US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones

autotldr Bot , 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

---

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit.

It alleges that Apple “selectively” imposes contractual restrictions on developers and withholds critical ways of accessing the phone, according to a release.

“Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others,” the DOJ wrote in a press release.

“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of ‘Whac-A-Mole’ contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies,” DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

Apple is the second tech giant the DOJ has taken on in recent years after filing two separate antitrust suits against Google over the past two administrations.

It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple.

---

The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Brkdncr , 2 months ago

lol this is going to go nowhere

alekwithak , 2 months ago

At least it happened.

ANIMATEK , 2 months ago

I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.

gregorum , 2 months ago

The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.

Little will come of this.

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.

gregorum , 2 months ago

And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

gregorum , 2 months ago

This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

Telodzrum , 2 months ago

I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

gregorum , 2 months ago

Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

Source

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

You don’t just say that I was wrong. You used a personal insult, and you even admit that you could have chose too not use an insult but chose to anyway, repeatedly. And, still, rather than use any evidence to make your argument, you can’t stop yourself from continuing to insult and bully.

And YOU don’t get to choose what is insulting to ME. That’s some serious gaslighting DARVO shit.

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/2b0c53b5-dc4e-49a0-a917-d73f340ad8b0.webp

_dev_null , 2 months ago

A personal attack would be more like: "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

But nobody has told you that "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

If anyone actually did say "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl", then I could understand you taking it as an ad hominem attack.

Alas, I'm glad nobody here is sinking so low as to say to you that "You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it's apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl."

gregorum , 2 months ago

So, you are so deluded as to think that saying it 4 times in that little tantrum “isn’t saying it”?

I must’ve really upset you, which is ironic, because I was nowhere nearly as offended as you seem to be now. Which actually makes me feel much better. Lol.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

I didn't say “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you, I said I'm glad that nobody said “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you.

Would you like me to say “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl” to you? I don't want to kink shame if that's your bag, you know, people denigrating you and telling you “You are such a whiny little bitch with a persecution complex and it’s apparent you are so lonely because nobody wants to put up with your bullshit irl”.

Just let me know, either way.

gregorum , 2 months ago

This is just DARVO, right out of the Narcissist abuser’s handbook

• Step 1. Deny. The process begins with adamant refusal to accept any responsibility or acknowledge having a role or any involvement in the harmful behavior or actions. The truthful account of the events is stridently rejected and minimized. Denial seeks to deflect blame. Consequently, it also implies that it is in fact the perpetrator who is being subjects to an injustice by being wrongly accused of something they did not do. Denial distorts or disregards the reality of a situation.
• Step 2. Attack. The second stage of DARVO involves character assassination with the aim of redirecting blame onto the person who confronted the perpetrator, scapegoating the innocent party and burdening them with accountability for the crimes of the aggressor. By shifting blame away from themselves, manipulators preserve their self-image, reputation, and/or position of power. It shields them from criticism and negative judgment. DARVO attacks often involve victim-blaming, distorting facts, minimizing the impact of their own actions, and exaggerating the faults of whoever confronts the perpetrator. The attack is essentially a smear campaign.
• **Step 3. Reverse Victim and Offender. **Once the character assassination has formed a critical mass of bystanders who are successfully deceived by the manipulator’s false narrative, the victim-survivors is subjects to the painful process of scapegoating. Thus the final stages of DARVO sees the victim cast as a villain, while the perpetrator is exonerated. The reversal of victim and offender relies on pre-existing biases, stereotypes, or prejudices. It is often used to animate bystanders into persecuting and punishing the victim-survivor.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

You shouldn't self diagnose like that, Greg. I'd encourage you to seek professional help to work through any demons you feel you might have.

gregorum , 2 months ago

projection: just another weapon from your narcissist’s abuser’s handbag

_dev_null , 2 months ago

See there you go again, Greg. Best to let the professionals diagnose you. Even doctors go to see other doctors when they have medical concerns about themselves.

gregorum , 2 months ago

I don’t need to own a sports team to know a bad play when I see one, and I don’t need to have a PhD to know when you’re accusing me of the things you are doing.

Wow, you must really be upset to be putting in so much effort and time. Lol, looks like I got the better of you.

I bet I can keep you going all day. But, hey, if I’m wrong, you can just stop… riiight?

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Upset about what, Greg? Would you like me to be upset? Is that another kink you like to indulge in, upsetting others? You really should get consent first if so.

I must’ve really upset you (...) Which actually makes me feel much better

Wait, are you trying to upset me? That's against lemmy.world rules, and c/technology's rule 2.

Last thing too, Greg: Would be great if you stop editing your replies, and also downvoting each of my replies. That's pretty intellectually dishonest, and has a strong smell of arguing in bad faith. Are you trying to argue in bad faith, Greg?

I really don't want to think that you're trying to upset me and argue in bad faith, you know, Hanlon's razor and all.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Ooo, more insults, and now threats? Cheers to your lack of self-control. Go on and keep telling me how upset I’ve made you. I’m enjoying this. Especially how you can’t stop.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Enjoying it so much that you're now reporting my comments as breaking rule 1 and 3, huh?

