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

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

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

Maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to say but that sentence contradicts itself.

 

You're saying they have too much control, but at the same time you're not saying they have control?

[Senzelian]

23 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to say but that sentence contradicts itself.

 

You're saying they have too much control, but at the same time you're not saying they have control?

So if I say that they have too much control, then you're automatically assuming they have too much control of everything there is? I guess then they're also in charge of the military, YouPorn, and the housing market. 

[Lunar River]

51 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

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.

people always say "vote with your wallet" but only a very insignificant amount of people every follow through with it when it's actually their turn to vote. consumers are extremely predictable.

[jagdtigger]

13 hours ago, coasterghost said:

it's funny over my years, I have actually left android for iPhone and it's honestly a better experience.

Company forced that junk on my father. Helped him to set ut up, i do not want to experience that again. A simple mundane task like setting your won ringrone took dozens of steps to do......

[Stahlmann]

21 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

So if I say that they have too much control, then you're automatically assuming they have too much control of everything there is? I guess then they're also in charge of the military, YouPorn, and the housing market. 

You still haven't said in what way they have too much control, so you might want to start there before you go off into the absurd.

 

20 minutes ago, Lunar River said:

people always say "vote with your wallet" but only a very insignificant amount of people every follow through with it when it's actually their turn to vote. consumers are extremely predictable.

You are free to choose between options. No one has the right to say when others must vote with their wallet. There is no single point in time when it should or should not happen. That's how a free market works. If people keep buying iPhones, that doesn't mean they're not voting. They are still voting, just against you.

[Mark Kaine]

 

50 minutes ago, Lunar River said:

people always say "vote with your wallet" but only a very insignificant amount of people every follow through with it when it's actually their turn to vote. consumers are extremely predictable.

on the contrary.  they vote with their wallets. for the option that gives them the biggest dopamine rush. Gatcha games, Gucci, overpriced fast-food,  or in this case apple.  

[Senzelian]

35 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

You still haven't said in what way they have too much control

Everything the EU fought for in recent years, that's still missing in the US.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

You still haven't said in what way they have too much control,

 

When they block developers from half the market unless those developers curtail to excessive demands,  then they have too much control.  When I can buy a mobile app direct from the developer and install it on an iPhone without apple taking a 30% cut or forcing me to use their app store, then I will start to consider that they have relinquished said control.

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When they block developers from half the market unless those developers curtail to excessive demands,  then they have too much control.  When I can buy a mobile app direct from the developer and install it on an iPhone without apple taking a 30% cut or forcing me to use their app store, then I will start to consider that they have relinquished said control.

That still doesn't take choice away from consumers, which is what I'm talking about. You as a consumer have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't want that. Idk why people act like having an iPhone is a necessity.

[Obioban]

So many bigger issues that should be gone after. 

 

Amazon for ecommerce. 

Google for search.

Google for web ads.

Internet providers everywhere in the country.

Power providers everywhere in the country. 

The 5 companies that make all our food.

Disney owning... children('s content). 

Meta for social media.

The couple companies that own all of news 

youtube for web video content.

Chrome

walmart

 

Things that create actual issues

[Donut417]

11 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Power providers everywhere in the country. 

Except power providers are legal monopolies. They generally are beholden to government oversight and regulation. For example our power provider has to beg the government if it wants to raise rates. 

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

That still doesn't take choice away from consumers, which is what I'm talking about. You as a consumer have the choice to not buy an iPhone if you don't want that. Idk why people act like having an iPhone is a necessity.

Consumer protection is also about making sure the market itself has the freedom to offer you a compelling consumer choice. If the Apple ecosystem is unhealthy for many businesses then it is also unhealthy for consumers. You certainly cannot argue only Apple can or should be offering Apps and services on iPhones, or if that is to be allowed then laws should be passed baring all iPhones from being able to be used for banking, government websites, any and all commerce i.e. no buying stuff on Amazon with them.

 

If iPhones are going to continue to not be consumer and market safe then they should simply be excluded from "the market". That actually is how problems are dealt with. It can be as extreme as forcibly breaking up companies so different operating lines are no longer all within one company i.e. Apple Software and Apple Hardware being broken up. This is what happened to many ISP's/Telco's the world over when the full realization of how dangerous it is to allow one company to control the vast majority of the infrastructure and also the retail of services on top of it.

