Apple Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'

[bgillander]

Some people discriminate against green bubble people, newsflash, everything discussed on this website is a first world problem or zero as you put it, remember the Seinfeld episode, Elaine and that area code, same thing happens with the green bubbles.

Ah, yes Seinfeld... it's funny because it's true. Yet people seem to take it seriously and give credence to something that should simply be laughed at. I think I used to get the green bubbles myself because I didn't have a data plan, so messages went out as text unless I was near wifi. Maybe I'm remembering wrong because it never really struck me as important.

At some point, people should realize that if someone really takes issue with the colour of your bubble, they have the problem, not you. Seems kind of like a metaphor for life and behaviour in general.

 

[bsolar]

Oh man, that sucks. Sorry to hear that. Not sure how that is Apple's fault, since Samsung obviously has the ability to make it work, based on the earlier models.

Not well enough due to limitations imposed by Apple, at least according to Samsung.

Samsung’s Director of Global Product Planning, Junho Park, elaborated on the matter: “The goal is: how can we provide the best experience to our customers? We found that some of the heavy limitations [users experienced when using a Galaxy Watch with iOS] were not driven by the Watch [itself], by the core product.

“So we thought, ‘Hey, there is still a lot of disconnection [between these two systems].' That was one of the reasons we dropped [iOS support on Galaxy Watches] – we could not deliver the same level of experience with Android and iOS.”

 

[haydn!]

The DOJ/EU does not control which App store a person shops at.
Why should I, an Apple user, not be able to send iMessages to my son who uses an Android phone or share my position using find my phone?

This starts to edge into the territory of dictating what features apps should have though. Why should Find My offer that functionality? Why should iMessage offer that functionality?

There are already alternatives if that is important to you. WhatsApp allows both interoperability messaging wise and location sharing. So Apple not offering those features has not prevented others from doing it.

What you’re suggesting is like saying you should be able to get KFC chicken from McDonalds.

Choice and difference are cornerstones of competition.

 

[Shirasaki]

While imma not spend my time reading 44 pages of comments, I am in full support of US government finally taking the move on bringing them back to earth at least. Yes, being too successful can and will attract lots of attention, and I don’t think Apple was not aware of that enough before.

Now, will Apple be able to drag this lawsuit out for decades? Absolutely, and they will have the money to achieve so, funded by people buying Apple devices and services from Apple. Can US government afford such? I seriously doubt.

 

[bsolar]

This starts to edge into the territory of dictating what features apps should have though. Why should Find My offer that functionality? Why should iMessage offer that functionality?

Again all of this is fine in general, but things are very different when the allegation is about monopoly power. Practices and decisions which are totally fine without monopoly power can definitely be illegal if monopoly power is established.

Establishing monopoly power will be the foundation of the DoJ case: if they succeed to do so the practices they listed can be seen through the lenses of a company having monopoly power abusing it, otherwise they can be seen as business decisions a company should be entitled to make.

 

[bgillander]

Not well enough due to limitations imposed by Apple, at least according to Samsung.

As I said, my Samsung Fit worked quite well. Then again, I'm a realist and never expect cross platform to work as well as native, and that would go for development, as well. It certainly could be Apple's fault, but either way it is certainly easiest to blame them.

If it sold well, I would put money on them continuing despite it not being as good an experience as it could be. That said, considering all the cuts being made everywhere to everything these days, I would expect (and prefer) the first cuts to be to the least used functionality/features.

I assume most of the people on this forum weren't around for the 1990's Apple bloodbath cuts, considering all the complaints that dropping lightning on iPhone generated. Considering the market contraction and all the hits Apple is taking currently, I wonder if this will just be a phase, or if the timing will turn it into something major.

 

[bgillander]

While imma not spend my time reading 44 pages of comments, I am in full support of US government finally taking the move on bringing them back to earth at least. Yes, being too successful can and will attract lots of attention, and I don’t think Apple was not aware of that enough before.

Now, will Apple be able to drag this lawsuit out for decades? Absolutely, and they will have the money to achieve so, funded by people buying Apple devices and services from Apple. Can US government afford such? I seriously doubt.

The US government has 330 million pockets to reach for cash in. Well, sometimes I carry my cash in a different pocket, so, more than 330 million pockets, I guess!

And they are not afraid to spend it!

 

[henkie]

Apple has been swimming in the government turf for years, Al Gore on their board, lobbyists paid millions, and taking a billion dollars in state and local subsidies, not to mention tax breaks and storing vast profits offshore to avoid a single penny of tax on said money (Double Irish), if they or any Apple shills want to act all high and mighty, then Apple should refuse all government help moving forward, we won't even get into the origins of the technology they profit off of, massive profits from government funded research that produced said innovations.

