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

[mrochester]

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.

And that’s how Apple makes its products more competitive.

It’s like how Samsung gives itself access to its own screens to be more competitive, and how supermarkets give priority shelf space to certain products to maximise profits.

If companies are denied the ability to give their own products preferential treatment then the incentive to make products in the first place is diminished.

Apple does NOT stop new entrants from entering the smartphone OS market. Those entrants can also give themselves exclusive access to certain APIs so as to make their own products more competitive.

 

[robvalentine]

Tell me that competitors are writing this complaint for you without telling me that competitors are writing this complaint for you.

Smartwatches, some of us use Garmins as you don;t need to charge daily, and maybe you just want to reply with a yes/no/short preset reply like you can on Android. But you can't on iOS. Also I can use a pixel watch on a pixel/oneplus/galaxy and have pretty much all features.

 

[mrochester]

Smartwatches, some of us use Garmins as you don;t need to charge daily, and maybe you just want to reply with a yes/no/short preset reply like you can on Android. But you can't on iOS. Also I can use a pixel watch on a pixel/oneplus/galaxy and have pretty much all features.

Pixel/oneplus/galaxy all run the same OS.

You’ve exchanged lack of competition in the OS market for that convenience.

If oneplus and galaxy had different OSes your pixel watch wouldn’t work with them, but you’d have many more OSes to choose from.

 

[robvalentine]

Why are you not complaining to Garmin that they don't offer what an Apple Watch does (unless you were being facetious, then *Emily Litella voice* never mind)

The venu series is getting better at smart features on Android, they are still hobbled by Apple though.

The whole point of this is that due to Apple deliberately and conciously preventing users from full use of their device unless they buy everything Apple is why they are being investigated. If Apple wants a unique feature, sure make a unique feature, but because they prevent competitors from basic functionality (replying to messages for example) that is unfair.

 

[mrochester]

The venu series is getting better at smart features on Android, they are still hobbled by Apple though.

The whole point of this is that due to Apple deliberately and conciously preventing users from full use of their device unless they buy everything Apple is why they are being investigated. If Apple wants a unique feature, sure make a unique feature, but because they prevent competitors from basic functionality (replying to messages for example) that is unfair.

That messaging on the Apple Watch is the unique feature. It’s a competitive advantage that Apple have given themselves.

This is where these arguments always fall down for me. On the one hand you say it’s ok for Apple to give itself a competitive advantage, but on the other you say ‘just not like that’.

 

[robvalentine]

Pixel/oneplus/galaxy all run the same OS.

You’ve exchanged lack of competition in the OS market for that convenience.

If oneplus and galaxy had different OSes your pixel watch wouldn’t work with them, but you’d have many more OSes to choose from.

my point is that if the IPhone/watch connection wasn't walled off then there would be competition, but as they can't get usable functionality there's no motivation/point in making one, meaning if you want a smart watch on an Apple iPhone, you can only get an Apple watch. Which is why they are being investigated. I used the wear watches as an example of cross manufactuer compatibility.

 

[robvalentine]

That messaging on the Apple Watch is the unique feature. It’s a competitive advantage that Apple have given themselves.

Text messaging unique to apple? LOL

 

[mrochester]

my point is that if the IPhone/watch connection wasn't walled off then there would be competition, but as they can't get usable functionality there's no motivation/point in making one, meaning if you want a smart watch on an Apple iPhone, you can only get an Apple watch. Which is why they are being investigated. I used the wear watches as an example of cross manufactuer compatibility.

That’s the whole point, the Apple Watch is supposed to be the best smartwatch to use with the iPhone.

Garmin can make its own smartwatches the best smartwatch to use on its smartphone.

Google can make the pixel and best smartwatch to use on pixel phones.

These are all competitive advantages these companies are entitled to give themselves.

 

[mrochester]

Text messaging unique to apple? LOL

Text messaging on a smartwatch is a unique feature Apple gives itself to make its product more competitive than the competition.

