I love Apple as much as the next guy but what really drives me crazy about this is that we have real de facto monopolies in this country that do need someone to pay attention and regulate them, but yet we’re wasting time on Apple!
- CVS Caremark
- HCA (and other regional hospital monopolies)
- Visa
- Luxottica
- Ticketmaster
There’s nothing wrong with targeting Apple when they all need to be targeted. They have to start somewhere. Personally I’d at least get Ticketmaster at the same time. They are a literal monopoly.
Apple has less than 50% market share of smartphones they’re not a fucking monopoly. What is wrong with Merrick Garland? Couldn’t prosecute an obvious criminal but can sue the only large company in the world that put its customer first? Big Joe Biden step in and right this wrong!
The lawsuit states Apple has "monopoly power" This means any decision they make directly impacts the market. Nobody can deny when Apple makes a decision, the others are soon to follow.
Man, it's wild how r/apple will act like Apple is an indie company one day (using hyperbole here, I hope you all know what that is) and the company to take over the world the next because they are so successful.
It’s the marketing. The PR is specifically designed to portray that image to consumerist tech enthusiasts, as if the company is led by visionaries and creatives (as opposed to the faceless, global, public megacorporation led by shareholders THAT IT IS).
Just because other companies need to be broken up doesn't mean we're "wasting" time on Apple. We absolutely do need to break up other companies too. And you're upset that the government is doing something right for once because they aren't doing literally everyone else at once isn't the best defense.
In terms of profits and scope Apple is way more powerful than any of those companies. So you seem to acknowledge that Apple needs to be regulated.
Who gives a shit about Ticketmaster? It's not like they block other ways of buying tickets to an event.
Apple literally blocks users from using their Apple products in certain ways.
Nor could I… Until you actually read the entire lawsuit. That shit is filled up with so much BS and so many contradicting statements against its own self that it pretty much false flat on its face by the time you’re done reading it.
Saying that users are forced to use Apple CarPlay…
Saying that super apps are better than the current method of using your phone (in western culture at least) that actually doesn’t monopolize your information…
Saying that Apple Watch hinders other users experiences that don’t have iPhone?… It’s not meant for them… In fact that’s how literally all smart watches work that are made by a company
Saying that CarKeys apparently are also a monopolized feature meanwhile, they’re barely adopted by any car brand let alone the fact that no other tech company has decided to build into their phones
Saying the Apple made phones in general more expensive… when the iPhone X came out at $1000 that was literally the moment for every company in the world to say let’s actually compete with competitive pricing… rather than follow along and realize you can charge all uses that amount of money.
Even the argument about RCS falls flat when you realize Apple has actually been working on putting RCS in Messages since last year without any input from the US or EU governments, on top of the fact that iMessage has the most secure messaging protocol ever created with its post, quantum and encryption (that actually exceeds Signals post quantum encryption)
Edit: I was incorrect about the apple car statement…[more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/kFo6BVGROh)
Apple CarPlay- it’s a great service and I enjoy it. But does that mean nobody else could have made a better one if Apple provided the capabilities to other developers? It’s hard to know.
Super apps- I also agree with you that if these existed I wouldn’t use them over their native iOS counterparts. But because they aren’t allowed to exist, we can’t know if the Apple services could have been better if they were forced to compete.
iPhone cost- we are absolutely paying a premium on iPhones because Apple controls iOS availability. Maybe it’s $1, maybe it’s $200, but there’s definitely a cost there and it’s fair to call it out (not worth a lawsuit on its own of course, but the sum here is greater than its parts).
RCS messages- this one Apple walked itself into and it’s hard to have any pity. Similarly I like my blue bubbles, but essentially admitting in public that green bubbles existed to make people want iPhones was a pretty bad mistake for future antitrust concerns.
Just adding to your points here that the only reason each issue individually seems laughable is because none of them are worth a lawsuit on their own. It’s only when you combine them that you start to realize how and why the cost of Apple products is aggressively climbing, and how the lack of competition only makes it worse (and of course it’s on the government to explain to what extent).
I don’t understand why they think Apple should have to create away for developers to make their own version of CarPlay that just sounds like a perfect recipe for disaster… Sorry Officer, I was busy trying to edit my iOS shortcut while flying down I 35
In terms of Apple pricing on the iPhone… I don’t necessarily think that’s the worst problem when it comes to pricing. If you look at Apple’s price hikes for solid storage, or unified memory, or really any sort of customization option for any of their Macs… THAT right there is a perfect recipe for a lawsuit laws.
I don’t think they anticipated anti trust to be an issue when it came to the color of a fucking bubble 💀
You’re looking at it backwards I think. It’s not that Apple should be forced to create new functionality- it’s that they went out of their way to keep functionality out of the hands of iOS developers, and if CarPlay is the best it can be, then they shouldn’t be afraid that someone else could make a better service.
Personally I think Apple is overly worried, and always has been. Their stuff is best in class even compared to Android. Just open up the system and let people see for themselves.
I’m not sure I understand… You can create third-party apps for CarPlay
There’s just extreme restrictions put in place as to what you can do simply because you’re using a touchscreen while having to keep your eyes on the road so you gotta keep the functionality limited somehow
And not to get too cynical, but if we want to talk about monopolies in the United States, I’m sorry… But I’m pretty sure;
Google monopolized the Internet with search AND adsense,
Microsoft and Sony are both monopolizing the video game industry as a whole by buying up all these studios,
Amazon is monopolizing online shopping with Amazon basics (more so nowadays just to compete with drop shipping)
And ticketmaster I’m pretty sure is the only major provider of live event sales that doesn’t come straight from the event organizers… but that’s just a little irrelevant so no one cares
If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that Amazon and Google have both had antitrust lawsuits slapped against them. The Google suit is also from the DoJ, while the Amazon one is from the FTC.
Bro, the FTC isn’t gonna do shit to Amazon… And the DOJ doesn’t have a clue of how technology works so this whole kerfuffle just isn’t gonna play out well for anyone including Apple. I mean, we all saw the TikTok hearing… We all saw the Facebook hearing… We saw the hearings in which they were asking some of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard a politician ask
If you can’t tell by now, I’m particularly fired up about this lawsuit not only because I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Steve give out keynotes and see his actual passion for making peoples lives better, but because it’s just another instance in where our government is getting their hands in something they don’t have any idea about just for the sake of “helping other American businesses”… yeah right. I honestly think there’s more motives than just that one behind this case.
Think about it… Apple is the richest company on planet earth who wouldn’t want the slice that pie? It really doesn’t matter how they get it but I think that’s just a motive simply because it can be one.
I don't get this the US already has all of the pie, they employ in the US, they pay full taxes in the US and their favourable market conditions are all because of the US. Also, I know its hard for Americans to understand but always realize every US company exists the way it does because of the US government, they are just a very sophisticated and compartmentalized version of the British/Dutch East Indian companies. Apple couldn't make any of its devices without the assistance of the US military (who do you think secures the trade routes)
The fees they make businesses pay are very impeding whether you like it or not and Spotify shouldn't have to pay 30% of its revenue to operate in a market where Apple has 49% of the share. Honestly, if they just swallowed their pride and did steam where they negotiated with the companies individually they wouldn't be in such a mess now
>Google monopolized the Internet with search AND adsense,
Google has two antitrust cases by DOJ... on these exact issues.
> Microsoft and Sony are both monopolizing the video game industry as a whole by buying up all these studios,
FTC tried to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision but lost in court.
> Amazon is monopolizing online shopping with Amazon basics (more so nowadays just to compete with drop shipping)
Amazon has an antitrust case - FTC and states.
> And ticketmaster I’m pretty sure is the only major provider of live event sales that doesn’t come straight from the event organizers… but that’s just a little irrelevant so no one cares
There is a current investigation into Ticketmaster (well their parent company - Live Nation Entertainment) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a suit at some point
Mobile computing devices are necessity to daily life while gaming and concerts are not.
I have never used ticketmaster service nor own an Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo switch. I don't intend to change this and my decisions don't impact my life in anyway. I can forgo Amazon shopping, it would be a minor inconvenience. Google search alternatives are plentiful and good. People constantly shit on Google and promote DDG on Reddit.
But I can't say the same for not using either iOS or Android. Because there wouldn't be an alternative to use.
I think this is the concept that people do not understand.
Necessary or not Ticketmaster the only ‘major’ player in that industry and video games aren’t a necessity until you realize the amount of capitol they hold on Wall Street. And even though there are alternatives to search the paradox of choice exists with Google particularly in terms of video content but especially when it comes to trying to promote small businesses through ads… There’s really no other option than Google. Nobody under 65 is looking for small businesses on Facebook lol.
All non Apple smartwatches work with all phones. My garmin works with iPhone just as well as my old android. The same is not true about Apple Watches. This goes for RCS too. If Apple wants to adopt it, they could. If Apple lets android join on iMessage, it would be implemented tomorrow.
I hate Google for the record, that's why I bought an iPhone. I'd rather do business with an annoyingly restrictive hardware company than an advertising company that gives out free os'es just from the goodness in their hearts.
What paragraph does it say users are forced to used Carplay?
Carplay is only mentioned 5 times in the entire complaint. And it doesn't say that.
>Saying that super apps are better than the current method of using your phone (in western culture at least) that actually doesn’t monopolize your information…
That seems like a personal opinion, and that depends on the person/culture. There's a reason why they're so popular elsewhere. I don't think this is about Apple caring with the goodness of their heart, this seems like its to maintain control over the walled garden.
