[HN Gopher] U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhon...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly
Author : jcfrei
Score : 1704 points
Date : 2024-03-21 14:37 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| justrealist wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Jensson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| 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 EUR4.99 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pvg wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lokar wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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.
| justrealist wrote:
| If Walmart had a 60% market share then yes the JD would be on
| their balls for store brands.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| This is saying 58% of Walmart's sales are groceries. Not
| 58% of grocery sales are through Walmart.
| for1nner wrote:
| Inevitable settlement with no real change in the market dynamics,
| or am I too down on the U.S. Justice system?
| _chimmy_chonga_ wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240321143739/https://www.nytim...
| _chimmy_chonga_ wrote:
| well, it still has the login stuff but just further down. -_-
| SSLy wrote:
| https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-
| clea...
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _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.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > it's all about collecting the rent
|
| Which is not illegal.
| trothamel wrote:
| Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?
| immibis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| But sideloading is viable for everything else... I think
| that's the core argument that makes what Apple does
| criminal
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > 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.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| It's the standard used by almost all app stores, save for
| new entrants trying to buy their way into the market.
| Steam is 30% and there's nothing stopping you from
| installing alternatives. Nintendo's eStore is 30% and
| they control 100% of the mobile console market.
| flutas wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| causi wrote:
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| 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.
| rpdillon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Biden's challenger was in office at the time when the
| Justice Department started the investigation.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Good point, although the decision to move forward with
| the case was made under the current administration.
| ysavir wrote:
| Well damn, if ending Apple's monopoly is the key to
| uniting the country politically, sign me up.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Good point, although the decision to move forward with
| the case was made under the current administration._
|
| The President/Administration telling the AG what to move
| forward on (and what not to) is generally not a thing,
| and when it does happen, there are often headlines:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
|
| * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/18
| /will...
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| You could make the asymmetric information argument for any
| defendant.
| EasyMark wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They could easily ban these third party applications on
| MacOS too. So it is more likely that it's simply anti-
| competitive reasons.
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| > If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it'd be a
| complete and utter disaster. (...) The consequences and the
| attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.
|
| I don't buy that argument. I have more important files on
| my laptop than on my phone.
| crabmusket wrote:
| Is there a wave of people being hacked with full remote
| access to their phones due to shoddy Android banking apps?
| andrewmutz wrote:
| How do you think they would spin Messages interoperability as
| security or performance?
| macintux wrote:
| End to end encryption can only be guaranteed if you control
| both ends.
| tomrod wrote:
| How does PGP solve this?
| danaris wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Is the internet not built on public key encryption between
| two parties?
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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!)
| toast0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| dagmx wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| It seems weird to force a company to support their
| competitors products if there is no financial interest in
| them doing so.
| metabagel wrote:
| 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.
| endemic wrote:
| Why not both?
| bombcar wrote:
| 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.
| samatman wrote:
| The argument that the color of a message bubble is
| tantamount to a "degraded experience" is truly bizarre.
| misnome wrote:
| 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.
| input_sh wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The point is "are they forced to do so"
| afavour wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| quatrefoil wrote:
| 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.
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| 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.
| devsda wrote:
| > 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.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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).
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > 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.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yeah it'll be interesting to see (via discovery) whether
| Apple has policies like Google's regarding "words not to
| use".
| snotrockets wrote:
| If a company doesn't, I'd suspect the competence of their
| legal dept.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yes, but I'd also be surprised by a company's employees
| doing a universally good job abiding by such guidelines.
| VHRanger wrote:
| Do such policies trigger adverse inference or some similar
| concept?
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| "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.
| EasyMark wrote:
| 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
| ragazzina wrote:
| >Yeah this stuff usually ends up "I don't like the
| interface" when you press people.
|
| In Apple Books, you can't decide which books you want to
| keep on your device. In iOS Storage, you cannot see the
| largest pictures/videos (you used to be able to do that,
| they removed it to make people subscribe to iCloud). The
| iOS keyboard/autocorrect is so terrible it's almost
| unusable. You can't even set a vibrating alarm on iPhone
| without enabling vibration everywhere, come on.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| > customers are choosing the device based on the Apple
| software, not in spite of it.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-
| winning-...
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If it's a society issue that Apple takes advantage of to
| carve a monopoly for itself, then that's an Apple issue.
| katbyte wrote:
| I use apple products because of the software and consider
| it better then the alternatives.
| int_19h wrote:
| 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.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| 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.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| 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?
| dagmx wrote:
| Cmd+Tilde cycles through open windows of a single
| application
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| Except the minimized ones......
| blehn wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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. 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. Put it another way: I use
| macOS every day and I never think "Wow, I wish Windows
| had this feature, too" but every day I wish I had some UX
| element from Windows -- just basic window management
| feels so clunky on macOS unless you fullscreen
| everything.
|
| Hardware is great, though.
| skydhash wrote:
| It's just different. Like KDE/Gnome/i3/Windows is
| different from each other. MacOS applications are more
| like services, while windows let you perform the current
| task you have. As an example Preview.app allows you to
| open PDFs and picture files. But you need to open a file
| to do anything to it, and when you do so, it creates a
| window allowing you to interact with the file. When
| you're done, you close the file by closing the window
| (which is why it duplicates the window when you chose
| "Save As"). The window has a 1:1 relationship with the
| files. The menu bar is part of the application, but the
| currently focused window can interact with it.
|
| When you're close all Chrome windows, that just means
| you're done with the webpages, not that you're done with
| Chrome. Chrome dev team can set Chrome to terminate when
| all windows close, but they've not chosen to do so. It's
| there when you want to create a new window when you want
| to interact with a new webpage. And again it's up to the
| developer to choose to tie the application lifecyle to
| its windows.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| > MacOS applications are more like services,
|
| That's all well and good, but when I've closed the
| interfaces with which I'm interacting with the Chrome
| "service", isn't it pretty clear that the intent is that
| "I'm done with the service"? "Chrome team chose to build
| it like that" -- I guess the question here is "why is
| this even an option at the OS level?" and "shouldn't we
| expect window and application behavior to be
| consistent?". Davinci Resolve on macOS, for example,
| exits when I close its window while Chrome does not. Do
| you not think that even having this option to create an
| inconsistent application interaction seems like bad
| design? Sometimes the app exits when I close all windows,
| sometimes it doesn't.
|
| My issue with the menu bar is purely from an ergonomics
| and usability perspective, especially with high
| resolution monitors. If I have a window at the bottom
| right corner of the monitor, I need to move my mouse all
| the ways to the top left of the monitor to interact with
| the menu bar. If you always full screen everything, it
| makes total sense. But I would make the case that macOS
| has done a very poor job of adapting to changes in
| monitor resolutions. Consider ultra-wide screen monitors
| where I have apps side-by-side or I have 4 windows tiled.
| The accessibility of the menu bar becomes quite low for
| three out of the 4 windows.
|
| The key stroke to access the menu bar is (do you know
| it?) CTRL+F2. Try that stroke yourself and see how it
| feels. It's not at all obvious that this allows you to
| access the menu bar with the keyboard.
|
| By attaching the menu bar to the application window, the
| spatial locality increases usability, especially for
| modern ultra-wide monitors don't you agree?
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| I use Windows all day and it's garbage as well. Perhaps
| they are both garbage? I'm talking the latest release of
| Windows 10. Or maybe it's 11. Whatever it is it sucks too
| mrkeen wrote:
| I recently purchased a second hand mb air M1. I put
| Asahi/Fedora/Cinnamon on it and I'm pretty happy so far.
| skydhash wrote:
| > Never had a $2000+ laptop that couldn't connect with
| more than 2 monitors without an expensive DisplayLink
| dock and drivers
|
| Hardware limitations that were told at launch.
|
| > Rendering on non-Apple external monitors sucks;
|
| It works fine with my old Dell FHD and my current 4k LG.
|
| > Terrible with system font scaling
|
| Apple does not do system font scaling, it applies scaling
| to the whole UI, not separate elements.
|
| > Can't tab cycle through minimized windows
|
| Different windows management model. You tab cycle through
| applications, and you backquote cycle through open
| windows. Minimized windows go to the dock.
|
| > Windowing system sucks compared to Windows
|
| Again above. Windows sizing is a specific concept in Mac
| OS interface model and there's rules that you can apply
| to it. I understand the OS not wanting to interfere much
| with that.
|
| > I ship a PWA for one of my apps and by far Safari is
| the one that has the most issues with updating
|
| I've not seen your code so I can't say much. But most
| people who complain about Safari really want Chrome's
| non-standard API to exists in Safari too.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| > Hardware limitations that were told at launch.
|
| Sure, but still silly that even an 8 year old Dell can
| drive 3 monitors without issue. And clearly, the hardware
| CAN do it since attaching it to a DisplayLink dock and
| adding a driver works. Fundamentally, the GPU is capable
| of doing it. > It works fine with my
| old Dell FHD and my current 4k LG.
|
| Oh it definitely works, but using Chrome on Windows,
| everything is super crisp on the same exact monitor
| whereas there is a noticeable softness on macOS
| > Different windows management model. You tab cycle
| through applications, and you backquote cycle through
| open windows. Minimized windows go to the dock.
|
| Yeah, an inferior one. The minimized windows go to the
| dock and are inaccessible by keyboard. This is clearly a
| flaw. > I understand the OS not wanting
| to interfere much with that.
|
| I'd argue that, you know, the purpose of the graphical
| user interface system in an OS in the context of UX at a
| very fundamental level is managing windowing.
| > I've not seen your code so I can't say much. But most
| people who complain about Safari really want Chrome's
| non-standard API to exists in Safari too.
|
| Works fine in Firefox and it's just using Vite PWA;
| really basic, standard PWA templates. Nothing special.
| phumberdroz wrote:
| > - Can't tab cycle through minimized windows
|
| > - Windowing system sucks compared to Windows
|
| Checkout: https://github.com/lwouis/alt-tab-macos solved
| most of my pains with it.
| gcheong wrote:
| Perhaps, but I'm glad they're at least trying.
| RNAlfons wrote:
| 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.
| katbyte wrote:
| 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,
| sneak wrote:
| 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.
| emodendroket wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >> 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| gcheong wrote:
| I think you're right:
| https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/whats-coming-
| in-2024-on-t...
| emodendroket wrote:
| Matt Stoller and Lina Khan run in the same circles so, yes,
| probably what he writes is a reasonable proxy for what she
| thinks.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Everything needs to be litigated.
| danesparza wrote:
| 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.
| jwagenet wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Well, The Justice Department at least can't do that, because
| they can't write laws.
| Muromec wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I honestly don't know much about this, but isn't it
| standard for government lawsuits to be "United States vs
| John Smith"?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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._
| jwagenet wrote:
| This implies the DoJ doesn't interact with other
| departments at all, and I don't think that's the case.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| > 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.
| mariodiana wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Apple has option to enable e2ee on backups now. It sort of
| defeats the purpose of backup though because if you lose
| device you lose the backup (assuming you only have one
| device and didn't setup recovery keys off device)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| 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?
| lokar wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > ...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.
| skyyler wrote:
| You know that they meant there should be an option to
| enable software sources other than Apple's App Store.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| If I switch to android I lose the apps I paid for and my
| ability to text American iPhone users is completely
| hamstringed
| sedivy94 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| layer8 wrote:
| That's a Hobson's choice.
| lokar wrote:
| I'm fine with more app stores, let others compete, and
| ideally compete on review security.
| giantrobot wrote:
| 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/...
| pb7 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| asadotzler wrote:
| So what. If iOS doesn't suck, their apps won't be able to
| do anything malicious so no added risk. If a kid in China
| with an iPad testing the app for 3-4 minutes is a real
| security benefit, I'm Tim Cook.
| Pfhortune wrote:
| > 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!
| overstay8930 wrote:
| > 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.
| dns_snek wrote:
| 10 malicious apps (2022)
| https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/26/ios-app-store-ad-
| fraud/
|
| 7 malicious apps (2022) https://lifehacker.com/great-now-
| the-apple-app-store-has-mal...
|
| 18 malicious apps (2019) https://www.wired.com/story/apple-
| app-store-malware-click-fr...
|
| Up to 4000 malicious apps (2015)
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34338362
| asadotzler wrote:
| App review is a kid in China with an iPad playing with the
| app for 3-4 minutes. That's not worth a 30% cut of all app
| proceeds.
| amf12 wrote:
| Just recently from HN: -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33797623 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14526156
| samatman wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That tends to happen when your entire argument hinges on
| something being (close to) perfect, like the app store
| review process.
| kbf wrote:
| 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.
| burrish wrote:
| >A premium for a well curated and reviewed App Store
|
| Just 8 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
| jocoda wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > I do not understand why Microsoft stepped out of the mobile
| market.
|
| Because they failed. And not just once!
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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).
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| layer8 wrote:
| It isn't that well-curated though:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
| FredPret wrote:
| 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
| lokar wrote:
| And then, they make much much better margins on the App Store.
| FredPret wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Apple's 26% is a net margin - I'm sure their gross on an
| iPhone is a healthy amount
| snakeyjake wrote:
| https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/gross_profit_margin
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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."
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| 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.
| generj wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| 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?
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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.
| detourdog wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Most of the things I see Apple stop developers from doing
| I'm grateful for. Most developers have really bad ideas.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| 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.
| realusername wrote:
| They allow games because that's where the largest chunk
| of appstore revenue comes from...
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010701/apple-app-
| store-...
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gbear605 wrote:
| Most Macs sold are Macbooks that also have batteries
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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.
| ruined wrote:
| 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
| dagmx wrote:
| 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.
| adolph wrote:
| > you aren't allowed to install another browser
|
| _Currently, anyone can create a new iPhone browser, but with
| one huge restriction: Apple insists that it uses the same
| WebKit rendering engine as Safari._ [0]
|
| And currently you can also delete Safari from your iOS
| device. An example of this is Firefox [1].
|
| 0. https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/
|
| 1. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-
| browser/i...
| mcphage wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| Have you looked recently? It's pretty easy to get models
| from Dell and Lenovo.
| kergonath wrote:
| The issue was not the lack of computers with alternative
| OSes. It was Microsoft using its dominant status in the
| market to enforce it.
| acdha wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| adolph wrote:
| 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...
| .
| bruce511 wrote:
| 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.
| realusername wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Edit: I give up trying to help people
| realusername wrote:
| When was the last exclusive deal like we have on console
| then? I never heard of one.
| freedomben wrote:
| 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.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| What is meant by "monopoly" has been evolving, and a majority
| share acquired through anticompetitive means could be enough
| to warrant government action.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Anticompetitive != monopoly.
| screamingninja wrote:
| 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?
| cow_boat wrote:
| Apple sells over 60% of new smart phones in the US.
| metabagel wrote:
| Android is a brand. It's trademarked by Google.
| freedomben wrote:
| Linux is trademarked as well. Is Linux a competitor to
| the iphone?
| samatman wrote:
| Yes.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_mobile_devices
| freedomben wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| samatman wrote:
| It's not theoretical competition. It's actual
| competition, which is bad. These are not the same thing.
|
| The doctrine that it's your fault if your competitors
| suck makes no sense. It's weaponized tall-poppy syndrome.
| screamingninja wrote:
| You're correct, it is a brand. The point stands though.
| Comparing "Apple" to "Android" does not work. Perhaps a
| comparison between iOS App Store and Google Play Store
| would be more apt, but that is another discussion.
| bruce511 wrote:
| iPhone is not a monopoly since z lot of companies sell
| phones, and with significant market share.
|
| iOS is not a monopoly since at least one other major
| operating system exists, with significant market share.
| (Whether Linux is or isn't a competitor is irrelevant.)
|
| A monopoly by itself is not a problem. Only behavior
| ancillary to that monopoly is. But to get there you have
| you have a monopoly. I don't see how you make the case.
| Clearly consumers have choice.
|
| Now, there's a case to be made for bad behavior, but its
| weak. Apple will argue that consumers have choices.
|
| But I am not a lawyer, so I'll leave it up to the lawyers
| on both sides to earn some fees discussing it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Sony is currently facing antitrust lawsuits in multiple
| jurisdictions over the Playstation Store.
| SmarsJerry wrote:
| Those stores can be abusing their monopoly position as
| well. Apple has the greatest sales of all of those stores
| though so it should rightly be targeted first. They flew
| under the radar for far too long. People are literally
| going back to using websites rather than apps because of
| their decision, but Apple even tried to kill progressive
| web apps recently - which are basically just shortcuts to
| websites on the Home Screen.
| rtkwe wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| patapong wrote:
| 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.
| megaman821 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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...
| overstay8930 wrote:
| 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.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Phone sales are hardly the issue here. iOS policies are the
| issue.
|
| And you could absolutely buy alternatives to Microsoft
| Windows in the 90s, from Apple or IBM or others. But that's
| immaterial. The availability of an alternative says nothing
| about the market power Apple has or how it's wielding that
| power. This is why we have anti-trust cases, to determine if
| that power is being abused.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| boringg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| ecshafer wrote:
| 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.
| Y-bar wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tikkabhuna wrote:
| 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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _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...
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| 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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 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.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Only if the justice department believes Google has been
| using its dominant market position to harm consumers.
| autoexec wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| No but their margin will reduce, their market cap too and
| a lot of money will start to flow to people really
| innovating.
| trothamel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bklyn11201 wrote:
| "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.
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| 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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| apercu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'd be happy to trade you something you consider better.
| apercu wrote:
| 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.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >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.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| 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.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| 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.
| metabagel wrote:
| 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.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| > are we just picking on apple because they are popular
|
| "Popularity" is a precondition to running afoul of
| antitrust law, yes..
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| So you would say that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are
| not large market players?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Which of those has not faced significant antitrust
| scrutiny?
| Foxhuls wrote:
| 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.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| sorry i can sideload my xbox and playstation. Just
| because they've been dinged for antitrust in other areas
| (i don't think sony has .. but certainly microsoft in my
| lifetime)..
| asadotzler wrote:
| 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.
| Foxhuls wrote:
| I'm sorry that me asking a question is so emotionally
| upsetting to you that it leads to you attempting to
| insult me. I'll try not to ask anymore question about
| Microsoft the 3.19 trillion dollar company, Sony the 113
| billion dollar company, and Nintendo the 10 billion
| dollar company. I hope my question didn't hurt these mom
| and pop businesses. You also made me completely aware of
| the fact that these aren't the big three players in the
| console market which is a pretty fair comparison to this
| situation. Thanks again for your wonderful contribution.
| immibis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I've Google TV and it allows sideloading. Yes, it should
| be allowed for all devices.
| autoexec wrote:
| > 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.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| They absolutely can. I can compile and install anything i
| want on my iphone, have to have a dev account is all.
| Also i think there are still iphone jailbreaks to be had.
| bombcar wrote:
| 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.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| 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.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| Apple users do not understand that. That was the
| comment's point.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| 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.
| kemayo wrote:
| > 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_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| And they are free to make that choice. Surely consumers
| who care about this choose Android.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| _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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The failure of the courts to update first sale doctrine
| to the digital age is the root cause of many ills.
|
| Unfortunately, it's a tricky question, because it's more
| akin to compelling speech when the content is served by
| another party at a future time.
|
| If I get a device that uses cloud functionality... is
| whoever I sell that device to entitled to that
| functionality?
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| 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
| Spivak wrote:
| Your point is fine but you have to at least acknowledge
| the dynamic that users are takers of software and
| companies have every incentive to take their popular apps
| off the app store.
|
| It's gonna be the first thing Facebook does, and maybe
| that's fine but it's going to reduce consumer choice. You
| won't be able to have the Facebook but with the tracking
| restrictions anymore because it's bad for their bottom
| line. I don't really know if there's a good answer for
| how to strike this balance but it seems drastic that
| people want it to be illegal to offer a platform where
| all participants have to play by the platform's rules.
| kemayo wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yes, piracy is admittedly very popular. (And maybe 0.02%
| of said custom software _isn 't_ piracy, but...)
| dotnet00 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kemayo wrote:
| In fairness, from everything I've heard the Mac App Store
| is _really_ not doing well.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| You can bypass the Steam fee as the publisher. Steam's
| rule is that you can't sell a _Steam key_ for your game
| somewhere else consistently cheaper than it 's sold on
| Steam. You're free to go wild with pricing, so long as
| it's on a completely separate distribution platform.
|
| See: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
|
| (At the very least, if they're trying to do a most-
| favored-nation rule, they're not listing it in their
| policies and are enforcing it through back-channels.)
| eecc wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| How about we regulate tracking apps etc first then force
| Apple to change?
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| This argument leads nowhere since it just as well applies
| the other way around.
|
| Both are problems, both need solving.
| soygem wrote:
| >loyal iPhone user >tracking garbage
| donny2018 wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| >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_ wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| >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_ wrote:
| It is related to side loading. Apple for a long time
| disallowed side loading (even now 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 other stores
| have the right to dictate what they do and do not sell.
| They do not, however, have the right to say that they're
| the only store allowed, or that any new store 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.
| katbyte wrote:
| 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?
| visarga wrote:
| An iPhone is less like Walmart and more like a computer. We
| should run whatever we like on our own hardware.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| I think Nintendo would disagree.
| davely wrote:
| They would. But they're wrong.
| asadotzler wrote:
| And with 100M users instead of billions, it also simply
| doesn't matter what Nintendo thinks.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Computer vs phone definitely changes the point.
|
| The iPhone is a computer, but unlike past computers it
| introduced a walled-garden App Store.
|
| Also, software on phones before the iPhone was also gate-
| kept by carriers. Apple was not maintaining the status
| quo. They were changing it for their benefit.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> 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.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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)
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| >> 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bombcar wrote:
| 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.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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%.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > On the other hand, Audible has no competition, and they
| have a 75% fee (as in they keep 75%).
|
| Amazon seems to inexplicably get away with a lot of anti-
| competitive behavior. I don't know why.
| baxtr wrote:
| 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.
| metabagel wrote:
| 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.
| freedomben wrote:
| >> _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 wrote:
| 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.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| giantrobot wrote:
| 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_ wrote:
| NVIDIA and CUDA are not comparable. NVIDIA isn't preventing
| you from running OpenCL or Vulkan.
| starbugs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > but duopolies aren't illegal
|
| They should be.
| gnicholas wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| So if there are 2 competitors and one drops out, then
| it's hardcore illegal, but otherwise it's a-okay?
| evilduck wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If you get a complaint from the Department of Justice,
| you should probably be more focused on preventing a
| break-up than counting your nest eggs.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
| starbugs wrote:
| Yea, that is pretty much what I meant. This would be good
| for everybody in the end.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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.
| amatecha wrote:
| Oh yeah, I remember that! Covered here (with video too)
| https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech-0806/
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| 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.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| 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 SS
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Before either iOS or Android existed, you could get
| phones running Windows CE from carriers. Why didn't that
| stick around? Especially since those primitive
| smartphones gave carriers a lot more control over their
| app stores.
| danaris wrote:
| > 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.
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| hgs3 wrote:
| 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.
| fifticon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Very nice take on it, thanks.
| hooverd wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| blashyrk wrote:
| I for one would never trade my Windows (or Linux w/ KDE) for
| the atrocity that is the macOS UX :)
| bigtones wrote:
| Here is the non-paywall link to the full NYT article I shared:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-laws...
| colpabar wrote:
| https://archive.is/SYlk5
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Direct link
|
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24492020/doj-apple-an...
| dublinben wrote:
| Here it is from Justice.gov as well:
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
| rvz wrote:
| 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)
| jwells89 wrote:
| 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.
| nottorp wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > I don't care if the developer pays
|
| I think you, as the consumer, are the one who pays.
| nottorp wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nottorp wrote:
| > in theory the businesses that want to compete would
| want to pass the savings to the consumers while staying
| profitable
|
| This is the app market, not the wheat flour market. Most
| of the time the apps aren't interchangeable. At least
| those that provide some value *. So... they will charge
| what the market will bear.
|
| Do you see Apple reducing their commission from 30% to 5%
| and changing the 0.99 price to 0.79? I don't.
|
| * ok, not flashlight and TODO apps.
|
| Edit: actually Apple reduced the commission from 30% to
| 15% for some apps. Did you see any app at 0.84 in the app
| store? Didn't think so...
| samatman wrote:
| 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.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| 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.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| Huh? Don't WhatsApp, Signal, etc. work in the USA? Or does
| anybody pay for them?
| s17n wrote:
| In the US you can actually lose relationships if you don't
| have imessage. None of the other apps matter.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| No one is suggesting breaking up apple over this, merely
| forcing them to allow interoperability
| asmor wrote:
| This is very much not an isolated thing. People are very
| lazy and don't want to change their usual patterns unless
| something goes really wrong.
|
| I would love to not use Discord, but I'd lose messaging
| with about half my social circle.
| s17n wrote:
| https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/calif-residents-
| sue-h...
| misnome wrote:
| *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 wrote:
| 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.
| roamerz wrote:
| >>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.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| afavour wrote:
| Perhaps the more sensical version is "Apple controls 100%
| of the iOS app store market". Because no other app stores
| are allowed.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| skeaker wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| skeaker wrote:
| Not sure I get your point since I'm not super familiar
| with the Windows phone. If the argument is that the
| Windows phone was locked down and could only load
| software from a Microsoft store, then I'm glad it died.
| Same way I'm glad Internet Explorer as the default on
| Windows had government action taken against it. Let me
| use my machine for my code. I don't care if you are Apple
| or Microsoft or whoever. I do not care if you "own" your
| company, the fact is that if you sell me a device, I want
| to to own my device by running whatever I want.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Okay, so you're an absolutist about this. I think that's
| fine, but it doesn't jive with my experience that not
| everyone wants to be (or is even capable of being) their
| own IT department. This quote by Benedict Evans resonated
| with me:
|
| _" It sometimes just amazes me that people who actually
| work in the tech industry, and are in their 30s and 40s,
| claim that it would be just fine if smart phones had the
| same app security and privacy model as the Mac or
| Windows, and that there is no benefit at all from
| additional controls. Where have these people been for the
| last 30 years? You seriously want to let any developer do
| whatever they want to a device that billions of people
| carry around every day?"_
| skeaker wrote:
| I would honestly be fine if Apple was at least as lenient
| as Android in terms of sideloading. Doesn't seem like a
| big ask to me, given that just about every other phone
| manufacturer in the world except for Apple does it and
| the world hasn't ended. Apple has other issues beyond the
| software thing, but saying that you shouldn't be allowed
| to actually own a device you purchased because "apple
| owns 100% of iphones!" is very silly to me.
| bigyikes wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > Apple controls 100% of the iOS market
|
| "AlotOfReading" controls 100% of your HN posts.
| edward28 wrote:
| The call is coming from inside the house.
| Topfi wrote:
| >> 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| > 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.
| toast0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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?
| graeme wrote:
| It isn't true of monopolists. That's the whole point of
| pricing power. You can raise prices higher than they'd be
| otherwise.
|
| There are lots of inexpensive phones on the market
| toast0 wrote:
| Apple does seem to have pricing power. They don't sell
| (new) phones under $400.
| graeme wrote:
| That's a choice though. Pricing power means *no one*
| sells phones under $400 because the monopolist has the
| ability to raise overall market prices.
| karmelapple wrote:
| > 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.
|
| It has market power, but it's not significantly larger than
| its competition. It's not 60% for iPhone, and 10% split up
| amongst 4 other competitors. It's 60% vs 40%... and probably
| more like 58% vs 42% [1].
|
| Does 8% truly make Apple "dominant" to the point that
| integrating their software with watches in a better manner is
| illegal? I find that wildly difficult to believe.
|
| > that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude
| competitors.
|
| Apple has been able to raise its own prices, but it hasn't
| been wildly out of line with competitors.
|
| And Apple both makes phones and the software on them. They
| might be excluding or making competitors to their software
| have a harder time, but excluding? Not really - they have
| only excluded other large companies who have distinctly
| decided to run afoul of their guidelines (specifically,
| Epic).
|
| 1. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users
| toast0 wrote:
| In a 60/40 market, probably both parties have significant
| market power and qualify to have their market powers
| checked.
| karmelapple wrote:
| And I think that's a great idea, but I think there has
| been no sign the DoJ plans to do that.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| People seem to miss the concept of "market power" vs sales
| numbers. Apple loyalists love to brag about the fact that
| Apple users spend something like 7x more on Apps and other
| services than Android users. They don't brag about that so
| much when anti-trust comes up - on a weighted basis that
| would suggest Apple has about 95% of market share and should
| be treated in the same category that late 1990's Microsoft
| was.
| nottorp wrote:
| > There are many non-apple phone options
|
| One non-apple phone option. Or you're somehow deluded into
| thinking the hardware matters any more?
| nox101 wrote:
| 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.
| pquki4 wrote:
| 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.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| 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!
