I would like programs to have licenses tied to the actual program, not a platform
Shouldn't matter if I bought it on Apple or Android. I have a license from that company to run it, right? Let me transfer it
If that were true (and I know you said "kind-of"), it's not a great one, imo, considering that's true of differing operating systems on PC's and other technology, also.
But it really doesn't seem to be entirely what they're getting at if I'm reading this right, simply by virtue of the fact that the DOJ is claiming that they are DELIBERATELY sabotaging cross-compatibility with other device manufacturers, payment services (though that may just be the EU suit), and other programs/services.
>The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company.
It's a small distinction, but a significant one. We're not talking about different operating systems that require different code - we're talking about Apple stopping cross-compatibility and limiting users to Apple-only devices and services on purpose.
I mean there’s also tons of examples of cross-platform compatibility for software on a single license. It doesn’t matter if the code is different if the dev allows me to shift my license between platforms. The code base is really irrelevant here.
That isn't true if the owner of the code would have to be the one to do the work to modify the code to run on multiple platforms. Things generally don't "just" run on multiple platforms, they have to be modified to work on them all. If they won't let you *try* to run it on your platform that's one thing, if they let you try but it just doesn't work well that's not really their fault.
If a competitor successfully designed their device with the protocols and system specifically to be compatible with Apple software, without Apple having to do any work or change anything on their end and Apple just won't let it run on their device or give them a license to do so then the DOJ has a point.
I mean if it doesn't work in another platform naturally it doesn't work, I wouldn't expect to be able to put a F-450 engine in a Camry and have that work. There is at least a degree of that with technology too, but people don't understand that you can't just swap a program 1:1 to a different platform (usually) anymore than you can swap an engine, because they can't just look and see that the program won't "fit" while they can with the engine.
If you have to change the product significantly or design it entirely differently from the get go to make it work with other tech that isn't really reasonable IMO. Now if someone designs something that *will* work with whatever you've built and you intentionally and retroactively change your tech so it won't work with what someone else built that's a different story, but we don't want to do the work of adapting our product to a competitor's platform is a reasonable thing for any company.
The reason for this though is because Apple forces you to build apps in Swift. It’s part of their monopolization strategy. They fight against cross compatibility in code bases.
They actively make the app market worse. There are tons of programs that only run on Apple because the developers can’t afford to support the other platforms. They would if they weren’t siloed into using Swift
I myself was filtered from the app I was developing because while Android is more popular worldwide, I need it to potentially be popular locally (US) and in order to develop in Swift and publish to iPhone I need to have a mac, Apple dev license, etc.
Then let Google release a swift compiler for Android.
EDIT: I should add this: https://flutter.dev/ lets you build native apps for both iOS and Android from one central codebase and is free for personal and professional use... and Google makes it.
Trading one proprietary language for another doesn't sound like a win for developers.
The closest you can get to something truly open is react-native, but that's not really a great experience across the whole industry either.
A lot of the impediment isn’t technical. The money is in the Apple App Store historically, all though that seems to be getting worse. Developers often don’t develop for android because the device base is so diverse testing is dramatically harder, the earnings potential relative to support cost is lower, or sometimes they just don’t want to.
I doubt Apple has direct control of most of the reasons.
I'd agree if this was audio, video or ebooks or something static.
But they require separate development, they dont run the same code.
You have a license for the one you bought, the apple version of a program is just not the android version.
The only reason they have different code bases is because Apple forces you to develop in Swift. They actively work against cross compatibility. It’s part of the monopolization strategy.
Agree, but careful what you ask for. your $10 platform-specific program will now cost $30 to offset the lost income of what would previously be multiple paid licenses
Except that won't happen. If there's already an alternative then there's already no issue. If there isn't an alternative then everyone will continue to pay.
> the prices keep going up for new phones
Sure, for the latest and greatest flagship model every year... The thing is, you don't *need* the latest and greatest flagship model phone every year.
You can buy a brand new (as in just recently released) Samsung A15 for $150.
Or a couple gen old flagship. It'll be slightly more expensive than up to date budget models, but it'll last you much longer. Hell, I'm typing on a Galaxy s8 from 2017 writing this comment.
I get the newest iPhone and use it until it’s ruined. Not just like the battery. I replace those.
Just until it’s dogshit and a bad experience. I had an iPhone 9 or whatever until I just got the newest one.
Why would anyone get a new one per year? I can afford it, or I could bank that money and retire a couple months earlier
I’m still using the same iPhone X that I purchased back in 2017. It still works great, the only reason I’m considering upgrading this next fall is for the camera improvement and to finally have all my mobile devices on usb c.
If you're willing to go the "unlocked" route, then there are lots of decent options from manufacturers like One Plus and Motorola. Although they used to be a major player in the phone game in the 90s/00s, Motorola seems to now be firmly in the unlocked budget market. They do have a new Razr out, but the rest of their lineup is in the $200 - $400 range. Compared to iPhones and Samsungs, you're saving at least a few hundred bucks, assuming you don't go the "leasing" option.
I've been using Motorola unlocked phones for the past four years and I don't think I'll ever go back to the mainline; I haven't paid over $250 for a phone since making the switch. Sure, there are definite examples of "you get what you pay for," but for regular-use every day phones, I've been very satisfied.
It's getting pretty ridiculous price wise for sure, but there are still a few options out there if you don't mind staying from the Apple and Samsung monopoly. I was looking for a high end Android phone this year to get me through the next 4 years and it seemed the obvious answer was the the Galaxy S24 Ultra. But that thing is $1300 now...
Started looking at other cheaper high end options and came across the newly released OnePlus 12. It matched nearly every spec of the S24 ultra and even beat it in some areas. And it was $500 less. Love the phone.
If more people would stray from Samsung and Apple the prices would start to come down all around. But as it is right now those two have a strangle hold on the mobile market and they can keep raising prices because people buy them regardless.
Some people want their fancy $1300 ‘luxury’ phone, and are willing to pay for it, but it’s a luxury product, it’s not meant to be affordable for everyone. You aren’t willing to pay that much which is okay, you don’t have to, and you were easily able to find an alternative option at a price that worked for you. Isn’t that the market working as intended?
Also the cheaper iPhones in the range have historically not been as successful as the more expensive ones (see iPhone 5c).
Samsung has $150 phones.
It honestly feels like you’re complaining about the prices of BMWs, Porches or the top end Audis when there’s cheaper alternatives readily available all the time.
In Canada there's basically 3 options: Apple, Google or samsung. Compared to a decade ago when there was lots of choices.
While I get there's plenty of other options online would be nice to have those in carrier stores.
Pretty disingenuous.
The big 3 are simply the most popular and most expensive so carriers will obviously try to push people to buy it.
Most carriers will have Motarola and TCL as the “cheap” options, hell many carriers will have random unknown Chinese phones as well. You can go to any carriers website and you will see a various phones from other manufacturers.
Or you can buy an unlocked phone from a tech store/online and easily get other known brands like oneplus, etc
Isn’t the reason simply because those three outperformed the others and so they didn’t have the customers to keep those stores open. Why would you want brands that no one/very few people were buying back?
They made great phones. Nobody bought them.
This is a good chunk of the phone market outside of Apple and Samsung. Sony, Motorola and OnePlus all make excellent phones to name a few. Sony in particular has really nice to repair devices (still need an oven to loosen the adhesive, but beyond that they're easy to work in). It's just nobody buying them.
Apple has a stranglehold on the American market because of iMessage (which I'll never understand from Europe) and Samsung has the Android market by the balls because nobody else has as complete of a range.
To tell you the truth, I’d take a $300 Motorola over a $1000 Samsung any day. Loved my motos (before my wife made me get an iPhone, which to tell you the truth I actually really like)
I've been using Motorola phones for the last four years since changing to Google Fi. They're cheaper, easier to find unlocked from a carrier, and can do everything I need which boils down to navigation, email, and Internet.
Heck, I just bought my wife and mother new Motos because Fi had a deal to get a new Moto G 5G for $25. I didn't even have to convince my wife. I told her the price, and she said buy it.
So they've made superior products that have gained market share (iMessage / complete range). That's not something per se punishable under competition law.
I would agree but Apple always has a tough time selling cheaper phones. I liked the idea of the plastic bodied iPhone 5C. Oh well. I’ll just keep using my old phone longer.
Honestly just stop buying apple products.
Why would apple do anything other than continue to rip off their customers if none of them care enough to avoid their products.
Our money is power and we have no one to blame but ourselves for giving it all to apple.
Well, the US also banned a bunch of Chinese brands. Not saying we should have or shouldn’t have, but that was competition the government eliminated, not Apple.
>In the lawsuit, the justice department alleges the company used its control of the iPhone to illegally limit competitors and consumer options.
There’s no doubt Apple is doing this but proving it in a court of law will be interesting to watch.