 

And you don't actually always get a choice, that's a fallacy of argument and reasoning. Lets just pick an example of corporate phone plans and deals with telco/ISP providers that may result in an iPhone being your only provided option. Or the same on the residential side, your best option to you is a phone plan that only comes with an iPhone otherwise you pay more for a plan without a phone or some other such choice that isn't as good. You still end up paying for that actual iPhone (it's not free, they never are) btw. You shouldn't have to pick the finically worse option because an included product results in consumer restrictions related to that product.

 

It's also entirely not about necessity, that is irrelevant to the issue. It doesn't matter how much something is a luxury choice, that has no baring over or within monopoly laws. Just because some products are expensive doesn't exclude those consumers/customers from equal and fair protection.

[Zodiark1593]

27 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Except power providers are legal monopolies. They generally are beholden to government oversight and regulation. For example our power provider has to beg the government if it wants to raise rates. 

*looks at PG&E, and the $0.41/Kwh I’m paying.*

 

Working so well…

[Mark Kaine]

58 minutes ago, Obioban said:

So many bigger issues that should be gone after. 

 

Amazon for ecommerce. 

Google for search.

Internet providers everywhere in the country.

Power providers everywhere in the country. 

The 5 companies that make all our food.

Disney owning... children('s content). 

 

Things that create actual issues

Ah, ya, well true,  but its a start!? maybe. 

 

 

ps: Amazon next (u gotta start "small" you know... )

 

 

[GoStormPlays]

This is actually annoying. Where is this line drawn? Is Tesla going to be accused of a monopoly for being one of the only car makers that has game launchers available in their cars?

 

Apple built iMessage and the like, so why wouldn't it be exclusive to the iPhone? They built it for goodness sakes! iMessage is ONLY a monopoly if there are no alternatives to iMessage (WHICH THERE ARE).

 

Looking at the article more, yes, some Apple products are obscenely overpriced. But what you also have to consider is that Apple spends way more on R&D than most companies do.

 

"Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android"

No, it only suppresses the content and media because of the different messaging protocols that iPhones use. Sure, it is Apple's fault for not switching this protocol, but they aren't taking every iPhone-to-Android message and telling it to turn into something from the SNES. Second, this is ONLY a problem is Apple suppresses these messages across ALL apps. 

 

iMessage and Text messaging are two entirely separate things. iMessage is built for use between iPhones, and Text Messaging is built for all platforms. When you are sending a message from an iPhone to an Android, you are NOT sending an iMessage, you are sending the normal text message that you would be ANYWHERE else. 

 

There are some legitimate points in this lawsuit, ("Blocking third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets with tap-to-pay functionality for the iPhone" for one) but a lot of this lawsuit is making me extremely angry.

 

 

[GoStormPlays]

What you also have to realize is that Apple locking every single kid into an iPhone is not nearly as big as it was five years ago. As a teenager, I've actually been seeing more kids with budget Samsung phones than kids with iPhones as of late, with the primary reason for this being that Samsung just has some really good budget phone options. What I'm noticing is that any cheaper phones owned among teenagers are all Samsung phones, and any of them that have expensive phones have either iPhones or Google phones. Of course, this isn't the same everywhere, but this is the trend I've been noticing over the last few years.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

*looks at PG&E, and the $0.41/Kwh I’m paying.*

 

Working so well…

And? DTE has raised our rates twice. Why? Because the governor got on their ass about extended outages. So now they are fixing the grid, which can’t be done for free. There are ways to reduce electricity usage, maybe look in to some. 

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

Apple built iMessage and the like, so why wouldn't it be exclusive to the iPhone? They built it for goodness sakes! iMessage is ONLY a monopoly if there are no alternatives to iMessage (WHICH THERE ARE).

One problem, what you are currently talking about isn't even the issue

 

Quote

That includes diminishing the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches, limiting access to contactless payment for third-party digital wallets and refusing to allow its iMessage app to exchange encrypted messaging with competing platforms.

 

 

iMessage can be exclusive till the end of time, that isn't the problem.