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If you want to have a functional social circle in the US,
| choice doesn't really exist.
| overstay8930 wrote:
| If your friends won't talk to you because you have an Android
| phone, you don't actually have any friends.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| nottorp wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They do on average, or they just think they're sending
| SMS messages that have somehow improved? :)
| npteljes wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| npteljes wrote:
| Easier, maybe, but the users are still married to the
| platforms, now with the added annoyance that there is no
| cross-talk between the apps at all. Network effect is a
| huge thing, and the only difference between iMessage and
| Whatsapp for example is that Whatsapp doesn't have the
| hardware to lock the users into.
|
| So getting back to the original point, OP bemoans that in
| order to communicate with some people, one has to have an
| iPhone. With other apps, you just need to have the
| specific app. Maybe not as bad, we could say, but the
| phenomenon is the same: in order to contact some people,
| you have to install their specific app. No other way in.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
| nottorp wrote:
| Of course, but neither Apple nor Google built Whatsapp
| into their OS.
|
| Can't even blame Facebook, I've had whatsapp before they
| bought it. I even paid the 0.99 they were charging iOS
| users before 2016 *.
|
| * year pulled out of Gemini so may be inaccurate.
| npteljes wrote:
| That's true. Apple is the leader in the vertical
| integration, and the resulting lock-in, in consumer smart
| tech.
| samatman wrote:
| Social pressure to use a particular phone and messaging app
| does not a monopoly make.
| CPLX wrote:
| 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.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| This article actually has the complaint:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/apple-sued-do...
| KerrAvon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Ezhik wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You can also do this for iPhone...
| Ezhik wrote:
| 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...
| hbn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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.
| nottorp wrote:
| > 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.
| retskrad wrote:
| 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.
| rtkwe wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tarboreus wrote:
| 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.
| andix wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| andix wrote:
| Maybe it's a cultural thing. Where I live it's forbidden to
| build a wall around your garden. Just a small fence is
| allowed ;)
| atonse wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'll have to check this out because my wife much prefers
| the Peloton app to Apple Fitness.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > like only Apple Music supported on the HomePod speakers
|
| FYI, this hasn't been the case for a while.
| https://support.apple.com/en-
| gb/guide/homepod/apd3399d3179/1...
|
| Spotify has elected to not support this API, presumably
| because of their beef with Apple.
| atonse wrote:
| Good to know! Will check it out. Was this something they
| added later?
| ianlevesque wrote:
| I like my iPhone, and want to be able to use Kagi as my search
| engine. Why can't I?
| AlanYx wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's not. And you can't add any more.
| Spivak wrote:
| 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.
| tiahura wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Realtime: I'm actually watching the US Attorney General crying
| about blue bubbles.
|
| I need a drink.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Their brief will surely cite NYT articles about how some Gen
| Z kids don't date people with green bubbles.
| tiahura wrote:
| That was part of his speech.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Wait seriously? I thought you were joking/hyperbolizing.
| That's hilarious.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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
| flenserboy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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!"
| Fgyu0909 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Which apps are those?
| Fgyu0909 wrote:
| Some of those apps are iMovie, imusic, Apple tv, Apple tv+,
| Final Cut Pro etc. Also the app store has apple arcade and
| other subscriptions.
| kstrauser wrote:
| TV and Music comes with the OS. iMovie is a free download.
| Apple Arcade is a subscription to games made by companies
| other than Apple.
|
| No way in hell would Apple TV+, a premium video service, be
| free. And in what world would Final Cut Pro be free? I'd
| love it if they threw in Ableton Live and Pro Tools, but
| that's also not happening.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| Only works if you use iCloud, which I don't.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Then you'll need a 3rd-party product.
| https://imazing.com/iphone-safari-history-bookmarks-
| reading-...
| hu3 wrote:
| 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.
| jmholla wrote:
| While others are pointing out your specific case is supported,
| I do know for experience you need a Mac to be able to smoothly
| move to a different password manager. Otherwise, it requires
| you to unlock your passwords at least twice (really like three
| or four times to do it properly) to copy and paste passwords to
| a different app.
| fidotron wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| iosjunkie wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| There was a time when teens had to be on BBM or be left
| behind.
| toyg wrote:
| _> 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.
| generj wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| 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.
| mcfedr wrote:
| 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
| tarsinge wrote:
| But you can still buy an Android phone, iOS is only around
| 65% in the US (way less in the rest of the world btw).
| Compare with Google with the Chrome platform (> 90%) and
| Search engine (> 90%). Try being a web dev without Chrome
| or a web business without Google, way harder than having an
| Android phone (like the rest of the world do btw). Apple
| abusing its power is one thing, but Google has a way bigger
| monopoly.
| lumb63 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mudil wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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.
| bilekas wrote:
| 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.
| airstrike wrote:
| From established writers who are, perhaps, first solving for
| clicks rather than accuracy or journalistic integrity.
| trothamel wrote:
| 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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.
| globular-toast wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why aren't android phones equivalent? I had an iPhone and
| pixel and switched from both multiple times with no
| issues.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Depends on how you use the devices. For many or most
| users, it's possible they are nearly equivalent. For
| some, iOS does offer things Android does not. Media
| creators get access to different kinds of software on iOS
| than on Android, similar to certain software that is only
| on macOS. It can make a difference to that sort of
| userbase. Similar to how if you are into gaming, other
| desktop platforms are better than macOS. There are also
| some aspects of the underlying technology that in
| practice can make a difference. CoreAudio on iOS blows
| Android out of the water, and the huge ecosystem of
| electronic music creation software for that platform is
| very different than what you get with Android.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| chung8123 wrote:
| There are a lot of android phone users that will disagree
| with you here.
| samatman wrote:
| You can't buy anyone's product from anyone but the
| manufacturer of that product, what is this tautology
| meant to mean?
| dataflow wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| I bought a pixel and there was a process that transferred
| everything over. Not sure how much easier it can be.
| timmg wrote:
| Including the apps you paid for on iOS?
| samatman wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| samatman wrote:
| Multi-platform licenses from a single purchase exist,
| yes.
|
| On Apple platforms as well. For instance, you can buy one
| license for all Affinity programs and use them on macOS,
| Windows, and iPadOS. https://affinity.serif.com/en-
| us/affinity-pricing/
|
| Steam could do the same thing if they wanted.
| smt88 wrote:
| Windows, Linux, Android. Literally every major computing
| platform has portable apps except iOS and macOS.
| _gabe_ wrote:
| Can it transfer the photos you have in iCloud? Or the
| passwords that Apple will "conveniently" store in its
| internal password manager? Or the bookmarks you have on
| safari? Or the messages you have on iMessage? Or the notes
| you have saved in your phone? Or the reminders you have set
| up? Or the alarms that you have?
|
| I also recently switched from Android to iPhone. There was
| also an app that automated a lot of it. But there are a ton
| of tiny things that build up and lock you in to a platform.
| And they're all marketed as helpful little addons! Why not
| backup your pictures to iCloud or get more storage space?
| It's great in theory, but it makes that transition so much
| harder. It's funny too, I'm actually very unhappy with my
| iPhone and want to switch back to an android, but I'm
| waiting. Why? Because it took me like 3 days to fully
| switch all my stuff over the first time and I don't feel
| like going through that again.
| sdfhbdf wrote:
| 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.
| bardak wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| But they can though, there are plenty of apps that are
| android exclusive.
| madsbuch wrote:
| 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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.
| pzo wrote:
| 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.
| zarzavat wrote:
| 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.
| vundercind wrote:
| Banking and government apps aren't paying App Store fees,
| beyond trivial amounts in developer account fees.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| 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.
| madsbuch wrote:
| This is irrelevant for the case. The question is if Apple
| has a monopolistic position.
| danaris wrote:
| No more than it would be OK for government apps to
| support only iPhone.
|
| What's your point here? AFAIK, there aren't any important
| government apps or bank apps that are exclusive to the
| iPhone, nor is there any pressure Apple is putting on
| banks or governments to _be_ exclusive to them.
|
| It sounds like you made a completely unjustifiable leap
| from "because of the popularity of the iPhone,
| governments and banks _need to_ make sure they have
| iPhone apps (because it 's discriminatory and
| irresponsible of basic services like these not to support
| a widely-used computing platform)" to "Apple is forcing
| governments and banks to _exclusively_ support iPhone ".
| cush wrote:
| No they can't because consumers have already made that
| choice. It's done. We are talking about this moment in
| time, not some fantasy world where everyone ditched their
| iPhones.
| endisneigh wrote:
| But they _can_. If you think they _can not_ then explain.
|
| Will they? Probably not because people with Apple devices
| tend to spend more money.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| You don't think losing access to ~50% of the market is a
| disadvantage for a business?
| __Joker wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| > 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Marketing - android devices were notoriously janky in
| their beginning.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dutchCourage wrote:
| 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.
| kergonath wrote:
| Because a phone is not just a battery and a camera?
| repler wrote:
| and how's the data privacy?
| rpmisms wrote:
| Fine, and if you want better, just install GrapheneOS.
| vundercind wrote:
| 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)
| robocat wrote:
| iPhone SE battery life is shockingly poor versus the last
| 3 previous Androids I had which would last 2 days of
| light use.
|
| It's probably my number one gripe with the SE. It runs
| flat when I need it. One time 4 hours walk because
| couldn't call a taxi (_luckily_ I hitched ride with a
| dodgy drug dealer instead - battery life matters!). Or
| staying overnight and not charging so needing to
| carefully manage power for day. Not everyone has a spare
| charger for iPhone.
|
| Apple prioritise phone size/weight instead of battery
| life.
|
| If I could buy a bigger internal battery (maybe needs to
| replace back of phone too), I would. Carrying a power
| bank is too bulky. I lose backpacks, and dislike the
| other alternatives.
| sekai wrote:
| > 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)
| multimoon wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| falcor84 wrote:
| > 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.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| The EU and their dwarfed tech sector because they've made
| a regulatory environment hostile to business.
|
| 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.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Your farm example does not have the scale of damage for
| the government to bother itself suing you for. Nor is it
| actually relevant here since it's an entirely different
| landscape.
|
| I don't think we can look at EU and point at a single
| thing and say that's why they have a smaller tech sector.
| Heck, here's a random argument I can throw out of nowhere
| for it: they are far less migrant friendly.
| skydhash wrote:
| > If I'm raising sheep on my farm it isn't my duty to
| provide my land to my neighbor to also raise sheep.
|
| It's more like you providing land to raise sheep, but put
| your nephew's sheep in the best spots, pushing your
| customers' sheep where they can't eat so well. So your
| customer will rightfully complain that you're hurting
| their business.
| multimoon wrote:
| I'm not the only farm in existence, so they should then
| go to a different farm (which is even bigger than mine)
| to raise their sheep.
| skydhash wrote:
| But the other farms are suitable for cows and goats, not
| sheep. And some do have cows and goats over there, but
| you're the only farm which is suitable for sheep.
| multimoon wrote:
| What type of farm animal is only suitable for the App
| Store?
| skydhash wrote:
| iOS apps to use on the iPhone. If you want an app on the
| iPhone, you have to go through the App Store unless you
| make it a PWA which is not suitable for a lot of use
| cases. You can't run Android Apps on the iPhone and
| there's no alternative App Store.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > If I'm raising sheep on my farm it isn't my duty to
| provide my land to my neighbor to also raise sheep.
|
| This is the wrong analogy. If you want to use the
| feudalism analogy (which I always find appropriate for
| antitrust discussions), Apple is the Ducal landlord and
| also owns several farms that compete with their tenants.
|
| Now, in medieval England, you would be right that the
| landlord has every right to do this. In the modern United
| States of America, antitrust laws are specifically
| written to avoid this arrangement. That there is another
| farm is irrelevant - we have laws to keep the power of
| landlords in check as a matter of governing philosophy.
|
| For the last 50 years, a pro-consolidation school of
| thought has formed that specifically precludes
| enforcement of the laws, but the laws are still on the
| books that specifically aim to prevent an incestuous
| relationship between producers and distributors. In
| Apple's case, they have bundled the App Store and OS in a
| way that allows them to make the rules of the market and
| precludes a reasonable degree of competition in a major
| sector of the economy - it's an obvious target for
| competent law enforcement to take this type of action.
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| 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.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Let's pretend there's a world where Apple can't ban
| android from getting installed on an iPhone.
|
| Is Apple going to quit making iPhones then?
|
| Their financial incentive is that they're effectively the
| default OS on these devices. How many people are
| installing Linux or ChromeOS on a laptop that was
| preinstalled with windows?
|
| What this does mean though is that if Apple makes the
| consumer experience worse, switching OSes doesn't mean
| buying a new phone. It means reinstalling with a third
| party OS.
| moooo99 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Your list of services where you claim Apple has a
| dominant position is entirely products where it does not
| have a dominant position.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Totally agreed. And does Apple has a "dominant position"
| in text messaging? They have around 60% of total phone
| market share [1], but that seems like a far cry from,
| say, 80% or 90%, which is what I'd consider "dominant."
|
| Microsoft had over 90% market share of the world's
| personal computers in the 1990s [2], which I'd also
| consider dominant... and which did result in some similar
| antitrust lawsuits.
|
| 1. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft
| moooo99 wrote:
| Saying they don't have a monopoly over those services is
| still a stawman. They don't have a monopoly on music
| streaming, but they actively force Spotify to effectively
| support their own competitor via their 30% fee. Apple TV+
| does not have more subscribers than Netflix, but apple
| famously makes rules that hinder Netflix ability to be
| competitive on iOS.
|
| And if Apple was all about making the better product, why
| don't they allow the app developers to use their own
| payment processors. If Apple IAP was so superior to
| everything else, users and developers alike would surely
| gladly pay the 20x markup?
|
| But heck, they don't even allow an App developer to tell
| their users about a cheaper price on their website or why
| the product is more expensive on iOS.
|
| Wether you like it or not, as soon as a platform becomes
| as big as iOS or Android, market watchdogs will come to
| town. And that is good thing, because with competition
| the user usually profits over the long term.
| skydhash wrote:
| It's not about having a dominant position, it's about
| using your power in one market to further your position
| in another one. Apple control iOS and macOS which is
| always bundled with the hardware, and they use that to
| strengthen their own applications. Competitors cannot do
| it as they do not have the same access that Apple does
| regarding APIs and other features.
| shuckles wrote:
| Apple uses their own technology to make their products
| better. That's not a scandal. Their products aren't the
| most dominant in streaming, maps, or payment. Most of the
| complaints are about what they aren't doing (going out of
| their way to make proprietary features available to 3ps),
| not what they are doing (say: giving themselves special
| push notification permissions). So what influence are
| they exerting exactly? Why is it so pernicious?
| moooo99 wrote:
| > Your list of services where you claim Apple has a
| dominant position is entirely products where it does not
| have a dominant position.
|
| I am not claiming that. I am claiming that Apple has a
| very dominant position over the most important sales
| channel lots of companies have to rely on to compete.
|
| Just one example is the at this point famous App Store
| tax. From a 10$ Apple Music subscription, 9.8$ (lets use
| these cents for processing) goes to Apple.
|
| For a 10$ Spotify subscription, Spotify makes 7$ after
| Apple takes their 30% fee. Sure one may say, hey, but
| Spotify isn't forced to use Apple's service for payments,
| except they are. Otherwise they loose access to *the*
| platform most people listen to their music nowadays.
| Spotify also isn't allow to make Apple subscriptions more
| expensive and inform users about cheaper subscriptions on
| their website, because otherwise they'd loose access to
| the important platform. I guess one can see how this
| could be considered a abuse of the dominant marked
| position?
|
| Strictly speaking, for this example past tense would have
| been fitting. Not because Apple is so generous, but
| because the EU also considered much of this behavior to
| be anti-competitive. Hence me wondering if the US courts
| would be following this line of thinking.
|
| What frustrates me the most is Apple's double dipping.
| They argue that those fees are required for the
| development of the platform and technology, pretending as
| if they didn't already charge a hefty price tag on the
| products they sell. And in the end, its still the user
| who is getting screwed. It's not like Spotify or any
| other provider is eating the platform cost, they charge
| it up to the user by making their services more
| expensive.
|
| Also, in their defense in the EU hearings Apple argued
| that Spotify's success is in large part thanks to the App
| Store, so it would only be fair for them to pay that
| amount. The amount of arrogance in that statement is
| astonishing imho. Developing for a platform is a mutually
| beneficial relationship, not an altruistic development
| aid by Apple. What would iPhone sales look like if there
| was no third party Mail client, no Twitter app and no
| Instagram or Facebook for their phones?
|
| TD;DR: easy demonstration of how Apple makes more money
| selling the same product, not because they're more
| efficient but because they make all the rules.
| raydev wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Ironically, the pixel is the device you want.
| samatman wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| My theory: the problem is iCloud encryption at rest. The
| solution is to hang this over Apple until they relent.
| ergonaught wrote:
| This is basically the only actual reason for the suit.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| If that were the case, why wouldn't Apple come out and say
| this is what is happening?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Same reason you don't go to the cops when the mafia extorts
| you - it will only make it worse.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| But Apple did go public when the FBI was bothering them.
| They aren't a little shop.
| sedivy94 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Foxhuls wrote:
| You really think there's no reason whatsoever? I have to
| believe that's disingenuous. It's just a phone to me and
| all I need is basic phone features to work. That's also
| the reason I'm still using my iPhone X, it works as a
| phone and for basic tasks if I don't want to get onto my
| computer or grab my laptop. I care more about my phone
| simply working than having additional features I don't
| value. I don't want to have to download multiple app
| stores in order to get specific apps. I already have to
| deal with that when it comes to epic on PC and it's a
| pain in the ass. It also is going to make having to help
| the tech support for the technically challenged in my
| family so much more of a pain. There is a platform
| available if I want the features and capabilities you're
| bringing up. I'm not telling anyone that their android is
| a bad choice or that it doesn't work for them. Why do
| android users constantly seem to be telling me to be
| unhappy with the iPhone and that I need things I don't
| want.
|
| The only point that you've mentioned that can be annoying
| is sending a video to a friend with an android but it's
| not a big enough of an issue that I care enough to do
| anything about it considering google photos and or an
| iCloud link is easy.
| skeaker wrote:
| > The only point that you've mentioned that can be
| annoying is sending a video to a friend with an android
| but it's not a big enough of an issue that I care enough
| to do anything about it
|
| ...except defend Apple at every given opportunity when it
| would be just as easy to ask them to fix it so it
| wouldn't be as annoying, or even ignore the discussion
| altogether. That is the mentality I don't get it. If it
| works for you, great. Clearly it doesn't work for others.
| Why go out of your way to tell them that their problems
| are invalid?
| afavour wrote:
| 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.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| 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.
| pornel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pornel wrote:
| I think these are two sides of the same coin, because
| ultimately developers must pass the extra costs to users.
| The devs aren't subsidizing the 30%/15% cut, it's a tax
| that users pay.
|
| App Store rules and the greedy cut also make certain kinds
| of apps and lower-margin businesses impossible to create in
| such environment, so this blocks innovations that could
| have benefited users.
|
| When Apple bans competitors, blocks interoperability, drags
| their feet on open standards, and gives their own apps
| special treatment nobody else can have, then users miss out
| on potentially better or cheaper alternatives. This helps
| Apple keep users locked in, not innovate when they don't
| want to, and overcharge for services users can't replace.
|
| All of that was more forgivable when smartphones were just
| a novelty, and digital goods were just iTunes songs. But
| now a lot of services have moved online. Mobile phones have
| become a bigger platform than desktop computers, and for
| billions of people they are their primary or the only
| computing device.
| nox101 wrote:
| 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.
| sedivy94 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| nomercy400 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| nox101 wrote:
| No, the question is "does one company have too much
| influence over the digital economy". The answer is yes.
| Apple has influence over 60% of the population. They
| extract 30% from all digital transactions. If you want to
| sell digital content to iPhone user's you're required to
| give Apple 30%. That's too much influence for one company.
| bb86754 wrote:
| 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.
| dgellow wrote:
| You could read the linked document and see for yourself what
| they think the problem is
| Draiken wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| Draiken wrote:
| They're already making the changes they want to, except
| they give themselves special treatment.
|
| All they have to do is give everyone the special treatment.
| skeaker wrote:
| 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.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > 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.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > 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?"
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| Your first sentence is incorrect. Monopolies are not illegal.
|
| From the press conference this morning: "It is not illegal to
| hold a monopoly, Garland said. "
|
| "That may sound counterintuitive in a case intended to fight
| monopolies. But under US antitrust law, it is only illegal
| when a monopolist resorts to anticompetitive tactics, or
| harms competition, in an effort to maintain that monopoly."
|
| https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/doj-apple-
| antitrust-l...
| akira2501 wrote:
| My first sentence is completely correct. I just happen to
| disagree with Merrick Garland's blatant misrepresentation
| of the Sherman Act.
| cush wrote:
| This has absolutely nothing to do with consumer choice. Apple
| device popularity among consumers has created a market of apps
| and technology that exists. That market is larger than the GDP
| of most countries. It is governed by Apple's policies, and
| those policies are anti-competitive against companies wishing
| to participate in that market.
|
| Spotify, just by virtue of the fact that someone installs their
| app, must pay Apple 30% of their revenue. Imagine trying to
| compete in a market where you have to pay your largest direct
| competitor 30%... And on top of all that, Apple keeps the
| internal fancy APIs all to themselves. It's insane this hasn't
| come sooner
| cush wrote:
| Apple and Tesla aren't competing in the same market
|
| > It's like complaining that Teslas don't support CarPlay
|
| It would be like that if the Tesla dash App Store somehow
| generated $1.1T annual revenue while taking 30% off the top of
| third party app manufacturers, while using that revenue and
| their own competitive advantage (not paying 30%) to grow and
| erode secondary markets via their own first party apps
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why does the percent taken matter? How much is appropriate?
| Ultimately they're transparent about the fee, the choice is
| the developers.
|
| In any case there should be a way to put your phone into some
| insecure mode and then you can explicitly download any app
| you want, yes.
|
| But about Tesla - if you could make money, lots of money,
| selling Tesla dash apps, who cares if they take 30%? The
| alternative is today, you don't really make anything at all.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| You seem to totally misunderstand the whole concept of what the
| competition law is about.
|
| It's not about whether people can choose not to buy an iPhone,
| really at all. It's about _once they do_ choose iPhone, is
| Apple unfairly using their control of the platform to influence
| whether they choose Apple 's product vs a competitor for
| _future things_ they buy.
| jb1991 wrote:
| > easy to buy feature equivalent devices to Apple products
|
| For some users, this isn't true. More thoughts here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39784413
| mhh__ wrote:
| If Apple buy up all the fab capacity how exactly can you make
| yourself (with a spare billion dollars) an iPhone?
| browningstreet wrote:
| For every thing that the DOJ is complaining about there's a
| Google version: Chat, Wallet, Auto, Pixel, etc.
|
| This suit reminds me of the phrase, "I've been convicted by a
| jury of my peers... who couldn't get out of jury duty."
|
| Apple is under the gun because their main competitors (at least
| Google and Samsung) aren't as good / successful, even when they
| have greater market shares.
|
| Also, Android is.. ahem.. "open source".
| 015a wrote:
| It may be trivial for a consumer to buy an Android phone; it is
| not trivial for a developer to decide to not support iOS or
| Safari.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-...
| trynumber9 wrote:
| 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.
| monkeydust wrote:
| 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
| patwolf wrote:
| > 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| LargeWu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| 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?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| supergeek133 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| So you don't live in the US?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Canada, which is _usually_ broadly similar to the US
| market.
| sevagh wrote:
| >Likely not maliciously
|
| Why?
| npteljes wrote:
| > 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.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| How is this a monopoly though? Everyone is free to move their
| family to WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Facebook messenger...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Haha agreed! I'm not saying it's easy - but I don't see how
| it's a monopoly
| mrweasel wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I started reading it but the line spacing is just so
| infuriating...
| dkobia wrote:
| 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.
| screamingninja wrote:
| How does it favor the users?
|
| > https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/
|
| > https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/
| madeofpalk wrote:
| The status quo does not favor users.
|
| How does it favor users that you cannot sign up for Netflix on
| iOS?
| tempnow987 wrote:
| 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.
| oliv__ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| inasio wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I can see why they don't want to let it be possible to
| export from whatsapp and re-import into a competing chat
| app. They've gone to quite some efforts to encrypt
| databases etc. to make that hard.
|
| Allowing cross-platform transfers means they can't use the
| platforms secure storage features to achieve this - instead
| they need to write server side code to generate some per-
| user key, and some DRM-like scheme to validate that only
| the official client app is requesting the key to decrypt a
| backup.
|
| I can see why they want to just leave all of that to the
| platform.
| toast0 wrote:
| 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)
| tssge wrote:
| Yeah the feature exists on paper at least, but not in
| principle from my experience.
|
| I switched to iPhone 15 Pro recently from Android and after
| trying to import my data from Android couple of times and iOS
| failing to import WhatsApp specifically, I had to resort to
| buying third party software to perform the message transfer
| via a Windows laptop.
|
| Bear in mind the import process took like 3 hours each time
| and I had to keep both phones close to each other, couldn't
| use them while importing and had to keep power supplied to
| them.
|
| After about 10 hours of trying, I gave in and put 100$
| towards proper third party software to transfer my messages.
| This is ridiculous, as I have Google Drive on my iPhone with
| my WhatsApp backups from my old phone, however for one reason
| or another these backups cannot be utilised by WhatsApp on
| iOS.
|
| Moving between two Android phones "it just works".
| thxcvs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Tim Cook came to my house and made my Wi-Fi faster.
| coding123 wrote:
| Probably should take down the food giants first.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Not mutually exclusive.
| zer0zzz wrote:
| 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.
| abhayhegde wrote:
| 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?
| baal80spam wrote:
| Of course it would - last I checked noone holds people at
| gunpoint saying "BUY THIS".
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Generally in the US, if you want to participate in friends and
| family group messages, it's either iPhone or be left out.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| 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.
| multimoon wrote:
| 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.
| choxi wrote:
| There are dozens of other popular (group) messaging apps
| abhayhegde wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| 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.
| brink wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Do they have a GDPR-like process where you can just export a
| .zip file of all your data?
| mruszczyk wrote:
| There is an option to request a copy of your data at:
| https://privacy.apple.com/
| kstrauser wrote:
| 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.
| rubatuga wrote:
| Not the answer you want but with an iPhone backup you can
| extract all the images .
| lawgimenez wrote:
| I exported all my iCloud photos and videos to Google Photos.
| https://support.google.com/photos/answer/10502587?hl=en
| teeray wrote:
| 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.
| jcurbo wrote:
| https://github.com/icloud-photos-
| downloader/icloud_photos_do... works great for me to do this.
| brink wrote:
| I'll give this a shot, thank you!
| mcfedr wrote:
| 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
| Steltek wrote:
| Sorry this isn't a helpful answer but over in Android-land,
| Syncthing does exactly this for me right now. I paired
| Syncthing with a script that pushes any new photos to a self-
| hosted gallery. It's as fast if not faster than Google Photos
| and totally independent of any Google ecosystem. Add another
| offsite Syncthing machine and now you have a magical offsite
| backup.
| kelnos wrote:
| This is something I really want, but I've never been quite
| sure how to set it up properly. Ideally I'd want to run it
| in the cloud so I don't have to be on my home network (and
| don't have to expose my home network in that way). I have a
| VPS that I use for a variety of things, but it doesn't have
| enough space for my photos. Syncthing doesn't seem to
| support S3 as storage.
|
| I suppose I _could_ put it on a machine at home, and expose
| it to the internet (perhaps using Wireguard), but I have
| very limited upload bandwidth (25Mbps), and would still
| want to sync the files to S3 (say with a script that runs
| nightly). I guess the initial sync would take forever, and
| then new photos would be relatively quick.
|
| I guess I could also put it on my VPS and use something
| like Amazon's NFS service as the backing store. But I
| expect that would be quite a bit more expensive than the
| lower-cost S3/Glacier tiers I'd prefer to use.
| hylaride wrote:
| 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.
| fundad wrote:
| I feel like "lock-in" means any reason they buy something
| yolo3000 wrote:
| If you have a Mac the easiest is to use the Image Capture
| app, which comes preinstalled. A lot better than the Photos
| app, in my experience.
| samatman wrote:
| 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!"
| kstrauser wrote:
| True. It's one thing to say "I can't do a thing", and another
| to say "thing can't be done".
| mcfedr wrote:
| 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.
| samatman wrote:
| The original comment was about exporting photos, and how
| "Apple makes it difficult". Which they do not.
|
| Syncing is a different story, let's see how this holds up:
|
| If you want to sync your iPhone's photos to Dropbox, you
| give Dropbox permission to access the Photos library and it
| syncs. https://www.multcloud.com/tutorials/sync-iphone-
| photos-to-dr...
|
| The company hosting that URL offers a product for syncing
| between various clouds, I haven't used it but it does
| exist. https://www.multcloud.com/download
|
| So I guess this is another one of those things that just
| isn't true. Go figure.
| nouryqt wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| This is like that comment on the launch post for Dropbox all
| over again.
| Spivak wrote:
| 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.
| skyyler wrote:
| 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
| nouryqt wrote:
| Definitely didn't want to come across as belittling or
| anything. Just stumbled on that tool a few weeks ago when
| I tried to backup my iPhone photos and was surprised how
| well it worked and how painless it was. Maybe it's
| because I'm not a native speaker, but I had no bad
| intentions, just wanted to tell what worked for me.
| saghm wrote:
| I don't think this is comparable. The parent comment
| doesn't make a value judgment on whether the strategy of
| using the Linux utility is a comparable offering; it's just
| a potentially suggestion to try to help when it seems like
| someone is frustrated with the solution they currently
| have. Giving a highly technical way of doing something
| isn't inherently a problem; the issue is when someone
| claims that it's more than sufficient and that no easier
| way needs to exist, but that didn't happen here.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think that's a little unfair. The Dropbox comment was
| "it's absurd that people would need this consumer-friendly
| thing; just do [thing that only fairly-technical people
| could realistically accomplish]". This situation is "so-
| called easy-to-use consumer device is blocking you from
| doing something? here's an alternative that requires some
| technical know-how, but unfortunately there isn't a great
| solution here".
| uticus wrote:
| 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."
| khazhoux wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You have to open it at least every few days. Only Apple
| apps can work reliably on iOS.
| amf12 wrote:
| That is an excellent example of Apple's anti-trust
| behavior.
| khazhoux wrote:
| I've never once noticed this. I go weeks without opening
| Google Photos app, but my photos are always there.
| trevoragilbert wrote:
| You can just let it run.
| albumen wrote:
| Unless things have changed, yes but no. You have to leave
| the app running, and turn off display sleep/lock so the
| phone is always awake. Which practically means it has to
| be plugged in. It's a major pain. As someone else
| commented, a classic example of Apple limiting background
| sync in the name of "stability and battery life". That
| has a grain of truth to it, but let users make that
| choice!
| khazhoux wrote:
| Set and forget. All my phone photos are "just there" in
| Google Photos app and on web.
| kelnos wrote:
| I do that as well (Android user, so it's pretty much the
| default), but aside from not having to pay Google, there
| isn't a meaningful difference here: it's just trading one
| company's propriety cloud backup for another's.
| Andrex wrote:
| Google's data interoperability is quite good though
| (Takeout). That was something Google did right 10+ years
| ago and I'm glad it hasn't died on the vine (and will
| probably see more development now, what with all this
| antitrust in the air).
| khazhoux wrote:
| There's a giant difference. The claim is that Apple
| restricts other companies from providing cloud backup of
| photos. Google Photos proves this is incorrect.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| > The claim is that Apple restricts other companies from
| providing cloud backup of photos.
|
| No, the claim is Apple makes it difficult to bulk
| download/export photos using Apple software with non-
| Apple hardware.
| rpmisms wrote:
| a) this is a great solution, and b) I caught that reference
| anon373839 wrote:
| I believe Google Photos visibly downgrades the quality of
| your images, so it is not a viable option if you care about
| preserving the originals.
| userabchn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| abawany wrote:
| 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.
| fakedang wrote:
| I want to add how much difficult Apple makes it to delete
| content in general from an iPhone. Deleting simple things like
| email, which are just a swipe away on Android, are notoriously
| difficult on the native email app, simply because Apple doesn't
| give a fuck. And this is the company touted as some design
| genius? I think it's all a ploy to just grab more users for
| iCloud, or get users to upscale to a higher storage on their
| next iPhone.
| AnonHP wrote:
| > Deleting simple things like email, which are just a swipe
| away on Android, are notoriously difficult on the native
| email app,
|
| Not sure what exactly you're talking about, because deleting
| an email (from the mailbox list) is a long swipe to the left
| on iOS/iPadOS too, unless you have changed the settings for
| that to archive the mail instead of deleting. It has been
| this way for a very long time.
| tempodox wrote:
| > as difficult as legally possible.
|
| I don't think they care much about legality. When called out,
| they drag their feet with malicious compliance.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| To say nothing of the fact that Github is the cornerstone of
| the open source world, and Microsoft owns it.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Microsoft bought it. Microsoft is also allegedly using
| private repos to train AI, Microsoft is not a benevolent
| entity.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Why does it seem like Microsoft is flying under the DoJ radar
| this last decade?
| pie420 wrote:
| Because Microsoft is the East India Company of the 21st
| century. It is the modern tool of american corporate
| imperialism.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| 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
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kyleomalley wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You have a choice here on your platforms, this isn't even
| remotely an honest comparison, is it?
| btown wrote:
| 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.
| synergy20 wrote:
| 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.
| lkrubner wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
|
| Most of these laws are written not as regulations, but ways
| not to regulate.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| Well, price controls really are bad, actually. But Lina
| Khan does seem to want to push FTC governance into that
| realm.
| _pi wrote:
| > price controls really are bad,
|
| Citation needed and not from some ooga booga free
| marketer.
|
| Price control schemes exist in almost every country and
| in the US, every subsidy is a form of price control.
| Price controls are not just ceilings and floors. The
| Prime Interest rate is a price control for money. Ration
| cards are price controls.
|
| The reason that price controls are dangerous to an
| economy (esp. a capitalist one) is typically that if
| you're controlling for price (via floor and ceiling) you
| have to also control for distribution. Price controlled
| goods must be distributed as a nonprofit service with
| limits rather than a for profit enterprise. That's often
| the "fuck up" that's most cited but that's a "learn basic
| economics" issue.
|
| Literally that was Nixon's entire fuck up, and it was
| compounded by the death of Bretton Woods. Price controls
| worked just fine before/during/after WWI and WWII.
|
| Public transit is the most obvious form of price controls
| that work because the distribution and the
| commodity/service are both run as a nonprofit service.
|
| Also if you care about the whole 'OMG BLACK MARKETS'
| thing, see distribution, and understand that if you have
| a price that actually represents the cost of delivering a
| commodity to a consumer, a black market forming around
| that commodity is the same kind of market as a "free
| market". It is simply dudes trying to get the most amount
| of profit for arbitrage of a good they get at cost.
|
| Also "subsidies don't work", the subsidy often not a
| consumer subsidy it's a producer profit subsidy. See EV's
| which all have subsidies built into their price except
| the Leaf.
|
| You see the problem here? In order to actually do this
| correctly and have the desired effect on consumers, you
| need everyone to open their books. That's not going to
| happen in a capitalist system. So their alternative is
| "get lucky". Private profit guides economic policy more
| than the actual data or methodology.
|
| The more interesting thing of "regulation" here. Is if
| the government can effectively regulate a company's
| backlog. Apple's walled garden is intentionally
| constructed on their side such that there cannot be
| competition because the controls for such competition are
| unbuilt. The PWA issue in the EU shows that if you take
| them at face value which I would having worked with Apple
| products and done a bit of jail breaking back in the day.
| So effectively they need to create public features for
| supporting alternative wallets in a secure way.
|
| Outside of iMessage, wallets are the only real thing the
| gov has to stand on.
|
| Super apps are just a semantic exercise.
|
| Cloud-streaming is a non-issue Apple doesn't compete in a
| cloud streaming vertical. Apple Arcade is just a
| subscription to an app store. They don't stream the
| games.
|
| The Smart Watches thing is also bunk. Samsung does the
| same thing, with watches and headphones. If I switch to a
| Google Pixel my headphones lose features. Unless the
| government is in the mood to create and regulate open
| tech standards this a nothing burger.
|
| It's in practice arguing that Apple cannot have a private
| SDK which I would be fine with but they're not _actually_
| arguing that.
|
| The reason that this is not like US vs MS is because MS's
| settlement did not result in forcing MS to CHANGE the
| code, only allowing OEM's to bundle other browsers. US vs
| MS in practicality was just a big nothing burger. Not
| even the EU government is in a place to regulate and
| enforce Open APIs.
|
| Also speaking of ooga booga free marketers. Milton
| Friedman predicted that US vs MS is going to be a dark
| age of government regulation of tech and prevent
| innovation. Lmao.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| I think Kodak fits what you describe, and it was decided in
| 1992.[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Te
| c....
