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
Sideloaded apps would be inside the same sandbox as App Store apps, they wouldn't have system-level access.
Only app I used when I used to jailbreak was iblacklist (which I paid for), because I was getting a boatload of junk calls and Apple didn't allow any call blocking at the time. I don't get them much anymore.
iblacklist is still superior to Apple's offering. You could block calls without any notifications, give them a busy signal, send them to voicemail without a missed call....and here's the big one, block unknown and "blocked caller id" callers without enabling "silence unknown callers" for everyone not in your contact list. I can't use that because of my job.
This isn’t about you, unless you’re a developer and choosing or being forced to not support iOS means losing millions of potential users.
Look at what Microsoft did. They were a monopoly in the PC market, but they didn’t charge egregious prices for their software, and so they have been left mostly alone.
Apple on the other hand, do have a bit of a history of taking large shares of the profit. Look at the RAM and storage pricing for Macs, the 30% revenue share on the App Store, or the high price of the Studio Display, or the way Apple Silicon desktops outpace the old 27” iMac in pricing, or the price of the Mac Pro wheels, and so on. Apple does have priors in grabbing the cash.
You could say that a company large enough to face antitrust legislation has to start viewing itself in part as a public service, or face being broken up. That seems fair to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
You took only one of several examples to make your point. Congrats. And he’s competition is good for the consumer, which is why these laws exist.
I think a lot of people are missing the bigger picture here. Apple are not just another company; they are an industry of themselves. No you cannot put PS5 games in your Xbox but you have the option of buying a PS5. There isn't one company that owns the games industry.
Apple is more of an infrastructure company. Think of it like this: imagine if Ford built and owned your entire city. They gave their own cars preferential treatment on the roads, let them all drive 20mph faster than any other vehicle and dibs on parking spaces. Now lets say you're an entrepreneur with your own idea for a vehicle. You lack the capital and time to spend 40 years building your own city so you want to operate in Fords. Is it fair that your car must operate 20mph slower than Ford's or that your customers will lose out on parking? Your idea may never get off the ground and so your idea crashes and burns because Ford have a monopoly within their own infrastructure.
Ah, you say. Why not move to the neighbouring city owned by BMW where you have more choice? Well it turns out your Ford-backed healthcare, pension and savings are non-transferable so you have to start again from scratch. Do you bother moving at all? Are you not now trapped in Ford's infrastructure?
Apple is more of an infrastructure company. Think of it like this: imagine if Ford built and owned your entire city. They gave their own cars preferential treatment on the roads, let them all drive 20mph faster than any other vehicle and dibs on parking spaces. Now lets say you're an entrepreneur with your own idea for a vehicle. You lack the capital and time to spend 40 years building your own city so you want to operate in Fords. Is it fair that your car must operate 20mph slower than Ford's or that your customers will lose out on parking? Your idea may never get off the ground and so your idea crashes and burns because Ford have a monopoly within their own infrastructure.
Ah, you say. Why not move to the neighbouring city owned by BMW where you have more choice? Well it turns out your Ford-backed healthcare, pension and savings are non-transferable so you have to start again from scratch. Do you bother moving at all? Are you not now trapped in Ford's infrastructure?
Ahah your car key tech isn’t proprietary, the code to get in your car is. That’s why it won’t unlock your Tesla and that’s a good thing. I feel like everyone in this comment should just read the Sherman Act to get a better sense on what the law is intended to protect.
Yes, it’s a good textbook case. To show how the the breakup of a company didn’t really wind up by benefitting consumers. When you have (“competitive”) businesses that hinge on a government monopoly of resources consumers don’t benefit. In this case with apple the whole is better than the sum of its parts. In the smartphone space there is competition aplenty, and the best products are being bought by consumers by popular demand.
Sure, just wouldn’t buy a GM at that point. Unless their tires and batteries and infotainment system…..were that much better than the competition, then I’d probably still buy a GM. To have that guaranteed quality/safety/privacy.
Yes, this discussion will go around in circles a bit. But next year we’ll see where this all ends up.
I agree with the DOJ in ensuring Apple isn’t monopolizing. But Samsung is another company with the same issues that I doubt DOJ has as much control/leverage over.
If they sell their products in the US, the DOJ/government has authority.
Just like the US v Microsoft case, this will cost taxpayers millions and result in zero meaningful change. However that alone does not mean it shouldn't happen.
Big Tech absolutely is the Standard Oil of today. Monopoly doesn't just mean market share.
Big Tech absolutely is the Standard Oil of today. Monopoly doesn't just mean market share.
I understand that. But Apple can address YOUR preference just by providing a wall-garden OPTION. There shouldn't be the need for a complicated jailbreak; just a place in settings where you can voluntarily opt-in to competitive alternatives.
Agreed. I mean don’t get me wrong do I want Apple to be split up into dozens of pieces and go to ****? Absolutely not. Do I want investors to lose money? No. Would it be amazing if iMessage and Android were compatible? Hell Yes.
The cloud gaming thing is true. Apple doesn’t allow apps that in turn allows unrestricted access to other software.
The rule is in place to prevent apps from getting around the content rating system.
So, like Steam Link is ok because it connects to your own PC that you own.
Where as NVidia GeForce Now is not.
The rule is in place to prevent apps from getting around the content rating system.
So, like Steam Link is ok because it connects to your own PC that you own.
Where as NVidia GeForce Now is not.
I believe free market is the closest thing we have to pure democracy. It’s not perfect because people are human, so it does need rules, but as few as possible.
No doubt! If there’s a financial or market incentive, the market will come up with something. It will just never be as good as a curated proprietary solution.
Arguably speaking USA doesnt have the best democracy among democratic countries either, with subpar Voting system and tons of gerrymandering every time election is involved.
While it is true that rules are useless if no one is there to enforce them, and overloading the system with rules could lead to astronomical slowdowns on about everything, against megacorps specially, there are few if any rules, and megacorps can get away with just about anything, which is unfair to everyone else.
I don’t believe free market exists, just like free speech is a hoax. However, I believe a healthy market with sufficient rules to ensure majority plays nice with each other while avoid bureaucratic nonsense as much as possible.
Not at all. Seems to be a running joke and misconception that people love to throw around.
On a mac you dont need to jailbreak to have full control, it already gives you that deep access, so your comment is a bit weird…
The free market needs lots of rules. How else would you avoid that companies will pollute the environment, exploit workers or scam consumers?
Haaaa you say: people can choose where they work and what they buy. But obviously that’s not what happens: Amazon did become a multinational while mistreating its workers. DuPont and 3M are still around while polluting the planet.
So yes, we need massive regulations. In a globalised world, it’s the only thing to keep companies, whose main (and often only) target is to make a profit, in check.
Hypothetical example: If a processed food company is using an inexpensive process that leads to heavy metal contamination in foods, and no regulations require this be disclosed to consumers on the packaging, this is fine from a free market standpoint as people are choosing to buy the products due to the lower cost. Is it a democracy if they can't make an informed decision?
Obviously free market and democracy are not equivalent. Democracy means making an informed decision, and people aren't going to educate themselves on heavy metal contamination, or monopolistic practices in the tech industry for that matter.