The US Department of Justice accuses Apple of having an illegal monopoly over smartphones

[Lunar River]

4 hours ago, Dominik W said:

Apple said the lawsuit, if successful, would “hinder our ability to create the kind of income people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services are locked down, because fuck you, we know better and would “set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s black rectangles.”

“At Apple, we innovate every day to make money we love — designing products that work to make money, protect our cheque book and securities, and create a magical experience for our bank accounts,” the company said in a statement. “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple's money apart from consumers they don't care about.

Fixed

[AnonymousGuy]

Apple users don't avoid switching Android because they're being blocked from doing it.  They don't because they don't want to.

 

The entire strength of the Apple ecosystem comes from it being centrally managed by Apple.  iMessage is good because it's run by Apple.  Apple Pay is good because it's run by Apple.  The app store is good.....because it's run by Apple.  You open this shit up and you end up with the Android shitshow where nothing works with anything else and a 5 year old can hack it because there's more gaping holes than a BDSM porn set.

 

If the DOJ is bored why don't they sue Nvidia...who has an actual monopoly on everything GPU compute right now.  Oh yeah because it's harder to explain that in a press release when it's an election year vs. "iPhone bad"

[coasterghost]

8 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Apple users don't avoid switching Android because they're being blocked from doing it.  They don't because they don't want to.

Exactly, what is the point for me to go back to android to get if I am lucky 3 years of updates when Apple can offer me double the length at the same price. 

 

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

No sh!t sherlock, get a 1k$ android phone and watch your argument fall apart. (Id wager even a 500$ android phone would suffice for ~90% of ppl.)

it's funny over my years, I have actually left android for iPhone and it's honestly a better experience. I still use an android device but for a very limited use case, recording videos, as the thermals for that are much better. Beyond that, its not worth getting an android device because their software update support is that bad whereas I finally parted with my iPhone 8 in September after it wasn't going to be updated anymore. We've been seeing a push to iPhone because and this is in my opinion, people want a device that will last more than two years, which software support side, android fails to deliver, such as the laughable joke that was the pixel pass program.

 

Here has been my personal phone history since my Blackberry 8820. 

• Blackberry 8820
• HTC Dream
• Google Nexus 4
• iPhone 6s
• iPhone 8
• Samsung S10e (Only used for video these days; the phone functionally was a used for a short time)
• iPhone 15 Pro Max

So my S10e a $749 smartphone hit EOL in April 2023 after a lifespan of 4 years and 1 month with a sole security update about 7 months ago. My iPhone 8 at $849 dollar phone at the time just got today an security update, 6 and a half years later, and 6 months after the last software update. 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly though, the monopoly/antitrust laws need to change to include any business that has sufficient control on a market who attempts to negatively effect a marketplace.

This is exactly what the European DMA is.

 

Once you reach a certain size, you have to start making sure you don't use your position of power to disadvantage other competitors.

[starsmine]

24 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Apple users don't avoid switching Android because they're being blocked from doing it.  They don't because they don't want to.

I dont want to because apple blocks applications from talking to software like iMessage if its not an iphone. I am blocked from switching because it forces you back to sms with other iphone users when we could be doing imessage or the google standard that is open. This is a 100% arbitrary restriction by apple with the literal intention of doing just this as there is NO technical reason and people other then apple have done the work for them. 

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Apple users don't avoid switching Android because they're being blocked from doing it.  They don't because they don't want to.

 

The entire strength of the Apple ecosystem comes from it being centrally managed by Apple.  iMessage is good because it's run by Apple.  Apple Pay is good because it's run by Apple.  The app store is good.....because it's run by Apple.  You open this shit up and you end up with the Android shitshow where nothing works with anything else and a 5 year old can hack it because there's more gaping holes than a BDSM porn set.

I know of at least two people that avoids switching from Apple because it's too much of an issue switching to Android (because of things like iCloud etc that they have been stuck in).  It's an actual point they have made.  So yea, there are Apple users who avoid switching because of that.

 

There are some youth who get ostracized from groups because the group chat is in iMessage and having Android users creates issues.

 

No one is saying that Apple shouldn't be allowed to run their services, it's just they shouldn't be allowed to dictate what services can be run.  You want RCS, too bad Apple doesn't deem it necessary.  If Apple app store is good, then they should freely compete against other app stores.  What you are doing is adding a perceived value, while not considering that those values don't get diminished if Apple is forced to open up a bit.

 

 

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

you know I think this is not a great way to look at it. What do you mean a company suffers from success. Who exactly gets harmed if a company gets split here? the company is not a person. The fact that Tim Apple could be harmed by a split I have zero sympathy for, as the consequences of a monopoly, if it is found to be one, have significantly greater societal harms then a multibillionaire being cut down to... a multi-billionaire. Share holders are not harmed by a split inherently as the market does not shrink if a company is split, if anything it divests your interests if you let it. 

A natural monopoly is an entirely different concept, and does not really apply to this market like a utility would and you see dozens of other people enter the smartphone hardware market. Software is a bit of a different story. 