| asmor wrote:
| Just here to point out that was _32_ years ago. This could
| definitely fit within someone 's lifetime, even more into
| someone's memory.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| > "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.
| fundad wrote:
| Competing phone companies give up revenue to set low prices.
| Apple meets those prices by monetizing commerce.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Great news. They should next should sue Ford for monopoly over
| the F150.
| megaman821 wrote:
| 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?
| twodave wrote:
| 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.
| Fripplebubby wrote:
| 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.
| segasaturn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| baq wrote:
| 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.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _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$ = _green_ backs -> _green_ = cost)
| danaris wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The _intent_ of the color doesn 't matter. The _actual
| effect_ of the color is what matters. Hopefully to the
| courts, anyway.
| tensor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The actual effect is ostracism of green bubbles. You
| literally get kicked out of social circles and get peer-
| pressured into buying an iPhone.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Does this.... actually happen? To like, people over the
| age of 10?
|
| If so, I'd almost be thankful to Apple for letting me
| know who not to bother being friends with.
|
| If someone in my social circle ostracized someone else
| because of their phone, they (the person doing the
| ostracizing) wouldn't be in my social circle anymore.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| if you're not joking you can see countless examples on
| social media sites. it's not just friends it's family,
| coworkers.
|
| my friend group has a separate group chat for just
| android users and they get party invites after the main
| group does.
| 8note wrote:
| How has apple pulled off an encryption scheme that
| prevents people from seeing the iPhone screen over
| somebody's shoulder?
|
| Eye to eye encryption?
| danaris wrote:
| Let me propose a thought experiment.
|
| Remove the color from the equation entirely, and what do
| you think would happen when someone without an iPhone
| joins a group chat? Do you think everyone would ignore
| the change completely, even though it would mean they'd
| lose all the iMessage features that SMS/MMS group texts
| lack? Or do you think they'd just be more frustrated
| about it because it's harder to tell when it's happening,
| but treat people the same?
|
| Do you _really_ think it has anything to do with the
| color of the bubbles, rather than the fact that SMS 's
| featureset is much smaller than iMessage's?
| baq wrote:
| Yes, because it's the other way around now: if you have a
| green bubble, you don't get invited to the chat in the
| first place. A different thought experiment for you:
| assume feature parity between green and blue bubbles
| starts today, what do you think happens? Do green bubbles
| suddenly start getting invites to group chats?
| danaris wrote:
| ...Yes, and that's my point. It's not about the color,
| but lots of people are talking about it as if the color
| is the primary or sole cause of the ostracization--as if
| Apple _marking iMessages differently_ than SMS messages
| is the root of the problem, rather than the disparity in
| features.
|
| I'm not going to try to deny that there are some people
| who a) would shun (ex?)friends for using an Android
| phone, and b) continue to shun them even once the actual
| _reason_ for that goes away, because Lord there are some
| petty, shallow people in the world.
|
| I _am_ going to say that I don 't think it's Apple's or
| the government's business to try to fix that problem. If
| the government wants to force Apple to open up iMessage
| in some fashion, I think that's potentially reasonable,
| but holding Apple responsible for the cruelty and
| cliquishness of what _must_ be a tiny subset of its users
| is just absurd.
| TurningCanadian wrote:
| 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.
| pchristensen wrote:
| Gruber gives a pretty good breakdown of the blue/green
| bubble history:
| https://daringfireball.net/2022/01/seeing_green
|
| Short version: SMS has been green since the first iPhone,
| blue iMessage was added later. Green was not invented to
| "punish the poors"
| baq wrote:
| It doesn't matter. That's how teens are using it today.
| sib wrote:
| So maybe someone should talk to the teens, rather than
| wasting taxpayer money trying punish a company for
| building a better product...
| alt227 wrote:
| > Green was not invented to "punish the poors"
|
| No, but blue was only given to the first class citizens.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The colors indicate the features available. Even with RCS,
| there will be a significant list of features available to
| iMessage users that are not available over RCS. No matter
| what Apple does there must be _some_ mechanism to visually
| indicate that standard iMessage features are no longer
| available. What would be the alternative, pretending that
| these features exist and then failing silently when one
| client doesn 't support them?
|
| The green/blue bubble thing is irrelevant. It reflects a
| fundamental reality of the platform technology.
| baq wrote:
| Technology doesn't matter here. What matters is whether
| people feel pressured to buy iMessage capable devices by
| others. In the US the answer is yes. Elsewhere it's
| WhatsApp everywhere (with its own homogenous ecosystem
| issues which should be regulated).
| Yizahi wrote:
| 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 :) .
| mbreese wrote:
| 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.
| babyshake wrote:
| To be fair, Apple has said a lot of things. Wasn't FaceTime
| supposed to be an open standard and that never happened? If
| they give a specific target date I'd feel more encouraged.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| harkinian wrote:
| Then don't buy an Apple Watch? They're pretty upfront about
| what it is.
| tombert wrote:
| 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.
| pquki4 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I think no because an android compatible watch would be
| compatible with any other android phone, not only Google
| Watch <--> Google Phone.
| djaychela wrote:
| >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.
| airstrike wrote:
| 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.
| ApolIllo wrote:
| > Who cares about smartwatches
|
| 219.43 million people use smartwatches
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I assume that's worldwide? That definitely seems niche to
| me compared to the global population.
| Draiken wrote:
| 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?
| 1shooner wrote:
| I don't think global population is a factor in antitrust
| law.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| 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.
| PeterisP wrote:
| But for the question of anti-trust action it doesn't
| matter whether it's "a lot" of people, it matters whether
| it's an insignificant number of people - if there were 10
| smartwatch users in the US, the argument "who cares about
| smartwatch users" could be valid, but it makes no
| difference whether there's 219 million people in the US
| or 219 thousand people in US, since even 219 thousand
| users is definitely much, much more than sufficient to
| justify intervention.
| skeaker wrote:
| 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?
| 1shooner wrote:
| I don't really know about sourcing market data, but
| this[0] page cites Deloitte and Pew:
|
| >The global smartwatch adoption rate has reached an
| impressive 21.7% of the adult population
|
| ...
|
| >The adoption rate of smartwatches is expected to
| continue growing, with industry projections suggesting
| that it will surpass 25% of the adult population shortly.
|
| I don't believe a fifth or a quarter of the adult
| population could rationally be called 'niche'.
|
| 0. https://scoop.market.us/smartwatch-statistics/
| shuckles wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They're useless period
| mattl wrote:
| I use mine all day, every day... fantastic device.
|
| Have you used one? Which one?
| harkinian wrote:
| I've never used one, because they have no use.
| mattl wrote:
| Have you used a fitness tracker of any kind?
| bearjaws wrote:
| 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...
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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'.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Agreed. And that's something I very much enjoy.
|
| My general worry is that the entire discussion is
| shifting "from what's good for the customer to this other
| company cannot do something shady because you protect the
| customer".
|
| Does Apple enjoy this gatekeeping practice? Of course
| they do, but so does Google with Android and they abuse
| the crap out of it.
| fragmede wrote:
| Google's also being sued for their antitrust actions, so
| they're not above reproach here either.
| ethanbond wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's much easier to identify and detect an app that does
| multiple things than identify trackings across multiple
| parts of an app.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tapoxi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| AkBKukU wrote:
| 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.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Based on your biases and incomplete understanding of the
| facts, I think tapoxi wins 1-0.
| alt227 wrote:
| I think you mean 4-1 ;)
| shuckles wrote:
| 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.
| nolongerthere wrote:
| 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.
| pow_ext wrote:
| 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.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I'm not sure Apple makes or don't make an exception in
| China. From what I can see, Chinese chat-pay superapp
| features are something largely chat and web based. From
| what I can see, it works something like following:
|
| a) Users may reload HNPay balance by credit card, debit, or
| bank transfer, through in-app browser.
|
| b) Users may use "send money" button to create some special
| chat message or link, which will be intercepted at server
| side, to send HNPay balance to a HNPay address/user ID.
|
| c) (Deprecated)The user may scan QR code on a fading
| sticker at storefront that does the same as above.
|
| d) The user may also use "show QR code" button, have the
| other user/store machine scan the code, which allows the
| other user/store computer to do b) with a negative amount
| for withdrawal.
|
| e) The HNPay balance can be refunded to bank accounts if
| needed.
|
| I'm sure people here can come up with half a dozen
| applicable financial regulations, restrictions imposed by
| banks and payment processors, cybersecurity attack vectors
| and massive lawsuit potentials for each of above, plus
| perhaps couples of solvable App Store guideline
| difficulties across a)-e). I think those would be problems
| towards realizing Facebook Messenger pay or TwitterPay, not
| App Store special treatment that only applies to China. Not
| many of them, if any, use NFC and secure element hardware
| in iOS devices like the point 5. misleads.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Even if Apple supports RCS, iMessage supports many features
| that RCS does not. It will still be a two-tier system but
| the tiers will be somewhat closer.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Who cares about smartwatches
|
| The Justice Department, 16 US states, and the District of
| Columbia, among others. Anti-trust violations are crimes.
| notnmeyer wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Those barely exist... Microsoft Cloud Gaming is still in
| beta.
| evandale wrote:
| 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.
| rpdillon wrote:
| You keep bringing up MS Cloud Gaming, but there are
| others that are more established.
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/
|
| https://luna.amazon.com/
|
| Luna can only support iOS by using Safari, for example.
| kubectl_h wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| airstrike wrote:
| 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
| harkinian wrote:
| 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."
| ssully wrote:
| 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.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Green Bubble Bellied Sneetches
| iteria wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It remains to be seen how apple handles RCS. It's a
| pretty lax standard.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _To be fair, on this particular point, you aren 't
| Apple's customer in this scenario._
|
| But Apple's customer is also affected, in two ways:
|
| 1. I then have to text the person back, asking them to
| re-send the video using another chat app, or emailing a
| link, or something like that. That's annoying for the
| iPhone user.
|
| 2. In the other direction, if I didn't know better, and I
| tried to send a video to the iPhone user, it would end up
| looking like crap for them. That's not a good experience
| for the Apple customer.
|
| > _The newer 'standard' was a Google dominated way of
| trying to make inroads..._
|
| Not sure why "standard" is in scare quotes; it's an
| actual standard, whereas iMessage is just some
| proprietary thing Apple made. And it's not newer: RCS is
| from 2008, which is _older_ than iMessage, and almost as
| old as the iPhone itself. Likely work on the standard
| started before the iPhone 's release.
|
| > _... on Apple 's superior implementation_
|
| This is of course a matter of opinion, but to me, any
| protocol that is locked down, with the owners refusing to
| enable interoperability, is by definition inferior,
| regardless of its other merits.
|
| > _Apple has announced support for RCS incoming_
|
| And we'll see how that goes. If Apple works with Google
| to enable full interoperability, including E2EE, I'll be
| pleased. Anything less, though, and it'll feel like Apple
| is just doing the bare minimum to try to avoid regulatory
| action. It also remains to be seen as to how much Google
| cooperates in the other direction. The RCS E2EE stuff is
| a proprietary Google extension; hopefully that gets made
| into a public standard as well.
|
| The bottom line, though, is that Apple doesn't
| interoperate until they believe that they're going to be
| legally forced to. At least if they get in ahead of the
| regulatory action, they can do their implementation more
| or less on their own terms. It's a smart move, but IMO is
| also scummy.
|
| The thing that has always baffled me about Apple keeping
| iMessage iOS-only, and not supporting RCS, is that
| they've been hurting their own customers with this stance
| too. Plenty of iPhone users live with a degraded, less-
| private experience wen communicating with non-iPhone
| users, or have to remember to use a different chat app
| when conversing with certain contacts. This makes a lot
| of Apple's rhetoric (in general, not just regarding
| messaging) about protecting user privacy feel a bit
| hollow at times. Clearly their primary motivation for the
| privacy stance isn't to protect users, it's because they
| believe it gives them a competitive advantage.
| oneplane wrote:
| Google's RCS isn't the standard-RCS. You can't use
| Google's RCS without using Google's RCS servers and you
| can't run your own. You can run your own standard RCS,
| but it's not compatible and does not do the same things
| either.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >To be fair, on this particular point, you aren't Apple's
| customer in this scenario.
|
| Yes, but my mother, who wants to text a video to her sons
| to share a moment from her day, is, and Apple prevents
| her from doing that. There is no way to spin this as
| anything but Apple being openly user hostile to anyone
| who wants to communicate with an android user.
|
| ("She can just-" No, she cannot "just". My mother is in
| her 60s, and she shouldn't have to learn a workaround to
| use a basic feature of her phone that just works on
| android.)
| oneplane wrote:
| I suppose that really depends on where you are in the
| world and how phones are used. Sending video works over
| WhatsApp here, and nobody uses anything telco or native
| for that (so no iMessage, MMS or RCS). Next one down
| would be FaceBook Messenger and then apps like LINE,
| Telegram and finally Signal. iMessage, MMS and RCS don't
| even make the list, including the entire 12 to 70 age
| range.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _the higher res videos only available in the first
| place because Apple added it via iMessage._
|
| iMessage replaced iChat, which was an XMPP client. XMPP
| supported high-res videos in 2011. (I'm pretty sure it
| supported them in 2004.)
| mattl wrote:
| Why not use an app like WhatsApp?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Isn't the video issue an MMS problem, not an Apple
| problem? What do you want them to do, reduce the quality
| for everyone so at least everyone suffers the same?
| harkinian wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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)
| harkinian wrote:
| Yeah it's really hard to make something complex work with
| so many parties involved. 2-way SMS works well enough at
| least.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Becuase the green bubble makes the user move to an IPhone.
| Then the user can only use Apple Pay, not Google Pay or
| Samsung Pay, can only use Apple's Store, can only.. And
| from having teenagers, the green bubbles MATTER. very,
| very, very much.
| jm4 wrote:
| 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.
| skeaker wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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
| danaris wrote:
| 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.
| ecronant wrote:
| I hate Apple. I would never buy anything from them.
|
| The ramifications of this on my life are absolutely zero.
|
| I have so many options it is hard to decide when I want to
| get a new phone and Apple is not even on my list.
|
| I have so many options that its overwhelming trying to buy a
| new laptop and Apple is not even on my list.
|
| People are fucking crazy. As if Apple is some cult that you
| have no choice but to be a part of. The people who think this
| makes sense probably use all Apple products because no one
| can think this that doesn't.
| ben7799 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Can you expand on what "integrated with my iPhone" means in
| concrete terms? I don't really understand what you mean.
| S_A_P wrote:
| 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.
| atourgates wrote:
| 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.
| mousetree wrote:
| Does a Garmin watch not do that? I often see people
| looking at notifications on their non-Apple watch.
| shagie wrote:
| 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/20
| 23/04/26/phone...
|
| I assume that this functionality is available to other
| devices too.
| afavour wrote:
| 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.
| shagie wrote:
| Here's a description of the functionality on Windows
| which includes replying to a message.
| https://youtu.be/M4ihxL7B2ug?t=157&si=AaA6wvzbTuIL3eOC
|
| https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2023/04/26/ph
| one...
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/sync-across-your-
| dev...
|
| > Read and reply to messages with ease, make and receive
| calls, and manage your device's notifications right on
| your PC (1) (2)
|
| > 1 Messaging feature is limited by iOS. Image/video
| sharing and group messaging is not supported. Messages
| are session based and will only come through when phone
| is connected to PC.
|
| > 2 Phone Link for iOS requires iPhone with iOS 14 or
| higher, Windows 11 device, Bluetooth connection and the
| latest version of the Phone Link app. Not available for
| iPad (iPadOS) or MacOS. Device compatibility may vary.
| Regional restrictions may apply. Trademarks are the
| property of their respective owners.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I can do all of that with my Garmin watch though?
| InsomniacL wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| InsomniacL wrote:
| 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).
| jchw wrote:
| 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.
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| 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.
| jorvi wrote:
| 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.
| mock-possum wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| jorvi wrote:
| I'm mostly talking about iOS. Mac market share isn't too
| huge, but iPhone market share in the US (where Apple
| Music exploded in user count immediately after) is.
|
| Ordinarily I hate market interventions like this, but
| with iOS+Android being a duopoly, we don't have a free
| market so special rules start to apply.
| positus wrote:
| 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.
| cush wrote:
| It is when they charge those companies 30%. It's a
| competitive advantage only a monopoly can sustain
| tssge wrote:
| >On a personal note, I never in my life want to see
| advertisements for third-party software by default.
|
| Maybe I misunderstood your point, but could you clarify a
| bit what you mean? If I open App Store on my iPhone, it
| is full of third-party software advertisements by default
| and I don't even know if they can be turned off.
| positus wrote:
| After downloading the software that I know I need I
| rarely ever open the App Store. I really only do for
| updates every once in a while. I don't mind them in the
| App Store because that is an appropriate place for them.
| Seeing them as apart of the normal platform UI (Microsoft
| Start menu, looking at you) is distasteful. I go out of
| my way to avoid advertisements both on and off the
| internet and my QOL has improved greatly as a result.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > After downloading the software that I know I need I
| rarely ever open the App Store.
|
| > Seeing them as apart of the normal platform UI
| (Microsoft Start menu, looking at you) is distasteful.
|
| Then it doesn't sound like a one-time prompt as part of
| setup would be an issue.
| jorvi wrote:
| > People know how to use the App Store.
|
| Apparently they didn't because Apple Music boomed right
| after that change.
|
| > It is by no means unfair, immoral, or unethical for a
| company to prefer and promote their own products.
|
| It is when that company is one part of a duopoly,
| especially for a device pretty critical to daily life :+)
|
| > On a personal note, I never in my life want to see
| advertisements for third-party software by default.
|
| It's a one-time pop-up, on opening the music app the
| first time. Same as the browser choice pop-up on your
| desktop. Hardly an advertisement.
| positus wrote:
| > Apparently they didn't because Apple Music boomed right
| after that change.
|
| I wonder how much offering discounted subscriptions to
| students or iCloud Family users also contributed to its
| success.
|
| > It's a one-time pop-up, on opening the music app the
| first time. Same as the browser choice pop-up on your
| desktop. Hardly an advertisement.
|
| I don't like browser selection options either. Then
| again, I tend to use Apple's default apps unless I have
| an unusual reason to use something else.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You already see them on the App Store.
| bluk wrote:
| > It is by no means unfair, immoral, or unethical for a
| company to prefer and promote their own products.
|
| Unfairness is at the heart of so many antitrust lawsuits
| (whether successful or not). Anyone old enough to recall
| Microsoft in the 1990s would say that many people (not at
| MSFT) were pointing out how unfair bundling Internet
| Explorer was. You may disagree but it was one of the
| reasons MSFT got sued.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > On a personal note, I never in my life want to see
| advertisements for third-party software by default.
|
| You might want to avoid buying any new Apple products
| then, or your iPhone settings screen will regularly show
| you adverts for free trials for Apple News, Apple TV,
| Apple fitness, Apple Arcade.
|
| Better still, unlike every other free trial in this
| ecosystem, these terminate the moment you cancel the
| trial, rather than at the end of the trial period.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This is a huge one! I love this feature, but really would
| like to see it shared with Google and Waze.
| ssully wrote:
| Not saying this to defend Apple, but last week I had that
| same location tracking pop up for Apples Weather app.
| rezonant wrote:
| 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.
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/04/tile-ceo-on-
| competition...
|
| > > The main points of differentiation of AirTags vis a
| vis Tile are enabled by platform capabilities that we
| don't have access to.
|
| > Apple has, in fact, launched the Find My network that
| gives third-party accessories some of the same access
| that AirTags have, and Find My network accessories will
| be able to access the U1 chip in the iPhone 11 and 12
| models much like the AirTags, but Tile won't be able to
| use the Find My network unless it abandons its own app
| and infrastructure, which it is likely unwilling to do.
|
| > Prober said that Tile has been "seeking to access" the
| U1 chip since its introduction in the iPhone , and has
| been denied.
|
| ---
|
| Here's the developer docs for accessing the U1 chip https
| ://developer.apple.com/documentation/nearbyinteraction/..
| .
|
| ... and a presentation on the use of the U1 chip with 3rd
| party accessories at WWDC 2021
| https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2021/10165/
| rezonant wrote:
| This is different. This is Apple saying use our network,
| not allowing Tile to use their own.
| shagie wrote:
| Using the U1 chip for precise location finding in the
| local area doesn't appear to require using the Find My
| network for items. That API has been opened up to all 3rd
| party developers - probably not initially (the "we can't
| get access to the U1 chip" was from May 4th, 2019. It was
| opened up to 3rd party developers with iOS 16 ( https://w
| ww.macrumors.com/2022/07/20/ios-16-expands-u1-enabl... ).
|
| For "find my" integration this would suggest two things.
|
| First, that Find My should _also_ query some 3rd party
| services for location of items - that I should be able to
| register a 3rd party with a standard API (akin to IMAP
| for email) that has location tracking info.
|
| Secondly, if it was "I want tiles to seamlessly be found
| by Apple devices just like AirTags are - the entire Apple
| network can find them" this gets into a question of how
| much cryptography and security would Apple need to open
| up to have 3rd party BLE devices ping to _other_ services
| outside of their control that may leak the location
| information of people walking past them. Why should
| {arbitrary phone creator} need to ping a 3rd party
| whenever someone comes within range of the BLE device?
| That is, if Android devices aren 't required to ping
| Apple's Find My network when in range of an AirTag, why
| should Apple be required to ping Tile's servers when in
| range of a Tile?
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Also, Apple licenses out the Find My tech to other
| trackers. But... you don't get the new precision finding
| features.
| shagie wrote:
| > But... you don't get the new precision finding
| features.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2021/10165/
| appears to suggest differently.
| bitcurious wrote:
| A Garmin watch can't track heart rate during an Apple
| Fitness Plus workout, an example.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| That is to say, they communicate directly with each other
| and not through the iPhone?
| SllX wrote:
| So IIRC, you need the Apple TV to actually participate in
| the Fitness+ workouts, this is used to display them and
| as far as I know this hasn't changed, but if it has,
| someone else can chime in and correct me.
|
| The Apple Watch itself has WiFi and optionally LTE. It
| does like to boost off an iPhone's Bluetooth and let the
| iPhone do the heavy lifting, but it isn't required to
| connect to the Internet and honestly works better when it
| does (at the cost of battery life). So yeah, more or
| less, but you still need the Watch paired to an iPhone
| (because it is an iPhone accessory at its core), and the
| data is going to be logged to the Health app, and the
| relevant data (heart rate, workout time, whatever else
| gets logged for the workout) can be made available to an
| ecosystem of independent hardware and services. The
| weight my scale logs for example gets tracked by the
| vendor service, the Health app, and my food tracker via
| the Health app.
|
| Either way, Fitness+ is a premium service, not a feature
| of the iPhone. That it requires specific hardware doesn't
| make it particularly special in this regard either.
| bitcurious wrote:
| Apple's main fitness competitor Peloton supports non-
| peloton fitness bands, cadence meters, etc.
| SllX wrote:
| Good for Peloton. Fairly certain you still need to use
| their workout equipment, unless that changed.
|
| It's a different business model.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Most Garmin users wouldn't ever be using Apple Fitness+
| to workout.
|
| Totally different markets. The lack of sensor
| compatibility and lack of battery life make the Apple
| Watch a non-starter for a lot of the really serious
| fitness/sports use cases.
| shrew wrote:
| 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.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| 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.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Likewise, I'm a happy Garmin watch owner. Wondering what I'm
| missing because I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Almost all the stuff Garmin leaves out is the stuff I don't
| want to do on my watch anyway.
|
| I bought an Apple Watch and it was so fiddly and always
| trying to get my attention to the point I returned it.
| dktp wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I don't know about Pebble, but Tile got restricted really
| hard once Apple decided to make the Apple Tag. There's
| many rants/statements from the Tile CEO on this subject.
|
| So this behavior isn't a relic of old APIs
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/04/tile-ceo-on-
| competition...
|
| > > If you look at the history between Tile and Apple, we
| had a very symbiotic relationship. They sold Tile in
| their stores, we were highlighted at WWDC 2019, and then
| they launched Find My in 2019, and right when they
| launched their Find My app, which is effectively a
| competitor of Tile, they made a number of changes to
| their OS that made it very difficult for our customers to
| enable Tile. And then once they got it enabled, they
| started showing notifications that basically made it seem
| like Tile was broken.
|
| > Prober is talking about changes that Apple made to
| location services permissions. For privacy purposes,
| Apple stopped making it easy for apps to get permanent
| access to a user's location. Apps in iOS 13 were not
| initially allowed to present an "Always Allow" option
| when requesting location access, and the feature had to
| be enabled in the Settings app. Apple also started
| sending regular reminders to customers letting them know
| their location was being used.
|
| > Tile was not happy with these privacy changes and that
| privacy tweak set Tile against Apple, with Tile in 2019
| calling on Congress to "level the playing field."
|
| > > The main points of differentiation of AirTags vis a
| vis Tile are enabled by platform capabilities that we
| don't have access to.
|
| > Apple has, in fact, launched the Find My network that
| gives third-party accessories some of the same access
| that AirTags have, and Find My network accessories will
| be able to access the U1 chip in the iPhone 11 and 12
| models much like the AirTags, but Tile won't be able to
| use the Find My network unless it abandons its own app
| and infrastructure, which it is likely unwilling to do.
|
| > Prober said that Tile has been "seeking to access" the
| U1 chip since its introduction in the iPhone , and has
| been denied.
|
| ----
|
| Should Apple have a "grant once for app, always allow
| location service?" (note: this would allow an innocuous
| app to turn into a tracker with a later update). Or
| should Apple have a "this app has accessed your location
| {N} times in the last 24 hours?" ... or some other
| functionality?
|
| Is "grant once, always allow" a security risk for users?
|
| For U1 chip access: https://developer.apple.com/documenta
| tion/nearbyinteraction/... and
| https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2021/10165/
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Does Apples own stuff have the same limitations?
| shagie wrote:
| Yes. And you need to go and configure them in settings if
| you want them to have the access.
| https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/08/24/manage-widget-
| locat...
|
| The example given there is the Weather app and widget
| which I've gotten notifications for myself.
|
| You will also note:
|
| > Navigation apps like Google Maps, Waze, Apple Maps, and
| so forth work best when they can pinpoint your exact
| location with precision. But a weather app, on the other
| hand, works just fine even if it's only allowed to
| determine the city where you live or just an approximate
| region.
|
| Maps, Messages, HomeKit, Clock, Siri, Weather, Wallet -
| they're all in there. System services too (and you can
| disable the system service's access to location data -
| e.g. Apple Pay Merchant Identification, Compass
| Calibration, Setting Time Zone).
|
| For things that like to access the location in the
| background (Weather especially does this) you may get
| "Weather" has been using your location in the background.
| An example of this can be seen at
| https://www.lifewire.com/turn-on-mobile-location-
| services-41...
|
| Its not just "I am using the location data always" but
| also "this has been accessing your location in the
| background" which is the type of thing that Tile does.
|
| Apple tends to not have apps that access location
| information in the background and so this sort of message
| is not one that people tend to see. Weather is the one
| that does for weather alerts.
|
| Apple Maps doesn't access location in the background so
| one wouldn't ever see the a message from it.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I have received these messages for e.g. the weather app,
| but never Find My. Find My seems to be immune.
| shagie wrote:
| "Find my".app (for lack of a better designator) doesn't
| use the location information in the background.
| Weather.app does use location services in the background.
| Weather (like all user space apps) can also be restricted
| to only getting the approximate location rather than
| exact location.
|
| Find my system is part of the operating system itself -
| not an application running in user space. It can be
| disabled in the "Share My Location" settings in Location
| services in settings and in System Services "Find My
| iPhone" because that part of is not a user space app
| running but rather part of the kernel.
| joking wrote:
| there are many examples on this, IOS makes warning
| messages for other developer apps, but none for their own
| apps. I received warnings that google maps has used my
| background location, or than google photos or synology
| photos have access to my photos, but not a message on the
| same access from apple maps or apple photos.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > IOS makes warning messages for other developer apps,
| but none for their own apps.
|
| This is not true. Apple's own apps, like the Weather
| widget, will display location permission "nag" screens
| occasionally just like third-party apps do.
|
| > ... but not a message on the same access from apple
| maps or apple photos.
|
| Apple Maps doesn't use your location in the background.
| It only uses your location while the app is open, or
| while you're actively navigating using it.
|
| Apple Photos _is_ your photos. It 'd be weird to warn the
| user that it "has access" to itself.
| cush wrote:
| The complaint is outlined directly in the document
|
| https://x.com/ericmigi/status/1770832870870827149
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| 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...
| abawany wrote:
| 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.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Huh? I can filter notifications with third-party
| smartwatches. Did it on Pebble, Fossil, and others.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Maybe Garmin chooses not to implement it but it is all or
| nothing on iOS-> Garmin.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Huh yeah looks like they just push anything for which
| "Notification Center" is enabled. Seems like a crude
| proxy.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Not on a garmin sadly.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Both of which are possible on Android, with a Garmin Fenix
| 6s.
| eitally wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| OP obviously meant non Apple watches _paired with
| iPhones_.
| parl_match wrote:
| FWIW you can answer and place calls via smartwatches on
| ios.
|
| Also, you can interact with Apple Health from any smart
| device via a companion app. You just have to grant
| permission.
|
| #1 is valid though.
| gnicholas wrote:
| You can't reply to text messages from other smartwatches, or
| at least not organically (only canned responses).
| king-of-turtles wrote:
| Yeah, there are some inconsistencies with Apple products
| interop-ing with non-Apple stuff.
|
| I've noticed this with wireless bluetooth headphone pairing.
| Sometimes it works, othertimes there are odd limitations and
| devices unpair randomly.
|
| Also Samsung's Adaptive Fast Charging sends lower wattage
| through the cable if it detects a non-Samsung device. So
| Apple is not the only offender here.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I've got an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Wife has an iPhone and
| a Garmin.
|
| The Garmin sadly misses out on notification filtering, focus
| modes, replies, solid Bluetooth (it drops out from time to
| time and the app needs reopening).
| Lio wrote:
| > _Interesting, I 've had 2 Garmin Smart Watches and never
| felt like Apple was restricting them._
|
| Apple block Garmin watches from replying to text messages as
| they do on Android for example.
|
| Only Apple Watches are allowed to do that.
|
| I also note that iOS regularly tries to nag me into blocking
| Garmin Connect from sending notifications to my watch.
|
| Ostensibly that's to preserve battery life but they don't do
| that for their own watches either.
| milkytron wrote:
| I've had friends that have trouble syncing their Garmin
| devices with syncing to their iPhone. I've wondered if this
| is caused by their wireless communication protocol that is
| proprietary and only available on other apple devices.
|
| Airpods and other bluetooth Apple devices seamlessly sync
| with iPhones because of a wireless protocol they use that is
| only available on Apple devices. I forget what it's called,
| but this definitely limits connectivity of devices that
| aren't made by Apple.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Apps on iOS are allowed to communicate and share data so
| long as they are published by the same developer.
| edanm wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yes all apps by the same developer have a shared
| container.
| ahsteele wrote:
| Yes, exactly.
| alickz wrote:
| See here for details: https://developer.apple.com/documen
| tation/security/keychain_...
| mulmen wrote:
| On top of this keychain stores logins by domain. Even if
| an app is in a different developer's container you can
| retrieve the credentials with just a couple taps.
| atomicUpdate wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Having an app that competes with an existing Apple app is
| considered a duplicate app and you can be rejected because of
| it.
| noahtallen wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| afavour wrote:
| 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.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| not really for browsers, they allow them but they all
| have to use Safari's engine
| SllX wrote:
| Yeah but browser [?] rendering engine. I know they get
| conflated a lot in tech, but when I'm using e.g. Arc on
| my Macintosh, I'm _not_ using Chrome despite using the
| same rendering engine.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| ehhhh kind of, what's a browser without a rendering
| engine? just a fancy bookmark manager?
| SllX wrote:
| Most browsers don't have a rendering engine unique to
| them. Apple made that a policy for iPhones and its
| derivatives, but a browser is more than its rendering
| engine.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| My point still stands though, I want to use an
| alternative browser engine like I do on every other
| computer... but Apple doesn't allow it
| crabmusket wrote:
| Note that the "rendering engine" on iOS also takes care
| of JS, implementing web standard APIs, etc. And it is
| tied to the OS version.
|
| So, something like WebUSB comes out? Gotta wait for Apple
| to implement it, and also for your customers to upgrade
| their devices.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Not sure why you are getting downvoted.
|
| I also want alternate web tech, WebAssembly, Javascript
| implementations.
|
| And as a developer, to be able to create tools that use
| the memory allocation/permissions API for JIT
| compilation.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Either provide a platform or compete in one. Don't do both.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Then it would be much harder to argue for that they are
| unfairly competing in the platform they provide.
|
| No it wouldn't, because you could argue that they should
| allow competing OSes on their hardware platform.
|
| > I don't think they take "there's no hard line" as an
| excuse to do nothing to enable competition.
|
| I'm not saying they should. You're not responding to what
| I said. They didn't need to enable apps at all. They did,
| and allow things like Whatsapp to compete with their
| phone and messaging apps. They've enabled competition.
| Courts don't do anything like that.
| advael wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| manzanarama wrote:
| Why? Won't this result in vastly inferior products?
| InsomniacL wrote:
| Stifling competition though anti-competitive-means
| results in vastly inferior products.
| diggan wrote:
| > 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 and after going to the
| app, then they asked me for permission to send notifications.
| qzervaas wrote:
| Since iOS 12 apps can send "provisional" notifications,
| meaning permission isn't required right away. Other apps
| can use this, but few do.
| skeaker wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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.)
| jbjbjbjb wrote:
| Is that not like the Bing app and the Google app which have
| mini apps inside
| skeaker wrote:
| I think part of the lawsuit is that there are glaring
| exceptions to some companies that Apple gives
| preferential treatment to. WeChat was mentioned elsewhere
| in the thread, apparently it does something like this and
| is given a pass arbitrarily whereas Apple disallows other
| companies from competing with them.
| RowanH wrote:
| 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'.)
| elawler24 wrote:
| 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.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| miloignis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| alt227 wrote:
| iPhone has a 55-60% market share in the US & Canada. So Id
| be pretty happy with saying they have the 'dominant
| position' in the North American mobile market.
|
| https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-
| ma...