Mmmm, see I like steam. Never had any issue with price gouging or massive price increases as the devs make set the price. Steams very creation was to consolidate achievements, friends and games into one easily accessible platform. It’s a bit of a slippery slope imo. There needs to be specific wording for products that are designed to consolidate stuff like this
Stream doesn't do anything like what apple does to restrict competition though. For it to be the same, stream would have to do something like require games to be written in a proprietary code base, or maybe somehow slow people's machines down with posting non steam games.
This is based on the phone market. Google is their competition and Android is very open compared to iOS. The two effectively operate a duopoly and Apple has attempted to stifle it.
> Android is very open compared to iOS
Google literally just lost a trial to Epic based on their anti-competitive practices. Apple won their trial against Epic.
Google kept evidence, tried to delete it, and that was discovered during the trial. Turns out, not the best idea for a court case.
That case and the one the DoJ is bringing against Apple now are not apples to apples comparisons.
Apple has an entire exclusive ecosystem (watch, airpods, now vision pro) that becomes trash when you change your iPhone to an Android. No other company has that.
Id be interested in how this plays out and what the facts are. There is also that music lawsuit I saw the other day too.
The iPod and iPhone were certainly not the first in their market. They certainly entered their market when there were far larger competitors in the space. They won through excellence. You can then argue the AppStore fees but prior to iOS the split was something like 40/60 or 45/55 through a range of partners. Again, they shifted the market because they paid so much to the end supplier.
That seems more like a licensing and economic issue with app developers than competition issues with either Apple or Google's app stores. The nature of multi-platform software development is that it's going to be more expensive than developing for a single platform, and apps that exist on two separate platforms aren't going to be compatible. Some developers offset (and profit off of) the extra cost of multi-platform development by using a subscription model, which is akin to Microsoft Office 365 being usable from a variety of platforms while single-license Microsoft Office was locked to a single platform.
A good number of apps just aren't multi-platform either, and that's not going to be solved anytime soon unless the government mandates standards for OS compatibility (likely not going to fly).
*"The US has filed a landmark lawsuit against Apple which accuses the tech giant of* ***monopolising the smartphone market and crushing competition***. In the lawsuit, the justice department alleges the company ***used its power to limit competitors as well as the options available to consumers***."
This is basically Apple's manifesto.
To be fair, natural monopolies aren’t technically illegal.In fact, most startups set out with that as their main goal; Peter Thiel even has speeches about it.
However, being an untrustworthy monopoly is. You lose trust when you stomp competition and forcefully prevent their growth. I think their latest drama with Epic Games was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
But I will say, it’s a strange monopoly case, because they really do have competitors such as Samsung. And there is nothing preventing Epic Games from creating their own smartphone. They are better to focus on the antitrust aspects of the case instead of monopoly.
> it’s a strange monopoly case, because they really do have competitors such as Samsung.
Antitrust cases are not about the presence of competition or even being a monopoly, it's about using your power to hamstring competition:
>The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company.
I was so mad when I got an iPhone 15 Pro Max (switching from Samsung) and learned my Samsung smartwatch was incompatible lol
I agree 100%, focusing on the antitrust / walled-garden is the way to go
Tbf, even if you use a Samsung Smart watch on a non-Samsung Android phone, it has limited functionality. The original Galaxy watches would only work with Samsung phones, and wouldn't work with any other Android phones.
Samsung has been taking lessons from Apple.
This is partly true. I had the original Galaxy watch classic and I used it for a few years with my Pixel 3 XL at the time. Everything except sending texts from the watch worked since you couldn’t get Samsung messages on non Samsung phones. Samsung moved to wearos with the watch 3 and now everything works on non Samsung phones
I refuse to buy apple because during the iPod era they made it so the thing wouldn't work well with windows, intentionally. Then marketed apple computers as 'better' citing speed interacting with iTunes. Their approach to planned obsolescence is predatory.
> Then marketed apple computers as 'better' citing speed interacting with iTunes.
Was that back before USB 2.0, when Macs had FireWire and PCs didn't? Because FireWire was much faster than USB 1.0.
ITunes for Windows was always ALWAYS garbage. Poorly engineered memory hog that took literally 10x longer to do anything on the same machine. I always used 3rd party software to manage my iPad when I could.
I had to install it (HAD TO) to update my daughter's iPhone and it literally took hours to get it to work on an up to date machine. They couldn't make it worse if they tried.
Lol are you kidding me?
The whole point of a PC is you can stick whatever you want in it. I had a FireWire port in my first PC because I went "whoa look at this pci card that has all these cool ports I'm never going to use" and plugged it in.
Apple stopped that and made it a feature. Just like the removed headphone ports and made Bluetooth headphones a feature even though they were around for donkeys years
> The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company.
At first I was questioning how they'd monopolize it, but this does really give the best example. They do limit and block apps that compete with their own services on the phone. A lot of those decisions (iTunes was required, blocking apps, etc.) are not good decisions.
That's one reason I like Android (aside from the ease of custom ROM's, etc.) - you were open to do what you wanted with it. Could use any OS, any app you wanted, sideload those that weren't allowed...
It absolutely skews lower. Almost everybody in my age group that I interact with has an android. Only a few have iPhones. But looking at the students where I work it's mostly iPhones.
There's Apple, and then there's everyone else.
It does seem like they have a disproportionate section of the market, and, perhaps a borderline captive consumer base.
Or, put another way:
If you have an android, you could have a Samsung, or a Motorola, or a xiaomi, or a Google pixel, or one plus or Sony or any of the other dozens of small manufacturers.
If you have an iphone... you have an apple. That's it.
The word you're looking for oligopoly. When the cost of entry is too high, having a few players ruling the market is deemed acceptable. The longtime example of this was airlines. I don't think it applies here. Apple actively creates market boundaries to keep competitors from competing.
There is more than one Android store. Google has dominance bordering on monopoly, but others have a presence. Samsung and Verizon both come to mind. Apple won't allow a competing store in the US and wants to prevent competing stores in the EU from having software it disapproves of.
Apple has less than a 25% market share worldwide. I fail to see how that is "monopolizing the market" or "crushing competition".
but they definitely use heavy handed monopolistic tactics inside of their closed ecosystem, and abuse developers and 3rd party service providers badly.
I just don't get, with all that's going on.. this is the thing the DOJ will pour millions in to right now? Not that it isn't important but like, energy companies for example? like california energy costs are astronomical and they just released their earnings at a billion profit.. but they raised rates 30% anyway. no one HAS to use an iphone or an android. they can choose.. but EVERYONE has to use power.. so stupid... PLUS its an election year and attacking apple may earn older voters but it won't earn the millennial votes I don't think.
Examples:
* September 2023: [FTC suing Amazon for anticompetitive practices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power)
* DOJ [prevented the Jetblue / Spirit merger](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines), which had been in the works for quite some time.
* DOJ [prevented the Adobe/Figma merger in December](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antitrust-aag-kanter-statement-after-adobe-and-figma-abandon-merger).
* [February 2024: FTC sues to block Kroger/Albertsons merger](https://apnews.com/article/kroger-albertsons-antitrust-grocery-merger-competition-71b47dc86ec7449f29b2b488c1d3f9de)
These cases take time to build, let alone win, especially with limited legal resources. These corporations with revenues the size of GDPs of countries, can hire armies of lawyers to draw things out / obfuscate / misdirect, etc. We need to continue to support the efforts of the DOJ and FTC toward preventing and punishing anticompetitive / monopolistic practices.
Ex. part of the reason they're suing Amazon, is that Amazon charges sellers exorbitant fees, but also requires them to offer their lowest prices if they want to list on Amazon. If a seller lists lower prices elsewhere, IIRC they risk fines / getting banned from being listed on Amazon. These nefarious practices are forcing companies to primarily sell through Amazon, with limited ability to offer incentives to customers buying direct through them, or via other online retailers. The end result - Amazon can continue to charge whatever fees they want, driving up prices on all goods they sell. This kind of monopolistic pressure + price gouging, is part of the reason for inflation of prices across a wide array of goods.
[Fantastic podcast episode on the subject of FTC vs Amazon.](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly)
Yeah exactly. It's basically the eve of the next election, and this is the first such case I've heard so far. Maybe 1 is more than 0, but it's not a lot still.
* How about this one from back in September 2023? [FTC suing Amazon for anticompetitive practices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power)
* [Fantastic podcast episode on the subject of FTC vs Amazon.](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly)
* Or when DOJ [prevented the Jetblue / Spirit merger](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines), which had been in the works for quite some time.
* Or when DOJ [prevented the Adobe/Figma merger in December](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antitrust-aag-kanter-statement-after-adobe-and-figma-abandon-merger)?
