Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

[CarlJ]

The problem is somewhere along the line this argument should no longer be used when you have too much power. At what point does it stop? Having an Apple Bank, Apple Card, Apple Insurance, Apple Health Care, Apple Food, Apple TV etc etc. Or even Apple City? With more power comes more responsibility.

When has Apple ever put a gun to your head and told you that you had to use their phone or their credit card, or streaming box, or streaming service, or anything else? They are simply designing and building products and offering them in a competitive market, and people are free to choose their products or anyone else's.

Products come with existing known limitations. If you were to go to a company that makes only EVs and demand a car with a gas engine, they'd (quite rightly) show you the door. If you went to an American car manufacturer and demanded to buy their latest model, but with all metric screws with pentalobe heads, they would also show you the door.

If Apple bought a city-sized chunk of land and built a planned city (apparently your worst nightmare), that met all existing building, zoning, and land use codes, and then proceeded to populate it with shops and businesses and homes, and started selling/leasing those homes and shops and business space, why do you feel that that, in and of itself, requires greater oversight? I mean, sure, check to see that they are following all applicable laws, but it sounds like you would campaign against this - even if people went and visited and saw what it had to offer and said "I want to live here, so much so that I'm buying one of these homes". Again, it's not Apple replacing all existing homes with Apple homes, it's not Apple forcing you to use their products. So why do you care so much? Why do you want to impose laws and regulations beyond those that already exist?

 

[GioGiusi]

This is just stupidity from beginning to end, like all of the batsht EU legislation. No company should be punished simply for being inventive and successful. You are not entitled to anything they produce.

The NFC one is particularly hilarious. They put in an NFC chip so they could invent a software feature around it. Why on earth would they be obligated to let some other third party use it!?!?!?!

Also love the iMessage one. Apple literally said SMS sucks, we will invent our own better messaging system, and did. Now its so successful, that apparently their direct competition is entitled to use it too!?!?!?!?! This is almost as mind-numbingly stupid as the E.U.'s top 5.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

the superapps topic is interesting. Doesn't wechat already exist on the app store? how have they blocked it?

They actively block it by mumble..mumble..mumble..mumble..mumble..mumble..mumble..mumble.. and that’s why we’re right!

 

[CarlJ]

I think it’s a valid complaint. Instead of getting a week of battery life on a Garmin, I’m stuck with a one day battery life on Apple Watch so I get all the features.

You remedy this by campaigning for Apple to make their watches get better battery life - get millions of people to sign you petition, get on the news if you have to, or maybe buy enough shares of Apple stock so you can speak at a shareholder's meeting. Catch their attention and convince them that that is what the public really wants. If it really is what the public wants, it shouldn't be that hard to do - heck, I'll even sign your petition.

You DON'T remedy it by getting the government to force Apple to sell/give technology to Garmin. Because that path would be unethical - forcing someone to give up something of theirs just because you want it.

Otherwise, what's to stop me from getting the government to force you - you in particular, Spock - to wear a full length wedding dress every day for the rest of your life, simply because that's what I happen to want?

 

[flexwithmarius]

You don't need freedom to break an ecosystem that works

That’s precisely the “problem”. It works too well and other companies don’t like it.

Apple’s edge in the market is the ecosystem. Forcibly destroy that and you’ve destroyed the core of the company.

 

[GrassShark]

I dont disagree but;

There is certainly an argument that opening up without certification would lower the quality of experience. An example would be had OSX been opened up to normal PC computer, Steve Jobs tried to get Dell to paid them to install macOS. You would have drivers and OS stability problems a.k.a Windows because of the infinite amount of hardware combinations. With Apple they like to do it all to ensure the quality not just each individual products but also how they worked together.

The problem is somewhere along the line this argument should no longer be used when you have too much power. At what point does it stop? Having an Apple Bank, Apple Card, Apple Insurance, Apple Health Care, Apple Food, Apple TV etc etc. Or even Apple City? With more power comes more responsibility. I am sure if Steve Jobs were alive he would had the wisdom to see this before **** hits the fan. But Tim Cook is still largely, 99% executing on what Steve Jobs have left Apple with him.

I guess that is why Steve told him not to think what he would do. Except that is probably only half the meaning conveyed, always do what is best for Apple.

I can agree with that, which is why I always hope that Apple will open things up themselves before being made to do it. There's definitely a balance to be struck between the two extremes.

