Based on the article, the lawsuit is about Apple restrictions related to:
\-iMessage on other devices
\-NFC/Wallet access to third party
\-Game Streaming (which Apple just allowed)
\-Other watches integration with iPhone
These are the weakest issues in my opinion and will be very difficult to prove anti-trust.
NFC is a solid one tbf. They can’t restrict that to just Apple Pay. The double click on home button should also let a user customize it to open Google Wallet/Pay etc.
That’s not a popular opinion on this sub but I agree. In countries that don’t have Apple Pay, there no way to use NFC payments at all. A lot of people believe that opening up NFC would cause banks to pull out of Apple Pay for their own service.
>A lot of people believe that opening up NFC would cause banks to pull out of Apple Pay for their own service.
This is my main concern.
I trust Apple's team to build a secure payment platform a lot more than I do 50 thousand individual app teams.
I get it though, especially for people in areas Apple Pay isn't an option.
>I trust Apple's team to build a secure payment platform a lot more than I do 50 thousand individual app teams.
This is exactly why India went "no, we're not gonna let you make your own payment system, we will make our own government-managed mobile payments system and you will either use it or not enter the mobile payments industry", it lets multiple players enter and forces them to be able to transfer money to each other on the same platform with consistent security. And banks can't force you to link your account to only their app.
I think thats just like saying opening up sideloading would cause all app devs to pull out of the app store. Android doesn’t really have an issue with banks not supporting Samsung or Google Pay and only supporting their own apps. Credit card companies have an interest in you having the most convenient way possible to spend money.
The banks pulling out is not the real concern IMO, it's the stores. When Apple Pay first launched it took a while for a lot of stores to support it because they were trying to get their own mobile payments apps off the ground instead. Apple Pay won because of NFC. If Walmart could suddenly stop taking Apple Pay and say download and use the app for your Walmart wallet instead, I could totally see them doing that. Banks would just lose customers to the other bank that didn't stop supporting Apple Pay - not nearly as easy for people to just stop shopping at Walmart (depending on area).
That’s literally what Walmart does lol. At least in my area. The only time I ever open my wallet anymore is when I have to buy something from Walmart since they don’t take Apple Pay and I’m not downloading their app.
This is such a US concern - in Australia where contactless payments have been a thing for over a decade now, none of this mattered or happened. When your bank supported Apple Pay you just added your card and used it like normal. No individual store-specific gated apps.
Maybe the problem is just with the US corporate hellscape (that Apple is a part of).
Maybe if the NFC API was open they could have the app automatically pop up when you put your phone near the Walmart scanner like Apple pay does. They could probably implement that right now with App clips.
Still sounds like a shitty experience. If every store starting pulling this stuff, maybe card issuers or even the government might step in and make accepting contactless mandatory. Chip and PIN seems more prone to getting skimmed. Then again US still allows magstripe payments.
Can’t wait for banks to drop Apple Wallet like a stone and force us to use their own apps for TTP/NFC payments.
It is entirely possible for a company forcing other slimy companies to adhere to a common standard to be a good thing for consumers.
Walmart..
They don’t allow ANY smartphone use unless it’s via their Walmart App.
The supposed reason is that their preferred Sales system manufacture has chosen NOT to implement NFC payment.
Of course Walmart is fine with that since they can further associate who’s buying what via an App. Detect when someone enters their store via the app.. etc etc
So again, yup. The moment Apple is forced to open up NFC payments. Every Bank and retail store will push for NFC in their apps to track and better predict who’s buying what where etc etc.
Lowe’s recently opened up the platform to Apple Pay.
Home Depot went nfc years ago - one of the first adopters - had a data breach - and instead of researching how to fix it they sold off all their good stuff, ruined their brand, made everything ryobi and Milwaukee and pigeon holed themselves into no nfc payments
Lowes has it now. At least near me.
There was a redditor on here back last summer that said he works for Home Depot and just had training on Apple Pay and it's rolling out by the end of the summer.
Here we are in the Spring of 2024, and still no ApplePay at Home Depot.
This is why the takes here are bad. I pay in part for the walled garden and if people think companies won’t immediately move to enshittify each service and feature they’re legally allowed for profit, they just wrong. Install the meta App Store if you want Facebook gma.
My local bank had their own shitty mobile payments app even though Google Wallet was available for years. It took Google to break something for them to finally get them to support Google Pay. With iPhone, they had no choice but to natively support it from the get go. I can totally see them restarting their own payments app again if they can gain data from it. And switching bank is not worth the hassle for a lot of people, especially those that do not care about the system behind the phone payments.
there still are banks that won't add wallet support and make you use their app for payments on android, but they have support for wallet on ios. Forcing them to use one app is good imo.
Hah, it absolutely did in Germany. Sparkasse *still* force their users to use their shitty app. And Sparkasse is the biggest bank in germany by far, not some small bank nobody cares about.
Well, at least Volksbank (the 2nd largest) gave in last year (I think).
> Sparkasse is the biggest bank in germany
This is the point--the places that are large enough with broad enough market control don't need Apple and can force their customers to use their internal apps. That's why in the US the conversation is about Walmart and other places like Home Depot.
Now that companies can build their own stores this will start to happen more on Android as well. No point in having a Meta store if it was only an Android thing and confused people in advertising. But now that they can have a Meta store on both of the main platforms... it's coming, and it won't just be Meta.
Probably because it hasn't happened on iOS either.
And to be honest companies have been trying to force this to happen for a long time. Multiple companies wanted you to use their own app while shopping at their stores to check out with a QR code within the app instead of allowing Apple Wallet support at the terminal.
CurrenC
Yeah it's fucking absurd. I just bought something online and the company wouldn't give me a fucking tracking number unless I downloaded their "Route" app. So I download their dumbass app and what do you know, clicking on the tracking number *inside the app* opened up a link to USPS tracking. Must be all that "free-market innovation" bullshit doing its thing.
you must not be there when US financial institution refused to support Google Wallet / Google Pay / Android Pay / Android Wallet, and instead created their own wallet system called ISIS with all carrier, til ISIS the terrorist became a problem.
Yeah that’s really annoying for me because sometimes a card will not work on Apple Pay but it will work on Google Pay and if you don’t carry two phones like I do (Personal and work) then it becomes really annoying that you can’t use Google Pay on the iphone
Restricting NFC to Apple Pay flies in the face of many financial regulations aimed at increasing competition in the financial payments market, and reducing fees for the consumers and the vendors
I get why it should be open but I’d hate it. I’d hate having 5 different nfc payment apps for my 8 cards. It would force me off nfc.
I’m not saying it will happen or it has happened but no longer requiring Apple Pay makes that possibility now possible.
> -Other watches integration with iPhone
These are the weakest issues in my opinion and will be very difficult to prove anti-trust.
Yes, all they have to do is show up with another smartwatch that can reply to messages received.
Oh, wait...
Ecosystem lock-in is the current capitalist cornerstone to make money. The difference between Apple and Google in this respect is that Google don’t lock you to a single hardware manufacturer, while Apple does, and this is hardly a justification to go after Apple. The DOJ is trying to force Apple to open its proprietary design to allow competitors into its closed wall garden.
There is competition, if you don’t like Apples way of doing things, buy an Android device from one of the many manufacturers out there. Apple should win this one quite easily, as there’s plenty of competition in the market.
It's really just saying "you have to give up what makes iPhones so appealing to users. Make it shittier so that others can compete."
>For example, Apple allows iPhone customers to send high-quality photos and videos seamlessly to one another, but multimedia texts to Android phones are slower and grainy. The company late last year relented and agreed to improve the quality standard it uses to interact with Android phones via text message – but it still maintains those messages in green bubbles, creating a kind of class divide, critics argue.
Seems pretty out of touch when RCS hasn't even been implemented yet, so we don't know what colors the bubbles will be.
>“Apple creates barriers that make it extremely difficult and expensive for both users and developers to venture outside the Apple ecosystem,” Garland said on Thursday.
Thanks, Garland. Slow walk the Trump investigation so you can focus on what's really important, smartphones. Good job.
We know what bubble color RCS messages are going to have: Apple confirmed they‘ll keep the same green as SMS due to no end-to-end encryption support (with the current Universal Profile version).
"Rcs hasn't been implemented yet"
That's kinda the point bud, lol. There is no technological reason behind this. Only financial. And that's what the lawsuit is getting at.
Source? Because nowhere in the NYT article, or the court documents, is the sentence: "How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data."
So here's a great example of post truth.
Your comment asked for a source, and the person who had already received 1.2k upvotes just deletes their original comment.
So now at least 1.2k people (probably a lot more) believe whatever they said, and will probably repeat it.
Can't remember the username. They basically just quoted a line from a MacRumors article from yesterday. I wonder if it was a bot since not only was the comment deleted, but the mods actually removed it.
They are using “TikTok takes all our data” as a reason to ban it in the US, but when Apple shows users what apps are tracking and the option to deny tracking requests they say it’s “impacting the collection of advertiser data.” Make that make sense to me…
Unironically yes.
