Musashipan
Member
Rotten apple should be sued till it drains out of money. They are the worst. Lucky for them, isheep fanbase will keep supporting them regardless
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple Sued by DOJ for Illegal Monopoly over Smartphones
- Thread starter FullMetalx117
- Start date
Halo2redvsblue
Member
I guess my pixel 8 in my hand typing this is non-existent then to the DOJ?
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
the problem is Apple not android, they block even basic bluetooth sharing that has been on phones for 20 years
Majormaxxx
Member
That will teach vapid teens who discriminate against android!
crackajack
Member
I don't really see how an obvious duopoly can be called monopoly, especially while competitors and consumers being free to make and buy Tizen, WebOS, Palm, Ubuntu Touch, Harmony and certainly a bunch of others.
But those megacorps are too big. Much like banks still are and the oil sector was and probably also still is. Nothing, especialyl entities solely aiming on profit, should have such a chokehold on society in one way or another.
But if they go after Apple they have to split Google and Amazon and MS and Meta (and soon Tesla) apart or open as well.
But those megacorps are too big. Much like banks still are and the oil sector was and probably also still is. Nothing, especialyl entities solely aiming on profit, should have such a chokehold on society in one way or another.
But if they go after Apple they have to split Google and Amazon and MS and Meta (and soon Tesla) apart or open as well.
MarkMe2525
Banned
I wonder what the odds of that happening are
Reizo Ryuu
Member
whatsapp might as well be a standard outside of the US, I wasn't even aware of the weird apple blue/green text thing until a few years ago because nobody gives a shit in the EU and just uses whatsapp; had to look it up after some US comedian made a joke about it.
Comandr
Member
It worked by that client using Apple device serial numbers to register an create an iMessage account and generate encryption keys that talked directly with Apple's servers. Apple had every right to shut that down. It's a huge privacy and security concern. That was not simply a case of "Apple was being a mean bully."
Topher
Identifies as young
A lot of folks use whatsapp, but for the most part, it is just Android users in my circles. None of my family does and they ain't going to download an app just for me. lol
Ok.....correct me if I'm wrong here because I haven't look into this. But if I have Samsung and use that Quick Share, will I be able to send files to my wife's iPhone via AirDrop?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Wrong company, buddy. The one you're thinking of starts with an "M" and ends with a "t".
Or at the very least, "that" company definitely deserves to be in direct mention with Apple if we're talking about power-hungry multi-trillion conglomerates.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
no this works between android phones and windows PC like airdrop work between iphones
Apple blocks this from working with iphones too, samsung's solution is when you want to share with an iphone it creates a QR code that gives you acces to those files on iphone via samsung cloud
Topher
Identifies as young
Ah....ok. Just not good solutions. This should be standardized.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
That's such an interesting cultural difference and I wonder where it comes from. It's almost unfathomable to not have whatsapp here, it's pretty much synonymous with "texting"; if someone says they'll text you here, it's going to be on whatsapp lol.
TropicanaTwista
Member
I absolutely hate apple. Never understood why they were so popular. Their products are ass (at least in my experience) compared to their competitors and more expensive. Had 3 apple products years ago, all three had hardware malfunctions within a year. And don't get me started on how fucking terrible iTunes was to use to add songs /albums when that was still a thing. Their whole ecosystem and hardware was just a terrible experience for me.
Having said all that, I don't really understand what anything they are doing is wrong or illegal. The market is speaking for itself and people just prefer apple (although Im not even sure they are bigger world wide over android?). Regardless, I'm pretty sure it's relatively close, so to call either of them a monopoly is just stupid.
Side note, thrilled that apple was forced to move to USB c though. Nothing more annoying being in someone else's house or car, needed a charger and they only have an apple one, when literally every other electronic device has been on USB c for years.
Having said all that, I don't really understand what anything they are doing is wrong or illegal. The market is speaking for itself and people just prefer apple (although Im not even sure they are bigger world wide over android?). Regardless, I'm pretty sure it's relatively close, so to call either of them a monopoly is just stupid.
Side note, thrilled that apple was forced to move to USB c though. Nothing more annoying being in someone else's house or car, needed a charger and they only have an apple one, when literally every other electronic device has been on USB c for years.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
This has shades of Microsoft's late '90s antitrust lawsuit (also filed by the DOJ) all over again. And, like then, expect this to be settled out of court, with the bare minimum of "opening up" on Apple's end.
