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
These are fascists in charge...bullying business after business to bend to their edicts. But I digress..
I don't see how this lawsuit even makes it into the courts. Seriously, they're telling Apple to stop making devices that are exclusive to other Apple products? I guess Tesla needs to make their batteries fit into a Toyota and a Hyundai?
yep they should be productive like team frump.... and froth on about how great Putin is, how bad the border is but blocks action to take care of it, and lets not forget frumpy can even remember Tim's name. But sure you hold on to that.
Apple is a big company, makes it a big target for people that like together nothing done. The DOJ should be prosecuting real criminals, speaking of frump.
Bingo!!! The reason there's SO much competition, lower prices and a wide array of technology, is because government has pretty left the tech sector compete against each other without interference---competition ALWAYS helps the consumer.. Once you get government involved in technology evolving creating red tape, more frivolous laws and lawsuits, prices go up, competition dwindles and evolution of new products becomes fewer and fewer.
there you go, bringing facts into a lie slinging contest. when will you learn?!
I'm also waiting to see what business models alternative apps stores come up with at are materially different than Apple's. Very few, if any, are going to survive on the give it away for free model and flat fee models don't work for ongoing and variable cost services. But none of those would legally prevent Apple from charging for use of their IP.
I often theorized a company like meta would offer a free store but required all developers with apps in it to use their ad tracking frameworks.
That would actually be quite neat to have one universal battery standard.
Need a viable replacement though. Currently none are running.
Did I propose Apple to license iPhone clones for equality? If you understood that from what I posted I can see why you cannot grasp what's at stake.
I just said there are other choices if you do not agree with a business model or product. I don't like Chinese car companies that do not have brick and mortar shops and depend on other brands to service their cars (that's a thing in many countries) so I choose no to buy their Chinese cars.
Apple chose not to depend on third parties for everything you just said (OS, App Store, etc.) They own the IP for them and invested to make them work, and by law, you can exploit that and receive any dividends you see fit. That's why if you want in on their app distribution network, you play by their rules, and pay them what they ask for.
Formula 1 tickets cost 2,500USD where I live. Does it mean that a competing promotor has the right to sue FIA and make them lower their prices because other motorsport serials cost as little as 20 dollars? It's the same type of sport, right? Or better yet: as a small time promotor sue FIA to let them race your local VW bugs serials with amateur drivers on the same track, time schedule and the same weekend as their F1 race, with no charge/expenses for your VW serial, but with a decent percentage of race weekend earnings for your VW serial since you were part of the show...
Get this: the rest chose to depend on Google's Play Store and Android, cheap gimmicks and useless features, so let them deal with their choice and related earnings (and IP royalty payments.) Free market leveling, remember? If Apple goes down at some point, it will be because they completely disconnected their products and services from their consumers' needs. And no law, regulation or suit will save them.
Does your crappy BMW experience cause the experience of other drivers on the road to be sh**ty? If it did then the government should come and regulate BMW. That's what Apple is doing.
I already have the choice to buy an android if I want malware ridden crap.
So you're saying that there's no other reason why you'd buy an iPhone? Would you rather have no cell phone than use an open iPhone?
Ah so it's not the closed store that you buy iPhone. Or at least not just that. Because if it was just that you'd have no problem switching. Thus there is choice even if both Operating Systems are open. I rest my case.
Tough to have a monopoly when you barely have a majority market share. 60% isn’t market share domination. Why is Apple’s App Store anticompetitive but Google’s Play Store/Playstation Store isn’t?
I’m not sure my grocery store would be too happy if I set up a shop within their store and sold competing products.
I’m not sure my grocery store would be too happy if I set up a shop within their store and sold competing products.
I thought everyone had stomach aches after eating McDonalds, regardless of what soda they drank?
You don’t understand, Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices.
(That’s seriously the argument I’ve seen here for years)
i think the key question you should ask yourself, is if you buy a device, do you actually own the device or does apple still own a piece of the device?
On one extreme, think about if you buy a car, say a tesla. why should tesla be able to force me to use their OS? Why should tesla lock me into their navigation software? What if i want to download someone else's stuff?
On the other extreme, why should apple force me to only have one cloud storage service? apple has a distinct advantage over every other alternative and so they can set the price much higher despite not really providing any real benefits.
On one extreme, think about if you buy a car, say a tesla. why should tesla be able to force me to use their OS? Why should tesla lock me into their navigation software? What if i want to download someone else's stuff?
On the other extreme, why should apple force me to only have one cloud storage service? apple has a distinct advantage over every other alternative and so they can set the price much higher despite not really providing any real benefits.
actually, it's apple has a monopoly of apps on an iOS device... which i mean is quite real.
but also it can't be argued that apple has market power over app developers, which is really the key.
You don't get what I'm saying. There's no "the store keeps less" because "the store" already inflated the price of the product you buy so that *you're* the one paying the payment processing fee. I'm not suggesting that providers get rid of their fees, I'm just saying that, hypothetically, the prices would be lower if the processing fees had never existed in the first place.
Unless you want to argue that 5% or whatever is greater than 0% in mathematical terms (or see it as a sort of "I win, you lose" mentality against "the store"), which duh
based on your logic, Android should close down their OS to be like iPhone, in that case, is it now the government's right to force one OS to become open? If so, which OS?
does anybody truly believe apple's argument that allowing more competition would degrade their product?
in that case, are macs degraded as well?
in that case, are macs degraded as well?
Super well said. Your last point is worth noting. Apple's walled garden approach and success, has forced other tech companies to do the same thing just to compete. Tech used to be open, interoperable, and it's becoming less and less so because of Apple.
Malicious compliance still shows that Apple complied with the regulations given to them. Which means the regulators screwed up as left the options there.
unless the regulation spells out how to comply with it as well what need to comply with then there will always be wiggle room for lawyers to make the money on.
now if you really want malicious compliance then what apple would do is this.
port services and apps that bothered about to Android.
open an App Store on Android
port android to the Apple SoC
shut down iOS and iOS App Store and just make it a premium android phone with better Mac OS integration.
they are then in the exact same market as every other android vendor.
iMessage drop that and use the same messaging app that comes with Android anyway. Cannot argue that not the same for non Apple phones there can you.
App Store practices, well in the same market as every other app store on android, how can you argue we stop people using other app stores. Could even stop hosting free apps altogether so no need to host them, let Google take up the load for that.
switching platform, we are android the competition is android, how are we stopping you migrating.
repurchase apps if change platform, that’s a developer choice as we are on android and the other platform is also android need to take it up with the developer why they don’t license you on other android devices.
would be interesting to see how many people would start going to their representatives if apple published this as to how they would comply, also to see what the DoJ and EU would respond with.
pretty sure the smartphone market would stagnate as no real competition then for Android so why would Google innovate.
anything that a vendor would do to extend android runs risk of falling under anti-competitive practice regulation or having to make available to the competition so why bother with the R&D, and then everyone else benefit from your R&D.
let someone else spend the R&D money and then we can take advantage of it.
now that would be peak malicious compliance, and what could the DoJ or EU do about it.
No most developers are not happy with the 15/30%
They are just not big enough to take Apple on