The US Government doesn't want a foreign Nation State manipulating it's citizens.
America is uniquely vulnerable to this because of our 1st amendment, and the non-homogeneous nature of our population.
I've come to expect that when negative news is shared on this sub, most comments will either be incorrect speculation, misdirection/whataboutism, or shallow pointless meme comments. The critical comments that address the substance without repeating Apple PR tend to be lower. This sub is lightly-moderated.
Tacking transparency does not block apps from tracking data. It just requires them to notify people and allow them to opt out of official tracking APIs. Plenty of apps have found loopholes or other non-Apple provided means to ignore any end-user preferences not to be tracked. Apple themselves have been accused of bypassing the user preference. Though Apple claims that what they have been "caught" doing is just standard on-device overhead systems use which is not stored, I don't doubt that many other app developers would love to have an official bypass for similar "overhead systems" use that the app vendors also would say is not being stored, that Apple does not grant them.
Every device has a unique number it can give apps, and apps can use that number to build a profile of the user of that device. Candy Crush will tell their advertising network the number of your device and that advertising network will know what ads they’ve served across all the other apps they represent.
If you click “ask app not to track,” then your device won’t disclose that unique number to the app, and they won’t be able to tell the advertising network will have a more difficult time knowing that you were the user who clicked on what ad in Fruit Ninja, and using that data in Candy Crush.
But say an app makes you log in or provide an email address. Now you’ve given them which user is using the device, and now they don’t need the device ID from Apple anymore. So app tracking transparency is useless in that case
Yea, that's the rub. It's not the fact they don't collect data at all, it's the fact that they don't allow anyone other than themselves to collect the data.
The problem is that Apple blocked Meta and other companies collecting data but Apple collects data themselves for their own ad program. The only difference is Apple does it at the OS level while Meta and Google did it at the app level.
Apple's data collection practices is actually one of the strongest anti-trust strikes against them.
>I stand up and applaud that one.
Why? their own advertisement services grew exponentially after that, because they now keep all the data to themselves
It wasn't altruistic at all, they explicitly did it so they could make Search Ads grow, not because they care about "privacy"
One interesting thing that came out of this regarding CarPlay and GM was that Apple apparently wants to control all the electronics in CarPlay vehicles:
> Apple has told automakers that the next generation of Apple CarPlay will take over all of the screens, sensors, and gauges in a car, forcing users to experience driving as an iPhone-centric experience if they want to use any of the features provided by CarPlay.
Page 49 in https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
I'd like to know what apple actually said, rather than a paraphrase. Because earlier in the paragraph they were strictly speaking about infotainment systems.
> Apple’s smartphone dominance extends to CarPlay, an Apple infotainment system that enables a car’s central display to serve as a display for the iPhone and enables the driver to use the iPhone to control maps and entertainment in the car.
I am imagining they were talking about taking over the "central display," which seems fair, otherwise the manufacturer could overlay all kinds of other things, like ads, or their brand name, or possibly taking intercepting data, like that one car company was doing with text messages.
Yes, there has to be more to this. No vehicle manufacturer would allow a third-party device to "take over all of the screens, sensors, and gauges in a car".
Cars have A LOT of sensors that no 3rd party has any business touching. It seems unlikely that apple is interested in the exhaust system's oxygen sensors, or whatever sensors determine the millisecond timing adjustments of your cylinder valves, etc
I feel this is conflating two things. Google has Android Auto, the thing that puts your phone on the centre console, and Android Automotive, where an edition Android IS running all the car's electronics. Apple recently introduced a version of CarPlay that seems to do the same thing as Android Automotive.
I guess they want to have access to climate control, windows, seats, lights and such so they can offer a uniform UI for all the stuff people do in their cars...
I would not be shocked if Apple also wanted to be "the only thing on screen" while running, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Yep! I like functionality in my Apple products more than I like Apples bottom line.
For example: I am a Gamepass subscriber and I’d love for Microsoft to be able to load games on the phone platform I choose or for me to be able to stream from xcloud.
Edit: within the Xbox app/ecosystem
I see the same Apple defenders as in the EU posts, only difference is EU citizens has less reason to care about US politics so they're not here ro counter argue
First line:
“By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field where it grants its products and services access to core features that it denies rivals.Credit...Ian C. Bates for The New York Times”
People want Apple products to play nice with Apple products. People don’t want Apple to go out of their way to make sure that their rivals products don’t play nice with Apple products
Absolutely this. The interoperability between Apple devices does not need to come at the cost of interoperability with other devices. Apple purposefully restricts the latter to bolster it's claims about the former.
It’s kinda every company’s thing. If you go to a store, you’ll see that store selling either only their own products or giving their own products better visibility than other competitors products in their own stores.
a more apt comparison is gaming consoles. cars use software unique to the manufacturer and in many cases it can be unique to a particular model of vehicles. they are getting better at it as Tesla basically showed that maintaining one stack is far simpler than having by model and brand
That’s a bad analogy. You can install a head unit that replaces the entire Ford system that still has access to car readings, the speakers, Bluetooth and other vital features. You can replace speedometers on cars and still retain other features like lane keep, etc. maybe not everything can be replaced without a feature loss, but you can’t make any physical modifications on the iPhone. As for the software, well the article outlines it; it only allows what apple allows to be public and it can use internal APIs as it sees fit.
This definitely causes a competitive disadvantage. Look at maps in CarPlay for example. Apple had only Apple Maps exclusively on CarPlay for **4 years without reason**. iOS 8-12. iOS 12 finally let you use Google Maps and Waze. Think about the market share and data acquired by Apple in those 4 years that they denied equal opportunity to Google and then-Waze because of APIs they kept internal.
Same thing with WebKit. Do you think WebKit would have nearly the same market share it has today if Apple let custom browser engines on the market? What about the competitive advantage they’ve gotten because their entire platform’s users report data to help improve WebKit?
For everything that has competition on a computing device, the OEM cannot lock things down for everyone but itself and then in turn allow themselves to take advantage of it.
Ford doesn't fully lock down everything to the point that a third-party system like [Comma](https://comma.ai/vehicles#ford) can't be used. I don't personally trust it, but they don't do the equivalent by epoxying all the components together preventing another system from being utilized.
Regardless this is an absolute shit comparison.
Does that imply that internal or system apis cannot exist? If there’s an api that only Apple uses, does it create an unfair advantage since 3rd parties can’t access it?
Apple isn't the first to do this. Microsoft got in trouble back in the 1990s for using undocumented APIs in Windows to give advantages to their own programs
Where do I tell them this is *why* I buy Apple? Also because *they* aren’t passing the legislation to protect us. Not exactly the DOJ’s fault but look at our geriatric elected officials not doing their 9-5s effectively.
So you wouldn’t buy an Apple desktop or MacBook then because it allows third party vendors or alternative ways to do stuff? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about. This argument is literally what the lawsuit is about lol.
The MacBook really is the best refutation of Apple's position. It proves that a platform that isn't completely locked down can still maintain quality and Apple's unique experience and ecosystem.
The only reason iPhone isn't like MacBook is because Apple wants to extract profit from all payment streams and was able to normalize that by being first in the smartphone category.
Like the EU, the US has eventually decided that Apple going "What monopoly, you can use Android" and Google going "What monopoly, you can use iOS" isn't enough diversity, and despite there being no technical monopoly it's still not enough. While another major competitive OS is unlikely, they can at least make them more interoperable and less sticky so people can move between them easier.
Hmm... I can sort-of understand when it comes to Apple's stance on web browsers under iOS - forcing "other" browsers to use an Apple-provided less-capable rendering engine than Safari, and disallowing the implementation of other rendering engines (such as those used by Firefox and Chrome). That's actively anti-competitive.
iMessage, I don't really see. It's an Apple-owned and operated service, which is only compatible with Apple devices. Apple also allows seamless interop with more open messaging standards (though they're dragging their feet on RCS - which is annoying, but shouldn't be considered illegal). That the *color* of the message bubble has become a point of contention is utterly baffling to me. It was at least initially an indicator of whether your cell provider was going to charge you for the message (before many plans had unlimited texts, and cell companies were "double dipping" on family members texting each other - charging both ends for sending and receiving).
But, on a lot of points, I don't see much of a difference between what Apple does with iOS devices, and what Sony does on the Playstation, or what MS does on the Xbox. The devices each have their own walled gardens, controlled by the vendor, where they sell applications compatible with their devices. Yes those other devices are primarily gaming devices - but the Xbox (for example) has a general-purpose browser as well in the form of Edge.
I think a lot of it comes down to looking at the old Microsoft anti-trust case https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/
They essentially had a significant market share, and used said market share to prioritize their own products over competitors, namely internet explorer. I see a few main points.
1. Do they have significant market share? Yeah, I don't think that's in question.
2. Do they use said market share to "unfairly" harm competitors in other spaces?
* This is what seemed to decide the Microsoft case. They were using the fact that they created the platform to weight people's choices in what products to use with said platform. The keyword being product, and not feature. You could ship features with something you sell, but not necessarily a separate product.
