessary features one has to offer.

But until then, I see this as restricting innovation, similar to how AT&T prevented a lot of developments, and we got the internet in its current state in part thanks to antitrust action against them, which they promised, we'd regret in a similar manner to Apple today.

danielmarkbruce
6 replies
1h6m

Is there any upside to consumers to this restriction?

pbourke
5 replies
45m

Security. I'm quite happy as an iPhone user to have Apple be the only ones in the loop for NFC payments. I'm generally happy with all other restrictions mentioned in the suit (no 3rd party app stores, no super apps, etc). It seems that this suit is brought on behalf of other companies (device and app makers, etc) and has a tenuous benefit to the public. There is a fair alternative available in Android for those who don't want to be in the iOS ecosystem.

FWIW I use Linux on my desktop computer, believe in open source, etc. Since mobile phones have become much more than phones and are now a sort of master key to your entire life, I am happy to have that key reside in as high a trust environment as I can find.

danielmarkbruce
2 replies
41m

Sorry, that was a joke. I should have lathered on more obvious sarcasm. The DOJ don't understand very basic computer security. It's disgraceful. Agree with everything you say here - the antitrust regulators seem to have forgotten who they are supposed to be protecting - consumers, not apple competitors.

stale2002
1 replies
8m

Ok, but about the percentage fee?

If Apple removed the transaction cost entirely, then there wouldn't be much complaint.

That absolutely raises prices and effects consumers.

If Apple takes a 0% fee, or allows other competitors some way of charging 0%, that would obviously benefit consumers.

danielmarkbruce
0 replies
0m

The fee is paid by card issuers. It's 0.15% for cc and 0.5 pennies for debit cards. Card issuers take a large chunk of change in interchange fees, this is a tiny, tiny proportion of it. Even if they managed to pass the cost on (which they almost certainly cannot given the nature of that business), spread across it might be 0.00000x % increase in costs. And, it's quite likely to actually reduce costs for card issuers due to reduced fraud and reduced physical card issuance (those cards actually cost money to produce).

Topfi
1 replies
32m

Honest question: Do you have any example that the approach Android takes to the NFC stack enables exploits that are not possible on iOS in regard to NFC payments?

pbourke
0 replies
25m

I don't have an example, but I believe your question supports my point. From everything I've observed, Apple is generally better at providing a secure ecosystem than the variety of major parties that comprise the Android ecosystem. So if I remain in the Apple ecosystem I'll need to devote less energy to answering questions like the one you've asked than otherwise.

gmm1990
0 replies
1h14m

You could also frame it as they sold you an NFC capable phone and not really providing NFC functionality, which doesn't seem fair or at least deceptive.

samatman
0 replies
1h24m

Visa and Mastercard both charge a fee for operating a payment network. Apple does as well.

davidham
0 replies
1h41m

(Thank you for the reply by the way, I didn't know that about the 0.15%!)

mcfedr
0 replies
6m

You try and make an app that competes with Apple wallet.

You will very quickly find you can never have access to the NFC hardware. And you could not trigger your app when required.

Scubabear68
10 replies
3h28m

The point the suit misses is that one can simply buy an Android phone if they like. Millions of people literally do every year.

Choice already exists.

Workaccount2
8 replies
3h0m

If you want to have a functional social circle in the US, choice doesn't really exist.

nottorp
4 replies
2h51m

I'm sure you've seen this before, but only the US uses text messages any more.

The rest of the world is on cross platform apps and couldn't care less what their friends type from.

npteljes
1 replies
2h1m

couldn't care less what their friends type from.

Not really. They have ties to specific platforms, just that the platform is not tied to hardware. So it's either installing the app, or losing the connections, same as with the iPhone.

nottorp
0 replies
1h36m

I don't know, I have like ... 4-5 "platforms" on my phone. Not counting iMessage.

It somehow was a lot easier than migrating my data to an Android phone, for example.

Workaccount2
1 replies
2h50m

This lawsuit pertains to the US only...

Also, most of the US doesn't use text messages either, they use platform dependent iMessage. Hence the lock in.

nottorp
0 replies
2h47m

They do on average, or they just think they're sending SMS messages that have somehow improved? :)

overstay8930
1 replies
2h55m

If your friends won't talk to you because you have an Android phone, you don't actually have any friends.

Workaccount2
0 replies
2h50m

Friends will still talk to you. But they won't include you in group messages because apple purposely sabotages group messages with anyone outside the garden.

Unsurprisingly, a lot social planning and banter happens in those group messages.

samatman
0 replies
56m

Social pressure to use a particular phone and messaging app does not a monopoly make.

CPLX
0 replies
3h0m

Here's the first paragraph of the actual lawsuit. So no, I feel like they probably didn't miss the point that Android exists:

COMPLAINT In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Appl e’s then-CEO about an ad for the new Kindle e-reader. The ad began with a woman who was using her iPhone to buy and read books on the Kindle app. She then switches to an Androi d smartphone and continues to read her books using the same Kindle app. The executive wrote to Jobs: one “ message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch. ” Jobs was clear in his response: Apple would “force” deve lopers to use its payment system to lock in both developers and users on its platform. Over many years, Apple has repeat edly responded to competitive threats like this one by making it harder or more expensive for its users and developers to leave than by making it more attr active for them to stay.

tiahura
7 replies
3h23m

If Apple wanted to, they could drag this out for a decade. In the end, there are probably some details of what they've done with Imessage or the store that you could convince a jury are "unfair."

It's good to know that with everything going wrong on this administration’s watch, they’ve got their laser focus on vacuums, video games, and phones.

tiahura
4 replies
3h15m

Realtime: I'm actually watching the US Attorney General crying about blue bubbles.

I need a drink.

gnicholas
3 replies
3h13m

Their brief will surely cite NYT articles about how some Gen Z kids don't date people with green bubbles.

tiahura
2 replies
3h12m

That was part of his speech.

gnicholas
1 replies
2h51m

Wait seriously? I thought you were joking/hyperbolizing. That's hilarious.

suddenclarity
0 replies
2h30m

The dating argument seems outlandish but it's a legit problem that Android phones ruin group messaging functions that iMessage offers so they'll be left out.

metabagel
1 replies
2h36m

The article is chock full of examples where Apple prevents competition on their platform or in connection with their platform.

Apple's argument is generally that they are making the platform safer for their users, but I was just on the App Store looking for the Google Authenticator, and the first item listed was a scam third party authenticator which was intended to fool users looking like the Google Authenticator. This would be the easiest possible thing for a giant corporation like Apple to catch. The fact that it is Google's customers which are being scammed could be part of the reason why Apple doesn't prioritize safety in this case.

What we're dealing with here is a really duplicitous company. Their marketing is world class. The battery life of their products is world class. Everything else - not so much.

timetopay
0 replies
1h58m

The fact that it is Google's customers which are being scammed could be part of the reason why Apple doesn't prioritize safety in this case.

this is conspiracy bordering on paranoia. apple has problems, but willingly abusing customers who use the competitors is not one of them

abhayhegde
7 replies
2h47m

I understand the evil practices of Apple to lock you up in their walled garden such as iMessage, easy sync between the devices etc. But, ultimately, wouldn't the choice of buying those products in the consumer's hand?

Workaccount2
5 replies
2h24m

Generally in the US, if you want to participate in friends and family group messages, it's either iPhone or be left out.

abhayhegde
1 replies
1h31m

This is hideous though. Why should someone's preference for a mobile phone, chosen for their convenience, hinder them from texting those they care about?

hu3
0 replies
1h10m

Because Apple makes sure that, in a messaging group, if a single user is not an iPhone, the whole group messaging is degraded.

Dark patterns that creates incentives for discrimination against non iPhone users.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39780085

multimoon
0 replies
1h57m

That doesn’t sound like something that’s against the law. A company shouldn’t be punished based on their success, but if they violate a law or not.

darkwizard42
0 replies
2h2m

Perhaps societal customs should change instead of infringing on the business practices (which don't violate a law).

