Operating in a jurisdiction = rules of jurisdiction must be followed
Even for Apple
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Operating in a jurisdiction = rules of jurisdiction must be followed
Even for Apple
You bring up “2” in your example… you know that isn’t in good faith. It will be X wallets, where X=the total number of card issuers you do business with + every ticket provider + every store you enter. We already have examples of this. CurrentC. Walmart. One is dead, the other has dug trenches to defend itself and will build nuclear fallout bunkers if you give them a longer leash. They won’t even support NFC. But to get back to the 2 wallets… I have many cards beyond my debit. I have 2 total cards set in my wallet. That’s my “not putting all my eggs in 1 basket”.
The user may be fine or not. But business are complaining. Most of the discussions seems to focus on users.
There is only two platform in this "competitive market". iOS and Android. And inside Apple's market, Apple offer competing products and services that offer both strategic and financial advantage. As Apple is both a player in the market and landlord.
It then have monopoly power that violate the competitive market. If Apple owns 60% of the market, and ban competition's product on their services or in Apple's City. At What point do you call a stop to it? And if a City is too small, how about 60% of the population in a country or state? Apple owns 60% of US land, makes most other product uncompetitive or requires only to use Apple in those 60% of landmass. Are you happy to say people are free to move the other 40% of US. Because it fits all regulation and law?
By your argument, no one put a gun in those people's head to live in those state. They are free to move?
The Government is here to provide a certain level of playing field for everybody. And I would disagree if you think the current level of playing field is fine for non-Apple business competing inside Apple platform with Apple's own offering.
And even if you think that is absolutely fine. Business have every right to campign against. Unless you think Apple stands above the law and democratic process. Which I think a lot of Apple supporters here think is true.
The idea that Apple is "big enough to stop worrying about innovating" is laughable. If Apple stopped pushing forward, Samsung, Google, and the Chinese OEMs would absolutely eat its lunch.
Sure, if you narrowly define "innovation" maybe it looks like Apple has stopped, but the fact of the matter is the smartphone is now a mature product category and the era of obvious, flashy leaps is over. That doesn’t mean innovation has stopped. Just in the past four years we've gotten a 50% improvement in CPU and GPU performance, Emergency SOS/Roadside Assistance via Satellite, and privacy improvements (lockdown mode, anti-tracking in Mail and Safari, on-device processing).
Yes? Yes they are? Not for Android, but Android is a target of the penalties. And they’re deciding on what those penalties for Google should be right now, since the government won their case against them.
And they would be going against those others, but there is a new administration… except for credit cards which is a highly competitive market and you seem to be conflating the issuers - ie every bank on the planet - with networks, of which there are also plenty of those as well.
Still, the volume of apps, vs revenue would be a better indicator for apps. I suspect if you do that the picture would change to roughly even, and payments likely the same.
Opening Apple up won’t change that.
I would partly agree on credit cards and disagree on all others. Although with Credit Card I am assuming you mean credit processing network, there are plenty of Credit Card issuers. And Credit Card Network itself would be defined as Payment Network. There are plenty of Payment Network competition. And none of the Payment Network operate other business using its own network that gives disadvantage to its other customers. Apart from Payment Networks in China such as AliPay and WeChat Pay.
"...the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation..."
Others discussed the technical aspects of identifying Apple device-to-Apple device messaging has having security safeguards. But there's another aspect that makes protests against the bubble color difference ridiculous.
Branding. When a teen goes to school wearing 'designer labels,' or an adult enters the parking lot and parks his/her Corvette, both display a kind of 'virtue signaling,' displaying that they own and use a prestigious brand.
From what I understand, the bubble color debate basically gets down to blue bubbles' association with iPhones which are more prestigious than Android phones? If that's the case, then some people have an issue with their shallow, petty friends, not Apple. Product users often publicly display prestigious brands they can afford. I'm pretty 'frumpy,' but I respect their right to do so.
And seriously, is using a 2nd messaging ap. on your phone really a bridge too far? I use iMessage, but I've got WhatsApp on my phone, and if I had a loved one who was 'WhatsApp only,' I don't think that'd be a big deal.