There are actually some monopolies that I sort of agree with.  When Netflix had a monopoly it meant they had more money and could invest in multiple shows.  The market has been watered down so much now as others stepped in...I'd argue with Netflix you get less than what you would if they were still a monopoly.

 

The cases of course are rare, but on occasion a monopoly can be a good thing...especially if it's held by a single private investor who doesn't have to answer to shareholders

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, Senzelian said:

By definition, they don't have a monopoly, neither in hardware nor software. But can we just agree that they're assholes? There should be an anti-asshole law.

No it shouldn't be against the law to be an asshole. Only if you are breaking the law while being an asshole should it be illegal. 

[AnonymousGuy]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  If Apple app store is good, then they should freely compete against other app stores.  

They do: against the Play store.

 

You can't go to McD's and say "hey your Big Mac is great but Burger King over here wants to sell Whopper's out of your lobby too".  There's fundamentally no difference between this vs. the app store arguments.  Apple didn't grow iOS and then one day kick out every other app store.  You knew what you bought into.

[Dracarris]

5 hours ago, Dominik W said:

The ecosystem (iMessage) has taken over market share among youngsters (me), and Apple essentially has customers for life.

Relating iMessage usage/adoption to a smartphone monopoly has to be one of the stupiest things I've heard in a long time.

[cmndr]

I hate how people discuss monopolies. 

It should be more along the lines of abuse of market power. 
Apple is the 800lbs gorilla and they will hurt anyone that strays from what they want. Think degraded messaging experience and efforts to downgrade the prestige of those who stray.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, cmndr said:

I hate how people discuss monopolies. 

It should be more along the lines of abuse of market power. 

That is how it works already, in the US at least. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, only if you use unfair business practices to keep it.

[atxcyclist]

3 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Apple users don't avoid switching Android because they're being blocked from doing it.  They don't because they don't want to.

 

The entire strength of the Apple ecosystem comes from it being centrally managed by Apple.  iMessage is good because it's run by Apple.  Apple Pay is good because it's run by Apple.  The app store is good.....because it's run by Apple.  You open this shit up and you end up with the Android shitshow where nothing works with anything else and a 5 year old can hack it because there's more gaping holes than a BDSM porn set.

 

 

I have only ever owned iPhones as far as "smart" phones are concerned; The Apple ecosystem works great and I don't mind staying in it. I also don't mind being 'confined' to validated and verified apps through Apple's own marketplace, VS getting random 3rd party stuff elsewhere like you can on an Android-based phone. Also, SMS text issues between Android and Apple devices simply doesn't matter to me; I have friends with Android phones and they can send me a photo if they need to and it still works.

 

I also like that as an iPhone user, my OS support is going to be longer than most Android devices, and since I take care of my phone I can keep them for quite a few years without worrying about it. I'm not a 'green bubble hater' or anything, but the Android people I know buy garbage-tier phones that are basically worthless in a short period of time, but they think they're getting a great deal because they're cheap. They could keep an iPhone SE over a longer duration of time than several of those cheap Androids, spend less money in that period of time, and not have a bad experience soon after they open the box. I think a lot of Android support comes from people that believe buying cheap crap is good because it's cheap, a phone isn't an investment but just like buying computer parts, getting the cheapest thing on the market is rarely a good deal.

[cmndr]

17 hours ago, porina said:

That is how it works already, in the US at least. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, only if you use unfair business practices to keep it.

So I mostly agree with that with the major caveat being that the legal system is weird and clunky at times. There's also a difference between something being illegal and something being ruled illegal, with substantial consequences following. That's mostly semantics though. 


It isn't how popular discourse progresses. The usual assertion is "monopoly = illegal" when it's more about anti-competitive behavior. 

[hishnash]

 

 

it sound like the DoJ is wanting to define the market as `high end smart phones` rather than smart phones.   If they get a judge to agree to defining the market based on price bracket that could have massive impact for many many companies... lots of companies hold a monopoly over sales in a given price bracket...   

 

[Taf the Ghost]

8 hours ago, porina said:

IANAL Being a monopoly in itself is not illegal. It's abusing the position that is. I had anti-trust training at a past company, who didn't want to become hit by such. They were the dominant player in a particular niche and it was a very nice earner. Think professional products where you get higher margin. Not consumer tier flashy stuff. So they advised on behaviours that could be negatively interpreted and should be avoided.

 

At the end of the day it will be up to DOJ to collect sufficient evidence that laws are broken.

A monopoly or near monopoly can actually create a very efficient market. The issue isn't really the monopoly part, it's either how they got there or what they end up doing. The primary issue is you always have to hire people and abusing power is a people problem. Which is the reason countries with representative governments have anti-trust laws.

[RockSolid1106]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

China and India basically used QR code payments exclusively. Something that is only available on WhatsApp (India) on the iPhone or WeChat (China).

Whatsapp payments never caught on. Everyone uses standalone apps such as Google Pay(GPay) or their bank's app. It all runs on UPI so who cares which app you use? We aren't forced to use a particular app, so everyone uses what they like. We don't get ridiculed for using a different app than the others.