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/5b758ec2-46ca-4242-93e1-9f06e1e0a20f.png

Also, might not want to brigade by reporting with your other account @hudson. Did you forget to sign out on that one? Just needed a little more umph and downvoting in this thread? Pretty sure that's against the rules too.

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/adc58cc7-6c16-49b8-8139-9382e1ea7544.png

Pro tip: If you're going to use a diff account to brigade, you might want to change the profile up a bit so they don't all resemble each other.

https://lemmy.zxcvn.xyz/pictrs/image/eb383f24-cc24-4983-9d31-99a2affe0a9a.png

gregorum , 2 months ago

Heh, paranoia now, too? Just because someone else agrees that you’re breaking the rules ≠ conspiracy. And, apparently I’m the only one with access to AI art generators? But I do think it’s fun that you’re this upset. Paranoia, insults, threats, and now stalking? A bit hypocritical of you, lol. And right in line with DARVO

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/09a422a7-04c6-4ff2-8c91-0fbf56368da5.webp

Go on, tell me more about how upset you are. This is fun.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

So let's tally it up:

• Extremely similar profile aesthetics, down to colors and style

• Same exact account birthdays, 23 Aug 2023

• Similar comment history, also confrontational, and many downvotes from the community

• Both accounts reporting my exact comments, "hudson" sandwiched between your "gregorum" account

• Each of my comments downvoted twice

It's extremely delusional/insulting for you to expect anyone to believe all that's coincidence. Oh the irony of you posting the NP when you can't even come clean when caught in your own lies.

Have you changed your profile pics yet? Are you going to go back and edit your comments more to try and look better for when a mod gets around to your complaints? You are acting so see through right now, and it's not a good look.

gregorum , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Wow. You sure are paranoid, all the way to the point of constructing this elaborate fantasy to justify it. And complete with a narrative of exactly what you would do.

But in not you. If I were, I’d wonder how you got access to the reports that only a mod should see, and you’re not a mod or an instant admin. Curious.

Look how upset and out of control you are, still blaming me for what you did, deflecting and deflecting. Keep telling me how upset you are. This is so much fun.

Don’t forget your prayers!

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/907efa22-ab5f-4626-82ca-7316ec1f91fd.webp

Edit: while I’m sure you’re furiously typing up the next iteration of your ranting reply once again blaming me for why you are a bully who can’t control yourself and the paranoid delusion you’ve invented to justify it, I’m going to exhibit, the self-control of blocking you, because clearly this is just a enabling that delusion to fester and grow.

Good luck to you!

_dev_null , 2 months ago

and you’re not a mod or an instant admin

How do you know?

I bet I can keep you going all day.

I’m going to exhibit, the self-control of blocking you

So another lie. Also, you lose.

L3s Mod , 2 months ago

Yeah, I saw some reports from both accounts yesterday that made it obvious that's their backup account. Also, not the first time they've done this, and they also spam report comments when they get angry.

_dev_null , 2 months ago

Thanks for looking and not just zipping by. I'll practice better restrain from feeding the trolls, I don't want to make the mods lives any harder.

L3s Mod , 2 months ago

Hey no worries, appreciate it!

0xD , 2 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

gregorum , 2 months ago

See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.

It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.

namingthingsiseasy , 2 months ago

Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

Ghostalmedia , 2 months ago

The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.

Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.

n2burns , 2 months ago

If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.

alekwithak , 2 months ago

Because???

n2burns , 2 months ago

If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it's quite possible that it's just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it's still possible it's messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it's more likely they think something's actually there, and they don't want to waste their time playing nice with the "other side".

ColeSloth , 2 months ago

Bet you're not quite right on that.

dunidane , 2 months ago

It would take a big dose of hopium to believe this will amount to anything.

madeinthebackseat , 2 months ago

The anti-trust pressure has increased with this administration. Lina Kahn has been effective at the FTC in bringing a number of cases forward.

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ is a very well executed newsletter with more detailed information regarding anti-trust if you're interested.

Defaced , 2 months ago

Yeah and hasn't she lost pretty much every case she's brought forward? She failed big fucking time with the Microsoft/Activision merger even though all the antitrust evidence was right in front of her nose. I'm glad the FTC is trying, because they're actually doing their job, but they're doing an awful job when it comes to actually being in court and proving their case.

People shit on Sony for trying to block the merger, but they absolutely were right for trying to block it and now games like starfield, the new Indiana Jones, and probably more in the future will be deliberately left off the PlayStation platform altogether. But that's all okay right? Because now you get call of duty on gamepass!!!!!!! RIGHT????!!?!???!????

anon6789 , 2 months ago

I see a bunch of complaints against Kahn, but I haven't been able to find articles on what she did that someone else would have done to be more effective. I don't normally follow this type of news, so if anyone can point me to some articles, I'd appreciate it.

I've heard a few interviews with Kahn, and she sounds like someone looking to make a difference, so I'd like to cheer her on, but if she's not the right person for the job, it'd be nice to see some examples why. I'd think much could go on to make her lose without it necessarily being due to her actions or inactions.

