Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Facing Imminent U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

Remember the Microsoft case 25 years ago? What happened? Just about nothing.

Internet Explorer continued to be bundled with Windows and Netscape sputtered into oblivion.
 
1. How did the gov antitrust suit against Microsoft and Activision workout for them?

2. How did Epics suit against Apple workout for them?

And for everyone pointing out Microsoft browser antitrust suit. Microsoft lost primarily because of bill gates deposition. he came off as arrogant and condescending. I’m absolutely certain Apples lawyers are gonna prep the executive team well before the depositions.
 
AppliedMicro said:
...even though they pale against Apple desire for power and control over their iOS app business.

I mean, Apple have stricter rules on content and links than government has ever had.

No reason to believe that.
Apple have had a choice of competing fairly and complying with laws - or trying their hardest to work around them.

Play fair and comply with the law - no fines nor settlements needed. Easy as that.
(Though arguably the EU case about the Irish tax may not have been as foreseeable for Apple)

Regulating to prevent radio-frequency interference from devices has little to nothing to do with antitrust violations.

Maybe, maybe not? We can have different opinions and discuss that.

Lazily throwing out a "They're wrong. And so are you." (as the poster I replied to) makes no attempt at such discussion.
Click to expand...
Apple deserve to have power and control over their business because it is their business— it’s been developed and is owned by them. A lot of what the EU and now the U.S. DOJ are doing is posited on the premise that a company like Apple can’t protect their own business. This is like the government coming and telling Toyota accessories for their cars have to work equally well with other cars. And yes, I welcome any debate…
 
  • Like
Reactions: LalaN and Realityck
transpo1 said:
Yes, that is it. Never underestimate the government bureaucracy’s desire for power and control. They don’t like it when companies get too successful and they are greedy— like the EU, they want settlements, they want fines, and they want control.

And the market is already regulated— that’s why Apple needs FCC approval on every device it brings to market. This level of control has gone WAY beyond antitrust into government overreach.

Just because you are okay with gov’t over-regulation doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
Click to expand...
Large companies are simply a money piñata for large governments now. Even if a company or individual fights and the government "loses", they still spent millions proving they were not in the wrong only for the government to pass a law (or administrative rule in the case of 2A) the 2nd go around to really shaft the company or individual.

Speaking of the FCC. Would you like to create a startup cellular provider company with your own spectrum? You better raise 100's of BILLIONS of currency to fill the FCC's coffers for spectrum auctions. Where's the fair competition there?

When the roman empire fell, it was NASTY. I wonder how far humanity will fall this go around?
 
transpo1 said:
It’s still a choice. Apple is under no obligation to share their iMessage tech with the rest of the world or put the Google version on their own devices.
Click to expand...
Apple can use iMessage whatever way they want but only if they do not lock other messengers from the standard protocols(SMS, MMS) which they do.
 
Apollo68 said:
Because it is within the national interest to ensure a healthy marketplace, which means ensuring competition exists. This isn't a new concept. The government has been going after monopolies since the 1890s in case you weren't aware.
Click to expand...

Microsoft was held to antitrust regulations because they forced PC hardware manufacturers to agree to only sell their hardware with Windows installed. This limited the market adoption of alternative operating systems.

It was almost impossible for a consumer to find alternatives (other than Macs) because of the binding agreements that Microsoft forged in the 80's and 90's.

Apple's systems are hardware+software together. Apple software on Apple hardware. That's a very different model, and should not be considered even close to being antitrust.

Consumers are free to choose non-Apple hardware and software. Apple should not be forced to allow competing software to run on their own hardware, should they? Can't you see how wrong that is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PlayUltimate, mikeschr and Realityck
falainber said:
Apple can use iMessage whatever way they want but only if they do not lock other messengers from the standard protocols(SMS, MMS) which they do.
Click to expand...

Okay, this I agree with. The cellular messaging (SMS/MMS) should be available to other app developers, not locked in the Apple-developed Messages app. Same as phone functionality.

What doesn't need to happen is forcing Apple to make the "iMessage" protocol available to other platforms. That's crazytalk.
 
transpo1 said:
Apple deserve to have power and control over their business because it is their business— it’s been developed and is owned by them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that’s not a serious argument when it comes to anti-trust regulation. Every business being regulated in such a manner will be “owned by them.” At that point you might as well just throw out all anti-trust regulations and allow companies to grow into as big and powerful of monopolies as they can. Eventually everything can just be owned by a single multinational conglomerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, Beautyspin and bcortens
transpo1 said:
I can send SMS & MMS to whomever I want. Please explain what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...

You are forced to use the Messages app to send SMS & MMS. If Apple were to make that capability available to other developers, users would have a choice which app they can use, in the same way they can choose their default browser now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeschr
vladi said:
To my knowledge Toyota doesn't have proprietary gas stations where you must tip off your Toyota with a fuel of your choice so Toyota can take 30% cut from Shell cause you picked their gas to put inside your Toyota.
Click to expand...
Interesting but flawed analogy. A better one is: does the government force Toyota dealerships to carry Ford cars, parts or accessories? And if Toyota chose to carry them wouldn’t they expect a cut?
 
coolfactor said:
You are forced to use the Messages app to send SMS & MMS. If Apple were to make that capability available to other developers, users would have a choice which app they can use, in the same way they can choose their default browser now.
Click to expand...
This is such a minor inconvenience it’s not even worth discussing. And can’t you just choose Android where I presume this is possible? 🙂
 
Wow, when it rains it pours. What a sad year for Apple and its customers. I know I’m loyal to them until the end, but it seems like the fanbase is shrinking. 😔
 
  • Like
Reactions: transpo1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back