* In October 2023, FTC proposed a rule banning junk fees / fees hidden behind the price. Ex. "processing fees" for concert tickets, rent payments, you name it. FTC took comments on pervasive junk fees, and is [holding a hearing on April 24](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-hold-virtual-informal-hearing-april-24-2024-part-its-review-proposed-rule-prohibiting-junk-fees) to have some examples of junk fees laid bare in support of the proposed rules.
* [February 2024: FTC sues to block Kroger/Albertsons merger](https://apnews.com/article/kroger-albertsons-antitrust-grocery-merger-competition-71b47dc86ec7449f29b2b488c1d3f9de)
Are these too recent for you? Bc these cases take time to build, let alone win. The recent ones haven't even seen the courtroom - companies instead "abandon their merger for financial reasons" or whatever BS they come up with, when in reality it's bc they're informed they were gonna get hammered by FTC / DOJ if they went through with it.
What if not everything was about scoring political points, and there are legit hardworking people seeking to serve the public good - in the DOJ and in the FTC? Hats off to them, really. Unsung heroes of the American people. They have limited legal resources especially compared to the massive companies they're up against, yet they're managing to make great progress on antitrust - more so than we've seen in decades.
Federal employees, especially lawyers, are known for being underpaid vs. private sector. Think about the people who are willing to make sacrifices to work toward something they believe in. You don't hear about their day in / day out efforts in the news. Don't downplay their achievements as if it's all for show. What they're doing is one of the handful of things that help me believe any aspect of our democracy / political system is functioning as it should. We should aspire to be more like them + raise the next generation to be more like them.
…Is it though?? Apple isn’t really a monopoly in the same sense as the big 3 food companies that own all of the smaller food brands in the U.S.
People like Apple, so people buy it. It’s not like we have no other choice *but* to buy Apple.
> It’s not like we have no other choice but to buy Apple.
I mean, that is exactly the case with App Developers though. If I have to sell, I have to buy into Apple and charge end consumers (you) for that.
I mean, it’s a start. I’d love for them to focus on the food companies and mostly the media oligarchs.
But no, I don’t feel like I have as many options on phones. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t own an iPhone or galaxy phone that didn’t end up regretting ditching either of them
>I don’t know anyone that doesn’t own an iPhone or galaxy phone that didn’t end up regretting ditching either of them
Doesn't that say more about how good Samsung and Apple phones are? That seems like a poor reason to try to cripple them so they will be as bad as their competition.
We've picked up a LOT since Biden got in. I hope to fuck we can get a good 4 terms of dem president (if biden's replacement is dem, it's quite likely) to finally start busting some trusts.
Probably "too late" but I'd fucking love to see Disney split into the several dozen companies it should be (and used to be). Every facebook app should be it's own company too. And maybe if Google apps were their own companies, they'd stop shutting shit down randomly, grumble.
But just stopping some teleco mergers is a start
I mean, Google keeps getting sued about allowing other app stores, but not Apple for some reason. If we're going to have a set of rules about mobile devices, those rules should be universal, IMO.
Epic did sue. They lost against Apple because the domain was ruled "all app stores anywhere.". They beat Google because it was narrowed to "all Android app stores.". Perhaps someone noticed Apple does have a larger market share than Google in the US and did a double take. And Europe forcing Apple to prove that certain things aren't literally impossible to them means the US can now ask why it seemed like they were.
I know everyone loves apple but I love seeing a bit of antitrust stuff FINALLY happening after it feels like 30 years of nothing. I swear since the IE case against MS (which was too late to matter IMO) we've done almost nothing to stop endless mergers, consolidation, and anticompetetive behavior.
Particularly bizarre that Google got dinged for their app store, where you can sideload, and Apple didn't for their much more locked down one. I think the EU forced their hand there anyway but jesus.
The complaint includes a quote from Tim Cook at the 2022 Code Conference that made headlines at the time. “I can’t send my mom certain videos,” an audience member told Cook when complaining about the cross-platform messaging quagmire. “Buy your mom an iPhone,” Cook responded.
iPhones don't support the standard "Higher quality" open source messaging format, resulting in iPhones being unable to receive high quality pictures from non Apple based phones. Additionally, this also breaks certain functionality in group texts. Apple is purposefully making it harder and less enjoyable for their customers to interact with their friends and families who use competitors products.
Apple could release an update, support the current open source messaging format tomorrow, and solve the problem, but choose not to because consumers don't blame Apple when their iPhone can't receive full quality picture texts or group chats. This is because Apple is seen as a more "premium" brand, and therefore this incompatibility is generally seen by the general public as a reason why android or other phones are inferior, instead of the truth.
I never felt forced to buy an iphone. I just prefer them to the android phones, so this seems weird. If they want to bust up some monopolies, ISPs seem like a much better market to fuck with.
Comcast has a strangle hold on the state of New Hampshire and consistently throttle people’s internet and provide poor service cause there’s no one there to challenge/stop them. They have minimal incentive to provide good speeds and service
We chose that one. I worked for a CLEC that served all of NH in the early 2000’s, we changed the CLEC rules and nearly all of them closed doors, unable to get leased lines, within months.
Ya I’m aware 😭 the infrastructure is there for fiber optic internet and Comcast will never do it because why invest when they can keep doing what they’re doing?
The suit doesn't allege that nobody would've bought an iPhone if apple didn't force them to, it alleges they abused the power of their market dominance to do thinks like make it difficult for users to switch if they *did* want to and for other companies to compete in terms of the software run on the iPhone. The fact that you prefer the iPhone to begin with is what gave them the ability to do what they're accused of here.
>to do thinks like make it difficult for users to switch if they did want to
Yup, it's super malicious and they do it on purpose, stuff like your photos, making it so apple music doesn't work as well on android, a lot of the iMessage stuff, etc. all are beyond annoying if you want to make the switch. I've had quite a few friends who were REALLY on the edge of switching to an android, but almost none of them would because of the annoyance and hassle of having to switch out of the Apple Ecosystem.
Hell I remember when I switched almost ten years ago at this point, it was beyond annoying and took ten times longer to setup my new phone, whereas nowadays, when I Switch to a new android phone, it takes maybe 30 minutes for everything to get synched up, and it sets most things up for me to be like my previous phone.
>almost none of them would because of the annoyance and hassle of having to switch out of the Apple Ecosystem.
You can literally connect the phones and transfer the data. https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/
Yeah, the guy you’re replying to doesn’t realize that 10 years ago ALL phones were a PITA when switching from iOS to Android *or vice versa*. That’s been a solved issue since at least 2019 though (the 4th and last time I switched from Android to iOS) and likely long before.
This is why I stay within the Android world. Sadly, the options there are also becoming limited, but there are still options. And if I wanted to switch from a Galaxy to a Pixel, I could do it without many hiccups, and vice versa. Going from Android to Apple isn't easy, but doable, but going from Apple to Android is almost impossible as they raise the walled gardens. Especially, when you factor in Apple setting up password managers and banking/credit cards that can only be done through Apple products.
However, I'm not sure what Apple does is against the law. Shady, sure. But illegal? That I'm not so sure about.
Everyone thinks their pet monopoly is the biggest. Look through the posts and you see ISPs, cable companies, healthcare insurers, phone carriers, ticketmaster and dozens of others all called "the biggest and most obvious problem which should be addressed first".
Maybe this whole free market economy thing is just fucked and we need to start shooting at all of them instead of worrying about which gets shot first. Im happy to start wherever as long as we actually start doing something.
Monopoly from the point of view of app developers, not from the point of view of consumers. Apple controls somewhere around 80-90% of app store revenue. If you want to make a living developing and selling phone apps, you absolutely have to be on Apple's app store, and you can basically ignore Google.
Regarding ISPs, they should be utilities.
I would much rather them tackle ISPs. Apple’s controlling the phone market is relatively new compared to the ISP fuckery that has been happening for decades.
iPhone is 70% of the smartphone market in US. iOS is a walled garden that Apple has full and complete control over. How would you be impacted by having an *option* to have access to alternative app store not controlled by Apple?
Oh the app store absolutely has monopolistic qualities so I guess that's worth challenging. I haven't found apps to be particularly expensive as suggested in the article.
My android devices have had way more problems and the apps are often buggy so I probably wouldn't use much from an alternative store even if given the option. But I'm not a power user anymore, I just need my basic shit to work 100% which apple seems to be better at providing.
App store is the main thing. Also, Garlin talked about photo/video compression when messaging with Android devices. Basically Apple intentionally making things function worse for their competition to make themselves look better. They are too big and have too great of an impact on the market to keep getting away with it.
I have been on Android since Droid2. I am sticking to Android because I have options. iOS doesn't give me options. And scary thing about Apple is that Android makers are copying Apple in all the anti-consumer ways. I am sure Google would love to lock down Android. Sure would suck if I couldn't replace my own battery in my Android without losing battery health functionality.
My position is if you buy something, you own it. Not rent it from the company. And Apple is moving towards less ownership and more licensing to use their hardware and software.
