Support NeoGAF

[Jinzo Prime]

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

This point really needs to be highlighted. Apple intentionally makes it difficult to communicate with people outside their ecosystem, which makes Android a worse communication device.

 

[Fbh]

can you buy another phones using iOS?

No, but I don't really get why I should be able to.
I can accept the terms of the iOS platform, or I can buy a phone from a ton of other brands that offer similar features.
Both options have pros and cons and I as a consumer am free to choose which I prefer.

I'd get it if iOS had some critical features or Apple was going out of their way to take away Apps from Android
If Apple strikes some agreement with my bank and I get a message letting me know I need to switch over to iOS for my banking app to keep working I'd get it
Or if they buy/merge with Meta and suddenly they announce Facebook/Instagram/Whatsap/etc will no longer work on Android I'd get it

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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).

That would suggest a high likelihood if there's one corporation siding with the DOJ on this, it's Microsoft. AKA the biggest tech lobbyists in the world, and I don't mean that in a good way.

The entire argument is extremely flawed because Microsoft only begrudgingly made Windows more "open" out of legal actions. They were as "walled garden" with Windows as Apple is now with iOS. Microsoft's problem was they used their position and resources for blatant anticompetitive practices that got the DOJ involved in a lawsuit. However, they were and still today aren't technically obligated to make Windows an open platform, and considering MS are the sole owners of the tech patents, APIs, code etc., it is not necessarily "open platform" in the first place.

There is nothing inherently wrong or illegal with companies wanting to "lock in" their users. All companies do this. The only problem is if those companies then abuse their customers financially and make it nearly impossible for them to exit that ecosystem at a reasonable price. From my understanding, Apple doesn't do anything like that. If they do, then maybe the DOJ have a case on their hands.

But Apple simply not wanting, say, Microsoft, to set up an app store on iOS that cuts Apple out of their 30%, is both logical and legally OK on Apple's end. iPhones may be general-purpose devices but that doesn't mean they have to follow the Windows standard, which even Microsoft don't really want to implement and would quickly reverse a lot on if they had the leverage to do so.

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...

Those companies can make Android alternatives of their products. Simple solution.

You know what...since this is something that's very obviously being spearheaded towards the console gaming market in the future, let's just get an example out of the way.

Should Sony and Nintendo be forced to no longer bundle DualSense or Joy-con controllers with their console SKUs anymore? Because the example you're using with Airpods, could be directly utilized to argue that Sony & Nintendo are creating "higher prices for consumers and less innovation". Why can't they package Mad Catz or Hori controllers with their consoles instead?

I mean yeah, in this example, those Mad Catz & Hori controllers would work immediately when paired, but then why can't the argument simply shift to an "ease of access" POV? That's the slippery slope here, IMO.

I'm listening to the DOJ's speech on this right now and a lot of the arguments can either be directly rebutted or applied to other Big Tech companies, like the digital wallet example. Let's not pretend Apple's the only conglomerate accessing personal user data and maybe selling it to other companies & governments here. So I'm both not 100% on board with this lawsuit because it's VERY selective for starters and, more damningly, it is setting up arguments that could be easily warped and applied to console platform holders in the gaming market.

And let's just ask, who's the $3 trillion mega-conglomerate that'd benefit the most from both this AND successive similar cases in the gaming market? Yeah. Let's really think about this one before shaking the pom-poms over "market justice" or whatever.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

That would suggest a high likelihood if there's one corporation siding with the DOJ on this, it's Microsoft. AKA the biggest tech lobbyists in the world, and I don't mean that in a good way.

The entire argument is extremely flawed because Microsoft only begrudgingly made Windows more "open" out of legal actions. They were as "walled garden" with Windows as Apple is now with iOS. Microsoft's problem was they used their position and resources for blatant anticompetitive practices that got the DOJ involved in a lawsuit. However, they were and still today aren't technically obligated to make Windows an open platform, and considering MS are the sole owners of the tech patents, APIs, code etc., it is not necessarily "open platform" in the first place.

There is nothing inherently wrong or illegal with companies wanting to "lock in" their users. All companies do this. The only problem is if those companies then abuse their customers financially and make it nearly impossible for them to exit that ecosystem at a reasonable price. From my understanding, Apple doesn't do anything like that. If they do, then maybe the DOJ have a case on their hands.

