US Sues Apple, Alleges Tech Giant Exploits Illegal Monopoly (wsj.com) 125
The Justice Department sued Apple on Thursday, alleging the tech giant blocked software developers and mobile gaming companies from offering better options on the iPhone, resulting in higher prices for consumers. WSJ: The government's antitrust complaint, filed in a New Jersey federal court, alleges Apple used its control of the iPhone to prevent competitors from offering innovative services such as digital wallets and limited the functionality of hardware products that compete with Apple's own devices. The suit also claims that Apple makes it difficult for users to switch to devices that don't use Apple's operating system, such as Android smartphones.
"Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. Apple said it plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. "This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets," an Apple spokesman said in a statement. "If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple -- where hardware, software, and services intersect." The case against Apple is the last shoe to drop on the big four tech giants by U.S. antitrust officials.
"Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. Apple said it plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. "This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets," an Apple spokesman said in a statement. "If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple -- where hardware, software, and services intersect." The case against Apple is the last shoe to drop on the big four tech giants by U.S. antitrust officials.
So unfair (Score:5, Funny)
Re: So unfair (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no monopoly, there are other phone choices you can make....
Garland alleged that Apple holds 65% of the U.S. Smartphone Market; which I find unpossible.
Re: So unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
And Microsoft has what, 80% of the U.S. operating system market? Don't see the DOJ going after them for their monopolistic practices such as saying you have to buy a new computer to run their most recent OS even though it can work perfectly on older equipment.
Re: (Score:3)
Garland alleged that Apple holds 65% of the U.S. Smartphone Market
And Microsoft has what, 80% of the U.S. operating system market? Don't see the DOJ going after them for their monopolistic practices such as saying you have to buy a new computer to run their most recent OS even though it can work perfectly on older equipment.
Exactly.
MS has been dictating hardware design to PeeSee OEMs for HOW many DECADES?!?
I hope Apple's much more tech savvy attorneys make mincemeat out of this Complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you shut up, the adults are talking here. You're comparing apples and oranges. You can install Linux on a wide variety of devices that come with Windows. You can't install any version of Android on any Apple device. You can't install iOS on any non-Apple device that you want and even if you could, like OSX/macOS, I'm sure Apple would forbid that in the license.
There literally is no comparison between Apple and Microsoft. The people to sue over not providing Windows alternatives on every devic
They don't have the political capital (Score:2)
For whatever reason the same is not true with Microsoft. When the department of Justice tried all Microsoft had to do was delay the case until a favorable administration, the Bush Junior administration, got in off
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't force every developer who wants to write for Windows to pay 30% of every sale to Microsoft. You can be on their Windows app store for a 12-15% commission [theverge.com], and if you don't want to be on their app store, you can just market independently and they take nothing from you. Apple is a walled garden where the price of entry is 30% of your revenue, period.
Making the minimum specs for a new OS higher would absolutely be monopolistic behavior if Microsoft was the sole builder and provider of new Win
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Market data has been showing numbers in that range for quite some time now. [counterpointresearch.com]
Re: This is insane. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think honestly it depends which government official gets a kickback or offer of subsequent position by which competitor. Apple restricted the Wallet and therefore it cost consumers more? The Wallet App is free. Raised the price of alternatives? Android phones have their own NFC which users were free to use. This is just dumb.
Yeah, I was yelling at the TV over some of the allegations, too.
Re: So unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: So unfair (Score:2)
So will you be ok for Apple to create a Clash of Clans clone and the remove all Clash of Clans variants from their store? This is what happens in other areas already where Apple forbids apps that do similar actions to their own offering.
Re: So unfair (Score:2)
Last I checked, Apple wanted me to pay something close to 100â per year to publish an app on their store. My app is free, does not generate revenue and has a small user base (a few hundred) so I can't do that. Therefore it is only on the Google store, which did ask me for a one time fee of I think 45â, which I also found upsetting but not nearly as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust actions aren't always against a monopoly. An oligopoly exists here. If they aren't held to account for abusing their market position, then you really only have an illusion of choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Antitrust actions aren't always against a monopoly. An oligopoly exists here. If they aren't held to account for abusing their market position, then you really only have an illusion of choice.
Well, I'm not sure whether the Sherman Anti-Trust Act covers an Oligopoly.
https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
Plus, how is it Apple's fault that they built a better mousetrap?