If Apple gives all smartwatches the ability to send text messages then it makes the Apple Watch less competitive.

 

[laptech]

It seems the DoJ antitrust is similar to the EU's anti-competitive. Apple have every right to make a superior product but what they do not have a right to do is use common technology standards such as messaging and NFC and then tell competitors they are not allowed to use these common technology standards to interact with Apples devices.

Any product manufacturer that designs something that uses common technology standards will potentially open themselves up to antitrust/anti-competitive issues.

If Apple designed their iphone that used no common technology standard, basically everything in the iphone from hardware to software is of it's own unique design which does not exist anywhere else then yes Apple has the right to say 'you cannot have access to products' because everything in the iphone was designed by us, we've not used anybody else's ideas, hardware ideas or software ideas. The fact is Apple did not design how mobile phone audio works or how the wifi works or how phone calls are made or how messaging works etc etc. These were all designed by someone else which are now commonplace in everyday devices. Apple cannot use all of this and prevent competitors from wanting to access all of that because it was not theirs to begin with. This is not how the business world works, Apple knows this but it tries to use it's power and money to change how the business world works in it's favor.

 

[tadasZ]

Apples platform Apples rules.

monopoly, ever heard this word? or know the meaning and why it's bad and why governments try to fight monopolies?

 

[Xiao_Xi]

If companies are denied the ability to give their own products preferential treatment then the incentive to make products in the first place is diminished.

Companies must be careful not to abuse their dominant position in doing so. For instance, Apple has been convicted several times for abuse of dominant position in the EU.

 

[robvalentine]

Text messaging on a smartwatch is a unique feature Apple gives itself to make its product more competitive than the competition.

If Apple gives all smartwatches the ability to send text messages then it makes the Apple Watch less competitive.

Whilst that is part of my arguement, texts and calls are probably the 2 key features of a mobile phone, so they should be opened up to some degree.

 

[robvalentine]

That’s the whole point, the Apple Watch is supposed to be the best smartwatch to use with the iPhone.

Garmin can make its own smartwatches the best smartwatch to use on its smartphone.

Google can make the pixel and best smartwatch to use on pixel phones.

These are all competitive advantages these companies are entitled to give themselves.

There's a distinction between making the best smartwatch for your system, and actively blocking competition. Apple is blocking. Think how much better the apple watch could be if there was competition, both in features, and pricing.

 

[mrochester]

It seems the DoJ antitrust is similar to the EU's anti-competitive. Apple have every right to make a superior product but what they do not have a right to do is use common technology standards such as messaging and NFC and then tell competitors they are not allowed to use these common technology standards to interact with Apples devices.

Any product manufacturer that designs something that uses common technology standards will potentially open themselves up to antitrust/anti-competitive issues.

If Apple designed their iphone that used no common technology standard, basically everything in the iphone from hardware to software is of it's own unique design which does not exist anywhere else then yes Apple has the right to say 'you cannot have access to products' because everything in the iphone was designed by us, we've not used anybody else's ideas, hardware ideas or software ideas. The fact is Apple did not design how mobile phone audio works or how the wifi works or how phone calls are made or how messaging works etc etc. These were all designed by someone else which are now commonplace in everyday devices. Apple cannot use all of this and prevent competitors from wanting to access all of that because it was not theirs to begin with. This is not how the business world works, Apple knows this but it tries to use it's power and money to change how the business world works in it's favor.

Apple designed iMessage from the ground up to be used exclusively on their own hardware.

Apple designed the H2 chip to perform quick sharing handshake exclusively with it's own devices.

These are both things that regulators are using as evidence that Apple gives itself an unfair advantage over competitors. By all accounts they are not a 'common technology standard' so should therefore not be used as evidence against Apple and Apple should be entitled to use them as a competitive advantage.

But that's not how things are playing out. Regulators want these Apple exclusive, non-common features to be made universal and not exclusive to Apple.

This is why Apple keeps saying they are being asked to give away their technology for free.