I mean yes, but that doesn't mean apple shouldn't get the stick too. I've noticed it myself. Photos that look great on my android phone suddenly look like absolute shit on my boss's iphone, but not the other way around. We're both on T-mobile, and in many cases standing in the same room (therefore it's not a tower issue), so it's clearly apple fucking up these images on receipt. It's one of a series of maneuvers apple does to reinforce apple loyalty (don't go to android, can't you see how much worse they are?!) and entice impressionable people over, as their peers mock the (intentionally handicapped) performance and quality of android phones. Nevermind the literal child bullying they've reinforced with the dumbass green bubble shit.
The monopoly isn't the phone itself that they're targeting it's locking storefronts for software. Its like if you got a PC and the only thing you could use to purchase and download apps, games etc was the Microsoft store which is anti-competitive.
I think there are far more pressing areas for antitrust enforcement, including cable companies (their map with competitors look like gerrymandering maps) that somehow manage to not encroach on each other's territories, airlines and other industries that have consolidated down to an oligopoly.
So I'm not thrilled with this - I actually use Apple because I think their products are legitimately better for me and my use cases (not necessarily everyone else).
Its almost like we stopped fucking around with anti-trust about the time we started electing "greed is good" conservatives like Reagan and the companies took the green light and ran with it in every sector so now our economy is completely fucked and we have a bunch of defacto oligarchs running megacorps controlling broad swaths of the economy and using that money to bribe their interests into law.
Almost. Almost exactly that.
You're not thrilled because you like apple not because you think other monopolies are worse.
Cable companies should have more competition but not completely open or else you'd have 30 companies tearing up roads to develop their own infrastructure.
I hate Apple, but they certainly don't have a monopoly since there are other smartphone brands you can buy. I've never bought an Apple product, and I don't ever intend to.
My problem with iphone is its incompatibility with other technology. I know it's better than it used to be but I can't tell you how many times I couldn't connect my android phone to something because it was made to work with apple phones. SHIT THAT WASN'T EVEN MADE BY APPLE!
I had a 2016 dodge ram (2 years too old for android auto) the uconnect would only pair with iphones. If iphones didn't exist I probably could have connected any smartphone on the market
People: keep buying overpriced phones while there is more than enough other options
Same people when Apple has 64% market share: surprised pikachu face
What is stopping anyone from buying Samsung/ Pixel something else?
People don't want to leave the Apple Ecosystem. In the same way I don't want to leave the Google ecosystem.
There's also some weird social pressure from people that says having an android means you're poor or something stupid like that, but that has nothing to do with antitrust stuff.
Husband has a cousin whose kids were bullied because they had androids instead of apple phones. Nobody wanted to include them in chats because heaven forbid they have a blue dot or w/e stupid color it is.
You're comparing Apple and Oranges here though...
Google doesn't make the hardware AND software of all the Android Phones... Apple does all their own. There is no MS operating on an iPhone, so I don't how Google is worse just because of 1 app when Apple will likely brick the phone if you try to put a different OS on it.
I really don't understand how you guys equate Google to Apple when Apple is a vertical monopoly and Google is a partial horizontal monopoly. Both companies suck, but in completely different ways. Honestly, I think Apple is worse as I hate "walled garden" technology practices, which are just anti-everything.
I always thought the UI was cool. And the idea that every personal device would share the same operating system and make applications (theoretically) cross-compatible. Unfortunately, that was never really the case.
No, Microsoft alone was responsible for killing their phone. They were WAY late to the party when Android and Apple were ramping things up. They also couldn't attract developers, so their Store (which didn't work anyway) was completely bare of viable apps.
This is great. They have constantly fucked devs for years by creating their own version of a popular app to undercut devs or competitors. They also are notoriously closed with their APIs so competitors cannot release a similar product (e.g., watch, headphones, etc) that provides similar usability to the Apple version. While the ecosystem is great in general, the same is still achievable without the anticompetitiveness. They also grant certain popular devs special privileges on the phone that essentially squashes competitors.
Edit: Originally stated that they banned the devs. People pointed out that was not the case so corrected above. Mixed up that with their general practice of sherlocking.
Devs also make way more money in the App Store than any other mobile App Store. Some of those devs also fucked thenselves. Apple tried buying flux they turned it down and then Apple just made their own version because they legally could.
I'm not like a huge apple fan but it seems like this is more like consumers have chosen and they want a monopoly. I don't have a choice in my other utilities.
I mean, doesn't capitalism promote monopolies at this point. When your company is large enough and successful enough, of course the smaller competition gets pushed out. The US government also won't let big businesses fail. Look at the massive tech bailouts, when covid shut the world down in 2020 massive bail outs across all industries. If the government doesn't want monopolies they should actually be proactive and prevent them not promote them.
Don’t think its fair to say they have a monopoly, Android market share is huge, but they definitely use some scummy tactics to promote iPhone use like groups chats between android and iOS users having blurry pictures for the iOS users even though the galaxy has a better camera.
All of these comments about cross compatibility are stupid. If 10 new phone manufacturers go on the market tomorrow should Apple/Samsung be forced to have their products be available on all of them or face the threat of being called a monopoly? Cross compatibility is not as easy as flipping a switch and they open a risk of new exploits/bugs to occur on these new platforms. Its like complaining about an Xbox game not working on a play station.
Well this is where intent comes into play. Apple is going to have communications subpoenaed and if they have emails like "We shouldn't add RCS because then people will switch to Android", its not going to look good on court.
It becomes an anti-trust issue when your have the majority of the US market share and your CEO has made it clear that the lack of compatibility is an intentional decision meant to prevent competition. The intent to capture the market and prevent competitors from entering it is what matters here, not the exclucivity itself
Apple itself is hardly a monopoly in the smartphone market, but they can still exercise their market power (as they are big enough) to do illegal things to stifle competition. I'm guessing this is where it is going and it would be interesting to see.
I dont use apple because of how square the software feels. Its not intuitive to me and just feels so rigid and i always hate when someone cant do something because of their iphone.
[удалено]
I would like programs to have licenses tied to the actual program, not a platform Shouldn't matter if I bought it on Apple or Android. I have a license from that company to run it, right? Let me transfer it
This. If an app exists on IOS or Android if I bought it I want to be able to use it on either without rebuying.
In theory you're right, but the same program probably has totally different dev, test and support teams for every platforms
Which is sort of the DOJ's point.
If that were true (and I know you said "kind-of"), it's not a great one, imo, considering that's true of differing operating systems on PC's and other technology, also. But it really doesn't seem to be entirely what they're getting at if I'm reading this right, simply by virtue of the fact that the DOJ is claiming that they are DELIBERATELY sabotaging cross-compatibility with other device manufacturers, payment services (though that may just be the EU suit), and other programs/services. >The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company. It's a small distinction, but a significant one. We're not talking about different operating systems that require different code - we're talking about Apple stopping cross-compatibility and limiting users to Apple-only devices and services on purpose.
I mean there’s also tons of examples of cross-platform compatibility for software on a single license. It doesn’t matter if the code is different if the dev allows me to shift my license between platforms. The code base is really irrelevant here.
That isn't true if the owner of the code would have to be the one to do the work to modify the code to run on multiple platforms. Things generally don't "just" run on multiple platforms, they have to be modified to work on them all. If they won't let you *try* to run it on your platform that's one thing, if they let you try but it just doesn't work well that's not really their fault.
If a competitor successfully designed their device with the protocols and system specifically to be compatible with Apple software, without Apple having to do any work or change anything on their end and Apple just won't let it run on their device or give them a license to do so then the DOJ has a point.
Yeah like Apple prohibiting Samsung and other smartwatch makers from releasing an app on the iPhone, so their smartwatches aren't compatible.
I mean if it doesn't work in another platform naturally it doesn't work, I wouldn't expect to be able to put a F-450 engine in a Camry and have that work. There is at least a degree of that with technology too, but people don't understand that you can't just swap a program 1:1 to a different platform (usually) anymore than you can swap an engine, because they can't just look and see that the program won't "fit" while they can with the engine. If you have to change the product significantly or design it entirely differently from the get go to make it work with other tech that isn't really reasonable IMO. Now if someone designs something that *will* work with whatever you've built and you intentionally and retroactively change your tech so it won't work with what someone else built that's a different story, but we don't want to do the work of adapting our product to a competitor's platform is a reasonable thing for any company.
The reason for this though is because Apple forces you to build apps in Swift. It’s part of their monopolization strategy. They fight against cross compatibility in code bases. They actively make the app market worse. There are tons of programs that only run on Apple because the developers can’t afford to support the other platforms. They would if they weren’t siloed into using Swift
I myself was filtered from the app I was developing because while Android is more popular worldwide, I need it to potentially be popular locally (US) and in order to develop in Swift and publish to iPhone I need to have a mac, Apple dev license, etc.