But Apple simply not wanting, say, Microsoft, to set up an app store on iOS that cuts Apple out of their 30%, is both logical and legally OK on Apple's end. iPhones may be general-purpose devices but that doesn't mean they have to follow the Windows standard, which even Microsoft don't really want to implement and would quickly reverse a lot on if they had the leverage to do so.



Those companies can make Android alternatives of their products. Simple solution.

You know what...since this is something that's very obviously being spearheaded towards the console gaming market in the future, let's just get an example out of the way.

Should Sony and Nintendo be forced to no longer bundle DualSense or Joy-con controllers with their console SKUs anymore? Because the example you're using with Airpods, could be directly utilized to argue that Sony & Nintendo are creating "higher prices for consumers and less innovation". Why can't they package Mad Catz or Hori controllers with their consoles instead?

I mean yeah, in this example, those Mad Catz & Hori controllers would work immediately when paired, but then why can't the argument simply shift to an "ease of access" POV? That's the slippery slope here, IMO.

I'm listening to the DOJ's speech on this right now and a lot of the arguments can either be directly rebutted or applied to other Big Tech companies, like the digital wallet example. Let's not pretend Apple's the only conglomerate accessing personal user data and maybe selling it to other companies & governments here. So I'm both not 100% on board with this lawsuit because it's VERY selective for starters and, more damningly, it is setting up arguments that could be easily warped and applied to console platform holders in the gaming market.

And let's just ask, who's the $3 trillion mega-conglomerate that'd benefit the most from both this AND successive similar cases in the gaming market? Yeah. Let's really think about this one before shaking the pom-poms over "market justice" or whatever.

Yeah, they make Android alternatives, but because the iPhone is the best selling phone, it puts these peripherals at a significant disadvantage.

You bring up the dual sense and joy con, but what did we see recently? Microsoft made it impossible for unlicensed manufacturers to have peripherals that work.

Sony and Microsoft have made it so that you can't use Bluetooth headsets on their systems.

Yeah, that's all stuff that is lined up for antitrust eventually.

 

[DavidGzz]

It's facetime that seems to have all the kids "needing" an iPhone. Both of my daughters begged to get one because of that app. Android all the way for me

 

[apple_of_enlightenment]

Total democratic nonsense. They're doing the same to Trump.

 

[Bry0]

The entire argument is extremely flawed because Microsoft only begrudgingly made Windows more "open" out of legal actions. They were as "walled garden" with Windows as Apple is now with iOS.

What are you talking about? This is simply untrue.

As bad as the internet explorer situation was, iOS is even more restrictive.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.

According to economic theory a perfect competition will always result in a monopoly as the end state. The question is should a state step forward to prevent it.

 

[Icymanipulator]

Ok what about internet companies then? Every place I’ve ever lived I’ve had 1, maybe sometimes 2 choices max. They can more or less arbitrarily charge whatever they like.

The way I see it, don’t colleges also have a sort of monopoly on debt, with loans that can’t be erased by even bankruptcy?

I’m not trying to defend apple here, I don’t care what happens to them, but if the government is going after monopolies then there are least a few more targets out there that should be looked at as well.

 

[Saber]

I ...don't think this constitute monopoly. There are a bunch of smartphones in the market, unless they ain't talking about smartphones.

 

[nikos]

Ok what about internet companies then? Every place I’ve ever lived I’ve had 1, maybe sometimes 2 choices max. They can more or less arbitrarily charge whatever they like.

The way I see it, don’t colleges also have a sort of monopoly on debt, with loans that can’t be erased by even bankruptcy?

I’m not trying to defend apple here, I don’t care what happens to them, but if the government is going after monopolies then there are least a few more targets out there that should be looked at as well.

First thing that came to mind was my ISP. There's no other viable option here and I live in a major city. This actually came up earlier today when I had an issue with them.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Yeah, they make Android alternatives, but because the iPhone is the best selling phone, it puts these peripherals at a significant disadvantage.

It's not the best-selling phone though. Android phones sell more, both in US and globally. And it's not really fair to try breaking up each different Android-based phone brand as if they're running a different OS; they all run on the same Android OS.

The only reason the iPhone itself is involved in this monopoly claim is because it's the vehicle for iOS. So at the heart of it is the OS, of which Android has more market share.