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Fair enough, that's dominant in the US.
| rondini wrote:
| In the U.S. where this lawsuit was filed, Apple controls
| 50-60% of the smartphone market, where the next largest
| competitor Samsung holds only 20-25% [1]. Among U.S.
| teenagers the iPhone has a massive 87% market share [2].
| That is indisputably dominant.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-
| sales-...
|
| [2] https://www.pipersandler.com/teens
| madeofpalk wrote:
| It is a term of art. How Apple acts has an impact on
| markets. Indeed, as the EU says directly
|
| > The European Commission has fined Apple over EUR1.8
| billion for abusing its dominant position
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24
| _...
| rezonant wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| > 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.)
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I think that telecom operators are free to offer phones
| that don't send SMS, and see how many customers that gets
| them.
|
| What i meant to say in my original comment - it's not
| Apple's fault SMS sucks and people don't want to use it.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| >It's their service they invented, and they get to run it how
| they chose.
|
| That argument only works until there is market dominance,
| which is the point of anti-trust regulations.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| ...but Apple doesn't have dominance. They may have slightly
| more than half the market, but that's not usually
| considered antitrust territory.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Apple is in a dominant position. It feels wrong to say
| that their behaviour does not impact the market.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| "Impacts the market" is not the same as "controls the
| market," which is the threshold (usually) for antitrust
| litigation.
|
| Microsoft, by comparison, OWNED desktop computing in the
| 90s. Apple was on the ropes badly, and Linux wasn't
| viable for most people. And they used that dominance to
| attempt to strangle the open web in its crib. People
| literally had no where else to go.
|
| Apple has nothing like that control today. Android enjoys
| a healthy chunk of the market. A host of other messaging
| tools exist if you don't like iMessage. You can avoid
| using Apple's tech at every turn if you like (and I know
| many people who do, as a matter of personal policy).
|
| This is not a situation that warrants governmental
| intervention. This is a situation where the government is
| overreaching, and if they succeed the precedent will be
| set that Washington gets to decide what features a vendor
| can control on their own platforms. That's not a good
| place to be.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| > It's their service they invented, and they get to run it
| how they chose.
|
| So was the Bell telephone network.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| They aren't in a dominant position in the market by any
| normal measure, though.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| My biggest problem is how hard it is to get my data out of
| apps in usable formats, move it between apps, or put in
| custom apps. My iPhone would be great if I could use my own
| data and apps as easily (and freely) as my old Samsung
| Galaxy.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| 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.
| ryandrake wrote:
| 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?
| deegles wrote:
| > 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).
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Does't this "the market is right" logic also apply to Apple
| itself and its walled garden? E.g.: "Do users really want a
| walled garden where they can't install 'everything apps'?
| The answer is clearly yes in a lot of markets..."
| skeaker wrote:
| 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.
| skydhash wrote:
| 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.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Interesting! So this doesn't include the 30% Apple tax in this
| lawsuit?
| mrkstu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| bubblethink wrote:
| Unless there is legislation that forces something, the
| ship for the app store has sailed. Not to mention,
| several companies have some version of this, including
| game consoles. And even legislation in the area seems
| hard to draft, as seen by DMA.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Unless there is legislation that forces something, the
| ship for the app store has sailed.
|
| Simply asserting that doesn't make it true. Even if the
| app-store related claims in _US v. Apple_ were identical,
| legally and in alleged facts, to those in _Epic v. Apple_
| , the ruling in the latter is not binding precedent for
| the former because Circuit Court decisions don't bind
| Districts in other Circuits. And, they aren't identical,
| anyway.
|
| > Not to mention, several companies have some version of
| this, including game consoles.
|
| So what? "Other companies do similar things" is not an
| argument against it being part of an illegal
| monopolization scheme when others do it. Like browser/OS
| bundling with Internet Explorer, its not the _act in
| isolation_ , but its function in context and in
| conjunction with other business practices that is at
| issue.
|
| Its not a question of whether an app store fee is on its
| face illegal, its a question of whwther _Apple's_ app
| store fee is part of a broader anticompetitive effort to
| defend and extend monopoly intthe smartphone and /or
| performance smartphone markets.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Consumers would have to choose a different device if, say,
| Apple saved money by putting in a lousy screen or a
| cellular radio that was unreliable... What transitions
| these ecosystem misfeatures to anti-consumer in a way that
| an inferior screen isn't?
|
| (I submit they aren't anti-consumer; they're ecosystem
| control and some consumers find that to be a feature. I
| know I feel safer recommending my grandma an iPhone because
| scammers won't trick her into side-loading a root kit into
| it or loading some fake banking app that she pays money
| into that just disappears).
| harkinian wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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.
| skeaker wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| harkinian wrote:
| It's not feasible to use an old iPhone forever, I tried.
| If the required app updates don't get you, the carrier
| will.
|
| The big competitors like Samsung removed the jack too
| once they started selling their own wireless earbuds.
| They realized they could use Apple's strategy too.
| shuckles wrote:
| Basically every smartphone vendor removed the headphone
| jack. So you're saying Apple is a monopoly because they
| have good ideas everyone else copies?
| harkinian wrote:
| The others who did this are also trying to fleece their
| users. There are loyal Samsung users too, don't ask me
| why.
| skeaker wrote:
| No? Who said that? Wrong on every count, especially the
| word "good" to refer to removing the headphone jack.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > Almost all innovation comes from this type of vertical
| integration.
|
| In what world?
| shuckles wrote:
| This is widely accepted business theory. It's hard to
| innovate when you depend on suppliers external to you for
| key technology.
| rezonant wrote:
| 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
| harkinian wrote:
| 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.
| somehnguy wrote:
| I have a low end Bose bluetooth speaker that connects up
| instantly to any of my powered on devices (2x Macbook,
| iPhone), and can switch between them seamlessly with a
| button press. I've also never had any issues with Sony
| WHM1000XM* headphones regarding bluetooth across these
| devices.
|
| My AirPods frequently hop between my MacBook and iPhone
| without asking though, because the other device played a
| split second audio clip.
|
| Strong YMMV I guess.
| monocasa wrote:
| I mean, bose is known for selling cheap devices as high
| end for the past few decades. It's not uncommon for the
| BoM to be ~10% of the final price.
| rezonant wrote:
| Yeah, and don't get me started on the audiophile
| perspective on Bose. Bose is an ear candy brand, what you
| hear out of them is not even close to what the audio
| engineer intended the experience to be. I won't fault
| anyone who's fine with them, but I would never buy a pair
| of Bose.
|
| That being said, they absolutely excel at noise
| cancellation, and that's because their core market is
| airmen, Bose is used almost universally by pilots for
| their in-flight headsets. It's where they make their
| actual money.
| harkinian wrote:
| Yes, they're nice headphones overall, but not the best
| for audio fidelity.
| monocasa wrote:
| They're also not the best for firmware putting it mildly.
|
| They don't have much of an engineering org anymore,
| they're just a marketing brand that white boxes
| contracted out designs.
| harkinian wrote:
| I dunno, nobody is doing noise cancellation better than
| them.
| rezonant wrote:
| I have multiple pairs of high end Sony headphones, Pixel
| buds, numerous Bluetooth speakers, and Bluetooth works
| reliably when I pair those phones to my AV receiver, my
| PS5, my Pixel phone, my tablet, or my TV. I rarely have
| any problems: the audio is clear, the latency is not
| noticeable, and devices connect quickly and without fuss.
|
| There are corner cases that cause annoyance, and those
| corner cases are indeed around where Apple is adding on
| top of Bluetooth: The ability to instantly switch the
| connected device without needing to disconnect from a
| previous device, and the ability to pair just by having
| the devices close. Those features are replicated in the
| Android ecosystem but are not standard.
|
| If those two features are what you mean by "sucks" then
| fine. But that doesn't imply that Bluetooth doesnt work
| reliably, just that it doesn't have these two features
| broadly supported.
|
| A difference here is that fast pairing and device
| switching on Android, while not a standard part of the
| protocol, is open for device manufacturers to support,
| unlike Apple's versions of these features.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| What causes issues with the Bose? Both my QC35 and QC45s
| have been paired with multiple iPhone/pad/Mac and seem to
| work better than most other things.
| harkinian wrote:
| My Bose NC700 can only remember 3 devices it seems. My
| corp-supplied laptop+phone put it over the limit, meaning
| I have to repair whenever I want to switch to another
| device, and it forgets one as a result (idk how it works,
| FIFO?). Pairing often takes a few tries, and it's even
| glitchier on the corp Android phone.
|
| Earphone quality drops to something awful whenever the
| mic is in use. That's just cause of the BT standard. This
| gets more complicated with multiple devices involved.
|
| I'll be listening to music on my work laptop with my
| headphones, my iPhone will get a call, it'll switch to
| the iPhone only to play a ringtone in my ears, then when
| I accept the call the iPhone will switch back to its own
| earpiece instead of my headphones. Juked!
|
| Then some unpredictable things. Like it gets stuck
| connected to the wrong device, or it starts playing music
| when I turn them on, or it won't connect even with a
| device it should remember. I've had my BT headphones
| connect during a meeting, make my laptop start playing
| random music, then disconnect, causing the laptop to
| switch to full volume speakers and blast music into my
| meeting.
|
| I don't fault Bose for any of this. These are the most
| reliable BT headphones I've ever owned. The standard just
| sucks. The iPhone side has issues like randomly switching
| to my car BT when I walk by wearing my headphones. The
| car BT can only pair to 1 device at a time, so my wife or
| I have to disable BT to free it up. Overall it's not
| worth vs just plugging in the darn cable.
| shuckles wrote:
| 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?
| rezonant wrote:
| > 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?
|
| Not really, I don't particularly have a problem with how
| Airpods went, except that Apple could have moved to
| standardize or at least open up fast pairing and instant
| switching, but they didn't.
| shuckles wrote:
| I'd prefer if Apple spent its scarce engineering
| resources on bringing new innovations to market and not
| facilitating other people to copy what they build. From
| Apple's perspective the request is even more twisted:
| they should move to standardize all their technology and
| also give it away for free (lest folks complain about
| paying a "Core Technology Fee"!)?
| rezonant wrote:
| "Scarce"? They are a trillion dollar company.
| shuckles wrote:
| So? Do you think great engineers or engineering orgs are
| a dime a dozen? The US government is a many trillion
| dollar organization. Have you used a government website?
| tcmart14 wrote:
| That is my understanding talking with devs who have
| worked at the lower layers of bluetooth. Well, two
| problems. The spec is not an easy one to read with a lot
| of caveats. But the bigger issue is, a lot of companies
| half ass their bluetooth implementation. Whether we are
| talking Windows, Android, iOS, macOS, Linux, etc, if you
| experience bluetooth problems, often it is the device and
| not the bluetooth code in the OS.
| harkinian wrote:
| Sounds like XMPP.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Or USB. Unfortunately, not all USB cables are equal and
| this used to annoy me so much.
| harkinian wrote:
| USB-A always felt fine, even though there's v3 vs v2. But
| USB-C is a mess.
| harkinian wrote:
| 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.
| shuckles wrote:
| I used the dongle. I left it permanently attached to my
| headphone cable, and it was a non-issue to "carry it
| everywhere." Needing a wired inline mic is a niche of
| niche, making the argument about antitrust monopoly even
| weaker.
| harkinian wrote:
| Needing a mic on a phone is not niche. What made you stop
| using the dongle?
| shuckles wrote:
| Wireless headphones are a better experience is basically
| every way, and yes microphones on phones aren't a niche
| which is why every phone has one. Totally unrelated to
| wired inline external microphones, though.
| harkinian wrote:
| If you're taking a call on a phone with headphones, you
| need an mic on the headphones for anyone to hear you.
| There were several years you had the option of using BT
| headphones while the iPhone had both BT and the jack, but
| you were using the jack.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > It doesn't work with inline mics
|
| Is this a new thing? I haven't used this in a while, but
| the lightning dongle used to work fine with my
| headphones+mic (also intended for Apple's headphone
| jack). I know there's some difference in how the
| headphone connector is set up between Apple and everyone
| else though.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| It certainly does does. There are multiple TRRS patterns
| for wired mics mind.
| arh68 wrote:
| I use the dongle, fwiw. It stays attached to my "good"
| wired earphones.
|
| I don't really have any strong feelings either way about
| it. I dropped my phone once, and the dongle took the
| brunt of it (saving the expensive stuff) but I did have
| to buy another.
| andjd wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| harkinian wrote:
| Yes, basically non-Apple headphones are pointless for
| iPhone owners now. Doesn't matter how much Bose or anyone
| improves their tech, the port they relied upon got
| removed. Apple has locked together iPhones and
| headphones.
| shuckles wrote:
| Are you aware there are plenty of wireless headphones
| that work with iPhone?
| harkinian wrote:
| Yes, there have been since 2007. Almost nobody used them
| until the jack got removed, because they don't work well.
| BT standard improved over the years, but not enough.
| rezonant wrote:
| I don't get the sense that third party headphones don't
| work just fine with iPhone, other than a seeming
| indication that iPhone users seem to think normal
| Bluetooth doesn't work well, which might indicate Apple
| has either not invested in their standard Bluetooth stack
| or at worst, actively degraded it.
|
| But I'm doubtful of this, it seems more likely that some
| Apple users have an outdated view of how reliable
| standard Bluetooth actually are, even when paired with
| their iPhones.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pests wrote:
| This is the reason consoles do not support Bluetooth
| audio and wireless headsets all need a dongle.
| harkinian wrote:
| Reminds me of how wireless keyboards and mice often don't
| use BT despite it being totally designed for that use
| case. They use some random 2.4GHz USB dongle. And well
| there are BT kbms, but they're unreliable.
| pests wrote:
| I actually love Bluetooth mice and keyboards, especially
| when they support multi device so I can switch between my
| phone/laptop/watch with the press of a button. Currently
| using [0] for a few years, love the build quality and
| form factor. Then a random Microsoft BT mouse. No
| problems with reliability.
|
| [0] https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/keyboards/mx-
| keys-mi...
| harkinian wrote:
| 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.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| I don't really know how all this tech works, but when I
| bought my new Xiaomi buds, the moment I opened them my
| Android phone recognised I have new buds and asked me to
| pair them with one click. It was like magic. My
| understanding is that this would not be possible on an
| iphone, whereas this exact behavior works with Apple buds
| on an Apple phone.
| dlubarov wrote:
| Hey I briefly worked on that feature at Google! It looks
| like it's now known as Fast Pair -
| https://developers.google.com/nearby/fast-pair
|
| It's not part of AOSP, but something modern Google phones
| support. It's not a fully open thing - device makers must
| register with Google - but better than the iPhone
| situation where only Apple devices can have a nice
| pairing experience.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > 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?
| alt227 wrote:
| Individually, yes. But each app has its own app store
| approoval process and fees. Also they are jailed privately so
| they cannot share information with each other. Only Apple
| Apps are the ones that can do that.
| boringg wrote:
| 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 .
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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'?
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| As someone who makes apps in the health space, I couldn't
| care less if other tracker data was integrated into
| HealthKit. HealthKit honestly sucks - it's some bastard
| of objc naming schemes and methods jammed into Swift. The
| async is horrible to debug, too. No one has a good time
| in HK.
|
| The issue with other trackers is that they are more
| locked down than Apple. You can't just get HR from Oura
| for instance - and that's not a health kit issue either.
| microtherion wrote:
| I'm not a developer in this space myself, but my
| impression is that HealthKit is one area where 3rd party
| apps have access to the same data as 1st party apps.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I had a similar experience with MSFT docs when working at
| Sun. The docs were not very good, and though they seemed
| somewhat redacted, it felt like in fact their internal
| docs probably weren't much better.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Forget iMessage, I just want media messages from iPhone to
| not be sub-144p pictures/videos. I know sms is limited but
| I doubt that's a technical limitation.
|
| And yea, Gamepass was an immediate thought of something a
| company wanted to ship but Apple blocked. Between that and
| the Epic Games store it looks like there's gonna be a lot
| more options to game on IOS by the turn of the decade.
| mullingitover wrote:
| It's not sms, it's mms, and it is in fact a technical
| limitation.
|
| Honestly we should just sunset MMS entirely. It's like
| using 56k dialup.
| gryn wrote:
| yeah, but the one blocking its sun-setting is apple with
| their artificial barriers. if apple didn't do it's
| shenanigans, RCS or something similar with a different
| name would've have replaced MMS by now.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Lots and lots of things have replaced MMS. MMS, like
| having a phone number, is just a lowest common
| denominator for people who don't take advantage of any of
| the plethora of free and vastly superior messaging
| options that are out in the wild. For years now, you or
| the person you're messaging with have to be lazy or
| incompetent to end up looking at an MMS message.
| rezonant wrote:
| Please don't conflate messaging apps with texting, it's
| disingenuous. Texting is the feature users expect of any
| smartphone to be able to send a message to any other user
| who has a smartphone, regardless of what apps they have
| installed.
| mullingitover wrote:
| This might be an unpopular opinion but I'd be delighted
| if the legacy phone system was forced to shut down in an
| orderly fashion. It's archaic and holds us back from
| adopting modern technology.
|
| Start with brownouts, make them more frequent, and in a
| few months we could all be off that whole mess. There'd
| be some chaos for a bit, but future generations would
| look back and wonder why we clung to this antiquated pile
| of wires for so long.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| The legacy phone system has a lot of features that aren't
| present in its replacement, such as freedom to connect
| with anyone who has a phone number, the ability to move
| your phone number from carrier to carrier, and the
| knowledge that as an individual the phone company can't
| block me from contacting its subscribers entirely for
| free as long as I pay a fee to my own phone company.
|
| It's way better than being on Whatsapp or iMessage or
| Slack or Teams or whatever you're proposing to replace it
| because I have a lot of control over who can contact me
| and nobody is using my presence on the phone network as a
| means to drag all of my friends over to the same phone
| network.
| mullingitover wrote:
| The legacy phone system currently enables _breathtaking_
| amounts of abuse and fraud. I know all the benefits you
| 're listing, and I would enthusiastically surrender them
| just to watch the legacy phone system be decommissioned.
|
| If we invented the legacy phone system today, it would be
| illegal to operate because it's so insecure. We certainly
| wouldn't dream of forcing everyone to use it.
| simfree wrote:
| Any replacement would have the same fraudulent traffic
| migrate to it.
|
| You can already see this type of fraudulent traffic occur
| on Telegram with the constant crypto bots and on Signal
| with the romance scams.
|
| A PSTN sunset would force this fraudulent traffic to
| migrate to the over the top communications platforms,
| eliminate many people's ability to access emergency
| services reliably, destroy reliable voice quality on
| cellular networks as there's no consistent way to
| prioritize third party voice and video traffic.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Any replacement would have the same fraudulent traffic
| migrate to it.
|
| We've had SSL on the web for 30 years now. We don't visit
| our bank's web site and wonder if we're really talking to
| our bank, but we casually accept that _of course_ someone
| calling from our bank 's phone number could be a
| fraudster. There might be some fraud that is able to
| migrate, but it wouldn't be the smorgasbord for
| fraudsters that the legacy phone system has created.
|
| > eliminate many people's ability to access emergency
| services reliably
|
| This is like saying that we can't put out the dumpster
| fire because it provides some people with warmth. The 911
| system (at least in the US) is already a travesty. Caller
| locations are a crapshoot for wireless calls. Call
| centers aren't centralized, standardized, or coordinated,
| and they're overloaded. The technology is outdated.
| Moving it off the phone network and onto a centralized
| digital platform would be a massive improvement.
| Detrytus wrote:
| > freedom to connect with anyone who has a phone number
|
| This is actually a bug, not a feature, as it enables all
| kind of robocalls and sms spam. That's why I love the
| iPhone feature that allows me to block all the calls from
| numbers not in my contact list. It does not allow this
| for SMS though...
| rezonant wrote:
| It does allow it for SMS apparently, but the UI is easy
| to misunderstand. In the "Unknown & Spam" settings where
| you picked "Filter Unknown Senders" there is an option
| below it marked "SMS Filtering" and you need to set that
| to... "SMS Filter".
|
| https://www.guidingtech.com/how-to-block-text-messages-
| from-...
|
| Even if it couldn't do this, that would just bolster the
| case that Apple is making SMS worse than it has to be on
| their platform to promote iMessage and its network
| effects.
|
| EDIT: I booted up my iPhone 14 on the latest iOS and I
| guess this has changed? There isn't a "SMS Filtering"
| option near the Filter Unknown Senders option which has
| moved to the top level Messages settings page versus when
| the guide was written.
|
| I'm not sure if that means it always filters SMS or it
| never does, but again if it doesn't filter SMS at all
| that's an Apple choice, it doesn't mean you can't do it
| on SMS.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| When I was on Android it did allow me to do this for SMS.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| All you would need to replace this is a messaging app
| that uses email addresses as identifiers and then falls
| back to sending messages via email if the recipient
| doesn't have the app.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| What organization runs the messaging app? Do we have some
| kind of consortium of companies? And how do we add or
| remove companies from that list? There are actually a lot
| of social problems around this that are already solved by
| the network of arrangements between the companies that
| run our phone system and the users of the phone system
| and so on. You'd likely end up recreating that and at the
| end of the day you'd have rebuilt the phone system. The
| technical problems are a very small part of this.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| No organization runs the messaging app, it's a protocol
| that anyone can implement. Publish an RFC. The first time
| you contact someone who uses a different provider, their
| messaging app or service sends you an email asking you to
| confirm that you sent the message, after which your app
| is associated with your email address on their provider.
| A combined messaging+email app could handle this
| automatically. At that point you can make calls, video
| chats, group chats, E2E encrypted direct messaging etc.,
| using an email address as an identifier.
|
| In general, solve problems in the same way that email
| does but add protocol support for realtime direct
| communications and end-to-end encryption.
| rezonant wrote:
| 99 standards on the wall, 99 standards... take one down,
| pass it around, 101 standards on the wall.
|
| https://xkcd.com/927/
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Except that the popular messaging apps don't _have_
| published standards and you can 't interoperate with them
| even if you wanted to. How do you implement the iMessage
| protocol on Android or Windows?
|
| Point me to the existing IETF RFC for e.g. mapping email
| addresses as identifiers for use in a generic
| communications protocol like voice and video calls.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > I have a lot of control over who can contact me
|
| This might be the funniest thing I've ever heard. It's
| literally legal in my country to spam me on my phone
| number and there is ZERO I can do to change that. Ergo I
| have fuck all control over who can contact me.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| US should sue themselves for requiring a phone number for
| a person to exist to begin with.
| pdntspa wrote:
| > holds us back from adopting modern technology.
|
| Where we're all captive subjects of some cloud asshole
| spoon-feeding us bits of infrastructure we used to be
| able to run ourselves
| astrange wrote:
| My vague understanding is nobody uses SMS outside America
| and the entire population is on WhatsApp.
| microtherion wrote:
| If only! My wife seems to juggle her friends between SMS,
| iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal.
| rezonant wrote:
| Sounds complicated. No wonder people in the US don't want
| to do that when texting is 100% free (with their phone
| plan) and universal.
| ygjb wrote:
| That is a shockingly user hostile take, especially
| considering you call out the reason why so many people
| still use it: it is the only solution for most users that
| consistently works.
|
| The main reason people still use it is despite the issues
| with MMS (and SMS in general) the reality is that every
| vendor wants to own the messaging stack to build or
| strengthen moat, and the regulators who are in a position
| to enforce standard protocols have incentives in many or
| all countries to weaken the security of messaging
| protocols to meet surveillance objectives (whether those
| objectives are well scrutinized methods with judicial
| oversight, or blanket surveillance requirements).
|
| Blaming the user as lazy or incompetent completely
| overlooks the significant financial incentives that
| platform owners and network providers have to maintain
| the status quo, or force the new status quo to strengthen
| their moats.
| makapuf wrote:
| Most people couldnt care less with sub par video message
| security for most (not all) uses. The fact that every
| vendor want anything but a good standard stack for
| keeping their users captive is imo a more powerful
| incentive.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Both your post and OP's are confident and emotionally
| forceful without any reasoning why. On one hand, in most
| of the world, especially countries less developed than
| the US, messaging apps are very popular and SMS is either
| not even provided in the plan or barely used. On the
| other I do think that at the very least phone
| manufacturers consider MMS/SMS to be a core functionality
| because it's built into most phones. As such it does feel
| user hostile to not care about MMS/SMS. I can see the
| merits of both but don't know why I'd believe one over
| the other.
|
| I'm curious where y'all's confidence comes from in user
| hostility or not and what indicators you have to tip your
| hand one way or the other. That might result in more
| elucidating conversation too.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| TLDR: It has nothing to do with MMS
|
| But that didn't address GP's comment. Apple states that
| green bubbles are pariahs because messages can't be sent
| to androids so it breaks the system, or something like
| that [BS]
|
| Iphone users think that green bubbles are pariahs because
| they aren't part of their exclusive group, and because
| green bubbles turn chat groups into rubbish, because yada
| yada not iphone. (spoiler alert, apple does it on
| purpose)
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/android-users-
| stig...
|
| For laughs: Tim Cook telling someone he has to buy her
| mom an iphone (1hr 0mins 17secs)
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=3615&v=sdvzYtgmIjs&feature=
| you...
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| if apple didn't do it's shenanigans, RCS or something
| similar with a different name would've have
| replaced MMS by now.
|
| The only reason there's any RCS interoperability right
| now is because most carriers have bought into the Google
| RCS stack. Before that you absolutely had to be aware of
| which carrier the recipient was using. If memory serves
| T-Mobile is running both a Google and non-Google RCS
| stack. RCS is and was a mess.
|
| Hell, if you've a rooted Android you can't access Google
| RCS and any RCS messages sent your way will disappear
| into the ether.
| simfree wrote:
| There are no third party RCS apps outside of hardware
| manufacturer skins on Google Messages as Google has shut
| them all out.
|
| If you want to interact with the RCS world as a non-
| wireless carrier, expect to pay upwards of 10 cents a
| message and have a minimum revenue commit of thousands of
| dollars a month. Carriers also don't get paid for inbound
| texts on RCS, creating a huge new cost center instead of
| symmetrical texting volume resulting in minimal costs
| like the current SMS/MMS ecosystem.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I can count on one hand the number of MMS messages I've
| ever received.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| it is in fact a technical limitation.
|
| No, it's not. Carriers limit the attachment sizes quite
| severely, but that's not an inherent limitation of MMS.
| simfree wrote:
| The file size limits on iOS for MMS are far below what
| most carriers permit, making photos and videos sent from
| iPhone look much worse when sent via MMS.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Doubt that. AT&T still limits attachments to 1 megabyte
| for picture, video, and audio files. That's not an iOS
| limitation. I just sent an animated GIF to a Google Voice
| number and it was compressed to about 800 kilobytes.
|
| I suspect the people whining the most are communicating
| with folks that have "Low Quality Image Mode" enabled on
| their iPhone.
|
| https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1041906/
| 486sx33 wrote:
| If you pay for iCloud ($4 a month) you can send an iCloud
| link easily to any video that anyone else can access at
| full resolution
|
| I realize this isn't what you are asking for. But it
| works well and doesn't depend on Google's closed version
| of RCS
| kemayo wrote:
| That is, indeed, a technical limitation of MMS.
|
| The newer RCS standard _would_ be better, but Apple has
| already announced they 're going to support it this year
| (after dragging their heels for a few years).