Talk about Stifling Innovation!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
apple has never innovated . only copied
If Apple has "only copied", how come their stuff is doing so well that 2 out of 3 Smartphones in the U.S. are iPhones?
If they were just Copying, then someone else should have already had a phone ecosystem that was far more successful. But apparently, they don't.
Both things cannot be true.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple has "only copied", how come their stuff is doing so well that 2 out of 3 Smartphones in the U.S. are iPhones?
Marketing
If they were just Copying, then someone else should have already had a phone ecosystem that was far more successful. But apparently, they don't.
Both things cannot be true.
Why not?
Personally, I wouldn't say that they've ONLY copied, but certainly they have predominantly copied, albeit well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL why is apple doing so well?
vendor lockin, planned obsolescence, competitor poaching, patent theft, anticompetitive behavior, the illegal activies that they are being investigated for ( the subject of this article) just to name a few
Seriously have you no idea what is going on? No wonder peple question the intelligence of the apple fanboi
Actually, you left one really important ingredient out: The brains to bring all those allegedly-stolen resources together into a nearly half-century old, multi TRILLION dollar business.
You can't buy that. And it didn't "just happen".
And the rest is just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also won't hurt you....
Re: (Score:2)
After Apple's fled the U.S. and Europe, and been driven out of China in favor of Huawei, what's left to justify a multi-trillion dollar valuation?
Businesses must transact where their customers are, not necessarily where the regulatory environment is most favorable to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
prove it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: So unfair (Score:2)
Eh, I think Apple Island would be more like the Island of Dr Moreau circa H.G. Wells vivisections, compete with Human Centipad butlers. ArchieBunker is probably there right now making new kinds of animals that have four asses.
apple to add side loading with core fee of $0.50 p (Score:2)
apple to add side loading with core fee of $0.50 per app install.
Re: (Score:2)
Shuts out small developers.
Re: (Score:3)
Shuts out small developers.
Only kicks in:
1. After the first year.
2. If you distributing outside the Apple App Store.
3. You have more than a million downloads. At that point, you really aren't a "Small Developer".
Plus, the Fee is only assessed once per year, per User.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these apps are free
That seems like a poor business decision if you're going to have to pay $0.50/user/year.
Re:apple to add side loading with core fee of $0.5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is, small developers benefitted massively from the $100+15/30% scheme, because their price of entry to a massive market was really small.
It's only the big players that are complaining about that structure.
If I were Apple, I would have just said "ok, 15/30% including subscription and in-app purchases or $0.50 per install, whichever is less." This way the "viral free app" author doesn't get demolished, but the Epic and Spotify and Meta and whoever don't get a free ride with the mere $100 plus hardware costs per developer. Seems like a reasonable compromise, but I'm not an Apple C-suite or board member.
also rules that ban stuff like full firefox / dosb (Score:2)
also rules that ban stuff like full firefox / dosbox / etc need to go with out needing to pay that core fee.
Re: (Score:2)
"Viral free app" creator will get demolished by $0.50 per download.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I suggested it's the lesser of the percent of revenue or $0.50. If it's a truly free app, they'd pay the $0 x 30%. You'd only switch to the $0.50 fee if your revenue per install was $1.67 or higher.
Free apps - just the $100 dev fee.
We need a total reevaluation of antitrust law (Score:5, Interesting)
The challenge for regulators is that digital distribution channels conform to software market behavior patterns, not physical retail market behavior patterns. Software markets have almost invariably trended aggressively toward centralization of market power into the hands of one player or dominant player and at most a few major competitors. This behavior inherently lends itself to some form of anti-competitive behavior in ways the laws have not really been updated to handle.
Since breaking up Apple isn't a viable strategy here, and fining them will just be a cost of doing business, it's clear that what we need is a regulatory framework that allows the FTC and DoJ to give orders to these companies to change their products and services in ways that restrict their ability to be anti-competitive. For example, it should be a simple process to allow them to send a written, binding order to Apple giving them 6 months to implement side loading or pay a hefty fine per day.
Re:We need a total reevaluation of antitrust law (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an Apple dweeb and actually I'm with you on allowing sideloading. If people want to assume that risk with their own devices it should certainly be allowed.
But at the same time, Epic and others have been quite clear in stating that they don't consider sideloading sufficient, or even allowing 3rd party app stores. They want to be in Apple's App Store just under terms that they dictate rather than Apple.