We've decided that your car is a valuable neighborhood resource, so we're going to need you to turn over your keys, so that people in your neighborhood can use it when and how it's most convenient to them, and we're going to start placing some "reasonable" restrictions on when and how you can use "your" car, so that it benefits the neighborhood better. Of course, we're not going to be paying you anything for this, or buying the car from you, just setting rules that we deem reasonable on how this car is used. It will make everyone's experience better.

You don't have any problem with this, do you?

I mean, I have a problem with your bad analogy if you think it applies here. Do you have any actual points or should I just expect more make-believe?

I don't understand why we are considered 'locked' into an ecosystem. As has been stated, everyone is free to choose from the other options out there. No one *has to* use any Apple product. Why isn't anyone complaining that the other options don't offer whatever it is that made them (those anyones) choose Apple. It goes both ways.

Just as a single hypothetical example, say I want to replace my phone. In doing so, my Apple Watch becomes useless. Since my Apple Watch doesn't work, I lose practical access to my health data. This is absolutely intended to create friction for users who consider switching to a different phone. Apple, and pretty much every big tech company, do this whenever and however they can because they don't want you to leave. This is called lock in. It's not exclusive to Apple, but they are pretty good at it. I think it's bad when any company does it, but since this is an Apple forum, it would be weird to come here an complain about Sony lock-in.

 

[danny842003]

Classic EU….

 

[lilkwarrior]

The most blatant issue is Apple only allowing one browser engine on their mobile, but unfortunately US government officials are too tech illiterate to identify that

 

[vinklarek]

My feeling is we’re in a patronage system now in the States, and Apple is out of favor with our ruler — and his loyal DOJ.

The case was brought about by President Biden’s DOJ. Don’t blame “our ruler” and “his loyal DOJ.”

 

[CarlJ]

Also love the iMessage one. Apple literally said SMS sucks, we will invent our own better messaging system, and did. Now its so successful, that apparently their direct competition is entitled to use it too!?!?!?!?! This is almost as mind-numbingly stupid as the E.U.'s top 5.

Yep, and it wasn't just that the technology sucked, it's that SMS messages were charged separately from voice and data, you'd pay "$X per month for $Y messages" and if you went over, they'd charge you like 10 cents PER MESSAGE. There were people - particularly parents with teenaged kids - who were getting overage charges of hundreds of dollars per month - and the phone carriers absolutely loved this, all that free money rolling in. At the rates they were charging, they were effectively getting something close to $650 per megabyte of data used by those texts (it actually cost them less, because SMS messages fit into an unused slot in normal data stream, IIRC). It was up there with printer ink, unicorn tears, and plutonium, in terms of cost per quantity.

And Apple did a brilliant thing for their customers. They built a communications system like SMS, but with lots of modern features (end-to-end encryption, read receipts, typing indicators, support for larger pictures, etc.), and put it into their existing Messages app (which, previously, was SMS only), and then simply checked at the start of a conversation - if both ends of the conversation were iPhones, then it would send the entered text in iMessage format, as data, so now long conversations were costing fractions of a cent (using microscopic amounts of your data allowance)l rather than as expensive SMS messages. If either end wasn't an iPhone, it would just operate as before, sending SMS. It opportunistically upgraded the messages from SMS to iMessage, when possible, giving the users added features, added security, and less cost.

I'm sure the wireless carriers were pissed at seeing that huge waterfall of free money dry up, but it was really good for customers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

When has Apple ever put a gun to your head and told you that you had to use their phone or their credit card, or streaming box, or streaming service, or anything else? They are simply designing and building products and offering them in a competitive market, and people are free to choose their products or anyone else's.

Apple’s ability to affect anyone only starts AFTER they purchase an Apple device. Anyone that desires no engagement with Apple, has any concerns over their business practices or feature set can VERY easily avoid any of those devices with Apple logos as there’s currently no law saying that people must own Apple devices. And, as long as that’s true, there’s certainly a way this SHOULD go, but we’ll see how it does go.

 

[East India Company]

So Apple reluctantly made these specific changes just because of the pressure of the DoJ. This says a lot about why the case was needed.

Currently Apple uses their position to reach new markets while severely restricting competition on its platform.
In the end Apple needs to be broken up into Apple HW/SW and Apple services (all subscriptions, etc). The EU should have done that instead of all this gatekeeper nonsense and the results would have been much better.

 

[Adysubman]

So basically we’re unhaloy the iPhone isn’t an android phone

 

[con2apple]

You don't need freedom to break an ecosystem that works, you have freedom to choose a different ecosystem.

That's how far we've come. When it comes to monopolies such as oil companies, "healthcare providers" or light bulb manufacturers, the message is still: "Just buy a different product. You have a free choice."