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| That is, indeed, a technical limitation of MMS.
|
| No, it's not. It's an implementation detail. MMS is
| basically just SMTP on the back end. There's no technical
| reason you couldn't allow much larger attachments aside
| from cost and shitty implementations.
|
| The last time folks got worked into a frenzy over RCS I
| ended up looking at the MMS specs. If memory serves 3GPP
| recommended an upper bound of at least 5 megabytes.
| American carriers typically limit attachments to like 3
| megabytes or less and they mandate ancient video codecs.
| kemayo wrote:
| I guess rephrasing it to a practical limitation of MMS
| would be fair, though? Insofar as it's not something
| we're blaming _Apple_ for.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Media messages from Androids to iPhones are in fact
| technologically-limited by MMS. That's not an Apple-
| imposed limitation, it's written in stone in the MMS
| standard.
| bluk wrote:
| Cloud game streaming has been recently allowed worldwide
| under a few conditions (
| https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=f1v8pyay ).
|
| Forcing Apple to allow third party payments without Apple's
| cut would improve market opportunities for many businesses.
| Facebook could have its marketplace conduct peer to peer
| transactions. Amazon could allow the purchase of digital
| goods (books, movies, etc.) and put it on more equal
| footing with Apple itself. While big businesses are best
| positioned to take advantage today, the effects directly
| trickle down to small startup businesses.
|
| While I personally don't care for it, cryptocurrency use
| would have more potential. Apple blocked apps for NFT
| features in the past because they couldn't get their 30%.
|
| Having third party marketplaces might make it so that there
| is some actual curation at the App Store.
| barkerja wrote:
| I wonder if this will have a trickle down effect on other
| app stores, specifically gaming consoles. Would XBox Live
| or Playstation Store, for example, be on the hot seat if
| they rejected an application or "game" that was basically
| a storefront for streaming other games?
| bluk wrote:
| I don't think so, at least not as a consequence from this
| case if Apple loses. Antitrust cases are usually very
| limited in scope. Microsoft's loss required many actions
| (documenting Active Directory and other
| protocols/formats, browser choice screens, etc.), but no
| one else in tech were required to do so.
|
| John Sircacusa (from ATP.fm) pointed out years ago that
| the heart of Apple's biggest issues is business
| relationship management. This was when Apple only had a
| handful of issues with a few companies and made some
| poorly received statements about developers. Their
| ability to build mutually agreeable relations has only
| gotten worse in recent years.
|
| Sony and Microsoft have kept their relations with third
| parties tough but ultimately agreeable. They promote
| practically all of their third parties (unlike the App
| Store which has so many apps that its like winning the
| lottery to be promoted). Consoles have stores which are
| probably more curated but which third party
| publishers/developers actually like.
|
| IMO, DoJ, EU, etc. are acting primarily because they have
| received so many complaints from Spotify, Microsoft, Epic
| Games, Google, Meta, Tile, etc. Governments don't take
| action for the "public" interest on its own.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Facebook tried this with games and cash transfer within
| Messenger but it never really took off.
|
| Personally, I don't think Western (or at least American)
| consumers are all that interested in a super app. Asia has
| a ton of players in this space like WeChat, QQ, Line and
| Kaokao but those have never taken off in the West outside
| of diaspora communities.
| k12sosse wrote:
| Kind of sideline here but..
|
| Tim Hortons had gift and loyalty cards ("every 7th coffee
| free"). Then they introduced an app with "rewards" as an
| alternative to loyalty and gift cards. Then the app
| turned into a bank. Then they stopped the physical
| loyalty cards. Now you can't "earn" free coffee without
| giving them your personal information and signing up for
| the bank of Tim Hortons. It's ok though. I stopped being
| a customer because of it.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Why don't twitter. com just do the super apps w/ e-commerce
| thing? It's financial regulations, not App Store
| regulations, isn't that the case?
|
| What are challenges for implementing such "payment" system
| on iOS that can transfer, say Monopoly money vs real USD?
| Aren't those almost entirely legal or compliance matters
| for very good reasons? The Alaskan 737 MAX 9 landed largely
| intact thanks to still-working parts of regulations and we
| all value that.
|
| So why not they just do that? Or CAN'T they?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why don't twitter. com just do the super apps w/
| e-commerce
|
| X, the company formerly known as twitter, fairly
| explicitly plans to, they are just taking time to pivot,
| in part because they don't seem to have any real clear
| roadmap from where they are to where they want to be.
| dwighttk wrote:
| >fairly explicitly plans to,
|
| >don't seem to have any real clear roadmap
|
| not your fault, but that's pretty funny
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| And also because they're in a technical quagmire of their
| own creation
| nomel wrote:
| > And also because they're in a technical quagmire of
| their own creation
|
| Could you expand on that?
| microtherion wrote:
| What you call "fairly explicitly plans to" I call
| "supposedly is working on, according to statements by its
| owner, who has a history of vaporware announcements".
| astrange wrote:
| Super apps are a dud. China has them because the regulators
| want them, not because they're a good business.
| novok wrote:
| Why do they show up in other asian markets, like Grab and
| such?
| astrange wrote:
| A lot of people are used to WeChat, so it can feel
| natural to make another one. LINE is also basically
| WeChat.
|
| I don't think that's enough to make them competitive
| though. For instance, a scandal in one feature of the app
| (or Facebook being considered lame by kids) will hurt the
| rest of it.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| Exactly. Most people would rather use the best app for
| the niche thing they want to do rather than the shittier
| version from some mega-app they happen to have for some
| other reason.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| My understanding is the reason they are dead in the US is
| even though the banks might let you build payments into
| it they will not let you negotiate any discount in fees
| so you will have to add your own fees on top of their own
| fees. It begs the question of why a bank or consortium of
| banks hasn't developed a super app.
|
| When I gave this talk in late 2016
|
| https://www.slideshare.net/paulahoule/chatbots-
| in-2017-ithac...
|
| there was huge interest in messaging-centric apps as this
| runs around the boondoggle of having even the tiniest
| patch to your app get reviewed.
| xpe wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Update 2:40 pm ET: After some research, the practices below
| may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the
| Department of Justice views unfavorably:
|
| * horizontal agreements between competitors such as price
| fixing and market allocation
|
| * vertical agreements between firms at different levels of
| the supply chain such as resale price maintenance and
| exclusive dealing
|
| * unilateral exclusionary conduct such as predatory pricing,
| refusal to deal with competitors, and limiting
| interoperability
|
| * conditional sales practices such as tying and bundling
|
| * monopoly leveraging where a firm uses its dominance in one
| market to gain an unfair advantage in another
|
| Any of these behaviors undermines the conditions necessary
| for a competitive market. I'd be happy to have the list above
| expanded, contracted, or modified. Let me know.
| Jagerbizzle wrote:
| Thank you
| scotty79 wrote:
| > This feels like it reflects similar actions taken against
| companies that are dominant in a market.
|
| Maybe they should be. Our societies are ostensibly consumer-
| centric. It's about time our laws and organisations strongly
| sided with consumers against any opposition, especially
| against business.
| crabmusket wrote:
| As a small business owner, I'm actually keen on the
| benefits to other businesses that antitrust enforcement and
| pro-competition enforcement can have.
|
| As a really specific example in the case of Apple, I really
| hope the DMA causes wider availability of browser choice on
| iOS so that we as a business that ships a web app can offer
| our customers features like notifications and other PWA
| benefits. Our customers are somewhat willing to switch
| browsers to get the best experience when using our app. But
| switching to Android? Not a reasonable ask from us.
|
| Most consumers also have jobs right? Making their lives
| better and easier at work, increasing competition to give
| their employers more opportunity to thrive, is just as
| important as making their groceries cheaper.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Yes, historically the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and the
| Clayton Act (1914) define the roll of "regulated
| capitalism" rather than simply "free market capitalism".
| There has been a continuous battle between people who
| wanted to get infinitely wealthy by exploiting their
| dominance and the Government ever since.
|
| I've had some great conversations with folks about why this
| form of "American Capitalism" is the most efficient
| economic engine with regard to an industrial economy. As a
| system, this, and a graduated taxation that provides a
| damping function on "infinite wealth" and feeds it into
| government services has the potential to create an economy
| where everyone has a chance to get rich, and everyone's
| basic needs are met. That combination maximizes
| participation in the economy and thus GDP.
|
| The macroeconomics class I took spent several weeks on this
| relationship and the "Great Courses" economics class also
| talks about it.
|
| The challenge is that rich men (typically its men) don't
| like being told they can't do something, or told they have
| to do something which will reduce their total wealth, and
| they respond by corrupting legislators into changing the
| rules.
|
| It isn't "good" or "bad" per se, some people always eat all
| the cookies if they think they can get away with it. As a
| systems analyst though the system is an excellent study in
| 'tuning.' In theory, as a government maximizing GDP is a
| goal because the more GDP the more gets done the happier
| people are, etc etc. Technology strongly affected the _rate
| of change_ of wealth, people who were middle class at a
| startup suddenly being in the top 10% in terms of wealth
| over the course of a few years, rather than a life time of
| work and savings. Others leveraging their wealth in
| technology startups having it rocket them into the 1%.[1]
| Something that the US system of laws does not do well is
| respond to changes "quickly" (my lawyer friends tell me
| that is a design feature not a bug). But as we saw with
| Microsoft's antitrust case they do respond eventually.
|
| [1] Back in the dot com days there was an article in Wired
| about the "Billionaire Boys Club" which talked about
| members of the several VC firms whose net worth had
| ballooned to over a billion dollars.
| supportengineer wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You are specifically choosing to not have message
| interoperability? Why?
| supportengineer wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I actually offered to buy that person an iPhone. But
| regardless, no one is a victim here.
| dleink wrote:
| Android has a 70% global market share. You really only
| communicate with one person of that 70%?
| mattl wrote:
| Everyone I communicate with who has an Android device has
| WhatsApp or Signal installed. Same is true of 99% of
| iPhone users.
| skeaker wrote:
| Seems it would have costed you a lot less if Apple just
| didn't arbitrarily block that person in the first place.
| jgwil2 wrote:
| If that person had taken you up on that offer, you would
| literally be a victim of their anticompetitive practices.
| skyyler wrote:
| I wonder if people made comments like these in support of
| Internet Explorer when Microsoft was dealing with antitrust
| law in court.
| foooorsyth wrote:
| Uh, yeah they did. Many people thought at that time that
| DOJ was overstepping. Many still do. In hindsight,
| Microsoft's behavior at the time seems like small potatoes
| compared to the ecosystem protection that occurs today.
| pchristensen wrote:
| You can look at adoption rates of IE vs Firefox and Chrome,
| and compare them to iOS vs Android.
| baq wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If I had billions of dollars and a yard the size of a
| small country I probably wouldn't mind...
| baq wrote:
| 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.
| criddell wrote:
| That's kind of what I think. Make an iCloud subscription
| tier that includes access to messages and then include it
| in the web-browser version of iCloud and make an Android
| app for messages. I can't imagine it would have to cost
| much more than $10-$15.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| This would be an Apple service. It'd cost $99/month to
| view the text of messages on non-iPhone devices, and an
| additional $99/month to view any photos/videos/emojis
| attached to messages.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The base plan for iCloud+ is 99 cents a month and the
| next tier is $2.99, they're pretty reasonable about these
| services.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > Who pays to run the servers? Who pays for the
| bandwidth?
|
| I f%$@ing do. I paid when I bought an iPhone, Mac and
| iPad.
|
| And even if it's not enough - provide it as a service for
| a fee.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Many victim are adamant that they are not actually a victim
| no matter what evidence is provided. Luckily anti-trust law
| doesn't care about your opinion.
| lijok wrote:
| You're not buying a literal apple. Purchasing context does
| not stop at point of sale.
| bloppe wrote:
| 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.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| 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".
| rezonant wrote:
| > 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.
|
| I'm skeptical that adding RCS will actually fix the problems
| because of how Apple is likely to implement it. Their
| malicious compliance in the EU strongly hints that they are
| going to hobble their RCS implementation just enough to
| maintain the status quo just like they are with the DMA
| requirements. Hopefully legal efforts like this push Apple
| more towards actual interoperability.
| Funes- wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| alt227 wrote:
| To reverse your statistic, Apple has 60% of mobile market
| share in US and Canada, meaning the whole of North America.
|
| On top of that, 87% of the teen mobile market in the US own
| an iPhone.
|
| Apple definitely has a dominant position in the western
| smartphone market.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2023/10/10/iphone-teen-
| survey-2023...
|
| 90% of marketshare with monopolistic practices is relevant?
| brocket wrote:
| 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.
| AlanYx wrote:
| CarPlay supports notifications with non-first party apps like
| Microsoft Teams. I don't use everything on your list, but
| WhatsApp definitely supports CarPlay notifications. You may
| have them muted. You can mute/unmute on a per-app basis -- go
| to the app settings and adjust the "Show in CarPlay" toggle.
| wiremine wrote:
| > 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?
| s1k3s wrote:
| 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?
| screye wrote:
| 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 ?
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| > Google or MSFT charge anything less.
|
| Google: true, BUT you can install and publish other app
| stores
|
| MSFT: false, they charge 15% for apps and 12% for games
| (talking about the Microsoft Store)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > 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.
| dathinab wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dathinab wrote:
| my biggest gripe is NFC, through more then their not-so-
| competitive parts but also that they didn't support it at
| all until they had their own 1st party use-case for it
| (which isn't anti-competive just sucks)
|
| the reason is that it crippled a whole industry of smart
| door looks
|
| NFC is (by far!) technically the best way to handle them
| (for many of the common security levels). (Through I mean
| proper secure application of NFC, something you often do
| not get in a satisfying way with a lot of the RFID card
| solutions. And I'm aware that a ton (most?) of smart door
| room solutions are a complete security nightmare, but that
| is companies cheeping out and/or not hiring anyone who know
| anything about security etc.)
|
| EDIT: stuff like this
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39779291 is what I
| mean with most RFID based solutions are shit. Through not
| sure how much this specific case was very competent hackers
| and how much bad security.
| eecc wrote:
| Sure, Apple should jump both feet into whatever shaky
| tech standard and go to umpteenth lengths to guarantee
| simultaneous interoperability and compatibility with all
| of them as they evolve to something workable , forever.
|
| Otherwise if they fail to walk on their own feet it's not
| the fault of their stewards and their poor performance.
| Nope, it's Apple's fault for not having helped enough.
| jajko wrote:
| 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.
| slibhb wrote:
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| If phone OSes and ecosystems were fungible, then I'd agree.
| It's reasonable to prefer iOS for many reasons, but still be
| disappointed in the walled-garden, non-interoperable aspects.
|
| Customers don't really have great choices right now when it
| comes to smartphones:
|
| 1. One OS is locked down, has a walled-garden ecosystem, but
| has many privacy-protecting features.
|
| 2. The other OS more open (interop & user-choice-wise, not
| really in the FOSS sense), but is run by a company that seems
| hell-bent on eroding user privacy.
|
| These properties are dictated by Apple and Google. But due to
| the barrier for entry, there are no alternatives that come
| even close to duplicating Android's and iOS's feature sets.
| Even simply using a community-developed Android-based OS can
| cause you to lose access to many useful features Android
| provides.
|
| I guess I went off on a little tangent here, but my position
| is that the existence of Android is only a defense if
| switching between the two doesn't incur high costs, both
| financial and non-. That's demonstrably not the case.
| rsoto2 wrote:
| You see this as about two major phone companies when in
| reality it is about all the small phone/os/app
| companies(competition is good in a free market) that get
| pushed out because the only two major companies (apple and
| google) share insane contracts between eachother essentially
| creating a horizontal monopoly that squashes competition.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there
| were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and
| becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play
| could.
|
| And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt
| that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust
| angle being that you can't compete with apple's native
| software
| scarface_74 wrote:
| No Google got dinged because they claimed their ecosystem
| was "open" and changed it after the fact.
|
| The reason that Google lost the same type of cases that
| Apple won was because consumers knew iOS was closed before
| they bought it.
| pchristensen wrote:
| I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I
| agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes
| like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be
| their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse.
|
| Some examples: - A lot of these changes are
| like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option.
| Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but
| there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal
| with it. - Every dollar and engineering hour that
| Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time
| they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as
| increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes.
| - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB,
| Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc.
| They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it.
| The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I
| have from other powerful players in the tech market.
| - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place
| where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but
| will have to make (e.g. default browser). - I've
| never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many
| of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and
| my experience with computing platforms is worse without the
| guardrails
|
| I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing
| and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance"
| computer.
| epolanski wrote:
| Explain how.
|
| This seems a baseless statement.
| jedimind wrote:
| nothing changes for you, keep living in apple prison. how
| does other people having more choice make your experience
| worse? all arguments I heard so far are completely far
| fetched and contrived scenarios that dont amount to
| anything but fear mongering.
| jedimind wrote:
| Every time I refresh you keep adding more contrived BS
| excuses to allow the trillion dollar company to keep
| extorting devs and users with obscene fees.
|
| " - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars
| have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty
| of people that love the control, but there are many, many
| more that appreciate not having to deal with it."
|
| Nonsense analogy. Computers are General Purpose Computing
| Devices which people increasingly depend on in their lives
| where single point of control from Apple makes their lives
| artificially more difficult solely for the purpose of being
| able to squeeze out profits. It increases prices for
| consumers and allows oppressive dictatorships to demand
| certain apps to be removed and Apple always complies,
| leaving users without alternatives.
|
| " - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends
| complying with these new requirements is time they won't
| spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing
| the surface area for bugs and security holes."
|
| Boohoo, the trillion dollar company has to do a little more
| work. They could just stop putting so much work into anti-
| consumer propaganda so they would have more time for actual
| work.
|
| "- Apple is the intermediary between other companies like
| FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps,
| etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids
| it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less
| protection I have from other powerful players in the tech
| market."
|
| This is exactly the kind of exaggerated, fear mongering
| narrative I've expected. Increased competition and openness
| could also lead to better privacy and security solutions as
| companies would need to compete on these features to win
| over users. Also, despite Apple's policies and safeguards,
| there have been instances where apps have found ways around
| these limitations or have used data in ways that are not
| transparent to users, because Apple only cares about
| Privacy as far as it benefits their bottom line, that why
| Apple also started to work on an advertising platform. They
| care about "Privacy" because now they can exclusively
| monetize user data.[Apple is becoming an ad company despite
| privacy claims - https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company]
|
| " - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place
| where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but
| will have to make (e.g. default browser)."
|
| Nonsense, the only thing that changes is that other people
| can change the default app, so when they don't care nothing
| changes for them, they don't have to do anything. this
| argument of yours is the kind of absurd reach that makes
| your overall position look absurd.
|
| " - I've never had to help a relative with their phone.
| I've had many of them come to me for help with their
| computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms
| is worse without the guardrails"
|
| I've read this meme so many times and every time I read it
| I doubt that it's an actual thing instead it's something
| you desperately need to say in order to uphold your
| indefensible position of defending Apple's anti-competitive
| practices. It's not a good argument either, just because
| your relatives are incompetent we all should suffer under
| that?
|
| " I think many computer savvy people don't realize how
| freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an
| "appliance" computer."
|
| Ah yes, less choice is actually more choice, slavery is
| freedom and war is peace.
| alt227 wrote:
| - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have
| a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of
| people that love the control, but there are many, many more
| that appreciate not having to deal with it.
|
| Please let governments pass legislation which mandate a
| manual trasmission model. I will never buy an auto!
| - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends
| complying with these new requirements is time they won't
| spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing
| the surface area for bugs and security holes.
|
| Except that Apple are literally the richest company in
| America. They could hire a thousand new programmers in a
| team to work 24 hours a day on these requirements and it
| wouldn't even tickle their profits, let alone revenue.
| - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like
| FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps,
| etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids
| it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less
| protection I have from other powerful players in the tech
| market.
|
| If apple is forced to open up, it creates a market for more
| security products, meaning healthier competition and more
| transparent security. - Every place where
| Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a
| choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make
| (e.g. default browser).
|
| Not really, safari is the only browser which is installed
| on a iphone by default, so normal users just use it like
| they did before and dont need to do anything. However other
| people that do want to use something different are free to.
| - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've
| had many of them come to me for help with their computers.
| Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse
| without the guardrails
|
| Nobody is suggesting making the iphone harder to use, just
| allowing additional choices if thats what the user wants.
| The choices can be hidden away from normal users and
| grandma, but why cant they be there in the background for
| people that want them?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > If apple is forced to open up, it creates a market for
| more security products, meaning healthier competition and
| more transparent security.
|
| Have you not had to use a third party security product on
| your work computer? All third party security products for
| computers are scams and inefficient
| wiseowise wrote:
| > - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends
| complying with these new requirements is time they won't
| spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing
| the surface area for bugs and security holes.
|
| Small indie company, btw.
| bradgessler wrote:
| I want iOS to be like macOS in that there's one "blessed"
| store, but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside
| of it without giving Apple a cut.
|
| macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS
| can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are
| installed on it outside of an App Store. There's even third-
| party App Stores on macOS like Steam, Homebrew, and a few
| more that Indie developers use to distribute apps.
| dmix wrote:
| > , but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of
| it without giving Apple a cut.
|
| I want this personally for me. But I paid extra money to
| get my mom an iPhone exactly because she won't be able to
| stuff like this.
|
| I used to regularly have to fix her android phone and the
| last time she was trying to download an app for tracking
| hours at work, and somehow downloaded the wrong app with a
| similar name, this app loaded with 3 different pop ups
| telling her to install other ad filled apps with generic
| names like "PDF reader".
|
| OP is right, it should be an explicit jailbreaking process
| that has a technical barrier to entry where my mom can't be
| talked into doing it over the phone but an enterprising
| young person could figure it out.
| Difwif wrote:
| Are you suggesting your Mom has/would have the same
| experience on macOS? For whatever reason it doesn't seem
| to be as much of an issue.
|
| It probably doesn't need to be as cumbersome as a
| jailbreak. Maybe it's just a "Allow apps not approved by
| Apple" toggle hidden deep in the settings. I actually
| would love the ability to set "IT administrator account"
| on device setup. Then mom can't even change the setting
| without notifying "dmix" :)
| jkestner wrote:
| There are plenty of junk apps in the App Store now. Apple
| does a good job marketing trustworthiness, but having
| competing app stores may at least get them to put more
| effort into backing it up.
| bradgessler wrote:
| Apple has a setting in macOS that disables installing
| apps outside of the App Store. This would be a completely
| reasonable setting for iOS for less tech savvy people.
| davidd_1004 wrote:
| It's fine if it's the default honestly, as long as it
| exists as a setting you can change.
| wiseowise wrote:
| This is literally default Android setting, and it even
| shows scary dialog that sideloading can negatively impact
| your device.
| bradgessler wrote:
| Agreed! macOS has really done a fantastic job balancing
| out the needs of security with usability.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Apple app store has the exact same problems. There was
| even a post on HN last week about an scam app being the
| first result in the app store.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Your mom would have to go out of her way to find and
| install a separate app store. You could make it give all
| sorts of warnings that would scare off a non-tech user
| like your mom.
| bamboozled wrote:
| As a heavy Linux user for most things I feel the same.
|
| I love that I have all non tech savvy people in my life
| are using. Devices that just work, they all seem happy
| too. I get the idealistic nature of these lawsuits but
| people buy these phones for the fact they work and for
| the protected App Store. Including myself.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| It's reasonably secure because no one has bothered to write
| malware for it.
|
| But there was nothing on the Mac stopping Zoom from putting
| a backdoor web server on Macs.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| Apple could revoke Zoom's signing certificate, if they
| were discovered to be doing this.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| That's the thing: they were. Apple did act, but not by
| revoking the certificate.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20689644/apple-zoom-
| web-s...
| sneak wrote:
| > _macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably
| proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably
| secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App
| Store._
|
| That's not really true. Despite the dangers of centralized
| app censorship, the state of security on iOS is far beyond
| that of macOS.
| astrange wrote:
| iOS also has even more security threats, because a phone
| is in your pocket and has GPS, and your laptop isn't.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Open source store would be nice. Apple reviews the release
| ($$$), builds on their server and guarantees it does what
| it says it does.
| josephg wrote:
| This would be lovely. As far as I know, right now its
| entirely possible for an app developer to show clean,
| trustworthy code on github. And then ship an app bundle
| on the app store which contains malware.
|
| I'd love it if Apple provided a way to protect against
| this sort of thing.
| engeljohnb wrote:
| Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality
| images and videos to anyone using Android?
| insaneirish wrote:
| > Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good
| quality images and videos to anyone using Android?
|
| Bit confused by this. What prevents me from sending or
| receiving good quality images to/from Android users?
| ripdog wrote:
| _By default_ was missing from the sentence. You can do it
| with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need
| to download a 3rd party app to do so.
| insaneirish wrote:
| > By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it
| with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need
| to download a 3rd party app to do so.
|
| So... what?
| vineyardlabs wrote:
| I think the point is that it's kind not entirely accurate
| to say that Apple doesn't allow messaging
| interoperability with Android. They in-fact do through
| dozens of available third party apps. They don't allow
| non-apple devices to implement the iMessage protocol,
| which could be argued to be anti-consumer but it's not
| really evidence of apple being a monopoly.
|
| Edit: Just realized that you I misread your comment and
| you and I agree
| Salgat wrote:
| It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress
| competition. Most kids use iPhone and for the general
| public in the US iPhone has >50% market share, so to
| expect most people to stop using iMessage to get better
| support with Android users is not happening, and it's
| silly to think that will change without a change in laws,
| so most kids end up getting iPhones so they're not left
| out.
|
| Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by
| Apple that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to
| suppress sales of competitive products. That's the
| illegal part.
| gms wrote:
| 2.6 billion WhatsApp users exist. All switched from
| native SMS to a third-party app (WhatsApp). Clearly this
| expectation is fine.
| Salgat wrote:
| Part of that is that outside the US, iPhone isn't as
| dominant in the market, so their anticompetitive tactics
| don't work as well.
| jlebar wrote:
| When friends with iPhones send me images or videos using
| iMessage, they are very low-quality compared to what
| iPhone users receive. But when Android users send me the
| same, they are higher quality.
|
| So I think the specific answer to your question is
| "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
| insaneirish wrote:
| > So I think the specific answer to your question is
| "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
|
| But there are other ways to send images or arbitrary
| files. Why does iMessage need to support it?
| greiskul wrote:
| Cause it would be better for Apple's customers. This one
| doesn't even have the "my parents security" defense like
| installing non app store apples does. Do you honestly
| think any costumer WANTS iPhone to be shitty at sending
| images?
|
| Why do you have to defend every little thing that Apple
| does as if you were their lawyer? I get that you like
| some parts of their walled garden, but why do Apple stans
| behave as if Apple was a sacred company that could do no
| wrong, when there examples like this that they are
| literally harming their own customers to protect their
| moat. I get why Apple does it, I don't get why anyone
| here would side with Apple.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > Why does iMessage need to support it?
|
| imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because
| it's a common way for people to communicate. It was fine
| for us to start laissez faire but now that we see Apple
| abusing things by not interoperating -- deliberately in
| order to sell more phones [1], the people should
| intervene.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-
| imessage-an...
|
| > "The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple
| universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious
| lock-in"
|
| > "moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help
| us, this email illustrates why."
| hapticmonkey wrote:
| My understanding is that Apple wont add RCS support until
| end-to-end encryption is part of the RCS standard, which
| it currently isn't. And they wont use property add-ons
| such as what Google use for encryption.
|
| Competitors stuffed around trying to build a competitor
| for over a decade and failed. Is that Apple's fault?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Lack of iMessage support on Android.
| insaneirish wrote:
| > Lack of iMessage support on Android.
|
| Plenty of other ways to send images.
| gms wrote:
| I do this every day using WhatsApp.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I guess there's WhatsApp etc, but it's not a great
| experience. And that's in part due to the ecosystem. I can
| swipe 200 photos and send them to my wife - it shares them
| on my iCloud behind the scenes, and sends a link. Messages
| makes it seem like I've sent 200 full quality photos in an
| instant.
|
| That's hard to do without the vertical integration.
| MrScruff wrote:
| In the UK nearly everyone is using Whatsapp (or Signal,
| Telegram, even FB Messenger - never iMessage) and it's
| completely fine.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| In the UK here, using WhatsApp regularly too, but the
| image quality is hopeless on it, and it won't let you
| send many at a time.
|
| If I can, I always use iMessage as the integration is
| just better - especially for media.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me
| highly critical of Apple's behavior. However, these sorts of
| lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change
| App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The
| problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app
| sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative
| browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in
| their store. It's their store and they ought to be able to
| curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot
| reasonably install software through any means other than that
| single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special
| permissions and system integrations for their own apps and
| denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for
| a computer to work.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Isn't that _exactly_ what the EU went after?
|
| They didn't tell Apple not to charge 30% for their App
| Store. They can charge 90% for all they care.
|
| They told Apple they mustn't block other installation
| methods.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Sort of. My reading of the DMA is basically what you're
| saying; Apple has to let people install what they want on
| their phones, Apple cannot self-preference with app
| capabilities. Apple is planning to comply not by allowing
| users to install what they want on their devices, but
| instead by offering companies an avenue to enter a
| business relationship with Apple through which Apple will
| allow users install that company's applications, provided
| that Apple has vetted and signed them. That is, all told
| Apple still has final say over what apps are allowed on
| peoples' phones. It sounds like the EC is going to nix
| those app-signing requirements, but the rest of the
| scheme may or may not be deemed acceptable.
|
| So the question remains whether the spirit of the DMA is
| "users should be able to install the software they want
| on their computers" or "businesses offering apps and
| services should be able to compete with Apple on the
| iPhone". Is this a fundamentally a pro-user law or a pro-
| business law? There may be overlap, but they are not the
| same.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| If there was alternatives Apple wouldn't be able to
| charge 30% anymore.
| alt227 wrote:
| You are exactly describing the recent EU lawsuit
| d35007 wrote:
| > That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.
|
| Luckily, you have a choice. Other companies make handheld
| computers that align better with your definition of
| ownership.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Phones are unique in the consumer space because of how
| thoroughly they can restrict end user usage. Once you buy
| an iPhone you can use it physically as a hammer if you
| wish, but if you want to digitally use a non-Apple wallet
| then you are restricted. Most consumer goods don't behave
| this way; my TV lets me watch anything I input into it,
| my bike lets me ride to wherever a pedal to, my vacuum
| lets me clean my counter if I want it to. Consumers are
| choosing a desirable physical good with undesirable
| digital restrictions. Apple is flexing its hardware power
| to its advantage and end user's disadvantage in software.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| > _Phones are unique in the consumer space because of how
| --_
|
| --they were marketed as phones that can compute, instead
| of as computers that can phone.
|
| That's the crux: people would never have accepted the
| restrictions on computers like the iPhone, if that thing
| were instead sold as a general computer called the
| _iPalm_ or similar. But since it 's sold as a phone, any
| thing else it can do is more easily perceived as a bonus,
| and we hardly feel the restrictions at the beginning.
|
| Only people who see smartphones for what they really are,
| general purpose palmtops that can make phone calls, can
| really perceive the egregiousness of those restrictions.
| The first step then, is generalising this understanding
| to everyone.
|
| A good first step, I think, would be to start naming
| those things more accurately. I'd personally suggest
| "palmtop".
| astrange wrote:
| It isn't a general purpose computer. The form factor is
| compromised to make it work as a phone and it doesn't
| matter how good the CPU is.
|
| A general purpose computer would be hard to use if it had
| an OOM killer instead of swap and if running the CPU full
| speed shut it off because it got too hot inside. (Using
| it too hard can also drain the battery even if it's on a
| full strength charger.)
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| you can add a keyboard to a phone the same way i can add
| a keyboard to my desktop to function.
|
| phones are actually more general-purpose since they
| travel with you and know where you are.
| jjk166 wrote:
| > Consumers are choosing a desirable physical good with
| undesirable digital restrictions.
|
| So long as it is the customers making that choice, and
| they have access to alternatives, then it's not really a
| problem. If apple were advertising the iphone as a
| consumer product that had no such digital restrictions in
| an effort to hoodwink people into buying them, or if
| iphone were the only serious game in town, then those
| restrictions would be an issue, but right now iphones are
| advertised as being worth more than their competitors
| specifically because of those restrictions, and people
| are willing to pay such premiums. That you personally
| would not make the same decision does not mean they've
| been manipulated by anti-competitive measures into making
| theirs.
|
| If someone were to make a consumer product that worked
| better for my use cases at the expense of being worse at
| or even incapable of doing things I don't intend to use
| it for, I should have the option to buy it. If you don't
| like the restrictions, buy something else. That's not
| anti-competitive, that is exactly how competition is
| supposed to work.
| megaman821 wrote:
| There is literally only one other competitor. That is not
| flourishing, competitive market when consumers can make
| many different choices. There are two companies that
| control nearly the entirety of the mobile software
| market, how can you expect that there would be no
| oversight to make sure they don't advantage their own
| software offerings?
| dpkonofa wrote:
| But the reason is there only one other competitor isn't
| at all because of Apple or the competitor and doesn't
| have anything to do with their practices. The reason for
| it is because it's incredibly difficult and complex to
| put together a device like that and only certain types of
| companies have the resources and funds to create a
| product like that.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > right now iphones are advertised as being worth more
| than their competitors specifically because of those
| restrictions
|
| Huh, I must've missed all the iPhone ads touting the
| device's inability to play Fortnight as a premium
| feature.
| wruza wrote:
| But these computers are so different... But if Apple does
| that it would be differently different... /s
|
| I mean, what gp wants is literally _just there_ on the
| shelves and they don't want it. But they also want it,
| but in Apple, because it's nicer when Apple does[n't] it.
| Why would they want it after Apple does it?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Surprise, people want more than one thing out of a
| product.
|
| Voting with your wallet works _very badly_ when there are
| two main options. Which anti-consumer behaviors do you
| pick? When something is bad enough, it 's better to make
| it illegal for all options.
| wruza wrote:
| I'm all for your device = your control, and I mean
| _your_.
|
| But allowing software vendors to ignore AppStore will
| eventually lead to _my_ bank apps, local maps apps,
| delivery apps etc to go non-AppStore-only route and do
| whatever they want on my phone, because I have no
| alternative (except for not using my phone). The first
| thing one of my bank apps did on my android phone was to
| install some sort of an "antivirus firewall" which abused
| every access and semi-exploit to make sure I'm "safe".
|
| Your ideas will affect me, and I can't see why your (and
| my) inconvenience is more important than my security.
| It's not just "better". I'm asking to consider this
| perspective as well.
| kalkr wrote:
| Motor companies should not be able to gate physical
| features (seat heaters) behind software.
|
| My opinion isn't changed by the fact that I can purchase
| from a company that doesn't do that.
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| Luckily, we have anti-trust and other forms of law and
| regulation specifically because assuming markets will
| alway provide meaningful choices has historically proven
| a bad assumption.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I am quite aware of the landscape. I use a Pixel phone
| with GrapheneOS and an iPhone. I prefer many aspects of
| my iPhone, and can understand why many people choose one
| as their primary or sole mobile computer. A phone is a
| very special product category, it's where most users keep
| their digital lives. As such switching costs are quite
| high, and user agency is quite important. In general
| software introduces some very odd dynamics into
| ownership. If you buy a vacuum cleaner you can take it
| home, plug it in, and vacuum every room in your house;
| the vacuum cleaner is yours. If you buy a Roomba and take
| it home, it demands that you sign a unilateral EULA, then
| install an app on your phone, and then informs you that
| it will only clean one room unless you sign up for Roomba
| Pro for $20/mo[0]. So clearly Roomba still owns the
| vacuum cleaner they just sold you; they have the final
| say in what it does or doesn't do. That's ownership. Now,
| technically, you can legally disassemble your Roomba, and
| if you manage to dump, modify, and reflash its control
| software, then you'd be allowed to use your product to
| clean multiple rooms without paying monthly for the
| privilege. That would require a lot of effort and
| specialized skills and tooling, and you would then _not_
| be allowed to share your modifications with less skilled
| Roomba owners because doing so would almost certainly
| involve trafficking DRM circumvention technology, which
| is a crime. So in practical terms you only own the Roomba
| as an inanimate plastic puck.
|
| This whole situation maps to iPhones as well. As things
| stand when you purchase an iPhone you own a glass brick,
| and Apple owns the phone part. They graciously allow you
| to use their phone to perform a certain limited set of
| activities. I am fundamentally opposed to this sort of
| non-ownership. Whether the buyer had an option to
| purchase a roughly-equivalent item with different terms
| is irrelevant; selling someone a product while retaining
| ownership of it is a mockery of property rights. Some
| rights are too important to allow people to sign them
| away with the tap of a button. When the market missteps
| by rewarding bad behavior like this it is the job of our
| democratic governments to step in and mandate good
| behavior.
|
| [0]: this is made up to illustrate a point, I don't
| actually know how Roomba service works
| hparadiz wrote:
| This is all so exhausting and goes in circles over and
| over. I honestly can not believe that there are people on
| HackerNews of all places that want two companies to
| control pocket computers and just because one is only
| marginally better it's totally okay that the first one is
| draconian.
|
| I feel like someone who woke up in the middle ages with a
| fever and they are trying to cure me with leeches. Yes
| yes. No need to worry. Let the leech do it's work and you
| too will be secure from the plague.
|
| Does anyone actually know anyone that has gotten hacked
| on their Android phone?