The anticompetitive preference for internal apps though is pretty bad and I think Apple should be nailed on that, but they shouldn't be punished for creating a "better" (in quotes because I think Android is on the better standard for messaging) messaging experience.

choxi
0 replies
1h41m

There are dozens of other popular (group) messaging apps

baal80spam
0 replies
2h29m

Of course it would - last I checked noone holds people at gunpoint saying "BUY THIS".

rvz
6 replies
3h35m

Finally. It was about time that this would happen.

Google got one anti-trust lawsuit, Meta should get another one (by owning too many social networks with billions of users each) and after the failed anti-trust lawsuit that Epic tried to sue Apple under, this time the DOJ is finally going after Apple.

Good.

I'm really looking forward to the United States v. Apple Inc. anti-trust lawsuit that will actually make some changes to stop the 30% commission scam once and for all.

After that, now do Microsoft (again)

nottorp
4 replies
2h53m

that will actually make some changes to stop the 30% commission scam once and for all.

No. The change they should make is to allow sideloading. I don't care if the developer pays less than 30% when Apple can still censor what I run on my phone.

screamingninja
3 replies
2h46m

I don't care if the developer pays

I think you, as the consumer, are the one who pays.

nottorp
1 replies
2h43m

I think you, as the consumer, are the one who pays.

And you somehow think reducing the commission to, say, 5%, will reduce prices?

screamingninja
0 replies
2h41m

I cannot say that it will, though in theory the businesses that want to compete would want to pass the savings to the consumers while staying profitable. But I can say with certainty that increasing the commission will increase the prices. Companies do not pay this fee/commission out of their own pockets.

samatman
0 replies
47m

Correct. I, the consumer, see a price on an app, and either I pay it, or I don't.

How the pie gets divvied up is no skin off my nose. None of my business.

jwells89
0 replies
3h24m

Google could use another pass to put a stop to their aggressive cross-promotion of Chrome, which is difficult if not impossible to compete with given how many Google products people use on a daily basis. Every time I visit Google, YouTube, etc with a fresh non-Chrome browser profile there’s a barrage of, “Download Chrome!” popups to dismiss, not to mention how Google iOS apps use link taps as opportunities to promote Chrome or all the random third party Windows software that has Chrome bundled with it.

FredPret
6 replies
3h37m

Perhaps a hardware engineer can help me out here, but I don't think Apple makes an unreasonable margin on the iPhone. Overall they make 26% [0]. Really quite reasonable considering highly-developed proprietary software is bundled with the device

They make a lot of money because they sell * a lot * of iPhones.

[0] https://valustox.com/AAPL

snakeyjake
2 replies
3h2m

For practically any hardware startup if their margins aren't >33% they will fail to scale, wither on the vine, and die.

My employer makes space hardware and our overhead R&D expenses are so high that if we made 26% margin we would be bankrupt in a year.

So I think ~30% is probably a minimum floor to shoot for.

Just looked it up and Samsung Electronics has a margin that has ranged from 30% to 46% over the last couple of years.

I think the majority of people on HN are software guys who are completely oblivious to the challenges of building physical items that exist in the real world which is why your comment is downvoted.

That and beyond its stated purpose it seems that HN exists to allow people to complain about Apple in a public forum.

What makes all of this so strange is that large software vendors often have astronomical profit margins that hardware companies can only dream of. SAP (~70%) MSFT (~70%) TEAM (>80%)

https://ycharts.com/companies/SAP/gross_profit_margin

https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/gross_profit_margin

https://ycharts.com/companies/TEAM/gross_profit_margin

Perhaps it is good that software companies have such high margins because if they didn't HN would be flooded with stories about how every company they get hired at goes out of business and management is clueless.

FredPret
1 replies
2h53m

Apple’s 26% is a net margin - I’m sure their gross on an iPhone is a healthy amount

lokar
2 replies
3h32m

And then, they make much much better margins on the App Store.

FredPret
1 replies
3h11m

You're right - I didn't think of the App Store. That's a proper monopoly. "Services" are 23b out of 120b in total sales for them last quarter, but at a much higher margin. It cost them 6b to provide those services, but 58b to make 96b worth of hardware.

Looks like 1/3 of their gross comes from services.

Only some of the services are App Store - some of that money is from Apple TV and iCloud storage.

App Store income looks to be app fees and also advertising.

flutas
0 replies
1h44m

and iCloud storage.

Which is itself another area where Apple forces consumers to use it.

You can't back up your iPhone to Google Drive or Dropbox. So here's your 5GB of space for any and all Apple devices you own, make it last or pay us monthly.

ApolloFortyNine
6 replies
2h25m

It's wild to me to see people defending Apple in the comments here.

60% of Americans own a phone they're not allowed to install third party apps on, and the ONLY way to get apps is to pay a 30% fee to Apple on every purchase.

Imagine if Windows allowed you to only install apps acquired through their store, and with the same 30% fee. Microsoft literally had a huge anti trust case against them for simply setting a default browser, one you could have switched away from at any time.

It's probably the clearest monopoly in America right now. The damage to consumers is immediately visible (30% fee leaves a lot of margin on the table for competitors). Just look at the number of apps that either don't allow you to purchase their subscription on Apple at all, or charge substantially more. It should be a slam dunk case.

vessenes
3 replies
1h59m

It's nothing like a slam dunk case. In fact, it's an attempt by DOJ to stretch and redefine the edges of their rights under anti-trust rules.

It's also nothing like Microsoft -- Microsoft was a monopoly, full stop, in the 1990s. They were well over 90% of desktop market share in business, and likely close in consumer. And as 1990s era Microsoft employees will remind you if you ask them -- "there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, only abusing your monopoly power". Forcing IE on people was considered abuse by the courts of the time, and even then was widely considered to be a result of a Clinton-era DOJ, e.g. politics were involved. As they are now, both progressive anti-big-tech politics, and bipartisan anti-consumer encryption politics.

Today there are hundreds of functional choices you could make for any sane definition of the product categories Apple is in. Mobile phone? Sure - from totally open Pinephone type systems to vanilla Android to stripped-down Android to ... Laptop? yep. Servers/Desktop? Please. Watches? Check.

Are there any major pieces of software that consumers must have that are locked to Apple, and that Apple is charging egregious rent on? Nope. Most Macbook airs are really just browser engines. As of 2020, about 50% of those macbook airs ran Google's chrome as their primary browser.

You might, like me, feel Apple's App store walled garden is on balance a net positive, leaving me with almost no worries related to upgrade problems, my family's phones being compromised by malware, etc, or you might like many others hate the controls, want to root your Android phone and install your own apks directly, and thus choose Android or some other unix-a-like-on-mobile -- more power to you.

What we've seen you won't get the US courts to do is conclude that Apple's huge user base and developer base, controlled through their App store, is somehow a 'public good' that needs to be given away to others that didn't pay to develop, build and market it -- that's pretty much settled. It's valuable, super valuable. It's a competitive moat. But it's not abuse of a monopoly position to have such a thing.

ApolloFortyNine
1 replies
1h51m

You might, like me, feel Apple's App store walled garden is on balance a net positive, leaving me with almost no worries related to upgrade problems, my family's phones being compromised by malware, etc, or you might like many others hate the controls

You realize the app store can remain a walled garden, and users can be allowed to install their own applications right?

It's wild to me the number of people who argue for less freedom when the topic of Apple's walled garden comes up.

It's also nothing like Microsoft -- Microsoft was a monopoly, full stop, in the 1990s.

Plenty of anti trust cases have been brought against companies that don't have 90% of a market. 60+% is quite a lot.

vessenes
0 replies
1h48m

You realize that when you add appstores like Cydia to an iphone that you immediately open them up into gaping security holes right?

I assume you have never managed the devices of teenagers or a large group of millenial office workers.

To me, it being closed is an absolute feature that I value.

Apocryphon
0 replies
1h28m

In fact, it's an attempt by DOJ to stretch and redefine the edges of their rights under anti-trust rules.