You bring up the dual sense and joy con, but what did we see recently? Microsoft made it impossible for unlicensed manufacturers to have peripherals that work.

And then they fixed it/reverted after a few weeks. Also, I don't think barring unlicensed peripherals from running on a console is anticompetitive whatsoever. That is a clear security risk for the platform holder and also undermines the licensing side of their business model.

Sony and Microsoft have made it so that you can't use Bluetooth headsets on their systems.

Again, they are closed ecosystems and hardware under the domain of the company that makes them. There may also be other reasons Bluetooth headsets aren't compatible such as licensing fees, or potential conflicts at the system level with whatever is utilized. Also AFAIK, most headsets can also use WiFi, which both systems use.

Yeah, that's all stuff that is lined up for antitrust eventually.

Then those antitrust cases will and should fail like this Apple one seems is going to end up doing.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It's not the best-selling phone though. Android phones sell more, both in US and globally. And it's not really fair to try breaking up each different Android-based phone brand as if they're running a different OS; they all run on the same Android OS.

You've conflated a platform with a series of devices. The reason why airpods sell well is because of the dominance of iPhone. Samsung tried doing similarly with the Galaxy Buds and largely failed. No one has the market share to shape the market like Apple.

The only reason the iPhone itself is involved in this monopoly claim is because it's the vehicle for iOS. So at the heart of it is the OS, of which Android has more market share.

Androids market share is divided among several manufacturers. See above.

And then they fixed it/reverted after a few weeks. Also, I don't think barring unlicensed peripherals from running on a console is anticompetitive whatsoever. That is a clear security risk for the platform holder and also undermines the licensing side of their business model.

It is when those licensing fees make your competitors unable to compete.

Again, they are closed ecosystems and hardware under the domain of the company that makes them. There may also be other reasons Bluetooth headsets aren't compatible such as licensing fees, or potential conflicts at the system level with whatever is utilized. Also AFAIK, most headsets can also use WiFi, which both systems use.

WiFi? Do you mean wireless 2.4ghz? That isn't WiFi, but that still makes for an experience where Bluetooth headsets which are the market leader don't work on your device. Pushing you again towards licensing fees. Only for Sony to create PlayStation Link a solution in search of a problem.

Then those antitrust cases will and should fail like this Apple one seems is going to end up doing.

Can you cite examples of antitrust cases that you agree with? It seems like you don't understand or agree with the concept of antitrust.

Also don't think I don't realize you're ducking me on the PSVR subject.

 

[Shadowstar39]

Fuck Apple and their scummy ways. They are becoming more and more of a nightmare for developers, and I'm happy they're legally forced to be less shitty.

The Epic ban and their trying to eliminate PWA in the EU were embarrassing. Tim Cook got to go, and they need to get their shit together.

You Apple fanboys keep drinking the cool-aid, you'll benefit if they're forced to open up. You'll finally get a real browser on your phone instead of the retarded one you have been using since 2008.

yep. last product i bought from them was the ipad mini, pos was crippled intentionally to force upgrade after 2 years. Also their horrible propriety shit, and blocking apps on android, fuck apple. Super expensive non-sense. Also Tim Cook throws a fit on twitter for speech, again fuck apple and their shitty ceo.. Apple went to crap after Jobs died .

 

[jufonuk]

It takes less than thirty seconds of searching to find a veritable cornucopia of corruption, dishonesty, aggression, and general anti competitive behavior from Apple that goes back more than thirty years. They are a personification of everything wrong in the tech space; if you don't see this, you're actively trying to avoid the knowledge.

Ok bill gates.

Kidding.

 

[Badlucktroll]

They could put apple under duress and make them let other smartphone and computer makers make iphones and macs

 

[Shadowstar39]

I have always gone back and forth but probably sticking with iPhone from here on out because of messaging, photo and facetime. My family is mostly on iPhones and facetime is the one thing I truly missed when I was on Android.

there are a slew of messaging and video call apps. Facebook messenger is what i use, or alexa app, skype, teams, discord, etc.... why be locked down by one company and one app.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm not even an Apple fan, but I dont see why gov should get involved. If people love iPhone despite huge prices, that's what people want. if Apple was dumping iPhones for $99 for giant losses (mega anti-competitive loss leader strategy) then I'd agree they are trying to monopolize on pure prices. But thats not the case.