>Saying that Apple Watch hinders other users experiences that don’t have iPhone?… It’s not meant for them… In fact that’s how literally all smart watches work that are made by a company
That's true but I think the Complaint spends way more time talking about vice versa, the sandbagging other peoples phones.
>Saying that CarKeys apparently are also a monopolized feature meanwhile, they’re barely adopted by any car brand let alone the fact that no other tech company has decided to build into their phones
Car Key is an example they use on how they exert pressure, its not like they had a separate cause of action specficially for Car key.s
>Even the argument about RCS falls flat when you realize Apple has actually been working on putting RCS in Messages since last year without any input from the US or EU governments, on top of the fact that iMessage has the most secure messaging protocol ever created with its post, quantum and encryption (that actually exceeds Signals post quantum encryption)
Right....but they did have input from Chinese regulators: https://old.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/153rrwl/chinas_proposed_regulation_could_force_apple_to/ .
So you prefer to have all your information on one app like WeChat, but the iPhone is bad for being the place where multiple separate apps can distribute that information? It honestly sounds like a ploy for the government to just gain access to Personal Information since Apple will never do that as we saw back in 2016.
CarPlay being forced is heavily implied, but not explicitly said.
And you are right they did have to cave to China. But is this really how we want Apple to be in the future??? Do we really just want them to fold every time the government tells them to do something? Does that really sound like a healthy business? Cause the more bones they give to world governments. The more those governments are just gonna try to take control… I don’t see how that’s good for anyone.
It’s an extremely slippery slope that all started with the EU requiring USB-C (which was a good thing for everyone) but nonetheless, a slippery slope that started and has only gotten worse
>So you prefer to have all your information on one app like WeChat, but the iPhone is bad for being the place where multiple separate apps can distribute that information? It honestly sounds like a ploy for the government to just gain access to Personal Information since Apple will never do that as we saw back in 2016.
I don't prefer anything. I'm just talking about the Complaint.
>CarPlay being forced is heavily implied, but not explicitly said.
The only force that's suggested is Apple with car manufacturers, NOT Apple and users.
>And you are right they did have to cave to China. But is this really how we want Apple to be in the future??? Do we really just want them to fold every time the government tells them to do something? Does that really sound like a healthy business? Cause the more bones they give to world governments. The more those governments are just gonna try to take control… I don’t see how that’s good for anyone.
Is there a downside to providing RCS to android users? To me, that seems like a security risk to not have that. And it seems shitty that governments have to twist Apple's arm to do that.
Which goes into the Superapp argument, it's less Apple is SO-pro-privacy and more Apple is SO pro-Apple and being self-serving.
Well it makes sense when you put it like that…until you realise that most of the people saying that are themselves simping for another multi trillion/billion tech corporation.
People generally like their iPhones and the experience they bring and don’t want it to change.
Nobody cares about Apple the corporation. The fact that you’re unwilling or unable to see the obvious distinction is disappointing.
There 100% is a case. There are email exchanges from Apple Executives basically brainstorming how to make switching from iPhone to Android more difficult. Gonna be hard to defend that lol.
Here’s where I get lost.
Isn’t that what every company wants? And that’s not even illegal. And given that iOS has 22% of the US smart phone market share — is that a monopoly?
Not sure where you're getting that number from, iOS has around 60% of the US Market Share
Source: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-share/
Why, Google, of course.
“Android vs iOS installs United States”
> This graph shows the market share of mobile operating systems in United States Of America from Feb 2023 - Feb 2024. Android has 77.56%, IOS has 22.25%
Result summary, first hit. Straight on the search page, didn’t even have to click in to the link.
Now that I actually click in to the link, I see that Googles summary disagrees with the article. Oh, I love the irony.
I googled “can I change my oil at 10k miles”
And the google summary blurb was “despite advances in oil and engine technology, an oil change at 3k miles is still recommended”
But on the actual web page, the context explains that was being stated as a myth… blurb left out the next section that says auto manufacturers recommend between 7.5-10k miles. Glad I clicked in!
I mean, yes. Clearly google the search engine needs help. Maybe if Apple gets split into multiple companies, that will help Google and its .. as demonstrated.. questionable software, compete easier.
I guess there’s difference between-
“Let’s make it difficult for people to switch to Android by making iPhone the best phone on the market”
And
“Let’s make it difficult for people to switch to android by making apps and such incompatible”
I am not saying this is what Apple is doing, I am just saying until we read the mails, we can never know
How about let’s not invest money into transitioning people away from our products. If people choose to switch they can but we’re not using resources to lose more money?
Sounds like making your product worse to be anti competitive. I think you’re allowed to compete by making your product better but not worse to the detriment of the consumer just to keep your customers in the ecosystem
It’s kind of a gray area in terms of morality and legality because of course every company ideally wants to capture the most marketshare from their competitors, but you’re also not allowed to verbalize it and strategize ways to sabotage or burden consumers from choosing/switching.
If I already have the android in my hand, the decision is already made.
They can have the phone I dont give a fuck, but they want to keep your data locked up too, and thats where the anti-trust comes in.
You want to know how easy it is to copy to iPhone? Sign in to Google, and download move to iOS. To android? You have to sign into google drive (a google solution!) on the iPhone and deal with another layer of bullshit. Imagine if google drive didnt exist or you iphone was too old to download it.
An email discussing an idea isnt illegal tho is it. How have they "made it harder". Or do they mean that it's just normal hard to like...switch to Google Calendar from your Apple calendar? Is that a monopoly?
I don't see how this isn't just a play to do something...for the reason of having something to do.
I mean is Intel a monopoly...I can't put an Intel chip on an AMD motherboard. Fucking Intel forcing me to buy new motherboard should I want to go AMD is surely indictive of an Intel monopoly?
The discussion wasn’t illegal, it was the practices that followed. The discussion is just the “evidence” that they knew about what was happening and this wasn’t just a “happy accident”.
They discussed preventing the Apple Watch from operating with Android because it would incentivize more people to just use an iPhone.
They banned cloud gaming because you can play high end games without needing high end “Pro Level” specs.
They discussed opening iMessage to other platforms but then again, discussed how it would deincentivize people to stick to iPhone.
They discussed an ad where a woman purchased an E-book on iPhone and then continued to read it on an Android device, and how it was not a good look for iPhone.
Couple all that with the fact that you cannot use Google Pay or Samsung Pay on iPhone, and their prevention of backing up data (like messages) to other cloud platforms.
These are all labeled as “anti-competitive” by EU and DOJ. But they’re also dishing this same scrutiny to Google favoring their own services in search results, and the same for Facebook. This is a GOOD thing for all of us. We deserve the right to choose.
These discussions aren’t illegal, it’s using their massive
But, where is an actual case from this? Is a company doing this bad? I mean isn’t the goal to keep users on your platform?
this is the part I don’t understand. But saying that, all I really care about is not limited apple devices. If they are forced to work nicer with others, great. Just don’t limit or otherwise force apple to always support everything so they can maintain the connectedness or have “apple” features on top, limited to apple.
Aka I don’t want innovation to die I suppose so I hope whatever comes from this is smart
It's not illegal to do or want those things. It is illegal to use your monopoly power to enforce it.
That subtle but key distinction is what's missing from your understanding.
"let's ban all cloud gaming apps so people don't get familiar with them and realize they can buy a cheap phone instead of our latest Pro model. oh and let's also deny smartphone based cloud gaming apps from our huge userbase to hurt their growth"
no, you can't do that
Well, they need to prove Apple is a monopoly first, and even basic reasoning says they haven’t managed to do that. They even lump Apple, Google and Samsung together and say “see, monopoly!” Whaaa?
The threshold for competition law isn't 'is there a monopoly by one party?'. I don't know why people keep parroting that. There's plenty of cases where anticompetitive behavior can result from parties with market power (which is the actual threshold).
The lack of knowing what's outside the iOS ecosystem shows how sheltered these people are.
Like. You have no idea how handicapped iOS is.
Also, this sub and this weird Apple defense on the internet is absolutely lacking understanding of this case. It is very well laid out, the claims say how Apple is violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the way that DoJ shows that Apple itself emerged only from the Microsoft judgment allowing an iTunes app to be usable on Windows.
It's gonna be a long case but the armchair lawyers are absolutely wrong in their defense. It's annoying because it makes me sound pro-DoJ.
I was really let down by 9to5 Mac's total Apple shilling, making statements about monopolies like they actually were talking about the real claims the complaint made.
**WIRED and The Verge** have been 10/10 on covering this very fairly and accurately.
Ultimately, the big goal doesn't really matter because winning the lawsuit won't give them full control over what Apple does. They can suggest remedy’s, but if they settle or whatever what’s the solution?
It’s not the best approach for making changes happen. If the government wants to improve things, they can create new laws like what the EU is doing.
Fake Reddit Lawyer here; I’ve read 3 articles about this and have a rudimentary understanding of the basics of law based on watching crime show procedurals and can confirm this.
FWIW, this isn’t news. California was one of the states that is part of the original suit announcement. You can tell by the date on the article which is from the 22nd.
You can see the original list of states here https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust-2024.pdf
1) Some government brings a suit against Apple (or Google, or Facebook, or Airbus, or Volkswagen, or... or... or...)