Given the incredibly attenuated state of antitrust enforcement in this country, maybe that's not such a bad thing. Going after the most profitable company in human history would make quite a statement, producing a chilling effect to the corporations.

darkwizard42
1 replies
2h5m

60% of Americans CHOOSE to own a phone that has those features...

I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone.

Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights.

Amazon isn't forced to list your product and Apple shouldn't be forced to give you access to it's hardware/software users.

ApolloFortyNine
0 replies
1h48m

Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights.

Is taxing every purchase on your platform for 30% not abusing your ecosystem?

I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone.

iMessage is a non zero cause of this, and looking at the percentage of teens with iPhones, 85+%, likely a colossal cause. Which directly falls into Apple abusing their ecosystem.

photochemsyn
4 replies
3h20m

One of the most annoying features of the iOS ecosystem is the great lengths they take to prevent easy export of data out of the iOS system to other non-Apple devices. E.g. ever tried exporting Safari bookmarks on iOS to a Linux system running Firefox? A simple JSON file is all it would take, but no, you have to sync with a MacOS computer or some such:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254567613

CharlesW
3 replies
3h14m

One of the most annoying features of the iOS ecosystem is the great lengths they take to prevent easy export of data out of the iOS system to other non-Apple devices.

Not only do they not prevent it, but they facilitate it. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102208

Exported data includes users' bookmarks and Reading List.

phone8675309
1 replies
3h3m

Only works if you use iCloud, which I don't.

hu3
0 replies
2h55m

Can't Safari just have an export bookmarks button like Firefox and Chrome? https://i.imgur.com/DIgddVn.png

No need to ask Apple's website for some data dump and no need for iCloud. It's your data after all.

hbn
4 replies
3h23m

If Apple's iPhone "monopoly" is illegal then sue Google for continuing to make Android worse. That's why I switched to iPhone and have no desire to switch back.

Apple's crime here is they made a good product and continued to iterate on it, while Google has churned for years, reinventing and rebranding every app, service, and product multiple times a year and only making them worse so POs can get promotions.

modeless
1 replies
3h7m

Google was already found by a jury to have a monopoly on Android app distribution. And if Google has one, Apple's monopoly on iOS app distribution is clearly stronger and more harmful in the US given their larger market share and complete prohibition of alternatives.

kmeisthax
0 replies
2h35m

Google's crime was not having a charismatic leader who could store all the mens rea solely in his own head and then conveniently die before legal scrutiny started over their App Store racket.

All of Google's monopolistic intent was conveniently detailed out in loads of e-mails. They were caught failing to retain these e-mails, which in a civil suit where the 5th Amendment does not apply, means the judge gets to just assume the worst (make an "adverse inference").

To make matters worse, Google promised openness and then tried to privately walk it back. Legally, this is admitting that the "Android app distribution market" already exists and is the appropriate market definition for a monopoly claim. It's harder to argue that an "iOS app distribution market" should exist when Apple is using power words like "intellectual property" - aka "we have a right to supracompetitive profits."

My personal opinion is that the DOJ probably will succeed where Epic failed, however, because of one other critical thing: standing. Epic did reveal market harms that are almost certainly cognizable under US law, but none of those harms were things Epic was allowed to sue over.

nottorp
0 replies
2h54m

That's why I switched to iPhone and have no desire to switch back.

Yes, Apple has exactly one competitor in the phone space and their offerings are lower quality so you get an iPhone.

So... they have a dominant market position... and they abuse it.

kmeisthax
0 replies
2h57m

I mean, you're not wrong, but the lawsuit isn't about the quality of the end product. It's about the economic leverage Apple has over other businesses by virtue of owning the chokepoints - i.e. the OS software and the signing keys it trusts.

I personally would love to switch to iPhone if Apple wasn't so much of a control freak about the software you run on it.

generj
4 replies
3h10m

I think it’s interesting this is one of the first large anti-tech anti-trust lawsuits that has actually materialized since the FTC/DOJ signaled interest in going after these giants.

Perhaps the case is less complex and this could be brought earlier? Or there were some really damning things in discovery proving other justifications Apple has (security, performance, etc) are secondary to punishing competitors products.

The case for consumer harm is much more vague than what other firms are doing in my view. iMessage incompatibility with Android group texts is going to be remedied and maybe deserves a slap on the wrist.

tarsinge
3 replies
2h58m

The Google monopoly seems way worst and straightforward to me. Why it isn’t addressed first and why does everyone seemingly ignore them and obsess with Apple is a mystery to me.

zamadatix
0 replies
2h56m

It has been already pursued and is being addressed. There's just a lot less divisiveness/attention in such cases:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl...

https://apnews.com/article/google-android-play-store-apps-an...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...

Note in some of these were chased even though Google has been less restrictive than Apple (e.g. on the Play Store payment case Google has always allowed 3rd party app stores on Android).

mcfedr
0 replies
3m

It's just incomparable.

Sms - android choose 100 apps that can deal with SMS, iOS - one app, no one else can touch SMS

Phone - same

Wallet - any app can be a payment wallet, my own bank, privat24 has this functionality - iOS, only Apple can use NFC

Photos - only iCloud can sync them

The list goes on

HDThoreaun
0 replies
2h25m

The downsides to the apple monopoly are much more straightforward. "Apples iMessage policy lead to this kid being bullied and because of that they did x" is a much easier sell than whatever sound bite you can come up with about google.

stephc_int13
3 replies
2h39m

Apple top management should have seen this coming ~years~ ago. Both Apple and Google could have prevented this by being smarter and less greedy in the first place, understanding the central role of developers and third party companies in their ecosystems.

Not sure about this lawsuit, I don't really care at this point, the whole process in unrolling and won't stop until this is over, and this won't end up in a nice place for Apple.

cyclecount
1 replies
2h37m

Or, both Apple and Google did see this coming years ago, have been smart about supporting politicians in both major US political parties, and calculated that the amount of money they could make by maintaining their monopoly positions — even if only for a few more years — was likely far greater than any fine or other regulatory headache it might cause down the line.

stephc_int13
0 replies
2h9m

Time will tell, for sure.

The thing is, they are both overflowing with cash, more than enough to afford being strategic about its use.

If you're only looking at cash flow for the next few quarters, sure, that was the smart decision.

LordKeren
0 replies
1h6m

Apple and Google absolutely saw this coming and both have come to the conclusion that the outcome of this lawsuit will be less costly than trying to preemptively deal with the issue — and risk overshooting the target, leaving money on the table.

Even if the DoJ wins on every aspect of this lawsuit, it still would hardly put a dent in apple’s profits. They aren’t going after the big ticket money makers in a way that is going to impact apple’s profits.

sircastor
3 replies
1h7m

Lots of comments here about the duopoly of Apple and Google (and I'm of the opinion that one cannot have a monopoly of its own product)

It's telling to me that not even Microsoft was able to make this work. There may have been some other internal interests at play, but their historical strength and background was in providing a platform, and then they dropped out when it didn't last. Likewise, Palm didn't last long in the space either.

It's not clear to me if there simply is not room for 3+ operating systems in a widely distributed mobile market.

bogwog
1 replies
50m

It's not clear to me if there simply is not room for 3+ operating systems in a widely distributed mobile market.

I think there would be, if interoperability were a requirement. Microsoft and Blackberry both tried to make their own walled gardens, and maybe that's why it didn't work out. If consumers didn't feel locked in to one platform, they'd be more open to exploring other options.

Smartphones aren't the sexy new tech they once were. They're just boring old utilities now, and it makes sense IMO to start regulating them. Forcing companies to implement open standards seems like a good idea, and maybe this lawsuit is a first step in that direction if it ends with Apple being forced to fix iMessage interoperability.

cglong
0 replies
25m

Microsoft employee, but no affiliation to Windows Phone other than a happy former user. How do you believe MS tried to create a walled garden?

bbarn
0 replies
56m

Palm and Microsoft both made incredible (for the time) smart phones. The iPhone (and to a lesser extent android phones) were just on a totally different level. While Windows CE and PalmOS phones were trying to fight off blackberry, the iPhone was a different animal all together. The later Microsoft phones trying to compete on that level made a massive mistake of trying to tie in a bad UI design (the windows 8 square tiles for days UI) to it's desktop.

