Oh noes, the communist dictatorial wave has spread from Europe to the US of A. Everyone has become a communist apart from a handful of Apple fanboys!!
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
Not when Apple can still force the same level of security and scrutiny for deploying those applications.
Imagine having a VM container on your iPhone or Apple device. Used only to run these third party programs in a sandbox.
It’s been done before and it’s being worked on.
And? Users concerned about their health data should make sure they're using companies products that align with that view. It's not an excuse for Apple to block competitors access to a user's own data.
Then it sounds like we need some more regulations around what can be done with health data. Again, this isn't an excuse for Apple to act anti-competitively.
So, Monopoly?
Got it, thanks.
And in doing so, being unable to reach a majority of U.S. consumers. Which is part of why this suit is being filed. You connecting the dots yet, or no?
But the question is, will the developers stay in the App Store after the way Apple had run roughshod over them all these years. I think if Apple does not vitiate the atmosphere by still treating the developers like dirt, they may not see an exodus of apps. It can happen. Windows phone could not gain traction because they could not get developers to develop for their platform, even when MS was throwing money at them. Major apps such as Youtube, Netflix, etc., leaving could spell the end of the Appstore.
Edit: Edited for clarity
Last edited:
The App store is only part of the suit. The DOJ also says that not allowing other financial institutions' apps access to the "tap to pay" NFC chip is anticompetitive. As is iMessage, interoperability with the Apple Watch and other things. There's a slew of things covered in this suit - the scope is much larger than the EU targeting the App Store.
I see you ignored the rest of the argument. So if an app you use CHOOSE to go to a 3rd party app store and leave App YOU have to follow.
Again that is YOUR CHOICE to follow. You can choose to loss the app you dont have to give up your App store only security. You can choose to lose access to that app.
What I see is you want everyone to be forced to use iOS and it hurts if they choose not to follow suit
No it isn't. You like the way things are now? Cool, then keep downloading all of your apps from the App Store. No one is going to force you to go elsewhere.
new emojis fix all problems
My comment is about customers buying iPhones despite the walled garden, not about the case. There are several manufacturers selling smartphones that are very competitive, sometimes even cheaper, and arguably “better”. Still iPhones sell well.
There are alternatives to buying an iPhone.
Because it's not a desktop computer. It is a mobile phone that can compute.
They still are far from perfect.
No one is disputing that there are multiple alternatives to an iPhone, not even the DOJ. Not sure how you think this fact is relevant here.
You are kidding right? If I buy a Garmin watch, I would want my Garmin watch to access my healthdata. Why else would I buy a garmin watch and connect to my phone? In any case, before connecting, the phone will ask for each part of the health data if access can be given. And Access is given only when the user agrees.
The issue is that Apple reserves some APIs that are exposed only to AW and hidden from 3rd party watches such as Garmin watches. This reduces the functionality of Garmin watch. The DOJ contends that AW should compete by offering better functionality rather than by crippling functionality of 3rd party watches by hiding some APIs. What exactly is wrong with this?
So you admit you CHOSE to buy an iPhone over an Android phone, knowing it is a closed system and still bought it anyway and are now proclaiming that unhappy it is a closed system.
so you either bought it knowing what it was or didn’t do product research before buying.
and again your response shows that you don’t understand what people,saying.
people that arguing for apple to be left as is because we have chosen The iPhone because of what it is. A closed system.
people at the moment have the choice between open android or closed iOS.
even if we don’t use side loading or alt app stores then iOS would be an open system. Android is deemed an open systems even if don’t use side loading or alt app stores.
with the status quo then people that want an open mobile system can choose one. It is Android. People that want a closed mobile system can buy an iPhone.
now if we change and make iOS open then people that want an open mobile system can choose one, Android or iOS. People who want a closed mobile system can choose what exactly once iOS opened up.
there is no alternative closed mobile system available other then iOS.
Rumor has it that Apple will also update their logo by the end of the week...
Unless Gurman disproves, of course. 🙂
Unless Gurman disproves, of course. 🙂
Last edited:
No, what you (and some others) seem to be failing to understand is that antitrust laws don’t only have to apply to companies which have "total control of the market."
is a trillion dollar market cap the only relevant and acceptable criteria or are we allowed to take any other criteria into account before judging?
That was my forst thought when I saw this. "Let me scroll down and see the first story MR ran, then I'll read about Apple's reaction." Nope. We get links to the DOJ press releases, and actual paragraphs lifted from Apple's press release.
I had already read the initial story elsewhere, fortunately, for some context and info missing here.
Consumers not being able to choose a completely closed system is not a legal argument against anti-trust laws.
Are we only allowed to compare it to macOS or can we compare it to Android and its malware problem?
Well it looks like Apple being a Democratic Party toady didn't work out too well, did it? Why can't they sue over something useful, like having one standard for "BacK" and for Swipes.