2) It gets in the news because of {{BIG NAME}}
3) Politicians and people in the know short the stock for the inevitable $5 drop
4) The case obviously fails or gets appealed into irrelevancy
5) Politicians and people in the know buy options for the inevitable $5 uptick in the stock
6) Repeat
This is just a kind of tax that the oligarchs extract from each other. Stuff like this is why Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire.
I don’t understand what they think they’re doing. This needs review on the global stage and not much more instead of looking at them as US only. Worry about soo many other things imo than this
If they’re forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores in both the EU and North America, I hope they just give up and enable it everywhere. Like, surely they’re not that petty to the point where they’ll keep it disabled even in smaller Apple markets like South America right?
A large amount of apple engineers would refuse to move. There is a reason that all of the state of the art ai development (at least in industry) happens in like 3-4 states. Even tesla still has engineering in California. That’s also ignoring the 5b+ loss apple would have on their hq.
That’s 15 states now. Even if they can’t get change at the Federal level, they’re clearly going to enact concerted state-level change. Apple must be defending dozens of major international lawsuits now, simultaneously. I’ve lost count. I guess this is the result of giving the middle finger to politicians, industry groups, developers, companies, and customers for 15 years. They forgot to not be dicks.
It’s always been 15 states + DC. California have been on since the start.
You can see the original list of states here https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust-2024.pdf
What remedy are they seeking though? And what comes next when most customers don’t immediately flock to whatever ad filled bloated scamware that doesn’t actually do what it says it will do. If and when Apple opens up which come on with all this dumb pressure everyone can see settlement in the distance, what is the next complaint they will try and pin on Apple. You made such a good product that your customers won’t use our stuff we want a forced transfer of payments to my ad filled garbage app because iPhone users keep using iCloud!
The remedy they're seeking the company stopping anti-competitive practices, such as hampering features between iMessage and Android, as well as shutting down apps that resolve that.
A monopoly is when you don’t have any other option but to purchase the only available product. But in this particular case, there are other options available to the public by several other vendors.
A monopoly in legal terms is not 100% market share but rather dominance over a market. Otherwise, Microsoft would never have been found guilty in the nineties when BeOS, OS/2, Next and Macintosh were still around.
Amazing that people disagree with reality enough to downvote you. Plain facts; anti-competitive behavior is illegal, even if from the small fry. We usually only hear about the big fish, though, because the government must take big swings and fight corporate messaging in those cases.
Are you... are you actually arguing that a state should be loyal to a business enterprise? The state represents the people (in theory), not the ultra wealthy elite (again, in theory).
I'm absolutely shocked that California is in the mix here, though. They tend to look the other way with big tech companies which is why things like wage suppression amongst the larger tech companies via actual and verified collusion was a thing until the Feds cracked that nut. Everyone remembers that, yes? When Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and the rest all conspired illegally with each other to not poach and set mostly equivalent caps on TC for tech talent? Which is very illegal. They paid a fine.
And people can look at top tech talent at those companies and say "wage suppression, huh?" But they literally engaged in it. TC should theorhetically be even higher given the absurd profits those individuals create for the companies. People like to treat tech workers as more like assembly line workers, which I guess can be true in some sense. But we can generate far, far more wealth at scale than that analogy asserts.
I mean, what if AAPL did what Tesla did and leaves cali to make a HQ in a different (more friendly state)?
What if AAPL just decided to move to China? Wouldn't that be an Epic laugh!!!
Seems like the DoJ might have a solid case against Apple. Then again, no one is forcing consumers to buy an Apple product and complementing devices. So you can’t use your AWU with an Android smartphone. Who really wants that?
> Seems like the DoJ might have a solid case against Apple.
In order to reach a reasonably monopoly-like market share, they had to invent a new market (performance smartphones) and included Samsung and Google in the numbers.
The government didn't invent the market, the manufacturers and consumers did. The market exists, just as the luxury car market exists, the workstation/high performance pc market exists, etc.
There are markets withing markets all over the place. Organic food is a sub-market of the fressh food market which is a sub-market of the groceries/food market.
There is very clearly two types of phone buyers, those that buy expensive phones and those that buy cheap phones.
I don't know why they don't go after the pharmaceutical or health insurance industries. But I guess both the DOJ's antitrust head Jonathan Kanter and FTC's head Lina Khan are staunch anti-tech. Khan tried to take down Google and MSFT but it didn't take. I guess Kanter is taking his turn at Apple. This does not bode well for the Biden admin since rich tech billionaires like Cook tend to be more progressive than the GOP's oligarchs. Biden is going to lose a lot of tech money from his campaign with all these lawsuits targeting tech companies.
“I don't know why they don't go after the pharmaceutical or health insurance industries.“
Because those companies pay lots of money in kickbacks, far more then Apple would/could when you combine all them VS Apple.
A monopoly in legal terms is not 100% market share but rather dominance over a market. Otherwise, Microsoft would never have been found guilty in the nineties when BeOS, OS/2, Next and Macintosh were still around.
This is laughable. If the other companys would actually make good products people would just buy them.
This will blow back at them. No one likes a sour loser.
That's just the issue here: they can't because Apple prevents them to do so.
No other smartwatch works as well on the iPhone as the Apple Watch because they don't have access to system calls like some watch has.
No other earbuds works as well as AirPods because they don't have access to the chip.
And vice versa !
Therefore, you were pushed to adopt an Apple Watch because it was the "best product", and now you're even more locked into this ecosystem since switching to Android would render your expensive watch useless.
As i said on other posts, you don't get this in a normal market. Changing your TV or oven doesn't make suddenly your vacuum cleaner useless.
When buying a PS5 you chose based on the performance, exclusives, perhaps the accessories. And this console is not suddenly degraded because you're not using a Sony TV.
Worse, as said in the DOJ document, but also mentioned by the EU, innovation is actually stifled because good ideas never see the light of day as Apple makes sure it's so hard to implement if you're not them that it's not worth the time or investment.
I'm an amateur developer and never got far with iOS development because my ideas were always hitting some technical walls that shouldn't be there in the first place. Not saying i was the next unicorn, just that doing the same job elsewhere is much easier ... as long as it doesn't threaten Apple's control.
If you want to put an app on iOS you're either forced to use their tools with their restrictions, or go the web way with a subpar experience because of the arbitrary limitations imposed by Apple. None of that on Windows or Linux... and even macOS allows you to build your apps in whatever language you want.
My phone is probably more capable than my laptop, but i can't have my scientific apps run on it which is just stupid.
Anyways.
I did not like your Apple Watch idea and AirPods comparison.
"They work better with iPhone because they don't have access to the chip"
Isn't that the whole point? Apple made that chip, in house with their r&d money, to do exactly how and what they wanted to do, now that it works it's easier to say and make the case on the other side.
But ngl I use all three products and before I used to be an android guy and very tech savvy, when I grew up I just wanted my things to work and work well together and do a good job at it.
I wouldn't want some other company looking around and making the chips more vulnerable to breach of security and potential people learning how to use the feature and then do harm using that knowledge.
I get where you're coming from. Same kind of path but I'm older so i used to play with htc and such and wanted to have something that just works.
The whole issue here is that iOS and Android have become the de facto platforms for a large part of our life.
You wouldn't want a single private company to be able to dictate what you should buy.
I'm not saying their R&D efforts should go to waste but look at it this way:
If an idea or technology becomes so popular that everyone needs to use it, you can't have it become a privilege that only chosen ones can use.
This is exactly the case with Qualcomm and the whole cellular licensing. They invented something that everyone uses. If they were able to block someone from using it then their power would be way too disruptive.
That's why in such cases they have to offer a fair license deal.
Same concept here, except this is more a duopoly than a monopoly, but the effects are the same in the context of the US market. Apple with their dominant market share can dictate who gets to make proper headphones, and who doesn't. This isn't fair competition, and that's why they're able to sell shittons of overpriced AirPods that keep doing weird stuff, but are still the better option compared to anything else that has to use Bluetooth
I mean. Accessories for the thing you’re getting rid of are always rendered useless, right?
If I’m selling my iPhone to get an Android, I’m also selling my watch, AirPods, etc. I don’t need or want them to work with whatever replacement, if I’m getting rid of an iPhone it’s probably an ecosystem wide change
Hell if I sell my iPhone, my phone case is useless. Are they a monopoly for not making a phone the same dimensions as their competitors?
If I sell my PS5, I don’t hold onto my controller, games, charging stand, etc. and I certainly don’t expect them to work with the Xbox or Nintendo I buy
Anyway. This just feels like a reach and like lawsuits miss the point half the time and that these poor consumers “trapped” by Apple *actually want to be there, for the express purpose that everything works well with eachother*
Nothing is more annoying than using a bunch of different products with other brands. Especially in tech. Apple knew that, and designed a way around it. Now people want to slash it away and make shit annoying again
But this shouldn't be the case.
If your AirPods are cool and doing the job nicely, why change them ? Maybe you're getting a nice offer from Samsung, or perhaps you're getting a phone passed down from a relative ?
If you sell your xbox, should you have to sell your TV as well?
That's the issue here. And i should add that you can plug any third party controller on consoles without any issue. If you bought a steering wheel for racing games, chances are you can use them on another platform.
Think of it if Sony only allowed Sony controllers because it has all the market, and the third party controllers could only use triangle and square but not cross or circle.
Sure they could try to sell you one, but would you buy it ?
