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

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Yet we see exactly what happens with Windows and Android. 

What I see with Android is screaming when hardware makers cut support (blaming on Android), less optimizations and delayed security releases as hardware makers deploy the patches.

 

Android early days, got a lot of it's easy compatibility by using Java, but there was a reason why iPhone ran circles around Android (and still does with relatively the same hardware)...the simple reason is that Android now has an OS, which hosts JIT compiler essentially that reads the APK bytecode...iPhone, it's bare metal objective c/c.

 

Windows I see tech debt, slower development cycle, and releases that aren't fully tested on all hardware causing crashes or instabilities.

 

To put it bluntly having to only worry about 30 different configurations is easy to develop for than worrying about 1000's of different hardware variations. 

 

I do not see them being forced to support other hardware, instead I see them being forced to open up their platform to not restrict users.  Like not forcing an user to require an iPhone/Mac in order to fix a broken product.  What I also see is that Apple not being allowed give themselves advantages in Apps (like the whole FindMyPhone deal) and that effectively their divisions need to treat each other as though it's a 3rd party developer.

 

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Hard ban on buybacks no, but they need to be regulated HARD. Buybacks as they have been used in the US during last 30 years has not been productive in the slightest vs when they were mostly illegal before that. 

Currently there are next to no regulations on the use of that tool and its been... abused for very short term thinking that is no benefit to anyone but golden parachutes. 

At that stage though you might as well ban owning long term short positions/put options of companies.  Ultimately some companies have been put out of business when there is so much shorting on their business that they cannot effectively raise money because people have "sold" the company by so much the stock matches their asset effectively.  [And in some cases it's actually gone below what the assets are worth].  Actually this is where stock buyback can come into play as well, if the company is well undervalued [there have been, albeit rare cases, where a company even had more cash on hand than their stock evaluation at which point purchasing back stocks is giving a lot more power to the current shareholders]

 

7 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

I hate my 16" MBP to my guts, I wish I wasn't locked in this whole ecosystem thing.

I know a few people who only continue to use Apple because they are so locked in and don't want to lose stuff....so yes people do say things like that.

 

7 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

Some of the wording in that suit feels like there's literally someone at the DOJ drinking the stereotypical "Apple hater in every comment section on the internet" kool-aid. That's gonna cost a lot of money (for the years of pointless court battle) to US taxpayers if their case is so weak and Apple manages to turn it upside down. On the other hand, usually they take on cases they can win so they may have some damning evidence (like emails, etc.) up their sleeve. But for the time being, there sure are some dumb takes in that 88-page suit.

Tim Cook I think effectively has caused the most damage in this case by stating

"Just buy your mom an iPhone" line.

 

That line, used against a reporter with a valid concern regarding RCS support, shows publicly without even the discovery process that Apple is willing to use their power to leverage people to use their platform.

 

They also will have those email records from the prior lawsuits where Steve Jobs effectively stated they should move the hold-outs into their payment platform or cut off their access to the platform [which given that Apple controlled 60%+ of the US users would be significant].

 

So it's not really a waste of money, overall it's clear even with what has been given that Apple has abused it's power and will continue to do so as long as they are able to.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Obioban said:

Lower investor influence sounds freaking great.

Yep, investor demands can sometimes not only be a pain but actually stupid and worse for them and the company because what they are demanding will actually lead to lower business performance. That is also why some companies have brought all stock and gone back private.

[MarvinKMooney]

I don't feel like Apple is a monopoly, but I would say they do anti-competitive practices and make it extremely difficult if not downright impossible to repair their products in any reasonable manner all while shouting it's for your security!

[Donut417]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:00 AM, Obioban said:

Objectively, a lot of what the DoJ actually wants Apple to do is not act in a profit maximizing way. As long as Apple is beholden to investors, they're required to act in a profit maximizing way. If Apple could use its profits to own itself, no such constraint would exist-- they could do what they thought was best.

Well LEGALLY a publicly trade company is required to do what the shareholders say. Why? Because Stock = Equity which means the Investors your talking about are the ones who OWN Apple. So Apple LEGALLY has to do what the "Owners" of the business want them to do. The only time this doesn't apply is when a company is private.

 

The only way Apple would not be as beholden to shareholders is if Congress changed the laws. But its hard to get anything thru the old folks home theses days. Plus I think everyone is more worried about how they are going to fix the issue with the port of Baltimore and the missing bridge.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Well LEGALLY a publicly trade company is required to do what the shareholders say. Why? Because Stock = Equity which means the Investors your talking about are the ones who OWN Apple. So Apple LEGALLY has to do what the "Owners" of the business want them to do. The only time this doesn't apply is when a company is private.

 

The only way Apple would not be as beholden to shareholders is if Congress changed the laws. But its hard to get anything thru the old folks home theses days. Plus I think everyone is more worried about how they are going to fix the issue with the port of Baltimore and the missing bridge.

If only it was possible to take stock away from "large investors" who have no interest in making good products, and just wanting to maximize value before the company sinks.

 

A "buyback" only makes these shareholders larger unless they're able to buy that stock away from said vultures. Because they're the ones that tell the company to take on debt and then strip the companies assets to pay for it.

 

Like realistically.  Only retail investors should be able to buy stock, because large investors typically engage in high speed trade to rob retail investors of any small gains the company has. If a large chunk of retail investors want to forum a union to decide how to vote, that's a different case. But what happens is votes often go completely unopposed to the company's plans.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-28/apple-shareholders-vote-down-request-for-ai-transparency-report

Quote

Apple Inc. shareholders rejected a labor-backed request for an artificial intelligence transparency report, which would have delved into whether the company is using the technology ethically.

 

The proposal, submitted by AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds, was voted down at Apple’s annual meeting on Wednesday. Shareholders also rejected measures about equal employment policies, civil liberties, racial and gender pay gaps, and human rights. They approved the board slate and the company’s executive compensation plan.

 

[Monkey Dust]

On 3/29/2024 at 5:13 AM, Kisai said:

If only it was possible to take stock away from "large investors" who have no interest in making good products, and just wanting to maximize value before the company sinks.

 

A "buyback" only makes these shareholders larger unless they're able to buy that stock away from said vultures. Because they're the ones that tell the company to take on debt and then strip the companies assets to pay for it.

 

Like realistically.  Only retail investors should be able to buy stock, because large investors typically engage in high speed trade to rob retail investors of any small gains the company has. If a large chunk of retail investors want to forum a union to decide how to vote, that's a different case. But what happens is votes often go completely unopposed to the company's plans.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-28/apple-shareholders-vote-down-request-for-ai-transparency-report

 

A lot of the large investors are pension funds, so most retail investors are themselves invested through large investors. Also, there are nowhere near enough retail investors to support markets either.

 

The big problem isn't the investors, IMO, especially when large numbers of them choose not to vote. What drives the short-termism is the short-termism of board compensation. Long term planing is not rewarded, short term spikes in stock price is.