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _"...selling someone a product while retaining ownership
| of it is a mockery of property rights. "_
|
| Excellent comment, it sums the situation up very well.
| And the above extract encapsulates the matter in just a
| few words.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Luckily, you have a choice. Other companies make
| handheld computers that align better with your definition
| of ownership.
|
| The issue is that your choice is constrained by vertical
| integration. If you like Apple's hardware, or iOS, or
| iMessage, or any number of other things, these are all
| tied together with Apple's app store when they should not
| be. It's like encountering a retail monopoly in
| California and someone tells you that you're lucky
| because you can shop at another store and all you have to
| do is move to Florida, which _also_ has a retail
| monopoly, but a different one.
|
| Obviously this is not the same thing, and does not have
| the same benefits, as multiple stores being right next to
| each other and allowing you to choose the one you want on
| a per-purchase basis.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| The opposing view, in this retail metaphor, is that they
| like living in a state with this retail monopoly, because
| the store will not sell them or anyone else... say,
| bacon. And they find bacon distasteful and like being
| able to live in a community where nobody eats it. If the
| retail monopoly were broken, then their neighbors would
| be able to purchase bacon, and some would have cookouts
| and they would have to smell it. Perhaps their favorite
| snack would discontinue its regional bacon-free variant
| and sell its normal variant in another store now that it
| is able to. Don't you know that bacon is bad for you?
|
| The counterpoint is: if bacon is so bad awful and bad for
| you we should probably regulate its sale, rather than
| leave that up to a company bullying other companies.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The better counter point is, if you don't like bacon,
| don't buy it, and stop trying to control other people.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Luckily, people can like something despite shortcomings
| and ask for it to become better.
| leptons wrote:
| > The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of
| app sales in their store, or that they don't allow
| alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or
| whatever in their store.
|
| Nope, the problem very much is that they won't allow
| alternative browser engines, specifically so that they can
| force a crippled Safari browser with limited APIs to force
| people to write apps instead of web apps, forcing more
| traffic to their store. It's explicitly anti-competitive
| behavior.
|
| >It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it
| however they like.
|
| It's kind of forced fraud to call Chrome in iOS as
| "Chrome". It's like trying to sell someone a Ferrari that's
| just a facade bolted onto 2010 Honda. It's not Chrome, it's
| actually Safari - and its seems like people are finally
| starting to wake up to this abusive behavior that Apple has
| been getting away with for far too long.
|
| Microsoft had a famous anti-trust case against them for
| simply bundling IE with Windows - not from forcing their
| engine on every other "browser" that gets installed. Apple
| is doing _far worse than that_ and getting away with it for
| _far too long_.
|
| >The problem is that users cannot reasonably install
| software through any means other than that single store.
|
| That's one of the _many other problems_ outlined by the DOJ
| today.
|
| >The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and
| system integrations for their own apps and denies them to
| anyone else.
|
| Also another problem.
|
| >However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek
| to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-
| headed and out of touch.
|
| I was clapped out loud when I watched the DOJ announcement
| today. I cheered. They actually mentioned "Developers",
| which is a group I am part of, and I feel the pain that
| dealing with Apple and Safari is. Apple absolutely deserves
| this, and it's about time.
| mirzap wrote:
| Is Macbook less secure because I can install whatever app I
| want, even my own app? No, it's not. I want to be able to do
| the same with my iPhone. It's as simple as that.
| vlunkr wrote:
| Well, yes, it is less secure. Though Apple has been adding
| more restrictions around apps having full disk access and
| stuff.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| And yet no one would ever want or think of locking down
| MacOS like they have locked down iOS. Turns out that
| grown ups don't need Apple to babysit them for additional
| "security" when everybody knows that Apple's real reason
| is just money+greed and the "security" talking point is
| just a convenient smokescreen.
| jhbadger wrote:
| _I_ wouldn 't want it, but I can see both Apple and heads
| of a lot of IT departments loving the concept of a
| locked-down MacOS.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| That's a completely different scenario and those IT
| departments already have their own mechanisms of
| enforcing lockdowns, they wouldn't want others to impose
| lockdowns on them (the administrators) too. For devs,
| such an Apple imposed lockdown on MacOS would destroy the
| Macbook's popularity, since it would regress and turn
| into a glorified ipad.
| pjerem wrote:
| A locked-down MacOS would be awful but at least you'd
| still have Linux (thanks Asahi).
|
| With an iPhone you are stuck with whatever new decision
| from Apple with no opt-out. That's abnormal.
|
| See, I'd be ok to say that Apple can do whatever they
| want with iOS the day they give me the keys to the boot
| loader. Until then, they'll have to assume their role of
| gatekeeper.
|
| I have no issues with walled gardens as long as you've
| got the key to leave. Here the key to leave is called
| "throw your $1000 phone to buy another".
| ok_dad wrote:
| I don't carry my MacBook around with me everywhere I go,
| though, so it's different.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| For some people in the world the iphone is the only
| general purpose computing device they own, so it is even
| more important that they aren't artificially constrained
| so Apple can milk users with absurd fees while citing
| bogus reasons as justification.
|
| Just look at cases where governments abuse Apple's power
| over users to squash protests and delete important Apps
| from the Appstore. Without competing Appstores users are
| left at the mercy of a trillion dollar company which
| cares about profits and profits only. Not being able to
| freely install apps from any source the owner of the
| computing device prefers is outrageous and we can only
| thank the EU commission for recognizing that.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/768841864/after-china-
| objects...
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| This is basically what an iPad with a keyboard attachment
| is, and iPads sell very well.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| And one of the main reasons why people feel the need to
| upgrade their device to a "real computer" is when the
| users hit those artificial boundaries which they are not
| allowed to bypass.
|
| Which iPad owner ever thinks "oh I wish my iPad were even
| less capable"? Most people are annoyed by its limitations
| but they accept it as a trade off. I personally would use
| my iPad much more if it were as capable & open as a Mac.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's definitely less secure. IMO that's an acceptable
| tradeoff but it's still true that MacOS allows you to
| install potentially harmful software in a way that an
| iPhone doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility
| and all.
| drdaeman wrote:
| The problem is that "less secure" is not exactly meaningful
| without a lot of clarifications.
|
| I'm no security expert, but I know that security is
| certainly not a linear, at the very least it's some multi-
| dimensional thing that's exceptionally hard to generalize.
|
| One system can be more or less secure than another for some
| party or parties, for some particular threat models if you
| can or cannot install certain apps, etc etc. Skipping all
| those bits makes the statement vague, increasing the risk
| of misunderstanding of the implied conditions.
|
| Just a quick example. Installing an app could paradoxically
| make the device simultaneously more and less secure for the
| owner. Let's say it's an advanced firewall app. On the one
| hand it improves the network hygiene, improving the device
| security against its network peers. On the other hand, it
| may help in compromising the device, if someone gains
| access to its control interface and exploits it for
| nefarious purposes.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Objectively, yes.
| procgen wrote:
| It is. That's why I do all of my banking on iOS.
| kbf wrote:
| Yes it is, it just isn't as big of a target for bad actors
| because it's a much less personal device with way fewer
| users.
| grumpyinfosec wrote:
| I don't even let my users have browser extensions without
| them going through the formal review process. Managing the
| proliferation of PWAs (potentially unwanted apps) is one of
| the most unsolvable issues in security. iOS is the gold
| standard for secure mobile computing due to inability to
| support alot of these risky use causes.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > we've removed all features in the name of security
|
| Wow, gold standard for sure. Is this why iOS zero day
| costs less than Android one?
|
| https://zerodium.com/program.html
| mderazon wrote:
| Exactly, this is marketing talk. Pixel is secure, get
| regular updates, lesser target than iphone and in terms
| of privacy can be "hardened" just by going over the
| Google services setting menu and opting out of
| everything. Rest can be achieved by using Firefox (which
| actually runs on Android not like FF on iOS which is a
| shell) with ad blockers and choosing a different search
| engine.
|
| I would argue it's much more secure and more private this
| way
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Of course it's less secure.
| jedimind wrote:
| if you like your prison, that's your thing, you have the
| right to stay in it, just don't force other people to live in
| misery under your preferences when they'd rather live in
| freedom. we also have rules and regulations which decide if
| something is lawful or not, so it's not just about what you
| personally like or not.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I like the iPhone in general but there's a ton of things I
| need to keep an old Android around for, because of
| functionality apple blocks for no good reason: connecting to
| many non approved bluetooth devices, vehicle gauges and other
| useful driving data in carplay, etc.
| vlunkr wrote:
| None of these require allowing alternative app stores. Just
| allowing more apps in. You don't have to use these apps, and
| theres nothing inherently insecure about it.
| epolanski wrote:
| You know that nobody forces you to use features you don't
| want to, right?
| drdaeman wrote:
| > they should just let people jail break the phone and offer
| zero support for it
|
| That would be significantly more fair to the end users than
| the current status quo, if they won't intentionally make
| obstacles for those users.
|
| Obviously, that's not happening.
| astrange wrote:
| Note there could easily be even more obstacles than there
| are. Third party apps like banking apps actually have extra
| jailbreaking checks; first party apps don't, you can still
| watch DRM movies, and afaik it doesn't void the warranty.
| At least not if nobody notices.
| crmd wrote:
| Same here. I use linux VMs and containers for all my
| "hacking" where I need total control and customizability of
| the OS. On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking
| and read emails, I'm willing to trade control and
| customizability for an extremely locked down high trust
| operating environment. I feel like Apple's closed ecosystem,
| despite all its flaws, gets this compromise right.
| paulddraper wrote:
| You don't do banking on a laptop?
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| Not often, no. What's banking in this context mean for
| you? I'm assuming viewing accounts and depositing checks?
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| Exclusively, yes. Except for that second factor
| authentication they forced me to install on my phone
| (without which doing online payments would be a pain). I
| like and trust my Ubuntu laptop.
|
| I do avoid Windows for those things, though.
| astrange wrote:
| Do banks have mobile check deposit on a laptop? I don't
| think mine does.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I'd kill for an Apple-sanctioned way to load Linux VMs on
| my iPad and have them run at full speed. It's got an M1 in
| it, the virtualization hardware is there, Apple just
| doesn't want me using it.
|
| As it currently stands, the options for Linux VMs on an
| iPad are:
|
| - iSH, a Linux kernel ABI compatible user-mode x86 emulator
| that uses threaded code (ROP chains) as a substitute for a
| proper JIT, but doesn't support all x86 applications[0].
|
| - UTM, a port of QEMU that requires JIT (and thus, either
| an external debugger or a jailbreak) to run a full x86 or
| ARM OS.
|
| - UTM SE (Slow Edition), which is UTM but using the
| threaded code technique from iSH, which is not only slower
| than iSH because it runs both kernel and user mode, but
| also got banned from TestFlight before they could even make
| an App Store submission (probably because it can get to a
| desktop while iSH can't).
|
| All of these suck in different ways.
|
| [0] Notably, rustc gives an illegal instruction error and
| mysql crashes trying to do unaligned atomics
| oooyay wrote:
| > I use linux VMs and containers for all my "hacking" where
| I need total control and customizability of the OS
|
| > On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking and
| read emails, I'm willing to trade control and
| customizability for an extremely locked down high trust
| operating environment.
|
| Excuse my French, but uh what? A browser accessing a bank
| in a Linux virtual machine running on bare metal is by far
| more secure than desktop MacOS running on bare metal.
|
| At the end of the day, for the activity you described
| (browsing), what you must be able to defend against is the
| inherent insecurity of the browser. Linux provides all
| manners of process, network, etc isolation via CGroups and
| can be enhanced by SecComp to limit the usage of typical
| exotic syscalls used in kernel exploits.
|
| MacOS has _what_ for that? The best opportunity you have
| for defense is to run qemu so that you can run... Linux.
| The corporation you work for doesn 't use Apple because of
| their stellar security posture, it uses Apple because they
| can buy mobile devices (phones, laptops) preconfigured with
| MDM which saves a lot of money.
| mderazon wrote:
| I don't buy into this narrative. I have a Pixel phone, you
| can do quite a lot of privacy "hardening" just by going
| over the Google settings and turning off a lot of tracking
| (which they were probably forced to put in by regulators).
| The rest you can achieve by using Firefox instead of Chrome
| and choose a different search engine.
|
| I get a lot of hard to solve Google CAPTCHA on many
| websites I visit so I know Google is having a hard time
| tracking me :-)
|
| In terms of security, I don't think Pixel is less secure
| than the iPhone. It gets security updates regularly, Google
| invests a lot in security and I don't think the Pixel has
| more zero days than the iPhone...
|
| So all in all, I don't buy into the "iPhone is more secure
| and handles your privacy better than Android" narrative
| DANmode wrote:
| > offer zero support for it.
|
| If only they had it left it there.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > they should just let people jail break the phone and offer
| zero support for it.
|
| Just let people wipe the phone completely - no drivers, no
| kernel, _nothing_ , and bring their own. That's the proper
| solution to people wanting to own their hardware and do
| whatever they want with it. Want to install a different app
| store/browser/etc? Go for it, start by installing the new
| kernel and drivers.
| paulddraper wrote:
| That is the right way to think about it.
|
| If your walled garden (App Store) is really better, people
| will stay in it voluntarily.
| interactivecode wrote:
| If they would only verify quality and provide safe APIs and
| paths to safely integrate they can have their platform. The
| issue is that they are both managing the plantform and
| (unfairly) participating themselves.
|
| If they had one set of APIs for smartwatches that can be used
| by them for the apple watch and everyone else for their
| smartwatches they wouldn't get sued. But instead they give
| themselves deep integration into the OS and limit everyone
| elses access. When you are one of the only available
| platforms thats not okay.
| Andrex wrote:
| > If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do
| it.
|
| The next generation isn't necessarily choosing, though.
|
| Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone
| due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's
| monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles).
|
| Then, when they're locked into the Apple ecosystem from the
| start, it's almost impossible to break out -- even if you
| grow up into a mature adult that doesn't give a shit about
| bubble colors.
|
| Interoperability (being able to exit an ecosystem without
| massive downsides, specifically) between the only two parties
| in a de facto duopoly is absolutely necessary and morally
| right, and it's a shame market failures force the judiciary
| to intervene. But we are where we are and there's no use
| putting lipstick on a pig -- the system as it stands is
| broken, and if left alone will feed on itself and become even
| more broken.
| Salgat wrote:
| That's the biggest thing, allowing sideloading is 100%
| optional and lets people stay in the walled garden if they
| want. Apple not allowing it is absolutely about suppressing
| competition, which given their >50% market share is a blatant
| abuse of their monopoly.
| ok_dad wrote:
| I can't wait for every data hoarding app (Facebook, Reddit,
| Google) to require sideloading so now we'll have the choice
| to either use Android or Apple when being tracked down to
| granular details.
|
| I want it to be semi onerous to enable apps outside the App
| Store, for this reason.
| pjerem wrote:
| The real question is : is it Apple's role to protect
| people against Facebook or Google ? I mean, if you want
| to be protected against Facebook, just delete the app.
|
| It's the role of regulators to stop data hoarding.
|
| Also this narrative is complete bullshit from Apple since
| those protections never came from App Store's policies
| enforcement but from iOS sandboxing mechanisms which are
| not going to disappear for sideloaded apps.
|
| I'm pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people
| still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing
| process can enforce app behavior while all they've got to
| review is a binary. The App Store reviewing is just there
| to check if you are loyal into Apple.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| > It's the role of regulators to stop data hoarding.
|
| Okay well they can stop Apple's enforcement of their
| tracking policies after they make regulations against
| data hoarding. Not beforehand leaving us with the only
| choices of be tracked or give up on the app entirely when
| we currently have a third option to use apps without
| accurate tracking.
|
| > I'm pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people
| still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing
| process can enforce app behavior while all they've got to
| review is a binary.
|
| You don't need to believe Apple. You can believe all the
| ad companies revenue dropping by 30% for mobile users the
| quarter after Apple rolled out the tracking changes.
| There's a reason all these apps began you to click yes
| before showing the iOS system popup for tracking
| permissions.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Just how it happened on Android! Oh, wait...
| ken47 wrote:
| > I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply
|
| I know some of us like to think of Apple as some kind of
| corporate diety, but even Apple has to answer to the US
| government.
| feyman_r wrote:
| Does this chain of thought apply to any company or just to
| Apple? At what market share does this become a problem in
| your opinion? Or are we assuming that the market is 'free'
| and people wouldn't buy such a device/service because of
| these 'restrictions'?
| covercash wrote:
| I agree with this take. My one concern is it has the
| potential to diminish the entire brand. Even with giant
| warnings about losing warranty/support when installing 3rd
| party app stores or side loading apps, at the end of the day
| the back of the phone has a big Apple logo on it. So when the
| customer fucks it up and Apple refuses to fix it, they'll
| still blame Apple.
| leptons wrote:
| Apple's hardware house of cards might come down if
| developers are allowed to push the devices past what Apple
| allows due to form-over-function design decisions they
| make, and I'm okay with that.
| rustymonday wrote:
| If consumers find that's a problem, then they should be
| willing to pay the 30% premium in the app store.
|
| My guess is that this is not as much of an issue as Apple
| claims, and this 30% premium will not be worth it to the
| consumer.
| gxs wrote:
| Yeah exactly, for some of us this is a feature not a bug. And
| I say this as a customer that also supports open source
| software. Yes it's possible to support both.
|
| Like damn, what if I intend to build this ecosystem from the
| outset, does that mean as soon as it reaches critical mass
| the government is going to come in and dismantle it? It's
| bullshit. This is essentially saying you're not allowed to
| build ecosystems.
|
| Consumer products don't demand the same flexibility in this
| regard that enterprise products do. This is just other
| companies crying that they want a slice of the pie.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want
| apple to change anything about it.
|
| This is basically saying you only use TikTok, Facebook,
| Instagram, YouTube, Spotify, Tinder, Gmail, Google Maps, and
| play zero to some handful of mega huge F2P games.
|
| Why have an App Store at all then? You don't use it. It's an
| installation wizard for you, not a store.
|
| Don't you see? This stuff doesn't interact with restrictions
| at all. The problem with the App Store is that it sucks, not
| that it's restricted.
|
| > making their app store worse
|
| I've heard this take from so many people. It is already as
| bad as it gets. The App Store is an utter disaster. They have
| failed in every aspect to make a thriving ecosystem. It is
| just the absolute largest, hugest, best capitalized, least
| innovative apps and games.
|
| This doesn't have to be the case at all. Look at Steam. Even
| Linux package managers have more diversity with more apps
| that thrive.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Stay within store, nobody forces you to sideload or download
| certain apps.
| hightrix wrote:
| You and I will do this. So will anyone else on HN.
|
| My grandma won't understand the difference. So when she
| gets a text saying, hey install this cool new thing, and
| then gets hacked, these changes will be to blame.
|
| Why can't we have a close ecosystem and an open ecosystem?
| If you want to side load, Android is right there ready for
| you.
| wiseowise wrote:
| How will she install it if it is behind security toggle?
| nox101 wrote:
| The suit is not about user choice between iPhone and Android.
| The suit is about control 60% of the digital market. Sure, a
| user can go buy a different phone. But, an App developer can
| not reasonable not support iPhone given it has 60% of the
| market and apple requires 30% of all digital transactions on
| that market.
|
| I agree people should be able to choose different things. But
| I also agree with the suit, that once someone gets in the
| position to control the market of 1000s and 1000s of
| companies, it's not longer just about user choice in phones.
| It's about the digital goods (apps/subscribtions/IaP) market
| itself.
| dfabulich wrote:
| 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._
| epolanski wrote:
| This is no longer correct I believe at least in the European
| union.
| lucasverra wrote:
| Not the case anymore in EU thx/because DMA (since ios 17.4)
| agust wrote:
| Although Apple now has to allow alternative browsers to
| ship their engines in the EU, they actually set out
| ridiculous conditions for browser vendors to be able to do
| so. Therefore, as of now, none have done it.
|
| This is malicious compliance from Apple to try and make the
| law ineffective.
| Andrex wrote:
| It'll get done sooner than later, that's money just left
| on the table right now for EU browser makers. And the
| enforcement of the DMA correcting Apple's most obvious
| malicious compliance has been swift (backtracking on EU
| PWAs).
| pmarreck wrote:
| Does enforcing a single rendering engine make things like
| Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) possible?
|
| (It's not just a link to a web app on the homepage, it
| can also hold state, receive notifications, and (within
| reason) take over most of the screen.)
|
| https://web.dev/explore/progressive-web-apps
| agust wrote:
| Enforcing a single browser engine is in no way a
| requirement for PWAs, no.
|
| Windows, macOS and Android all support PWAs while also
| allowing them to be run by different browser engines.
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| Arguably, F-Droid is a (Android-only, not possible to make
| such an app on iOS) super app that very much exists in the
| western world.
|
| > Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the
| Apple ecosystem of apps.
|
| To be fair to Apple, both Google and Meta have loads of apps
| for iOS that compare to the Apple suite of apps. Although
| there is definitely a pre-installed advantage for the Apple
| apps.
| lxgr wrote:
| > F-Droid is a (Android-only, not possible to make such an
| app on iOS) super app that very much exists in the western
| world.
|
| I'd call that an app marketplace, not a super app.
| TylerE wrote:
| Then wouldn't the same argument apply to the Apple App
| Store?
| lxgr wrote:
| I think it does. Calling iOS a "super app" seems weird
| and doesn't explain a lot, in my view.
| panarky wrote:
| First, Chrome's rendering engine is Blink. Chromium is not a
| rendering engine, it's the open-source version of Chrome.
|
| Second, third-party browsers use their own rendering engines
| (Gecko, Blink) on MacOS, while iOS only allows WebKit.
| wslh wrote:
| > Note that Apple doesn't allow alternative web browsers on
| iOS,
|
| Nor [embedded] programming languages (e.g. Python).
| eecc wrote:
| That's how Steve Jobs put down Flash.
|
| No, for a a platform to survive, its maintainers need the
| leverage to call out laggards and make them truly sweat and
| work with it. Not just build 10 layers of Cordova fluff
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Your second paragraph is incorrect and is explained why in
| your quote. Apple does allow alternative browsers, it does
| however restrict the rendering engine. Saying there is only
| one browser on iOS is like saying Google Chrome and Microsoft
| Edge are the same browser because they both use chromium.
| scraplab wrote:
| Chromium is open source and both Google and Microsoft do
| whatever they want to it as part of developing their
| browsers. WebKit on iOS is a closed source blob of
| rendering engine and assorted bits that it is not possible
| to deeply extend or alter.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| None of what you said is incorrect.
| mirashii wrote:
| WebKit is also open source. https://webkit.org/
| acchow wrote:
| Yes, you can use open source WebKit to make a browser for
| Windows or Mac.
|
| You cannot for iOS. On iOS, you have to use the WebKit
| framework. Your app will not be compiled with any WebKit
| open source code.
| leptons wrote:
| I see it as Apple allowing a facade around _their browser_.
| You can 't really call Chrome on iOS as "Chrome" if it's
| still just Safari under the hood. It's like putting Ferrari
| body on a 2010 Honda frame. Is it a "Ferrari" or is it
| really a "Honda"?
|
| No, I do not think it's fair to say that Apple allows other
| browsers, and neither does the DOJ.
| acchow wrote:
| People get confused by this because "engine" is being
| used too loosely (to mean totally different things).
| stanac wrote:
| That means I cannot install uBlock origin and other
| extensions on FF, so we can call it one way or the other,
| but it's restricting.
| BashiBazouk wrote:
| You got that right. I have an old basic 6th gen ipad with
| a cracked screen and slowly disappearing battery life but
| I refuse to get a new one until they drop the requirement
| for webkit because the web has become a miserable place
| without ublock. It's amazing that what was once a surfing
| champ has been reduced to almost unusable with all the
| trackers, frameworks, adworks, et. I'm mostly reading
| text, I should not need a super computer.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Blink is the name of the rendering engine, not Chromium.
| dabockster wrote:
| > Saying there is only one browser on iOS is like saying
| Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge are the same browser
| because they both use chromium.
|
| This is the correct take, though. They ARE the same web
| browser, just with different skins.
| acchow wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Chrome and
| Safari on iOS aren't using Webkit because they both use
| the WebKit source and compile it into their browsers...
| They are both using webkit because Chrome offloads
| rendering to a WKWebView. Chrome on iOS is not rendering
| anything at all
| ralmidani wrote:
| Microsoft __chose__ to use Blink, ostensibly because they
| felt that maintaining EdgeHTML was too costly. On iOS, you
| either use WebKit or your browser is technically and
| legally banned.
| acchow wrote:
| > it does however restrict the rendering engine
|
| This isn't a sufficient description. Apple actually
| requires all third-party browsers to use the WebKit
| framework. If they actually allowed browsers to use the
| WebKit engine, then you could make a new browser
| incorporating the open source WebKit engine compiled into
| it. But this is not allowed.
|
| > Saying there is only one browser on iOS is like saying
| Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge are the same browser
| because they both use chromium.
|
| No, Edge and Chrome both use the Chromium engine. They are
| different browsers that incorporate the same engine. Edge
| can do this because Chromium is open source.
|
| But Chrome on iOS doesn't have its own engine at all (not
| even the Webkit engine). It just offloads to the WebKit
| framework.
| eecc wrote:
| That's a specific strategic choice, wanted by Steve Jobs
| himself to maintain leverage on the browser ecosystem.
|
| If Chrome was let loose indiscriminately on any platform, how
| long before it became a Macromedia Flash, hobbling battery
| life and performance on whatever platform didn't align to
| Alphabet's strategy?
|
| Also, how long before Alphabet began prime-timing Android,
| leaving Apple versions trailing months of not years behind,
| and restoring the "Works best on IE" experience of the '00s?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| That is stretching the definition of a browser. Superapps
| enable all the miniapps in them to access the same user data,
| the history of app interactions (e.g., message history,
| shopping history), and to integrate closely. Webapps are
| nowhere close to that.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| My 2 cents:
|
| 1 - Might have an argument there.
|
| 2 - OK, but only if the user is willing to accept the security
| risk to their apps, Apple and non-Apple. Apple has an interest
| in keeping the apps they create, or sell for others, secure but
| should bear no responsibility if a third-party fails to keep to
| the same standard.
|
| 3 - OK. I personally kind of like it because I am a bad person,
| but OK.
|
| 4 - Aren't most of them behind Apple's watches, anyway? I don't
| have an issue with Apple Watch not being compatible with
| Android - while Apple shouldn't prevent a third-party (see 2
| above) from creating a bridge, they should, in no way, be
| forced to do it themselves.
|
| 5 - (see 2 above) And I don't have an issue with Apple torquing
| the nuts of banks - the banks do the same to us. And yes, it's
| my money they're taking from banks, but the banks don't like
| that, so ... I'm gonna call that one a tie.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| The NYT article is making the case look weaker than it really
| is, especially for armchair lawyers.
|
| You can read the full document but of course very few of us
| would do that.
|
| Instead, I think this Youtube video of the US Attorney General
| is giving a good summary of the case.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6JycDyYj4
| mikepurvis wrote:
| All of these look important to me, but I've been particularly
| frustrated recently by the smartwatch issue. I've been a Fitbit
| user for several years and briefly tried an Apple Watch before
| returning it and resume Fitbit use-- I had a few issues with
| the Apple Watch, most notably around battery life. But that
| brief experience showed me really starkly how much Apple is
| able to lock out third parties from doing things that their own
| stuff can do trivially by hooking right into private operating
| system APIs:
|
| - Apple Watch can directly use your credit cards without
| needing to separately add them to Fitbit/Google Pay.
|
| - Apple Watch can "find my" your phone, whereas Fitbit's
| version of this is limited to just making it beep, and even
| that only works if the phone is running the Fitbit app in the
| background (which it often isn't).
|
| - Apple Watch can stream data to the phone all the time,
| whereas Fitbit relies on the app being opened, meaning your
| morning sleep data isn't available immediately since opening
| the app (to look at it) just enables it to begin transferring.
|
| - Apple Watch can unlock itself when your phone unlocks.
|
| - Apple Watch gets much richer notification integration.
|
| And yeah, you can argue that all of this is optional "extra"
| stuff that is just Apple's prerogative to take advantage of as
| the platform holder, and maybe that's so to some degree... but
| these little things _do_ add up. Particularly when Apple doesn
| 't even have a device that competes with Fitbit, it feels
| unfair that they shouldn't be made to open up all the APIs
| necessary for this kind of interoperability.
| Aloisius wrote:
| I don't see Messaging interoperability of the iMessage protocol
| in the complaint.
|
| I see:
|
| * third-party apps not being able to send/receive carrier
| messages (SMS)
|
| * only Messages getting background running
|
| * blue/green colored bubbles.
|
| The background running thing is a bit of a surprise. If you had
| asked me, I'd have said iMessages didn't run in the background
| given it's load delay for new messages.
| lxgr wrote:
| Yeah, iMessage completely craps out when sending messages
| without signal. A red dot and manual "retry now" button? What
| is this? ICQ in 1995?
|
| WhatsApp _on iOS_ does a much better job, ironically (it just
| sends all queued outgoing messages once connectivity is back
| in the background, like every email client did back in dialup
| days).
| LastTrain wrote:
| They probably could have avoided all this if they'd caved on
| messaging interop.
| kristjansson wrote:
| > Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay
|
| 15 basis points (0.15%) from the issuing bank on something that
| _undoubtably_ increases tx volume and associated interchange
| revenue. Sure, the issuing banks would like tx volume for
| absolutely free. Sure, DOJ should argue the point on NFC
| access. But 15bp from the party that's making more money on a
| service that's free and beneficial for {consumer, merchant,
| card network} just seems like good business.
| Fgyu0909 wrote:
| Thanks this simplifies things a lot.
| standardUser wrote:
| > 3. Messaging interoperability
|
| The richest company in the world is purposefully generating
| social and psychology stress for young people so they can edge
| up their market share just a little bit more. In a just world,
| people would be imprisoned over this.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| The one area I have concerns about is superapps. I'm of the
| opinion that user experience is better when an app does one
| thing and does it well. WeChat and Facebook as platforms or
| just a digital variant of platform lock-ins.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| This is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. They missed the
| one actual example of Apple abusing its ownership in one
| industry (the OS) to then give itself a monopoly over another
| industry (app stores/app store fees).
| kemayo wrote:
| > Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the
| Apple ecosystem of apps.
|
| ...if that counts, is the suit claiming that they somehow don't
| let other developers have multiple related apps? Because it
| seems that something like Meta's suite of apps (Facebook,
| Instagram, Threads) that all share login data and suchlike
| should qualify if "the Apple ecosystem of apps" does.
| Menu_Overview wrote:
| Thats for the writeup. I tend to agree with most of those,
| although the "super app" things is weird to me...I don't like
| the idea of "super apps" because it is hard for the user to
| share only the minimal permissions.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Most of this sounds like the DOJ doesn't understand the tech at
| all.
|
| iMessage is an Apple service, created as a way to provide
| additional value to people on Apple platforms so that they
| aren't limited by SMS. The DOJ argument appears to be "oh, you
| made a better mousetrap, and now you have to let people outside
| your platform use it." Why? What's the rational argument there?
|
| They then extend that argument to the watch, which is just
| bananas. It's designed to work with one set of platforms. The
| tightly coupled nature of Watch/Phone/Mac provides benefits,
| but Apple is never going to open the technical kimono up to
| Samsung (e.g.) watches to use the same hooks, and they
| shouldn't be required to do so.
| KorematsuFredt wrote:
| None of these arguments are very satisfactory to me as a
| consumer and this appears to be more Mafia like behaviour than
| a genuine concern for market based competition.
| tristan957 wrote:
| Are you an Apple customer currently?
| wiseowise wrote:
| How so?
| synergy20 wrote:
| Apple is the old Microsoft but much worse. WinTel PC was so
| much more open comparing to Apple.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| > 3. Messaging interoperability
|
| > 4. Smartwatches [interoperability]
|
| Where do you draw the line on forcing interoperability?
|
| This is kind of like (in-person) movie theaters.
|
| Movie theaters don't allow you to bring your own food, you have
| to buy their food/drink.
|
| Why should a movie theater be forced to allow patrons bring
| their own food?
|
| Why should Apple be forced to allow it's patrons to brining
| competitive things to their business?
|
| Note: I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity. Not to
| troll/stir-the-pot.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Even better analogies:
|
| - Should the government force marketplaces to allow competing
| marketplaces to set up shop within their area, collect fees,
| but not pay any fees to the larger market?
|
| - Should the government make laws to require restaurants to
| allow competing chefs to bring a hot plate and start cooking
| food at the tables and serve them to their customers?
|
| - Should Google be forced by the government to include
| support for formats in Android that are used by Apple such a
| HEIF and HEIC? What about Microsoft and Linux?
|
| These rules are _not_ about individual choice or freedom.
| This is about giant corporations using the government to give
| them a way into the walled garden built by a competing mega
| corporation. This is completely self-serving and in no shape,
| way, or form serves the common good.
|
| As an iPhone user I do _not_ want government interference in
| a market place that has been kept mostly free of malware
| precisely because it keeps out the riff-raff. I want the
| hucksters and the scammers blocked. I really don 't care if
| they scream "unfair!" at the top of their lungs from outside
| of the fence.
|
| Similarly, general SMS messaging is a cesspit of unceasing
| spam precisely because it is so interoperable. Because Apple
| keeps out garbage devices with zero security, I've seen
| precisely zero iMessage spam in the last decade. I got a spam
| SMS in the last hour. I'll get several more today.
| bezier-curve wrote:
| > I do not want government interference in a market place
|
| This is just not the world we live in. The Play store is
| also malware-free, and yet you can sideload apps on Android
| phones.
| wiseowise wrote:
| Even better: no stupid analogies and just talk about topic
| at hand.
|
| > Should Google be forced by the government to include
| support for formats in Android that are used by Apple such
| a HEIF and HEIC? What about Microsoft and Linux?
|
| Yes, please.
|
| > As an iPhone user I do not want government interference
| in a market place that has been kept mostly free of malware
| precisely because it keeps out the riff-raff.
|
| Citation needed.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| > Yes, please.
|
| Those are patented formats. This would make Android no
| longer open source in the truly free software sense.
|
| Are you sure you want this kind of precedent on the
| books?