Cynicism compels me to believe that Apple will likely be forced to make major changes, but they'll be changes designed to serve the interests of other mega-corps and not necessarily beneficial, possibly even harmful, to the actual consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants a piece of something someone else has built up, that said there should be limits enforced into a cost of entry, and I don't mean price, but rather scope. Apple should be free to take whatever cut they want of getting an app into the app store. And that's where it should end. They should have zero ability to dictate what can and can't be done with the app in the store within the limits of what is capable on the OS. That's no longer charging someone access, that is dictating to someone how to d
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think Apple should be free to decide the nature of the content they will allow on their app store.
They should not, however, be free to block end-users from side-loading whatever content (or rival stores) they want onto their phones.
I think it is fine for apple to control their online marketplace. Not fine for them to control devices that are owned by other people (even if they built those devices).
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think Apple should be free to decide the nature of the content they will allow on their app store.
Nature of content yes, e.g. "no porn games". Specific method of doing business on the other hand, e.g. "no opening browsers to 3rd party payment sites" or "no implementing a competing browser engine, no.
I think it is fine for apple to control their online marketplace. Not fine for them to control devices that are owned by other people
You have that completely backwards, both in terms of concept and in terms of legality. In terms of legality the whole concept of anti-trust is about not using your power to dictate other people's business. It's why Apple is in trouble for precisely this. Apple is however free to dictate how their devices fun
Re: (Score:3)
The general public though sideloading can be dangerous Android has shown this. If sideloading becomes a thing for iPhone I expect antivirus/malware detection etc will be necessary and that will degrade the user experience to the point where most users will simply only take
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need a total reevaluation of antitrust law (Score:5, Insightful)
Epic and others have been quite clear in stating that they don't consider sideloading sufficient, or even allowing 3rd party app stores. They want to be in Apple's App Store just under terms that they dictate rather than Apple.
From the EU's point of view, Apple created the App Store and made it the only way to get apps, so they created the situation where consumers are unlikely to go elsewhere for apps. It's not like a desktop OS where the norm is to get your apps from the vendor, as much as Microsoft would prefer you use the Windows Store or whatever it's called.
Beyond that, Apple can't really justify some of the policies, like forcing them to use Apple payment systems and subscriptions, and charge the same everywhere even though there is a 30% Apple Tax on their platform. It's just blatant gouging, they aren't even trying to compete on features like the ease of subscription management.
"We want out users to have a good experience" isn't very convincing when that experience is expensive, and blocks competition.
apple tv has unfair advantages over netflix! (Score:2)
apple tv has unfair advantages over netflix!
to sell in app netflix will need to pay apple 30% of the fees while apple does host or produce any of the content. But apple can have their own TV service pay maybe 1-3% in CC fees and keep the rest of the sub fee to cover the costs of hosting and producing it.
Re: (Score:2)
apple tv has unfair advantages over netflix!
to sell in app netflix will need to pay apple 30% of the fees while apple does host or produce any of the content. But apple can have their own TV service pay maybe 1-3% in CC fees and keep the rest of the sub fee to cover the costs of hosting and producing it.
What kinda crazy you spoutin' there, Leroy???
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we use a totally different standard for Apple just because the subject is software?
It's this context, Apple is a software retailer.
If Walmart worked the same way, they would refuse to carry smart TVs that allow access to streaming services other than Paramount Plus.
But Walmart wouldn't do that, because there are so many other places to buy a TV.
Apple gets away with it by applying a complex technical block to stop iPhone users from buying apps elsewhere, although the US government has clarified that i
Re:We need a total reevaluation of antitrust law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, it should be a simple process to allow them to send a written, binding order to Apple giving them 6 months to implement side loading or pay a hefty fine per day.
Why not just limit the profit they can make i.e. regulate the fees and charges
Re: (Score:2)
Since breaking up Apple isn't a viable strategy here, and fining them will just be a cost of doing business... giving them 6 months to implement side loading or pay a hefty fine per day
You can't fine them, so tell them to do it or we'll fine them! *headdesk*
Apple's App Store doesn't seem much different from game platform marketplaces. Epic has their Game Store on Windows, sure, but do they also have it on Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch? Is Epic lobbying to bring their own Game Store to those Game Platforms? Heck, Epic only announced that they're going to make a store for Android yesterday. On a platform that has had no restrictions on opening additional stores. Weird, innit?