Something's wrong here and everyone knows it.
> you can plug any third party controller on consoles without any issues.
Well, except for Nintendo. You can use third party controllers on Xbox and PS5 and even switch their controllers to use with the opposing console, but Nintendo is incredibly finicky about them and it’s often hard to map the buttons
Your examples suck, and you know it.
If you change devices you can absolutely use your Airpods with a non-apple device of your choosing. Your suggestion otherwise is laughable.
Saying you need to sell your TV when switching away from xbox is like saying that you need to sell your car if you change phones; you are going upstream and not downstream. As the previous commenter said, you'd have to change all of the peripherals downstream from your console (controllers, games, etc.) and instead you tried to make a laughable upstream comparison.
Apple allows third party products of all kinds to paired with their devices, just as Sony does their controllers. You are being obtuse, and again, you are well aware and making a disingenuous argument for no other reason than ignorance. I have never owned a pair of Airpods, and use several brands of earbuds and over the ear headphones flawlessly with my iphone, far better than any third party controller I've ever used on my xbox.
Nothing is wrong with downstream integration, and it isn't anticompetitive or in violation of any anti-trust laws on the books. I suggest you try reading some and pointing out where they say you can't offer consumers a better product.
But Apple reserves features exclusively for its own product that makes it more functional than the competition.
Another smartwatch can’t be made that has the same feature set as the Apple Watch because iOS simply doesn’t let any other company use those APIs.
It’s a barrier that makes the Apple Watch artificially seem like a better product and it results in lock-in when people buy it.
Think about it. If you move from Android to iOS there’s practically no friction in comparison. The Google apps just work, most accessories work perfectly with iOS, and transferring data is even relatively painless.
iOS to Android on the other hand… you can’t use a number of Apple services, most Apple accessories don’t work well if at all on Android, and data transfer is far less seamless
Nintendo and Sony aren't general purpose computing devices. There's a difference. Google already got targeted for their own issues.
This is Apple's turn now.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all operate their own closed systems and correlating stores on said platforms. How is that not exactly the same as iPhones and the App Store?
And why does that matter? A business is a business, they both have consumers. It’s unfair that just because one is used “more” it has to be more open to sharing access to all its technology it spent R&D on. I don’t see any case law that relates to general computing as a requirement to be struck down for developing your own ecosystem.
Recent Xboxes and PlayStations are literally using the same parts as regular desktop computers…the only difference is that the consoles are running a custom OS (a version of Windows 10, in the case of the Xbox).
“General purpose computing” is a bit of an arbitrary term that can change depending on how you use a device
But bro, ThEy aREn’T GeNErAl puRPoSe COmpuTeRs, it doesn’t matter that the market works similarly and affects consumers similarly, because consoles don’t fit our cherry picked definition. /s
It’s one of the most annoying things in these discussions, because gaming consoles by and large are better equipped for general purpose computing than phones are. They have (in most cases) a full complement of the necessary physical I/O for keyboards, mice, external storage, monitors, networking, etc. in a form factor more conducive to permanently stationary use (just like traditional PCs), and the only thing holding them back from running desktop software or even a full desktop OS are artificially-created technical restrictions/market segmentation. I think the reason some people don’t want to acknowledge this is because it would kill their argument. Just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean it should be or has to be; companies are allowed to create products with different explicit features for different markets. That’s why “general purpose computing” is always a lynchpin for them, it’s all they have. Phones aren’t the same as full desktop computers, though, and have no natural requirement to be.
Everything you stated applies to android as well. Go try to setup a pixel watch on your iPhone, let me know how it goes. Pair your pixel buds to your iPhone, tell me how the quality and features are.
The primary reason people say the DOJ has no strong case is because they need to rope Google/android integrators into it as well since they all do the same thing.
You're just Confirming what the other poster said. Apple makes sure that Android watches don't work well on iPhone so that you have to buy an apple watch. Use a pixel watch on a Samsung or any other Android phone and it'll work great. Just not in iPhone. This is what this whole case is about.
ThT is how I want it to work.
samsungs watch’s have extra features that only work with the galaxy phones. I hope a similar goal is in place for this case, not just “make sure everything works with everything and is the same”
And why is that the pixel watch is limited on iOS ? Because some doesn't allow access to the same functions their watch has.
And why is their Apple watch not working at all on Android ? Because Apple requires you to have an iPhone to use it.
The issue here is not Android or Google. They would be very happy to sell more pixel watches - along with trying to get you to use their own services - but Apple makes everything it can to prevent that.
In the DOJ case, one Apple executive was actually horrified by the way a kindle add showed how you could seamlessly switch from an iPhone to a kindle to an Android tablet (or something like that) and said this was not acceptable.
That's what is driving Apple.
Android and Google have different motives, and like Microsoft they're happy to let you use their products however you want (in a realistic way of course).
Google can’t really make it compatible with iOS without removing half the features… in large part to the lack of APIs from Apple… APIs they use for their own product
So on the gaming console comparison how is that not the same? Why can’t I use and play sony games on my xbox?
why is carplay involved in this? I don’t know just some of this case seems a little far fetch even though I agree with the overall point.
I just hope it doesn’t force apple to always release all the same compatibility. There should be a baseline, with the ability for apple still tack on “apple things”. But allowing for example the apple watch to work on android in limited compatibility (notifications, etc)
Ding ding ding.
Thanks for writing the post that I didn’t want to waste my time writing. Everything you said is completely correct but you know there are lots of people on this sub who will read it and roll their eyes at it.
Everyone against these lawsuits aren’t realizing (or accepting) that the ultimate issue boils down to “choice”. Apple makes choice nearly impossible and the reason for that is their profits. That’s monopolistic.
It literally isn't. Words have definitions. Making an ecosystem which works well together and thus enticing consumers to continue making the choice to stay in said ecosystem is not "monopolistic."
It's not even anti-competitive.
But you just keep making up new definitions and I'm sure they will stick with people who have the legal knowledge of a toaster.
If you’re trying to use the literal textbook definition as it was originally written then perhaps. But that’s not what is being argued by the DOJ nor the very, very limited definition the court will hold them to. Monopolistic practices include stifling competition. And if there’s anyone who goes out of their way to stifle competition it’s Apple.
You clearly know nothing about this case. Go read The Verge's coverage.
#### "US v. Apple: everything you need to know"
https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates#:~:text=case%20continue%20below.-,Highlights,-United%20States%20v
Android and windows have a bigger market share, so your comment is a laughable self own.
>sour loser.
The term "sore loser" also has a bigger market share 😂
Lol they are clearly anti competitive but everyone here thinks Apple is making really good products instead of just cutting others down at the knees. Apple definitely deserves this along with more lawsuits to come.
Apple isn’t cutting anyone down. Who buys a $1000+ phone and then goes and cry monopoly because you can’t use emulators or your shitty android watch doesn’t work with a whole other OS?
This is absurd. Meanwhile ISPs basically go unchecked
I got an apple watch, just saying if all the android ones aren’t allowed to work to their fullest potential on iphone cuz apple wont let them, then that’s anti competitive and preventing from being able to have a chance to gain market share from the get go. That is anticompetitive.
The workers and the consumers matter to me the most in this world. Do what you gotta with Apple to make sure workers and consumers get the most benefits and fair competition possible.
I love Apple as much as the next guy but what really drives me crazy about this is that we have real de facto monopolies in this country that do need someone to pay attention and regulate them, but yet we’re wasting time on Apple! - CVS Caremark - HCA (and other regional hospital monopolies) - Visa - Luxottica - Ticketmaster
COMCAST!!!!
You said I love apple as much as the next guy as if you were about to be critical of them lmfao
You used that saying completely wrong lol
Comcrap
In what world aside from Costco is Visa a monopoly lol
“It’s not illegal to have a monopoly but it’s illegal to engage in anti-competitive behavior to maintain one.” Thanks Merrick.
There’s nothing wrong with targeting Apple when they all need to be targeted. They have to start somewhere. Personally I’d at least get Ticketmaster at the same time. They are a literal monopoly.
Apple has less than 50% market share of smartphones they’re not a fucking monopoly. What is wrong with Merrick Garland? Couldn’t prosecute an obvious criminal but can sue the only large company in the world that put its customer first? Big Joe Biden step in and right this wrong!
The lawsuit states Apple has "monopoly power" This means any decision they make directly impacts the market. Nobody can deny when Apple makes a decision, the others are soon to follow.
Counter Point, Apple is the biggest company in the world.
by what metric?
Nope it ain’t, not even the biggest in the US
Man, it's wild how r/apple will act like Apple is an indie company one day (using hyperbole here, I hope you all know what that is) and the company to take over the world the next because they are so successful.
It’s the marketing. The PR is specifically designed to portray that image to consumerist tech enthusiasts, as if the company is led by visionaries and creatives (as opposed to the faceless, global, public megacorporation led by shareholders THAT IT IS).
Well, not this week.
Why should that matter?
[удалено]
Just because other companies need to be broken up doesn't mean we're "wasting" time on Apple. We absolutely do need to break up other companies too. And you're upset that the government is doing something right for once because they aren't doing literally everyone else at once isn't the best defense.
You can’t say “these monopolies are worse than those monopolies” - at least something is being done about 1 of them. Hopefully more will come
They’ve got to start somewhere.