It was all timing, and by the time the war was over, MS would have had to become revolutionary in a field that pretty much every new thing had already been done, so it made sense for them to throw in the towel and get back to their money maker - business apps.

multimoon
3 replies
2h5m

I don’t understand why Apple is the target and everyone - govts included - walk right past MS repeating what they’re best at. MS is currently pushing popup ads into windows that installs unsolicited extensions into google chrome and switches the search engine to bing - and will fear monger the user with vague security claims about switching back.

choxi
1 replies
1h37m

Or Google or Amazon, how are those not way more blatant antitrust targets?

dgellow
0 replies
1h59m

Microsoft can be targeted but that’s a pretty slow process, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they are sued in a few years if they continue their behavior

lkrubner
3 replies
2h31m

It's been many decades since the USA government attempted to go after a vertical trust. During my lifetime, almost all anti-monopoly action has been against horizontal trusts: companies that gain too much market share for some particular product or service. But there was a time, a long time ago, almost a century ago, when it was common for the government to do this kind of thing, for the benefit of the consumer.

Matticus_Rex
1 replies
2h14m

There's also a pretty large econ literature questioning that it actually benefited the consumer, much of which concludes that in cases where the trust's anticompetitive power didn't itself rest on government-granted monopolies, it probably hurt.

_pi
0 replies
7m

That's because the government's definition of anti-competitive is ticky-tacky and is rooted in bullshit.

US anti-competitive policy and enforcement has always been dancing around the double standards of who can do market manipulation, the double standards of white collar crime enforcement, the double standards of "consumer benefit" in a capitalist system, etc.

"Consumer benefit" for example is a cowardly way to say price controls. Consumer benefit is inversely correlated with price. That implies the US government should be doing price controls and setting acceptable profit margins for everyone, but in practice due to the enforcement issues and the way the law is constructed it means that the government regulates prices only in extremely detailed technical cases.

Meaning you can manipulate consumer benefit AKA prices AKA extract profits all you want as long as you don't get into these narrowly defined, often unenforced technical cases.

In fact all of these charges or facsimiles of them existed in different forms 10 years ago, they were there on launch 15 years ago. Apple is being sued now simply because other large powerful interests like Epic games, don't like the revenue split rules on the App store.

That's it.

iosjunkie
3 replies
3h12m

This hard for me to understand. Apple hasn’t changed its approach their wall garden in ages. The consumer market decided to reward that model with adoption of Apple products.

screamingninja
1 replies
3h2m

Market adoption is more than a function of ecosystem openness. Blackberry commanded a large chunk of the market back in the day, maybe or maybe not because of the value they generated for consumers, but definitely because of the network effect. Several factors at play here.

Worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

creaturemachine
0 replies
2h18m

There was a time when teens had to be on BBM or be left behind.

toyg
0 replies
2h37m

> Apple hasn’t changed its approach their wall garden in ages.

The same action might be legit with 10% marketshare but lesive of market competition when at 60% marketshare.

Take golden-era Microsoft: bundling a default browser was anti-competitive for them, whereas it clearly wasn't for any Linux distribution out there.

inasio
3 replies
2h51m

I'm sure there's an argument to justify making it super complicated to move your Whatsapp content from IPhone to Android, but at the time I was having to dump the Whatsapp DB to recover the last messages from a dead relative it sure seemed like a convenient way to encourage people to stick around.

londons_explore
1 replies
2h37m

Whatsapp themselves could easily solve this if they wanted... Just add a "backup to file" button in settings. Then add a "restore from file" option in Android.

Quite why they don't do this is a mystery to me - if a user loses all their chats in a phone migration, they're more likely to start using another messaging app.

inasio
0 replies
1h19m

I don't think Whatsapp gained anything by preventing this, if anything they gave people a little momentum to switching to another app. The one that clearly benefited was Apple, and I don't thing Whatsapp/Meta did it just to be nice.

toast0
0 replies
2h34m

Edit: Actually looks you can do iPhone to Android transfer now: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1295296267926284 or Android to iPhone https://faq.whatsapp.com/686469079565350

Original response below:

That's really a WhatsApp product issue, not an OS issue. There's some hints of an OS issue, because Android lets WA put a backup file on the 'sd card' that you can transfer across to a new (Android) phone, and iOS doesn't (or didn't), and with cloud backups the different OSes both tie into their own clouds.

But the main issue is the WA iOS app and the WA Android app have different schemas for their on device database, which makes it not so easy to move. Maybe that has changed since I stopped working there, but that was the biggest issue with a switch platforms feature that I was aware of. It's a lot of coordination for a feature that most users are never going to use, and if they do use, likely aren't going to use it more than once. When I recently got a new Android, I did see there's a new transfer data flow for at least Android to Android, so maybe there's hope for cross OS data exchange in the future? It's also helpful that there's only two relevant platforms now, instead of 7 (s40, s60, blackberry, blackberry 10, windows phone are all dead)

skeptrune
2 replies
1h15m

This is awesome. If this goes through then I expect Apple to enter a slump similar to MSFT in the coming years. Their primary selling point in the U.S. for mobile is imessage and their integrated suite. If that open market starts to eat into that then thier edge is much narrower and I don't expect it to hold well.

jjtheblunt
0 replies
59m

Their primary selling point in the U.S. for mobile is imessage and their integrated suite.

Their primary selling point is excellent performance from mobile low power custom silicon, I'd say.

hkpack
0 replies
50m

And besides making you feeling good, how does it benefits anyone?

KerrAvon
1 replies
3h13m

The actual complaint leads off with the iBooks thing, which is a terrible start. Apple lost that case and it shouldn’t have; to this day, that result enables Amazon’s effective monopoly on paid ebooks.

ayewo
0 replies
2h12m

IIRC, Apple lost that case because they colluded with publishers to raise ebook prices rather than lower them.

I think they would have won if they hadn’t colluded to set prices.

kyleomalley
2 replies
2h34m

Security Engineering is mostly about control and minimizing attack surfaces. Apple iOS implements this exceedingly well, with defaults, while still being one of the most widely used platforms on the planet. I believe IOS gets it right the vast majority of the time with solid architectural changes and not just endless patches and knobs that are hidden and forgot about. This is the key difference of "It just works" verses other platforms.

If someone wants to run another platform, go for it. Of course are shortcomings in iOS (as with any system), but viewing entire problem space of security and privacy, the default install of IOS + Safari could rarely be any better for the average consumer. This is why Security and Privacy is literally a paid feature of the IOS platform, and anecdotally everyone professional I know (who isn't in tech) is using IOS devices.

Personally, I'm planning to blocking RCS and any third party app stores on any of my own (and families) devices -- again, control and minimizing attack surfaces and eliminating an entire class of issues is better than trying to manage them to no end.

nox101
1 replies
2h32m

Yes, if someone locks you in a prison cell you're safe. Except from the warden and guards. You get to read only what they let you, eat only what they let you. But, you're safe

kyleomalley
0 replies
2h27m

You have a choice here on your platforms, this isn't even remotely an honest comparison, is it?

jupp0r
2 replies
1h5m

"The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit."

Is this even factually true? Messages that are sent as texts appear green, whether it's to other iPhones or devices made by Apple's competitors. The green color warns me that messages are not end-to-end encrypted and can potentially be read by any man in the middle with access to telephony infrastructure.

cvdub
1 replies
17m

The problem is Apple is corrupting SMS, which should be a public and interoperable standard. Google/Gmail is doing the same thing to email. There’s no technical reason you couldn’t have end-to-end encrypted text messages between iOS and Android.