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| I presume the question is about impact: At Apple's scale,
| restricting competition has a very broad impact on the
| economy. In contrast, a movie theater not allowing outside
| food is probably not reducing all that much food-related
| competition in aggregate.
|
| I don't think there's a good real-world "venue/food" analogy.
| However, hypothetically: Imagine if half of all
| homes/apartments were controlled by the same company and they
| also happened to be the largest food producer. They then
| decided to limit what food could be brought into your home,
| saying "We have the safest food, so you can only buy our
| food." Now, they might even be right that their food is the
| safest, but the market impact would be significant enough to
| warrant anti-trust action.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Let's say that a movie theatre chain becomes very
| successful by selling high-quality food instead of stale
| popcorn laden with artificial butter flavoring. They also
| curate movies and refuse to screen low-brow garbage pushed
| out by the studios. The customers love the good movies and
| good food, so this chain slowly takes over the market,
| nearly, but not quite, to a level of monopoly. You can
| still go to competing theatres, but the seats will be
| sticky, the food will clog your arteries, and you won't
| enjoy the movie.
|
| So you're saying in this situation the government should
| step in and force the successful chain with _standards_ to
| allow competing movie theatres, junk food sellers, and low-
| budget movie producers to sell their wares in their
| theatres?
|
| That's literally what's happening with these moves against
| Apple.
|
| The peddlers of crap are upset that they're locked out of a
| well-managed market frequented by discerning customers.
|
| That's it.
| allturtles wrote:
| No, that's a totally different analogy. The point is the
| impact of their market power other people who want to
| sell _food_ , not other people who want to sell _movies_.
| Apple controls a very large share of the app market; no
| movie theater, however successful, controls a significant
| part of the food market.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| They 100% control the food sold inside their theatres!
| It's their shop, they can decide what's sold in it.
|
| People have a choice: it's called Android.
|
| I don't see why a private company that isn't a monopoly
| should be forced to open up their proprietary products to
| direct competitors.
|
| This is a very slippery slope and the people advocating
| for it in the case of Apple will be screaming about how
| unfair it is for the government to get involved when it
| happens to them.
|
| Let's say you have a successful startup selling something
| like an API marketplace.
|
| One day the government says: It's unfair to MalwareAPI Co
| that you lock them out of the market and require a fee.
| You now have to let them sell their viruses to your
| customers and you don't even get a cut.
|
| Would you make the same arguments? Why not?
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| You seem pretty certain of your opinion, so I doubt
| anything I can say will sway you.
|
| Nonetheless, it isn't an issue of "quality" or
| "discerning customers". A company can earn market-share
| by providing a better product (or a worse product at a
| lower price) and that's fine.
|
| The issue is when that company uses their market
| dominance to limit competition. Then it becomes an anti-
| trust issue. Movie theaters aren't a good analogy since
| they're far less central to our day-to-day lives, and
| therefore will have less overall impact on the economy.
| Nonetheless, imagine your dominant chain makes deals with
| film producers to prevent their competition from
| screening popular movies. This prevents the other chains
| from competing, even if they wanted to.
| crabmusket wrote:
| That analogy breaks down when you look at the state of
| Safari on iOS. Even ignoring the features of the browser
| itself, the way its version is tied to the OS version
| causes tons of support issues for our customers.
| yeeeloit wrote:
| I always wonder why safari doesn't get more attention in these
| sorts of claims against apple.
| onethought wrote:
| 1. Seems odd, given WeChat is on iOS... the example you used is
| literally a counterpoint for the allegation.
|
| 3. Messages do interop. But it'd be hilarious if the US created
| some kind of precedent where everything has to work on
| everything.
|
| 4. Samsung, and Google both fall into this trap, where more
| functionality is available between like devices.
|
| 5. So when my Amex isn't accepted, that's Visa or Mastercard
| restricting APIs - and causing lock in right?
|
| These strange legal cases are odd to me. If we think these
| large tech conglomerates should be regulated, then write laws
| for them, don't use the court system to muck things up for no
| reason.
| siggen wrote:
| Did they mention copying photos from your phone to a PC via
| USB? This is intentionally crippled and such an unpleasant
| experience in comparison to the experience if you have a Mac,
| for me at least.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39781722
| al_borland wrote:
| One of the big reasons I buy into the Apple ecosystem is for
| that next level of first-party interoperability. It works far
| better than any collection of more open systems I've even
| seen/used.
|
| I don't use Apple in spite of this, I use it because of this.
| Trying to support everything will likely lead to a worse
| experience for everyone in a multi-device world.
|
| Apple is a hardware company making their own software to run
| that hardware, much like a game console. It seems like many of
| the criticisms here could be adapted and applied to Nintendo,
| Xbox, and PlayStation. Why can't my PS VR work with my Xbox...
| it's a Sony monopoly /s
|
| There are areas where I think Apple can improve, such as right
| to repair and reliability in general. But it seems like some of
| what these governments are trying to kill is the very reason
| some people went to Apple in the first place. That doesn't lead
| to more choice, it leads to less choice... as the government
| tries to turn iOS into an Android clone. Kind of odd that Apple
| is being told to act more like the platform that has the lead
| in global market share.
| TheGRS wrote:
| I remember how Apple Watch wouldn't let you download podcasts
| or songs on Spotify. Apparently they changed that to allow some
| recently, but that change did get me to switch to the Apple
| Podcast app for awhile, which I feel like is inferior.
| tecoholic wrote:
| I am sure each of these items are a pain for a different sets
| of people. The most irritating one for someone who moved
| recently is: NFC lock down.
|
| Like my Xiaomi phone was able to store any card I wanted and do
| a Tap to Pay, but I have to use Apple Pay and I can't do that
| because my region is locked to somewhere Apple Pay isn't a
| thing. Here in Melbourne even public transport is affected by
| this. The local myki transport cards can be digitally carried
| on an Android phone but not an iPhone.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Thanks for the summary. My "Open Apple" wishlist includes:
|
| * Allowing alternate web browser implementations, including
| alternate Javascript and WebAssembly implementations.
|
| * Which would include third party developer access to the
| memory allocation/permissions API used for JIT compilers. Make
| iOS a first class ARM development OS. Please.
|
| Perhaps removing restrictions to general APIs for competitive
| apps and "Super apps" would implicitly include those changes?
|
| Interesting that this doesn't address Apple's iOS "taxation" of
| tangential non-web transactions, or the lack of App Store
| alternatives. If Apple has monopoly power, those seem like
| suitable concerns.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| 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.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| That isn't a tax. It is a cost. In the same way you
| probably don't look at the overhead a clothing store puts
| on every pair of jeans you buy. You don't have to buy those
| jeans from that store, but you should realize that every
| store has a "tax" on clothes they carry.
|
| Apple isn't abusing its ecosystem if users prefer it. I
| don't follow this logic on your second point.
| blashyrk wrote:
| It is absolutely a tax. The "cost" you pay upfront, the
| hundred dollar annual membership cost. Though even that
| could be considered a tax and not a "cost", because
| without it you can't even write software and deploy it on
| your own devices.
| vessenes wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| nulld3v wrote:
| > You realize that when you add appstores like Cydia to
| an iphone that you immediately open them up into gaping
| security holes right?
|
| Then this is an OS sandboxing issue, not an App Store
| issue. The only difference between an app store and a
| regular app is the app store is permitted to install
| other apps. This extra permission should not introduce
| any security flaws if sandboxing is working properly.
| e44858 wrote:
| Blame Apple for that. They require you to disable
| security by jailbreaking your phone in order to install
| Cydia. On Android you can easily install other appstores
| while keeping security intact.
|
| If you don't want other app stores, just deploy an MDM
| profile that bans them.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > 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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is
| why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. The "well
| they sell it at a loss" argument is not persuasive. That's
| Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's choice as a business, it's not the
| government's role to make their loss-leader business model
| possible.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| Regulations come into place when there's consumer harm, and
| consumers have TONS of choices in regards to games.
|
| The vast majority of the library on Xbox/PS is cross
| platform. PC gamers are enjoying their vast Steam library and
| there's plenty of Switch clones that can handle everything
| from AAA gaming to indy titles.
|
| Also the largest gaming market is on mobile phones _by far_.
| So here we are with this antitrust suit.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| What a waste of everyone's money.
| visarga wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| 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
| shuckles wrote:
| 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!)
| shudza wrote:
| Looks like someone important didn't like that Apple placed a
| blatant backdoor in their CPUs.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| e44858 wrote:
| If RCS is so bad, then maybe Apple can work with Google to
| design a better protocol.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Why? People are free to download hundreds of apps to talk
| to each other. The Signal protocol is so widely adopted.
| Matrix is a well designed protocol. Why should Apple and
| Google be the ones dictating messaging protocols.
| shuckles wrote:
| 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.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| US Attorney General Merrick Garland discussing the suit live
| here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqKbl0vWzaU
| bedros wrote:
| can someone explain how different is the iphone ecosystem anti-
| competitive practices vs sony playstation ecosystem?
| pvg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| asadotzler wrote:
| a few hundred million users vs about 7 billion users tells you
| a few things, among them which is that game consoles don't
| effing matter one bit and smartphones are a necessity for
| modern life. do you not even think before posting stuff like
| this?
| davidham wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gmm1990 wrote:
| 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.
| Topfi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Is there any upside to consumers to this restriction?
| pbourke wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| stale2002 wrote:
| > t's 0.15% for cc and 0.5 pennies for debit cards.
|
| So in other words, it's not 0%. Apple takes a cut.
|
| Instead, it should be 0%.
|
| That's how consumers would benefit. If it were 0%.
|
| > The fee is paid by card issuers
|
| This is a point addressed by any introductory economics
| class in high school.
|
| It's called tax incidence.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| And once you get into grad school they teach that those
| nice little graphs you drew in high school and undergrad
| were simplifications of the real world, and whether costs
| are passed on or not is very dependent on the specifics
| of the market. And then you hit the real world and
| realize, it's even more complex again when the costs are
| felt for some subset of transactions and not others,
| there are multiple parties to a transaction, etc etc.
|
| Often, a high school education is not enough.
| stale2002 wrote:
| So then they found a magic way of inventing free money
| that conjures money from thin air, without any costs
| being passed down, according to you.
|
| If they figured that out, then why not set the price to 1
| million dollars per transaction?
|
| Zero percent of the costs aren't passed down according to
| you.
|
| With the extra tax revenue from this magic money machine,
| we could solve the national debt problem overnight!
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Yes, exactly. Free money from the sky is exactly it.
|
| It's definitely not coming out of card issuers pockets,
| from their fat interchange fees, that they may be happy
| to pay due to reduced fraud and other costs. Nope, the
| free sky money thing is it.
|
| That high school education is serving well.
| Topfi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| No no, peace of mind has no value. Just ask the big
| brains at the DOJ. Safety, peace of mind, convenience -
| these are zero value items. Only choice matters.
| smoldesu wrote:
| For your safety, I hope the government is looking out for
| you.
| pbourke wrote:
| I don't know what you're referring to. Trust is a
| fundamental part of security. Without trust you need to
| be ever vigilant in an ever expanding set of domains and
| technologies, or you have to shrink your vulnerability
| surface area down to something that you can at all times
| personally comprehend and manage. This will not work for
| 99.99% of the population.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If you pry up the pavement on the way to hell, you'll
| find good intentions underneath. Trust whoever you want,
| but don't turn around and make claims you're unwilling to
| defend. The security Apple offers is far from
| unconditional - the plethora of iPhone-related data leaks
| is a dead horse well-beaten on this site.
|
| For your safety, I hope the government looks out for you.
| Because nobody else is going to do _your_ due diligence,
| evidently not even yourself.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| You imply Apple isn't a better choice than the android
| ecosystem(s) with respect to safety/security/privacy
| (because you reply to the comment that this appears to be
| the case). This is, at least on the surface, not the
| general perception. But given you talk so much about
| doing due diligence, I assume you have some insight as to
| why Apple isn't the better choice on these dimensions?
|
| I'm genuinely all ears, because this has not been my
| observation, but I've never done and in-depth study of
| the matter.
| smoldesu wrote:
| You're all good. It's been a few months since I've
| written one of these comments out entirely, so I'll give
| you the rundown:
|
| - Android is Open Source. Google itself is a ghoulish
| company nowadays, few people are wrong in assuming that.
| For all of iOS' security taglines though, you can't build
| it yourself and create a further-hardened version.
| "Features" like Apple routing traffic around your VPN
| cannot be un-programmed. This doesn't _necessarily_ make
| Android a better OS, but it absolutely enables better
| overall privacy and proves that a better ideal is
| realistic. I don 't personally hold Google in high
| regards security-wise, but the AOSP has nothing to hide.
| You can go see for yourself.
|
| - Apple's software can't be trusted. You're correct that
| consumers have to make a choice about trust when
| selecting hardware, but I see no evidence that Apple's
| approach is working. Their services turn over personally-
| identifying data to governments by the ten-thousands, and
| in countries like China your iCloud server lives in a
| CCP-owned facility. Apple does nothing to resist obvious
| government censorship ploys, and is indeed a decade-old
| member of America's PRISM program. Without any
| transparency holding Apple accountable, you really have
| to hold on the question - can you _trust_ them?
|
| - Neither Google nor Apple make good OSes, in part
| because neither one is motivated to compete with the
| other. Google treats Android as a technology dumping
| ground and a defacto unifying platform for their various
| hairbrained hardware endeavors. Apple treats iOS like
| Hotel California. Both companies have found a niche in
| ignoring each other, and Apple has used it as an excuse
| to pursue business strategies Google could never dream
| of. It's a threat to the market no matter how either of
| us feel about it.
|
| The DOJ put it best, this morning: "Apple deploys privacy
| and security justifications as an elastic shield that can
| stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and
| business interests."
| Topfi wrote:
| Ok, that is fair and there can be a difference in opinion
| between making such choices more based on subjective
| opinion and personal feeling vs. basing that mainly on
| evidence and I do not want to dismiss the former. I
| understand that the convenience and peace of mind of a
| solution one trusts have value, and I do not discount
| those facts, even if I take a different approach to this
| situation, digging into White papers and whatnot, partly
| for enjoyment and personal interest. I can even recommend
| the Apple Platform Security Guide [0]. It's quite a good
| read, actually.
|
| But no one would force you or anyone else to leave that
| Apple ecosystem you hold in high regard. There would
| simply be more opportunity for alternatives that, if they
| are well implemented, may even provide such a robust
| product for such a long time that even devoting little
| energy to the decision on security grounds may make it
| more appealing than Apples. Or maybe some feature, such
| as the one I described for accessing banking institutions
| after office hours, might make such an impact on your
| situation, that you become more open to those additional
| choices. And if not, again, you may stick with Apple all
| the same.
|
| [0] https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-
| platform-sec...
| pbourke wrote:
| > But no one would force you or anyone else to leave that
| Apple ecosystem you hold in high regard. There would
| simply be more opportunity for alternatives
|
| "Opportunity for alternatives" is not free. There will be
| a trade off to enabling it, and my perception is that
| it'll negatively affect those who are happy with the
| status quo.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If the current trade-off is considered anticompetitive,
| there may be enough incentive to create a new model. Bell
| telephone offered free long distance calls on their
| network, the happiness of their customers didn't protect
| them when regulators started questioning how competitive
| Bell's strategy was.
|
| Maybe it _will_ negatively affect those who are happy
| with the status quo. That has no bearing on the
| righteousness of a person or company 's actions,
| especially if they're in a position to deny competitors
| market access.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| It has bearing on whether a case should be brought. The
| goal of antitrust legislation in the US has been largely
| to protect consumers. It's slightly more gray than that,
| but by and large that's the goal.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| With respect, this second part is so dependent on "well
| implemented" and a party acting in good faith (ie not
| being a scam) that it's basically a worthless argument.
| amf12 wrote:
| > Security.
|
| Why do you think a banks NFC payment app might not be
| secure? If ios is a platform then another NFC app could
| be as secure. Regardless, users should be given a choice.
| You can continue using Apple Wallet app, some other users
| might prefer other apps.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| The concern is bad actors - that some random app (not
| your bank) gets access to NFC.
|
| Choice isn't always good. Especially where consumers
| don't really understand all the implications. My mom
| doesn't benefit from choice here, she is actively harmed
| by it, she knows it, she uses Apple to avoid it.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Because apple sold the phones. It's not their phones
| anymore. It's the consumers' phones.
| davidham wrote:
| (Thank you for the reply by the way, I didn't know that about
| the 0.15%!)
| samatman wrote:
| Visa and Mastercard both charge a fee for operating a payment
| network. Apple does as well.
| padthai wrote:
| Nobody cares about them operating payment network. They
| care about them blocking other companies to do so.
| mcfedr wrote:
| 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.
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| I worked as a contractor for a company offering a mobile
| payment solution in central europe. They were able to
| negotiate, with some weighty backing, an app entitlement that
| prevents Apple Pay from popping up when the phone is held
| close to an NFC-enabled payment terminal while the app is
| open. Just saying that there are ways, but they're not open
| to everyone.
| sf_rob wrote:
| I find it somewhat entertaining that the press conference, and
| to a lesser extent the brief, argues that giving 3rd party dev
| access to Wallet functionality would result in a more security
| for the user. I don't always trust monoliths (might be the
| wrong word?) but I trust Apple Wallet integrations more than
| anything my bank would try to roll out.
|
| I'm fine with the claim of more competition and more privacy
| (although I'm not particularly worried about Apple here).
| smashah wrote:
| Great next they should sue Meta and Whatsapp for anticompetitive
| and monopolistic practices
| multimoon wrote:
| 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.
| dgellow wrote:
| 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
| choxi wrote:
| Or Google or Amazon, how are those not way more blatant
| antitrust targets?
| jvolkman wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Amazon
| codemonkeysh wrote:
| U.S. Government - "Hey Apple, can you stop selling so many phones
| because you're now becoming a monopoly; although there's
| Android."
| hermannj314 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| modeless wrote:
| 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.
| aabajian wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lvl102 wrote:
| That's not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking,
| you would not be able to prove there's economic harm.
| Apple's share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT's
| share of PC back in 90/00s.
| kelnos wrote:
| Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of
| interpretations over the long history of its existence,
| and I think your characterization of it is incorrect,
| even under today's recent interpretations.
|
| This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is
| bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a
| monopoly position via market share is not a necessary
| condition for that to happen.
| lvl102 wrote:
| How were consumers harmed from iMessage? Apple doesn't
| stop people from downloading Whatsapp and hundreds of
| other communication apps. The only semi-valid argument
| they have is the app store. And even that is 10-20%
| chance considering Apple's market share. Even though this
| is DoJ, this is all a part of Lina Khan's naive crusade
| against NATURAL monopolies. Just because she doesn't
| understand economics and how the real world operates in
| 2024.
| tristan957 wrote:
| I am a consumer that was harmed just this week because I
| wasn't added to a group chat of only iPhone users because
| I have an Android device.
| shuckles wrote:
| My guess is even if iMessage bubbles were green, the sheer
| horribleness of SMS would still make communicating with Android
| a second class experience in a way everyone found frustrating.
| Sure RCS might make that better (I'm skeptical -- standards
| support in the Android ecosystem is very inconsistent and
| varying in quality), but it's a decade late. The basic argument
| is: Apple can't make anything better for iPhone users until
| they can make it a standard for every mobile computing platform
| and competing service provider. About as absurd as it sounds.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >Sure RCS might make that better (I'm skeptical -- standards
| support in the Android ecosystem is very inconsistent and
| varying in quality)
|
| Maybe, but my old mom and her old Huawei phone works with
| zero problems with my brand new OnePlus and whatever mix of
| phones her friends have. All of them on RCS. The only one
| that has a problem is a friend with an iPhone that cannot
| receive images in the size everyone else shares them in. No-
| one here uses zuckerware - it is all SMS (IE. all RCS except
| for the few that likes old style Nokias so they get it as a
| SMS).
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| The blue background isn't lock-in -- it's branding and fashion.
| It's labeling the in-group and the out-group. The cool kids
| with their Nike shoes and the kids who got their shoes from
| Payless Shoe Store. The Abercrombie & Fitch wearing kids vs
| Costco or Walmart wearing kids.
|
| The sooner it can be learned that a symbol on a shoe is ...
| kind of a silly status symbol, the better. Same with blue
| background or blue check mark.
| kelnos wrote:
| I fear that's a losing battle. Forming cliques seems to be
| basic human behavior. It's not so much about the status
| symbol itself, as it's about being able to "other" people for
| whatever reason du jour.
|
| This seems especially true for children, who lack the
| maturity to judge social interaction less superficially. Not
| saying adults are immune to this sort of thing, of course.
| tamirzb wrote:
| > 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 find it amusing that in 2024 people in the US still talk
| about WhatsApp as a future step. Where I'm from already 10+
| years ago every single person you know would have a WhatsApp
| account.
|
| With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is
| pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really
| only the US is behind here.
| svachalek wrote:
| These are all available in the US but it sounds like you have
| the same problem we do. There are way too many of them and
| they aren't compatible.
| skrebbel wrote:
| In most countries one of these is the one everybody uses,
| and it works on every phone. In the US, the country is
| split, mostly by economic class, between people on iMessage
| and "the rest".
|
| I'm not saying "whatsapp is effectively a monopoly in
| $country" is great, but it's better than the US situation.
| You can buy a $50 phone and use the ubiquitous messaging
| app.
| ripdog wrote:
| I live in NZ, there's no standard here. It's damned
| annoying. I've heard that Facebook Messenger is the most
| popular, but I only know one person who uses it and I
| don't have an account myself.
| xgl5k wrote:
| In the US there is only iMessage and regular SMS. SMS is
| interoperable with iMessage. People are just making a
| much bigger deal about the green bubbles than they
| should.
| drstewart wrote:
| >I'm not saying "whatsapp is effectively a monopoly in
| $country" is great, but it's better than the US
| situation.
|
| Ah, so it's better to have a monopoly than not have a
| monopoly?
|
| Also, what are your thoughts on the "US situation" given
| that the US is suing Apple for having a monopoly
| (literally the headline of the article)? Sounds like the
| rest of the world.
|
| Can I ask why the rest of the world, particularly the EU,
| which is supposedly so "pro-consumer", isn't breaking up
| these monopolies held by billion dollar corporations in
| their countries?
| Andrex wrote:
| I hope WhatsApp is the past and RCS is the future.
|
| Insane to me the amount of WhatsApp evangelism I read on this
| site. Sure, let's trade international protocols for
| Zuckerware. What could go wrong?
|
| SMS/RCS are flawed but can be improved. Advocating instead
| for Meta-produced software is irresponsible and reckless IMO.
| oezi wrote:
| > WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram
|
| These are not good options to have secure and private
| communication.
|
| Signal and Threema should be the choices given.
| fsflover wrote:
| Also Matrix.
| barbazoo wrote:
| It's interesting that two actually secure apps were missing
| from that list
| mettamage wrote:
| Except for all the US people that keep in touch with
| Europeans! Source: me (a European) that has a GF in the US.
| They all get converted to WhatsApp :')
| rkagerer wrote:
| Could also say it was 'solved' 30 years ago with ICQ (OK, I
| know it was centralized and insecure, but from a strictly
| user-experience perspective I honestly liked it better than
| anything that came since) or maybe 35 years ago with IRC.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I find it amusing that in 2024 people in the US still talk
| about WhatsApp as a future step.
|
| One person said that. Almost nobody I know has any interest
| in WhatsApp. The infatuation with putting all of your
| messaging into Facebook's hands is a European thing. What I
| don't understand at all is why Europeans think Facebook is
| superior to Apple.
|
| > With WhatsApp, LINE, WeChat, Telegram etc. I think this is
| pretty much a solved problem in the rest of the world, really
| only the US is behind here.
|
| I have a hard time believing that having multiple chat apps
| is any kind of solution to the problem. The nice thing about
| iMessage in the US is that it covers about 90% of everyone I
| talk to. Right out of the box, no asking what ecosystem
| someone else is using, it _just works_. And if I 'm talking
| to someone who does not have iMessage ... it still just
| works, albeit with fewer features.
|
| I heartily disagree that Europe or the rest of the world has
| a better system. Best would be if every phone from every
| manufacturer supported a modern protocol equivalent to
| iMessage or Google's proprietary RCS. Until then, iMessage in
| the US is the closest things to universal modern messaging.
| sevagh wrote:
| >The nice thing about iMessage in the US is that it covers
| about 90% of everyone I talk to.
|
| You are literally the caricature the OP is railing against.
|
| "How gullible are Americans that they think Apple invented
| messaging?"
|
| two posts down
|
| "I'm not gonna use Europoor trash, only iMessage or bust"
| aednichols wrote:
| It seems like DOJ might force Apple to make separate "SMS" and
| "iMessage" apps, and perhaps forbid preinstalling iMessage so
| users have to download it from the App Store when they get a
| new phone (giving it equal footing with its competitors). This
| would diffuse the claim that iOS is downgrading Android users
| within the same app.
| kelnos wrote:
| I would prefer they just require Apple implement RCS (which
| they've already agreed to do), and -- crucially -- require
| feature parity with Android's RCS implementation. Which means
| standardizing Google's proprietary E2EE extension, and
| implementing that as well.
|
| While I'd prefer being able to install a standalone Android
| iMessage app over the current situation, I really don't need
| or want another chat app.
| Andrex wrote:
| The only open question (in my mind) is if Google's E2EE
| extension is intrinsically tied to Jibe. If it wasn't
| designed to eventually become part of the RCS standard, it
| could be real messy trying to open it up after the fact
| while remaining security.
| aalimov_ wrote:
| Apple is adopting the Universal profile. If GSMA wants to
| add E2EE to that profile then they should. I believe that
| there was some talk of Apple working with GSMA to add or
| improve encryption on that profile. AFAIK rcs is licensed
| out to OEMs and so there are a number of different
| implementations around. In my opinion it would be better
| for all if there was a secure standard in place - for all
| to adopt - instead of hoping that everyone works with
| google to try to get googles proprietary implementation
| working.
| aednichols wrote:
| I'm sure RCS messages would stay green though, so it's less
| than clear that your proposal addresses the alleged social
| lock-in.
| SllX wrote:
| The DOJ can't really force Apple to do anything here without
| a consent decree, and with the case they just filed I'll be
| surprised if they even get that much. Although, who knows,
| maybe a New Jersey district court will be a friendlier
| jurisdiction for this spaghetti case.
| AnonHP wrote:
| > 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.
|
| There's the Messages app and the iMessage protocol -- two
| different things. How would Apple allow messages from Android
| that are not SMS? That's by adding RCS support, which is coming
| later this year. It still won't have end to end encryption
| (like the iMessage protocol does) because Apple isn't going to
| support (as of now) the proprietary and closed extensions
| Google has developed for RCS. Any Android message that comes
| over the data network will have to have some sort of
| encryption. Otherwise SMS is just fine, as it is today.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _How would Apple allow messages from Android that are not
| SMS?_
|
| Quite easily: by releasing a standalone iMessage app on
| Android. The Beeper folks have shown this of course can be
| done (even if Apple doesn't like it and blocks them).
|
| Doing this would certainly be orders of magnitude easier than
| implementing RCS. It's quite telling that Apple still wants
| to maintain iMessage as iOS-only. And if Apple doesn't work
| with Google to implement the E2EE extension (assuming Google
| is reasonable about it), that tells us all we need to know
| (and should have already known): Apple doesn't actually care
| about their users and user privacy. They just care about
| their market position and "prestige", and want to maintain
| these silly "class divisions".
| aalimov_ wrote:
| > The Beeper folks have shown this of course can be done
| (even if Apple doesn't like it and blocks them).
|
| They hacked together a solution that "quite easily" exposed
| your private comms to them..
|
| > It's quite telling that Apple still wants to maintain
| iMessage as iOS-only.
|
| Also iMessage also works on macs and ipads, Apple Watches,
| and maybe Vision Pro (haven't looked)
|
| > And if Apple doesn't work with Google to implement the
| E2EE extension (assuming Google is reasonable about it),
| that tells us all we need to know
|
| Apple is implementing the Universal profile. Instead of
| forcing companies to rely on google, GSMA can improve that
| profile.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > They hacked together a solution that "quite easily"
| exposed your private comms to them..
|
| Beeper Cloud did (does?), but Beeper Mini did not! It was
| all on device, nothing was relayed through Beeper's
| servers.
| Dah00n wrote:
| >It still won't have end to end encryption (like the iMessage
| protocol does)
|
| If Apple can access it in any way (which they can) then it is
| not real E2EE.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| What I want to know is how there's any legal basis to compel
| any business to implement and service specific, arbitrary
| software features. It would be one thing if there were a law
| that mandated a class of messaging apps interoperate on a
| certain standard if they use certain regulated communication
| networks. But "Apple messages must implement interoperability
| with Android messages" feels very hamfisted as an expression of
| that, and doesn't strike me as legally defensible.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure it is. Anti-trust law gives the government (assuming
| they prevail in court) broad authority to require that a
| specific company take specific, tailored actions that the
| government believes will make it so the company can't abuse
| its market position to harm consumers anymore.
|
| There's a long history of this, with Microsoft being a fairly
| recent, famous example.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| I think you're responding to a more basic question than I
| posed. I think I made it clear I understand the government
| can compel actions...
|
| > that the government believes will make it so the company
| can't abuse its market position to harm consumers anymore
|
| ... and that I don't believe "Apple must support Android
| messages" _is that_.
|
| Since you mention Microsoft, I think it would be equally
| indefensible if the government had ordered "Microsoft must
| create a Windows Subsystem for Linux" as a remedy for their
| market abuse. Or a much closer analogy, "Microsoft must
| create a Windows Subsystem for Macintosh".
|
| I would find it much more compelling if the order were
| something like "Microsoft must maintain stable interfaces
| for Linux and/or Macintosh vendors to produce a functioning
| Windows Subsystem". But it seems pretty absurd to me that
| the government could just mandate arbitrary labor on
| arbitrary products on behalf of their competitors.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _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._
|
| The thing is, I think it's perfectly fine, reasonable, and
| _correct_ to have a disdain for SMS. The problem is that people
| transfer this disdain onto anyone they are "forced" to
| communicate with over SMS.
|
| > _I think the long-term sequalae of the blue-green message is
| to push people to use stand-alone apps..._
|
| Defaults matter. The friction to using iMessage on a brand-new
| iPhone is zero: it's right there, front and center, and doesn't
| require anyone to download anything new or confer with family
| and friends to figure out what the "right" other messaging
| platform is.
|
| > _... like WhatsApp and FB Messenger_
|
| Oof, no thanks. I'd rather not be pushed toward using messaging
| apps owned by a company known to do shady things with user
| data. I've managed to get a few friends and group chats off
| those platforms and onto something else, but unfortunately
| there are still a few on them that I don't want to just cut
| ties with.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| The annoying thing about any other messaging service except SMS
| is that if you're out in BFE, as long as you can _ping_ a
| tower, you can get a message out ... or in.
| danaris wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This is, always has been, and will always remain bullshit.
|
| The problem isn't the blue vs green background. It would be the
| same if the backgrounds were purple and gold, red and gray, or
| just both blue.
|
| The problem is the _different capabilities_ between SMS and
| iMessage. And because those capabilities are different, it is
| _useful and productive_ to communicate that in a clear, but
| unobtrusive way--like making their message bubbles different
| colors.
|
| Apple doesn't control the featureset of SMS.
| harkinian wrote:
| It's not artificial. SMS is terrible on its own, and that's
| none of Apple's fault. It's not like Android users are getting
| together and happily having SMS/RCS group chats.
| dimator wrote:
| > It's not artificial. SMS is terrible on its own, and that's
| none of Apple's fault. It's not like Android users are
| getting together and happily having SMS/RCS group chats.
|
| What? RCS is a real thing that works between Android users.
| It is Apple's choice to not support (or contribute to it or
| improve the standard) it because it locks people in and
| creates a very cozy, very real in-group sentiment.
| harkinian wrote:
| RCS doesn't work well in practice. Android group chats
| happen on WhatsApp, not on RCS.
| Drew_ wrote:
| RCS works pretty well and no, my Android group chats
| don't happen on WhatsApp.
| Dah00n wrote:
| What? Even my old mom uses RCS with zero problems. It is
| a solved problem and Apple is dragging their feet exactly
| because of this.
| sircastor wrote:
| I think the problem is uniformity in social groups.
| Everyone who has an iPhone gets iMessage and it's a
| seamless experience because it's the messaging app you
| have on the phone. Google was so poorly organized over
| its messaging solution that it couldn't push anything by
| default. Even if your social group is made up of a bunch
| of Android users, they all have the messaging app they
| want to use: WhatsApp, Hangouts, Telegram, Signal, etc.
| Very few people are willing to change because they have
| their own network of people who have decided on their
| preference.
|
| RCS is a good idea (sort of), but it's too late. I
| suspect that Apple moving to Support RCS will make very
| little difference in terms of messaging solutions, when
| all is said and done.
| maest wrote:
| > that person will limit the messaging functionality
|
| Don't have an iPhone -- what functionality do they limit?
| msdrigg wrote:
| - reacting to messages/replying to messages
|
| - sending messages over data (obviously)
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It falls back to plain ol SMS/MMS. So any features newer than
| 2008 or so.
| samstave wrote:
| Agree, but its also more importantly the (...) bubbles that
| people have become addicted to. Green doesnt show that.
|
| So when you see (...) and then it goes away and comes back a
| bunch of times - peoples fear and anxieties project into that
| (...) -- and its that fear dopamine that people are addicted to
| wrt to gree/blue...
|
| where people are annoyed at green when they basically send a
| UDP txt - whereas blue is a TCP txt, so to speak...
| consultSKI wrote:
| Maybe this will get Tim Cook's attention?
|
| P.S. Tim, you have gone to far. Even if you win the case.
| #justSayin
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Who knew the US would try to destroy their biggest export market
| pquki4 wrote:
| 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.
| thiago_fm wrote:
| 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.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| 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.
| Glant wrote:
| Talking things out and changing the laws went so well in the
| EU.
| ben7799 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| amf12 wrote:
| > and could fix a lot of the things iPhone users don't like
| about Android if they wanted to.
|
| What are those? And even if they were fixed, how would people
| move if Apple makes it so difficult to leave the ecosystem?
| MR4D wrote:
| Some other sources about this:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/us-justic...
|
| https://www.investors.com/research/apple-stock-warren-buffet...
|
| https://www.tipranks.com/news/tech-titans-unite-with-epic-ga...