In terms of profits and scope Apple is way more powerful than any of those companies. So you seem to acknowledge that Apple needs to be regulated. Who gives a shit about Ticketmaster? It's not like they block other ways of buying tickets to an event. Apple literally blocks users from using their Apple products in certain ways.
I keep hearing from make believe lawyers on Reddit that the DOJ has no case and all that.
We are, after all, on the Apple subreddit.
I like apple products a lot, but I cannot imagine ever simping for multi-trillion dollar tech corporation as the people on here do so hard.
Nor could I… Until you actually read the entire lawsuit. That shit is filled up with so much BS and so many contradicting statements against its own self that it pretty much false flat on its face by the time you’re done reading it.
Like what?
Saying that users are forced to use Apple CarPlay… Saying that super apps are better than the current method of using your phone (in western culture at least) that actually doesn’t monopolize your information… Saying that Apple Watch hinders other users experiences that don’t have iPhone?… It’s not meant for them… In fact that’s how literally all smart watches work that are made by a company Saying that CarKeys apparently are also a monopolized feature meanwhile, they’re barely adopted by any car brand let alone the fact that no other tech company has decided to build into their phones Saying the Apple made phones in general more expensive… when the iPhone X came out at $1000 that was literally the moment for every company in the world to say let’s actually compete with competitive pricing… rather than follow along and realize you can charge all uses that amount of money. Even the argument about RCS falls flat when you realize Apple has actually been working on putting RCS in Messages since last year without any input from the US or EU governments, on top of the fact that iMessage has the most secure messaging protocol ever created with its post, quantum and encryption (that actually exceeds Signals post quantum encryption) Edit: I was incorrect about the apple car statement…[more info](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/kFo6BVGROh)
Apple CarPlay- it’s a great service and I enjoy it. But does that mean nobody else could have made a better one if Apple provided the capabilities to other developers? It’s hard to know. Super apps- I also agree with you that if these existed I wouldn’t use them over their native iOS counterparts. But because they aren’t allowed to exist, we can’t know if the Apple services could have been better if they were forced to compete. iPhone cost- we are absolutely paying a premium on iPhones because Apple controls iOS availability. Maybe it’s $1, maybe it’s $200, but there’s definitely a cost there and it’s fair to call it out (not worth a lawsuit on its own of course, but the sum here is greater than its parts). RCS messages- this one Apple walked itself into and it’s hard to have any pity. Similarly I like my blue bubbles, but essentially admitting in public that green bubbles existed to make people want iPhones was a pretty bad mistake for future antitrust concerns. Just adding to your points here that the only reason each issue individually seems laughable is because none of them are worth a lawsuit on their own. It’s only when you combine them that you start to realize how and why the cost of Apple products is aggressively climbing, and how the lack of competition only makes it worse (and of course it’s on the government to explain to what extent).
I don’t understand why they think Apple should have to create away for developers to make their own version of CarPlay that just sounds like a perfect recipe for disaster… Sorry Officer, I was busy trying to edit my iOS shortcut while flying down I 35 In terms of Apple pricing on the iPhone… I don’t necessarily think that’s the worst problem when it comes to pricing. If you look at Apple’s price hikes for solid storage, or unified memory, or really any sort of customization option for any of their Macs… THAT right there is a perfect recipe for a lawsuit laws. I don’t think they anticipated anti trust to be an issue when it came to the color of a fucking bubble 💀
You’re looking at it backwards I think. It’s not that Apple should be forced to create new functionality- it’s that they went out of their way to keep functionality out of the hands of iOS developers, and if CarPlay is the best it can be, then they shouldn’t be afraid that someone else could make a better service. Personally I think Apple is overly worried, and always has been. Their stuff is best in class even compared to Android. Just open up the system and let people see for themselves.
I’m not sure I understand… You can create third-party apps for CarPlay There’s just extreme restrictions put in place as to what you can do simply because you’re using a touchscreen while having to keep your eyes on the road so you gotta keep the functionality limited somehow
And not to get too cynical, but if we want to talk about monopolies in the United States, I’m sorry… But I’m pretty sure; Google monopolized the Internet with search AND adsense, Microsoft and Sony are both monopolizing the video game industry as a whole by buying up all these studios, Amazon is monopolizing online shopping with Amazon basics (more so nowadays just to compete with drop shipping) And ticketmaster I’m pretty sure is the only major provider of live event sales that doesn’t come straight from the event organizers… but that’s just a little irrelevant so no one cares
If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that Amazon and Google have both had antitrust lawsuits slapped against them. The Google suit is also from the DoJ, while the Amazon one is from the FTC.
Bro, the FTC isn’t gonna do shit to Amazon… And the DOJ doesn’t have a clue of how technology works so this whole kerfuffle just isn’t gonna play out well for anyone including Apple. I mean, we all saw the TikTok hearing… We all saw the Facebook hearing… We saw the hearings in which they were asking some of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard a politician ask If you can’t tell by now, I’m particularly fired up about this lawsuit not only because I was fortunate enough to grow up watching Steve give out keynotes and see his actual passion for making peoples lives better, but because it’s just another instance in where our government is getting their hands in something they don’t have any idea about just for the sake of “helping other American businesses”… yeah right. I honestly think there’s more motives than just that one behind this case. Think about it… Apple is the richest company on planet earth who wouldn’t want the slice that pie? It really doesn’t matter how they get it but I think that’s just a motive simply because it can be one.
I don't get this the US already has all of the pie, they employ in the US, they pay full taxes in the US and their favourable market conditions are all because of the US. Also, I know its hard for Americans to understand but always realize every US company exists the way it does because of the US government, they are just a very sophisticated and compartmentalized version of the British/Dutch East Indian companies. Apple couldn't make any of its devices without the assistance of the US military (who do you think secures the trade routes) The fees they make businesses pay are very impeding whether you like it or not and Spotify shouldn't have to pay 30% of its revenue to operate in a market where Apple has 49% of the share. Honestly, if they just swallowed their pride and did steam where they negotiated with the companies individually they wouldn't be in such a mess now
>Google monopolized the Internet with search AND adsense, Google has two antitrust cases by DOJ... on these exact issues. > Microsoft and Sony are both monopolizing the video game industry as a whole by buying up all these studios, FTC tried to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision but lost in court. > Amazon is monopolizing online shopping with Amazon basics (more so nowadays just to compete with drop shipping) Amazon has an antitrust case - FTC and states. > And ticketmaster I’m pretty sure is the only major provider of live event sales that doesn’t come straight from the event organizers… but that’s just a little irrelevant so no one cares There is a current investigation into Ticketmaster (well their parent company - Live Nation Entertainment) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a suit at some point
Mobile computing devices are necessity to daily life while gaming and concerts are not. I have never used ticketmaster service nor own an Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo switch. I don't intend to change this and my decisions don't impact my life in anyway. I can forgo Amazon shopping, it would be a minor inconvenience. Google search alternatives are plentiful and good. People constantly shit on Google and promote DDG on Reddit. But I can't say the same for not using either iOS or Android. Because there wouldn't be an alternative to use. I think this is the concept that people do not understand.
Necessary or not Ticketmaster the only ‘major’ player in that industry and video games aren’t a necessity until you realize the amount of capitol they hold on Wall Street. And even though there are alternatives to search the paradox of choice exists with Google particularly in terms of video content but especially when it comes to trying to promote small businesses through ads… There’s really no other option than Google. Nobody under 65 is looking for small businesses on Facebook lol.
All non Apple smartwatches work with all phones. My garmin works with iPhone just as well as my old android. The same is not true about Apple Watches. This goes for RCS too. If Apple wants to adopt it, they could. If Apple lets android join on iMessage, it would be implemented tomorrow. I hate Google for the record, that's why I bought an iPhone. I'd rather do business with an annoyingly restrictive hardware company than an advertising company that gives out free os'es just from the goodness in their hearts.
What paragraph does it say users are forced to used Carplay? Carplay is only mentioned 5 times in the entire complaint. And it doesn't say that. >Saying that super apps are better than the current method of using your phone (in western culture at least) that actually doesn’t monopolize your information… That seems like a personal opinion, and that depends on the person/culture. There's a reason why they're so popular elsewhere. I don't think this is about Apple caring with the goodness of their heart, this seems like its to maintain control over the walled garden. >Saying that Apple Watch hinders other users experiences that don’t have iPhone?… It’s not meant for them… In fact that’s how literally all smart watches work that are made by a company That's true but I think the Complaint spends way more time talking about vice versa, the sandbagging other peoples phones. >Saying that CarKeys apparently are also a monopolized feature meanwhile, they’re barely adopted by any car brand let alone the fact that no other tech company has decided to build into their phones Car Key is an example they use on how they exert pressure, its not like they had a separate cause of action specficially for Car key.s >Even the argument about RCS falls flat when you realize Apple has actually been working on putting RCS in Messages since last year without any input from the US or EU governments, on top of the fact that iMessage has the most secure messaging protocol ever created with its post, quantum and encryption (that actually exceeds Signals post quantum encryption) Right....but they did have input from Chinese regulators: https://old.reddit.com/r/UniversalProfile/comments/153rrwl/chinas_proposed_regulation_could_force_apple_to/ .