Apple doesn't even have majority share of phones. Pretty sure Android OS phone do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Normally I would think this is a slam dunk of a case, ~92% of people under the age of 25 use iPhones and it's becoming a huge mental health issue among children that if your bubbles aren't blue you get relentlessly bullied at school

But this is the same incompetent DoJ which couldn't even prevent Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard so I have zero faith in this worthless DoJ to actually successfully prosecute their case

 

[Badlucktroll]

I would go for a Sony xperia iOS phone

 

[JackMcGunns]

@

thicc_girls_are_teh_best​

Dude, why are you on a crusade to defend Apple and strangely attack MS who's not even mentioned at all? Seems weird. Have you read anything we're discussing about Apples tactics to sabotage Android? Microsoft left the mobile business. I get you hate MS, but damn.

 

[Silver Wattle]

Good, Apple does too many things to lock people to their ecosystem, like you can't even use air tags on android.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not even an Apple fan, but I dont see why gov should get involved. If people love iPhone despite huge prices, that's what people want. if Apple was dumping iPhones for $99 for giant losses (mega anti-competitive loss leader strategy) then I'd agree they are trying to monopolize on pure prices. But thats not the case.

Apple doesn't even have majority share of phones. Pretty sure Android OS phone do.

Incorrect in North America. Apple controls ~92% of market share of people under 25 in the US. Android is quietly facing demographic extinction in the US, within 20 years after everyone older has died, Apple will have a true monopoly on phones.

Now if you leave the US, everyone uses WhatsApp and Telegram and shit instead of the built-in messaging client and bubble color doesn't exist. So outside the US, Android holds the majority of market share and does so consistently without Apple's ruthless bubble color lock-in.

However the US DoJ is concerned with the US market, so Android's worldwide market share is completely irrelevant to a US antitrust case.

 

[semiconscious]

I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.

no. you, unlike the folks who filed this lawsuit, simply aren't interested in deliberately misunderstanding...

 

[PaintTinJr]

A monopoly? They do realise there’s hundreds of Android phone manufacturers out there that people are free to choose over iPhone?

I’m really confused. In the UK the term monopoly basically means complete control over a market.

iPads in UK schools is definitely a monopoly IMO and drives unfair advantage into the domestic purchasing iPads and iPhones of those that can afford both options.

The cost to the tax payer in every country IMO is ultimately why Apple will be brought to heel the world over. Every time new iPads are needed government costs go up massively for every government department, hospital and school, and on top of which is making IT skills more device dependant, making students less intelligent for a bigger costs per head.

At some point the instrument of regulation - elected officials - will eventually have to side with reducing government costs of their general purpose computing Apple dependency is my prediction. If it was just the consumer end, I think they could survive as is indefinitely in most parts of the world.

 

[StereoVsn]

For me, the only reason I own an iPhone is for iMessage and AirDrop. Just makes messaging and photo sharing ridiculously easy. I would prefer if these things were open standards and not a proprietary feature of iPhone so that I can buy whatever phone I want. I would not have one problem if the government enforced standards on transmissions between phones to include messaging and files.

Having said all that, Apple does not have a monopoly here. These seems like a futile effort by the DOJ.

My issue with forcing Apple to open everything up is security. Right now with the walled garden, despite some problems, Apple’s platform is by far the most secure and has the least problematic applications on App Store and least amount of attack vectors.

They are going to be forced to relax that stance so we shall see what effect they will have in EU.

I am mostly being selfish about it, lol, since it makes it super easy to help out my family with “support”.

I also do like the overall ecosystem since going between an iPhone, iPad, MacBook Pro and Apple headphones is brain dead easy.

iPad can act as second screen or drawing tablet, iPhone can act like a camera, transferring files is a breeze, headphones automatically work with whatever hardware you want to use (no need to fiddle with Bluetooth).

It’s damn fantastic (and expensive) and I used to be super anti Apple.

I still think Windows (or Linux) have their own advantages, I still like a flagship Android better overall as a phone, but the ecosystem, Apple’s ease of use family sharing and overall setup is great.

Well, unless you need a gaming PC or a true rendering/AI/heavy GPU compute workstation.

Edit: I do use WhatsApp with all my friends/family outside the US. Nobody uses Apple amongst them.