 

[mrochester]

There's a distinction between making the best smartwatch for your system, and actively blocking competition. Apple is blocking. Think how much better the apple watch could be if there was competition, both in features, and pricing.

Why don't we think how much worse the Apple Watch will be if Apple can't give it exclusive features so never bothers to create those features in the first place? Is it better for the Apple Watch to have NFC exclusive to Apple or no NFC at all?

If Apple can't capture the value from the technology it creates because regulators prevent it from doing so then the technology simply isn't ever created. This is how/why regulations kill innovation. We can see it in play already with EU users being unable to use iPhone mirroring.

There'll be more things in the future that EU users won't get. There'll be even more things that don't ever get invented because regulations prevent a company from releasing it.

Companies have to be allowed to have a financial incentive for them to create new things.

 

[robvalentine]

Why don't we think how much worse the Apple Watch will be if Apple can't give it exclusive features so never bothers to create those features in the first place?

If Apple can't capture the value from the technology it creates because regulators prevent it from doing so then the technology simply isn't ever created. This is how/why regulations kill innovation.

Companies have to be allowed to have a financial incentive for them to create new things.

The only things apple really need to allow are phone calls and text messaging, other features are up to the watch manufacturers. Those aren't apple designed features, they are industry standards. Imessage excepted.

Financial incentives should not invole monopolies, and restrictions on industry standard protocols (Phone calls & texts).

Unique features such as unlocking your mac with your watch etc, would be ok, blocking text replies, is monopolistic.

 

[mrochester]

The only things apple really need to allow are phone calls and text messaging, other features are up to the watch manufacturers. Those aren't apple designed features, they are industry standards. Imessage excepted.

Financial incentives should not invole monopolies, and restrictions on industry standard protocols (Phone calls & texts).

Unique features such as unlocking your mac with your watch etc, would be ok, blocking text replies, is monopolistic.

Consider me sceptical that the complaints would stop just because non-Apple smartwatches can receive SMS and RCS messages (how much real additional utility does that bring them?). I have a feeling they want to be able to receive iMessage's.

 

[robvalentine]

Consider me sceptical that the complaints would stop just because non-Apple smartwatches can receive SMS and RCS messages (how much real additional utility does that bring them?). I have a feeling they want to be able to receive iMessage's.

It shouldn't be too hard to display imessages as a notification? From memory they showed up on my Garmin (I am on Android now, and in the UK so no one I know uses iMessage frequently). Replying shouldn't be too hard, without needing all the bells and whistles.

 

[mrochester]

It shouldn't be too hard to display imessages as a notification? From memory they showed up on my Garmin (I am on Android now, and in the UK so no one I know uses iMessage frequently). Replying shouldn't be too hard, without needing all the bells and whistles.

Yes but now you've stretched your argument to encompass Apple being required to make iMessage available to third parties even though you've previously agreed they shouldn't have to do that.

Apple will very happily stick with the status quo; no one but they get access to iMessage. And I think we're in agreement that that is fine. The trouble is I don't think smartwatch manufactures will think that is fine. Even more worrying is if regulators don't think that's fine then we are in the realms of nationalising private property.

 

[robvalentine]

Yes but now you've stretched your argument to encompass Apple being required to make iMessage available to third parties even though you've previously agreed they shouldn't have to do that.

Apple will very happily stick with the status quo; no one but they get access to iMessage. And I think we're in agreement that that is fine. The trouble is I don't think smartwatch manufactures will think that is fine. Even more worrying is if regulators don't think that's fine then we are in the realms of nationalising private property.

I haven't really stretched it have I? Even ignoring iMessage, you can't use SMS messaging which is used on every phone. That is what Smartwatch manufacturers are after. Access to open standards on iPhones.

 

[mrochester]

I haven't really stretched it have I? Even ignoring iMessage, you can't use SMS messaging which is used on every phone. That is what Smartwatch manufacturers are after. Access to open standards on iPhones.

Are they though? I'm not sure I believe they'd be happy with just SMS and RCS.

