Right now the Supreme Court is discussing whether an election denying wannabe dictator should be on the ballot.
That seems more important than punishing Apple for being mean to Spotify and Tile...
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 Could Soon Face 'Sweeping' U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right now the Supreme Court is discussing whether an election denying wannabe dictator should be on the ballot.
That seems more important than punishing Apple for being mean to Spotify and Tile...
They do have too much power because of how much they’ve grown in size. That only two companies, apple and google, control all the cellphones in the world (except for iphones, every single other commercial smartphone uses android) is too dangerous and limits have to be set.
Here’s the deal, though. I’m absolutely certain there’s millions of folks that feel that way. However, in the end, it’s the customers that eliminated the competition. Well, I guess we could also say those companies that felt their lead in the market was a given, like Nokia and Blackberry… they eliminated themselves from the competition by, well, not competing. Even Microsoft decided not to compete and gave everything up to Google’s Android platform.
Apple didn’t force Nokia, Blackberry and Microsoft to give up on cellular phones, they were just the one left standing at the finish line when everyone else sat down when the starting pistol went off.
And, of the utmost importance to the vast majority of cellular phone purchasers in the world…
they both run WhatsApp just as well.
While no less valid on an individual basis, as a MacRumors contributor your opinion is probably not all that generally held and not one I would sweat too much if I were in DoJ and looking at this anticompetitive behavior. In other words...
Does it? It depends on the judges, no? Recent judicial approach on this has not been especially aggressive. But in previous historical moments, judicial regimes would have cracked down harder. So it's an open question. If Biden admin presents an aggressive case, and the right judges hear the case, you never know.
The "for sure" in my initial post was my opinion. The law isn't written in the heavens. It changes, depending on the era, and the interpretations of the powers that be. The law itself is just an opinion. Inherently political that way, and subject to change.
The same could be said for citizens wealth then, surely? What would you suggest is the maximum worth a citizen could hold?
The same could be said for Capitalism. It doesn't work either, but still the US and the rest of the western world suffer it. Communism works very well in Communist countries!
They work exactly the same if you interchange the parts.
Beeper is ringing any bells?
Because everyone else does it doesn’t make it defensible. Everyone else beats their children, is that a good defense for why you do that?
But everyone else also uses child/slave labor in their subcontractors in Asia… why are you complaining about me doing it😮🙄🙄🙄
Well more that I can’t develop the nutt Tag for consumers to track their keys and use the same functionality as the AirTags can leverage.
Well if Apple have access and uses the information then that’s not good
Amazon doesn’t take a markup on apple devices sold at target just because the goods are sold in the Amazon store as well…
It wouldn't hurt for there to be an accessory interface, so that any software-driven watch (or other devices) could interact with iOS, Android, macOS, Windows, or Linux. The Bluetooth interface isn't quite enough.
We know that Apple wants everything and for those who are buying into that, they should be able to have that. Just because not everyone wants that, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available. Versatility and flexibility should be part of any hardware's experience.
We know that Apple wants everything and for those who are buying into that, they should be able to have that. Just because not everyone wants that, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available. Versatility and flexibility should be part of any hardware's experience.
I don't want to buy windows or whatever. I want to use the Apple stuff. Consumer choice matters. This isn't the age of the robber barons. The services these mega corporations provide are great, but their use is so widespread it gives the corporations effectively the power of government. There is nothing inherently wrong with the people taking a modest chunk of that power back. This is simply the real government using its power, "by the people and for the people," to get mega-corporations to do better things.
We have had open computing systems for years, and we were open to viruses, spam, etc. Apple, with iOS and iPad OS in particular, envisioned an alternative model that was less open and it guided their App Store policies. Some like the walled garden. In this case, the "wall" helps with privacy and security. People who are outside the wall don't like it, and many of those simply want a bigger piece of the Apple pie or access to Apple consumer data. Why can't a company try the walled model if they want to? There are other options in the marketplace, many other options. And the whole thing about locking in consumers... stop treating consumers as stupid. Most consumers know they are buying into an Apple experience when they shop. Apple is a successful company primarily because they make products that consumers love.
Imagine if all carriers decided tomorrow that they want 30% of all of Apple's iPhone revenue, including services, because it runs on their networks. I am very confident that most free marketeers on this forum would have a very different opinion on just letting business be business.
The problem with the ecosystem argument is that most people don't make an informed decision about how ecosystem lock-in will affect them, nor will they change their ecosystem over individual issues.
At the same time, it's completely ridiculous to expect every service provider to create their own platform for things that don't need their own platform.
So in the end Apple, or any of the big platform providers, will always have an automatic leg up by being able to offer a service that is more integrated and more seamless than they allow their competitors.
In the short term that's good for consumers because it provides for a better experience, but I'm sure that in the long run it will stifle innovation and lock good products out of the market because the Apple's and Google's of this world use their market power and ecosystems to steer you to their solutions.
If Apple was required to be more open, yet I lost nothing that I like about Apple products and the Apple ecosystem, then why would I care? I do not want third party tracking turned on obviously, but if iMessage was open, or there were other app stores, or tap to pay had to be allowed for other apps, and I am not impacted by those things being made possible, why should I care? Personally my wish would be for there to be a third major mobile system in the market, I sure do not want to use Google products. But Apple could be more open than they are without hurting my experience and maybe occasionally I would actually want the openess. I just want the choice to opt out and not have to have an alternate store, or alternate payment apps preloaded, or any of that crap. The worst thing would be if Apple was forced to allow carrier installed bloatware that could not be removed like Android users are forced to deal with.
We CHOOSE to use Apple’s products and WANT a closed ecosystem to avoid virus and spyware that plague the Windows/Android world!
I mean, that’s the big picture isn’t it? I met someone I know from awhile back at a conference. I wanted to keep in touch with them after, and they gave me their Telegram information. At that point, it was on me whether I wanted to use it or not and, eh, I guess that connection to me is worth whatever minute amount of effort it takes to launch the app.
Oh, I do not assume that won't happen. I just assume it can't be stopped. I am employed by the government and fully understand their ability for requiring ridiculous stupid stuff and thinking they are doing good (while pleasing lobbyists and special interests). I think Apple needs to be planning how they protect their ecosystem when they are forced to open it up.
Last edited:
Good oh. You crack on with getting all upset because people said mean things about your fave corporation then.
More corrupt, idiotic govt officials trying to make a name for themselves. Drain the swamp!
Not sure, but multibillionaires certainly shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
They want the transaction data. They want "Apple Pay" to go through them for data mining and being able to on sell that data. It has zero to do with what is better for consumers.
Extremes are bad. Extreme socialism aka communism is terrible, extreme capitalism such as the US is bad too. Something in between such as Norway or Sweden would be best.
And no, communism doesn’t work very well in communist countries. People have no freedom and have a very limited coverage of their basic needs.
What has more pull with elected officials? The good of the user or the good of the finance companies claiming that they are missing out on a revenue stream? I ask that question fully believing that Apple will eventually be forced to open up.