There is no "mo
We literally just got that (Score:2)
That's why you're seeing this antitrust action. The Biden administration changed the rules back to what they were back when we used to do trust busting and back when we used to have competition in
America Second! (Score:1, Insightful)
Must be nice arriving this late to the party. The EU are way ahead of you on this one - and are even looking at the possibility 'malicious compliance' in the 50 eurocent fee thing. Meanwhile, the US is just maybe looking at the first round of investigations and judgements.
The USA has lost its edge.
Re: (Score:3)
We cannot allow there to be an app store regulation gap!
(paraphrasing Dr. Strangelove)
Secure by design? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secure by design? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone legally purchases a device, why should the company that built it be allowed to block him from running whatever software he pleases on it?
Its a simple case of corporate freedom vs consumer freedom. Corporations have an incentive to maintain control of devices after they are sold, and consumers have an incentive to take control of devices after they are bought. Both feel fully justified in their position, so someone must decide.
In this case, I am siding with the consumers. People should be able to side-load if they want, on any kind of electronic device, because they paid for it. It's their risk to assume.
I could be convinced that consumers should not have this right for devices they rent. But absolutely for devices they buy.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone legally purchases a device, why should the company that built it be allowed to block him from running whatever software he pleases on it?
Sure, let the US government say Apple has to let people replace iOS on their iPhones. Let someone make an Android ROM for it, or their own OS platform. And while you complain about who controls the software that runs on a platform, also get the DOJ to go after Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for limiting homebrew developers from making their own games to give out or sell on their own web sites, separate from each platform's built-in store.
C'mon, side with the consumers...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything there that shouldn't be done, to be honest. Why shouldn't people be able to do these things?
I really don't understand some people's love for the right to be fucked over by corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Fully replace the OS, sure, it's hardware, let people run their own software. A lot of it has already been figured out to put Linux on Apple Silicon Macs...
Require Apple to open up the actual iOS interfaces to allow functionality that could compromise Apple's design goals, which are part of the story of why to pick iPhone? No, that's just the Government regulating "ease of intrusion" into systems. I mean, who wouldn't trust our Governments with backdoors that could break into our secure systems, right? Righ
Re: (Score:2)
The Sherman Anti-Trust Acts prohibit cartels as well, as the recent settlement over real estate commissions has proven again. But, yes, what people defend often comes down to their pre-existing preferences. Game companies good, anti-hacker companies bad unless they are also "game companies".
What cut do the hardware manufacturers take from game developers? Sure, you can buy it on disc in retail, but the hardware vendor is still getting their cut, even without operating any of the 'store' infrastructure to s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If someone legally purchases a device, why should the company that built it be allowed to block him from running whatever software he pleases on it?
Its a simple case of corporate freedom vs consumer freedom. Corporations have an incentive to maintain control of devices after they are sold, and consumers have an incentive to take control of devices after they are bought. Both feel fully justified in their position, so someone must decide.
In this case, I am siding with the consumers. People should be able to side-load if they want, on any kind of electronic device, because they paid for it. It's their risk to assume.
I could be convinced that consumers should not have this right for devices they rent. But absolutely for devices they buy.
I have 10 different iPhones for different family members on my cell phone plan. I have zero desire to deal with a situation where little Johnny (or technically inept big Johnny - take your pick) decided to side load an application that Tiktok advertised and said program inserted a trojan which is sending all sorts of harmful pics to everybody on their phone contact list. The walled garden is a feature of Apple iPhones. Having that feature enabled out of the box is something I desire as a consumer.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it enabled out of the box by default though.
No.
Then someone will start calling that "Malicious Compliance" [eyeroll].
Re: (Score:2)
It's a 2.6 trillion company, not **a company**, a normal company is not worth that much
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, customers will prioritize the competition: Nowadays, vendor lock-in and the lack of choices prevents wide-scale shifts in the market.
Living together requires rules: At some point we have to decide when a rich kingdom (corporation) hurts more than the serfs (customers). How to fix that without changing the rules, is problematic.
the smartphone market is ripe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i want to see FairPhone and/or PinePhone for sale in all the BigBox stores....
The PinePhone is a fine little portable Linux computer. I hope that someday it will be able to make phone calls and take decent pictures. It has (had?) a catastrophic design flaw, though, being the lack of a feature to restore it to factory defaults. I lost my encryption code, and I was unable to continue using the default image. I could install a different OS image on an SD card, but the default installation was irretrievable.
I don't know about the FairPhone, so I won't comment on it.