I'm old enough to remember when some market segments (e.g.: spreadsheets, word processors) had more high visibility brand name viable-looking products in a category, and a number of them are basically 'dust' now (Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, WordStar, Ami Pro, I think WordPerfect still technically exists). Never mind what industry wants to do, often consumers choose to consolidate on a smaller range of 'safe bet' platforms. Say what you will about Microsoft Word, short of nuclear war, etc..., it'll probably still be here in 20 years.
But someone mentioned the potential for big tech. companies to collaborate on an open standard for health care/medical info. On the face of it, that might sound reasonable, but have the all to frequent data breaches not illustrated that making having 'one platform to rule them all' for something critically important is a bad idea? At some point it's like when someone uses the same password for all their accounts; even if it's a good password, if someone breaches it (say, from inside the company), so we want one key for all locks?
Proprietary standards do 'Balkanize' the tech. world in some ways, but there are some strengths in that.
Others discussed the technical aspects of identifying Apple device-to-Apple device messaging has having security safeguards. But there's another aspect that makes protests against the bubble color difference ridiculous.
Branding. When a teen goes to school wearing 'designer labels,' or an adult enters the parking lot and parks his/her Corvette, both display a kind of 'virtue signaling,' displaying that they own and use a prestigious brand.
From what I understand, the bubble color debate basically gets down to blue bubbles' association with iPhones which are more prestigious than Android phones? If that's the case, then some people have an issue with their shallow, petty friends, not Apple. Product users often publicly display prestigious brands they can afford. I'm pretty 'frumpy,' but I respect their right to do so.
Why would anyone make a priority out of providing a better user experience for people who chose their competitors' products over theirs?
And seriously, is using a 2nd messaging ap. on your phone really a bridge too far? I use iMessage, but I've got WhatsApp on my phone, and if I had a loved one who was 'WhatsApp only,' I don't think that'd be a big deal.
How much do we want? Would a world with Microsoft Phone be better? Or would there be even more contention, more fear one's preferred platform would be driven into the dust by a more successful rival, etc...?
I'm old enough to remember when some market segments (e.g.: spreadsheets, word processors) had more high visibility brand name viable-looking products in a category, and a number of them are basically 'dust' now (Lotus 1-2-3, dBase, WordStar, Ami Pro, I think WordPerfect still technically exists). Never mind what industry wants to do, often consumers choose to consolidate on a smaller range of 'safe bet' platforms. Say what you will about Microsoft Word, short of nuclear war, etc..., it'll probably still be here in 20 years.
They do where it makes sense to them, but proprietary standards give one more control. By way of analogy, Apple used Intel processors in Macs for years. Intel could be seen as 'open' since Windows PCs, Macs and Linux computers used them, and many NAS devices use Intel processors to this day. But...Apple was frustrated with the limitations that imposed, and decided to leave that more open processor platform and go their own, proprietary way. It has risks; now that Intel's Lunar Lake is out, those who went for CoPilot Snapdragon PC face market uncertainty going forward.
And a number of those are used by tech. companies.
But someone mentioned the potential for big tech. companies to collaborate on an open standard for health care/medical info. On the face of it, that might sound reasonable, but have the all to frequent data breaches not illustrated that making having 'one platform to rule them all' for something critically important is a bad idea? At some point it's like when someone uses the same password for all their accounts; even if it's a good password, if someone breaches it (say, from inside the company), so we want one key for all locks?
Proprietary standards do 'Balkanize' the tech. world in some ways, but there are some strengths in that.
I hope apple loses with flying colors. Its about time someone nocked them down of their high horse.
Indeed. That’s why they’re acting so controlling and are so hell-bent on maintaining their monopolies.
…on the hardware front, yes.
The issue is that Apple is in a position to stop providers of software and services from eating their lunch (competing).
Or other manufacturers of hardware accessories (such as smartwatches).
The fact is that smartphones are consumers most important portable devices - and smartwatches designed to interact with them. When Apple are withholding connectivity from competing smartwatch manufacturers, they can get away with “stopping moving forward” and get away with mediocre products and lack of innovation.
Until there’s a paradigm shift to make smartwatches more important than (and less dependent on) smartphones. Which there’s little indication of.
Interesting point; so the Apple Watch was conceived as an iPhone accessory, not an independent, stand-alone watch that just happened to be able to communicate with an iPhone.
Is that wrong in principle? If Google wanted to make a watch that was solely an Android accessory, or Microsoft wanted to make a smart watch that was solely a Windows accessory...what of it?