[cmndr]

Some interesting context for people 

A good chunk of phone companies have NEGATIVE profit share in the industry (some of these companies left the market) and Apple is kind of minting money. The data is out of date but I doubt the overall circumstances are that different. 

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/4029/smartphone-profit-share/

[Mark Kaine]

11 hours ago, manikyath said:

by these figures nvidia has a monopoly on GPU's, intel has a monopoly on CPU's, and lays has a monopoly on potato chips.

nvidia most definitely has... amd gpus purely exist to camouflage this fact (the ceos of both companies are also closely related,  totally by accident,  of course!  )

 

*bonus fun fact: amd also was purely created to "avoid" an intel monopoly... they just got the receipts handed to them and intel got no say in it lol (not that this necessarily is a bad thing, just funny and pretty unique)

 

ps: also, ironically,  Unilever has indeed a quasi monopoly on processed food in the western world.

 

we're basically surrounded and dominated by cartels and monopolies,  but oh no, that cannot be, that would be horrible  (yes, yes, indeed it is!)

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

They do: against the Play store.

 

You can't go to McD's and say "hey your Big Mac is great but Burger King over here wants to sell Whopper's out of your lobby too".  There's fundamentally no difference between this vs. the app store arguments.  Apple didn't grow iOS and then one day kick out every other app store.  You knew what you bought into.

What it is more akin to would be McDonalds setting up in a mall and as a restriction forces any mall that wants a McDonalds in it to not allow any other burger places in it.

 

Your last line only looks at it from a customer perspective as well, you ignore the developers etc who all have to effectively support Apple because over 50% of their clients would be using it.  For example banking apps.

 

Apple uses it's dominance to prevent other things competing on it's platform.  Even early on Apple used their power to try increasing the prices of ebooks [trying to force Amazon's marketshare to end].

 

Apple used their dominance/development to kick out Tile effectively.

 

The fact is Apple controls both hardware, APIs, and access.  You are looking at each component individually but you need to look at it as a whole.  The Play Store isn't the competition, as you can't put the playstore on Apple.  Apple doesn't allow other software except what Apple deems worthy, which is exactly why they should be regulated to open up their platform.  It is completely possible to do it in a way that doesn't compromise security while still letting competitors enter the market.

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

the ceos of both companies are also closely related,  totally by accident,  of course! 

here's some tin foil for your hat...

 

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

bonus fun fact: amd also was purely created to "avoid" an intel monopoly... they just got the receipts handed to them and intel got no say in it lol (not that this necessarily is a bad thing, just funny and pretty unique)

AMD happened in a time where intel couldnt keep up with the demand for their own architecture, and several companies jumped at the opportunity to help intel out... it's just that AMD is the only one that is still around in the consumer space.

[Stahlmann]

17 hours ago, Senzelian said:

By definition, they don't have a monopoly, neither in hardware nor software. But can we just agree that they're assholes? There should be an anti-asshole law.

We don't need laws against everything. At some point, consumers just have to stop supporting companies they don't like. It's up to the customer's discretion to buy a product or leave a review. No one is obligated to buy an iPhone.

 

Publicly traded companies like Apple are extremely predictable. If enough people stopped buying iPhones because they disliked Apple's business practices, they would change these practices very fast. First and foremost, they are obligated to follow the money because of their investors.

 

 

[hishnash]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It is completely possible to do it in a way that doesn't compromise security while still letting competitors enter the market.

Depends a bit on what you define as open up access..  is apple (or someone one else) still in controle of what entitlements your apps have or is it a free for all so that every app with Meta's SDK can install a root certificate and re-configure the network interface to enable it to sniff all network traffic (included encrypted) from and to the device?

Hard core `open it all up` groups would be strongly opposed to having apple (or anyone) reviewing apps and saying if a given app should have access to such holes in the sandbox.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apple used their dominance/development to kick out Tile effectively.

No apple did not do anything against tile, Tiles issue is they were treated just the same as every other app on the platform, so yes could not at all times without a break in the background run the BT radio .

 

[Senzelian]

5 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

If enough people stopped buying iPhones

You could've said this during the launch of the iPhone 4. Now it's too late. Apple and many other companies have too much control.

[Stahlmann]

10 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

You could've said this during the launch of the iPhone 4. Now it's too late. Apple and many other companies have too much control.

How do they control people who buy a new phone? Maybe I'm too European to understand this, but I've never felt compelled to buy anything from Apple. In fact, with pretty much every device I have bought over the past few years, my research has always led me away from Apple products. It's not that there aren't better alternatives. There are probably at least 3 Android phones I'd rather buy than the latest iPhone.

 

I have to use an iPhone for work because they didn't give me any other devices to choose from. I absolutely hate it. The experience has been anything but seamless. Even my IT department hates these iPhones we have deployed company-wide. I would argue that they're actually worse than most Android phones.

[Senzelian]

4 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

How do they control people who buy a new phone?

I said they have too much control, not that they have control over people's buying decisions.