Apple Could Soon Face 'Sweeping' U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[Unregistered 4U]

That’s not what this is about.

That’s (the iPhone existing and being sold to millions) LITERALLY what it’s about. If the iPhone did not exist then looking into the antitrust implications of the iPhone wouldn’t exist. If ALL the other cellular phone makers weren’t so content in their market controlling positions that they just didn’t compete at all, then we wouldn’t have just Apple and Google providing OS’s today.

Apple acts like a bully

Yeah, Verizon wasn’t a bully when they told Apple “Take a hike”. It’s called a business making a decision based on what they feel provides value. Verizon, rightly, was NOT forced by anyone to carry the iPhone.

but fans just think well I will just use Apple anyways.

Yeah, that’s consumer choice. I know there are some that really with consumers wouldn’t choose the way they do, but, in the end, it’s their money to spend as they like. On the products they like.

The point is they have gotten so big and so power hungry that nobody can compete at any level.

Same thing was said about Nokia. And, some tiny company with literally zero cellular phone experience tried. It was a long shot, but they bet the company on it. And, they succeeded by making products people wanted to buy. They didn’t force carriers to exclude other phones, they didn’t buy hardware makers and put them out of business, they didn’t force software developers to ONLY develop for their device. They just made things that made people happy to use. And, unfortunately, also made things that other folks don’t like to see people happily using!

Apple is too big and has lost all the goodness. It’s all about money and power.

It has ALWAYS been about money and power, that’s how companies stay in business and grow.

And Microsoft and Nokia and etc, you’re talking about something different. That wasn’t choice.

Well, don’t know what to say if you don’t think that people buying products that they find value in was not a choice they were making.

The whole thing is capitalism is about letting companies compete.

Like I said above, this is literally what it’s all about. Companies compete, BUT that comes with the added truth that some companies will compete well, some will compete poorly, some won’t compete at all. Those that compete and fail usually aren’t around for very long. What does that say about those companies that are still around? Just that they are competitive and successful.

 

[ThailandToo]

That’s (the iPhone existing and being sold to millions) LITERALLY what it’s about. If the iPhone did not exist then looking into the antitrust implications of the iPhone wouldn’t exist. If ALL the other cellular phone makers weren’t so content in their market controlling positions that they just didn’t compete at all, then we wouldn’t have just Apple and Google providing OS’s today.


Yeah, Verizon wasn’t a bully when they told Apple “Take a hike”. It’s called a business making a decision based on what they feel provides value. Verizon, rightly, was NOT forced by anyone to carry the iPhone.


Yeah, that’s consumer choice. I know there are some that really with consumers wouldn’t choose the way they do, but, in the end, it’s their money to spend as they like. On the products they like.


Same thing was said about Nokia. And, some tiny company with literally zero cellular phone experience tried. It was a long shot, but they bet the company on it. And, they succeeded by making products people wanted to buy. They didn’t force carriers to exclude other phones, they didn’t buy hardware makers and put them out of business, they didn’t force software developers to ONLY develop for their device. They just made things that made people happy to use. And, unfortunately, also made things that other folks don’t like to see people happily using!


It has ALWAYS been about money and power, that’s how companies stay in business and grow.


Well, don’t know what to say if you don’t think that people buying products that they find value in was not a choice they were making.


Like I said above, this is literally what it’s all about. Companies compete, BUT that comes with the added truth that some companies will compete well, some will compete poorly, some won’t compete at all. Those that compete and fail usually aren’t around for very long. What does that say about those companies that are still around? Just that they are competitive and successful.

And some companies will become so big that nobody can compete against them. And those companies user power and abuse power to take advantage of and squash competition. That’s the problem here. It’s not about Apple making great products, as they do. It’s about Apple being a steward good to all as they preach when their actions prove quite the contrary.

 

[HarryPot]

I don’t believe there is a right way to do things. For one side I believe letting companies grow without interfering a lot makes for accelerated innovation at the beginning.

But eventually a company do becomes to big, so big that they won’t let new players enter the market.

And at the end new business owners suffer to make a living, and must end working for big corporations.

Or small business never have the capital to really grow, because big companies are able to offer products at much lower costs.