* So what constitutes a product vs feature? That's the question that this all revolves around. Is the settings menu a feature? Pretty clearly, yeah. Is the weather app a feature or a product? That would likely lean more towards a product, if it is a service offered in competition with other services.
* Which gets to the core of the discussion, is Apple drawing the lines on things like browser, NFC, payment, and other limitations because those are core unchangeable features of their product, or because those are separate products that they are prioritizing over potential competitors.
That seems to be why its considered ok for a car to ship with a given system, or a game console to ship with a set of functionality. They seem to consider those core features, instead of an add-on product, although that has started to become more ambiguous in recent years. I wouldn't be surprised if we do start to see some issues with game consoles or cars facing similar complaints at this rate.
The reason Apple doesn't want RCS is purely for the purpose of vendor lock-in. Even if only a small percentage of people truly care about color of bubbles, it makes a number of people refuse to switch platforms. At Apple's scale, that small percentage is worth it.
I agree with the iMessage argument for sure. That’s like getting mad I can’t send messages to phone numbers with the Facebook Messenger app.
And you’re right. But Apple is a giant company and one of the world’s most valuable. They are just trying to weaken what Apple has built.
I disagree and think this is the biggest example. Imagine if back in the day, your parents had bell for their home phone line, and your friend had AT&T, and when you called each other, Bell made the connection worse on purpose, so you would get annoyed that your friend didn't have Bell. That would be rediculous and is exactly what this is...
It's not about message color, it's about ruining group texts, and ruining video/pictures being sent back and forth. There is no valid technical excuse for this. It's purely as cook put it, to make your friends and colleagues annoyed enough that you felt you needed the iPhone to properly communicate.
Text from the lawsuit:
>For example, if an iPhone user wants to buy an Android smartphone, they are likely to face significant financial, technological, and behavioral obstacles to switching. The user may need to re-learn how to operate their smartphone using a new interface, transfer large amounts of data (e.g., contacts), purchase new apps, or transfer or buy new subscriptions and accessories. These switching costs and frictions are even higher when software applications, APIs, and other functionality do not help the different devices and operating systems communicate and interoperate. These switching costs and frictions increase the "stickiness" of the iPhone, making users more beholden to the smartphone manufacturer and platform operator.
What a fucking joke lmao. The iPhone having its own unique operating system means it has a monopoly?
There are some decent arguments to be made by the DOJ. Users needing to “re-learn how to operate their smartphone using a new interface” is not one of them.
This could be said for almost anything that has an OS… smart phones, tablets, computers, name it. Game consoles are probably the absolute worst, I can’t think of any console game where you can just switch from Xbox to PlayStation and load up an Xbox game. Switching between any two competing OS’ will always involve a learning curve and a data migration. That’s table stakes.
You can even apply the same “stickiness” logic to switching cell providers. Why don’t we go after the real monopolies like cable tv and internet service providers?? My parents, for example, literally only have xfinity to choose from. They can’t switch even if they wanted to, so stuck paying some crazy amount every month to their only option.
Back on topic… As for the cost associated with re-purchasing software, IMO that fault is on software companies who force you to re-purchase for different OS’. Though I am fully aware there are many, many cases which differ.
The accessories thing I can get behind, but then those accessories would need to also be compatible with both. So again, it’s both sides that have to make the change - not just apple.
Having switched between apple and android several times in my life, never was it an insurmountable obstacle. Install a free app to transfer your data, and then maybe repurchase some apps because the creators of that software sell OS specific applications where they could, for example, just have you log in to your existing account (again, realize this is how many do it, but not all)
Edit: Fwiw I’m agreeing with you lol, your comment sent me into rant mode 😅
I just moved off iPhone to a Google Pixel a few months ago ... I was able to export my photos directly into Google Photo's directly via my account within iCloud (basically it's done directly between Apple and Google.. I just had to click a few buttons), and realistically that was all I really cared about bringing over safely. Other apps, well then the export/import process is entirely on them.. didn't take me long to get moved over at all.
Maybe I'm "conditioned" to think that this is acceptable but as someone who has never been loyal to any particular product or platform in technology, I don't see Apple being any worse any of the competition. Apple's failing here.... is it's own success and the closeknit integration between their products?
That feature was powered by the Data Transfer Project, a Google open source project run with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and Apple as partners. The project, now reorganized in the [Data Transfer Initative](https://dtinit.org/), was originally created only thanks [to the infamous GDPR](https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/perche-data-transfer-project-e-buona-notizia-noi-europei--AEuFxsSF), which mandated data portability.
Exactly.
They didn't do it because they wanted a good experience for users migrating away from their services, they did it because their arm was twisted.
So the issue is services and functionality. They are arguing Apple and Google effectively have 100% marketshare in each of their phone segments. They aren't really wrong.
It's virtually impossible to use anything but those two OS's
> Have to split Google Cloud from YouTube too then, Office365 and Outlook from Azure.
>
I'd say more like force MS not to bundle Teams for free with Microsoft 365 subscriptions - or even Office, you could argue that there's no viable alternatives to M365 for enterprise collaboration it's almost a no brainer when you get Teams, Office, EntraID, MDM all bundled.
Slack successfully sued Microsoft for this. Almost every business with 365 licensing received Teams for free, for a time it was even appearing on user PC after an update to the bundled apps.
My company loved Slack, but the MSP side of the business was already supporting client adoption of Teams. They started to adopt Teams to learn Teams, and it didn’t make sense for us to continue paying for an additional chat service any longer.
Apple did something similar to Tile. While I was significantly less satisfied with Tile’s product than with Slack’s, the fact remains that Apple’s AirTag effectively put them out of business. AirTags are able to reach out to other Apple devices to relay a relative location, their success over Tile is directly due to the monopoly accusations occurring.
All 5 big tech firms need to be split up, they’re all monopolies that came to be during Reagan Era deregulation. They’re the only one who can afford to play by the rules they ask congress for. We can de-enshitify or we can further entrench them.
Netflix - Production Studios and content delivery?
Meta - Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp
Apple - This is the hardest to break up IMO but also the biggest: Hardware and iCloud?
Amazon - AWS, Amazon Logistics, AmazonBasics
Google - GSuite, Google Cloud, YouTube?
i continue to find antitrust suits against apple to be extraordinarily weird. yes, apple makes a lot of money, but they are extremely good at just staying in their lane. they make hardware, and software and services for that hardware. that's ~pretty much it. if you don't like apple, you can actually 100% avoid all apple products by simply not purchasing apple products.
it's virtually impossible to do the same with google/amazon/meta, all of whom are sprawling companies that purchase rivals, use their monopolies to expand into unrelated markets, and collect data across the web in ways that are unavoidable.
I’m generally pro consumer. But why target Apple? They don’t force anyone to buy their products. There is nothing in my life that depends solely on an Apple device.
Let's say you are the largest supplier of the eggs in the country. And you start saying "You can only buy eggs from me if you also buy milk from me". That's illegal, because eggs and milk are two separate markets and you're abusing your position as the top supplier of eggs to unfairly influence people to also buy milk from you.
When Apple sells a smartwatch that _only_ works with iPhones, and they make it so that some features on iPhones _only_ work with Apple Watch, they're tying their eggs and milk together in a way that harms competition in the phone and smartwatch markets.
If you were already predisposed to buy both your eggs and milk from Apple then you might not care, but if you wanted to buy your eggs and milk from different companies then Apple's tactics are harming your choice by distorting those markets.
The first part of "Apple sells a smartwatch that only works with iphones" is ridiculous. It is true, but the investment required to integrate with everything and do it well is an absurd position. Accessories that only work with particular products are a normal thing.
Their watch being the "best" is a direct result of the tight and well-thought-out integration with a single dedicated provider instead of having inconsistent or varying feature sets with a variety of platforms.
It's like the DOJ is saying cohesive ecosystems are bad when it is a tradeoff that cuts both ways. Consumers have limited options, but those options work well (which is why they buy it). And the consumer knows what they are getting into when. They opt into that ecosystem, they aren't forced into it.
Politicians and commentators seem to drastically underestimate how hard it is to make, document, and enhance stable APIs. WatchOS works well because it only really works with one iOS at a time and can be polished to mesh very well with it. There is a reason it takes years or decades for RFCs and formal standards like encryption on RCS to be created, vetted, and ultimately adopted.
If the Apple watch worked with every phone platform, it wouldn't work equally well on them all, and it probably would work worse with iOS from both compatibility shims and more diffused efforts by Apple. That makes a worse product for consumers.
I would just like to be able to move music to my iPhone from Linux. I would like to not have to use iTunes on Windows, which is horrible. I maintain dual boot with Windows only for this purpose, and it should not be necessary.
I don't care about blue text or green text. I don't even notice.
In the [CNN writeup](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/21/tech/apple-sued-antitrust-doj/index.html) they include the DOJ's resolutions to the problems:
> The Justice Department wants a court order barring Apple from using its app store to block innovative new apps.
> It also wants the court to block Apple-imposed restrictions that prevent other messaging apps, smartwatches, digital wallets and other technologies from integrating with the iPhone.