Anyone thinking significant changes will come of this is being foolish, nor should significant changes come about unless the DOJ are going to sue ALL of the Big Tech companies and force similar adjustments. Because every single last one of them is guilty of anticompetitive practices over the years, and one or two are probably helping the DOJ in this lawsuit since Apple is a direct competitor of theirs.
I'm all for reigning in Big Tech but only if that means all Big Tech, not very selective companies while turning a blind eye to similar practices from others. Otherwise, miss me with the theatrical performative crap.
Anyone thinking significant changes will come of this is being foolish, nor should significant changes come about unless the DOJ are going to sue ALL of the Big Tech companies and force similar adjustments. Because every single last one of them is guilty of anticompetitive practices over the years, and one or two are probably helping the DOJ in this lawsuit since Apple is a direct competitor of theirs.
I'm all for reigning in Big Tech but only if that means all Big Tech, not very selective companies while turning a blind eye to similar practices from others. Otherwise, miss me with the theatrical performative crap.
Last edited:
Boneless
Member
Oh wow, a company is trying to win in their industry , how devilish.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Perspective plays into this. Apple doesn't market how locked down their ecosystem is when they sell to consumers. Their marketing focuses on all of the things their devices can do, but for phones and tablets they don't actively inform customers that they are tied in to only what Apple allows them to do with their devices.
The person at the Genius Bar doesn't come right out and tell you that by purchasing an iPhone or iPad that you're only allowed to purchase approved apps from Apple's app store and that Apple can unilaterally decide which apps to completely remove and render non-functional. All of the negatives are hidden away in an EULA that most people wouldn't understand but must agree to after they've already purchased the device.
We know how it is because tech enthusiasts follow this sort of thing. But most people don't. Apple is extremely opaque with their customers and use that lack of transparency to manipulate and control the market. I think it's long past time they had to do business in a more transparent way and only the DOJ has the power to make that happen in the US.
JackMcGunns
Member
It could be, but Apple blocks it. See my comment regarding reactions too. The crazy thing is Android has had this way before apple. It was even advertised for some time. Remember those commercials where someone would tap a Samsung with another and the photo would automatically appear on the other phone? That was it, it was using BOTH technologies, NFC which apple didn't even have on their iphone at the time, and Wifi Direct+Bluetooth which is what AirDrop relies on to get it done.
Last edited:
FingerBang
Member
I don't care about how you see it philosophically, I care about innovation. As a developer who needs to deal with this shit, I'm happy for the government to step in as long as it stops them. They'll lose nothing from this, it'll be good for all of us.
And I'm happy for them to ban TikTok as well.
Trogdor1123
Member
what is apples share of the market?
iHaunter
Member
Isn't Android still the market leader in most of the world? Even in the US it's still close. How's that a monopoly? Don't get me wrong, Apple is a POS of a company, but definitely not a monopoly. How about these morons go after the Power or Cable companies that actually have a monopoly? I guess their checks cleared.
JackMcGunns
Member
Maybe the word Monopoly was misused and probably are just in trouble for anti-cosumer or anti-competitive tactics, like using the exact same technology, or even older, but then blocking Android users from using said technology to make it appear they are lacking on something. The average person thinks Airdrop is proprietary technology made by apple when it's simply Bluetooth and Wifi Direct doing the magic, Apple simply blocks everyone else. Same with text messages. RCS is the newer and more robust system, but they create tactics to create the illusion that the older tech (SMS) is better by ostracizing Android users.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Think if it this way ‐ if Apple goes to Spotify and says we are increasing our take from 30% to 40% then what can Spotify do? Either give in and help fund apples competing service or lose access to every single iPhone user and Apple gets to scoop them up into Apple music.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They aren't; Android has more market share than iPhone/iOS globally.
It seems the DOJ's grounds of calling Apple a monopoly is because they tightly couple iOS to their own phones and, probably (in DOJ's thinking) don't allow Android or other OSes to run on iPhone devices. The storefront stuff would probably be an additional reason, since it'd mirror the OS situation just mentioned. This is probably setting a dangerous precedent because it suggests companies can't retain vertical integration of tightly coupled hardware & software solutions of their making for any reason, even if the take other measures in subsidizing the hardware costs thus would need to retain some vertical integration to make the business financially sound.