And one could argue that low cost products is a win for the end consumer, but low cost products will also mean low wages. And that’s why most companies go tonto their countries to manufacture their products.

I sometimes dislike how the EU interferes in many aspects, but the US is the opposite I believe. A middle ground would work I believe.

At least until the system breaks and a new way must be found.

 

[zach-coleman]

There are already a couple of ongoing US antitrust lawsuits against Google, and one against Amazon was announced a few months ago.

Sounds fair to me then.

 

[one more]

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…

You need to read my reply in a context, see the post #368. The poster I was replying to was suggesting that “Also one is free to try to jailbreak their purchased device and install whatever software they can/want.”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

“When I was young I thought myself to be a good and fair person. And, because I liked the products Apple made, I also saw them to be a good and fair company. However, like all companies, they simply exist to make money, and make money to exist. Now that I’ve gotten older, and I understand what companies are, and what companies do, I don’t like the fact that Apple is, and does, the things companies are, and do.

So, of course, I want Apple to go back to being the good and fair company they were when I was younger. I haven’t yet come to the realization that Apple was never the idealistic vision I had in my head. They can’t return to what they never were. They have always been a company and has been acting as a company does.

As a result, I’d like to see the company destroyed for not being the idealized version of them I have in my head!”

An interesting take, to be sure.

 

[ipaqrat]

Regulation is a key facet of a free market and capitalism, and always has been

Yesbut… Regulation (in terms of law specifying actionable torts, competition, financial and marketing constraints) was always framed up as a safety net against egregious cheaters and thugs.

The FOUNDATION of capitalism was always intended to be self regulating markets where demand - supply = price. One core tenet of self regulating markets is a reliable flow of truthful information.

That’s where things have always turned sketch. But nowadays information flows are so radically distorted, as typified by Amazon’s scummy marketplace coupled to their scummy refusal to reign in their review system. Today one simply must presume that a thing that is said is false - because it was said. Unfortunately, most folks are too preoccupied with living to spend the time it takes to treat every claim like a graduate thesis research project.

This gives rise to a sort of counter-psychology wherein folks feel satisfied only by information they feel is sufficiently sussed out, as if through espionage. Thus, conspiracy theory culture. Which is a bad trap, of course. People prone to this sort of ideation are super-duper easy to manipulate, usually for the worse, because they’re asking to get punk’d. Smarter, smart-a**, pendejo jerkoffs enjoy releasing BS conspiracies into the wild just to see who bites. I can see how this might be fun.

The truth of the matter is that the mega corporations are simply following their prerogatives, which now normalize attempts to cross ethical and legal boundaries chasing every last buck. Any company who doesn’t transgress might find themselves attacked by activist investors.

Pure, simple demand-side capitalism has never been profitable enough.

 

[Realityck]

The NYTimes is not what it used to be looking to promote articles on speculative topics. Todays inappropriate example.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/business/taylor-swift-new-york-times/index.html

“There seems to be no boundary some journalists won’t cross when writing about Taylor, regardless of how invasive, untrue, and inappropriate it is - all under the protective veil of an ‘opinion piece,’” the person added.

This means they are operating more like Bloomberg as far as heresay rumoring. Perhaps MacRumors topic title using “could” is very appropriate as it denotes this DOJ activity more as a rumor then news.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

With all due respect, I am not sure if you understand issues of cyber security. While we may still choose to use Apple devices if Apple’s ecosystem is opened up, having alternative app stores (for example) jeopardizes the whole platform, regardless which devices you use.

There may be some assumption that Apple is magical and can open up like Android ONLY in the good ways. Not in the ways that allow piracy, identity theft, etc. (they can’t)

 

[lartola]

Norway nor Sweden would claim to be socialist.

They are.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is insane. Apple is so good because they are so good. Others cant compete because they simply suck compared to Apple. If some company invented something super cool they would compete with Apple. But they haven’t. Instead of trying to come up with something awesome they now try to make Apple weaker so they could push their crap to the consumers more easily. It’s nuts to try limit Apple with legislation. Nokia was once dominating mobile phone industry. We could have made same argument then, that it’s hard to compete in that market. But all it took was innovation and Nokia as a mobile phone king was history.

