Also, I never heard in real life, except on online forums, Walled Garden is better for me. I definitely heard people wishing they could install "that" app on their iPhones somehow, that being their favorite app that is not available on the store.
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 case is not about Android users. The case is about how Apple makes it less secure and private for iOS users just to safeguard their profits. They are complaining that Apple has a pattern of degrading their products for their own consumers (iOS users) to stifle potential competition and maintain their dominant market power.
There are many ways people download their apps on Google. There are thousands of apps that users download directly from websites. Since listing is free and a free app need not pay anything, most free apps will be on the store. Paid apps also will be on the store as well as on their websites. They only pay commission on those that a user downloads from the store, I believe.
So like every other country that has to deal with China, they have address the rules of that country to do business there. It’s a huge market of customers. And there is no choice.
Still sounds anti China to pick one country when EU has forced Apple to do things recently.
Even in Australia, we have different warranty laws Apple has to abide by. Most countries have some differences and to sell stuff they do what they have to.
So you answered your own question.
A Samsung Watch can have an Apple device app. The two work together. Share data. Do whatever. What’s the issue?
Why should Samsung rely on a private API?
The made the hardware. They wrote their app. Just send the data. It should just work shouldn’t it? Or are Samsung (or other watch makers) just being lazy?
READ THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT BEFORE YOU EVEN RESPOND. APPLE IS GOING TO LOSE. DEAL WITH IT,
Right. The point is that the existence of sideloading and multiple app stores on Google’s ecosystem hasn’t made any devs leave the official Google Play store. Why are people so afraid it won’t be the same on Apple’s ecosystem?
It’s not trivial to create a solution that stays legal and works. Or there would be heaps of them available.
SMS is already insecure. It was designed way back.
Apple added security when using messages between Apple devices. It’s an app that uses what works best depending upon the device.
Most people don’t care anyway. So long as their texts get delivered.
And if you want more security or large files you use a different cross platform app. It really isn’t that hard to understand.
It’s manufactured drama from many who should know better.
If an app leaves the official App Store it will probably just be replaced by one that stays there. It would be a brave move to pull up stumps and say we will only distribute our app from another store or direct.
Last edited:
They do not because Apple designates some APIs as private that are available only to AW.
Apple limits API access to third-party smartwatch makers. Say you have a Garmin smartwatch. You’ll be able to send quick replies if it’s paired to an Android phone but not an iPhone. This is the case with all platform-agnostic smartwatches.
Edit: Edited for clarity.
so the answer is knowing iOS doesnt grant access to features you want your watch to have, dont buy an iOS device...
if enough people make that decision, Apple, as any responsive business would, will be forced to change and allow that.
How many times has Apple been asked why they dont do something and their answer is "there's no consumer demand to do it". they would know. they get feedback.
what you all think is a conspiracy by Apple could simply be not enough users of these devices asking for it.
And are there other messaging apps on the Samsung watch you can use? I'm assuming Facebook and Messenger work there like the do on AW. Ow WhatsApp.
There are plenty of apps that devs arent bothering to update even when they can because they state lack of user demand. Netflix havent got a AVP app. Yet.
Tesla didnt have an Apple Music app for ages.
Apple have stated in EU they will work with each app dev team to work through issues on APIs.
Once they are certain apps arent trying to do more than they should, they may be me open to allowing access.
But needs goodwill on both side to make things happen.
Epic have shown again and again they have no good intentions.
That's not happening though, which is exactly the argument of the DoJ in a nutshell.
They argue that Apple has a strong market dominance and employs lock-in tactics which makes users unwilling to switch to alternatives even when faced with higher prices and/or reduced features.
That would be a distortion of the free market that warrants antitrust intervention. In some sense Apple's continued success is actually supporting the DoJ argument here.
Apple will likely argue that it's because those decisions are positive for their users and it will surely be a point of contention.
So I checked and Google has free and paid for APIs.
Would you be happy if Apple charged to give access to the APIs they have as private?
You cant say "there's not enough requests happening" as a reason.
If people really wanted something they would be requesting it.
There would be logs of requests DoJ could ask to see.
If people dont complain, it's not Apple's fault.
