GTFO! When is the last time you have seen ANYONE with an Android phone paired to an Apple Watch??
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
This is the text from the suit. I see no difference. Instead of cross-platform OTT he said 3rd party. What difference does it make?
"Apple recognizes that its conduct harms users and makes it more difficult to switch smartphones. For example, in 2013, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Software Engineering explained that supporting cross-platform OTT messaging in Apple Messages “would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.” In March 2016, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing forwarded an email to CEO Tim Cook making the same point: “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us.”
Ironically, Apple has built their business - including iOS - on open source software. Without open source software, they would probably have gone bust decades ago.
Yeah, because purchasing an Apple Watch to pair with an Android phone is EASY…
I think it was different with Bell. You did not have a choice because it was a landline and you were stuck....Could this be the beginning of an eventual breakup of Apple, similar to what they did with AT&T in the 1980's?
Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You do have a choice who you choose to make your cell phone and who the carrier is so this is not a good comparison.
So you will deny a consumer their choice?
so how are not in favour of consumer choice If going to deny me the choice,
a closed system becomes a problem when people forced into it with out a alternative.
i can leave Apple and iOS easily.
the hardest part would be the movies and tv Shows purchased but there are available software that can buy to strip the DRM from iTunes even the video files.
fcp x can be replaced by windows video editing software easily enough
mac Studio by a windows PC
ipad/iPhone by android equiv.
Apple TV box there are other platforms for Plex to stream too.
I could leave at Time of next refresh and save money buying alternatives.
So much for being locked in.
Your enterprise is locked because it’s their hardware and their data not yours, so they protect their asset.
The iPhone on the other hand (if you bought it) it’s yours.
60% is not dominate. In the lead, yeah.
And, cars do the same thing. Some offering Android and some offering CarPlay. And, some don't at all. In your mind, the government should go after GM for dropping CarPlay for their own. Right? I mean, if I want to buy a GM car, I have no choice. I guess they're restricting choice. Time to sue GM.
Oh shoot, Telsa has their own browser in the car. Time to sue Tesla for not letting me install my own browser.
The store down the street wouldn't take American Express. Time to sue them I guess since they are not offering a different payment system. Home Depot does do ApplePay. Time to sue Home Depot since they are not offering my dominate iPhone payment system.
Hey. It works for the Mac. More choices are a good thing for the customer. People should stop acting like trillion dollar corporations are their buddies. The government is doing what is supposed to do. Encourage competition and give consumers more choice.
Again, why do they keep replacing the subject of the sentence if it's not to deceive the reader? It's a lie. The quote was not about "supporting cross-platform OTT messaging". It was about releasing iMessage for Android. There was no "cross-platform OTT messaging" protocol to support.
That’s a cute exaggeration. Mac and iOS share some parts but they are effectively separate entities. iOS was never made to work exactly like Mac.
That’s like saying windows 8 and windows phone 8 were the same simply because they were both using live tiles lmao. They were two separate os with some intersectionality.
Same here.
Thanks though
In 2024, Apple will be bringing RCS to the iPhone.Nope:
US sues Apple in antitrust lawsuit: Live updates | CNN Business
The Justice Department has filed a blockbuster antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday. Follow here for the latest.edition.cnn.com
View attachment 2361491
So the point about the Apple Watch not having the same functions on an Android device compared to an iPhone are incorrect??
I find it kinda funny how thousands of MacRumors members can endlessly complain about how boring and increasingly expensive everything new from Apple has become, and are baffled at why the average consumers buys so much Apple tech, year after year.
But then these same users also say the DOJ has no case here and are just "jealous" because Apple is quite literally dominating most tech markets while offering increasingly more and more low value/$ products that are neither cutting edge nor fairly priced.
Apple's "walled garden" product eco-system is inherently anti-competitive, all under the guise of "security and privacy", as if an Apple Watch will get hacked and breaks if its health sensor data can sync/pair with other smartphones. Or AirPods fall apart if all their features were unlocked on non-Apple devices.
Sure, some of the security concerns are valid. But considering all the "security risks" Apple has never had an issue with on macOS, or found good solutions for that don't require third party devs to pay Apple taxes left and right, the bulk of of Apple's security concerns are a guise to get the consumer to accept that they'll not be able to use most features of their Apple products unless they use them together with other Apple products and services.
Being concerned with user privacy and security should just amount to Apple implementing an array of toggles that let you use your Apple product how you wish.
But Apple, being far more concerned with its trillions than your safety, obviously blocks and locks off as much as it can that could ever have you question if non-Apple products/services are good options too, or if it really needs to charge as much as it does from you and the third parties trying to sell their goods through Apple's platforms.
Perfect business strategy for Apple, but terrible for consumers, competition and innovation.
The fact that so many other big tech brands are copying Apple's walled-garden scheme is only further proof of how Apple has taken it way too far, and how impossible it is for a competing brand to sell Apple users on non-Apple products as Apple blocks them from offering the bulk of the OS integration that's exclusive to Apple's own products.