 

[reinking]

there are a slew of messaging and video call apps. Facebook messenger is what i use, or alexa app, skype, teams, discord, etc.... why be locked down by one company and one app.

Because it is what my family uses and as Topher said above, they are not changing apps just for me. Also, it's a great app.

 

[Fabieter]

Never had anything from apple ever but I don't understand the logic behind this.

 

[StereoVsn]

iPads in UK schools is definitely a monopoly IMO and drives unfair advantage into the domestic purchasing iPads and iPhones of those that can afford both options.

The cost to the tax payer in every country IMO is ultimately why Apple will be brought to heel the world over. Every time new iPads are needed government costs go up massively for every government department, hospital and school, and on top of which is making IT skills more device dependant, making students less intelligent for a bigger costs per head.

At some point the instrument of regulation - elected officials - will eventually have to side with reducing government costs of their general purpose computing Apple dependency is my prediction. If it was just the consumer end, I think they could survive as is indefinitely in most parts of the world.

Why is an iPad needed for education? Our local schools just do fine with cheap centrally managed chromebooks.

Dumb gov actions in buying iPads do not make Apple a monopoly.

 

[StereoVsn]

the problem is Apple not android, they block even basic bluetooth sharing that has been on phones for 20 years

Bluetooth is quite insecure though. There are some well known exploits unless you are on the latest Bluetooth versions. That generally isn’t as huge deal for audio, but file transfer…

 

[Fabieter]

According to economic theory a perfect competition will always result in a monopoly as the end state. The question is should a state step forward to prevent it.

Alphabet and apple is basically owned by the same investors so we already there. Who cares of competition when they basically owned by the same people.

 

[Banjo64]

iPads in UK schools is definitely a monopoly IMO and drives unfair advantage into the domestic purchasing iPads and iPhones of those that can afford both options.

The cost to the tax payer in every country IMO is ultimately why Apple will be brought to heel the world over. Every time new iPads are needed government costs go up massively for every government department, hospital and school, and on top of which is making IT skills more device dependant, making students less intelligent for a bigger costs per head.

At some point the instrument of regulation - elected officials - will eventually have to side with reducing government costs of their general purpose computing Apple dependency is my prediction. If it was just the consumer end, I think they could survive as is indefinitely in most parts of the world.

Can’t the schools buy Android tablets instead?

Why do schools need to buy iPads anyway? My eldest finished high school last year and attended an outstanding school, and they didn’t have tablets of any type.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Why is an iPad needed for education? Our local schools just do fine with cheap centrally managed chromebooks.

Dumb gov actions in buying iPads do not make Apple a monopoly.

Because they are marketed better and every person on the gravy train from BBC journalists and show presenters, along with all of the government getting phones and tablets on expenses get iPads, making them the go to for clinicians and teachers and everyone else that doesn't have to pay the cost and understand the differential between Android phone/tablet and iPad/iPad.

There's also a general view and closed shop by companies that have to support schools without IT that Android is too much trouble so they get some Chromebooks for practical reasons, but historically it has always been iPads cost the bulk of budgets, and Heads are always using them too, so the problems of it being a perk start at the top.

 

[yurinka]

Bluetooth is quite insecure though. There are some well known exploits unless you are on the latest Bluetooth versions. That generally isn’t as huge deal for audio, but file transfer…

Everything is insecure. Including all Apple devices, OS and apps, who like all devices, OS and apps from MS, Google, Meta and other US big tech directly have dozens of backdoors for (minimum, that's what we oficially know) several different intelligence agencies from USA and allied countries.

Plus also very likely for the interests of their investors, who control the top hedge funds and government who partially funds them.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Can’t the schools buy Android tablets instead?

Why do schools need to buy iPads anyway? My eldest finished high school last year and attended an outstanding school, and they didn’t have tablets of any type.

Now that does sound like an outstanding school.

 

[StereoVsn]

Because they are marketed better and every person on the gravy train from BBC journalists and show presenters, along with all of the government getting phones and tablets on expenses get iPads, making them the go to for clinicians and teachers and everyone else that doesn't have to pay the cost and understand the differential between Android phone/tablet and iPad/iPad.

There's also a general view and closed shop by companies that have to support schools without IT that Android is too much trouble so they get some Chromebooks for practical reasons, but historically it has always been iPads cost the bulk of budgets, and Heads are always using them too, so the problems of it being a perk start at the top.