It would also suggest that hardware manufacturers must be at the whim of software developers, and must support a software-agnostic market just because other device markets like PCs (in theory) support a software-agnostic market for OSes and the such. I'd say, just because smartphones are general-purpose devices like PCs doesn't mean they inherently have to operate on all of the same business practices of the PC market which, again, only really operates on those "open platform" principals in theory when you think about it.
It could also have other ramifications in other markets like console gaming. The idea that even if you earn a large majority of the market through what were classically defined as 'fair market rules' and fair competition, can get you labeled an illegal monopoly simply by having too much of the market, is a very slippery slope. It would run counter to the idea of free-market competition altogether, and punish companies for earning their success.
If the DOJ is saying Apple's monopoly is illegal, they have to first establish it's an illegal monopoly in the American market, because globally Android phones have the larger market share, and it makes no sense to suddenly split the definition of the Android market upon different manufacturers like Samsung, LG, etc. when back in the day they NEVER did this for defining the PC market legally. Because again, with the Microsoft case in the late '90s, they targeted Windows, the OS. Why suddenly target the device, iPhone, today when you want to make a similar antitrust lawsuit case against Apple, especially when neither iPhones nor iOS have a global majority in the smartphone market (again, you can't just go "iPhone vs. Samsung or iPhone vs. LG; the precedent is the OS, so you'd be comparing iPhone against ALL Android phones collectively brand-wise)?
The DOJ have to prove that 1: iOS has an overwhelming majority market share in the U.S and, 2: Apple used monopolistic, anticompetitive practices to gain that market share. However I'd say they are going to have an incredibly tough time proving that. If the main reason is because iPhone only runs iOS, for example, their case will probably fall apart. Even if iPhones are general-purpose devices, that doesn't inherently mean they have to run other OSes or even other storefronts just because PCs are general-purpose devices, because PCs are also open platform. But the reason they're open-platform is because none of the tech is proprietary (in terms of form factor, connection standards etc.) or owned by a single corporate entity. AND, even if all of that were owned by a single corporate entity, does not inherently make that type of ownership illegal or facilitating an illegal monopoly!
So I hope for the DOJ's sake they have clear-cut examples of anticompetitive practices from Apple in the American market specifically because otherwise they are wasting time and taxpayer dollars in a nothingburger lawsuit.
Is there evidence Apple have actually DONE this, though? You can come up with hypotheticals all you want, but unless you have clear-cut prior real-world incidents where they have done similar, those hypotheticals are worthless.
A lot of people were giving me flack for the potential anticompetitive theories I was saying about Microsoft buying ABK, but guess what? Microsoft already had real-world examples of similar practices in other tech fields, AND their own leaked internal memos and emails showed they were making very targeted foreclosure strategies against a direct competitor using M&As!
So unless you can provide examples of similar with Apple, the hypotheticals are little more than concern-trolling IMO. But really, it's the DOJ who need to have clear-cut evidence since they're the ones filing the suit.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
The case isn't about the general phone market as much as it is what happens inside Apple's ecosystem:
It is alleging that Apple is actively working to keep out or diminish competitive options that would compete with Apple's services they provide inside the Apple ecosystem and that the walled garden on Apple devices is itself an illegal monopoly. In the end it's going to come down to what Apple is allowed to exclusively control on devices they don't own any more.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Which IMO is BS. If customers don't like Apple's closed ecosystem approach, there are plenty of Android-based phones they can buy instead. Many people in fact actually do that very thing.
A company isn't beholden to open up their walled garden just because they tightly couple their hardware & software together. Even if it's a general-purpose device, that isn't a requirement. Even if that one company owns all the (proprietary) hardware & software tech for that product, they aren't beholden to do this. And, them having that ownership doesn't inherently mean they're an illegal monopoly; that requires actual abuse of their ownership in ways that are basically price-gouging customers and enforcing hefty legal fines for customers who want to get out of the ecosystem (i.e excessively large cancellation fees, no refund policies, removal of paid content for no reason to do with loss of license rights on Apple's part, etc.).
As long as Apple aren't doing those things to their own customers, they can technically "shut out" alternative competitors all they want and be legally justified. It's their OS, it's their hardware. It's their R&D and manufacturing money. If they feel the experience is best by keeping things tightly coupled, so be it. Customers who don't agree can buy non-Apple products. That's the free market in a nutshell.
From one angle [with a bit of a stretch] the DOJ is suggesting the Apple OS ecosystem should be more similar to the Windows ecosystem. Kinda interesting.