This, so much this! Taxes pay for roads to get workers at their offices, other infrastructure, healthcare, safety of workers and fundamental research that is behind most, if not all, innovation that drive tech companies forward. However, none of this directly translates to newly colored iPhone, and people tend to forget this. Meanwhile, Apple jumps through (borderline) legal loop holes to pay as little taxes as possible. At the same time, Apple wants to extract 30% App Store "tax" from small developers that actually do pay their fair share of taxes...

 

[haydn!]

Again all of this is fine in general, but things are very different when the allegation is about monopoly power. Practices and decisions which are totally fine without monopoly power can definitely be illegal if monopoly power is established.

Establishing monopoly power will be the foundation of the DoJ case: if they succeed to do so the practices they listed can be seen through the lenses of a company having monopoly power abusing it, otherwise they can be seen as business decisions a company should be entitled to make.

Absolutely. But either way, this won’t end with the US Gov or courts dictating what features Apples own individual apps should or shouldn’t offer as that sets a very dangerous, far reaching precedent.

If they’re successful, it will most likely end up with something very similar to the EU DMA, forcing Apple to allow users to change default apps and also forcing them to make all tech/sensors/apis available to all to level the field.

But in reality, that is likely to be a good 5-6 years away when you consider the scale to of this and how there will almost certainly be appeals upon appeals. By which point, Apple will have no doubt engineered their way out of many of these problems already.

 

[okieoutwest]

I’m sure the Department of Justice is pleased to know that if they need to find replacement analysts, attorneys, and legal theorists they can recruit straight from Macrumors.

Jokes aside, it is notable that folks here can’t imagine using the most powerful (per size) computing machine ever made in any different way than we already do. Instead of many possible futures, this “tech enthusiast” crowd in this thread can only envision the system as it is.

At the end of the day, corporations do not exist independently of the government and it is a good thing, I think, that governments around the world are scrutinizing and regulating these supra national corporations more closely.

 

[cosmichobo]

Australian goverment investigates the powerful duopoly in its grocery / supermarket ecosystem... Findings say - yes, Woolworths and Coles are too powerful for their own good, setting prices, pushing up prices artificially, ripping off suppliers, and causing inflation, making every Australian pay more than they should. Australians say - that sucks, hey government, do something about this!

American government investigates Apple, the largest company in the world, who has long been accused of being anti-competitive, and says Hey - Apple is being anti-competitive. Half of America says **** you government, don't get involved in matters that don't concern you!

Do we all understand that the concept of playing the game Monopoly was to show how bad capitalism is? Not to try to get the most money?

 

[dilbert99]

This starts to edge into the territory of dictating what features apps should have though. Why should Find My offer that functionality? Why should iMessage offer that functionality?

There are already alternatives if that is important to you. WhatsApp allows both interoperability messaging wise and location sharing. So Apple not offering those features has not prevented others from doing it.

What you’re suggesting is like saying you should be able to get KFC chicken from McDonalds.

Choice and difference are cornerstones of competition.

Do you know what Tim Cook said to a user who could not see video messages of a family member. “He laughed and said they should buy their mother an iPhone” it says it all. “Why should Apple offer parity in its messaging app?”, hopefully that is what you asked above. I can give you a $billion reasons why they don’t.

Messaging is a utility like water and electricity. Apple is one of two leaders in messaging and has used anti competitive practices to avoid allowing the other to offer cross platform support.

Why should I not be able to use my Apple Watch with any phone, that is also anti competitive.

Why should iPhone users who message Android users have a poorer experience than iPhone users messaging iPhone users?

 

[j26]

i don't know anything about john deere, but if john deer is purposefully doing things that prevents *active* competition on one of their accessories than yea they are employing monopolistic practices.

Funny you should mention John Deere - they DO have their own dodgy practices...

John Deere Really Doesn’t Want You to Own That Tractor

John Deere is at it again, trying to strip customers of the right to open up and repair their own property. In the new License Agreement for John Deere Embedded Software [PDF], customers are forbidden to exercise their repair rights or to even look at the software running the tractor or the...

www.eff.org

 

[Jackbequickly]

It is all due to Apple not “playing ball” with the current administration. Apple’s attorneys will easily beat the administration’s DEI lawyers. The problem is the playing field will not be equal! Mother justice is not blind!

 

[dilbert99]

Apple doesn't let other apps use iMessage on their desktop OS. Public infrastructure is SMS, whereas iMessage is an Apple protocol.

Your complaint about setting a default messaging app is reasonable, though.

I would say that most of the public would say messaging if a utility over which Apple ships not be exercising its monopoly powers.