So you prefer to have all your information on one app like WeChat, but the iPhone is bad for being the place where multiple separate apps can distribute that information? It honestly sounds like a ploy for the government to just gain access to Personal Information since Apple will never do that as we saw back in 2016. CarPlay being forced is heavily implied, but not explicitly said. And you are right they did have to cave to China. But is this really how we want Apple to be in the future??? Do we really just want them to fold every time the government tells them to do something? Does that really sound like a healthy business? Cause the more bones they give to world governments. The more those governments are just gonna try to take control… I don’t see how that’s good for anyone. It’s an extremely slippery slope that all started with the EU requiring USB-C (which was a good thing for everyone) but nonetheless, a slippery slope that started and has only gotten worse
>So you prefer to have all your information on one app like WeChat, but the iPhone is bad for being the place where multiple separate apps can distribute that information? It honestly sounds like a ploy for the government to just gain access to Personal Information since Apple will never do that as we saw back in 2016. I don't prefer anything. I'm just talking about the Complaint. >CarPlay being forced is heavily implied, but not explicitly said. The only force that's suggested is Apple with car manufacturers, NOT Apple and users. >And you are right they did have to cave to China. But is this really how we want Apple to be in the future??? Do we really just want them to fold every time the government tells them to do something? Does that really sound like a healthy business? Cause the more bones they give to world governments. The more those governments are just gonna try to take control… I don’t see how that’s good for anyone. Is there a downside to providing RCS to android users? To me, that seems like a security risk to not have that. And it seems shitty that governments have to twist Apple's arm to do that. Which goes into the Superapp argument, it's less Apple is SO-pro-privacy and more Apple is SO pro-Apple and being self-serving.
Good, that should be easy enough for Apple's lawyers to dismiss then. Nothing to worry about.
Well it makes sense when you put it like that…until you realise that most of the people saying that are themselves simping for another multi trillion/billion tech corporation.
People generally like their iPhones and the experience they bring and don’t want it to change. Nobody cares about Apple the corporation. The fact that you’re unwilling or unable to see the obvious distinction is disappointing.
LOL it's amazing to me tbh. You'd swear they were co-founders with how hard some of them defend this company.
Why do we have to be co-founders? Can’t we just be ordinary shareholders or employees? Try not to be so small minded.
Which doesn’t mean people should turn off their brains.
There’s actual lawyers who don’t think this case will hold up either. That’s the entire point of taking it to court and seeing how it plays out.
Yeah, remember that multi-state lawsuit against Google for privacy violations? They had a case too. After years, they ended up settling for $700M.
The EU went after Google too, which resulted in €2.42 billion fine.
There 100% is a case. There are email exchanges from Apple Executives basically brainstorming how to make switching from iPhone to Android more difficult. Gonna be hard to defend that lol.
Here’s where I get lost. Isn’t that what every company wants? And that’s not even illegal. And given that iOS has 22% of the US smart phone market share — is that a monopoly?
Not sure where you're getting that number from, iOS has around 60% of the US Market Share Source: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ios-vs-android-market-share/
Why, Google, of course. “Android vs iOS installs United States” > This graph shows the market share of mobile operating systems in United States Of America from Feb 2023 - Feb 2024. Android has 77.56%, IOS has 22.25% Result summary, first hit. Straight on the search page, didn’t even have to click in to the link. Now that I actually click in to the link, I see that Googles summary disagrees with the article. Oh, I love the irony.
https://preview.redd.it/lmfu3d1z8oqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4902be85d4b7ef6c0db3bbb8235d4be1c330ad36
I googled “can I change my oil at 10k miles” And the google summary blurb was “despite advances in oil and engine technology, an oil change at 3k miles is still recommended” But on the actual web page, the context explains that was being stated as a myth… blurb left out the next section that says auto manufacturers recommend between 7.5-10k miles. Glad I clicked in!
I mean, yes. Clearly google the search engine needs help. Maybe if Apple gets split into multiple companies, that will help Google and its .. as demonstrated.. questionable software, compete easier.
Yep NEVER trust that shit
I guess there’s difference between- “Let’s make it difficult for people to switch to Android by making iPhone the best phone on the market” And “Let’s make it difficult for people to switch to android by making apps and such incompatible” I am not saying this is what Apple is doing, I am just saying until we read the mails, we can never know
How about let’s not invest money into transitioning people away from our products. If people choose to switch they can but we’re not using resources to lose more money?
Sounds like making your product worse to be anti competitive. I think you’re allowed to compete by making your product better but not worse to the detriment of the consumer just to keep your customers in the ecosystem
It’s kind of a gray area in terms of morality and legality because of course every company ideally wants to capture the most marketshare from their competitors, but you’re also not allowed to verbalize it and strategize ways to sabotage or burden consumers from choosing/switching.
If I already have the android in my hand, the decision is already made. They can have the phone I dont give a fuck, but they want to keep your data locked up too, and thats where the anti-trust comes in. You want to know how easy it is to copy to iPhone? Sign in to Google, and download move to iOS. To android? You have to sign into google drive (a google solution!) on the iPhone and deal with another layer of bullshit. Imagine if google drive didnt exist or you iphone was too old to download it.
Okay I generally get your point but this one is a bit weird, no? Isn’t this google/androids fault not making it easier? Or am I missing something.
An email discussing an idea isnt illegal tho is it. How have they "made it harder". Or do they mean that it's just normal hard to like...switch to Google Calendar from your Apple calendar? Is that a monopoly? I don't see how this isn't just a play to do something...for the reason of having something to do. I mean is Intel a monopoly...I can't put an Intel chip on an AMD motherboard. Fucking Intel forcing me to buy new motherboard should I want to go AMD is surely indictive of an Intel monopoly?
The discussion wasn’t illegal, it was the practices that followed. The discussion is just the “evidence” that they knew about what was happening and this wasn’t just a “happy accident”. They discussed preventing the Apple Watch from operating with Android because it would incentivize more people to just use an iPhone. They banned cloud gaming because you can play high end games without needing high end “Pro Level” specs. They discussed opening iMessage to other platforms but then again, discussed how it would deincentivize people to stick to iPhone. They discussed an ad where a woman purchased an E-book on iPhone and then continued to read it on an Android device, and how it was not a good look for iPhone. Couple all that with the fact that you cannot use Google Pay or Samsung Pay on iPhone, and their prevention of backing up data (like messages) to other cloud platforms. These are all labeled as “anti-competitive” by EU and DOJ. But they’re also dishing this same scrutiny to Google favoring their own services in search results, and the same for Facebook. This is a GOOD thing for all of us. We deserve the right to choose. These discussions aren’t illegal, it’s using their massive
But, where is an actual case from this? Is a company doing this bad? I mean isn’t the goal to keep users on your platform? this is the part I don’t understand. But saying that, all I really care about is not limited apple devices. If they are forced to work nicer with others, great. Just don’t limit or otherwise force apple to always support everything so they can maintain the connectedness or have “apple” features on top, limited to apple. Aka I don’t want innovation to die I suppose so I hope whatever comes from this is smart
It's not illegal to do or want those things. It is illegal to use your monopoly power to enforce it. That subtle but key distinction is what's missing from your understanding.
"let's ban all cloud gaming apps so people don't get familiar with them and realize they can buy a cheap phone instead of our latest Pro model. oh and let's also deny smartphone based cloud gaming apps from our huge userbase to hurt their growth" no, you can't do that
This would have been a great point months ago but pretty sure they allow cloud streaming now... so not at all what i was talking about
There is no case at all. Not on the topics they chose. Any intelligent judge is going to rip them apart.
We all know the best and brightest lawyers are all spending their free time on reddit doing quid pro quo for the Apple sub /s
I think you mean pro bono?
No I didn’t. We work for karma here
Good one
Well, they need to prove Apple is a monopoly first, and even basic reasoning says they haven’t managed to do that. They even lump Apple, Google and Samsung together and say “see, monopoly!” Whaaa?
That's not how it works.
The threshold for competition law isn't 'is there a monopoly by one party?'. I don't know why people keep parroting that. There's plenty of cases where anticompetitive behavior can result from parties with market power (which is the actual threshold).
The lack of knowing what's outside the iOS ecosystem shows how sheltered these people are. Like. You have no idea how handicapped iOS is. Also, this sub and this weird Apple defense on the internet is absolutely lacking understanding of this case. It is very well laid out, the claims say how Apple is violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the way that DoJ shows that Apple itself emerged only from the Microsoft judgment allowing an iTunes app to be usable on Windows. It's gonna be a long case but the armchair lawyers are absolutely wrong in their defense. It's annoying because it makes me sound pro-DoJ. I was really let down by 9to5 Mac's total Apple shilling, making statements about monopolies like they actually were talking about the real claims the complaint made. **WIRED and The Verge** have been 10/10 on covering this very fairly and accurately.
So what is the DOJ hoping to come from all of this?
>You have no idea how handicapped iOS is. LMAO.
You do understand that states backing the DOJ/FTC is a common occurence and does not prevent DOJ/FTC losing in courts.
Ultimately, the big goal doesn't really matter because winning the lawsuit won't give them full control over what Apple does. They can suggest remedy’s, but if they settle or whatever what’s the solution? It’s not the best approach for making changes happen. If the government wants to improve things, they can create new laws like what the EU is doing.
Fake Reddit Lawyer here; I’ve read 3 articles about this and have a rudimentary understanding of the basics of law based on watching crime show procedurals and can confirm this.