Defaced , 2 months ago

https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2023/07/18/lina-khans-antitrust-losses-cast-doubt-on-her-sue-dont-settle-philosophy/?slreturn=20240221150002 apparently she's just taking the sledgehammer approach of suing companies instead of working with them to understand their motives and to make reasonable concessions that will benefit everyone. If those concession discussions fail then you sue and have more leverage in your case I guess. Either way, it's a fair criticism IMO, and for the record I'm not really a right leaning individual, I just think she's jumping into lawsuits without doing her homework first.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

Dang paywall. That's at least something I can look into more directly though, so thank you.

Lemmy makes me feel right wing anymore. I think the general news and politics here might be worse than Reddit, which is a shame. There's a lot of things I'd like to learn or discuss, but half the threads might as well be bizarro MAGA rallies with how cultish they get.

I just came back to this post from one on Angela Chao, and just like the last one about that story, people are cheering on this lady's death because they don't like her brother-in-law. I haven't been able to find anything about Angela that would indicate she had it coming, but that isn't stopping anyone. If people have valid criticism of a person or idea, share it. Don't just keep shouting "such-and-such bad!" over and over.

horsey , 2 months ago

It didn’t used to seem that way but some of the discussions I’ve had here are actually worse than reddit recently. Take a discussion about Instagram drug sale spammers. I mean, people selling likely counterfeit “xanax” etc to anyone on social media by spamming. Who would stand up for these scumbags? People on Lemmy, apparently, who consider themselves leftists and communicate like sophomoric 19 year olds. “Drugs should be legalized anyway!” Well, that’s not going to make it legal or safe for addictive drugs to be sold on social media and uh, Xanax is legal. I found discussion of the same article on Hacker News and the difference in quality of comments was vast.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

Lol that's exactly the stuff I mean. Legalize drugs, sure. Make them safe and take the business from cartels. Legalize anonymous strangers selling random chemicals, nah.

It was good maybe the first 3 months of the Great Migration, then had a sharp decline. Those first few months were great.

I'm not here for anyone's militant views on politics, software licensing, diet, or religion. I just tend to avoid most comment sections anymore.

0xD , 2 months ago

It's getting worse and worse, completely agree. The reasonable people are getting pushed out by brainless zombies, just like on Twitter or something.

anon6789 , 2 months ago

We need to work more on getting in the first few comments before they get there. If I come in and hot takes are all I find, I just move on. I'm sure others do the same.

SnipingNinja , 2 months ago

Why are so many people misspelling her surname? Or is the URL to the news article wrong?

anon6789 , 2 months ago

I looked up the difference, and it seems that the majority of us have probably been raised in a place where Kahn is the more common spelling we'd encounter.

NotAGuyInAHat , 2 months ago

I mean the Activision case was a bad case though. Microsoft bought their way into... Third place, it's not enough to need anti trust. Furthermore, Starfield and Indy were already going to be exclusives, those are Bethesda and that acquisition was already long since completed. Plus, it's not like that's the invention of exclusives. Sony isn't exactly pumping over their games to Xbox here.

jabjoe , 2 months ago

Lina Kahn

She was pretty good on Planet Money : https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly

LodeMike , 2 months ago

Substack 🙄

madeinthebackseat , 2 months ago

The content is good, so I support the content.

If all we ever do is hold purity contests over secondary and tertiary concerns, like the platform, we'll never accomplish anything.

LodeMike , 2 months ago

I didn't say anything about the content. Just... Like... Substack 🙄

deweydecibel , 2 months ago

I'm willing to take the movement as a good sign. The fact that we haven't even been talking about this shit for decades now was just depressing. It's long past time for this shit, and the ball needs to get rolling.

AA5B , 2 months ago

There’s a lot of corporate competitive behavior that’s ok, when you’re one of many, that isn’t anymore when you dominate the market.

• Apple hasn’t dominated US cell phone market for decades yet
• the same behavior is perfectly legit for laptops, because Apple is a small player in that market
• Smartwatches are interesting - I don’t know the dynamics of that market but I don’t know anyone whose smartwatch is not Apple

JJROKCZ , 2 months ago

Apple has dominated the smartphone market since the iPhone 5 in the us. I’ve managed my works mdm tool for a decade and never have I seen the android collective share surpass 10% in the pie chart it shows me of versions

AA5B , 2 months ago

Looks like the stats are all over the place but iPhones are about 50% of US market +- 10%. Neither you nor I are representative

JJROKCZ , 2 months ago

Very true, mine is just anecdotal evidence in the end, no matter how much it is

LodeMike , 2 months ago

• Phones haven't been around for decades and that's a dumb point
• They actually don't do the same behavior on macs because it's illegal
• Thank you for demonstrating the case's point.

DingoBilly , 2 months ago

We can hope. Happy to take a chunk out of Apple as they're often given a free pass as their marketing and branding is so good that customers lap it up.

BurningnnTree , 2 months ago

All I want is RCS on iPhone. I know Apple already said they're working on it, but I hope legal pressure like this will force them to make the RCS/iMessage integration actually work well (instead of half-assing it which I assume is what they want to do, cuz they want their users to feel frustrated when texting their Android friends)

AA5B , 2 months ago

All I want is RCS on iPhone

Me too, but isn’t this a chicken and egg situation?

