We used to say "Apple should just buy [the U.S..]"
Unfortunately for Apple, Elon just made that purchase and I don't think he's interested in selling any time soon
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 Seeks to Dismiss U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately for Apple, Elon just made that purchase and I don't think he's interested in selling any time soon
For tap to pay capabilities? True.
But the NFC chip has been usable for other purposes since iPhone 7. There are NFC tag writer programs, and Abbott's Libre 1 glucose sensors needed the NFC to write and enable the sensor some seven years ago.
Apple has to make changes to the OS for every single feature they offer. So what? It's something they do every OS update and every fix, and if you don't trust them to make OS changes competently, then why trust them at all?
This case why risk it for no reward, I have never had an issue adding a card to my wallet and there is always risk your bank or credit card pulls out allowing you to add your stuff to native wallet creating more work and mangement.
So far, I have not been impacted. But I live in the U.S. I can see that a user swapping Safari out for a true Chrome browser would suffer on the security and privacy front.
However, what I am concerned about is talk about breaking up Apple. Maybe the people who say stuff like that don’t think about it in detail, but maybe they would want to see the computer, phone, and tablet businesses be separated from each other. Or for Apple to be split into a software and service company and a hardware company. Both would be very bad for those of us very happy in the current Apple ecosystem.
I, personally, consider that a 100% acceptable risk.
DOJ and FCC will look lot different after few months. Apple will still be there and lot of DOJ officials are likely to be shown the door.
Apple (iOS) is the choice against the homogeny of the alternative. The "walled" garden gives people an option against the openness of Android OS. With Android OS controlling over 70% of global smart phones, iOS is no where near being a monopoly. But for some reason, the unique and controlled experience that iOS offers is perceived to be a bad thing.
The DOJ doesn't really care what the global numbers are, nor should they. It's about the US market, and the US market, alone.
Markets are infinitely smarter than government bureaucrats who are mostly out to enrich themselves, and those who go in with good intentions are drowned and beaten down by the bureaucracy and endless politics. Anyone who has worked at a company with a few hundred people or more knows exactly what I’m talking about.We used to say "Apple should just buy [the U.S..]"
The problem with the "just exit" each market where GOV takes an action against Apple is that eventually, they run out of markets. Apple wants the maximized revenue more than they want maximum control/influence/hold and will be quick to bend when big chunks of money is actually at risk. As the article says...
Like finally adopting USB-C without EU GOV "forcing" it vs. clinging to the proprietary profit of Lightning, would Apple have made these policy changes if the DOJ did NOT take such actions or imply they would?
There is lucrative money at stake and any Corp would want to preserve such cows as long as possible, no matter what. But when any GOV gets committed enough to "force" some change, Apple will change. Why? Because they want the (perhaps less) money than to bail entirely and get no money from that GOVs market. Less millions or even less billions is far better than no billions, millions, thousands, hundreds, tens or ones. As they should, Apple will almost always choose the money over nearly all other considerations. 💰💰💰
And contrary to "Apple above all else" opinions, often GOVs are taking such actions to benefit us consumers. Yes, there can be corruption. Yes, GOV can easily get things wrong. But once businesses grow into "King" (AKA "richest in the world"), it is often only GOVs that remain powerful enough to try to police sometimes self-serving/exploitive decision-making aimed at "more, more, more!" decisions.
Anyone who does not believe this should feel equally outraged when GOVs take similar action against Apple competitors... and thus we should all be probably using MacRumors via Internet Explorer today. Instead, when we check threads where action is being taken against Google or other key competitors, it often fills with "serves them right" and similar sentiment... as if GOV actions are only correct when they help Apple but are wrong when they work against whatever Apple wants. Yes, it's possible for GOV to be selectively right & wrong depending on their choices too... but the odds in them always being wrong when "it" is against Apple but right/fine when "it" favors Apple seem pretty long.
Govt should only get involved in the most extreme cases, and consumers choosing a closed ecosystem because it’s easier to deal with than an open one, is certainly not one of them.
IE was bound to fail, not because some bureaucrats (who wanted to make a name for themselves so that they can get high paying jobs in the private sector) got involved, but because Microsoft missed the boat on search engines and later, touchscreen smartphones and tablets which far outsell PCs today.
"Smart" markets only exist when the market is actually open. Copyright law, DMCA, patents, tariffs, trade agreements, exclusivity agreements, confidential intercorporate deals, etc., are market manipulation. Until there are completely open markets, where nothing I listed is implemented in any fashion, said markets will need governance.