This could have been avoided (Score:5, Insightful)
There is certainly an irony in this situation. By modifying its software to comply with the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) requirement while keeping those changes limited to the EU alone, Apple may have highlighted a fundamental issue with its practices and precipitated this lawsuit. If Apple acknowledged that opening up access to certain functionalities like the NFC chip in the EU was actually necessary everywhere to foster fair competition, it might have preemptively addressed similar concerns elsewhere, such as in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
I think even without the DMA, Apple's position was untenable. Android exists and has proven to be as or more secure than iOS, despite allowing apps to make use of the phone's hardware, and be side-loaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think even without the DMA, Apple's position was untenable. Android exists and has proven to be as or more secure than iOS, despite allowing apps to make use of the phone's hardware, and be side-loaded.
LOLWUT?!?
Historically, the ratio of Android to iOS Malware is about 100,000:1. Actually, likely much higher!
In fact, I remember one "Purge" of suspicious Apps in the Play Store (which Google claimed it was already scanning-for!), netted something like 22,000 App Removals.
In contrast, it is still Front Page News when something slips by on Apple's App Store for iOS.
And it isn't like this is all ancient history, and things are all better now with Android. This story below is from just a couple of months ago:
ht [tomsguide.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The false equivalence is you not understanding that hackers target the most popular platform, and worldwide that is Android. World-wide Apple only accounts for 23% market share, which is pretty small. Windows is targeted by hackers more often because it's by far more popular and more used than MacOS. The fact is that Apple products aren't all that popular, it only seems that way to the fanbois. It's Androids market share that makes it a target, not any security flaw - if nobody used android, hackers simply would not target it no matter how easy it is to get into.
So, either Apple is a Bit Player on the Smartphone scene, which means the EU is simply shaking them down; or Apple is a Big Player, which means they actually are more secure than Android.
Can't be both.
And Merrick Garland claims that iPhones garner 65% of the (lucrative) U.S. Smartphone Market; so, that sort of kills your "Security Through Obscurity" Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
EU laws are not US laws, so the "burden of proof" isn't the same, the EU can do things differently than the US, and that's okay. The EU rightly targeted Apple for many of the same things the US is suing them for.
>or Apple is a Big Player, which means they actually are more secure than Android.
I'm not sure why you would think "size of a company" equates to "security". Very large companies get
Re: (Score:2)
It is highly unlikely that this lawsuit was filed because of Apple's response to the EU or would have been avoided by a different response. That only happened a few months ago... this sort of lawsuit takes years of preparation (and given the history of antitrust suits... probably a decade to resolve).
Re: (Score:2)
While antitrust lawsuits require extensive preparation, the DOJ's concerns - like access to device functionalities and unfair competition - overlap with DMA requirements. With DMA regulations decided in the EU for years, a swift and global compliance could have signaled Apple's commitment to fair competition and potentially undermined arguments delaying or voiding the lawsuit.
There are other choices... (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's not like consumers don't have other choices... If they don't like Apple's restrictions, they can return their iPhone and pick up an Android.
Antitrust should only come into play when there are no other choices.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Selecting one of two options should be enough for everybody!/ /sarcasm
And it is Apple (and Google's!) fault that other companies aren't willing to put in the Sweat and Time and Money to build a more Desirable Product and Supporting Ecosystem?
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't know with Apple and Google, historically these types of companies, namely MS and before perhaps IBM, do crap to break the new guys system. Example was the MS chant, DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run. Code in Windows to detect non-MS DOS and create problems. Contracts that screwed the competition and various other things that came out in the MS anti-trust trial. There is also the trick of buying out your competitors like MS did with Nokia.
IBM invented FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to att
the cost of doing business (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-paywalled source (Score:3)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0... [nytimes.com]
The Justice Department and 16 state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, the federal government’s most significant challenge to the reach and influence of the company that has put iPhones in the hands of more than a billion people.
The government argued that Apple violated antitrust laws by preventing other companies from offering applications that compete with Apple products like its digital wallets, which could diminish the value of the iPhone. Apple’s policies hurt consumers and smaller companies that compete with some of Apple’s services, according to excerpts from the lawsuit released by the government, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
“Each step in Apple’s course of conduct built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly,” the government said in the lawsuit.
Monopoly? (Score:2, Troll)
Apple has a "monopoly" on the iPhone only in the same way that Ford has a "monopoly" on the Mustang... technically true in the strictest dictionary definition of the word. But when you step out and look at the larger picture, the accusation it utterly unimpressive and disingenuous.