• why should Apple add it if carriers don’t support and you haven’t go through Google if you want secure messaging?
• why should carriers support it if so many phones don’t, and why are they ceding security to Google?
• is not Google also a monopolist?
• is RCS even a useful standard if there’s not a consensus to make it ubiquitous?

neblem , 2 months ago

Can't we just move past carrier managed messaging? I'd rather my telecom to just be dumb pipes and move everyone to Signal and similar.

techwithjake , 2 months ago

The iMessage lock-in is too real for some of us. I know some iPhone users who won't even install FB Messenger (I know, I don't use it either. Fuck the Zuck) because it's not Apple/iMessage. I finally got my family on Signal and "OMG! We can send videos and pictures now!" Yeah, been saying it for years lol.

medicsofanarchy , 2 months ago

Damn, I am stealing this. Too many good uses:

"She lives in a hopium den"

"Hopium addict"

"Hopium of the masses"

thedirtyknapkin , 2 months ago

Oh it's a pretty common Internet thing these days. Hopium and copium.

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

We all know that these accusations are true.

So much so that I need to ask: is it really illegal to do all these things?

popcap200 , 2 months ago

The EU said so, and the US did successfully sue valve for monopoly practices.

Kedly , 2 months ago

Except it wasnt successful since its still in the court, and Valve has counter sued for the lawsuit "abuse(ing) the legal process and interfer(ing) with Valve’s relationships with its customers"

popcap200 , 2 months ago

Oh lol my b. I saw the ads for being eligible for compensation and thought they lost.

AA5B , 2 months ago

EU decisions carry no legal weight in US, and I’m sure the laws are very different. Maybe it signals opportunity and regulator opinion but they’re completely independent decisions

horsey , 2 months ago

I’ve wondered that in the past when people say Apple has a monopoly - there seems to be choice in the market. One can function fine with an Android phone. But people have said “they have a monopoly on iPhones” which doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course they do, but that’s not the same as a monopoly on mobile phones. Also having a monopoly isn’t illegal, only abusing it is. It’s not legal to have a successful proprietary product?

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

I’ve wondered that in the past

Well, now you have your answers here in all detail, but it seems you didn't read them.

AA5B , 2 months ago

I also wonder the same, and wish you’d point to those answers, but I think that’s what this whole thing is : a day in court to establish those answers

horsey , 2 months ago

I didn't say I was wondering now. I said I was wondering in the past. In any event, i expect to find out from the court case, not online comments from people who probably lack expertise in antitrust law and are not attorneys.

SkyNTP , 2 months ago

Smarter Americans in that past recognized that freedom, including the free market, doesn't just happen of its own accord, that it has to be defended, legislated. That is how antitrust laws came to be in arguably the most capitalist nation on earth.

Apathetic Americans now have lost sight of the importance of protecting their freedoms.

"Illegal" is not just some hypothetical moral absolute. It is the politics of defending one's values. Americans clearly no longer value either their freedoms or the free market.

AA5B , 2 months ago

No, these are not illegal activities until you add “as a monopoly”. Antitrust laws are fine with all sorts of behavior as part of competition but not when you dominate a market and it keeps new competitors out

Everything here will hinge on whether Apple is a monopoly in the markets of concern. I’m sure there are legal definitions and precedents for that.

horsey , 2 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

NeoNachtwaechter , 2 months ago

Because I asked a different question than you asked. How old are you?

markstos , 2 months ago

Don’t piss off the small phone fans at the DOJ.

pete_the_cat , 2 months ago

Lol nice

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.

So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?

KairuByte , 2 months ago

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

No, they can’t really force it. But it’s evidence in support of the accusation.

But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do. And they’d likely be able to bake Android support in by utilizing the already available Wear OS API.

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do.

That's kinda true, but not what I was getting at. Android has restrictive background processing limits and the APIs around it keep getting more restrictive and the OEMs like Samsung keep ignoring the rules of how things should work and break your apps when you do it right anyway.. Ultimately it's incredibly difficult to write an app and guarantee background work.

Apple, is even worse on its restrictions of background work, but Apple owns the OS and and can bypass it all for their watch.

Apple will never get to bypass the fuckery you have to deal with on Android, only the Android OEMs get that.

heartsofwar , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I could be totally wrong, IANAL, but I think this has more to do with how Apple restricts access of features or services to third-parties than anything else...

For example, Apple offers Apple Pay on the iPhone. They claim it is highly secure due to hardware end-to-end encryption and that not even Apple has access to the data. Because of these beliefs and others, Apple doesn't allow any other Pay or wallet application on the iPhone or app store. Other companies like Google, Visa, MasterCard, etc have tried to submit Pay / wallet applications to the iPhone app store, but Apple denies them because it claims access to the NFC hardware APIs would reduce security.

In this example, Apple stands to gain everything as the sole digital Pay / Wallet proprietor on the iPhone just based off of a "wink, wink, nod, nod" type of response. Yes, while Apple's response could be accurate, letting third-parties have access to the hardware NFC APIs would reduce security, Apple is making that decision from a monopolistic point of view.

It would be different if Apple didn't have a digital Pay / Wallet system or if Apple allowed the companies to have the application on the iPhone / app store but maybe it had to go through a more thorough security approval process.

Now take for example how Apple operated back in 2008 / 2009 when it released GPS Navigation support on the iPhone. They partnered with Garmin (Garmin had access to the Assisted / GPS APIs); however, Garmin wasn't the only third-party able to submit a GPS Navigation application. In the end, Apple eventually created their own Maps with Turn-by-turn navigation and I think we all know how shit that was for a long time, but imagine if they had gone Apple Maps from the get-go and blocked third parties forcing people to use their tech only...