It's an important idea, whether a company is 'allowed' to make a product that's an accessory for one of their other products, or are obligated to make each product a 'stand alone' capable to working with competing similar products.
As we've been over repeatedly, Apple doesn't have a monopoly anywhere. So much so that the DOJ is literally having to invent a novel market definition of "premium smartphones" to avoid getting the cased immediately dismissed.
Apple should be under no obligation to make their competitors' software or hardware devices work with iPhones, because, as stated above, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. And, as I stated upthread, there are legitimate security, privacy, and user experience reasons for Apple limiting deep access.
I'd argue the idea that smartwatches are dependent on smartphones isn't true. And there is plenty of competition. I wear an Oura ring that is connected to my phone. Garmin watches are extremely popular with athletes. Android and Chinese OEMs exist.
And the Apple Watch is hardly “mediocre”; it’s not only the best selling smartwatch in the world, it's the best‑selling watch in the world (much to my chagrin as a lover of mechanical watches). And it is improving year after year, with millions of users choosing it over alternatives. And if Apple really were stagnating, that would be a gift to Android: “buy an Android phone and unlock full smartwatch compatibility” is a pretty strong selling point. The fact that Apple is still growing shows customers value what they’re delivering.
Last edited:
As a fellow watch enthusiast, I hear you. I find myself deciding to wear a mechanical because I appreciate the craftsmanship and can live without immediate access to messages etc., but still wear my Apple Watch at night for its capabilities.
What program? This is kind of separate to anything I've said.
Agreed on this point.
Yup, no argument here.
Who mentioned market share or monopoly? Did you mean to respond to a different post?
It was, yes. Somewhat arbitrarily - there’s no reason why it wouldn’t communicate just the same with an iPad, for instance.
It’s not necessarily wrong - it’s just not very innovative or groundbreaking.
The true products that “stand alone” are smartphones (as well as PCs) and their operating systems.
When they are “walled off” to only interface and interoperate “in full” with their manufacturers’ accessories - and provide only limited interfacing/interoperability with third-party accessories, innovation in the accessory markets will be constrained.
All Apple smartwatches basically look the same - and come with Apple’s bland choice of colours.
Could we get watches with different materials, more vibrant colours, other ways to interact with them? Well, it as long as they’re merely accessories - and Apple restricts important interfaces to their own watches.
Innovation in that phone’s accessories are effected; manufacturers are free to innovate in other markets. If they create a compelling product then the closed architecture system will lose customers and be faced with the choice to remain closed or open up.
The iPhone originally required a PC or Mac; I suspect the watch will be able to be a standalone device in the next couple of years. Right now the phone is just required for initial setup (see Family Setup - the user doesn't need an iPhone, just someone in the family to set it up).
No it won’t. As we see, there is plenty of innovation in smart watches and other accessories. I wear an Oura ring that works great with iOS. Plenty of people use Garmin devices with iPhones. Android exists and Apple restricting access to its intellectual property to others doesn’t prevent Google or Samsung from making an awesome, innovative device that works with Android, and using that to take marketshare from Apple, or forcing Apple to respond.
And again, there are a bunch of completely valid reasons for limiting said access.
You can get all of that now. You can get smart watches that work with iOS in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Yes if you want one that interacts the best with your iPhone, then you need to buy an Apple Watch, but that should be Apple's prerogative. (And if you want an Apple Watch that comes in a different color, there are skins and color wraps you can buy). There is no legitimate reason for government to come in and demand Apple give away its advantages to competitors.
We don't argue Sony is anti-competitive and "constraining innovation" because they don't let Meta's VR headset or the Xbox controller work with the PS5; everyone understands that deep integration is a legitimate part of the platform owner's advantage for creating the platform. But when we start talking about iPhones, regulators and their defenders all over the world say "it's different because....reasons. iOS should be a public utility open to all."
Last edited:
You hit on what I think is an interesting dynamic with pro.s and con.s that ought to be drawn out. Here's my theory on the broader nature of that dynamic.
1.) Apple can be borderline fanatical about aesthetic and maybe functional conners, the 'fit and finish.' Years ago Jobs and Cook admired a knife but what 'ruined' it for them was reportedly this little bead of glue visible where the blade affixed to the handle. Never mind Johnny Ives' product fashion mindset.