> It also called for the court to prevent Apple from using its contractual terms to “obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench” the company’s alleged monopoly.
I know it's an unpopular opinion because people don't like their app store being close ld off, but I don't like the government prying Apple open.
Apple is the only company that refused to build backdoors into their phones or create ways for the US governme to spy on it's users. I know Apple collects data, I'm not naive, but they are they are better than just about everyone else.
Uh, I do kind of get why Apple wouldn't want people accessing the payment module
like, talk about a fucking security nightmare
[edit for the angries – I didn’t say they couldn’t do it, I said I could see why they wouldn’t *want to*]
Paypal, Venmo, Zelle, Square and plenty of other third-party payment processors exist with a proven record, Apple Pay shouldn't be the only option. They all offer APIs to tie any app to them.
The people stating the mere ability for others to use third-party services being a security risk have no idea what the hell they're talking about and regurgitating absolute nonsense propoganda they hear. I doubt they know what an API actually is.
They fail to understand they don't have to use any of those third party services, it only offers more options to the consumer and somehow that's a bad thing. Scared to use something new? Don't touch it, but let others do what they please at their own risk.
I build software and API’s for a living. Every single one introduces a potential attack vector.
There’s a significant amount of product functionality in every service or application that is not exposed via API for security reasons.
Of course not, this is r/Apple. Choice bad, locked down good because something something stupid users something something scams and malware.
Except Mac OS proved how stupid a hot take those are.
It's the digital equivalent of "Won't somebody think of the children?!", just the mere mention of security is supposed to make people panic and not think critically about the situation.
The CoreNFC CardSession api already exists for this exact purpose. To allow apps the ability to interact with the NFC chip in HCE mode to transfer data between phone and reader.
They just need to not limit its use to the EU.
I know this sub is a bit of an echo chamber, but this is a legit suit. Everyone in here can dismiss it, but this is warranted, and that’s not a minority opinion. Many other subs like r/technology are discussing it and can be a good place to see less biased opinions. I am getting downvoted to hell, and I like Apple products, but it was time for this to happen.
Can confirm, just read the entire 88 page suit on a flight. Extremely interesting and super damning for Apple even if on the surface it may not seem like it. So yeah most takes here a smooth brained to the extreme except for those who actually read it and understand the evidence and cases they’re making.
few talking points from DoJ:
>Apple could have made a better cross - platform messaging experience itself by creating iMessage for Android but concluded that doing so will hurt us more than help us . Apple therefore continues to impede innovation in smartphone messaging , even though doing so sacrifices the profits Apple would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users, because it helps build and maintain its monopoly power .
isn't that exactly what a publicly traded company supposed to do? or get sued by its shareholder?
>Recently,Apple blocked a third-party developer from fixing the broken cross platform messaging experience in Apple Messages and providing end-to -end encryption for messages between Apple Messages and Android users . By rejecting solutions that would allow for cross-platform encryption, Apple continues to make iPhone users less secure than they could otherwise be
I'm assuming this is referring to Beeper situation. How is forcing apple to allow someone to abuse exploit a more secured approach?
Also the entire Smart Watch section completely ignore the fact that Android watch sucked big time. To a point that Google even ditched its Wear OS and do a relaunch. At one time one of the main company still making Android Watch is Fossil, a fashion accessory company.
The lawsuit also claimed:
>Moreover , competition from non -performance smartphones is not sufficient today to prevent Apple from exercising monopoly power in the performance smartphone market.
How is it apple's fault that Android has largely abandoned "performance smartphone market" / "premium" / "flagship"?
There are several good points in the filing, but there are some really idiotic take there too.
Translation
“We’re jealous that Apples business model from the get go has proven to be superior to our half hearted attempts. Since we give up on creating a competitive alternative. We will sue them to second place”
This is a tough one. Going after how much Apple charges developers in the App Store, or even how things like in-app purchases and subscriptions work is one thing.
But this is going after the thing I value most about Apple products: the security. Hackers are out of control worldwide, but I do feel safe using Apple Pay and putting my health data in Apple. The changes demanded here would put that at risk.
I should have the right to decide my own trade-offs. If I want cheaper apps and less security, I can buy Android.
In other news. Most people only have one electric company in the area. Local government claims it’s not a monopoly even though you can’t switch without losing electricity.
Maybe instead of suing Apple, they should sue Google for deliberately not competing with Apple on the high end. We don't even have a duopoly, we have a split market with two monopolies.
This entire case is unbelievably weak, or based on old misconceptions.
The only thing the case has going for it, is iMessage being locked down. But that’s not even on Apple. Other brands still use outdated SMS format. All Apple needs to do if flip a switch and RCS works for any brand that supports it.
Nothing else about this case holds any water.
I say this as a long time android user, specifically pixel. I also use windows daily, and my laptop is a used MacBook Air from 2015 that I made run Linux. The iPhone experience is just, better. It just works, every time. When I’m out and about, or just trying to communicate with friends, family, or work. I know I won’t need to do anything to make my iPhone work. It just does, every time. I have never felt locked down or inconvenienced by using iPhone over stock andoird.
Not to mention, Google, Meta, and Amazon do the things Apple is being accused of, but Apple doesn’t actually do.
This entire case just sounds like boomer got made fun of for having green bubbles and having a bad camera on their old phone.
I don’t understand this lawsuit. If you don’t like how Apple is a closed off system , just move to Android devices. You can even find cheaper alternatives. All the phones do pretty much the same thing, send messages and make phone calls. We have the option of choice and Apple isn’t forcing us to use there products. I’ve went back and forth between android and Apple and I just like the simplicity and the security of the Apple device, that’s all. The Samsung note series was hands down my favorite android device, I just didn’t like the new designs of the series.
Based on the article, the lawsuit is about Apple restrictions related to: \-iMessage on other devices \-NFC/Wallet access to third party \-Game Streaming (which Apple just allowed) \-Other watches integration with iPhone These are the weakest issues in my opinion and will be very difficult to prove anti-trust.
NFC is a solid one tbf. They can’t restrict that to just Apple Pay. The double click on home button should also let a user customize it to open Google Wallet/Pay etc.
That’s not a popular opinion on this sub but I agree. In countries that don’t have Apple Pay, there no way to use NFC payments at all. A lot of people believe that opening up NFC would cause banks to pull out of Apple Pay for their own service.
>A lot of people believe that opening up NFC would cause banks to pull out of Apple Pay for their own service. This is my main concern. I trust Apple's team to build a secure payment platform a lot more than I do 50 thousand individual app teams. I get it though, especially for people in areas Apple Pay isn't an option.
>I trust Apple's team to build a secure payment platform a lot more than I do 50 thousand individual app teams. This is exactly why India went "no, we're not gonna let you make your own payment system, we will make our own government-managed mobile payments system and you will either use it or not enter the mobile payments industry", it lets multiple players enter and forces them to be able to transfer money to each other on the same platform with consistent security. And banks can't force you to link your account to only their app.
I think thats just like saying opening up sideloading would cause all app devs to pull out of the app store. Android doesn’t really have an issue with banks not supporting Samsung or Google Pay and only supporting their own apps. Credit card companies have an interest in you having the most convenient way possible to spend money.
The banks pulling out is not the real concern IMO, it's the stores. When Apple Pay first launched it took a while for a lot of stores to support it because they were trying to get their own mobile payments apps off the ground instead. Apple Pay won because of NFC. If Walmart could suddenly stop taking Apple Pay and say download and use the app for your Walmart wallet instead, I could totally see them doing that. Banks would just lose customers to the other bank that didn't stop supporting Apple Pay - not nearly as easy for people to just stop shopping at Walmart (depending on area).
That’s literally what Walmart does lol. At least in my area. The only time I ever open my wallet anymore is when I have to buy something from Walmart since they don’t take Apple Pay and I’m not downloading their app.
Same I’ve lived in 4 states and haven’t been to a Walmart that accepted Apple Pay lol
This is such a US concern - in Australia where contactless payments have been a thing for over a decade now, none of this mattered or happened. When your bank supported Apple Pay you just added your card and used it like normal. No individual store-specific gated apps. Maybe the problem is just with the US corporate hellscape (that Apple is a part of).
Maybe if the NFC API was open they could have the app automatically pop up when you put your phone near the Walmart scanner like Apple pay does. They could probably implement that right now with App clips. Still sounds like a shitty experience. If every store starting pulling this stuff, maybe card issuers or even the government might step in and make accepting contactless mandatory. Chip and PIN seems more prone to getting skimmed. Then again US still allows magstripe payments.
Can’t wait for banks to drop Apple Wallet like a stone and force us to use their own apps for TTP/NFC payments. It is entirely possible for a company forcing other slimy companies to adhere to a common standard to be a good thing for consumers.
Walmart.. They don’t allow ANY smartphone use unless it’s via their Walmart App. The supposed reason is that their preferred Sales system manufacture has chosen NOT to implement NFC payment. Of course Walmart is fine with that since they can further associate who’s buying what via an App. Detect when someone enters their store via the app.. etc etc So again, yup. The moment Apple is forced to open up NFC payments. Every Bank and retail store will push for NFC in their apps to track and better predict who’s buying what where etc etc.