I bet way more people would try Android if they could fully participate in group texts.

jupp0r
0 replies
2m

There are tons of apps that offer end-to-end encrypted messaging between iOS and Android (and Windows, MacOS, Linux fwiw). Apple offers APIs to allow you to associate your contacts with their ID in those apps so you can easily message them or share photos and files as part of iOS. The thing they are accused of is that they provide a great experience for users in their ecosystem on top of that.

hermannj314
2 replies
1h57m

The takeaway here is that when a multi-trillion dollar company breaks a 130-year old law in a way that impacts over one hundred million people, our justice system and government is so broken and incompetent that it takes five years of investigation before anything happens. Probably years more before any action is taken.

Cool, good job lawyers. The latency of your Leviathan ruins more lives than its power could ever hope to save.

bearjaws
1 replies
1h10m

I generally agree with your sentiment, maybe more when it comes to people like Donald Trump or SBF...

But what do you want them to do? Build a shitty case in 1 year and get destroyed in court?

Remember, Apple has thousands of lawyers too, they aren't going to settle this case.

hermannj314
0 replies
1h0m

I think that is a false dichotomy the lawyers have created: have a slow moving system or a system where justice isn't served.

Our current system is slow and unjust. There are other options.

My wife and I tried to be foster parents, we did it for about three months, but everything was so slow moving. We had to spend 30 days just to have a piece of paper signed that no one contested. That moment opened my eyes to the corruption the lawyers have willfully constructed and willfully participate in and I have hated the entire legal profession since that moment. The system from the simplest cast to the most complex is designed to pad billable hours without concern for latency, justice, or consistency.

It is a sham system.

flenserboy
2 replies
3h22m

The government does not want people to have secure devices. Whether or not Apple's are currently secure is not the point; that they are working to make them so is enough to make sure it doesn't happen.

screamingninja
1 replies
2h57m

On the contrary, secure computational infrastructure furthers national security. US happens to have a very large footprint of vulnerable infrastructure as compared to other nations that tightly regulate their Internet. Believe it or not, more secure devices are actually good for the US. There have been several articles and discussions around it and the government has been working closely with the industry for years to improve the security posture.

amiantos
0 replies
2h38m

There's also a news article every few months talking about how the FBI or some other government agency wants to make encryption illegal and how iMessage is a boon to pedophiles all over the world and protects criminals. So, not sure how you can confidently say "On the contrary!"

dkobia
2 replies
2h54m

Apple getting sued in the US and EU is really about finding an equilibrium between 3 stakeholders - Apple, Users & Developers. The status quo favors Apple and Users. Developers led by companies like Epic just want a bigger piece of the pie. That's it.

madeofpalk
0 replies
2h49m

The status quo does not favor users.

How does it favor users that you cannot sign up for Netflix on iOS?

dev1ycan
2 replies
2h45m

It's so funny I'm gonna go out and say it, this is only because Microsoft threw its weight into Epics lawsuit.

I believe, entirely, that Microsoft is the most important corporation in America, by far. In that anything they want, will get done. this is why the senators turned around on Sony claiming MS buying ActiBlizzKing was monopolistic and started threatening Sony instead, this is why Bill Gates gets to sit with Xi and Xi calls him a friend, this is why MS has unopposed access to sell its games in China.

They are an "arm" of the government and not even Apple can counter it.

bdcravens
1 replies
2h1m

To say nothing of the fact that Github is the cornerstone of the open source world, and Microsoft owns it.

dev1ycan
0 replies
1h32m

Microsoft bought it. Microsoft is also allegedly using private repos to train AI, Microsoft is not a benevolent entity.

danielmarkbruce
2 replies
1h8m

The doj doesn't have a basic understanding of how computers work, how networks work, how computer security works. They cannot effectively regulate a world they do not understand.

CharlieDigital
1 replies
49m

They are not regulating computers, they are regulating markets.

danielmarkbruce
0 replies
47m

In this case... the largest submarket of....computers.

If you think one can regulate the market for X without understanding how X works... you should work at the DOJ or FTC. Lina Khan has a job there waiting, I'm sure.

crop_rotation
2 replies
2h17m

The comments here seem extremely emotional against Apple. If you want a free device then the android ecosystem has many great examples. The S23/S24 ultra are phones which are as good as the iPhone. I have always been an Android user because of the freedoms. But forcing iOS to become like android makes no sense. Android already exists and you can already use it. The onboarding app will even move all your data. iMessage is even going to support the useless RCS standard. I am not sure what people in this thread have against Apple. Doing the things they require will simply make all the advantages of iPhone evaporate and it will be simply left in the dust. If you want android, buy android.

throitallaway
1 replies
2h11m

iMessage is even going to support the useless RCS standard

What's useless about it? As I understand it, it will provide a massive upgrade over SMS/MMS. Exchanging videos via MMS (currently the only native OS option for Android <-> iOS communication) is an exercise in futility.

crop_rotation
0 replies
2h5m

It is extremely useless compared to Whatsapp/Signal. It is not even natively supported in android like SMS. Even in android the only app that supports it is Google Messages (unlike several for SMS). Nobody supports the protocol and everyone uses Google's implementation. Google's client, Google's servers, optional encryption. What is good about it. The only reason for it's existence is to make Google get a leg in the messaging clients after failures with their previous attempts (Gtalk, hangouts, allo). That is why nobody outside the USA would ever bother using it.

It doesn't do anything that Whatsapp/Signal don't. And there is nothing native about it in Android, other than Google Messages is force installed on all devices, and the rich vibrant ecosystem of android SMS clients was killed off to make way for it.

crop_rotation
2 replies
2h28m

Great news. They should next should sue Ford for monopoly over the F150.

twodave
0 replies
2h8m

They probably would if Ford found a way to prevent any after-market accessories from being sold without taking a cut or made proprietary trailer hitches that you had to pay them directly for. Pickup trucks are some of the most hackable devices on the planet.

megaman821
0 replies
2h8m

If Ford only let you fill up at Exon stations and only allowed you to drive to Home Depot over Lowes, do you think they would get sued?

bilekas
2 replies
3h6m

I know its a small thing, but isn't the phrase "an iPhone monopoly" a bit redundant ?

I surely can't say shame on Mars for having a "A CocaCola monopoly" ?

From established writers at NYT, I suspect I am wrong, but it seems a weird expression.

trothamel
0 replies
2h41m

I don't believe it is. I think we'd be upset if Tesla cars could only charge at Telsa charger (that charged 30% over the prices of electric supply). Using their position in phone sales to gain a monopolist position over apps and IAP feels wrong.

airstrike
0 replies
2h57m

From established writers who are, perhaps, first solving for clicks rather than accuracy or journalistic integrity.

bedros
2 replies
2h11m

can someone explain how different is the iphone ecosystem anti-competitive practices vs sony playstation ecosystem?

pvg
0 replies
2h5m

I can't explain it but one fairly straightforward argument is just scale - everyone has a smartphone, few people (comparatively) have Playstations. There is a more obvious case for legitimate government interest in the regulation of a market that affects a much bigger proportion of consumers and consumer activity.

daveoc64
0 replies
1h13m

Nobody needs a games console, but a smartphone is increasingly an essential part of daily life - for things like accessing government services, transport, payments, identity, commerce etc.

If you are a company or other organisation that depends on making your service available through smartphones, then you may be affected by Apple's policies.

aabajian
2 replies
1h55m

The blue background on messages sent between two iMessage users has to be one of the most brilliant vendor lock-in strategies. It is an artificial form of discrimination. I feel a slight annoyance whenever a non-Apple user forms a group chat as I know that person will limit the messaging functionality.

In my opinion, the "monopolistic" aspect of it comes down to the fact that they tied it into an otherwise open messaging system - SMS. You cannot separate SMS messages from iMessages (to my knowledge). So, the only way to know a message was sent via SMS is the green background for incoming messages and the green background plus the "sent via SMS" for outgoing messages. This creates a disdain for SMS, and anyone who uses it over iMessage. It is such a strong feeling, that having green messages makes you "uncool", especially in the younger crowd.