NotMyOldRedditName , 2 months ago

What do you do though if Apple is telling the truth and allowing 3rd party wallets would degrade the security even for their own wallet?

Zak , 2 months ago

Perhaps they aren't lying, but claims about security often involve theoretical weaknesses that aren't practical to exploit in the real world. Apple is very skilled at making sure those claims align with their business interests.

4am , 2 months ago

I would ask them to prove that claim in court for starters.

I would ask them why they feel they’d be liable for users who installed and gave permission to an app that would use NFC readers for payments.

I would ask them why access to the NFC reader by a 3rd party app in any way allows access to Apple Pay’s stored, encrypted data (which it doesn’t need)

I would ask why permission settings and security validations couldn’t be made on API calls with the potential to be harmful. Even for third-party app stores, Apple could still require app reviews and code signing for any apps that want to conduct financial transactions; they just don’t want to because they’ll make less money from Apple Pay.

Apple often handholds user flows and restricts access to features because non-technical folks might be tricked into installing a malicious or insecure service, and Apple stuff is built for non/technical people. But, on the flipside, they often leverage this position to wall you into their garden. This is the problematic practice that needs to be addressed.

0xD , 2 months ago

It would not. It's really as simple as that, saying as someone with two degrees in cyber security and 7 years of experience as a security consultant for various companies from small shops to multinational businesses, banks, and insurance companies.

I would love to see their threat modelling to justify what they're saying to brainwash their acolytes... It's a pure strawman to justify their bullshit.

JoeCoT , 2 months ago

They don't have to force them to make an app. Instead they could make them provide an interface that an app can use. Instead of their current strategy of thwarting any attempt to make their ecosystem interoperable with competitor's devices. I imagine them instantly killing Beeper's connection to iMessage was a part of this move.

AA5B , 2 months ago

• You can use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.
• anyone can create and sell a Watch App - Apple maintains the store and basic functionality
• you can use another brand Watch with an iPhone - I see the apps

DjMeas , 2 months ago

I think the point though is you might be able to connect a Garmin to your iPhone but only Apple Watches get special access to certain APIs because "security".

shrugal , 2 months ago

They don't have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.

captainastronaut , 2 months ago

Is this really the biggest problem in the US right now? Can the justice department maybe spend some time on gun violence, climate denial, misinformation, dark money in politics…. Like 1000 other things that are literally killing people before we worry about this? Or is this just because it’s an election year and they think it will be popular…

KairuByte , 2 months ago

When your family does spring cleaning, does the entire family all focus on each specific thing individually, or are you capable of collectively handling multiple things at the same time?

dezmd , 2 months ago

Not necessarily the best example, if you split the work up too much, you can end up with a bunch of unfinished projects, when everyone works together on specific items together you are more likely to get specific things done quickly and have them be more fully 'completed.'

Source: Actually have a family, actually do spring cleaning.

KairuByte , 2 months ago

Well, in the case of the DOJ the “individual family member” is a group of people. I was just pointing out that one thing being done doesn’t mean other things are not also being done.

noxy , 2 months ago

were you breathing as you typed this out?

CyberSeeker , 2 months ago

antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry

United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).

A market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not.

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)

KairuByte , 2 months ago

In my opinion, the first quote doesn’t apply at all. Unless you can express how Apple is objectively superior?

And Apple smartphone market share is at the higher end of your second quote. When all competitors are much lower, it may very well be that it is considered a monopoly. Though that’s literally what this case will determine.

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

Objectively superior? Superior user experience is entirely subjective, but that is the main selling point of almost everything Apple has done in the last 17 years

RGB3x3 , 2 months ago

Marketing and reality are two different things. It's definitely not a superior experience. When Apple's stuff stops working, and it frequently does, the user has zero control to fix anything. Instead, they're shoehorned into having no recourse other than to use Apple's support, making them entirely dependent on the company in order to use their device.

Apple purposely hamstrings the user experience to exert control over users.

_tezz , 2 months ago

Whoever down voted you is coping, this is easily seen all over their products. RCS, headphone ports, charging ports, not allowing you to side load apps, the walled garden, yadda yadda. Apple makes good (really expensive) hardware but the rest is marketing.

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

I think you’re just proving that it is entirely subjective. If it was objectively an inferior experience, I’m confident they wouldn’t be nearly as popular as they are. I get that there are plenty of people who believe firmly that total control over their own electronics is the best experience, and I can understand that. I enjoy tinkering in a Linux machine as much as any Lemmy user. However the vast majority of people do not want to be overwhelmed with the amount of ways they can configure their devices to the point that they can’t discern one choice from another. And my iPhone does exactly what I need it to just as much as my Android did.

Yeah, marketing is definitely part of it. They make their devices sound, look, and appear like they’re some sort of luxury experience. But there’s definitely something extremely smooth about the way Apple’s suite of software works with their hardware, and how their hardware works with each other, and I appreciate that for what it is.

horsey , 2 months ago

Apple has been more successful in the US, so by definition one could conclude they’ve done something better than competitors, whether it’s the products, timing, or something else about their business activities. People aren’t forced to buy iPhones any more than they are forced to buy Android.