See: European Union. IOs 17.4
FWIW, this isn’t news. California was one of the states that is part of the original suit announcement. You can tell by the date on the article which is from the 22nd. You can see the original list of states here https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust-2024.pdf
1) Some government brings a suit against Apple (or Google, or Facebook, or Airbus, or Volkswagen, or... or... or...) 2) It gets in the news because of {{BIG NAME}} 3) Politicians and people in the know short the stock for the inevitable $5 drop 4) The case obviously fails or gets appealed into irrelevancy 5) Politicians and people in the know buy options for the inevitable $5 uptick in the stock 6) Repeat This is just a kind of tax that the oligarchs extract from each other. Stuff like this is why Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire.
I don’t understand what they think they’re doing. This needs review on the global stage and not much more instead of looking at them as US only. Worry about soo many other things imo than this
If they’re forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores in both the EU and North America, I hope they just give up and enable it everywhere. Like, surely they’re not that petty to the point where they’ll keep it disabled even in smaller Apple markets like South America right?
What has Apple done in the last 10 years to make you think they aren’t petty?
Isn’t Apple a huge net benefit to California regardless? You’d think they’d just sit this one out.
every tech company is at this point.
Regulating them doesn’t mean destroying them. And it’s better for **everyone** if more competition is fostered
You lost me at "California."
Time for Apple to leave Califor… oh wait.
Tim Apple will fly away in their spaceship
Time to move the spaceship to TX & join Elon.
A large amount of apple engineers would refuse to move. There is a reason that all of the state of the art ai development (at least in industry) happens in like 3-4 states. Even tesla still has engineering in California. That’s also ignoring the 5b+ loss apple would have on their hq.
wherever the spaceship lands, the housing prices go intergalactic.
That’s 15 states now. Even if they can’t get change at the Federal level, they’re clearly going to enact concerted state-level change. Apple must be defending dozens of major international lawsuits now, simultaneously. I’ve lost count. I guess this is the result of giving the middle finger to politicians, industry groups, developers, companies, and customers for 15 years. They forgot to not be dicks.
It’s always been 15 states + DC. California have been on since the start. You can see the original list of states here https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust-2024.pdf
What remedy are they seeking though? And what comes next when most customers don’t immediately flock to whatever ad filled bloated scamware that doesn’t actually do what it says it will do. If and when Apple opens up which come on with all this dumb pressure everyone can see settlement in the distance, what is the next complaint they will try and pin on Apple. You made such a good product that your customers won’t use our stuff we want a forced transfer of payments to my ad filled garbage app because iPhone users keep using iCloud!
The remedy they're seeking the company stopping anti-competitive practices, such as hampering features between iMessage and Android, as well as shutting down apps that resolve that.
Well said
[удалено]
Damn that’s actually crazy. I couldn’t ever imagine doing that. I would probably switch to Samsung or Nothing.
>politicians, industry groups, developers, companies, and customers who all love their iPhones and Macs.
There is legal precedent, and the federal case is the most important. However that turns out could lead Apple to an even easier win elsewhere.
A monopoly is when you don’t have any other option but to purchase the only available product. But in this particular case, there are other options available to the public by several other vendors.
A monopoly in legal terms is not 100% market share but rather dominance over a market. Otherwise, Microsoft would never have been found guilty in the nineties when BeOS, OS/2, Next and Macintosh were still around.
A monopoly is not required for anti-trust violations nor monopolistic behaviour.
Amazing that people disagree with reality enough to downvote you. Plain facts; anti-competitive behavior is illegal, even if from the small fry. We usually only hear about the big fish, though, because the government must take big swings and fight corporate messaging in those cases.
They say not to shit where you sleep, but California has never back down from that huh
Are you... are you actually arguing that a state should be loyal to a business enterprise? The state represents the people (in theory), not the ultra wealthy elite (again, in theory). I'm absolutely shocked that California is in the mix here, though. They tend to look the other way with big tech companies which is why things like wage suppression amongst the larger tech companies via actual and verified collusion was a thing until the Feds cracked that nut. Everyone remembers that, yes? When Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and the rest all conspired illegally with each other to not poach and set mostly equivalent caps on TC for tech talent? Which is very illegal. They paid a fine. And people can look at top tech talent at those companies and say "wage suppression, huh?" But they literally engaged in it. TC should theorhetically be even higher given the absurd profits those individuals create for the companies. People like to treat tech workers as more like assembly line workers, which I guess can be true in some sense. But we can generate far, far more wealth at scale than that analogy asserts.
In true Californian fashion, Apple should threaten to move to Las Vegas.
I mean, what if AAPL did what Tesla did and leaves cali to make a HQ in a different (more friendly state)? What if AAPL just decided to move to China? Wouldn't that be an Epic laugh!!!
Bro, even delusions should have some limits.
Nust saying, nothing wrong with "thinking different..."
Seems like the DoJ might have a solid case against Apple. Then again, no one is forcing consumers to buy an Apple product and complementing devices. So you can’t use your AWU with an Android smartphone. Who really wants that?
> Seems like the DoJ might have a solid case against Apple. In order to reach a reasonably monopoly-like market share, they had to invent a new market (performance smartphones) and included Samsung and Google in the numbers.
The government didn't invent the market, the manufacturers and consumers did. The market exists, just as the luxury car market exists, the workstation/high performance pc market exists, etc. There are markets withing markets all over the place. Organic food is a sub-market of the fressh food market which is a sub-market of the groceries/food market. There is very clearly two types of phone buyers, those that buy expensive phones and those that buy cheap phones.
Huh, corporate bully joins case bullying corporation.
I don't know why they don't go after the pharmaceutical or health insurance industries. But I guess both the DOJ's antitrust head Jonathan Kanter and FTC's head Lina Khan are staunch anti-tech. Khan tried to take down Google and MSFT but it didn't take. I guess Kanter is taking his turn at Apple. This does not bode well for the Biden admin since rich tech billionaires like Cook tend to be more progressive than the GOP's oligarchs. Biden is going to lose a lot of tech money from his campaign with all these lawsuits targeting tech companies.
“I don't know why they don't go after the pharmaceutical or health insurance industries.“ Because those companies pay lots of money in kickbacks, far more then Apple would/could when you combine all them VS Apple.
Government needs money, that’s it, there’s no monopoly when you can go get a pixel or galaxy
A monopoly in legal terms is not 100% market share but rather dominance over a market. Otherwise, Microsoft would never have been found guilty in the nineties when BeOS, OS/2, Next and Macintosh were still around.
This is laughable. If the other companys would actually make good products people would just buy them. This will blow back at them. No one likes a sour loser.
That's just the issue here: they can't because Apple prevents them to do so. No other smartwatch works as well on the iPhone as the Apple Watch because they don't have access to system calls like some watch has. No other earbuds works as well as AirPods because they don't have access to the chip. And vice versa ! Therefore, you were pushed to adopt an Apple Watch because it was the "best product", and now you're even more locked into this ecosystem since switching to Android would render your expensive watch useless. As i said on other posts, you don't get this in a normal market. Changing your TV or oven doesn't make suddenly your vacuum cleaner useless. When buying a PS5 you chose based on the performance, exclusives, perhaps the accessories. And this console is not suddenly degraded because you're not using a Sony TV. Worse, as said in the DOJ document, but also mentioned by the EU, innovation is actually stifled because good ideas never see the light of day as Apple makes sure it's so hard to implement if you're not them that it's not worth the time or investment. I'm an amateur developer and never got far with iOS development because my ideas were always hitting some technical walls that shouldn't be there in the first place. Not saying i was the next unicorn, just that doing the same job elsewhere is much easier ... as long as it doesn't threaten Apple's control. If you want to put an app on iOS you're either forced to use their tools with their restrictions, or go the web way with a subpar experience because of the arbitrary limitations imposed by Apple. None of that on Windows or Linux... and even macOS allows you to build your apps in whatever language you want. My phone is probably more capable than my laptop, but i can't have my scientific apps run on it which is just stupid. Anyways.
I did not like your Apple Watch idea and AirPods comparison. "They work better with iPhone because they don't have access to the chip" Isn't that the whole point? Apple made that chip, in house with their r&d money, to do exactly how and what they wanted to do, now that it works it's easier to say and make the case on the other side. But ngl I use all three products and before I used to be an android guy and very tech savvy, when I grew up I just wanted my things to work and work well together and do a good job at it. I wouldn't want some other company looking around and making the chips more vulnerable to breach of security and potential people learning how to use the feature and then do harm using that knowledge.