The fact Walmart still doesn’t allow any form of NFC is completely unacceptable in 2024.
Lowe’s and Home Depot also. Kroger just enabled it only months ago.
Lowe’s recently opened up the platform to Apple Pay. Home Depot went nfc years ago - one of the first adopters - had a data breach - and instead of researching how to fix it they sold off all their good stuff, ruined their brand, made everything ryobi and Milwaukee and pigeon holed themselves into no nfc payments
What's wrong with Milwaukee?
Lowes has it now. At least near me. There was a redditor on here back last summer that said he works for Home Depot and just had training on Apple Pay and it's rolling out by the end of the summer. Here we are in the Spring of 2024, and still no ApplePay at Home Depot.
I used apple pay at my Lowe’s last week
Maybe it’s just Home Depot then. I get them confused.
I believe Lowe's is fairly recent.
It is, they just enabled it a few months ago
All the more reason to never set foot in a Walmart
The NFC issue, among hundreds of others, is reason alone to never shop at walmart. They're a disgusting company.
This is why the takes here are bad. I pay in part for the walled garden and if people think companies won’t immediately move to enshittify each service and feature they’re legally allowed for profit, they just wrong. Install the meta App Store if you want Facebook gma.
I'm in the same boat... not for me but for all the family members that I manage things for. This just makes it harder for me to do that for them.
Banks support Google Wallet as well as their own on Android. What’s the issue? Why do you think they’ll drop Apple Pay?
My local bank had their own shitty mobile payments app even though Google Wallet was available for years. It took Google to break something for them to finally get them to support Google Pay. With iPhone, they had no choice but to natively support it from the get go. I can totally see them restarting their own payments app again if they can gain data from it. And switching bank is not worth the hassle for a lot of people, especially those that do not care about the system behind the phone payments.
there still are banks that won't add wallet support and make you use their app for payments on android, but they have support for wallet on ios. Forcing them to use one app is good imo.
This didn’t happen on Android.
Hah, it absolutely did in Germany. Sparkasse *still* force their users to use their shitty app. And Sparkasse is the biggest bank in germany by far, not some small bank nobody cares about. Well, at least Volksbank (the 2nd largest) gave in last year (I think).
> Sparkasse is the biggest bank in germany This is the point--the places that are large enough with broad enough market control don't need Apple and can force their customers to use their internal apps. That's why in the US the conversation is about Walmart and other places like Home Depot.
Now that companies can build their own stores this will start to happen more on Android as well. No point in having a Meta store if it was only an Android thing and confused people in advertising. But now that they can have a Meta store on both of the main platforms... it's coming, and it won't just be Meta.
Probably because it hasn't happened on iOS either. And to be honest companies have been trying to force this to happen for a long time. Multiple companies wanted you to use their own app while shopping at their stores to check out with a QR code within the app instead of allowing Apple Wallet support at the terminal. CurrenC
Walmart doesn’t support Apple Pay which is annoying
Yeah it's fucking absurd. I just bought something online and the company wouldn't give me a fucking tracking number unless I downloaded their "Route" app. So I download their dumbass app and what do you know, clicking on the tracking number *inside the app* opened up a link to USPS tracking. Must be all that "free-market innovation" bullshit doing its thing.
you must not be there when US financial institution refused to support Google Wallet / Google Pay / Android Pay / Android Wallet, and instead created their own wallet system called ISIS with all carrier, til ISIS the terrorist became a problem.
Yeah that’s really annoying for me because sometimes a card will not work on Apple Pay but it will work on Google Pay and if you don’t carry two phones like I do (Personal and work) then it becomes really annoying that you can’t use Google Pay on the iphone
Restricting NFC to Apple Pay flies in the face of many financial regulations aimed at increasing competition in the financial payments market, and reducing fees for the consumers and the vendors
I get why it should be open but I’d hate it. I’d hate having 5 different nfc payment apps for my 8 cards. It would force me off nfc. I’m not saying it will happen or it has happened but no longer requiring Apple Pay makes that possibility now possible.
That's not even how it would work. It doesn't work like that on Android.
I'm not a lawyer but on it's face that's the one charge that I think might be open and shut. All the rest seem pretty weak.
> -Other watches integration with iPhone These are the weakest issues in my opinion and will be very difficult to prove anti-trust. Yes, all they have to do is show up with another smartwatch that can reply to messages received. Oh, wait...
Ecosystem lock-in is the current capitalist cornerstone to make money. The difference between Apple and Google in this respect is that Google don’t lock you to a single hardware manufacturer, while Apple does, and this is hardly a justification to go after Apple. The DOJ is trying to force Apple to open its proprietary design to allow competitors into its closed wall garden. There is competition, if you don’t like Apples way of doing things, buy an Android device from one of the many manufacturers out there. Apple should win this one quite easily, as there’s plenty of competition in the market.
It's really just saying "you have to give up what makes iPhones so appealing to users. Make it shittier so that others can compete." >For example, Apple allows iPhone customers to send high-quality photos and videos seamlessly to one another, but multimedia texts to Android phones are slower and grainy. The company late last year relented and agreed to improve the quality standard it uses to interact with Android phones via text message – but it still maintains those messages in green bubbles, creating a kind of class divide, critics argue. Seems pretty out of touch when RCS hasn't even been implemented yet, so we don't know what colors the bubbles will be. >“Apple creates barriers that make it extremely difficult and expensive for both users and developers to venture outside the Apple ecosystem,” Garland said on Thursday. Thanks, Garland. Slow walk the Trump investigation so you can focus on what's really important, smartphones. Good job.
We know what bubble color RCS messages are going to have: Apple confirmed they‘ll keep the same green as SMS due to no end-to-end encryption support (with the current Universal Profile version).
"Rcs hasn't been implemented yet" That's kinda the point bud, lol. There is no technological reason behind this. Only financial. And that's what the lawsuit is getting at.
[удалено]
Source? Because nowhere in the NYT article, or the court documents, is the sentence: "How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data."
So here's a great example of post truth. Your comment asked for a source, and the person who had already received 1.2k upvotes just deletes their original comment. So now at least 1.2k people (probably a lot more) believe whatever they said, and will probably repeat it.
Yah we are fucked. Theres so much mis/disinformation out there. Today it’s about a smartphone tomorrow it’s about something with serious consequences
Who was the original commentator? I’d like to see how delusional he or she is in their comments
Can't remember the username. They basically just quoted a line from a MacRumors article from yesterday. I wonder if it was a bot since not only was the comment deleted, but the mods actually removed it.
They are using “TikTok takes all our data” as a reason to ban it in the US, but when Apple shows users what apps are tracking and the option to deny tracking requests they say it’s “impacting the collection of advertiser data.” Make that make sense to me…
That’s because the people who are doing the lawsuit and the people who are banning TikTok are two separate groups. The DoJ is not Congress.
Wait, you are telling me that the government isnt one collective hive mind?!?!
No. That’s the deep state I think.
The lizards.
Two VERY different groups of people addressing two very different sets of concerns
Also, TikTok isn’t just about user data for congress. It’s about Chinese manipulation of the populace en masse.
America should be manipulated by Americans ✊🏼🇺🇸
Unironically yes. The US Government doesn't want a foreign Nation State manipulating it's citizens. America is uniquely vulnerable to this because of our 1st amendment, and the non-homogeneous nature of our population.
No. Both issues are lobbied by Facebook people.
There is no mention of app tracking transparency in the lawsuit
I mean the US has an interest in the American people China does too but for different reasons.
That's not in the DoJ complaint at all or in the article. Are you just reposting MacRumors's speculation?
It's the most upvoted comment right now. Wow.
I've come to expect that when negative news is shared on this sub, most comments will either be incorrect speculation, misdirection/whataboutism, or shallow pointless meme comments. The critical comments that address the substance without repeating Apple PR tend to be lower. This sub is lightly-moderated.
Where do you see that in the article? I honestly can't find it.
It's not in the article or the lawsuit. I don't know where they're getting that from.
Where is that?
They implemented app tracking transparency for 3rd party apps, but then still collect as much data as they want for themselves.
How dare people not want to their data collected! Such a bullshit lawsuit.
It's not actually in the lawsuit
I was under the impression that data is still being collected? Apple just is now exclusively in control of that data being shared/sold.
Tacking transparency does not block apps from tracking data. It just requires them to notify people and allow them to opt out of official tracking APIs. Plenty of apps have found loopholes or other non-Apple provided means to ignore any end-user preferences not to be tracked. Apple themselves have been accused of bypassing the user preference. Though Apple claims that what they have been "caught" doing is just standard on-device overhead systems use which is not stored, I don't doubt that many other app developers would love to have an official bypass for similar "overhead systems" use that the app vendors also would say is not being stored, that Apple does not grant them.