And, they continually end the life of popular products in order to improve on them before other companies can. I’m sure some of he animosity towards Apple is because they ended that person’s preferred iPod Mini or something The fact that people want competition ON the iPhone rather than competition TO the iPhone is also quite telling. The things that Humane are doing are setting an entirely new paradigm. However, folks are laser focused on making the iPhone MORE attractive in order to, I suppose, kill the potential that Humane shows?

 

[Realityck]

I wasn't aware that the DOJ had published their findings or leveled charges yet. Can you provide me a link to show what you say you agree with?

In this regard NYTimes article is a hearsay leak of gossip. The DOJ would never divulge their opinions openly.

 

[lartola]

Allowed by whom?

By the government. Governments should cap how rich people can get. No one should be allowed to reach a multibillion dollar fortune. It’s simply too much money for a single person and they usually make such fortunes based on abuse.

 

[lartola]

But what benefit does that provide to say, Bank of America or Amex? They already know how much you’re spending and at which merchants, so what data could they expect that would make the effort of convincing users to open a separate app worth it?

The benefit is mostly for those whose bank/card issuer still doesn’t support apple pay. There may be very few of those in the US, but there are lots around the world. As it is right now, if your bank doesn’t support apple pay then you can’t use your iphone at all to make nfc contáctless payments at all. If apple opens the nfc, however, if your bank doesn’t support apple pay you could still use the bank’s app for nfc contactless payments. Android users have had that kind of choice for years. How can anyone be so blind to not see that as a benefit?

 

[I7guy]

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.

There are times that are needed to keep society safe. Obviously food, air and water are important as well as ensuring our financial system is safe. Those are quite different circumstances than regulating an app store.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

iPhone has always had the AppStore (well, almost always) as the only source to install apps, like it or not. Apple should not be required to change course just because the iPhone became a success.

A: I don’t want a phone with only a single integrated App Store.
B: Oh, then you don’t want this one because…
A: I’d like to buy an iPhone.
B: Wait, didn’t you just say,
A: I am a consumer and am free to purchase whatever I want!
B: Yes, but I thought you didn’t want a phone with ONLY
A: iPhone, PLEASE!
B: Ok, (transaction) here go you.
A: Wait, there’s only one way to install apps via an integrated App Store?
B: Well, yeah, I was trying to…
A: Change it. I am a consumer and am free to do with my device what I want.
B: Well, not so much THAT device. But here, let me do a return…
A: No, I want THIS device, but I don’t want this device to do what this device does.
B: Then, why did you buy the device?
A: I am a consumer and am free to purchase whatever I want!
B: Ok.
A: I will also on occasion need it to behave like a chainsaw, because I want to be… a LUMBERJACK!

 

[I7guy]

By the government. Governments should cap how rich people can get. No one should be allowed to reach a multibillion dollar fortune. It’s simply too much money for a single person and they usually make such fortunes based on abuse.

You are certainly free to live in such a country. I doubt there would be much happiness though. Being able to peruse your dreams and getting rewarded financially is what drives innovation.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

this is a case of people wanting their cake and eating it as well.

It’s a case of people wanting cake, eating cake, but then getting upset because it’s entirely (but not quite) unlike pie in every way. It was, indeed, never pie.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Perhaps Spotify should spend time providing the High Res files they promised years ago instead of whinging?

I’d guess that they can’t because they’d have to go back to those artists (that they have very recently treated poorly) and ask them for a new contract that includes higher res files. Those folks, having been done poorly by Spotify, have little interest in even cutting a deal when they can allow their streams elsewhere with a better return.

But, no, Spotify’s problems are because of Apple, not that a Music/Podcast service can’t exist as a profitable venture.

 

[subjonas]

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.

I think we have quite a bit of overlap in thought, but I‘d say although free market and free speech are not absolutely free (again because people are human), I do believe these concepts are worth upholding as much as possible because otherwise power begins to get funneled to a few.