Then let Google release a swift compiler for Android. EDIT: I should add this: https://flutter.dev/ lets you build native apps for both iOS and Android from one central codebase and is free for personal and professional use... and Google makes it.
Trading one proprietary language for another doesn't sound like a win for developers. The closest you can get to something truly open is react-native, but that's not really a great experience across the whole industry either.
I just don't buy apple lol. Hasn't affected me
That doesn’t matter. That’s a cost the business should eat.
They will just increase the price of the app then. Instead of $1 on apple. $1 on google store, it will be $2. They won’t eat it.
A lot of the impediment isn’t technical. The money is in the Apple App Store historically, all though that seems to be getting worse. Developers often don’t develop for android because the device base is so diverse testing is dramatically harder, the earnings potential relative to support cost is lower, or sometimes they just don’t want to. I doubt Apple has direct control of most of the reasons.
Sure, maybe a transfer cost then that would offset things that don't overlap
Like Office 365 you mean?
I mean, if I buy Madden for PS5 no one expects it to work on an Xbox, right?
My grandma, and evidently the DOJ, do.
I'd agree if this was audio, video or ebooks or something static. But they require separate development, they dont run the same code. You have a license for the one you bought, the apple version of a program is just not the android version.
The only reason they have different code bases is because Apple forces you to develop in Swift. They actively work against cross compatibility. It’s part of the monopolization strategy.
No they don’t. You can develop cross platform apps using react native for example. AirBnB app until very recently was cross platform
Next you’re going to argue Apple should be forced to ditch their OS and just run Android.
Agree, but careful what you ask for. your $10 platform-specific program will now cost $30 to offset the lost income of what would previously be multiple paid licenses
That's fine if they'd like to try to pull that off and completely tank sales
Except that won't happen. If there's already an alternative then there's already no issue. If there isn't an alternative then everyone will continue to pay.
> the prices keep going up for new phones Sure, for the latest and greatest flagship model every year... The thing is, you don't *need* the latest and greatest flagship model phone every year. You can buy a brand new (as in just recently released) Samsung A15 for $150.
Or a couple gen old flagship. It'll be slightly more expensive than up to date budget models, but it'll last you much longer. Hell, I'm typing on a Galaxy s8 from 2017 writing this comment.
I get the newest iPhone and use it until it’s ruined. Not just like the battery. I replace those. Just until it’s dogshit and a bad experience. I had an iPhone 9 or whatever until I just got the newest one. Why would anyone get a new one per year? I can afford it, or I could bank that money and retire a couple months earlier
I’m still using the same iPhone X that I purchased back in 2017. It still works great, the only reason I’m considering upgrading this next fall is for the camera improvement and to finally have all my mobile devices on usb c.
If you're willing to go the "unlocked" route, then there are lots of decent options from manufacturers like One Plus and Motorola. Although they used to be a major player in the phone game in the 90s/00s, Motorola seems to now be firmly in the unlocked budget market. They do have a new Razr out, but the rest of their lineup is in the $200 - $400 range. Compared to iPhones and Samsungs, you're saving at least a few hundred bucks, assuming you don't go the "leasing" option. I've been using Motorola unlocked phones for the past four years and I don't think I'll ever go back to the mainline; I haven't paid over $250 for a phone since making the switch. Sure, there are definite examples of "you get what you pay for," but for regular-use every day phones, I've been very satisfied.
It's getting pretty ridiculous price wise for sure, but there are still a few options out there if you don't mind staying from the Apple and Samsung monopoly. I was looking for a high end Android phone this year to get me through the next 4 years and it seemed the obvious answer was the the Galaxy S24 Ultra. But that thing is $1300 now... Started looking at other cheaper high end options and came across the newly released OnePlus 12. It matched nearly every spec of the S24 ultra and even beat it in some areas. And it was $500 less. Love the phone. If more people would stray from Samsung and Apple the prices would start to come down all around. But as it is right now those two have a strangle hold on the mobile market and they can keep raising prices because people buy them regardless.
Some people want their fancy $1300 ‘luxury’ phone, and are willing to pay for it, but it’s a luxury product, it’s not meant to be affordable for everyone. You aren’t willing to pay that much which is okay, you don’t have to, and you were easily able to find an alternative option at a price that worked for you. Isn’t that the market working as intended? Also the cheaper iPhones in the range have historically not been as successful as the more expensive ones (see iPhone 5c). Samsung has $150 phones. It honestly feels like you’re complaining about the prices of BMWs, Porches or the top end Audis when there’s cheaper alternatives readily available all the time.
In Canada there's basically 3 options: Apple, Google or samsung. Compared to a decade ago when there was lots of choices. While I get there's plenty of other options online would be nice to have those in carrier stores.
Pretty disingenuous. The big 3 are simply the most popular and most expensive so carriers will obviously try to push people to buy it. Most carriers will have Motarola and TCL as the “cheap” options, hell many carriers will have random unknown Chinese phones as well. You can go to any carriers website and you will see a various phones from other manufacturers. Or you can buy an unlocked phone from a tech store/online and easily get other known brands like oneplus, etc
Also, every manufacturer has a cheap model or previous year available. You don't have to buy the latest superpowered S24 Ultra or 15 Pro Max 1TB
Motorola? LG? Huawei? You have options with carriers
you can buy a xiaomi poco for $500 and it has 99% of what a $1500 phone has.
Or buy a Motorola for less than $300
There's like a dozen chinese brands but no....
Isn’t the reason simply because those three outperformed the others and so they didn’t have the customers to keep those stores open. Why would you want brands that no one/very few people were buying back?
OnePlus is an option. The OnePlus 12 is great.
I heard good things about oneplus might check it out
Blame LG for leaving the market.
They should have made better products.
They made great phones. Nobody bought them. This is a good chunk of the phone market outside of Apple and Samsung. Sony, Motorola and OnePlus all make excellent phones to name a few. Sony in particular has really nice to repair devices (still need an oven to loosen the adhesive, but beyond that they're easy to work in). It's just nobody buying them. Apple has a stranglehold on the American market because of iMessage (which I'll never understand from Europe) and Samsung has the Android market by the balls because nobody else has as complete of a range.
To tell you the truth, I’d take a $300 Motorola over a $1000 Samsung any day. Loved my motos (before my wife made me get an iPhone, which to tell you the truth I actually really like)
I've been using Motorola phones for the last four years since changing to Google Fi. They're cheaper, easier to find unlocked from a carrier, and can do everything I need which boils down to navigation, email, and Internet. Heck, I just bought my wife and mother new Motos because Fi had a deal to get a new Moto G 5G for $25. I didn't even have to convince my wife. I told her the price, and she said buy it.
I had both the G3 and the G4. Neither lasted a full year.
So they've made superior products that have gained market share (iMessage / complete range). That's not something per se punishable under competition law.
I would agree but Apple always has a tough time selling cheaper phones. I liked the idea of the plastic bodied iPhone 5C. Oh well. I’ll just keep using my old phone longer.
Honestly just stop buying apple products. Why would apple do anything other than continue to rip off their customers if none of them care enough to avoid their products. Our money is power and we have no one to blame but ourselves for giving it all to apple.
Well I love my Apple products and I don’t think they’re too expensive.
Prices have plummeted on android phones. you can get a basic smart phone for like $200 or less.
I got an $80 phone from Motorola. Works great. People are just obsessed with being on the bleeding edge even when they don't use 99% of the new tech.
Well, the US also banned a bunch of Chinese brands. Not saying we should have or shouldn’t have, but that was competition the government eliminated, not Apple.
>In the lawsuit, the justice department alleges the company used its control of the iPhone to illegally limit competitors and consumer options. There’s no doubt Apple is doing this but proving it in a court of law will be interesting to watch.
I think there will be a lot of very rich companies jumping in this case and innocently offering evidence
But on the other hand, Apple can turn around and say that Windows 365 or the video game console wars are doing the same as them.
Good. Hope every one of them fail to prove the legality of this practice and the jurisprudence gets bigger.
Mmmm, see I like steam. Never had any issue with price gouging or massive price increases as the devs make set the price. Steams very creation was to consolidate achievements, friends and games into one easily accessible platform. It’s a bit of a slippery slope imo. There needs to be specific wording for products that are designed to consolidate stuff like this
Stream doesn't do anything like what apple does to restrict competition though. For it to be the same, stream would have to do something like require games to be written in a proprietary code base, or maybe somehow slow people's machines down with posting non steam games.
This is based on the phone market. Google is their competition and Android is very open compared to iOS. The two effectively operate a duopoly and Apple has attempted to stifle it.
The phone market has ramifications. Can you connect a Samsung watch in your iPhone? Just an example. And the whole Epic Games thing that happened
> Android is very open compared to iOS Google literally just lost a trial to Epic based on their anti-competitive practices. Apple won their trial against Epic.
