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 Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you believe Microsoft should have received a share of each sale from iTunes on Windows? What if this had prevented the iPod from being successful?
There are scores of other issues with the way Apple claims to charge for its IP but that isn't something I want to re-litigate here.
That’s an iCloud hack not physically accessing the phone.It already happened on the locked iPhone, unfortunately.
Apple Security: Hacker Steals Over 6 Lakh Nude Pics From iCloud With Phishing Links
The perpetrator, Hao Kuo Chi, residing in La Puente has agreed to plead guilty to four felonies, including conspiracy to gain unauthorised access to a computer, according to court records.www.indiatimes.com
Last edited by a moderator:
That’s a phishing attack. Technically “hacking”, but he got people to hand over their credentials. He did not “hack” the iPhone.It already happened on the locked iPhone, unfortunately.
Apple Security: Hacker Steals Over 6 Lakh Nude Pics From iCloud With Phishing Links
The perpetrator, Hao Kuo Chi, residing in La Puente has agreed to plead guilty to four felonies, including conspiracy to gain unauthorised access to a computer, according to court records.
Well, the governments and the developers seem to mind it.
“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats”…
By doing nothing. They continued to hobble themselves by not being open, by not having powerful Google technologies built into the OS, etc. This allowed Google’s Android OS and Android based cell phones to flourish, usually at many times cheaper than Apple’s options with features that Apple can’t even touch, like folding and… yeah, like folding.
Unfortunately, Apple’s almost single-minded goal of focusing on “Consumers that have more money” means that the majority of the people with Apple ID’s in Apple’s ecosystem actually have a good bit of disposable income that they use to purchase goods and services through Apple’s ecosystem. To the point where Apple’s tiny (but affluent) share of the cell phone market makes MORE profit for companies using that ecosystem than any other cell phone ecosystem/market.
Is it illegal that folks with money have chosen essentially the only platform that has focused on people with money? Is it anticompetitive that no other company… competes for these folks with money to spend?
By doing nothing. They continued to hobble themselves by not being open, by not having powerful Google technologies built into the OS, etc. This allowed Google’s Android OS and Android based cell phones to flourish, usually at many times cheaper than Apple’s options with features that Apple can’t even touch, like folding and… yeah, like folding.
Unfortunately, Apple’s almost single-minded goal of focusing on “Consumers that have more money” means that the majority of the people with Apple ID’s in Apple’s ecosystem actually have a good bit of disposable income that they use to purchase goods and services through Apple’s ecosystem. To the point where Apple’s tiny (but affluent) share of the cell phone market makes MORE profit for companies using that ecosystem than any other cell phone ecosystem/market.
Is it illegal that folks with money have chosen essentially the only platform that has focused on people with money? Is it anticompetitive that no other company… competes for these folks with money to spend?
It's up to the user to make sure the devices they choose to allow access to their Health app data comports with the amount of privacy they desire.
It’s the equivalent of using all caps, bold text, or a cat arching its back and hissing...emphasis, implying they feel strongly about something.
this is likely going to be one of the most-commented-on threads of all time, so I doubt my word is going to have any weight here, but I’ll throw my hat in the ring.
points 3 and 4 are absolutely ****ing absurd. the Apple Watch is an accessory to the iPhone—period. it’s been clear as day from day one and I cannot imagine how in the hell that is anticompetitive.
additionally, Apple is already implementing RCS in iOS 18. forcing them to open up iMessage is a slippery slope that shows (yet again) the U.S. government’s lack of a basic grasp on technology, security, and the intersection of the two.
…oh yeah, and consumer choice. I literally just think iMessage is better than regular texting because it is. I (along with a seeming majority of iPhone users) don’t want it opened up—is that really such an issue?
points 3 and 4 are absolutely ****ing absurd. the Apple Watch is an accessory to the iPhone—period. it’s been clear as day from day one and I cannot imagine how in the hell that is anticompetitive.
additionally, Apple is already implementing RCS in iOS 18. forcing them to open up iMessage is a slippery slope that shows (yet again) the U.S. government’s lack of a basic grasp on technology, security, and the intersection of the two.
…oh yeah, and consumer choice. I literally just think iMessage is better than regular texting because it is. I (along with a seeming majority of iPhone users) don’t want it opened up—is that really such an issue?
So the only reason the apps are in the App store is because developers are forced to use a single one. Also if said App leaves the app store it is again YOUR CHOICE to follow to the 3rd party app store to keep using it. It is your choice to leave app. Just because an App choose to leave does not mean you have to follow.
Sadly, Garland doesn’t seem to even understand the difference between a monopoly and a successful product segment. A monopoly is when you can get electric power from one source, not when you can get phone hardware from hundreds of different companies. Developers are lucky Apple chose to have an App Store at all.
Also, a lot of developers don’t mind, otherwise they would take their efforts elsewhere.
That‘s called responsible leadership. However, Cook has only been about manipulating stock price and earning statements. This will all be someone else’s problem once he leaves.
Eyeopener for many people here. DOJ addresses this and I think the 30% cut will go away if DOJ wins the case.
Wording from the suit.
"When developers imagine a new product or service for iPhone consumers, Apple demands up to 30 percent of the price of an app whose content, product, or service it did not create. Then when a consumer wants to buy some additional service within that app, Apple extracts up to another 30 percent, again for a service Apple does not create or develop. When customers buy a coffee or pay for groceries, Apple charges a fee for every “tap-to-pay” transaction, imposing its own form of an interchange fee on banks and a significant new cost for using credit cards. When users run an internet search, Google gives Apple a significant cut of the advertising revenue that an iPhone user’s searches generate."
So, the DOJ and attorneys of 17 states believe that Apple's behavior is rent-seeking.
The baselessness of this statement is laughable
Perhaps Apple and its employees need to rethink which political party has it out for them, as was made abundantly clear this morning.
I can't really agree with the DOJ in this. If Apple were the only game in town, then sure, but if people don't like Apple's practices they can simply go with Google and Android or with Windows. There's not a monopoly here. If people/developers/etc don't like the way Apple does business, they are perfectly able to go to Android/Windows and not even mess with Apple's ecosystem.
This lawsuit smells a bit off.
This lawsuit smells a bit off.
Yes they are. And still a frequent argument coming up on MR is how iPhone is a walled garden system when the Mac is not. Like in the post I responded to.
Or it's an indicator that more people need a phone than need a computer these days. Oh and that consumers upgrade phones on a more frequent basis than computers. I've owned 3 MBPs and 7 iPhones.
Just buy an Android if that's what you want to do. Don't buy a product knowing that it doesn't do that and then complain about it, especially when there's a viable competitor in the market that does offer such a product.
The car was always a bag of hurt due to financial risk/liabilities of marketing a automotive product that can cause injury/death. Even automotive subsystems or parts can be severe financial risks like the burn bag tech preventing injuries. Also thought at best Apple partners and sells their smart technology in some form of sub system used in cars that is gone thought years of testing before used in motor vehicles.
But getting to your Apple can always operate better, absolutely, this semi-private universe around the iPhone usage is in some ways gone too far. It's not like its a monopoly or restricts completion or interaction requiring severe oversight. It just needs to be less all about Apple in a few ways, nothing more. As others have said they developed this technology and are now being challenged by others that just want their FairPlay anything else that is complained about should be the complaining companies creating other alternatives not depending on one or 2 companies for all their worth.
Different device types meaning "different purchase decisions and patterns"
That's different than software
iOS literally came from Mac OS X
There is no reason at all for the software and purchasing and consumer restrictions to work as differently
That was all Apple doing things for control and money reasons