On the other hand, I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is to push people to use stand-alone apps like WhatsApp and FB Messenger. I think it'll be a hard sell at this point to convince a jury that iMessage is an overt monopoly.

The main question I want addressed is: If SMS messages can be directly shown in iMessage, and are not secure, then the argument of not allowing "insecure" 3rd-parties to integrate with iMessage goes out the window. All I want is Android messages to be shown in iMessage. Sure we can make them green, but at least they will be sent over the data network and not SMS.

lvl102
1 replies
1h37m

That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues with those blue bubbles then they should’ve sued telecom back then. This entire suit is a joke.

Workaccount2
0 replies
12m

The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.

_chimmy_chonga_
1 replies
3h40m

well, it still has the login stuff but just further down. -_-

Ezhik
2 replies
3h25m

I just want to code and sideload my own silly little apps that aren't important enough to be in the App Store. I can do this on my Mac and it doesn't seem to explode because of it.

sib
1 replies
2h28m

You can also do this for iPhone...

Ezhik
0 replies
2h1m

The apps need to be refreshed weekly though, requiring me to connect my phone to my Mac.

Right now my preferred approach is to make web apps, but Apple already tried to take PWAs away in Europe...

ChildOfChaos
2 replies
1h12m

I don't know why, but for some reason why I see something like this, I can't help but imagine what it must be like for Tim Cook receiving this news when he is randomly going about his day. It's got to be a huge punch to the face and I wonder how such people deal with such news.

smoldesu
0 replies
1h6m

I hope he's using it as an opportunity to reflect on FOMO-based business strategies and the impacts of regressive software censorship. Tim made a lot of tough choices in his tenure, and now his chickens are coming home to roost.

Hopefully he's happy with the decisions he made.

Draiken
0 replies
1h8m

Realistically? They definitely expect it.

They've been consistently anti-competitive for years and it's the kind of move that you know will eventually generate legal issues. For them it's just the cost of business. They'll litigate for years, pay a small fine (if they even lose) and keep doing the same.

thxcvs
1 replies
2h50m

Posting anonymously. I worked on an app where Apple gave us special access to private APIs allow listed by the app ID and told us to keep it secret. This access gave the select few apps that got it a huge advantage in performance. I don't want to share too much details at the risk of identifying the app and getting it revoked.

kstrauser
0 replies
2h45m

Tim Cook came to my house and made my Wi-Fi faster.

oliv__
1 replies
2h51m

I don't get it.

You build a successful product that people love, gain an important position in a market you basically created, offer a closed marketplace for apps to further provide value to your core product, again this is a resounding success and people vote with their $$$ to subsidize your growth.

In the meantime, your competitor comes up with their own product and marketplace. Consumers are able to freely choose between both.

Now your company is forced by the gov to integrate your products with the competition's inferior marketplace. Why? How is this not overreach?

EDIT: easy to downvote, why don't you give me answers instead

bardak
0 replies
2h35m

It looks like the DOJ doesn't believe that the closed marketplace doesn't add value to consumers or businesses but only to Apple themselves.

I think the crux of the DOJs argument is that apple is using their dominate marketshare to rent seek and create artificial restrictions preventing competition with their own products.

ocdtrekkie
1 replies
3h42m

Tim Sweeney didn't get it done, so the US government will pick up the slack. I imagine they were waiting to see if Epic won before trying the case themselves, but Biden may have wanted to make sure it got moving before the election may take it out of his hands.

One of the most impressive successes in Epic's cases was just dragging the evidence into the open. A lot of illegal behavior is hidden in confidential agreements mostly to keep them out of regulators' view for as long as possible.

dagmx
0 replies
3h24m

This case has very little overlap with the Epic suite other than one of the defendants being the same.

I’m also curious what illegal confidential behaviour you believe was found in the Epic case? The one count that the judge found in favour of Epic didn’t require any form of discovery as it was based on public policy.

mupuff1234
1 replies
2h42m

Why does it seem like Microsoft is flying under the DoJ radar this last decade?

pie420
0 replies
1h59m

Because Microsoft is the East India Company of the 21st century. It is the modern tool of american corporate imperialism.

mudil
1 replies
3h9m

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

kmeisthax
0 replies
2h5m

The problem is that private institutions can become their own mini-governments. Reagan denied this, but his quite could equally apply to Apple or Google as it did to, say, late-70s US government.

mbgerring
1 replies
46m

Another big, annoying one is password managers. I use an open source password manager with an iPhone app, but there’s no way to integrate it system wide, so the experience of using it on my phone is terrible.

And yet! No matter how much worse third party integration is on iPhone, I still don’t want to use an operating system made by an advertising company.

aednichols
0 replies
21m

Are you sure the password manager is using all the APIs available to it? I use 1Password and it feels extremely well integrated.

luxuryballs
1 replies
1h9m

You have a monopoly on your product! I wonder what the real motive was here, did Apple not comply with something and now they’re getting slapped? I don’t believe for a second that this is purely good faith as I haven’t seen any actual harm being caused.

danielmarkbruce
0 replies
58m

antitrust regulators haven't been acting in good faith for years. It devolved into a political game a long time ago. Part of it is the complexity of modern businesses - they simply don't understand what they are regulating. At that point the goal posts move.

lumb63
1 replies
3h9m

What rubs me the wrong way about the Apple monopoly case(s?) is they sound to me like “we (the people) don’t want to actually solve the problem by through the totally-viable free market approach; we instead feel that we are owed some say in how this company chooses to develop its products; please strongarm them through legal means that don’t really apply, to make that a reality”.

People who are interested in Apple’s “walled garden” can buy iPhones. People who aren’t, can choose not to. Nobody is making people buy iPhones. Nobody is making people buy Androids either. Any company which thinks there is a sufficient market to be had in providing an alternative platform that does not use a walled garden approach can develop the hardware and software which would allow their customers a more open platform. There is absolutely nothing stopping this from happening today. The failure of companies and individuals to do so proves to me that nobody cares enough about this to take real action.

Contrast this with real trusts of days past like Standard Oil. If someone developed a competing company, they could undercut competitors by selling oil at a loss long enough to drive anyone else out of business. What would the parallel be in this universe? If someone developed a new smartphone, there is nothing in Apple’s walled garden approach that would prohibit that platform from taking off.

IMO when consumers buy products, they are entitled to the product they knowingly bought, not the product that they want.

kmeisthax
0 replies
2h28m

The free market approach went out the window when we decided software was copyrightable and DRM unlock tools are illegal. Otherwise Epic would just release a jailbreak that installed Epic Games Store and we'd be done with it.

lenerdenator
1 replies
3h4m

I think there's a large contingent of people who want more access and choice with apps and services on their iOS devices.

And frankly, that's what Android is for. Just go get a Samsung Galaxy.

EDIT: You can downvote it all you want, but part of the appeal of iOS devices is that you have your workable service for the device and there's no real thought to be put into choosing that service. Not everyone wants different app stores, and on the software side of things, it adds a very thick layer of complexity and headaches, especially if you're helping, I don't know, your 64-year-old mother with her iPhone.

bdcravens
0 replies
1h51m

A "simple" device isn't mutually exclusive with a configurable device. Just put it inside of the Settings app already available on the phone your mother already has. If she doesn't need it, she'll never see it.

I'd argue that the default experience for some is still too complicated; that's why Apple has Assistive Access, which lets you dumb it down:

https://support.apple.com/guide/assistive-access-iphone/set-...

fidotron
1 replies
3h17m

Given iOS doesn’t have a monopoly, even in the US market, this is almost certainly a negotiation move thanks to Apple not being seen to be compliant enough with the US gov wrt privacy and security. Possibly App Store policies differences of opinion as well.

timmg
0 replies
2h33m

What's interesting about the legal system is that it is intentionally vague. As in, you can make all different kinds of arguments and the judge and jury decide.

iPhone is does not have an overwhelming market share of phones in the US. But Apple does have a complete monopoly on "iPhone apps" (and "app stores" and "iPhone payment services"). So the government certainly can make a case that they are abusing those monopolies.