I don't necessarily agree with this, but at the same time, Apple hides behind "safety & security" instead of just telling the truth, which is that they are trying to lock in users/developers to their ecosystem...essentially strangling them. Everyone knows this. So I suspect they got what's coming to them (Coming from a staunch Mac/iPhone user).
I don't necessarily agree with this, but at the same time, Apple hides behind "safety & security" instead of just telling the truth, which is that they are trying to lock in users/developers to their ecosystem...essentially strangling them. Everyone knows this. So I suspect they got what's coming to them (Coming from a staunch Mac/iPhone user).
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Banned
This is a good example to discuss.
Let's say I create a phone that is more performative and cheaper than the iPhone, but people won't buy it because it doesn't have iMessage and everyone in their friend groups and family have iMessage and Apple purposefully makes the experience for non iMessage use as poor as it can so that someone is less likely to buy that phone that I've created that is both cheaper and more performative.
It means that Apple can continue to raise the price of their iPhones with the least performative improvements.
When you combine several elements together, Apple's walled garden ensures their ability to charge high prices and makes it nearly impossible for competitors to compete.
I think people are really unfamiliar with antitrust and unfair competition and they default to thinking that it's only about m&a. There are other ways of boxing out competitors.
Apple has a defense and the government has a case.
Sticking to the iMessage argument, you could very easily suggest that if iMessage was on Android, a lot of people would move over to Android. Similarly, if RCS worked on iPhone, a lot of people wouldn't care if their messages were on iMessage or not. In many ways RCS is more advanced than iMessage.
Similarly you see that there isn't really a simple way to use iMessage on windows exactly like on Mac (you have to use Windows Link and it is still inferior). All of these things force consumers to use various Apple products at usually at extremely high prices.
You look at Microsoft Office and Microsoft Teams and Zoom and Slack and you realize that Microsoft bundling Teams with Microsoft Office a product that Slack and Zoom can't compete with and offering Teams for free results in an unfair competition. How can Zoom and Slack which are both in their own rights superior to Teams compete with Microsoft Office?
For some reason it seems like many are pro corporation, when those corporations are pretty easily breaking federal and state laws
MarkMe2525
Banned
Apple losing the ability to actively block compatibility with other platforms and opening up more storefronts will be a net positive for all Apple customers. An example, imagine being able to download the NDS emulator "Drastic" from a competing store front on your iOS device without the need to jailbreak your device. The only loser in this situation is Apples profit margins. Team Apple should be championing this cause.
Last edited:
here’s a link to the DOJ’s statement.
www.justice.gov
And an excerpt of some examples they provide
Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets
The Justice Department, joined by 16 other state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
And an excerpt of some examples they provide
Mibu no ookami
Banned
You're forgetting that Apple leverages its successful businesses in order to push out smaller competitors in other businesses.
Are Apple Airpods the best headphones on the market? No, and yet they're by far the best selling despite their price. That's because they work immediately with apple products across the board. Can other manufacturers do that? No. This means despite creating a better headphone, they could still go out of business or at least have minimal market share simply because they're walled out.
This lack of competition results in higher prices for consumers and less innovation and is the definition of antitrust...
Good, about time. My company makes iOS apps, and apple do plenty of dodgy tactics (way beyond just taking 30% of all revenue). We fall afoul of them sometimes, but I have may friends at Spotify, and apple REALLY fuck them, and are direct competitors with Apple Music. It's 100% leveraging a monopoly position. Many rules that are 'do what I say not what I do' which can be the difference of things like a 7% install to trial conversion and a 3% install to trial conversion. etc. There's a laundry list of things which are anti competitive whilst also taking the 30%.
I don't think apples 'malicious compliance' with recent EU rulings will be helping their case either. They were forced by the eu to allow installation from website and third party stores....but complied in such a way that it makes what should be 2-3 clicks, 17! clicks, with multiple Face ID checks, and multiple massive warnings. Whilst also forcing alternative contracts if used, that would result in bankruptcy for many apps if they agreed to such terms. Even their supposed 'push for privacy' a couple of years ago, that played very well with the public, but which effectively meant app owners could no longer accurately track where a user came from, ie what ad they clicked, and if that user then subscribed etc, and thus massively ramped up the cost of user acquisition, and hurt advertisers for small businesses everywhere (its this sort of reason why many things that used to be free are now subscriptions). Apple presented this as a win for the public, with only Facebook challenging them, but the reality was apple don't need to abide by this themselves, so all it did was consolidate power, and as soon as it went into effect they launched multiple new ad products, whilst hugely ramping up costs for any business competing with them (ie Spotify, Netflix etc). They are anti competitive to their core, and they know it.