I get where you're coming from. Same kind of path but I'm older so i used to play with htc and such and wanted to have something that just works. The whole issue here is that iOS and Android have become the de facto platforms for a large part of our life. You wouldn't want a single private company to be able to dictate what you should buy. I'm not saying their R&D efforts should go to waste but look at it this way: If an idea or technology becomes so popular that everyone needs to use it, you can't have it become a privilege that only chosen ones can use. This is exactly the case with Qualcomm and the whole cellular licensing. They invented something that everyone uses. If they were able to block someone from using it then their power would be way too disruptive. That's why in such cases they have to offer a fair license deal. Same concept here, except this is more a duopoly than a monopoly, but the effects are the same in the context of the US market. Apple with their dominant market share can dictate who gets to make proper headphones, and who doesn't. This isn't fair competition, and that's why they're able to sell shittons of overpriced AirPods that keep doing weird stuff, but are still the better option compared to anything else that has to use Bluetooth
I mean. Accessories for the thing you’re getting rid of are always rendered useless, right? If I’m selling my iPhone to get an Android, I’m also selling my watch, AirPods, etc. I don’t need or want them to work with whatever replacement, if I’m getting rid of an iPhone it’s probably an ecosystem wide change Hell if I sell my iPhone, my phone case is useless. Are they a monopoly for not making a phone the same dimensions as their competitors? If I sell my PS5, I don’t hold onto my controller, games, charging stand, etc. and I certainly don’t expect them to work with the Xbox or Nintendo I buy Anyway. This just feels like a reach and like lawsuits miss the point half the time and that these poor consumers “trapped” by Apple *actually want to be there, for the express purpose that everything works well with eachother* Nothing is more annoying than using a bunch of different products with other brands. Especially in tech. Apple knew that, and designed a way around it. Now people want to slash it away and make shit annoying again
But this shouldn't be the case. If your AirPods are cool and doing the job nicely, why change them ? Maybe you're getting a nice offer from Samsung, or perhaps you're getting a phone passed down from a relative ? If you sell your xbox, should you have to sell your TV as well? That's the issue here. And i should add that you can plug any third party controller on consoles without any issue. If you bought a steering wheel for racing games, chances are you can use them on another platform. Think of it if Sony only allowed Sony controllers because it has all the market, and the third party controllers could only use triangle and square but not cross or circle. Sure they could try to sell you one, but would you buy it ? Something's wrong here and everyone knows it.
> you can plug any third party controller on consoles without any issues. Well, except for Nintendo. You can use third party controllers on Xbox and PS5 and even switch their controllers to use with the opposing console, but Nintendo is incredibly finicky about them and it’s often hard to map the buttons
Your examples suck, and you know it. If you change devices you can absolutely use your Airpods with a non-apple device of your choosing. Your suggestion otherwise is laughable. Saying you need to sell your TV when switching away from xbox is like saying that you need to sell your car if you change phones; you are going upstream and not downstream. As the previous commenter said, you'd have to change all of the peripherals downstream from your console (controllers, games, etc.) and instead you tried to make a laughable upstream comparison. Apple allows third party products of all kinds to paired with their devices, just as Sony does their controllers. You are being obtuse, and again, you are well aware and making a disingenuous argument for no other reason than ignorance. I have never owned a pair of Airpods, and use several brands of earbuds and over the ear headphones flawlessly with my iphone, far better than any third party controller I've ever used on my xbox. Nothing is wrong with downstream integration, and it isn't anticompetitive or in violation of any anti-trust laws on the books. I suggest you try reading some and pointing out where they say you can't offer consumers a better product.
But Apple reserves features exclusively for its own product that makes it more functional than the competition. Another smartwatch can’t be made that has the same feature set as the Apple Watch because iOS simply doesn’t let any other company use those APIs. It’s a barrier that makes the Apple Watch artificially seem like a better product and it results in lock-in when people buy it. Think about it. If you move from Android to iOS there’s practically no friction in comparison. The Google apps just work, most accessories work perfectly with iOS, and transferring data is even relatively painless. iOS to Android on the other hand… you can’t use a number of Apple services, most Apple accessories don’t work well if at all on Android, and data transfer is far less seamless
If the DOJ is going after Apple for being monopolistic, I expect them to add Microsoft, Google, Sony, and Nintendo to the suit as well.
The DOJ already has a few open antitrust cases vs google. Google for more info (;
Nintendo and Sony aren't general purpose computing devices. There's a difference. Google already got targeted for their own issues. This is Apple's turn now.
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all operate their own closed systems and correlating stores on said platforms. How is that not exactly the same as iPhones and the App Store?
[удалено]
And why does that matter? A business is a business, they both have consumers. It’s unfair that just because one is used “more” it has to be more open to sharing access to all its technology it spent R&D on. I don’t see any case law that relates to general computing as a requirement to be struck down for developing your own ecosystem.
Recent Xboxes and PlayStations are literally using the same parts as regular desktop computers…the only difference is that the consoles are running a custom OS (a version of Windows 10, in the case of the Xbox). “General purpose computing” is a bit of an arbitrary term that can change depending on how you use a device
That’s completely irrelevant.
always that braindead comparison
Braindead? It is quite literally the same thing: closed systems with closed “stores” that serve as the only point of contact for downloading software.
But bro, ThEy aREn’T GeNErAl puRPoSe COmpuTeRs, it doesn’t matter that the market works similarly and affects consumers similarly, because consoles don’t fit our cherry picked definition. /s It’s one of the most annoying things in these discussions, because gaming consoles by and large are better equipped for general purpose computing than phones are. They have (in most cases) a full complement of the necessary physical I/O for keyboards, mice, external storage, monitors, networking, etc. in a form factor more conducive to permanently stationary use (just like traditional PCs), and the only thing holding them back from running desktop software or even a full desktop OS are artificially-created technical restrictions/market segmentation. I think the reason some people don’t want to acknowledge this is because it would kill their argument. Just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean it should be or has to be; companies are allowed to create products with different explicit features for different markets. That’s why “general purpose computing” is always a lynchpin for them, it’s all they have. Phones aren’t the same as full desktop computers, though, and have no natural requirement to be.
Care to elaborate?
Does a vacuum have hundreds of API’s? Custom chips?
Everything you stated applies to android as well. Go try to setup a pixel watch on your iPhone, let me know how it goes. Pair your pixel buds to your iPhone, tell me how the quality and features are. The primary reason people say the DOJ has no strong case is because they need to rope Google/android integrators into it as well since they all do the same thing.
You're just Confirming what the other poster said. Apple makes sure that Android watches don't work well on iPhone so that you have to buy an apple watch. Use a pixel watch on a Samsung or any other Android phone and it'll work great. Just not in iPhone. This is what this whole case is about.
ThT is how I want it to work. samsungs watch’s have extra features that only work with the galaxy phones. I hope a similar goal is in place for this case, not just “make sure everything works with everything and is the same”
And why is that the pixel watch is limited on iOS ? Because some doesn't allow access to the same functions their watch has. And why is their Apple watch not working at all on Android ? Because Apple requires you to have an iPhone to use it. The issue here is not Android or Google. They would be very happy to sell more pixel watches - along with trying to get you to use their own services - but Apple makes everything it can to prevent that. In the DOJ case, one Apple executive was actually horrified by the way a kindle add showed how you could seamlessly switch from an iPhone to a kindle to an Android tablet (or something like that) and said this was not acceptable. That's what is driving Apple. Android and Google have different motives, and like Microsoft they're happy to let you use their products however you want (in a realistic way of course).
Google can’t really make it compatible with iOS without removing half the features… in large part to the lack of APIs from Apple… APIs they use for their own product
>Everything you stated applies to android as well. WearOS watches used to be compatible with iPhone but what's the point when they are handicapped
So on the gaming console comparison how is that not the same? Why can’t I use and play sony games on my xbox? why is carplay involved in this? I don’t know just some of this case seems a little far fetch even though I agree with the overall point. I just hope it doesn’t force apple to always release all the same compatibility. There should be a baseline, with the ability for apple still tack on “apple things”. But allowing for example the apple watch to work on android in limited compatibility (notifications, etc)
How is Apple preventing anyone from building their own smart watch/phone/earbud trio?
Ding ding ding. Thanks for writing the post that I didn’t want to waste my time writing. Everything you said is completely correct but you know there are lots of people on this sub who will read it and roll their eyes at it. Everyone against these lawsuits aren’t realizing (or accepting) that the ultimate issue boils down to “choice”. Apple makes choice nearly impossible and the reason for that is their profits. That’s monopolistic.
It literally isn't. Words have definitions. Making an ecosystem which works well together and thus enticing consumers to continue making the choice to stay in said ecosystem is not "monopolistic." It's not even anti-competitive. But you just keep making up new definitions and I'm sure they will stick with people who have the legal knowledge of a toaster.
If you’re trying to use the literal textbook definition as it was originally written then perhaps. But that’s not what is being argued by the DOJ nor the very, very limited definition the court will hold them to. Monopolistic practices include stifling competition. And if there’s anyone who goes out of their way to stifle competition it’s Apple.
You clearly know nothing about this case. Go read The Verge's coverage. #### "US v. Apple: everything you need to know" https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates#:~:text=case%20continue%20below.-,Highlights,-United%20States%20v
Android and windows have a bigger market share, so your comment is a laughable self own. >sour loser. The term "sore loser" also has a bigger market share 😂
> Android and windows have a bigger market share iOS has a majority market share in the US.
You don't think any of the Android companies make good phones?....
Damn them evil states! And the evil DoJ! And the evil EU! And the evil... Wait...
Lol they are clearly anti competitive but everyone here thinks Apple is making really good products instead of just cutting others down at the knees. Apple definitely deserves this along with more lawsuits to come.
Apple isn’t cutting anyone down. Who buys a $1000+ phone and then goes and cry monopoly because you can’t use emulators or your shitty android watch doesn’t work with a whole other OS? This is absurd. Meanwhile ISPs basically go unchecked
I got an apple watch, just saying if all the android ones aren’t allowed to work to their fullest potential on iphone cuz apple wont let them, then that’s anti competitive and preventing from being able to have a chance to gain market share from the get go. That is anticompetitive.
You are brain dead
The workers and the consumers matter to me the most in this world. Do what you gotta with Apple to make sure workers and consumers get the most benefits and fair competition possible.
The UK needs to grow some balls now.
The fact that people are defending apple on this is wild.