TheGrandNagus , 2 months ago

By this logic all monopolies could be described as being better.

horsey , 2 months ago

I think you could analyze it based on a company's history. Some companies clearly didn't earn a monopoly, for instance if they had a market handed to them by the government. Or, if they did the thing that's actually illegal under antitrust law - used a monopoly in one market to expand to another.

dustyData , 2 months ago

By this same logic, on a global scale they are not dominant, so they can be argued to be a worse product, not superior. Therefore, their dominance on the US must be forced by coercive actions and categorized as a monopoly.

horsey , 2 months ago

Their actions in the US market and tastes of US customers are not necessarily the same as elsewhere in the world. If Apple concentrated marketing in the US, for example, that would be sufficient.

BmeBenji , 2 months ago

The crux of this suit seems to be that the DOJ believes that Apple needs to make its hardware fair to everyone that can develop on it, and make its software fair to all possible hardware that can run it, which is particularly interesting because Apple’s main product seems to be a pleasant and easy user experience that cuts through the physical barriers of the pieces of hardware it sells. And part of that user experience is the sense of security that is supposed to come with knowing that Apple is (more or less) able to decide who is allowed to access important, secure elements of their hardware.

On the software side of things, I don’t fully understand why or how the DOJ could force Apple to develop better integration support for cross-vendor hardware usage? Why do they need to go the extra mile to make an Apple Watch work well with an Android phone? Because the DOJ says so? I mean, sure I guess that would be better for everyone but it’s a weird thing to require.

deweydecibel , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Be prepared for a lot of hand-wringing about "security".

Apple, Microsoft, and Google all learned in the last couple years "security" shuts down any arguments, and they use it at every turn to justify whatever they want, regardless of the actual dangers or alternative mitigation methods they could take.

If our modern software security means anti-competitive behavior and user lock-in tactics are OK, then that's a problem with our security practices, and we need to reevaluate some things.

ShepherdPie , 2 months ago

If they utter "security for children" the government will probably not only drop the lawsuit but pay Apple $20 billion.

affiliate , 2 months ago

they could get an extra 50 billion if they say “security for children, against terrorists”

100_kg_90_de_belin , 2 months ago

Make it $100 billion if the terrorist children have brown faces.

Lucidlethargy , 2 months ago

And deduct all billions if we're talking about domestic terrorism, or if there's any mention of insurrection.

fruitycoder , 2 months ago

Market security maybe
What's next im not allowed to read the EULA because i may come up with nefarious ways to still use the service?

T156 , 2 months ago

If you can read the EULA, then you can learn how to skirt around it, and therefore, letting you read the EULA is against the spirit of the EULA, and should be banned.

turkishdelight , 2 months ago

They learned this line from the government. You can't criticise goverments after they utter the magical national security buzzwords.

Shouted , 2 months ago

Passing this would destroy Apple’s entire business, where they spend their effort and money deeply integrating their products to work together.

Instead, they’ll have to spend their time and money creating an API to let random Joe make a watch for an ecosystem they did nothing to create, foster, or maintain.

isles , 2 months ago

Maybe they shouldn't have based their business on monopoly?

Shouted , 2 months ago

People don’t need to use an iPhone. A symptom of our declining society is expecting people or businesses to accommodate your personal interests instead of you making an adult decision.

Wrench , 2 months ago

Man, can you fanboy any harder?

Apple has some aggressive "in-club" style marketing and exclusivity practices.

iMessage intentionally massively degrades user experience when a non-iMessage user is in the chat, to encourage their iPhone users to harass their friends into getting an iPhone too.

The cruelty is the point. They want their users to ostracize their friends into converting friends and family to their platform.

horsey , 2 months ago

How is “cruelty the point” while you’re saying that expanding their market share is the point? That would make cruelty a means to an end, not an end itself.

Holyginz , 2 months ago

I hate to say it man, but you are talking to a brick wall. That don't understand, and more importantly they don't want to understand.

Shouted , 2 months ago

And I’m speaking to a bunch of incel teenagers who are baby raging about a green bubble and how their parents won’t get them an iPhone.

That’s literally an argument in the DoJ’s case, btw. A case led by incels.

Wrench , 2 months ago

And that tells me everything I need to know about your opinions. Horray for the block feature

Shouted , 2 months ago

Thanks for being my first, I guess

CaptainEffort , 2 months ago

green bubble and how their parents won’t get them an iPhone.

Tbh I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but this take is embarrassing and doesn’t even make sense in the modern day. You realize plenty of Androids are the same price, if not more expensive, than iPhones right? What year do you think it is?

gian , 2 months ago

A symptom of our declining society is expecting people or businesses to accommodate your personal interests instead of you making an adult decision.

A symptom of your declining society is expecting that the rules in place could be ignored.

It is true, nobody is forced to buy an iPhone but this not means that Apple could play in the game with a different set of rules from everyone else.

Shouted , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

What existing rules? The rules designed for 19th/20th century oil companies that don’t apply to modern tech companies?

New rules are being written.

Apple could play in the game with a different set of rules

They’re playing a different game because they’re the ones who built the ballpark they’re playing in. Don’t like the game? Don’t go to the ballpark.