 

49 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

iMessage and Text messaging are two entirely separate things. iMessage is built for use between iPhones, and Text Messaging is built for all platforms. When you are sending a message from an iPhone to an Android, you are NOT sending an iMessage, you are sending the normal text message that you would be ANYWHERE else. 

Or how about, stay with me here, allow interoperability between messaging platforms so fall back to SMS/TXT isn't required.

 

And you know Apple isn't alone in this right?

 

Quote

And now, a report by WABetaInfo says that WhatsApp will soon give users the option of sending messages to other platforms as well. For instance, you might be able to send messages to apps such as Telegram and Signal using WhatsApp. However, the apps that will be supported as part of the feature haven't been made official yet and hence this information should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

Quote

The WABetaInfo report states that WhatsApp will be introducing a new update, marked as version 2.24.6.2. This update hints at a forthcoming feature designed to manage third-party chats.

In response to the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which emphasises chat interoperability to enhance user communication across different applications, WhatsApp had previously announced working on a chat interoperability feature in beta version 2.24.5.18 for Android. The latest examination of the 2.24.5.20 beta update from the Google Play Store reveals that WhatsApp is actively developing a dedicated chat info screen for third-party chats.

 

Lots of countries/regions are in the process of or have passed laws regarding this and it doesn't stop Apple using it's own proprietary protocols between other Apple devices, they just have to also support interoperability between others as well which can/would use a different protocol which doesn't have to be exactly feature parity either.

[GoStormPlays]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

One problem, what you are currently talking about isn't even the issue

 

iMessage can be exclusive till the end of time, that isn't the problem.

"Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android" -The Verge

I don't see how they wouldn't be talking about iMessage features here.

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Or how about, stay with me here, allow interoperability between messaging platforms so fall back to SMS/TXT isn't required.

 

Yes sure, but the most you can do legally is have them switch to a better platform. You can't sue for monopolistic practices over this.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

"Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android" -The Verge

I don't see how they wouldn't be talking about iMessage features here.

No you specially talked about iMessage being exclusive to Apple devices which is fine and can be like that and stay like that, the lawsuit is not seeking to require iMessage on anything else at all.

 

9 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

Yes sure, but the most you can do legally is have them switch to a better platform. You can't sue for monopolistic practices over this.

I feel you don't understand the issue at all or what interoperability actually is. iMessage can send messages between iMessage with proprietary Apple protocols and also use a different protocol to send messages to other platforms without impacting any current Apple customers at all and they can also allow receiving of messages from other platforms too. This is already done with.... SMS/TXT.

 

They don't have to support absolutely everything that can be done between iMessage to iMessage but you should at least be able to send messages to other applications and not have to do it over SMS/TXT.

 

And if you can't sue for this then how is there a lawsuit? You can almost sue of anything, not really since a court doesn't have to accept the suit, but here it has been accepted and it does exist. That doesn't mean the DOJ is going to win but they absolutely can and are suing over this.

[TetraSky]

My youngest coworker exclusively uses imessage. So much so his phone plan doesn't even have texting. We can't even communicate with the guy when we need to, unless we ask the other guy with an iphone (and a proper phone plan) to send him a message to ask if he's available for another task...

If apple stopped being buttholes about it and allowed RCS to communicate with iMessage, that'd be great.

 

 

Also, I wondered how this thread had 3 pages already. I see it's just the usual arguing of a handful of members going back and forth not understanding each other's position, nitpicking things.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

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.

The idea of having a true monopoly though would be that people can't just avoid it.  Like I mentioned, there are social pressures to sometimes have an iPhone; especially in school groups if the main form of communication has happened over iMessage.  It happens.  It also ignores that the developers are at issue here, not the customers.  Developers would be sacrificing over half their customer base by ignoring iPhone which would be a big deal (as customers don't blame Apple for it, they blame the company that doesn't have the app for it).  There are also t he people who don't realize what exactly they are getting themselves into because they don't truly internalize what the issue is until it happens to them.

 

It's like the people who said that Apples last forever and the people who have "issues" with the hardware just are mistreating it...until they have an issue and realize the truth that  Apple has similar and in some cases worse failure rates than other major brands.

 

5 hours ago, hishnash said:

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 .

How do you justify what happened around AirTag?