Whether or not the judge and juries will agree is the thing we are all going to be watching for.

coding123
1 replies
2h49m

Probably should take down the food giants first.

bdcravens
0 replies
1h59m

Not mutually exclusive.

ben7799
1 replies
1h42m

One thing I don't get about this is say DOJ wins and significantly weakens Apple.

They'll basically hand the market to foreign companies. Seems odd.

Google does not need an assist here, last I checked they are doing great, and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like about Android if they wanted to.

robgibbons
0 replies
58m

Not necessarily. If Apple allowed third-party app stores, alternative browser engines, had better cross-platform messaging support, et cetera, a lot of Android owners would buy iPhones.

A significant reason why Android appeals to many folks is that it represents a more open alternative to the iPhone. By opening up their walled garden, Apple still stands to benefit by magically becoming more appealing to a big chunk of Android owners.

anonymouse008
1 replies
2h54m

There are too many quotes 'from Apple management' in the compliant that need context. Something doesn't add up.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-an...

Either that, or Apple's management has become truly rotten. That would be the saddest realization.

alex_suzuki
0 replies
2h49m

I started reading it but the line spacing is just so infuriating…

SaintSeiya
1 replies
32m

Of course it is a monopoly, I hope they sue them to the ground and force Apple to split like Microsoft was forced long ago.

hollerith
0 replies
31m

Microsoft was forced to split? I thought they only had to ensure that competing browsers would run on Windows.

Fgyu0909
1 replies
3h21m

Apple genuinely deserves this lawsuit.

By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field where it grants its products and services access to core features that it denies rivals.

Once I read this I was not shocked. Apple is already pushing people to buy their separate apps that should have came in for free, with the purchase of the Iphone or at least make a bundle Apple users could buy. Disgusting Apple totally deserved.

kstrauser
0 replies
2h46m

Which apps are those?

1-6
1 replies
2h1m

Hey Gemini, What’s it called when a lawsuit with a light punishment is put together for the sole purpose of preventing future lawsuits that may be more severe?

hu3
0 replies
1h5m

GPT4 answer:

The term you're looking for might be "preemptive lawsuit" or "strategic lawsuit." A preemptive lawsuit is filed by an individual or entity expecting to be sued by another party, with the goal of obtaining a favorable jurisdiction or legal advantage. Another related concept is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" (SLAPP), though this specifically refers to lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

However, your description also hints at the use of a lawsuit to establish a precedent or a legal ruling that might ward off future lawsuits of a more severe nature. This could be part of a broader legal strategy, although there isn't a single, universally accepted term for filing a lawsuit with a lighter punishment to specifically prevent more severe future lawsuits. Legal strategies can be complex and multifaceted, often tailored to the specifics of the jurisdiction and the particular legal challenges at hand.

The effectiveness and ethical implications of such strategies can vary widely, depending on the intent and the legal context. In any case, such actions typically involve a deep understanding of legal principles, procedural rules, and the strategic use of litigation to achieve a specific goal.

And when asked: "Can you provide a famous case?" it said:

One famous case that somewhat touches upon the concept of using legal action to set a precedent, potentially influencing future lawsuits, is "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka," 347 U.S. 483 (1954). While this case itself was not filed with the intention of avoiding more severe future litigation, its outcome significantly influenced a wide range of subsequent civil rights litigation and legislation.

In "Brown v. Board of Education," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established by "Plessy v. Ferguson" in 1896, which had allowed state-sponsored segregation. The ruling was pivotal not just for the field of education but also for the broader civil rights movement, setting a legal precedent that was used to challenge and overturn segregation and discrimination in other areas.

Though "Brown v. Board of Education" does not directly match the scenario of filing a lawsuit with a lighter punishment to prevent future, more severe lawsuits, it demonstrates the power of legal precedents. The strategic filing of cases by civil rights organizations, aiming to create favorable legal precedents to challenge broader discriminatory practices, reflects a broader application of using the legal system strategically to effect societal change.

A more direct example related to preemptively influencing or preventing future legal challenges, although not fitting your exact description, might involve patent law cases. Companies often engage in litigation over patents not necessarily to enforce the patents in a specific case but to establish legal precedents or clarify the scope of their intellectual property rights, potentially deterring future, more significant legal challenges. However, specific cases often depend on the intricacies of patent law and the technologies involved, making them unique to their circumstances.
zer0zzz
0 replies
2h48m

While I hate losing the feeling that the AppStore and iOS security policy make my device less at risk I sure am tired of not having chromium and Fortnite on my iPad. I’m also torn on how the current locked down state of affairs is the only thing keeping chromium and v8 from achieving 100% market share.

visarga
0 replies
2h22m

I don't even want to open NYT after they sued for copyright infringement on their old news, after entrapping the models with the first phrase.

ursuscamp
0 replies
55m

I can't wait for this to take seven years to resolve, with the resolution being that the US government gets a big payday in bribes (er, sorry, fines) and nothing actually changes.

trynumber9
0 replies
3h4m

Good, computers should not be locked down by trillion dollar companies.

The problem with having the App Store is there is still no opt out (in the US). It works on Mac OS; there's no technical reason for them to avoid giving the user choice. It's all about capturing and holding an entire market.

throwaway743
0 replies
2h19m

Should this make it through, what would this mean for operating systems? Would it mean that Windows and Apple would have to be able to run Windows, Apple, and linux software?

Side thought, many Americans will purchase an Apple products as a means of projecting their identity/lifestyle. Apple, to many, is a luxury tech product company and is used to project their self image to the world.

Remove the exclusivity of their products only being able to integrate with one another, then the image of exclusivity ("part of the club") starts falling apart.

If any of this happens then Apple's in a pretty shit spot. That's a big if tho

thiago_fm
0 replies
1h47m

Meanwhile those monopolies can be good for the employees that work there, they are terrible for the rest of the Americans that don't, and they make up the majority of Americans.

I hope that, in the end, America sees that it is feeding those monopolies itself and even considers joining the European Union in believing that regulations are important.

When people come and say that regulations have an impact on innovation, I point out the fact that the object in question isn't that innovative. What is so innovative about the iPhone? They just made really good choices and got the rewards from consumers, on making it perhaps the biggest brand in the world.

But just by doing great products don't give you the right to go against the interests of your own customers or developers that helped you build that platform.

I'm sure by the end of this arc of those platforms that behave more monopolies, governments will realize that by regulating this space, it creates much more economic activity, jobs, and, of course, more space for innovation.

tempnow987
0 replies
2h51m

It's weird that the focus is so heavily on businesses and alleged harms to businesses (to ie, scam customers with hard to cancel renewals).

One reason folks LIKE apple is because apple has the market power to do things that yes - hurt other businesses but that make the consumer experience better.

When I get my iphone it's not loaded with carrier crap. Seriously, android you might be getting tons of carrier junk on your phone.

When I go to cancel a subscription its super easy. Apple even REMINDS me to cancel if I delete an app with a subscription tied to it (ie, that renews annually). They also notify me in ADVANCE of renewals to let me cancel.

Trial offers with higher renewing rates, the renewal rate is at the same font size and right in the payment acknowledgement for any trials.

And the list goes on.

Look at this against the lack of enforcement against totally blatant scams (billions) from the elderly. Total ripoffs and dark patterns - unconcealable subscriptions etc etc. Of all the consumer harm - apple should be way way way down on the list.

synergy20
0 replies
2h32m

I'm working on some apple airplay on non-apple platforms, what a pain.

Apple is worse than Microsoft from the past, I mean, 10x or more closed.

I don't want to touch Apple's development ecosystem after this project.