2.) So by its nature Apple likely can't turn out a lot of variety in products that were so meticulously conceived and executed. They put out a few 'elite' products.
3.) This differentiates the Mac from the Windows PC ecosystem. Years ago I wanted what amounts of a mini-tower Mac that's be like a modern Mac Mini fused with a computer dock + internal SSD bays. And many people would've preferred an inch think iMac with user upgradeable RAM and internal SSD storage over the largely much thinner later Intel-based 27" iMacs, but it seemed like if Ives wanted this and many end users wanted that, we'd be going with what Ives wanted (I'm not sure how much of that was on him, but he was treated like the poster child for Apple 'form over function' concerns).
4.) In order to focus attention on what Apple is doing and 'win' (more like indoctrinate and convert, in my opinion) the public into embracing the Apple way on such things, Apple acts within their ecosystem largely free of direct competition (e.g.: you can buy a PC or Android phone, but not a clone Mac or non-Apple iOS device). Because if we'd had a choice between Apples skinny iMacs and thick ones we would DIY Ram and SSD upgrades in, a lot of us would've gone think. If we could've had the mini-tower Mac, there might not be the current M4 series Mac Mini.
5.) So by controlling the Apple ecosystem, Apple is able to do things and pursue directions it couldn't amongst the chaotic 'dog eat dog' competitive diversity of the Windows PC world, and get people to follow.
6.) There is an argument to be made, though very debatable, that customers may benefit from Apple's realized 'vision' for product design as a result. So now I have an M4Pro Mac Mini, a cute little 'puck' looking thing, beside a CalDigit TS3+ dock, with a pair of external USB-C SSDs plugged in. But the 27" iMac I used to have was skinny and slick-looking!
7.) Apple industrial design does appear to at times set market-leading trends, particularly where notebook PCs are concerned. One might argue where (and if) Android might be had there never been the iPhone and iOS. Someone pointed out Apple took messaging texts to data and 'robbed' phone carriers of lucrative separately billed texting, and divorced phone purchases from carrier commitments. So bizarrely enough, the broader industry may benefit from ideas that spring from Apple's 'walled garden' approach.
They certainly do for distribution of application software to iOS consumers.
Also, what other NFC card payments do they allow except Apple Pay?
Watches have displays to show something. Message notifications, in the case of smart watches. That’s a core feature.
Rings usually don’t have a display.
It’s indeed different.
PlayStations don’t double as
- driving licenses
- toll booths
- transit tickets
- ticketing machines
- event tickets
- GPS/navigation systems
- phones
- phone books
- calendars
- cameras
- payment instruments
- keys and keychains
- identification devices
- home automation controls
- primary communication devices
- alarm clocks
- scientific calculators
- document scanners
- dictionaries and thesauruses
- …
- …and that’s without even mentioning the gaming and media playback functionality that the console also has.
PlayStations are devices that provide entertainment.
Whereas smartphones are used to communicate and manage big parts of everyone’s every-day lives.
Last edited:
They were asked by a journalist “why can’t I send an image to my mother”. You, I, everyone on internet knows that SMS is just ONE way to send an image. There’s a myriad of free image services, there’s other chat applications, heck there’s email, there’s Facebook (which his mother likely uses extensively). Anyone that seriously desires to send a high quality image to a recipient knows how to do so. It wasn’t a serious question, so it didn’t get a serious answer. It’s like “If you really don’t know how to send an image to your mother, then sure, I’ll take your money, buy an iPhone!”
Yup, it’s called consumer choice. Just one more reason for me to buy a Kia.
For folks that like the Chevy way of doing things and if it’s enough of them to make it profitable for Chevy, have at it.As with all such points, it’s the very definition of not researching a device before buying it. I feel a little for folks that get blinded by the Apple logo such that they lose the ability to do a critical assessment of what features the product offers, but, with every day that goes by, I hope that more and more people are learning, THAT research is important to ensure that a person’s buying a device that they will like to use for years to come!
Indeed, GrapheneOS is a thing now and, to my knowledge Apple has done absolutely zero to prevent it from coming to market. And, there are others.
Thing is, OS’s are hard, especially if you can’t control the hardware (Apple found that out with the ROKR). It may be a huge decision to make hardware, but if you’ve got a vision that hampered by what others have on the market, that’s literally the only way to go. It won’t be easy, but then the company making the hardware can control what’s ON the hardware.