As far as megacorps being virtually unregulated, I don’t know if that’s totally true, but I’m sure it’s true in many cases that should not be—some regulation is needed. But again, I believe we should aim to have as little regulation as possible—just enough to protect basic human rights and keep the economy healthy. Every rule in addition to that is people fiddling with balance based on their own preferences and agendas. I know basic human rights and healthy economy can be interpreted differently, as it should, but one thing I’m seeing that I strongly disagree with is people wanting legislation to strongarm Apple simply because they don’t like some of Apple’s choices. It’s not an argument about basic human rights (sideloading is not) nor the economy—it basically boils down to a vendetta. I welcome the government looking into whether action is needed, but if they take action based on these loud but non-majority voices, then I see that as an abuse of power.

 

[dgdosen]

“When I was young and thought myself to be a good and fair person. And because I liked the products Apple made, I also saw them to be a good and fair company. However, like all companies, they simply exist to make money, and make money to exist. Now that I’ve gotten older, and I understand what companies are, and what companies do, I don’t like the fact that Apple is, and does, the things companies are, and do.

So, of course, I want Apple to go back to being the good and fair company they were when I was younger. I haven’t yet come to the realization that Apple was never the idealistic vision I had in my head. They can’t return to what they never were. They have always been a company and has been acting as a company does.

As a result, I’d like to see the company destroyed for not being the idealized version of them I have in my head!”

An interesting take, to be sure.

Exactly right!

A company exists to make money. I like to add my take: "A company will act, at best, in an amoral manner" (because of that first rule). It all comes down to maximizing that share price, because that's the only thing that matters, by law. Historically, those in charge of publicly traded companies have been focused on too-short-term of thinking.

Apple needs competition to compel them to change. That's why I'm hoping a company like Qualcomm (with Linux?) takes a juicy bite out of Apple's strategy by offering a competitive 'arm based experience' with plenty of low-priced ram and storage to better take advantage of what will be a very important aspect of future computing - interacting with AI.

 

[hagar]

I disagree. The US government is the appropriate authority to look into a US company.

The EU bullying around a US company is different. The EU picks at US based companies for being successful and hurting local competition, a la Spotify.

So according to that logic a North Korean company could do whatever it wants in the US, with the US authorities having nothing to say about it. Nice one.

 

[subjonas]

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.

I agree some of these are good examples of why we need regulation. Please note that “as few as possible” does not equal “a few”.

 

[d686546s]

yeah im so mad that Chevrolet doesn't allow me to put a Porsche engine in my suburban! how dare they!

what a ******** situation

How is Chevrolet stopping you? You can put whatever engine you want in your car once you've bought it.

Are we forced to choose an ecosystem? (...) As long as people are free to choose any device to accomplish their critical functions, which I believe they are, then why does the government need to step in? I have a problem with a company being punished for creating too good of an ecosystem, which seems to be the case here.

Forced at gunpoint? No of course not. But of course Apple, Samsung, Google and others are nudging you to their products by offering functionality that is withheld from competitors. In the long run that could very much drive all but a few companies out of certain markets for the sake of convenience.

You might not care from an individual point of view, but that undermines healthy competition and consumer choice, and in the wider sense, potentially jobs, innovation, and other impacts.

I disagree. The US government is the appropriate authority to look into a US company.

The EU bullying around a US company is different. The EU picks at US based companies for being successful and hurting local competition, a la Spotify.

Who cares where the company is from? Was the US wrong to look into VW's emissions because they are a German company?

If you choose to operate in a certain market you are subject to their laws, regulations and whatever other requirements. The EU is perfectly entitled to look into companies doing business in the EU and putting in place rules and regulations for products and services offered in the EU.

The idea that US companies operating abroad should only be subject to US laws and Us authorities is ludicrous.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Funny thing -- I've never ONCE searched for something in the App Store I didn't already know I wanted. NEVER. I find things on the web. So using the App Store as my app department store to go browsing is not my (and probably most other people's) thing.

This has always been a curious complaint to me. It’s as if some developers believe that a big portion of their budget should be in App Store placement. Not, you know, making a good product, a compelling website, getting it into reviewers hands, having folks provide feedback and improving the product based on the feedback such that if anyone types “iOS app that (does a thing)”, their app comes up first.