Apple is just too big for our good. The EU, America, and the rest of the World.
And while I'm highly doubtful the DOJ actually grasps the breadth of Apple's walled fortress, or really tech in general, I'm happy that these concerns are at least being investigated to some extent and might get more public attention.
But if they're too inept, the DOJ could always resort to copy-pasting most of the EU's work on regulating the tech industry and get most of what it wants and what benefits competition and innovation in the U.S. tech industry.
This is good for everyone but Apple.
But then these same users also say the DOJ has no case here and are just "jealous" because Apple is quite literally dominating most tech markets while offering increasingly more and more low value/$ products that are neither cutting edge nor fairly priced.
Apple's "walled garden" product eco-system is inherently anti-competitive, all under the guise of "security and privacy", as if an Apple Watch will get hacked and breaks if its health sensor data can sync/pair with other smartphones. Or AirPods fall apart if all their features were unlocked on non-Apple devices.
Sure, some of the security concerns are valid. But considering all the "security risks" Apple has never had an issue with on macOS, or found good solutions for that don't require third party devs to pay Apple taxes left and right, the bulk of of Apple's security concerns are a guise to get the consumer to accept that they'll not be able to use most features of their Apple products unless they use them together with other Apple products and services.
Being concerned with user privacy and security should just amount to Apple implementing an array of toggles that let you use your Apple product how you wish.
But Apple, being far more concerned with its trillions than your safety, obviously blocks and locks off as much as it can that could ever have you question if non-Apple products/services are good options too, or if it really needs to charge as much as it does from you and the third parties trying to sell their goods through Apple's platforms.
Perfect business strategy for Apple, but terrible for consumers, competition and innovation.
The fact that so many other big tech brands are copying Apple's walled-garden scheme is only further proof of how Apple has taken it way too far, and how impossible it is for a competing brand to sell Apple users on non-Apple products as Apple blocks them from offering the bulk of the OS integration that's exclusive to Apple's own products.
Apple is just too big for our good. The EU, America, and the rest of the World.
And while I'm highly doubtful the DOJ actually grasps the breadth of Apple's walled fortress, or really tech in general, I'm happy that these concerns are at least being investigated to some extent and might get more public attention.
But if they're too inept, the DOJ could always resort to copy-pasting most of the EU's work on regulating the tech industry and get most of what it wants and what benefits competition and innovation in the U.S. tech industry.
This is good for everyone but Apple.
Which shows that what doing at apple is not illegal as if you have to create new laws and regulations then you aren’t breaking current ones.
And what is Android built on? Oh right, stolen code!
Absolutely love this glorious takedown by Appleinsider:
“Then, too, the DOJ's wording seems less factual and more biased to personal preferences.
‘Apple has denied users access to high performing smartwatches with preferred styling, better user interfaces and services, or better batteries,’ it says.”
This lawsuit is mostly outdated and frivolous. What a joke.
“Then, too, the DOJ's wording seems less factual and more biased to personal preferences.
‘Apple has denied users access to high performing smartwatches with preferred styling, better user interfaces and services, or better batteries,’ it says.”
This lawsuit is mostly outdated and frivolous. What a joke.
Well Well Well. This is Cooks legacy, greed and and anticompetitive practices.
But this isn't a class action lawsuit, which is aimed at winning a monetary claim for individual plaintiffs (and, as you note, their attorneys). It's an antitrust suit brought by the U.S. DOJ and 16 states, so I'm not sure why you even brought up the matter of a "payout to a lawyer."
What I said was that this is a full-employment guarantee to Cupertino's legal team. And I maintain that many lawyers will be very busy and have lots of billable hours from this suit until it and the eventual appeals reach a conclusion.
The difference is MASSIVE. Third party would mean they locked someone out of their own ecosystem, abusing their position to further iMessage. Putting iMessage on Android is a production decision, should Apple spend money to make software for their competitors which could then cause them to lose money TO their competitors. This is a really iffy scenario, especially when you can't take yourself back to 2013 and understand where everyone was in this area. iMessage was not what we see today 11 years ago.
Yes I buy apple and like that it is closed.
No I wouldn’t buy a lagdroid if it was closed because it’s a terrible OS and google is worse.
Well then let's take it back to why I brought that up: Corporate lawyers and government lawyers don't work under billable hours. Their clients pay them a salary.
Why should Apple be compelled to make their watch pair with an android phone. That would mean Apple has to write software for the Android phone, why would they do that? Now Apple should let whoever is making the Android phone access to the proper APIs so they can write pairing mechanisms for an Apple Watch.
On the flip slide, Apple should also let other watches pair with the iPhone and function just as well as Apple's watch provided the watch manufacture can write software to so on iOS.
All Apple should be forced to do is allow access to APIs so other companies can have their hardware interact the way they want it to on Apple's hardware.