That sounds like government issue with a mix between corruption, squandering public funds and pure stupidity.

Come to think of it, that describes UK government since Brexit shitshow days (US gov is not far behind).

 

[simpatico]

Looks like someone missed a campaign contribution. Google hasn't. The guy who brought the TikTok ban bill to table is heavily contributed to by Google. Guess they figured fuck it, we got that one, try for more.

 

[Topher]

It did work vs Microsoft in the early 90s

It did? Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly and came away virtually unscathed and were allowed to grow into the behemoth they are today.

 

[Mattyp]

I don't want to see green on my iPhone, just stopped sending photos to the single person on Android that wanted us to use WhatsApp for group chats long ago.

 

[Chiggs]

They are a personification of everything wrong in the tech space; if you don't see this, you're actively trying to avoid the knowledge.

Going to have to disagree. They're not saints or anything, but in world where Asus and Nvidia exist, they look decent by comparison.

 

[PaintTinJr]

That sounds like government issue with a mix between corruption, squandering public funds and pure stupidity.

Come to think of it, that describes UK government since Brexit shitshow days (US gov is not far behind).

It has nothing to do with Brexit (good or bad) you only need to see that iPlayer has the same stylisation in text as iPhone and iPad, and know the history of iPlayer being well supported on less powerful iPhone devices in the days of the original Symbian OS smartphones that supported better video streaming codecs to understand that institutionally the BBC chose Apple meaning government followed suit and between the affluent but less technical Sun reader Transit Van person driver choosing Apple too, IMO very few of those that have ended up in the Apple closed ecosystem in the UK have any other choice but Apple.

You only need look back at an old interview between Click frontman Spencer Kelly at the BBC with former Microsoft CEO Balmer on touch capabilities of a full workstation laptop PC using Windows 7 Pro against his iPhone/iPad toy experience to see (IMO) the bias that drives government around the world to prop up Apple's profits for an overpriced toy like device.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

How are they a monopoly?

 

[N30RYU]

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

I believe the argument that the government is making is that Apple is creating a monopoly by ensuring that only their products work seamlessly with each other while basically crippling any third party. eg: blue text and Tim Cook's response, being forced by the EU to put USB C in their devices, and some instances of basic malicious compliance on their part.

Not sure if I agree with the case that the government is making, but I think people can agree that Apple is notorious for this sort of thing.

And? Its a FREE MARKET? Apple is a business. Nintendo Switch games only work on…NINTENDO SWITCH!! “OMGZ M0NopOLY”..

 

[PaintTinJr]

And? Its a FREE MARKET? Apple is a business. Nintendo Switch games only work on…NINTENDO SWITCH!! “OMGZ M0NopOLY”..

One is not sold in place of a general purpose computing or telecommunications device, which those capabilities carry added regulation. The Switch, PlayStation and Xbox have nothing in common - for strict regulation - with general purpose computing and telecommunications devices.

 

[Fabieter]

And? Its a FREE MARKET? Apple is a business. Nintendo Switch games only work on…NINTENDO SWITCH!! “OMGZ M0NopOLY”..

With the forced sale on tiktok free market is probably a stretch tho.

 

[John Wick]

It's probably because Apple won't give them 100% spying access. Some(most), but not 100% like they want.

Bingo!
Monopoly?
You can avoid Apple by buying Android or even Windows phone instead...........oh wait......

 

[Tams]

Right, I just didn’t think that was illegal in any way. The same way that I can’t play Game Pass on my Switch because Nintendo wants to keep their platform closed. I guess it’s a matter of degree then?

This just seems like a more ham-fisted version of EU’s open standards law or something. (Which I’m all for, fwiw.)

The main difference is that Apple are selling products that are almost essential to living a decent life.

For that you don't need games. You do need access to the Internet, messaging services, and to make payments. And fostering a space where discrimination and stigmatism can run rife in those areas is a cause for regulation.

 

[Musashipan]

People still defend this shitty company!

 

[twilo99]

It did? Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly and came away virtually unscathed and were allowed to grow into the behemoth they are today.

The reason Windows is an open platform today is because of what transpired back then and all the subsequent lawsuits. Windows would lekely be very similar to what iOS is today..