One of the DoJ's beefs is that iMessage is not available on Android. The very iMessage we've just agreed is fine to be Apple only.

 

[theluggage]

Arguments about walled garden aside, using revenue to determine market share is, IMHO, is a bad idea.

Since all of these arguments are about Smartphone Apps and payments the issue is surely Apple's share of the smartphone Apps and payments market - not how many phones they sell. You can't really measure that by "units sold".

There's plenty of competition between phone hardware, but software-wise the realistic choice for most users (who need access to apps from their banks, 2FA authentication services, payment services, streaming services, social media etc.) is iOS + Apple App Store vs Android + Google Play store.

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

...and you only have one viable alternative to the Apple App Store - the Google Play store (and you have to make an expensive and time-consuming hardware swap to exercise that choice)... and the only thing stopping Google from copying the Apple "walled garden" playbook - or something similar - is that they're subject to the same US antitrust laws and EU directives as Apple. Google already got a couple of US judgments against them for abusing their search monopoly and an EU ruling for trying to force 3rd party Android phone makers to promote the Google App suite if they wanted access to the Play Store.

This is really just a case of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". With two platforms both having a "critical mass" of applications (including things people need like apps for banking, authentication, public transport) it's almost impossible for genuine competition to arise.

The wallets comments are worrying. The whole notion of carrying a physical wallet is organizing several items into 1 location. Having multiple wallets that hold 1 item would defeat the purpose of a wallet.

Yep, you wouldn't put up with carrying 8 physical wallets that each held one card.

Plenty of situations where it's handy to have two physical wallets - foreign travel, separate business/personal cards, one to carry around & one to keep locked away so you don't keep all of your eggs in one basket. Maybe an alternative wallet app could offer better features for your use than the Apple one?

 

[mrochester]

Since all of these arguments are about Smartphone Apps and payments the issue is surely Apple's share of the smartphone Apps and payments market - not how many phones they sell. You can't really measure that by "units sold".

There's plenty of competition between phone hardware, but software-wise the realistic choice for most users (who need access to apps from their banks, 2FA authentication services, payment services, streaming services, social media etc.) is iOS + Apple App Store vs Android + Google Play store.


...and you only have one viable alternative to the Apple App Store - the Google Play store (and you have to make an expensive and time-consuming hardware swap to exercise that choice)... and the only thing stopping Google from copying the Apple "walled garden" playbook - or something similar - is that they're subject to the same US antitrust laws and EU directives as Apple. Google already got a couple of US judgments against them for abusing their search monopoly and an EU ruling for trying to force 3rd party Android phone makers to promote the Google App suite if they wanted access to the Play Store.

This is really just a case of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". With two platforms both having a "critical mass" of applications (including things people need like apps for banking, authentication, public transport) it's almost impossible for genuine competition to arise.




Plenty of situations where it's handy to have two physical wallets - foreign travel, separate business/personal cards, one to carry around & one to keep locked away so you don't keep all of your eggs in one basket. Maybe an alternative wallet app could offer better features for your use than the Apple one?

This is why all these regulations are bad, none of them are solving the actual issue, which is lack of competition at the operating system level. Every other issue goes away if you have competition at the operating system level.

 

[Bodycalming]

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. So Apple’s screwed no matter what it does, unless it bends the knee, kisses the ring, and assembles iPhones in the USA.
Small problem: that’s literally impossible.

Meanwhile, never a dull moment. Europe’s busy trying to tear down the walled garden via regulatory assault, and China is pumping who knows how much into its own tech sector. Spoiler: that sector is rocking.

The question is whether Apple — arguably the greatest American success story — can withstand all this, just as it enters a cycle of slow, incremental innovation. Responsible progress. Masterful supply chain management.

Prediction: Apple’s business brilliance won’t alone succeed if its smartest minds look at these headwinds… and defect.

To all Governments around the world be careful for what you wish for 🥴 If you keep pushing for these changes to go through, those very same changes WILL (in my view) be used to attack you and your citizens.