I don't think apples 'malicious compliance' with recent EU rulings will be helping their case either. They were forced by the eu to allow installation from website and third party stores....but complied in such a way that it makes what should be 2-3 clicks, 17! clicks, with multiple Face ID checks, and multiple massive warnings. Whilst also forcing alternative contracts if used, that would result in bankruptcy for many apps if they agreed to such terms. Even their supposed 'push for privacy' a couple of years ago, that played very well with the public, but which effectively meant app owners could no longer accurately track where a user came from, ie what ad they clicked, and if that user then subscribed etc, and thus massively ramped up the cost of user acquisition, and hurt advertisers for small businesses everywhere (its this sort of reason why many things that used to be free are now subscriptions). Apple presented this as a win for the public, with only Facebook challenging them, but the reality was apple don't need to abide by this themselves, so all it did was consolidate power, and as soon as it went into effect they launched multiple new ad products, whilst hugely ramping up costs for any business competing with them (ie Spotify, Netflix etc). They are anti competitive to their core, and they know it.
Last edited:
Nydius
Gold Member
How is that any different than any other “walled garden” platform. If my wife - a lifelong Android user - wanted to go to iOS, none of the Android apps she purchased would carry over and she’d be forced to buy those apps (or functional equivalents) on the iOS device. Meanwhile, she’d “lose access” to Samsung Galaxy specific apps and features that wouldn’t have a direct equivalent on an iPhone.
If that makes Apple “monopolistic”, then the same can be said for Google, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or any company that locks software or features behind their own system and doesn’t allow users to port them.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Banned
Again, hope we can make some progress on explaining to people the difference between monopoly and antitrust.
Your wife bought licenses specifically for use on a specific platform. She went into that with the full understanding that those licenses were limited to a platform. It's not like you got multiple licenses to use on multiple devices. That you can migrate these licenses to another device within the platform in itself is surprising.
Sony would have been in a similar boat but they allowed crossplay and they still allow you to buy games physically, so instead of getting the full 30 percent, they only get 15%. The same is true of Nintendo and Microsoft.
Google is already being sued for other reasons, but they don't have the leverage that Apple has when it comes to their platform.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Nothing so obvious, well until their backtracked EU malicious compliance, but they have done things like make their apps the permanent default which is worse than what got MS into bother in the EU with bundling IE.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Probably the same line as Playstation's supposed monopoly in gaming once Xbox leaves.
Last edited:
StueyDuck
Member
I'm just saying that is the justification the doj seem to be making
Nydius
Gold Member
Where’s the “antitrust” behavior? StueyDuck’s claim was the DOJ was going after Apple for precisely what you outlined in your response: That licenses lock people to the iOS platform. The exact same is true of the Android platform. Or PlayStation or Xbox or Switch.
How much they get in revenue split is irrelevant. How much “leverage” you assume they have is irrelevant. All walled gardens are license locked. If that’s antitrust behavior than EVERYONE is guilty of it.
Nothing, too entrenched inside a protectionist economy.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Android isn't locked. PC isn't locked. Office on a Mac? Sure. Google mail on a Mac or iPhone? Yup. Google drive? Yes. You want a move to ios app, Apple have it for you on the google apps store.
The other way - you can fuck off and enjoy your Apple music app and little else.
Mibu no ookami
Banned
Maybe, better familiarize yourself with the DOJ's complaint.
It's not that licensing doesn't convert across platforms, but rather apple makes it difficult for people to leave a platform altogether. They make other products appear less than even by diminishing their own products. They make it difficult for 3rd parties to have access to develop and create products on equal standings on the platform.
No, the leverage isn't irrelevant, because that's what makes it antitrust... jesus...
JackMcGunns
Member
Start at 1:20
My favorite part: "Apple has consolidated it's monopoly power, not by making its own products better, but by making other products worse"
Exactly what I was talking about with Airplay and SMS. Androids despite using newer/better tech, appear worse because Apple with their shady tactics sabotage Android users. I have to use WhatsApp to send my Android friends a video or photos because apple screws them up to blurry tiny low res thumbnails
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
It did work vs Microsoft in the early 90s