For you, an entire ecosystem is already permitted to protect Apple.
I don't even know if there's any argument that can counter this way of thinking.

It's as if Chevrolet had a 60% market share monopoly, with compulsory repairs at Chevrolet dealerships and mobile phone contracts only available from Chevrolet, and people like you would still say, "Yes, go ahead and choose another car manufacturer's ecosystem."

It's incomprehensible.

 

[con2apple]

I don't understand why we are considered 'locked' into an ecosystem. As has been stated, everyone is free to choose from the other options out there. No one *has to* use any Apple product. Why isn't anyone complaining that the other options don't offer whatever it is that made them (those anyones) choose Apple. It goes both ways.

Tell that to Tim Cook.
When asked by a journalist why there wasn't a little cooperation between messaging services so that he could communicate with his mother instead of having to use two different messaging apps, Cook replied, "Just buy her an iPhone."

The response of a monopolist who knows that they can force people to buy their products. Because they have no choice.

And if you don't like this argument (because you really believe you have a choice when it comes to gas stations, supermarkets, and hospitals, ha ha ha), ask yourself why Apple products only get better every year when there is competition.

No company voluntarily improves its products. Look at oil companies, supermarkets, hospitals, and thousands of others. This happens through competition.
And an ecosystem that prevents people from choosing alternatives destroys all competition. Just look around you—it's not just in America anymore.

 

[mrochester]

Tell that to Tim Cook.
When asked by a journalist why there wasn't a little cooperation between messaging services so that he could communicate with his mother instead of having to use two different messaging apps, Cook replied, "Just buy her an iPhone."

The response of a monopolist who knows that they can force people to buy their products. Because they have no choice.

And if you don't like this argument (because you really believe you have a choice when it comes to gas stations, supermarkets, and hospitals, ha ha ha), ask yourself why Apple products only get better every year when there is competition.

No company voluntarily improves its products. Look at oil companies, supermarkets, hospitals, and thousands of others. This happens through competition.
And an ecosystem that prevents people from choosing alternatives destroys all competition. Just look around you—it's not just in America anymore.

So Apple already has competitors and makes its products and services better as a result of that competition.

So what’s the problem exactly?

 

[frownface]

i'm surprised this article isn't in the politics subforum.

 

[Ctrlos]

Bringing the Apple Watch to Android is a business opportunity they'd be foolish to ignore. It was expanding iPod support to Windows that set fire to its sales figures and started Apple down the path to the company they are today.

It's also rather silly that if I switch to an Android phone my Mac and Airpods continue to work fine with it but I have to sell my watch and buy a replacement. That my friends is the very definition of lock-in.

On the flip side though WearOS used to work fine with iPhones. It's Google's fault you can't use a Pixel Watch with an iPhone, not Apple's.

 

[mrochester]

Bringing the Apple Watch to Android is a business opportunity they'd be foolish to ignore. It was expanding iPod support to Windows that set fire to its sales figures and started Apple down the path to the company they are today.

It's also rather silly that if I switch to an Android phone my Mac and Airpods continue to work fine with it but I have to sell my watch and buy a replacement. That my friends is the very definition of lock-in.

On the flip side though WearOS used to work fine with iPhones. It's Google's fault you can't use a Pixel Watch with an iPhone, not Apple's.

It might be a business opportunity, but it should be Apple’s decision to decline to take that opportunity.

 

[svish]

Legal troubles for Apple never seem to end. Not sure what will happen as it looks like Apple is indeed addressing the concerns in different software updates.

 

[al_berto39]

Apple should leave the US, that will show them not to mess with private companies business.

 

[Siggo]

Apples platform Apples rules.

EU/US Market EU/US rules.

 

[mrochester]

EU/US Market EU/US rules.

I think the argument is that the rules these jurisdictions are making are bad and do not/will not achieve their stated objectives. They also come with downsides that will negatively impact consumers.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

So in other words, Apple can’t offer superior functionality between its own hardware, software, and services in order to convince people to buy their products?

I thought companies were complaining, among other things, that Apple applies different rules for their apps and for third party apps and allows different APIs to be used for their apps and for third party apps. If the level playing field isn't fair, it's hard to have competition.

 

[Ctrlos]

It might be a business opportunity, but it should be Apple’s decision to decline to take that opportunity.

Oh for sure. They shouldn't be forced into it. Its just Apple have a history of turning litigation into profit.

What I'd like to see personally is them being forced to uncouple the Watch from the iPhone so it can be set up independently. Then the iPad Mini + Watch becomes realistic and I could cut out the iPhone completely.