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doj-sues-apple-for-iphone-...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-antitrust-lawsuit-16066694
| coolliquidcode wrote:
| Cool. Now do google, amazon, fb, Verizon, att, chevron, exxon,
| gp, oracle, microsoft, etc.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Directly from the source, much better than the NYT paper.
|
| https://twitter.com/i/status/1770844623562547394
| amshukla wrote:
| 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.
| sneak wrote:
| I wrote this essay about Apple's anti-consumer practices in 2019:
|
| https://sneak.berlin/20190330/apple-is-not-trying-to-screw-y...
|
| It seems especially relevant given today's news.
| skeptrune wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| And besides making you feeling good, how does it benefits
| anyone?
| asow92 wrote:
| Alternate coverage without a paywall
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/21/appl...
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| 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.
| Draiken wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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.
| jupp0r wrote:
| "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.
| asadotzler wrote:
| And if I want to be a wallet provider on iOS and compete with
| Apple Wallet, what then, big brain?
| jupp0r wrote:
| Antitrust law is there to protect consumers, not your
| business model.
|
| As a consumer, I don't want to have to use 23 different
| wallet apps on my phone but am happy to have one secure
| implementation that's easy to use. You could argue that Apple
| Pay imposes lots of processing fees that will raise prices
| for consumers as vendors pass on processing fees to consumers
| and that prices would be lower if there was more competition,
| but I highly doubt this is the case in reality as Apple Pay
| processing fees are the same as regular payment processor
| fees for merchants.
| asow92 wrote:
| 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!
| luxuryballs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They are not regulating computers, they are regulating markets.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| 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.
| asadotzler wrote:
| If you think computers get a special opt out from anti-
| trust checkbox, you should work for the Trump people.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Have a real discussion. No one is suggesting an opt-out.
| The suggestion is for regulators to understand the
| markets they regulate.
|
| And, Trump is just as clueless and big tech bashing for
| political gain as Biden.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| If you think the regulators understand nothing about
| computers, operating systems, app markets, privacy, and
| security, then I'd say you should go get a nice
| consulting gig with the DoJ because clearly you are more
| informed and insightful than even their most senior
| resources.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Pedantically, the regulators on this actually work at
| FTC, not DoJ. DoJ's role is certain aspects of
| enforcement, not regulation.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Half the people on hacker news are more informed and
| insightful than ftc/doj in this domain. They are
| clueless. And they don't pay well. Half the people here
| would be taking a pay cut to get involved with them.
| sircastor wrote:
| 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.
| bbarn wrote:
| 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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?
| bogwog wrote:
| It's been a very long time since I've used a Windows Phone,
| but the way I remember it they were just doing the same
| thing Apple and Google did with the Microsoft
| Store/whatever it was called. I don't remember if they
| allowed side loading, but if they did I bet it required you
| to enable "developer mode" or something like that, just
| like Google. I doubt an attempt to create anything that
| competes with them on their own platform would've survived.
| jupp0r wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gregorygoc wrote:
| 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.
| jupp0r wrote:
| "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
| vs dealing with 500 different buggy implementations.
| ursuscamp wrote:
| 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.
| stolsvik wrote:
| As an iPhone user: Fantastic. I so hope Apple looses hard.
| fnord77 wrote:
| "apple is making too much money, so let's loot them"
| mbgerring wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Are you sure the password manager is using all the APIs
| available to it? I use 1Password and it feels extremely well
| integrated.
| khazhoux wrote:
| 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.
| SaintSeiya wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Microsoft was forced to split? I thought they only had to
| ensure that competing browsers would run on Windows.
| badgersnake wrote:
| I guess all that Google lobbying cash finally paid off.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| Can we stop feeding paywalled websites with free traffic? Does HN
| encourage me to create a paid account with NYTimes?
| hgs3 wrote:
| 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.
| mrkeen wrote:
| > Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive
| laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size
| criteria?
|
| I've skimmed past a number of comments that say that Apple
| isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have a large enough share
| of the market. So is the DoJ too early or too late on this one?
|
| Anyway, it shouldn't be about the size of the company, just how
| they act.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they
| grow beyond a certain size criteria
|
| That's not proactive, that's just reactive to different
| indicators.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses
|
| I only partially agree. If you kill all big businesses your
| country will no longer be able to compete with outsiders in
| industries where economies of scale matter. A few examples:
| cars, computer chips, cloud computing. This in turn means a lot
| of jobs and talent will go elsewhere.
|
| In the US during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis I had some
| pretty strong opinions about banks. Is there any justification
| for having a mammoth bank that is "too big to fail"? (Serious
| question.)
|
| Approaching "too big to fail" status might be a good marker for
| when a corporate entity needs to be split. We should not be
| beholden to oversized companies.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| 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 .
| fundad wrote:
| Do you think? Is it in their financial and business interest to
| differentiate their product and keep working at it? I wonder if
| that's expensive
| kelnos wrote:
| The sarcasm isn't really necessary. I think most of us would
| prefer to live in a world where the capitalist mentality
| didn't trump all other considerations. It's actually possible
| for a company like Apple to be laser-focused on privacy and
| giving their users the best possible options, and still make
| a more-than-healthy profit margin.
|
| Hell, with Apple's cash hoard, they could afford to _give_
| iPhones away for at least a couple years without much
| trouble. I 'm not saying companies should be obligated to do
| crazy things like this once they have "enough" money, but I
| think it illustrates that there's no inherent reason why many
| companies _need_ to take any particular action that increases
| revenue, regardless of the consequences.
|
| Apple's long-standing culture of secrecy and exclusivity is
| the problem, really.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| 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.
| pksebben wrote:
| 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".
| gigatexal wrote:
| Get the popcorn. This is gonna be good. It's more or less tying
| or US v Microsoft no?
| tagyro wrote:
| Maybe off-topic but it's really funny to read the mental
| gymnastics of John Gruber at Daringfireball.
|
| A week ago, the European Commission had something with Apple, now
| the US DOJ ...one might think that Apple really is doing
| something.
|
| To quote Francis Urquhart [the original
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Urquhart]: "You might very
| well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"
| ein0p wrote:
| Makes me wonder what's really going on. I don't believe for a
| second this has anything to do with "antitrust" after watching
| Garland's presser - they're stretching the truth pretty bad and
| the language is along the lines of "they're making too much
| money". Like OK, what does the "GDP of countries" have to do with
| anything? I thought this is America and making a shit ton of
| money is legal here.
| gigel82 wrote:
| This is not enough. It's good, but definitely not enough.
| zackmorris wrote:
| This makes me wonder who Apple ticked off at the DOJ, because it
| would be interesting to follow that money trail and see where
| their lobbying broke down. That's the chink in the armor of all
| these too-big-to-fail companies, and how we the people reclaim
| our power.
|
| But the real point that HN commenters seem to be missing is that
| the Apple we grew up with hasn't existed for a long time. They
| abandoned their charter decades ago. Which was originally to
| bring the power of computing to everyone, especially children, to
| liberate us all from Big Brother and the limits on creativity
| handed down to us by megacorps like IBM, Microsoft and now
| Amazon.
|
| I can't list everything that Apple has down wrong that caused me
| to stop endorsing them. But I can provide at least a start of a
| vision of what a real Apple would look like with today's
| technology and expertise. A real Apple would: *
| Strive to reduce the cost of technology through innovation and
| economies of scale. * Sell user-serviceable hardware with
| interchangeable parts and conveniences like no-tools battery
| replacement. * Use its vast access to capital and resources
| to innovate, rather than dump its R&D costs onto early adopters
| with stuff like VR headsets and "high end" computers costing 2-10
| times the market rate. * Sell value-added services and
| leverage proven technologies like BitTorrent to provide users
| searchable access to every kind of media ever created, rather
| than bowing to the RIAA/MPAA and creating walled gardens like
| iTunes and yet another streaming service in Apple TV that locks
| users into a proprietary vendor providing limited usability.
| * Build handhelds with P2P wireless technology that "just works",
| the way early Kindle had free cellular access, to negate the
| monopoly power of 5G. * Empower users with real
| revolutionary technologies such as highly multicore processors,
| auto-scaling CPU clusters and parallelized functional programming
| languages, not just halfhearted evolutionary proprietary
| solutions like M1 and Metal which mostly just copy other
| monopolies like Nvidia. * Fund and maintain open source
| software ecosystems instead of endlessly deprecating previously
| working frameworks with no backwards compatibility or migration
| tools, to skim even more profit at tremendous expense to
| developers. * Encourage a developer-first mindset by
| providing up-to-date documentation instead of expired links and a
| drink-the-kool-aid mindset comprised of cookie cutter proprietary
| frameworks handed down from on high by middle managers and
| designers. * Stand up to authoritarianism by selling its
| products unmodified in foreign markets, rather than weakening
| encryption or bowing to censorship like Twitter/X did for China
| and India at the people's expense. * Pay the wealth forward
| into grants, trusts and UBI instead of hoarding an almost $3
| trillion market cap that only benefits people of means who can
| afford to buy AAPL stock and sell it short for almost guaranteed
| profit at times like this.
|
| I could go on.. forever. I'm just so tired of everything that I'm
| not sure I can even endorse tech as a whole anymore, since this
| seems to be what always happens. I wish we could erase everything
| that happened after the Dot Bomb around the year 2000 and start
| over on a new timeline. Built and funded by us directly as free
| agents the way we always dreamed of, instead of pulling the yoke
| for an owner class whose only contribution is access to capital
| it vacuumed up from the rest of us through everything from
| gentrification to regulatory capture.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Apple'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 Android 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."
|
| This attitude explains a lot. This logic applies to every app
| that's available on both iPhone and Android, and to every web
| app.
| skeaker wrote:
| This behavior is so overt that I am constantly baffled that
| otherwise rational people continue to make up excuses for
| Apple. See also this article where they overtly state that the
| green bubble thing is deliberately intended to cause lock-in:
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
|
| I have been called a "violent criminal" on this very site
| because I criticized Apple's decision to remotely brick swapped
| components to prevent DIY repairs. I do not understand what it
| is about Apple that causes this behavior in people when they
| make it so, so, so obvious that they are just trying to lock
| people in for cash.
| munchler wrote:
| "Locking people in for cash" is a common business practice in
| tech and other industries. Try mounting a Nikon lens on a
| Canon camera, for example. You might not like it, but I'm not
| sure why Apple deserves special condemnation in this regard.
| ragazzina wrote:
| There's little you can do with a camera, even if you're
| able to swap lenses from another vendor. There are infinite
| things you could do with a modern smartphone if had access
| to it.
| munchler wrote:
| So because phones are useful, lock-in should be
| prohibited? I don't think that's how the law reads.
| Should we also prevent lock-in for car parts, because
| there are infinite places to go in cars?
| skeaker wrote:
| > Try mounting a Nikon lens on a Canon camera, for example.
| You might not like it,
|
| Right, I don't. Things like these not being standardized
| when it would be so easy for them to be just so that one
| provider can make a little extra money selling their own
| peripherals is scummy and I would love to see it stopped.
| Apple does this, Nikon does this, both can either fix it or
| burn.
|
| Also, what exactly is your point? That you admit Apple is
| doing anti-competitive things to lock customers in, just
| that you don't care?
| rpmisms wrote:
| But if you buy an e-mount camera, you can adapt damn near
| any lens.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| You can buy an android. It's not hard. You can eliminate all
| your problems. The solution exists. I do find any further
| argument temping when not only can you buy an Android, you
| can buy a cheaper phone that does all the same things.
|
| I do not angry when I use Netflix and the program I wanna
| watch is on Hulu. I do not complain to Hulu. They offer a
| app/website and I can buy it that very day. You can, this
| very day, buy an Android
|
| I wish everything good was free too and I only had one app
| and one computer OS and didn't have to choose between car
| brands too but that's not Reality
| greycol wrote:
| How does buying an android fix the issues surrounding the
| green bubble? How does buying an android let you use an
| apple watch? How does buying an android fix all the cross
| dependencies of super apps that would be utilised between
| android and iphones?
|
| To fix the apple issue in the US you don't need to buy 1
| android phone you need to buy 175 million of them (and, to
| apple's credit, not the cheaper ones if you want to match
| apple performance)... or you could enforce the law to
| curtail the more aggregious of apple's anti-competitive
| behaviours.
| skeaker wrote:
| I do use an Android. Doesn't mean I can't point out
| glaringly obvious issues across the pond. Apple's decisions
| affect me regardless:
|
| - If I develop an app and want to port it to an Apple
| device, I need to spend a ton of money on devices from
| their ecosystem to do so or else I miss out on their whole
| market.
|
| - Members of my close family use iPhones and will ask me
| for help with things like getting videos off of them. Lock-
| in features like iCloud make it extraordinarily difficult
| and prevents them from getting an Android without leaving
| their things behind.
|
| - Apple has enough market pull that if they do something
| user-hostile for money and walk away unpunished legally,
| others in the market tend to copy them. See the headphone
| jack issue and how Samsung and Google have dropped it.
|
| - When my family sends me videos over text they look
| terrible. It's a small thing, but considering that the
| Beeper Mini thing revealed how easy it would be for Apple
| to just not actively break iMessage solutions, it's pretty
| annoying.
|
| Being able to use your own software on your own device is
| not a fantasyland, it is the default for most devices.
| Apple is a standout exception and it is insane to me that
| Apple users will shrug that off with "well, that's just
| reality," because it clearly isn't. It is a conscious
| decision by Apple to block you from owning your device and
| you are rolling over and taking it.
| Dah00n wrote:
| What an asinine comment. What you are basically saying is
| to buy an iPhone to use with friends that use iPhone and
| then buy an Android to use with friends that have an
| Android phone _or_ that you pick your friends based on
| their phone.
|
| Because you cannot have only one of them and not either
| have a problem or cause a problem for others. So which of
| those are you? The one that cause problems?
| epolanski wrote:
| The number of people opposing these changes in this thread
| because "it will make their walled garden experience worse"
| without being able to bring up a single valid reason why would
| that be is astonishing.
| dogleash wrote:
| Apple is such boring stagnant soulless void, I don't know why
| people wouldn't want it chopped up just to see the component
| parts trying to innovate again.
|
| What have they done in the last few years? Minor incremental
| updates to existing products, release another screen-strapped-
| to-face product years late to the party while also failing to
| figure out what to do in the software space to justify the
| device, and started issuing credit cards because they needed to
| branch out from just getting a cut of all sales that happen on-
| platform.
| data-ottawa wrote:
| My one fear for this is the leverage it gives large tech
| companies.
|
| What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to
| download their own app store to use their apps? We kind of see
| this on PC already with every company having their own game or
| app store.
|
| When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search,
| what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web
| monopoly?
|
| It's not totally fair that Apple gives themselves special
| permissions and blocks competitors, or forces the prices they
| do from devs who would otherwise sell their apps through their
| website, but is that the lesser of two evils?
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't see how any of the things you describe is necessarily
| a bad thing for users.
|
| And if other large tech companies (as if Apple wasn't one of
| the biggest monopolies itself) have to be broken down, so be
| it. I too consider companies like Google way too big.
|
| But as a user, and a small developer, I have more pressing
| issues with the iOS ecosystem than "what ifs" about Google.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you
| to download their own app store to use their apps?
|
| Like Apple does now, except for every app.
|
| > We kind of see this on PC already with every company having
| their own game or app store.
|
| No we don't. Those are fringe and mostly unsuccessful. And
| even then, those companies should not have to pay 30% of
| their revenue to steam, so fuck that.
|
| > When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search,
| what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web
| monopoly?
|
| Forcing everyone to use Safari is a web monopoly.
| alickz wrote:
| in my experience it often boils down to: "won't somebody think
| of my elderly relatives"
|
| as if iOS prevents them from being scammed or giving away
| sensitive info in a meaningful way that macOS does not
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| > The government even has the right to ask for a breakup...
|
| I really dislike statements like this. They could _ask_ even
| without the "right to ask."
|
| Having the "right to ask" doesn't guarantee the request will be
| honored.
|
| How does this "right to ask for a breakup" actually affect the
| story?
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I don't know about the legal situation here but I welcome every
| effort to slow down these super mega corporations. They kill a
| lot of innovation with their market power. I think we would be
| way better off if we had many smaller companies. When was the
| last time something truly innovative came from Apple, Google or
| MS? They either buy a little innovation or suppress it.
| standardUser wrote:
| The way Apple purposefully aims to ostracize young people who
| don't own/can't afford an iPhone by defaulting to a proprietary,
| non-interoperable messaging system has been enough to turn me
| entirely against the company.
| summerlight wrote:
| I wonder what would be Apple's reaction to this case. They've
| been publicly provoking EU since none of the available options
| can be an existential threat to Apple thanks to its jurisdiction.
| Even kicking them off the EU market would be very hard and
| politically infeasible actions.
|
| But the US is different. They actually have the power to do
| whatever they want, from small fines to breaking up. It's much
| more of existential threat to Apple and they probably don't want
| to piss off those prosecutors and politicians too much?
| djbelieny wrote:
| Ok, I understand this may be an unpopular stance and risk
| downvotes. However, I want to share my perspective on government
| intervention in business, particularly regarding anti-monopoly
| actions against companies with proprietary ecosystems.
|
| Firstly, I'm no fan of monopolies. Yet, I'm conflicted about the
| idea of the government compelling anyone to divulge trade secrets
| or alter their services to simply foster competition, especially
| when the company in question has opted to create an ecosystem of
| products and services designed to be exclusive. For example,
| Apple's iMessage doesn't integrate with other platforms, and its
| smartphones are optimized for its ecosystem.
|
| As consumers, we're aware of these limitations and have the
| "freedom" to choose products that better suit our needs instead.
| Labeling a company as a monopoly simply because its products
| don't play well with others overlooks the investment and
| innovation behind their development. After all, it's Apple's
| technology, infrastructure, and service on the line.
|
| Why should these companies be forced to share or open their
| ecosystems? While there are valid arguments for promoting
| interoperability and open technology, the idea of mandating
| companies to share their proprietary advancements seems to
| contradict the essence of free enterprise. Should they then be
| compelled to 'open up' their infrastructure against their will?
| waltbosz wrote:
| Thought experiment: how would the world respond if Apple decided
| to go full Atlas Shrugged and just closed their business? Turned
| off all their servers, closed all the Apple stores, fired
| everyone, etc.
| mutatio wrote:
| What are you trying to convey, something along the lines that
| we should be grateful?
|
| I suspect unless they destroyed everything the gov would force
| them open, after all their products and services have layers
| upon layers of service agreements, SLAs etc.
| ragazzina wrote:
| How would you respond if Apple started requiring access to all
| your data to let you keep using your phone? Reading the thread,
| many people would probably still defend them.
| burgessuk wrote:
| Is it Coincidence Apple just allowed EU to install 3rd party
| apps?
|
| Personally I think Apple should never have allowed EU to
| infiltrate its devices /Apples software.
|
| I always looked at an iPhone, like an Xbox, or PlayStation;
| locked down device; you have to use the brands own controllers,
| own App Store. There's no way Microsoft/Sony would allow EU 3rd
| stores on their devices? I didn't think Apple would either & that
| looks to have come back & bitten them!?
| Andrex wrote:
| Finally.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Next up: suing Sony for having a Playstation monopoly, and suing
| Tesla for having a Tesla monopoly.
| nvarsj wrote:
| It has a lot to do with scale. There are 5 million Teslas.
| There are 2 billion iPhones. If Tesla had 60%+ of the car
| market and engaged in anti competitive/trust-like behaviour, it
| would also be ripe for action.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Totally procedural, but...
|
| I wonder how they select a venue for these cases. Looks like it's
| being heard in New Jersey, even though the California attorney
| general is on board.
|
| Since Apple is based in California, it seems like the case ought
| to default to being heard there. Would suck if you were a smaller
| company and had to pay to fly your legal team to wherever whim
| the DOJ selected, for however long a case takes to hear.
| jtotheh wrote:
| A big part of what makes a phone platform competitive is the apps
| for it. In the Netscape/ie days, Netscape ran on many platforms
| and made the underlying OS less important.this led to Microsoft
| going to great lengths to make windows/ie a walled garden. I saw
| this in working developing intranet apps. Things that "just
| worked " on windows/ie didn't work for Mac/linux/unix users. The
| "super app" part of this lawsuit seems to me to describe a sort
| of layer that allows smaller apps --- "mini programs"-- to
| program to that layer instead of to android/ios, and makes the
| app the same on either OS. It seems apple is being
| anticompetitive in its actions to prevent this.its sort of like
| QT letting you have one code base for various os's. I think apple
| can try and make the native apps for iOS be better through
| innovation, but anticompetitive behavior is not ok.
|
| From page 29 of the lawsuit: "Apple did not respond to the risk
| that super apps might disrupt its monopoly by innovating.
| Instead, Apple exerted its control over app distribution to
| stifle others' innovation. Apple created, strategically
| broadened, and aggressively enforced its App Store Guidelines to
| effectively block apps from hosting mini programs. Apple's
| conduct disincentivized investments in mini program development
| and caused U.S. companies to abandon or limit support for the
| technology in the United States."
|
| If apple has capabilities on iPhones that androids don't have,
| then native iOS apps that use them will be more desirable . That
| would be beneficial competition. If apple makes it hard to write
| cross platform lowest common denominator apps, that is
| anticompetitive.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Apple has removed competitors apps and taken their markets in the
| past. They are not a neutral party, and the weights of public
| interest must be to sustain open markets. It is good for
| everyone, it's unfortunate Apple has to be forced to do it but
| they only did it to themselves.
| pmarreck wrote:
| People think iMessage has entrenched iOS but what's actually
| happened is that iMessage has entrenched the POTS phone number
| system, which is (frankly) unregulated shit.
|
| You can actually iMessage people with just an email address, but
| in practice I don't think anyone actually does that since you
| can't also call them by that identifier (but now you can use any
| number of services to call digitally while skipping POTS phone
| numbers entirely)
| browningstreet wrote:
| Irony alert:
|
| "YouTube TV rolling out Multiview on iPhone and iPad; Android 'in
| the coming months'"
|
| https://9to5google.com/2024/03/20/youtube-tv-multiview-iphon...
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| my mental analogy is this.
|
| Say someone produces a reading chair. Now say the company desires
| to restrict, shape or dictate which books one is allowed to read
| while sitting in the chair.
|
| One could argue they should have such rights but historically it
| is quite unusual.
|
| Similarly, if you pay for the chair and put it in your home it is
| tempting to think you've purchased it and that you own and
| control it.
|
| The tos could state that the company may at nay time introduce a
| monthly fee, render the chair unusable or force you to return it
| without providing a reason.
|
| They may revoke the unisex version and force the user to choose a
| sex or limit the license to a single user.
|
| It could introduce tools to measure the weight of the user and
| use that to determine a violation of the single user agreement.
|
| A popular book vendor might require you own one of their
| competing reading chairs and disallow reading in other chairs.
|
| The company building the house can also grant it self all kinds
| of privileges. You must buy compatible appliances. They can put
| some weird connectors on them with some drm logic. np
|
| The only reason not to have such possibly wonderful eco systems
| imho is that we already have hundreds of thousands of laws and
| regulations.
|
| If we are to use and make products it should be as simple as
| possible. Using your weight to check if you are the registered
| user is not the point to start fixing it. The law should simply
| state that chair and subscription are separate products.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| I don't think this analogy works because you could have bought
| the competing chair - which proponents of loudly claim is
| better than the Apple chair - and gotten similar service. As a
| matter of fact I'm told the competing chair is much better, and
| not only that it's cheaper! And I'm an idiot for buying the
| Apple chair
|
| Buy the competing chair. This is not a monopoly.
| shmerl wrote:
| Good. It's hilarious how Apple complains that it "threatens our
| core practices". If their core practices are based on anti-
| competitive behavior (and they are), they should be totally
| threatened.
|
| I want to see ban on competing browsers being mentioned in this
| case.
| apatheticonion wrote:
| Wow I am surprised to see this coming from the US. Though this is
| just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to actions the
| government could take to empower competition/innovation in the
| space. I wonder how far they will go?
|
| Right to repair? Unlocked boot loaders? Driver schematics?
|
| After seeing the EU crack down on monopolistic practices, I'm
| starting to feel hopeful that we might one day see competition,
| choice and innovation return to the modern computers.
| kovacs_x wrote:
| apple should simply allow to replace ios with Android or Linux on
| iphone (without any support obviously) for those who "feel
| restricted" and let them have it.. for all the remaining let us
| keep using Apples walled garden on apples terms (i like having
| good night sleep knowing that my family members wont fck up their
| phones, get hacked or their data be used for profit by google, fb
| and any other "competitor").
| kovacs_x wrote:
| Whats interesting that most of iphone users i know (eastern
| europe), doesnt use iMessage at all or only for sms type of
| messaging only and for rich messaging we use whatsapp, messenger,
| telegram, signal, slack, discord, viber (?) and my almost first /
| only question question over sms (imessage) always is- do you have
| whatsapp?
|
| apparently its different in states.
| Kerbonut wrote:
| Next do power tools manufacturers for purposefully making
| incompatible battery packs and printer manufacturers for
| incompatible ink cartridges.
| kovacs_x wrote:
| so.. based of these claims by US government, would it be good and
| required for Apple to give full access to users data, financials,
| health and everything-else-data to say Huaweii smartwatch?
| nakedrobot2 wrote:
| if you paid for the phone and the watch and they belong to you,
| then yes, of course.
| kovacs_x wrote:
| I'm not sure you get the reference here.. it's not about what
| you want or not, but how US government feels about certain
| (chinese) company.
| ddxv wrote:
| I wish they took Apple to task for "privacy" SKAN which forces
| everyone to let Apple run a blackbox advertising.
| mikhael28 wrote:
| Man, it must be tough to work in Apple's legal department.
| devaiops9001 wrote:
| An iPhone should be like a Macbook.
|
| A user should be able to load a cryptographic key to the
| bootloader and boot any OS of their choosing. I'm kind of more on
| the extreme "Free Market" way of thinking, but even I think that
| government should step in and force an iPhone to be like a
| Macbook in this way.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This seems like such a waste of time for the Justice Department.
| Despite what we may think about Apple's walled garden, the case
| for consumer harm is very limited. There are only so many anti-
| trust cases they can pursue, and I don't know why they aren't
| digging into things that clearly damage consumers.
|
| For example CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts control
| 80% of the consumer drug market as PBMs. CVS Caremark controls
| 1/3 of the market and that control definitely drives up prices
| and bottlenecks drug availability. You can also easily identify
| how delays with PBM adversely effect patient outcomes.
|
| Why did it take a person injury lawyer to finally take on the
| national association of realtors on fees?
|
| One could go on at length.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| > The Justice Department has the right under the law to ask for
| structural changes to Apple's business -- including a breakup,
| said an agency official
|
| Sometimes neoliberalism feels like it's gaslighting us, like am I
| really supposed to believe this is going to lead to any
| substantial change? That this ideology isn't completely
| delusional?
| gavmor wrote:
| I'd like to see them chastised/regulated for their
| anticompetitive browser policies which cripple PWAs and web
| technologies in general. I was truly thrilled to hear about this
| month's UK and European legislation on the matter.[0]
|
| 0. Interview with Alex & James Moore, founding members of the
| Open Web Advocacy (OWA) --
| https://pca.st/episode/62ae3300-16e1-47bb-af24-759c980ba671
| kmbfjr wrote:
| There is a lot to complain about Apple's business practices, but
| the fact that the green bubble rage has turned into an
| interoperability monopoly case is laughable.
|
| How much did that one set back Google after their ADHD killed off
| how many messaging platforms?
|
| Fine, open it up, open them all up. Give me sliders to deny
| messages from SMS, Whatsapp and anyone else looking for
| compatibility. Same in the other direction, allow users to choose
| from which originating platform they'll accept messages.
|
| As far as the rest, yeah, Apple needs an adjustment. I should not
| have to pay to run my own app on my own phone. But I do.
| gwenwiener wrote:
| This comment is an experiment to test the website's error
| prevention methods
| ArthurAardvark wrote:
| Of all the goliaths and titans of industry...Apple....really?
| Perhaps its a matter of applicable laws/cases...but why not
| Amazon, Google and Microsoft? They have their tentacles in every
| direction, I consider that sort of broad-spectrum corporation to
| be the worst kind. It is not even similar sectors in the case of
| Amazon (well there are plenty of Google subsidies without the
| "Google" brand on it) which I find more frightening but hey, I
| welcome our new corporate overlords!
| jmholla wrote:
| > but why not Amazon, Google and Microsoft?
|
| I'm pretty sure the DOJ is going after them as well. This suit
| is just about Apple.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Yes, Apple and Google have what we call super app capability on
| their own phones. However unless or until mobile OS permissions
| structures can grant permissions at a sub app level, I think it's
| good that random Joe schmo, or worse, someone like meta, cannot
| make a combination banking-messaging - social credit - maps
| application that insists on total phone access all the time.
| camdenlock wrote:
| This is some EU-smelling shite.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-21 23:00 UTC)