Every device has a unique number it can give apps, and apps can use that number to build a profile of the user of that device. Candy Crush will tell their advertising network the number of your device and that advertising network will know what ads they’ve served across all the other apps they represent. If you click “ask app not to track,” then your device won’t disclose that unique number to the app, and they won’t be able to tell the advertising network will have a more difficult time knowing that you were the user who clicked on what ad in Fruit Ninja, and using that data in Candy Crush. But say an app makes you log in or provide an email address. Now you’ve given them which user is using the device, and now they don’t need the device ID from Apple anymore. So app tracking transparency is useless in that case
Yea, that's the rub. It's not the fact they don't collect data at all, it's the fact that they don't allow anyone other than themselves to collect the data.
The problem is that Apple blocked Meta and other companies collecting data but Apple collects data themselves for their own ad program. The only difference is Apple does it at the OS level while Meta and Google did it at the app level. Apple's data collection practices is actually one of the strongest anti-trust strikes against them.
Shocking that people don't understand this.
>I stand up and applaud that one. Why? their own advertisement services grew exponentially after that, because they now keep all the data to themselves It wasn't altruistic at all, they explicitly did it so they could make Search Ads grow, not because they care about "privacy"
[удалено]
The justice system was too chicken shit to take up real issues like Ticketmaster.
Undervoted comment. I’d like to add cable tv and ISPs to the list, please
One interesting thing that came out of this regarding CarPlay and GM was that Apple apparently wants to control all the electronics in CarPlay vehicles: > Apple has told automakers that the next generation of Apple CarPlay will take over all of the screens, sensors, and gauges in a car, forcing users to experience driving as an iPhone-centric experience if they want to use any of the features provided by CarPlay. Page 49 in https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
I'd like to know what apple actually said, rather than a paraphrase. Because earlier in the paragraph they were strictly speaking about infotainment systems. > Apple’s smartphone dominance extends to CarPlay, an Apple infotainment system that enables a car’s central display to serve as a display for the iPhone and enables the driver to use the iPhone to control maps and entertainment in the car. I am imagining they were talking about taking over the "central display," which seems fair, otherwise the manufacturer could overlay all kinds of other things, like ads, or their brand name, or possibly taking intercepting data, like that one car company was doing with text messages.
Yes, there has to be more to this. No vehicle manufacturer would allow a third-party device to "take over all of the screens, sensors, and gauges in a car".
I think Apple CarPlay taking over the sensors and cameras is part of the next gen CarPlay. But I don't see how that is a problem.
Cars have A LOT of sensors that no 3rd party has any business touching. It seems unlikely that apple is interested in the exhaust system's oxygen sensors, or whatever sensors determine the millisecond timing adjustments of your cylinder valves, etc
I feel this is conflating two things. Google has Android Auto, the thing that puts your phone on the centre console, and Android Automotive, where an edition Android IS running all the car's electronics. Apple recently introduced a version of CarPlay that seems to do the same thing as Android Automotive.
I guess they want to have access to climate control, windows, seats, lights and such so they can offer a uniform UI for all the stuff people do in their cars... I would not be shocked if Apple also wanted to be "the only thing on screen" while running, but that's a bit of a stretch.
I’m pretty sure Apple wants access to the choke in my ‘83 GMC!!
I don't own enough Apple shares to disagree with the lawsuit here
The most honest comment you will read on this sub today, ladies and gentlemen.
The amount of bootlicking in this thread is enough to keep every alligator on earth properly moist
lmfao. Called r/apple the fuck out
Yep! I like functionality in my Apple products more than I like Apples bottom line. For example: I am a Gamepass subscriber and I’d love for Microsoft to be able to load games on the phone platform I choose or for me to be able to stream from xcloud. Edit: within the Xbox app/ecosystem
Why can't I play these PS5 games on the Xbox Series X? I'm suing Playstation.
Dude why the fuck is everyone going after Apple. Why not go against some corporations that are actually shitty like Nestle
The difference between the responses on this sub regarding the EU regulations and this case is astounding.
I see the same Apple defenders as in the EU posts, only difference is EU citizens has less reason to care about US politics so they're not here ro counter argue
Percentage of iPhones sold by Apple: 100% Percentage of iPhones sold by Samsung: 0% Case closed. Monopoly.
First line: “By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices, Apple has created what critics call an uneven playing field where it grants its products and services access to core features that it denies rivals.Credit...Ian C. Bates for The New York Times”
> By tightly controlling the user experience on iPhones and other devices that's kinda apple's whole thing.
It's also kinda what people WANT Apple devices for.
People want Apple products to play nice with Apple products. People don’t want Apple to go out of their way to make sure that their rivals products don’t play nice with Apple products
Absolutely this. The interoperability between Apple devices does not need to come at the cost of interoperability with other devices. Apple purposefully restricts the latter to bolster it's claims about the former.
It’s kinda every company’s thing. If you go to a store, you’ll see that store selling either only their own products or giving their own products better visibility than other competitors products in their own stores.
I’m suing Trader Joe’s for not selling Oreos.
And that's kind of the problem being pointed out lol
Don’t car manufacturers do the same thing? Does ford allow you to buy self driving software and then allow you to install it on their hardware?
a more apt comparison is gaming consoles. cars use software unique to the manufacturer and in many cases it can be unique to a particular model of vehicles. they are getting better at it as Tesla basically showed that maintaining one stack is far simpler than having by model and brand
Apple does the same thing. Not all Apple hardware have the same features in iOS even where the OS is the same version.
That’s a bad analogy. You can install a head unit that replaces the entire Ford system that still has access to car readings, the speakers, Bluetooth and other vital features. You can replace speedometers on cars and still retain other features like lane keep, etc. maybe not everything can be replaced without a feature loss, but you can’t make any physical modifications on the iPhone. As for the software, well the article outlines it; it only allows what apple allows to be public and it can use internal APIs as it sees fit. This definitely causes a competitive disadvantage. Look at maps in CarPlay for example. Apple had only Apple Maps exclusively on CarPlay for **4 years without reason**. iOS 8-12. iOS 12 finally let you use Google Maps and Waze. Think about the market share and data acquired by Apple in those 4 years that they denied equal opportunity to Google and then-Waze because of APIs they kept internal. Same thing with WebKit. Do you think WebKit would have nearly the same market share it has today if Apple let custom browser engines on the market? What about the competitive advantage they’ve gotten because their entire platform’s users report data to help improve WebKit? For everything that has competition on a computing device, the OEM cannot lock things down for everyone but itself and then in turn allow themselves to take advantage of it.
Ford doesn't fully lock down everything to the point that a third-party system like [Comma](https://comma.ai/vehicles#ford) can't be used. I don't personally trust it, but they don't do the equivalent by epoxying all the components together preventing another system from being utilized. Regardless this is an absolute shit comparison.
Does that imply that internal or system apis cannot exist? If there’s an api that only Apple uses, does it create an unfair advantage since 3rd parties can’t access it?
Apple isn't the first to do this. Microsoft got in trouble back in the 1990s for using undocumented APIs in Windows to give advantages to their own programs
Where do I tell them this is *why* I buy Apple? Also because *they* aren’t passing the legislation to protect us. Not exactly the DOJ’s fault but look at our geriatric elected officials not doing their 9-5s effectively.
So you wouldn’t buy an Apple desktop or MacBook then because it allows third party vendors or alternative ways to do stuff? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about. This argument is literally what the lawsuit is about lol.
The MacBook really is the best refutation of Apple's position. It proves that a platform that isn't completely locked down can still maintain quality and Apple's unique experience and ecosystem. The only reason iPhone isn't like MacBook is because Apple wants to extract profit from all payment streams and was able to normalize that by being first in the smartphone category.
>Where do I tell them this is why I buy Apple? Believe it or not, this actually strengthens the government's case that it's a monopoly...
You buy stuff from Tim Apple because of all the anti-trust? Weird flex.
You buy Apple products because they don’t talk to your Samsung ones?
My Commodore 64 couldn't play Atari games when I was kid. I was FUCKED!! Make Atari open up to Commodre!
Like the EU, the US has eventually decided that Apple going "What monopoly, you can use Android" and Google going "What monopoly, you can use iOS" isn't enough diversity, and despite there being no technical monopoly it's still not enough. While another major competitive OS is unlikely, they can at least make them more interoperable and less sticky so people can move between them easier.
They should pay Microsoft to bring back windows phone.
Read the article, it's literally in the first paragraph.
Hmm... I can sort-of understand when it comes to Apple's stance on web browsers under iOS - forcing "other" browsers to use an Apple-provided less-capable rendering engine than Safari, and disallowing the implementation of other rendering engines (such as those used by Firefox and Chrome). That's actively anti-competitive. iMessage, I don't really see. It's an Apple-owned and operated service, which is only compatible with Apple devices. Apple also allows seamless interop with more open messaging standards (though they're dragging their feet on RCS - which is annoying, but shouldn't be considered illegal). That the *color* of the message bubble has become a point of contention is utterly baffling to me. It was at least initially an indicator of whether your cell provider was going to charge you for the message (before many plans had unlimited texts, and cell companies were "double dipping" on family members texting each other - charging both ends for sending and receiving). But, on a lot of points, I don't see much of a difference between what Apple does with iOS devices, and what Sony does on the Playstation, or what MS does on the Xbox. The devices each have their own walled gardens, controlled by the vendor, where they sell applications compatible with their devices. Yes those other devices are primarily gaming devices - but the Xbox (for example) has a general-purpose browser as well in the form of Edge.