You seem to be saying Apple being a success is enough to support the DoJ claims...
If Apple change an allow other app stores (like in EU) and users dont use them or links to external sign up/billing and people still dont use them... you can't legislate user behaviour and choice. People will till complain. They will still say it is unfair and justify it as Apple competing unfairly.
There's a way to stop competing with Apple... dont offer your app on their app store.
If Spotify was only available on Android what would happen?
You can still access it through a webpage on iOS.
You could even put that page on your screen as a link.
Would the user experience suffer greatly?
Or would users just find an alternative music streamer?
Consumer behaviour is a funny thing. It can change quickly and dramatically.
People might get angry at Apple but a quick "How to get Spotify on your phone via a web page" tutorial might placate many. It would be an interesting experiment
Apples ongoing success is the ability to make things work together simply.
Apple catches itself out at times when it overcomplicates things.
Home Kit is a weakness and holding back Smart Homes.
But it is improving. Slowly.
There are lots of OS features rarely used. Automations? Power users only.
If Apple are forced to make changes AND still remain dominant what does that mean? Consumers behaving badly? Perhaps consumers just want what they want and have now. The whole locked in argument pretends people dont have a choice when many actively choose Apple for the way they are currently. You might not. But that doesnt mean others dont.
I would say Apple's continued success is more likely making other jealous they didnt make their own hardware and software solutions. They went along with a generic OS that doesnt give them a unique selling point. It must be hard for Android phones... once you buy into that OS, you can swap to whatever phone you like from the hundreds available. For looks or price alone. There is little brand loyalty or reason to stick with one brand. No stickiness.
I never said it's "enough": I said it supports the arguments made, which it does. Whether it's enough or not I don't know, but it is consistent with the DoJ's narrative at the very least. I also wrote Apple has likely an alternative interpretation which they will definitely use to challenge the DoJ's.
Again, you are basically arguing that the free market would deal with it. This is only true if the free market is not being distorted by monopolistic forces, which is the DoJ's argument. If the DoJ argues that the free market is being distorted, you have to first debunk their argument before you can say that the free market would operate as expected.
That is exactly what Apple will try to do first and foremost: if they debunk the notion that they hold monopoly power the DoJ's case will be dead, but if the DoJ succeeds in establishing that instead, then Apple's practices will be looked through that lens and it will be a whole different way to look at them.
good points.
btw we pay this governments (US, EU, etc) with our taxes 15%/30% and have no choice
Yes you do. If you live in a country where you are being taxed through your representatives, you do have a choice as you select those representatives.
If you live in a country where you are being taxed without representation, you still have the choice to emigrate to a different country.
thats wrong. even if i (personally) choose other representatives its not gonna happen.
but i can easily buy another brand instead of apple if i dont like the apple store policies.
btw live in the EU. So every person who lives in a country of the EU pays those taxes. maybe i should emigrate to africa, good point thank you.
I guess this is what happens when one argues with somebody who has not even read the complaint.
"Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests."
That it is trivial to create a secure solution that offers locan and end-to-encryption is proved by Beeper Mini.It’s not trivial to create a solution that stays legal and works. Or there would be heaps of them available.
SMS is already insecure. It was designed way back.
Apple added security when using messages between Apple devices. It’s an app that uses what works best depending upon the device.
Most people don’t care anyway. So long as their texts get delivered.
And if you want more security or large files you use a different cross platform app. It really isn’t that hard to understand.
It’s manufactured drama from many who should know better.
Nothing developed an app called Nothing Chats that would have offered iMessage functionality on Android phones. To log in to Nothing Chats, you'll need an Apple ID username, or you can create one. Sunbird, another app that uses a patented process to link your Apple ID to iMessage, was also available on Nothing Phone 2. Both shot down by Apple.
Nothing is bringing iMessage to its Android phone
Nothing Phone 2 users can get blue bubbles, too.
www.theverge.com
That a heaps of them are not available shows that Apple is blocking them.
Yeah, they would not do it unless they are spanked by the governments. They will literally grovel before Chinese government because China does not waste time bringing suits against companies. That is why they brought the DMA actions upon themselves and they have attracted the DOJ lawsuit.
No sympathy for Apple.