It’s so exhausting how you people simply can’t accept “don’t buy Apple” and leave it alone.

gian , 2 months ago

What existing rules? The rules designed for 19th/20th century oil companies that don’t apply to modern tech companies?

They can be old and technically it can be a stretch to apply them to a tech company, but they are still here.

New rules are being written.

That's good

Apple could play in the game with a different set of rules

They’re playing a different game because they’re the ones who built the ballpark they’re playing in. Don’t like the game? Don’t go to the ballpark.

As long as the ballpark is not a problem for other people, ok. But if the ballpark is a problem for the people playing...

It’s so exhausting how you people simply can’t accept “don’t buy Apple” and leave it alone

"Don't buy Apple" is not a giustification for Apple to do something that is illegal, at least from the DOJ point of view.

Wrench , 2 months ago

You mean, like the business model that Android has been using for years?

Or Windows / Linux have been using for decades?

What a weird thing to paint in a bad light.

Shouted , 2 months ago

Android is an ecosystem made up of OEMs under the lead of Google, and all these OEMs have different business models. Google’s however, is an ad-based monopoly. Totally different business model. You referring to Android as a single entity shows how clueless you are about this topic.

Mobile is a different environment compared to desktop, so you’re comparing Apples to oranges.

Holyginz , 2 months ago

Boo fucking hoo, android has done it for years and is fine. Apple doesn't want to do it because if they don't they can charge as much as they want for things because you can only get it from them. If they put half as much into innovation as they do into walling everything off they might actually have new ideas instead of the exact same phone with minor hardware and software upgrades that makes it the exact same phone but with a heftier price tag each subsequent generation.

Wrench , 2 months ago

To be fair, the unwalled garden of Android hasn't really come back with anything compelling in a decade, either. Just iterative hardware improvements.

Which is fine. The space has matured. There will be other frontiers.

But at least this might result in a decrease of friction between users with different platforms.

Holyginz , 2 months ago

I mean, I'm using the fold 3 which I am really liking and is definitely something new. But it is true more could be being done.

Shouted , 2 months ago

You don’t need to buy an iPhone, and if you don’t have one then this doesn’t affect you and you’re baby raging about nothing. If you do have one and are still mad, then perhaps evaluate how little self control you have over your purchases.

Holyginz , 2 months ago

Lol, try and lecture all you want little troll, you are just making yourself look like even more of a tool and a child. I couldn't care less either way what your opinion is because you have literally no idea what anyone else's circumstances are and you think you are better. Go study more and do a little more growing up next time you think you have any leg to stand on in judging what others situations are.

dustyData , 2 months ago

Passing this would destroy Apple’s entire business

I think that is, indeed, the point.

Shouted , 2 months ago

You think you want this, but you really don’t. If Apple is gone then Android is all that exists and THAT IS A REAL MONOPOLY.

dustyData , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I never said I wanted Apple gone, nor does their exploitative and abusive business model being stopped requires them to cease to exists. Get a grip, straw men don't look good on sidewalks, and you look like a fool when you bring one out to fight with it.

Blackmist , 2 months ago

*Sees EU fining Apple*

Oh shit we can tell corporations what to do!

generalpotato , 2 months ago

This. Smells like me too (the expression, not the movement) as opposed to a well thought out plan as to how they’ll tackle the monopoly.

masterspace , 2 months ago

Biden appointed a bunch of pretty vehemently anti-monopoly people to power, this is just how long it actually takes them to conduct an investigation thorough enough to bring suit.

generalpotato , 2 months ago

Right. Real Estate is a shit show and has been a shit show for decades with corporations buying out SFH homes and properties, driving up prices and making them unaffordable for the average American. If I was stack list of problems to tackle impacting Americans, that would be pretty high up the list instead of a tech company.

Of course, you can and should do both, but considering time and money are finite resources, it’s very on the nose to pick this fight instead of the one that impacts Americans the most.

I don’t think monopolies should exist, but also, we should be looking at regulations and law making instead of law suits.

dylanmorgan , 2 months ago

I don’t know how much of that falls under the DOJ’s purview. Based on what I’ve heard from various congressional staffers, a physical letter mailed to your congressional representative actually does mean something. You can also go to your city council meetings and tell the city council they should do something about housing.

generalpotato , 2 months ago

Oh, I’m in the heart of a place well known for exorbitant property values, and there’s been plenty of talk of “fixing housing”. Literally everybody runs on the platform of lowering property values, so I’m sure the letting your congressional staffer know has been done to death.

In addition to that, countless articles, op-eds, research has been published in the last 4 years alone and the point I’m making is, that this DOJ move seems more political theater than anything, which is surprising coming from folks that are supposedly about consumer rights and protections.

We need actual problems to be solved, not grand gestures and showboating of supposed take downs of “monopolies” when the laws around monopolistic practices are about as ancient as the presidential candidates trying to win points with their voter base.

prole , 2 months ago

Also, as everybody knows, governments can only do one thing at a time.

hamsterkill , 2 months ago

The investigation actually started in 2019 under Trump's DoJ.

Monument , 2 months ago

Awhile back a non tech person at work got hoodwinked into a sales pitch by a no name “AI” vendor. They, of course, invited a distribution list of all the IT and IT adjacent people to this pitch, thinking their ingenuity was going to transform our workplace and they were going to get accolades.