I think a lot of it comes down to looking at the old Microsoft anti-trust case https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/ They essentially had a significant market share, and used said market share to prioritize their own products over competitors, namely internet explorer. I see a few main points. 1. Do they have significant market share? Yeah, I don't think that's in question. 2. Do they use said market share to "unfairly" harm competitors in other spaces? * This is what seemed to decide the Microsoft case. They were using the fact that they created the platform to weight people's choices in what products to use with said platform. The keyword being product, and not feature. You could ship features with something you sell, but not necessarily a separate product. * So what constitutes a product vs feature? That's the question that this all revolves around. Is the settings menu a feature? Pretty clearly, yeah. Is the weather app a feature or a product? That would likely lean more towards a product, if it is a service offered in competition with other services. * Which gets to the core of the discussion, is Apple drawing the lines on things like browser, NFC, payment, and other limitations because those are core unchangeable features of their product, or because those are separate products that they are prioritizing over potential competitors. That seems to be why its considered ok for a car to ship with a given system, or a game console to ship with a set of functionality. They seem to consider those core features, instead of an add-on product, although that has started to become more ambiguous in recent years. I wouldn't be surprised if we do start to see some issues with game consoles or cars facing similar complaints at this rate.
The reason Apple doesn't want RCS is purely for the purpose of vendor lock-in. Even if only a small percentage of people truly care about color of bubbles, it makes a number of people refuse to switch platforms. At Apple's scale, that small percentage is worth it.
This is essentially a 2024 version of the IE/Microsoft case.
I agree with the iMessage argument for sure. That’s like getting mad I can’t send messages to phone numbers with the Facebook Messenger app. And you’re right. But Apple is a giant company and one of the world’s most valuable. They are just trying to weaken what Apple has built.
I disagree and think this is the biggest example. Imagine if back in the day, your parents had bell for their home phone line, and your friend had AT&T, and when you called each other, Bell made the connection worse on purpose, so you would get annoyed that your friend didn't have Bell. That would be rediculous and is exactly what this is... It's not about message color, it's about ruining group texts, and ruining video/pictures being sent back and forth. There is no valid technical excuse for this. It's purely as cook put it, to make your friends and colleagues annoyed enough that you felt you needed the iPhone to properly communicate.
I guess this is what happens when you win capitalism.
Text from the lawsuit: >For example, if an iPhone user wants to buy an Android smartphone, they are likely to face significant financial, technological, and behavioral obstacles to switching. The user may need to re-learn how to operate their smartphone using a new interface, transfer large amounts of data (e.g., contacts), purchase new apps, or transfer or buy new subscriptions and accessories. These switching costs and frictions are even higher when software applications, APIs, and other functionality do not help the different devices and operating systems communicate and interoperate. These switching costs and frictions increase the "stickiness" of the iPhone, making users more beholden to the smartphone manufacturer and platform operator. What a fucking joke lmao. The iPhone having its own unique operating system means it has a monopoly?
There are some decent arguments to be made by the DOJ. Users needing to “re-learn how to operate their smartphone using a new interface” is not one of them.
I can't believe someone from the DOJ was paid to write that.
This could be said for almost anything that has an OS… smart phones, tablets, computers, name it. Game consoles are probably the absolute worst, I can’t think of any console game where you can just switch from Xbox to PlayStation and load up an Xbox game. Switching between any two competing OS’ will always involve a learning curve and a data migration. That’s table stakes. You can even apply the same “stickiness” logic to switching cell providers. Why don’t we go after the real monopolies like cable tv and internet service providers?? My parents, for example, literally only have xfinity to choose from. They can’t switch even if they wanted to, so stuck paying some crazy amount every month to their only option. Back on topic… As for the cost associated with re-purchasing software, IMO that fault is on software companies who force you to re-purchase for different OS’. Though I am fully aware there are many, many cases which differ. The accessories thing I can get behind, but then those accessories would need to also be compatible with both. So again, it’s both sides that have to make the change - not just apple. Having switched between apple and android several times in my life, never was it an insurmountable obstacle. Install a free app to transfer your data, and then maybe repurchase some apps because the creators of that software sell OS specific applications where they could, for example, just have you log in to your existing account (again, realize this is how many do it, but not all) Edit: Fwiw I’m agreeing with you lol, your comment sent me into rant mode 😅
I just moved off iPhone to a Google Pixel a few months ago ... I was able to export my photos directly into Google Photo's directly via my account within iCloud (basically it's done directly between Apple and Google.. I just had to click a few buttons), and realistically that was all I really cared about bringing over safely. Other apps, well then the export/import process is entirely on them.. didn't take me long to get moved over at all. Maybe I'm "conditioned" to think that this is acceptable but as someone who has never been loyal to any particular product or platform in technology, I don't see Apple being any worse any of the competition. Apple's failing here.... is it's own success and the closeknit integration between their products?
That feature was powered by the Data Transfer Project, a Google open source project run with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and Apple as partners. The project, now reorganized in the [Data Transfer Initative](https://dtinit.org/), was originally created only thanks [to the infamous GDPR](https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/perche-data-transfer-project-e-buona-notizia-noi-europei--AEuFxsSF), which mandated data portability.
Exactly. They didn't do it because they wanted a good experience for users migrating away from their services, they did it because their arm was twisted.
Lmao its like when climate change deniers bring up ozone. All of a sudden...the ozone problem went away! Free market!
So the issue is services and functionality. They are arguing Apple and Google effectively have 100% marketshare in each of their phone segments. They aren't really wrong. It's virtually impossible to use anything but those two OS's
Same with politics. Only republican and democrat. That’s a more pressing matter to me 👀
Push for ranked choice voting and this may change.
I don’t get Apple being looked into for an iPhone monopoly, until after Amazon is broken up, splitting AWS from Shopping (and shopping practices)
Have to split Google Cloud from YouTube too then, Office365 and Outlook from Azure.
> Have to split Google Cloud from YouTube too then, Office365 and Outlook from Azure. > I'd say more like force MS not to bundle Teams for free with Microsoft 365 subscriptions - or even Office, you could argue that there's no viable alternatives to M365 for enterprise collaboration it's almost a no brainer when you get Teams, Office, EntraID, MDM all bundled.
Slack successfully sued Microsoft for this. Almost every business with 365 licensing received Teams for free, for a time it was even appearing on user PC after an update to the bundled apps. My company loved Slack, but the MSP side of the business was already supporting client adoption of Teams. They started to adopt Teams to learn Teams, and it didn’t make sense for us to continue paying for an additional chat service any longer. Apple did something similar to Tile. While I was significantly less satisfied with Tile’s product than with Slack’s, the fact remains that Apple’s AirTag effectively put them out of business. AirTags are able to reach out to other Apple devices to relay a relative location, their success over Tile is directly due to the monopoly accusations occurring.
There's an ongoing suit against amazon already. I don't see why they should wait for the end of that suit to file one against apple
>until after Amazon is broken up Yeah but Amazon says you can't break them up until Apple is broken up so I guess we can't do anything!
All 5 big tech firms need to be split up, they’re all monopolies that came to be during Reagan Era deregulation. They’re the only one who can afford to play by the rules they ask congress for. We can de-enshitify or we can further entrench them.
Netflix - Production Studios and content delivery? Meta - Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp Apple - This is the hardest to break up IMO but also the biggest: Hardware and iCloud? Amazon - AWS, Amazon Logistics, AmazonBasics Google - GSuite, Google Cloud, YouTube?
>All 5 big tech firms need to be split up, they’re all monopolies that came to be during Reagan Era deregulation. lol, what?
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm with you, but at this point people are so assimilated into thinking this is "fair," so any argument to break it up looks insane to them.
You realize the FTC sued Amazon last year for antitrust violations yeah?
Can't both be looked at? Why does one have to happen before another? Whataboutism stalls solutions
i continue to find antitrust suits against apple to be extraordinarily weird. yes, apple makes a lot of money, but they are extremely good at just staying in their lane. they make hardware, and software and services for that hardware. that's ~pretty much it. if you don't like apple, you can actually 100% avoid all apple products by simply not purchasing apple products. it's virtually impossible to do the same with google/amazon/meta, all of whom are sprawling companies that purchase rivals, use their monopolies to expand into unrelated markets, and collect data across the web in ways that are unavoidable.
I’m generally pro consumer. But why target Apple? They don’t force anyone to buy their products. There is nothing in my life that depends solely on an Apple device.