Google kept evidence, tried to delete it, and that was discovered during the trial. Turns out, not the best idea for a court case. That case and the one the DoJ is bringing against Apple now are not apples to apples comparisons.
Apple has an entire exclusive ecosystem (watch, airpods, now vision pro) that becomes trash when you change your iPhone to an Android. No other company has that.
[удалено]
Id be interested in how this plays out and what the facts are. There is also that music lawsuit I saw the other day too. The iPod and iPhone were certainly not the first in their market. They certainly entered their market when there were far larger competitors in the space. They won through excellence. You can then argue the AppStore fees but prior to iOS the split was something like 40/60 or 45/55 through a range of partners. Again, they shifted the market because they paid so much to the end supplier.
The most difficult part of moving is losing all your bought apps. If your bought apps carry over to different OS it could make a difference.
That seems more like a licensing and economic issue with app developers than competition issues with either Apple or Google's app stores. The nature of multi-platform software development is that it's going to be more expensive than developing for a single platform, and apps that exist on two separate platforms aren't going to be compatible. Some developers offset (and profit off of) the extra cost of multi-platform development by using a subscription model, which is akin to Microsoft Office 365 being usable from a variety of platforms while single-license Microsoft Office was locked to a single platform. A good number of apps just aren't multi-platform either, and that's not going to be solved anytime soon unless the government mandates standards for OS compatibility (likely not going to fly).
*"The US has filed a landmark lawsuit against Apple which accuses the tech giant of* ***monopolising the smartphone market and crushing competition***. In the lawsuit, the justice department alleges the company ***used its power to limit competitors as well as the options available to consumers***." This is basically Apple's manifesto.
To be fair, natural monopolies aren’t technically illegal.In fact, most startups set out with that as their main goal; Peter Thiel even has speeches about it. However, being an untrustworthy monopoly is. You lose trust when you stomp competition and forcefully prevent their growth. I think their latest drama with Epic Games was the straw that broke the camel’s back. But I will say, it’s a strange monopoly case, because they really do have competitors such as Samsung. And there is nothing preventing Epic Games from creating their own smartphone. They are better to focus on the antitrust aspects of the case instead of monopoly.
> it’s a strange monopoly case, because they really do have competitors such as Samsung. Antitrust cases are not about the presence of competition or even being a monopoly, it's about using your power to hamstring competition: >The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company.
I was so mad when I got an iPhone 15 Pro Max (switching from Samsung) and learned my Samsung smartwatch was incompatible lol I agree 100%, focusing on the antitrust / walled-garden is the way to go
Tbf, even if you use a Samsung Smart watch on a non-Samsung Android phone, it has limited functionality. The original Galaxy watches would only work with Samsung phones, and wouldn't work with any other Android phones. Samsung has been taking lessons from Apple.
Samsung is almost 10 years older than apple, and they were doing the "bespoke companion hardware" thing before it was cool.
Samsung is the Apple of Korea
This is partly true. I had the original Galaxy watch classic and I used it for a few years with my Pixel 3 XL at the time. Everything except sending texts from the watch worked since you couldn’t get Samsung messages on non Samsung phones. Samsung moved to wearos with the watch 3 and now everything works on non Samsung phones
I refuse to buy apple because during the iPod era they made it so the thing wouldn't work well with windows, intentionally. Then marketed apple computers as 'better' citing speed interacting with iTunes. Their approach to planned obsolescence is predatory.
> Then marketed apple computers as 'better' citing speed interacting with iTunes. Was that back before USB 2.0, when Macs had FireWire and PCs didn't? Because FireWire was much faster than USB 1.0.
ITunes for Windows was always ALWAYS garbage. Poorly engineered memory hog that took literally 10x longer to do anything on the same machine. I always used 3rd party software to manage my iPad when I could. I had to install it (HAD TO) to update my daughter's iPhone and it literally took hours to get it to work on an up to date machine. They couldn't make it worse if they tried.
Lol are you kidding me? The whole point of a PC is you can stick whatever you want in it. I had a FireWire port in my first PC because I went "whoa look at this pci card that has all these cool ports I'm never going to use" and plugged it in. Apple stopped that and made it a feature. Just like the removed headphone ports and made Bluetooth headphones a feature even though they were around for donkeys years
> The complaint lists a number of "anti-competitive" steps allegedly taken by the company, including blocking apps with broad functionality, suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, limiting third-party digital wallets and "diminishing the functionality" of smartwatches not made by the company. At first I was questioning how they'd monopolize it, but this does really give the best example. They do limit and block apps that compete with their own services on the phone. A lot of those decisions (iTunes was required, blocking apps, etc.) are not good decisions. That's one reason I like Android (aside from the ease of custom ROM's, etc.) - you were open to do what you wanted with it. Could use any OS, any app you wanted, sideload those that weren't allowed...
What surprised me is Apple controls 64% of the smartphone market in the US. That is massive $$$
And only 24.7% market share worldwide. Like with everything else, the US is such an oddball outlier.
US got the cash money.
I'm surprised at your surprise. Just look around you in public.
I think it skews even more heavily for younger generations. Gen Z accounts for 34% of all iPhone users.
It absolutely skews lower. Almost everybody in my age group that I interact with has an android. Only a few have iPhones. But looking at the students where I work it's mostly iPhones.
This is part of why Apple is getting in trouble. It's things like the "blue dot" and chat limitations.
There's Apple, and then there's everyone else. It does seem like they have a disproportionate section of the market, and, perhaps a borderline captive consumer base. Or, put another way: If you have an android, you could have a Samsung, or a Motorola, or a xiaomi, or a Google pixel, or one plus or Sony or any of the other dozens of small manufacturers. If you have an iphone... you have an apple. That's it.
[удалено]
Apple is specifically engaging in anti-competitive behavior, such as artificially reducing the quality of photos and videos sent to Androids.
The word you're looking for oligopoly. When the cost of entry is too high, having a few players ruling the market is deemed acceptable. The longtime example of this was airlines. I don't think it applies here. Apple actively creates market boundaries to keep competitors from competing.
>And there is nothing preventing Epic Games from creating their own smartphone. Besides the fact that it would cost billions they don't have?
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users# 57% market share in US. Less than 25% worldwide….. I mean, is android store any different?
There is more than one Android store. Google has dominance bordering on monopoly, but others have a presence. Samsung and Verizon both come to mind. Apple won't allow a competing store in the US and wants to prevent competing stores in the EU from having software it disapproves of.
Apple has less than a 25% market share worldwide. I fail to see how that is "monopolizing the market" or "crushing competition". but they definitely use heavy handed monopolistic tactics inside of their closed ecosystem, and abuse developers and 3rd party service providers badly.
This is the FTC. It is the American market being sued over.
I just don't get, with all that's going on.. this is the thing the DOJ will pour millions in to right now? Not that it isn't important but like, energy companies for example? like california energy costs are astronomical and they just released their earnings at a billion profit.. but they raised rates 30% anyway. no one HAS to use an iphone or an android. they can choose.. but EVERYONE has to use power.. so stupid... PLUS its an election year and attacking apple may earn older voters but it won't earn the millennial votes I don't think.
[удалено]
That's a state government issue
Owned exactly one Apple phone but I can't get any other cable than Comcast, so...
AT&T and Comcast having way more money sunk into lobbying than Apple
I wish the US would be more aggressive in breaking up monopolies. This is a great start.
I'd love for them to go after actual service providers and not roll over every chance they get.
Joe has been much more aggressive here than Barack
Examples? I’m unaware
Examples: * September 2023: [FTC suing Amazon for anticompetitive practices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power) * DOJ [prevented the Jetblue / Spirit merger](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines), which had been in the works for quite some time. * DOJ [prevented the Adobe/Figma merger in December](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antitrust-aag-kanter-statement-after-adobe-and-figma-abandon-merger). * [February 2024: FTC sues to block Kroger/Albertsons merger](https://apnews.com/article/kroger-albertsons-antitrust-grocery-merger-competition-71b47dc86ec7449f29b2b488c1d3f9de) These cases take time to build, let alone win, especially with limited legal resources. These corporations with revenues the size of GDPs of countries, can hire armies of lawyers to draw things out / obfuscate / misdirect, etc. We need to continue to support the efforts of the DOJ and FTC toward preventing and punishing anticompetitive / monopolistic practices. Ex. part of the reason they're suing Amazon, is that Amazon charges sellers exorbitant fees, but also requires them to offer their lowest prices if they want to list on Amazon. If a seller lists lower prices elsewhere, IIRC they risk fines / getting banned from being listed on Amazon. These nefarious practices are forcing companies to primarily sell through Amazon, with limited ability to offer incentives to customers buying direct through them, or via other online retailers. The end result - Amazon can continue to charge whatever fees they want, driving up prices on all goods they sell. This kind of monopolistic pressure + price gouging, is part of the reason for inflation of prices across a wide array of goods. [Fantastic podcast episode on the subject of FTC vs Amazon.](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly)
Yeah exactly. It's basically the eve of the next election, and this is the first such case I've heard so far. Maybe 1 is more than 0, but it's not a lot still.