It doesn’t matter if it is apples protocol or not. It’s a bit like standards essential patent.

 

[bgillander]

This, so much this! Taxes pay for roads to get workers at their offices, other infrastructure, healthcare, safety of workers and fundamental research that is behind most, if not all, innovation that drive tech companies forward. However, none of this directly translates to newly colored iPhone, and people tend to forget this. Meanwhile, Apple jumps through (borderline) legal loop holes to pay as little taxes as possible. At the same time, Apple wants to extract 30% App Store "tax" from small developers that actually do pay their fair share of taxes...

The small developers also try to pay as little tax as they are legally bound to pay, as do we all, including applying as a small developer to pay 15% to Apple instead of 30%.

You cannot reasonably expect a corporation to volunteer to pay more tax than is required by law. I believe even Warren Buffet said he thinks the rules should be changed to reduce the loopholes for corporations and the wealthy. Yeah, Apple should pay more, but the rules need to be changed to remove those loopholes, and not just for Apple.

 

[haydn!]

Why should I not be able to use my Apple Watch with any phone, that is also anti competitive.

I can see merit in this argument, for sure. But then, Apple probably made the mistake of marketing it as something more than just an iPhone accessory. Which is ultimately what it is. And there are countless examples of accessories and tech only being designed/ compatible with specific thing.

 

[BlairMALL]

So you can install any app on a mac.... and its not a infested domain of the world.

So............

Already proven thats not really what happens.

It's funny to me. The government is suing apple because it is treating its customers like every company's IT department treats its employees. DOJ lawyers don't have the freedom to download anything they want on their computers, and they continually have to take classes warning them how to avoid malware they can accidentally install on their computers.

 

[johnnytravels]

Apple currently looking for concerned US citizens for blurbs in their upcoming manifesto on why any changes to their marketplace are nothing less than a threat to the free world.

Personally I would like to see a Venn diagram of prospective Trump voters and people defending Apple on their monopolistic practices. Probably a circle. The stuff in these comments… “tax dollars … government … Biden administration …” We’re a nation of apologists for big corps, it’s so embarrassing…

 

[bgillander]

I would say that most of the public would say messaging if a utility over which Apple ships not be exercising its monopoly powers.

It doesn’t matter if it is apples protocol or not. It’s a bit like standards essential patent.

You can say that, but that doesn't make it true. Last I heard, Google was trying to get Apple to add RCS and Apple said they were going to add it to Messages, but it sounds like they are trying to get a default encryption standard added to RCS first. If Apple were to push iMessage protocol as a standard, it would actually just add to the complaint of monopoly abuse.

 

[Samplasion]

so what you'er saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to:
- Buy a whole new suite of games from scratch
- Buy new storage
- Buy a whole new video game console
- Buy new controllers
- Buy an online pass to play online
- Spend the better part of a month manually typing out new data into who knows what app from a stick controller
Just so that I can kid myself I have a choice about playing a new platform exclusive game!?

wait, most of that has been happening before the iPhone existed and is still happening.

You're deluding yourself into thinking that's a viable analogy just to prove a point on an online forum. Try to do online banking on a console and then you can use that analogy.

 

[sevoneone]

Apple should just release an Android version of iMessage, but make them still have green bubbles…

 

[bgillander]

Messaging is a utility like water and electricity. Apple is one of two leaders in messaging and has used anti competitive practices to avoid allowing the other to offer cross platform support.

Why should I not be able to use my Apple Watch with any phone, that is also anti competitive.

Why should iPhone users who message Android users have a poorer experience than iPhone users messaging iPhone users?

No they didn't. They prevented a third party from spoofing Apple credentials to pretend to be an Apple device and use Apple's iMessage protocols. Apple has said they will support RCS, which is what Google (that other leader) was asking for to allow cross platform support.

That earlier mess was more similar to a third party hacking into your account before you have a chance to actually set up a joint account. It's very possible that the noise generated did push Apple towards their statement that they would add RCS, but it wasn't actual duopoly cross platform support with Google that Apple stopped.

 

[dilbert99]

No they didn't. They prevented a third party from spoofing Apple credentials to pretend to be an Apple device and use Apple's iMessage protocols. Apple has said they will support RCS, which is what Google (that other leader) was asking for to allow cross platform support.

That earlier mess was more similar to a third party hacking into your account before you have a chance to actually set up a joint account. It's very possible that the noise generated did push Apple towards their statement that they would add RCS, but it wasn't actual duopoly cross platform support with Google that Apple stopped.

Do you favour the status quo?
Would you like to see things like cross platform support?

 

[CheffyDude]

The whole Apple Watch thing is stupid. Try and pair a Galaxy Watch or Google Watch with an iPhone and see what happens.