As the Slashdot "no wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" groupthinkers are very quick to point out (Usually anyway... but they're happy to ignoring the fact whenever it suits their purposes.), Apple is actually LOSING to And
Re: (Score:2)
When I can but games for...
Appe's behavior is not excusable just because everyone else is just as bad. All that means is that we need more antitrust enforcement, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a "monopoly" on the iPhone only in the same way that Ford has a "monopoly" on the Mustang... technically true in the strictest dictionary definition of the word. But when you step out and look at the larger picture, the accusation it utterly unimpressive and disingenuous.
Not really. The Mustang isn't a platform. You don't buy gasoline from your nearest Ford dealer. Even if the Mustang represented two-thirds of all cars sold, rather than about 0.34%, Ford would still have no control over where you get stuff for your car. They don't require you to buy your power inverter or car vac from them. They don't require anybody who sells you gasoline (in-app purchases) to pay them a 30% commission. They don't require you to get oil changes from them. They don't even require you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
technically true in the strictest dictionary definition of the word
As opposed to what, the fantasy make-believe version of the word? It's a fucking monopoly. It's not a grey area.
Ford has a "monopoly" on the Mustang
You can get a Ford vehicle fueled or serviced anywhere you want. You can install aftermarket parts all you want. You can even swap out the entire electrical system, head unit, whatever if you don't want Ford involved. That doesn't require Ford's permission or involvement, and they can't charge the company you buy those things from a fee for selling you stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name a device from a manufacturer other than Apple where you are completely not allowed to install things from another company or source unless the manufacturer gets a fee and control over those apps?
I'm pretty sure (but not 100% certain) that anybody developing games for consoles is paying some percentage (though not necessarily 30%) of the price of every copy to the console manufacturer, even if they are sold as physical copies [drawbridgeresearch.com], because that's part of the contractual requirements for obtaining access to their software development kits. But I could be wrong.
But outside of the game industry, no, I can't think of anybody else whose products are quite so thoroughly locked down.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony had some steep requirements for UMD authoring when I worked for them, but it was mostly on the front end for software and then for the actual production of the disc/cartridge things because they're proprietary. There we
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's control of the iPhone isn't what is at stake here. It's the way Apple uses its control of the iPhone to also restrict the choices of iPhone users when it comes to other markets, such as smartwatches, streaming services, and messaging.
In the US, where this lawsuit is focused, Apple has a much larger market share (61%) than the numbers you shared. https://www.oberlo.com/statist... [oberlo.com]
Wrong target. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple has their issues for sure, but they are nothing compared to Microsoft, Google, or Amazon in terms of consumer harm. It seems odd to me to focus energy on Apple [first]. There are things I hate about the way that Apple conducts business, but the consumer harm is not by how they use their secure enclave or run their app store. (The app subscription model is blatant consumer harm though.)
No. just not a monopoly (Score:2)
Anti-competitive behavior that has become the norm since the 80s, gradually spreading and getting more extreme ever since.
Biden has been working the government harder than they even have the budget to make up for decades of corrupt complacency. Sometimes I wonder if Bernie didn't find some blackmail on Joe... If you actually paid attention, you'd realize Biden is doing an amazing number of impressive things... while the "liberal media" somehow works against him and for example, left out YEARS of Trump fight
US dares to inconvenience a large company? (Score:2)
Discourage vendor lock in everywhere (Score:2)
Imagine if you could only buy tires for your Tesla from the Tesla Store, and Tesla would charge Michelin, Pirelli, Goodyear et al a 30% fee to sell them there. Telsa fans would probably still line up to pay, but this is still not something that society should encourage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US Government at various levels has been rattling the saber at Apple for a long time, long before quantum-secure key exchange was a thing. But Apple has been a consistent thorn in the side of American law enforcement, as they have legally demonstrated they cannot recover data from a locked iPhone. The curious bit of the timing may be more about Apple getting an improvement out ahead of concerns that the government could compel them not to.
The US Government's investigative agencies want access to iMessa
Re: (Score:2)
Being ordered by a court to do something doen't make Apple a part of that something. What it does mean is Apple has to respond to court orders, and typically the US Courts find there is no user privacy right in data held by a third-party provider. When Apple is subpoenaed for the contents of an iCloud account, they legally have to turn over that data.
But Apple has made design decisions that have reduced the visibility of data in the cloud, as over time Apple has encrypted more of it when it's sent to their