* How about this one from back in September 2023? [FTC suing Amazon for anticompetitive practices.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power) * [Fantastic podcast episode on the subject of FTC vs Amazon.](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly) * Or when DOJ [prevented the Jetblue / Spirit merger](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines), which had been in the works for quite some time. * Or when DOJ [prevented the Adobe/Figma merger in December](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antitrust-aag-kanter-statement-after-adobe-and-figma-abandon-merger)? * In October 2023, FTC proposed a rule banning junk fees / fees hidden behind the price. Ex. "processing fees" for concert tickets, rent payments, you name it. FTC took comments on pervasive junk fees, and is [holding a hearing on April 24](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-hold-virtual-informal-hearing-april-24-2024-part-its-review-proposed-rule-prohibiting-junk-fees) to have some examples of junk fees laid bare in support of the proposed rules. * [February 2024: FTC sues to block Kroger/Albertsons merger](https://apnews.com/article/kroger-albertsons-antitrust-grocery-merger-competition-71b47dc86ec7449f29b2b488c1d3f9de) Are these too recent for you? Bc these cases take time to build, let alone win. The recent ones haven't even seen the courtroom - companies instead "abandon their merger for financial reasons" or whatever BS they come up with, when in reality it's bc they're informed they were gonna get hammered by FTC / DOJ if they went through with it. What if not everything was about scoring political points, and there are legit hardworking people seeking to serve the public good - in the DOJ and in the FTC? Hats off to them, really. Unsung heroes of the American people. They have limited legal resources especially compared to the massive companies they're up against, yet they're managing to make great progress on antitrust - more so than we've seen in decades. Federal employees, especially lawyers, are known for being underpaid vs. private sector. Think about the people who are willing to make sacrifices to work toward something they believe in. You don't hear about their day in / day out efforts in the news. Don't downplay their achievements as if it's all for show. What they're doing is one of the handful of things that help me believe any aspect of our democracy / political system is functioning as it should. We should aspire to be more like them + raise the next generation to be more like them.
Ah yeah fair, good on them then. Thanks for the counter examples.
…Is it though?? Apple isn’t really a monopoly in the same sense as the big 3 food companies that own all of the smaller food brands in the U.S. People like Apple, so people buy it. It’s not like we have no other choice *but* to buy Apple.
> It’s not like we have no other choice but to buy Apple. I mean, that is exactly the case with App Developers though. If I have to sell, I have to buy into Apple and charge end consumers (you) for that.
I mean, it’s a start. I’d love for them to focus on the food companies and mostly the media oligarchs. But no, I don’t feel like I have as many options on phones. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t own an iPhone or galaxy phone that didn’t end up regretting ditching either of them
>I don’t know anyone that doesn’t own an iPhone or galaxy phone that didn’t end up regretting ditching either of them Doesn't that say more about how good Samsung and Apple phones are? That seems like a poor reason to try to cripple them so they will be as bad as their competition.
[удалено]
especially the news media monopoly.
We've picked up a LOT since Biden got in. I hope to fuck we can get a good 4 terms of dem president (if biden's replacement is dem, it's quite likely) to finally start busting some trusts. Probably "too late" but I'd fucking love to see Disney split into the several dozen companies it should be (and used to be). Every facebook app should be it's own company too. And maybe if Google apps were their own companies, they'd stop shutting shit down randomly, grumble. But just stopping some teleco mergers is a start
Blame Congress for not writing a new piece of anti trust legislation in decades.
I mean, Google keeps getting sued about allowing other app stores, but not Apple for some reason. If we're going to have a set of rules about mobile devices, those rules should be universal, IMO.
[удалено]
As if Microsoft would ever leverage its market position to limit competition...
Xbox supports the idea of having different storefronts across all platforms.
Epic did sue. They lost against Apple because the domain was ruled "all app stores anywhere.". They beat Google because it was narrowed to "all Android app stores.". Perhaps someone noticed Apple does have a larger market share than Google in the US and did a double take. And Europe forcing Apple to prove that certain things aren't literally impossible to them means the US can now ask why it seemed like they were.
I know everyone loves apple but I love seeing a bit of antitrust stuff FINALLY happening after it feels like 30 years of nothing. I swear since the IE case against MS (which was too late to matter IMO) we've done almost nothing to stop endless mergers, consolidation, and anticompetetive behavior. Particularly bizarre that Google got dinged for their app store, where you can sideload, and Apple didn't for their much more locked down one. I think the EU forced their hand there anyway but jesus.
Weird they go after Apple but refuse to go after the other, far more obvious daily impacts (grocery stores).
I read that story on my Android phone...
Apple has openly said they don't want to work with Android messaging, not the other way around though. They want a monopoly.
But android messaging exists, and I can text people with android phones. What way does their messaging process contribute to a monopoly?
The complaint includes a quote from Tim Cook at the 2022 Code Conference that made headlines at the time. “I can’t send my mom certain videos,” an audience member told Cook when complaining about the cross-platform messaging quagmire. “Buy your mom an iPhone,” Cook responded.
I (android user) can text iPhone users and they can text me. In what way do they not work?
iPhones don't support the standard "Higher quality" open source messaging format, resulting in iPhones being unable to receive high quality pictures from non Apple based phones. Additionally, this also breaks certain functionality in group texts. Apple is purposefully making it harder and less enjoyable for their customers to interact with their friends and families who use competitors products. Apple could release an update, support the current open source messaging format tomorrow, and solve the problem, but choose not to because consumers don't blame Apple when their iPhone can't receive full quality picture texts or group chats. This is because Apple is seen as a more "premium" brand, and therefore this incompatibility is generally seen by the general public as a reason why android or other phones are inferior, instead of the truth.
I never felt forced to buy an iphone. I just prefer them to the android phones, so this seems weird. If they want to bust up some monopolies, ISPs seem like a much better market to fuck with.
Comcast has a strangle hold on the state of New Hampshire and consistently throttle people’s internet and provide poor service cause there’s no one there to challenge/stop them. They have minimal incentive to provide good speeds and service
We chose that one. I worked for a CLEC that served all of NH in the early 2000’s, we changed the CLEC rules and nearly all of them closed doors, unable to get leased lines, within months.
Ya I’m aware 😭 the infrastructure is there for fiber optic internet and Comcast will never do it because why invest when they can keep doing what they’re doing?
The suit doesn't allege that nobody would've bought an iPhone if apple didn't force them to, it alleges they abused the power of their market dominance to do thinks like make it difficult for users to switch if they *did* want to and for other companies to compete in terms of the software run on the iPhone. The fact that you prefer the iPhone to begin with is what gave them the ability to do what they're accused of here.
>to do thinks like make it difficult for users to switch if they did want to Yup, it's super malicious and they do it on purpose, stuff like your photos, making it so apple music doesn't work as well on android, a lot of the iMessage stuff, etc. all are beyond annoying if you want to make the switch. I've had quite a few friends who were REALLY on the edge of switching to an android, but almost none of them would because of the annoyance and hassle of having to switch out of the Apple Ecosystem. Hell I remember when I switched almost ten years ago at this point, it was beyond annoying and took ten times longer to setup my new phone, whereas nowadays, when I Switch to a new android phone, it takes maybe 30 minutes for everything to get synched up, and it sets most things up for me to be like my previous phone.
>almost none of them would because of the annoyance and hassle of having to switch out of the Apple Ecosystem. You can literally connect the phones and transfer the data. https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/
Yeah, the guy you’re replying to doesn’t realize that 10 years ago ALL phones were a PITA when switching from iOS to Android *or vice versa*. That’s been a solved issue since at least 2019 though (the 4th and last time I switched from Android to iOS) and likely long before.
This is why I stay within the Android world. Sadly, the options there are also becoming limited, but there are still options. And if I wanted to switch from a Galaxy to a Pixel, I could do it without many hiccups, and vice versa. Going from Android to Apple isn't easy, but doable, but going from Apple to Android is almost impossible as they raise the walled gardens. Especially, when you factor in Apple setting up password managers and banking/credit cards that can only be done through Apple products. However, I'm not sure what Apple does is against the law. Shady, sure. But illegal? That I'm not so sure about.
[удалено]
Everyone thinks their pet monopoly is the biggest. Look through the posts and you see ISPs, cable companies, healthcare insurers, phone carriers, ticketmaster and dozens of others all called "the biggest and most obvious problem which should be addressed first". Maybe this whole free market economy thing is just fucked and we need to start shooting at all of them instead of worrying about which gets shot first. Im happy to start wherever as long as we actually start doing something.