During the pitch, the sales guy (or CEO?) talked about Google getting surprised by Open AI, and that they rushed to build Bard, so they “could have their own ‘Me Too’ moment.” (With an inflection to indicate the Me Too comment was a reference.)

While I was watching people unmute, stay silent, then mute again, multiple group chats lit up at once.

(And the guy either didn’t understand LLM’s, or was hoping we really didn’t. It was peak marketing speak. He got crushed in the Q&A, ultimately revealing that the extent of his offering was to resell access to an established LLM vendor.)

generalpotato , 2 months ago

Hahahaha that’s awesome! All the while scary to see the snakeoil-ism in tech.

Lucidlethargy , 2 months ago

Good.

JCreazy , 2 months ago

Now we just need the US to force carriers to automatically unlock phones after they are paid off.

LodeMike , 2 months ago

They do actually. What you're talking about is unlocking the bootloader.

I wanted to borrow a friend's [old] phone to try out graphene but he got it from Verizon and they keep the bootloaders locked so it was worthless.

MyNamesNotRobert , 2 months ago

As soon as smartphones started becoming commonplace in like 2009 or so, I dropped Verizon because I wasn't going to pay $500 for a smartphone that couldn't have custom roms. Verizon can go fuck themselves.

JCreazy , 2 months ago

A lot of carriers make you wait a certain period of time before unlocking. I'm hoping that I can get my phone unlocked so I can install graphene OS. I got a good deal on it so that's why I bought it locked, I'm going to degoogle it as much as possible until I can get the bootloader unlocked.

chiliedogg , 2 months ago

Hang a phone carrier unlocked and unlocking the bootloader are very different things.

JCreazy , 2 months ago

I am well aware but you can't unlock the boot loader without having a phone carrier unlocked.

chiliedogg , 2 months ago

It's been a while since I did it, but every single time I've unlocked a bootloader it's been on a carrier-locked device. I'd usualy do it to remove carrier bloat.

JCreazy , 2 months ago

Carrier Unlocking is required before a phone can be bootloader unlocked, at least on my Pixel 8.

chiliedogg , 2 months ago

Ahh - I think I see what you're getting at.

I think the Pixel allows unlocking the bootloader, so it's just the carrier in the way.

Most phones have to be hacked to unlock the bootloader because of the manufacturer locking it, so the carrier doesn't really matter since you're having to bypass locks anyway.

flop_leash_973 , 2 months ago

With Apple tipping over the ~50% market share in the US and with the current rulings in the EU, maybe the US DOJ smell blood in the water. Hopefully something unusually good for the consumer will come of this, but I won't be shocked if it doesn't.

miridius , 2 months ago

I only recently found out about iPhones having 50% market share in the US and that's insane to me. I think anyone who's used both Android and iPhones a lot knows that iPhones are both a worse product and worse value for money, so in a fair market they would be the minority

Zedstrian , 2 months ago

They're certainly a much worse value for the money and intentionally constrained in ways that maximize the profits of Apple services by making it inconvenient or impossible to use alternatives, but the UI is substantially better than Android. Aside from that and Apple device interoperability benefits, nearly any Android phone is a better choice for most people.

miridius , 2 months ago

Agree to disagree I guess! I used an iPhone X as my daily driver for 3 years and was overjoyed to get the Android UI back when I switched back. The iPhone visuals are more consistent but the UX is significantly worse imo. There are a few things that I reckon are mainly just Apple being stubborn and refusing to admit they were wrong - e.g. the lack of a back button

iknowitwheniseeit , 2 months ago

I'm reminded that Macs did not have right buttons for decades because Steve Jobbs didn't want them.

flit , 2 months ago

I have an iMac for work. Right-click is still disabled by default on macOS. One of the first things our company has us do is re-enable it. I was provided a third-party mouse, some others were provided a Magic Mouse which doesn't have a right mouse button.

thimantha , 2 months ago

Hard disagree. iOS UI/UX is sub par compared to Android. Consistent visuals and fancier animations don't mean that the UI is good.

arefx , 2 months ago

I find the UI to be so much worse lol

iliketurtles , 2 months ago

The IOS UI is so cumbersome

prole , 2 months ago

but the UI is substantially better than Android.

Yeah, hard disagree

For one, you can make Android look/behave like anything you want.

aphlamingphoenix , 2 months ago

In general, I agree. I'll add two things:

• Android allows you to use third party launchers if you don't like the one that comes with your phone. I use Nova Launcher, for instance. I'm not an Apple person, but to my knowledge that's either not possible or a pain to do on an iPhone. It also lets me buy from different Android device manufacturers and keep a consistent UI across all of them.
• Android has some serious UX issues in a few places. The one that gets me the most is when you share something. The interface you get differs based on the source app, sometimes only has a handful of visible options with no sorting or recency options, and it hides the fact that's you can scroll to see more, but never more than about four at a time.

Still, I'll take it over an iPhone any day.

viking , 2 months ago

The UI is terrible. Unintuitive and can't be customized. What's good about it?

ImTryingLemmy , 2 months ago

but the UI is substantially better than Android

For children and drunks, maybe.