 

There are multiple issues around Tile, the first and clear one was that limited access to the hardware.  As an example, Tile wasn't allowed using BT directional function in their App, yet Find My was.  That would mean if Tile wanted to support that they would have to sign Apples new limited contract.

 

Then there is the concept that Tile had to build it's tracking through users and getting critical numbers to facilitate the finding to work...then Apple steps in and turns the iPhone essentially into a tracker overnight [whether you own airtags or not] and because it's Apple you get less prompts for  allowing things such as location than on a standard App.  You now have the situation that unless Tile uses Apples built in feature which limits them they cannot correctly compete.

 

By agreeing to the Find My program you are effectively agreeing to let Apple be the manager of the Find My experience.  So Tiles own network of iPhone users would be toppled, and would only be relying on Android users.

 

As an example, my brother in law who has an iPhone didn't even realize he was part of the Find My network.

 

Again though, the biggest thing was AirTag used Apples Ultra-Wide bluetooth in order to get information...Tile was not given access to those API's/hardware until after AirTags had been released. [And during AIrTag development they knew Tile's plan and Tile was even requesting access to the API]

 

The of course Tile had been demonstrating and showing Apple the technology...and Apple was able to get analytical data from their App Store to help determine whether or not it's a viable market [this one though doesn't have any concrete proof behind it]

 

So overall yes Apple did to things  against Tile.  Tile was presenting their work to Apple, letting Apple know of upcoming devices [requesting the API's needed to make that work], and Apple came out with a competing product which had that access while Tile still didn't...despite Tile's request for it 2 years prior to the AirTag.

 

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

My youngest coworker exclusively uses imessage. So much so his phone plan doesn't even have texting. We can't even communicate with the guy when we need to, unless we ask the other guy with an iphone (and a proper phone plan) to send him a message to ask if he's available for another task...

If apple stopped being buttholes about it and allowed RCS to communicate with iMessage, that'd be great.

ah, FFS, for real!!

- there's a million third-party messaging tools that work on all operating systems, including Windows, Linux and macOS. How are people in the US unable to use them, just how??!! Most of them are way better/have more features than freaking iMessage, and nobody forces you to only use one, they can all be used in parallel.

- what freaking plan comes without text messaging?? it has been included for free for more than a decade by now

- even if the guys plan does "not have texting" he can still _receive_ text messages without any issues and then reply through other channels, including phone & and all kinds of VoIP calls

 

This is one of the most absurd, artificially constructed problems I've probably ever seen.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's like the people who said that Apples last forever and the people who have "issues" with the hardware just are mistreating it...until they have an issue and realize the truth that  Apple has similar and in some cases worse failure rates than other major brands.

Here's two data points from the largest Swiss retailer for smartphones and laptops. If you have any other reliable data that back up your claim (in- or out-of-warranty), I'm eager to see it.

[TetraSky]

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

- what freaking plan comes without text messaging?? it has been included for free for more than a decade by now

Any BYOD plan usually lets you deselect texting if you want to pay less. Our phone plans here are not dirt cheap $5 for unlimited call, texting and data.

 

Spoiler

 

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

- there's a million third-party messaging tools that work on all operating systems, including Windows, Linux and macOS. How are people in the US unable to use them, just how??!!

Not just in the US, but in Canada, too.

Why use alternatives when the default app work just fine ? SMS/MMS has always worked great before. Now it's imessage and facebook messenger. The issue with data not being unlimited and has been on the low side of the spectrum for a long time probably didn't help. While folks in Europe had super cheap plans with essentially unlimited data, us plebs in North America were stuck with $70 plans that included maybe 5GB of data. Not everybody was going to pay that. Certainly not older folks. Which ruled out apps like Whatsapp. This might change in the future, especially now that phone plans are somewhat dropping in prices (20GB, unlimited texting and calls is around $29 CAD these days. Still a lot more than what you'd pay in Europe for an equivalent plan though)

 

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

- even if the guys plan does "not have texting" he can still _receive_ text messages without any issues.

Yes, he can receive texts. He can't reply though. But, with imessage, he can receive and reply with no issues, since it uses data. Just like RCS. Which Apple refuses to bridge. This makes it an issue.

 

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

This is one of the most absurd, artificially constructed problems I've probably ever seen.

It most certainly is and is 100% being enabled by Apple's refusal to play nice with anybody.