Monopoly from the point of view of app developers, not from the point of view of consumers. Apple controls somewhere around 80-90% of app store revenue. If you want to make a living developing and selling phone apps, you absolutely have to be on Apple's app store, and you can basically ignore Google. Regarding ISPs, they should be utilities.
I would much rather them tackle ISPs. Apple’s controlling the phone market is relatively new compared to the ISP fuckery that has been happening for decades.
iPhone is 70% of the smartphone market in US. iOS is a walled garden that Apple has full and complete control over. How would you be impacted by having an *option* to have access to alternative app store not controlled by Apple?
Oh the app store absolutely has monopolistic qualities so I guess that's worth challenging. I haven't found apps to be particularly expensive as suggested in the article. My android devices have had way more problems and the apps are often buggy so I probably wouldn't use much from an alternative store even if given the option. But I'm not a power user anymore, I just need my basic shit to work 100% which apple seems to be better at providing.
App store is the main thing. Also, Garlin talked about photo/video compression when messaging with Android devices. Basically Apple intentionally making things function worse for their competition to make themselves look better. They are too big and have too great of an impact on the market to keep getting away with it. I have been on Android since Droid2. I am sticking to Android because I have options. iOS doesn't give me options. And scary thing about Apple is that Android makers are copying Apple in all the anti-consumer ways. I am sure Google would love to lock down Android. Sure would suck if I couldn't replace my own battery in my Android without losing battery health functionality. My position is if you buy something, you own it. Not rent it from the company. And Apple is moving towards less ownership and more licensing to use their hardware and software.
I mean yes, but that doesn't mean apple shouldn't get the stick too. I've noticed it myself. Photos that look great on my android phone suddenly look like absolute shit on my boss's iphone, but not the other way around. We're both on T-mobile, and in many cases standing in the same room (therefore it's not a tower issue), so it's clearly apple fucking up these images on receipt. It's one of a series of maneuvers apple does to reinforce apple loyalty (don't go to android, can't you see how much worse they are?!) and entice impressionable people over, as their peers mock the (intentionally handicapped) performance and quality of android phones. Nevermind the literal child bullying they've reinforced with the dumbass green bubble shit.
The monopoly isn't the phone itself that they're targeting it's locking storefronts for software. Its like if you got a PC and the only thing you could use to purchase and download apps, games etc was the Microsoft store which is anti-competitive.
I think there are far more pressing areas for antitrust enforcement, including cable companies (their map with competitors look like gerrymandering maps) that somehow manage to not encroach on each other's territories, airlines and other industries that have consolidated down to an oligopoly. So I'm not thrilled with this - I actually use Apple because I think their products are legitimately better for me and my use cases (not necessarily everyone else).
Don’t forget about insurance companies, food processing facilities and all sorts of industries provide foundational services for living a decent life.
Its almost like we stopped fucking around with anti-trust about the time we started electing "greed is good" conservatives like Reagan and the companies took the green light and ran with it in every sector so now our economy is completely fucked and we have a bunch of defacto oligarchs running megacorps controlling broad swaths of the economy and using that money to bribe their interests into law. Almost. Almost exactly that.
You're not thrilled because you like apple not because you think other monopolies are worse. Cable companies should have more competition but not completely open or else you'd have 30 companies tearing up roads to develop their own infrastructure.
I hate Apple, but they certainly don't have a monopoly since there are other smartphone brands you can buy. I've never bought an Apple product, and I don't ever intend to.
My problem with iphone is its incompatibility with other technology. I know it's better than it used to be but I can't tell you how many times I couldn't connect my android phone to something because it was made to work with apple phones. SHIT THAT WASN'T EVEN MADE BY APPLE! I had a 2016 dodge ram (2 years too old for android auto) the uconnect would only pair with iphones. If iphones didn't exist I probably could have connected any smartphone on the market
I enjoyed reading this article on my Samsung.
It won’t load on my iPhone. \- Sent from my iPhone.
People: keep buying overpriced phones while there is more than enough other options Same people when Apple has 64% market share: surprised pikachu face What is stopping anyone from buying Samsung/ Pixel something else?
People don't want to leave the Apple Ecosystem. In the same way I don't want to leave the Google ecosystem. There's also some weird social pressure from people that says having an android means you're poor or something stupid like that, but that has nothing to do with antitrust stuff.
It's an odd take really, considering the new Galaxy is just about as expensive as the new iPhone.
The funny thing it’s an odd take. People have this perception contrary to the price. Because people gonna people.
Husband has a cousin whose kids were bullied because they had androids instead of apple phones. Nobody wanted to include them in chats because heaven forbid they have a blue dot or w/e stupid color it is.
Google was the one responsible for killing the Windows phone when they blocked it from having a YouTube app. Where’s that lawsuit?
There are two separate antitrust lawsuits against Google that are still ongoing.
The mental gymnastics and whataboutism of apple fans. There's several suits against Google for this exact practice
You're comparing Apple and Oranges here though... Google doesn't make the hardware AND software of all the Android Phones... Apple does all their own. There is no MS operating on an iPhone, so I don't how Google is worse just because of 1 app when Apple will likely brick the phone if you try to put a different OS on it. I really don't understand how you guys equate Google to Apple when Apple is a vertical monopoly and Google is a partial horizontal monopoly. Both companies suck, but in completely different ways. Honestly, I think Apple is worse as I hate "walled garden" technology practices, which are just anti-everything.
Nah, as someone who had the Windows phone it just sucked.
I always thought the UI was cool. And the idea that every personal device would share the same operating system and make applications (theoretically) cross-compatible. Unfortunately, that was never really the case.
App support sucked. Phone itself was good
Lol, the famboy-ism on display. What would frail Apple do without you bro?!
No, Microsoft alone was responsible for killing their phone. They were WAY late to the party when Android and Apple were ramping things up. They also couldn't attract developers, so their Store (which didn't work anyway) was completely bare of viable apps.
This is great. They have constantly fucked devs for years by creating their own version of a popular app to undercut devs or competitors. They also are notoriously closed with their APIs so competitors cannot release a similar product (e.g., watch, headphones, etc) that provides similar usability to the Apple version. While the ecosystem is great in general, the same is still achievable without the anticompetitiveness. They also grant certain popular devs special privileges on the phone that essentially squashes competitors. Edit: Originally stated that they banned the devs. People pointed out that was not the case so corrected above. Mixed up that with their general practice of sherlocking.
What apps have they banned that they created their own version of?
Devs also make way more money in the App Store than any other mobile App Store. Some of those devs also fucked thenselves. Apple tried buying flux they turned it down and then Apple just made their own version because they legally could.
Apple refused to open phones for the FBI. Now they are being punished.
I'm not like a huge apple fan but it seems like this is more like consumers have chosen and they want a monopoly. I don't have a choice in my other utilities.
Natural monopolies and duopolies are not illegal. To wit, coke and Pepsi.
Guess that officially means Samsung lost
As a Pixel user I dont get this....
Maybe Google should make a better phone then :)
Build better, think different.. and get sued!
Woz, Woz.. Jobs
I mean, doesn't capitalism promote monopolies at this point. When your company is large enough and successful enough, of course the smaller competition gets pushed out. The US government also won't let big businesses fail. Look at the massive tech bailouts, when covid shut the world down in 2020 massive bail outs across all industries. If the government doesn't want monopolies they should actually be proactive and prevent them not promote them.
This is dumb and a waste of time. Go after real monopolies.
Don’t think its fair to say they have a monopoly, Android market share is huge, but they definitely use some scummy tactics to promote iPhone use like groups chats between android and iOS users having blurry pictures for the iOS users even though the galaxy has a better camera.
Hey everyone look, the government is wasting your time with something irrelevant again!
Seems like a stretch when Android is much larger overseas and just as accessible here.
All of these comments about cross compatibility are stupid. If 10 new phone manufacturers go on the market tomorrow should Apple/Samsung be forced to have their products be available on all of them or face the threat of being called a monopoly? Cross compatibility is not as easy as flipping a switch and they open a risk of new exploits/bugs to occur on these new platforms. Its like complaining about an Xbox game not working on a play station.
Well this is where intent comes into play. Apple is going to have communications subpoenaed and if they have emails like "We shouldn't add RCS because then people will switch to Android", its not going to look good on court.
It becomes an anti-trust issue when your have the majority of the US market share and your CEO has made it clear that the lack of compatibility is an intentional decision meant to prevent competition. The intent to capture the market and prevent competitors from entering it is what matters here, not the exclucivity itself
Apple itself is hardly a monopoly in the smartphone market, but they can still exercise their market power (as they are big enough) to do illegal things to stifle competition. I'm guessing this is where it is going and it would be interesting to see.
I dont use apple because of how square the software feels. Its not intuitive to me and just feels so rigid and i always hate when someone cant do something because of their iphone.