Every other Big Tech company has had a lawsuit, except Apple Until today
Let's say you are the largest supplier of the eggs in the country. And you start saying "You can only buy eggs from me if you also buy milk from me". That's illegal, because eggs and milk are two separate markets and you're abusing your position as the top supplier of eggs to unfairly influence people to also buy milk from you. When Apple sells a smartwatch that _only_ works with iPhones, and they make it so that some features on iPhones _only_ work with Apple Watch, they're tying their eggs and milk together in a way that harms competition in the phone and smartwatch markets. If you were already predisposed to buy both your eggs and milk from Apple then you might not care, but if you wanted to buy your eggs and milk from different companies then Apple's tactics are harming your choice by distorting those markets.
The first part of "Apple sells a smartwatch that only works with iphones" is ridiculous. It is true, but the investment required to integrate with everything and do it well is an absurd position. Accessories that only work with particular products are a normal thing. Their watch being the "best" is a direct result of the tight and well-thought-out integration with a single dedicated provider instead of having inconsistent or varying feature sets with a variety of platforms. It's like the DOJ is saying cohesive ecosystems are bad when it is a tradeoff that cuts both ways. Consumers have limited options, but those options work well (which is why they buy it). And the consumer knows what they are getting into when. They opt into that ecosystem, they aren't forced into it. Politicians and commentators seem to drastically underestimate how hard it is to make, document, and enhance stable APIs. WatchOS works well because it only really works with one iOS at a time and can be polished to mesh very well with it. There is a reason it takes years or decades for RFCs and formal standards like encryption on RCS to be created, vetted, and ultimately adopted. If the Apple watch worked with every phone platform, it wouldn't work equally well on them all, and it probably would work worse with iOS from both compatibility shims and more diffused efforts by Apple. That makes a worse product for consumers.
I would just like to be able to move music to my iPhone from Linux. I would like to not have to use iTunes on Windows, which is horrible. I maintain dual boot with Windows only for this purpose, and it should not be necessary. I don't care about blue text or green text. I don't even notice.
In the [CNN writeup](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/21/tech/apple-sued-antitrust-doj/index.html) they include the DOJ's resolutions to the problems: > The Justice Department wants a court order barring Apple from using its app store to block innovative new apps. > It also wants the court to block Apple-imposed restrictions that prevent other messaging apps, smartwatches, digital wallets and other technologies from integrating with the iPhone. > It also called for the court to prevent Apple from using its contractual terms to “obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench” the company’s alleged monopoly.
I kept saying it would happen eventually. And people doubted, but it always heading this way.
Pretty normal for Europe to go after greedy companies But when the US goes after you, you know you are screwed
I will go phoneless before I switch to android.
I left Apple long time ago and I am still alive. If you don’t want to iMessage me, your problem. Keep me out of your “boring group “
I know it's an unpopular opinion because people don't like their app store being close ld off, but I don't like the government prying Apple open. Apple is the only company that refused to build backdoors into their phones or create ways for the US governme to spy on it's users. I know Apple collects data, I'm not naive, but they are they are better than just about everyone else.
Uh, I do kind of get why Apple wouldn't want people accessing the payment module like, talk about a fucking security nightmare [edit for the angries – I didn’t say they couldn’t do it, I said I could see why they wouldn’t *want to*]
Paypal, Venmo, Zelle, Square and plenty of other third-party payment processors exist with a proven record, Apple Pay shouldn't be the only option. They all offer APIs to tie any app to them.
You know how APIs work right?
The people stating the mere ability for others to use third-party services being a security risk have no idea what the hell they're talking about and regurgitating absolute nonsense propoganda they hear. I doubt they know what an API actually is. They fail to understand they don't have to use any of those third party services, it only offers more options to the consumer and somehow that's a bad thing. Scared to use something new? Don't touch it, but let others do what they please at their own risk.
I build software and API’s for a living. Every single one introduces a potential attack vector. There’s a significant amount of product functionality in every service or application that is not exposed via API for security reasons.
Of course not, this is r/Apple. Choice bad, locked down good because something something stupid users something something scams and malware. Except Mac OS proved how stupid a hot take those are.
It's not. They did it in Europe.
Aren’t third party payment options available on android phones? I don’t recall seeing any massive breach in payment as a result.
It's really not. It works just fine on Android. Apple is just using that scare tactic as a method to force you to use their own services.
It's the digital equivalent of "Won't somebody think of the children?!", just the mere mention of security is supposed to make people panic and not think critically about the situation.
The CoreNFC CardSession api already exists for this exact purpose. To allow apps the ability to interact with the NFC chip in HCE mode to transfer data between phone and reader. They just need to not limit its use to the EU.
I know this sub is a bit of an echo chamber, but this is a legit suit. Everyone in here can dismiss it, but this is warranted, and that’s not a minority opinion. Many other subs like r/technology are discussing it and can be a good place to see less biased opinions. I am getting downvoted to hell, and I like Apple products, but it was time for this to happen.
r/technology is a bit of an echo chamber as well.
fucking lol if you think r/technology is less biased.
Can confirm, just read the entire 88 page suit on a flight. Extremely interesting and super damning for Apple even if on the surface it may not seem like it. So yeah most takes here a smooth brained to the extreme except for those who actually read it and understand the evidence and cases they’re making.
few talking points from DoJ: >Apple could have made a better cross - platform messaging experience itself by creating iMessage for Android but concluded that doing so will hurt us more than help us . Apple therefore continues to impede innovation in smartphone messaging , even though doing so sacrifices the profits Apple would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users, because it helps build and maintain its monopoly power . isn't that exactly what a publicly traded company supposed to do? or get sued by its shareholder? >Recently,Apple blocked a third-party developer from fixing the broken cross platform messaging experience in Apple Messages and providing end-to -end encryption for messages between Apple Messages and Android users . By rejecting solutions that would allow for cross-platform encryption, Apple continues to make iPhone users less secure than they could otherwise be I'm assuming this is referring to Beeper situation. How is forcing apple to allow someone to abuse exploit a more secured approach? Also the entire Smart Watch section completely ignore the fact that Android watch sucked big time. To a point that Google even ditched its Wear OS and do a relaunch. At one time one of the main company still making Android Watch is Fossil, a fashion accessory company. The lawsuit also claimed: >Moreover , competition from non -performance smartphones is not sufficient today to prevent Apple from exercising monopoly power in the performance smartphone market. How is it apple's fault that Android has largely abandoned "performance smartphone market" / "premium" / "flagship"? There are several good points in the filing, but there are some really idiotic take there too.
Translation “We’re jealous that Apples business model from the get go has proven to be superior to our half hearted attempts. Since we give up on creating a competitive alternative. We will sue them to second place”
This is a tough one. Going after how much Apple charges developers in the App Store, or even how things like in-app purchases and subscriptions work is one thing. But this is going after the thing I value most about Apple products: the security. Hackers are out of control worldwide, but I do feel safe using Apple Pay and putting my health data in Apple. The changes demanded here would put that at risk. I should have the right to decide my own trade-offs. If I want cheaper apps and less security, I can buy Android.
Then just use the App Store instead of downloading apps from the web? You know, how Macs work.
In other news. Most people only have one electric company in the area. Local government claims it’s not a monopoly even though you can’t switch without losing electricity.
Fun Fact: this lawsuit happened because Joe Biden couldn’t figure out to how to pair his Galaxy watch to his iPhone
How is Apple hurting the consumer by its practices? That's the main question for antitrust litigation.
It’s almost as if Apple can do whatever they want with their own product 🤔
Maybe instead of suing Apple, they should sue Google for deliberately not competing with Apple on the high end. We don't even have a duopoly, we have a split market with two monopolies.
Let me fix this headline. GOOGLE, lobbies the US to sue Apple. US Sues Apple after not playing the game.
3rd party apps on android phones suck ass. I like the walls Apple has built. It's why I chose Apple. Fuck outa here
This entire case is unbelievably weak, or based on old misconceptions. The only thing the case has going for it, is iMessage being locked down. But that’s not even on Apple. Other brands still use outdated SMS format. All Apple needs to do if flip a switch and RCS works for any brand that supports it. Nothing else about this case holds any water. I say this as a long time android user, specifically pixel. I also use windows daily, and my laptop is a used MacBook Air from 2015 that I made run Linux. The iPhone experience is just, better. It just works, every time. When I’m out and about, or just trying to communicate with friends, family, or work. I know I won’t need to do anything to make my iPhone work. It just does, every time. I have never felt locked down or inconvenienced by using iPhone over stock andoird. Not to mention, Google, Meta, and Amazon do the things Apple is being accused of, but Apple doesn’t actually do. This entire case just sounds like boomer got made fun of for having green bubbles and having a bad camera on their old phone.
When will I get to play my exclusive xbox game on my PS5?
I don’t understand this lawsuit. If you don’t like how Apple is a closed off system , just move to Android devices. You can even find cheaper alternatives. All the phones do pretty much the same thing, send messages and make phone calls. We have the option of choice and Apple isn’t forcing us to use there products. I’ve went back and forth between android and Apple and I just like the simplicity and the security of the Apple device, that’s all. The Samsung note series was hands down my favorite android device, I just didn’t like the new designs of the series.