I've worked at said small companies, and larger, and smaller.
Last edited:
But its just an intermediary, like the council look after roads. The arguement is that competing apps are not as secure or banks will all run their own to avoid paying fees, fracturing the market beyond repair.
Who knows? Maybe Apple foresaw this and this is why we have Magsafe Wallets!
In this case Apple are merely the intermediary, like the local council looking after the roads of your city which we pay a small tax to drive on. Should we open up municiple infrastructure to private competition? We did this with the railways in the UK and the result was a disasterYou mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tap-to-pay anymore because they finally opened up access to the NFC chip.
From the 3rd paragraph:
Some of Apple's policy changes this year have already negated some of these claims. In January, the company started allowing cloud-based game streaming apps on the App Store worldwide. And in August, it opened up the iPhone's NFC chip used by Apple Pay to third-party developers in the U.S. and select other countries.
Apple Opening Up iPhone's NFC Chip to Third-Party Developers in iOS 18.1
Apple today announced that developers will soon be able to offer NFC transactions in their own apps for the first time – something that is mostly...www.macrumors.com
Starting with iOS 18.1 later this year, developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions, separate from Apple Pay and Apple Wallet, using new APIs. This opens up new possibilities for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and rewards cards, and event tickets, as well as government IDs in the future.
Good stuff to discuss. We’re still saying it.We used to say "Apple should just buy [the U.S..]"
There should be some markets that Apple exits, where the business model is regulated to such an extent that it can’t be recognized. Such as the EU. The US the chips will fall where they may at this point.
Apple wants control as much as revenue. The control aspect is why, imo, apple is such a beloved company (excepting of course certain factions on MacRumors)
This is not something for government to decide imo, because it’s an innovation killer.
As a strawman statement I agree.
I do not believe this for one second.
So basically this contradicts you’re prior statement?
I do. I am totally against the google verdict.
these actions are often unequally applied and sometimes so vague they change with the wind.
Sometimes government gets it right, such as ensuring are digital transactions are safe. That is a good use of our elected officials time.
The benchmark claim “but for the consumer” is sometimes a coverup for other things that aren’t for the consumer.
I would agree with that sentiment for the most part. However, history has shown that even with those forces in place, innovators have been able to disrupt even the biggest companies and even entire industries.
You know the answer to that right? Don’t download a non WebKit browser. Nobody’s being forced to do anything
I don’t see the harm. If you go installing crapware on your phone that causes issues, that’s on you. Computers, including macs have had this capability since the very beginning. The world didn’t end.
The choice includes the ecosystem. People should research the ecosystem BEFORE buying into it and make an intelligent decision based on whether or not they want to be tied to that ecosystem. For many is HIGHLY likely that there’s no company on the face of the planet that makes the product they want and that’s likely because what they want isn’t profitable enough for anyone to expend the effort to create.
Apple will eventually comply in order to keep selling their products in as many markets as they can, to the surprise of no one with half a brain.We used to say "Apple should just buy [the U.S..]"
The problem with the "just exit" each market where GOV takes an action against Apple is that eventually, they run out of markets. Apple wants the maximized revenue more than they want maximum control/influence/hold and will be quick to bend when big chunks of money is actually at risk. As the article says...
And not just that. Apple is huge 3 trillion dollar company that pays taxes, creates workplaces and therefore has a direct impact on the economic growth of United States. I think new administration wants to keep the golden goose laying eggs instead of stealing those eggs for making fast breakfast
There are people that don’t like Android and don’t like the iPhone and think that it’s wrong that nothing exists that they like. The problem is REALLY that those people that don’t like the iPhone and don’t like Android don’t dislike them ENOUGH to not buy them. They’re the reason why what they want doesn’t exist.
Oh, please. Just because they've made it so easy and convenient to be in their ecosystem, doesn't mean they've made it harder to leave, and even if we can make that accusation, I don't think "people loving it so much they don't want to leave" is anti-consumer.
I hear Timmy yelling in his office… don’t come close to my money, don’t even think about looking at it. I will vigorously defend my moooonnneeeyyyy.
But seriously, it’s about time they open things up. The consumers will benefit and Apple will also have to compete with others to stay the brand to choose.
Maybe we will see better technical specifications at similar prices from competitors.
I know… Timmy will vigorously defend. But I can dream for a better, fairer Apple.
So good news! And to all Americans who are accusing the EU of (only) attacking Apple… same story starts in the US 😁