So, when do you think they should address this? Or should they never address and leave Apple to bully everyone?
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
Why WOULDN’T it be best interest of the consumer when (not if) Apple opens up the options and interoperability between different OS? You love Apple and iPhone and the whole package that’s perfectly fine, and can continue to buy new iPhones and used only Apple service. But there will be opotions for other consumers to try out different things, maybe different music app, or different messaging app, different app stores…etc. It will reignite innovations from others to try to make better and cheaper products than what Apple offers. How’s that a bad thing?
Regardless how this turns out, TC and Apple executives will get destroyed in discovery, and we will soon learn from their internal discussions or emails that Apple did not always put consumer interest first. How many times we see Apple purposely delay features or tech to next iPhone, not because they were not technically capable, but because TC knew all the Shepples will buy anything Apple puts out, year after year, regardless how little incremental each iPhone got. All because we are locked in wall garden and have no choice.
Again I’m not understanding why people are defending Apple here. Apple is not your or my friend. It’s a business aims to extract and make you pay as much money as possible. The argument that once Apple provides API or services on Android that somehow your data will be less secure. That’s a load of BS. If that’s the case, how did Apple Music exist on Android? Shouldn’t we hear about alll the data breach and privacy issue already?
That argument doesn’t work since you had the choice at purchasing time.
As a PS5 owner, I have no choice I cannot play Starfield!
Stock market reacted that way because it knows what is good for users is not the same as what is good for Apple.
This is bad for Apple, not for users.
How is reduced prices not beneficial for end users?
How is more repairability not beneficial for end users?
How is forcing Apple to innovate more not beneficial for end users?
Not sure if we are even discussing the same things.
I'm wondering if they can file for the case to be dismissed or at least partially.
I love the rosy glasses people wear if they think prices will go down if the DOJ wins.
I wish I knew the point you are trying to make in your reply?So, are you ok with Apple compromising your (Apple user) security and privacy even though a trivial solution is available but Apple is not implementing it just to safeguard its profits? What more can anyone argue with you?
Apple arent compromising my security and privacy.
Businesses exist to make profit or do you have a problem with that?
Most businesses that compete for customers work on a Point of Difference.
Apple's is the walled garden and curated apps.
Seems to have worked successfully for 15 years.
Also seems that success makes you a target.
Comsumer preference is not something government should dictate.
We've had heaps of posts about Apple and steering in EU.
Seems DoJ are trying to steer Apple users away from Apple.
If Android or someone else released products that better suited customer need, people would have a reason to jump ship. I dont buy a Samsung Watch because it doesnt look nice. I dont care if it works with Apple or not. It's just ugly and wrong form factor for me to buy it. Same with their earbuds. I'm sure they work like other Bluetooth headphones but I'm not interested in switching from my AirPod Pros.
I like my tech toys.
Over the years I've bought many a device that later turned out to not be all it could have been.
And sometimes you strike gold and get something that just works nicely and feels worth your $$$.
Can someone remind me again what exactly Nintendo and Valve are providing in exchange for billing game developers 30% of app sales?
The case is far more comprehensive than green bubbles. All those who have become complacent thinking that that is the extent of DOJ case, there will be a rude surprise for them once the case unfolds.
You keep saying you have read the lawsuit, so can you please explain what this is?
"Apple designates the APIs needed to implement SMS as “private,” meaning third-party developers have no technical means of accessing them and are prohibited from doing so under Apple’s contractual agreements with developers. As a result, third-party messaging apps cannot combine the “text to anyone” functionality of SMS with the advanced features of OTT messaging. Instead, if a user wants to send somebody a message in a third-party messaging app, they must first confirm whether the person they want to talk to has the same messaging app and, if not, convince that person to download and use a new messaging app. By contrast, if an Apple Messages user wants to send somebody a message, they just type their phone number into the “To:” field and send the message because Apple Messages incorporates SMS and OTT messaging."
If you see the document, they have also told what SMS and OTT are. I hope you can check it.
My post was in response to a poster who asked what is there for a iPhone user. Since the case is decided there can be two outcomes. If Apple wins, it will be business as usual. If Apple loses, then what I stated might come into play. There is a possibility that Apple might not lose completely, may lose some parts of the case, may settle before the case is decided, or any other possibility that is not listed here.
An announcement made publicly made the stock market react. The DoJ knew it would affect Apple share price and still chose to do it in a public forum rather than behind the scenes.
That sounds malicious..
You say reduced prices... what proof is there that there will be reduced prices?
And reduced prices means less profit which means less something else down the line. Fewer products, fewer updates. That's not a win for consumers in the long run.
You can already repair many Apple products. They are making parts and tools available. Most users are not going to be able to repair their own devices. And buying parts isnt cheap. Look at car repairs. Ince read building a car from parts would cost three times as much as buying a whole car.
Forcing Apple to innovate? Really? How exactly do you force someone to create something? Seems more likely that less innovation will happen because it wont be allowed to add to Apple uniqueness.
It has already caved twice in the previous Apple vs US cases.
Would like to know the reason for your optimism
Exactly, I am looking forward to the discovery phase which will rip the masks off the top execs of Apple.
Apple apologists continue to harp on the color of the "bubbles" topic.
And it's more to it than the colors... it's what the colors signifies. The colors indicate that one has certain feature and the other doesn't. Apple had YEARS to fix this by enabling RCS... but they refused to do it.
It's one thing for Apple to not release iMessage for Android, but an entirely different thing to refuse to implement (RCS) a feature that will actually benefit Apple users. If Apple apologist cannot see that... it's disturbing.
And before people criticize RCS or calling it a Google (Android) feature ... carriers are on board with it as well.
Adobe and many devs have file formats they protect.
Are you going to force them to release all the info and control they currently have so any other graphic editor app or page layout app can open/import with 100% integrity their files?
How do you think companies will react if you try that?
Page 26 of the Lawsuit.
IV. Apple Unlawfully Maintains Its Monopoly Power
A. Apple harms competition by imposing contractual restrictions, fees, and taxes on app creation and distribution
"Apple uses these restrictions to extract monopoly rents from third parties in a variety of ways, including app fees and revenue-share requirements. For most of the last 15 years, Apple collected a tax in the form of a 30 percent commission on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store, a 30 percent tax on in-app purchases, and fees to access the tools needed to develop iPhone native apps in the first place. While Apple has reduced the tax it collects from a subset of developers, Apple still extracts 30 percent from many app makers. Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world."
Please let me know if you want more.
Well, they will actually have to compete, so either quality goes up or prices come down. Or else it is curtains Apple.
Their analogies NEVER make sense or have no bearing on anything to what they are trying to cry about .
Which US law states Apple must create standards for third parties? Everyone else could have done what Apple did with iMessage and worked with the cell companies to create a layer on top of SMS/MMS.