I don't even want to start on other items like PWA support, single app store, iTunes everything,etc.

stolsvik
0 replies
51m

As an iPhone user: Fantastic. I so hope Apple looses hard.

smashah
0 replies
2h7m

Great next they should sue Meta and Whatsapp for anticompetitive and monopolistic practices

shudza
0 replies
2h17m

Looks like someone important didn't like that Apple placed a blatant backdoor in their CPUs.

shuckles
0 replies
2h18m

The super apps point is very interesting. The quotes in the complaint from Apple are exactly right: super apps are sucky and don’t follow native platform conventions. The DOJ then says this is a good thing and pro-consumer innovation. If only they knew the tactics WeChat and others use in China to keep users trapped. (For example: have you ever tried to send an Alipay link through WeChat? Good luck!)

shuckles
0 replies
2h11m

I like the part of the complaint where the government lawyers fantasize that their hard work is the reason why Microsoft allowed iTunes Store on Windows. Some real narcissism and lack of knowledge about technology on display.

pquki4
0 replies
1h49m

Even if this eventually fails, I'll be very happy to read all the internal Apple documents that come out of this. It's going to be fun.

pksebben
0 replies
9m

It's gonna hurt me to say this because I'm one of those rabid lefty bust-up-the-corporations types, but the universe is a nuanced place so here it is;

Whether Apple's practices are motivated by blocking competition or not (and I'm pretty sure that's part of their thinking if not the principal driver), there are other effects of a lot of these practices that I would hate to lose as a consumer.

Not having to work to maintain compatibility with a bunch of stuff that might or might not work, and being able to focus on ecosystem interoperability, all adds up to my tablet being a seamless second monitor, being able to shuttle data between my devices, and being able to manage messaging and all sorts of other stuff on whatever device I happen to be looking at at the time, whether it's my tablet, phone, watch, or laptop.

No one else does this even remotely well, and so much of what I do these days would fall under the effort watermark and never happen if it wasn't for this insane level of convenience and "it just works".

patwolf
0 replies
2h57m

By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field, where it grants its own products and services access to core features that it denies rivals.

I once worked on a large enterprise platform. We developed our own applications for the platform, and other third parties developed applications for the platform. We had to regularly scan our code to make sure we weren't inadvertently using internal or non-documented APIs that weren't available to third parties.

I always assumed this was related to some anti-trust lawsuit, but it always boggled my mind that Apple never seemed to worry about that. Remember the brazenness in which they booted third-party screen time and parental control apps from the app store after the introduction of Screen Time.

monkeydust
0 replies
2h59m

What kind of payout range is being anticipated here for settlement? Also remind me, where does all that money go exactly? ... could result in a massive redistribution of wealth... we had the banks now its big tech

modeless
0 replies
1h57m

The complaint doesn't talk much about alternative app stores or web browser engines. If Apple lost, would they even need to start allowing alternative stores or browsers? I guess it would be all up to a judge in that case, but the complaint isn't specifically stating that alternative app stores or browser engines should be allowed.

micromacrofoot
0 replies
2h46m

The US should outright copy EU privacy and other related laws when it comes to big tech companies where possible, it's embarrassing how much we're lagging behind on this.

lowbloodsugar
0 replies
2h23m

What a waste of everyone’s money.

khazhoux
0 replies
38m

I hope this lawsuit fails. As a user, I’m very happy with the tight Apple ecosystem, and I don’t want my experience to be compromised just because some other companies wants to make money in Message or Photos space.

The only place Apple needs to change, imho, is the app store tax.

jupp0r
0 replies
1h11m

"The tech giant prevented other companies from offering applications that compete with Apple products like its digital wallet, which could diminish the value of the iPhone, the government said."

They literally offer APIs for any company to integrate with their wallet. As a consumer, I wish more apps would do so instead of half-heartedly implementing their own thing.

jupp0r
0 replies
1h1m

"The government also said Apple had tried to maintain its monopoly by not allowing other companies to build their own digital wallets. Apple Wallet is the only app on the iPhone that can use the chip, known as the NFC, that allows a phone to tap-to-pay at checkout."

NFC works fine with ChargePoint for example. There are APIs for app developers to take advantage of the chip if they want to use the functionality on their own hardware. This is merely about the level of abstraction that access is allowed to, and as a consumer, I appreciate Apple enforcing rigorous standards there, although it limits functionality somewhat (I can't use my yubikey's NFC chip for webauthn on my phone for example).

hgs3
0 replies
19m

Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Corp's big money political influence.

gregorygoc
0 replies
1h2m

Both Apple and Google are ruthless monopolies but when there was a post about an antitrust against Google you could’ve clearly seen a bias against them. Whereas Apple gets a free pass because their products are „cool”. This is a sad state of HN nowadays.

gigatexal
0 replies
5m

Get the popcorn. This is gonna be good. It’s more or less tying or US v Microsoft no?

fundad
0 replies
2h29m

Competing phone companies give up revenue to set low prices. Apple meets those prices by monetizing commerce.

for1nner
0 replies
3h42m

Inevitable settlement with no real change in the market dynamics, or am I too down on the U.S. Justice system?

fnord77
0 replies
49m

"apple is making too much money, so let's loot them"

coolliquidcode
0 replies
1h28m

Cool. Now do google, amazon, fb, Verizon, att, chevron, exxon, gp, oracle, microsoft, etc.

consultSKI
0 replies
1h51m

Maybe this will get Tim Cook's attention?

P.S. Tim, you have gone to far. Even if you win the case. #justSayin

codemonkeysh
0 replies
1h59m

U.S. Government - "Hey Apple, can you stop selling so many phones because you're now becoming a monopoly; although there's Android."

btown
0 replies
2h32m

Direct link to the complaint itself: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9765671b...

Pages 29-31 of the complaint are especially relevant to read for many of us in web development and who value open systems, as they detail the intentionality of Apple's strategy to restrict so-called "super apps" from becoming portals for arbitrary web applications. And page 42+ describes restrictions on alternate digital wallets.

There's a lot here beyond the original headlines, and it's incredibly relevant to read or skim directly.

brcmthrowaway
0 replies
1h51m

Who knew the US would try to destroy their biggest export market

badgersnake
0 replies
29m

I guess all that Google lobbying cash finally paid off.

asow92
0 replies
1h9m

As an iOS developer, this excites me! It seems like it will open up the market for new app development opportunities, which is a great thing indeed!

ants_everywhere
0 replies
16m

This quote is pretty consistent with my take on what Apple has been up to:

In the end , Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests .
anonymouse008
0 replies
2h30m

“all that matters is who has the cheapest hardware” and consumers could “buy[] a [expletive] Android for 25 bux at a garage sale and . . . have a solid cloud computing device” that “works fine.”

This type of mindset will be the end of Apple.

andreygrehov
0 replies
9m

Does U.S. make it simple to get into a mobile business so that I could compete with Apple? Can I easily manufacture a phone and get an approval from FCC? If not, then Apple should sue the hell out of DOJ in response.

andreygrehov
0 replies
26m

Can we stop feeding paywalled websites with free traffic? Does HN encourage me to create a paid account with NYTimes?

amshukla
0 replies
1h17m

The important question is who loses if apple loses. A whole host of very affluent and powerful politicians and others in influential positions own Apple stocks. Apple's monopoly helps their portfolios. I am not expecting much by way of any significant outcome from this exercise.

FrustratedMonky
0 replies
2h40m

What is the crux of argument on how they prevent people from using Samsung?

EDIT: The title of the post is "Monopoly". I think it is ok to ask what the argument for this is, when iPhone is NOT the majority of the market.

Company

4Q23 Market Share

1. Apple

24.7%

2. Samsung

16.3%

3. Xiaomi

4. Transsion

Foxhuls
0 replies
1h51m

I will never understand why people who don’t like the apple ecosystem just simply don’t buy apple products. It’s just really strange to me that it’s considered to be a monopoly when no one is forced to use the platform, there are other options out there.

ChildOfChaos
0 replies
1h43m

Seems rather unfair on Apple to me. You don't have to buy an Apple product, when you do, you know what you are getting, there is choice.

These things always seem like some strange powerplay, if such bodies weren't happy, they should of been discussing this with Apple and changing the laws to match rather than making a big public spectacle out of it, this really hurts innovation.

Of course the HN comment crowd are going to be happy with this though.