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

[MacGekko]

I laughed at that. Bonus point for shoehorning the word 'Magical' into the statement aswell.

I know, who gave the OK on using that word, when I read that word I thought to myself, intended or not, you are giving off insecure feelings about your footing in this lawsuit.

 

[MacGekko]

A corporation you can easily walk away from is not a powerful entity is it? What is it about Apple outside some interpretation that iPhones are the best pacifier out there? All they done is set up various ways to make money like most companies and they are popular, but have they been directing people on how to act and think? I see Social Media companies as far more dangerous as they over inflate their value to society, with a lack of protections for the user community, plus they literally sell their user 's statistics so to pay for everything. The example of iMessaging being not universal across platforms is some form of social media dependency isn't it? Why would an individual need to have his/her statistics and comments be even more all over the place texting through multiple platform cloud systems? These same Social Media companies are the ones that created their own bubble in the stock market waiting to pop, is Apple as risky to stockholders?

Unless you are going to live like the Amish, nobody can fully walk away from any top 10 tech company, even if you own zero Apple products, they can have a negative impact on your life and implications far reaching that one can imagine.

 

[wbeasley]

You are asking for something that is not possible, Apple is probably the biggest tech company in the world, in the top five of any company in the world.

I never wrote that they don't do environmentally friendly things, there has been plenty of reporting to suggest that they have turned a blind eye to working conditions that are not ideal in those Foxconn buildings.

Their environmental record is not so clear cut: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/ho...the-iphone-makers-sustainability-credentials/

It would be cool if Tim Cook spent three months working in one of the Foxconn factories, building an Iphone, OK that is crazy, one month:https://mashable.com/article/foxconn-apple-iphone-protests-covid-working-conditions

every company could do better.

and i'm all for CEOs of ANY company seeing what life is like for workers.

but there are few companies, big or medium sized, that have been as proactive.
often times it is the middle labour supply company that is the issue.
but they can be randomly inspected. it's a fairly big step forward. but a long way from Western unionized labour for sure. Anyone buying imported items is somewhat complicit as we expect bigger, better, faster, more for less money each year and that requires cheap labour we turn a blind eye to.

 

[wbeasley]

That's your anecdotal experience and that's fine: mine is that it's not been an issue for any Mac or PC users I know.

Is there users that can get malware? Sure, but "riddled with malware" is IMHO an hyperbolic and distorted representation of the reality of many PC or Mac users.

you dont have to be riddled with malware.
one bad install from an email a "friend" sends you and a real friend ends up with hours of work.

I sold a business and the new owners kids played on the work PCs.
accessing porn sites.
I dont care about the content they let him view but the sites were riddled with links to dubious installs.
After the third reinstall i refused to fix them if he did it again.
It wasnt just the OS that needed a clean install, it was the accounting apps and manually reentering the lost sale data since they last backed up. Painful.

Even helping someone get rid of the Temu app and all the captured contact details to stop emails and SMSes was a pain. And that's a vetted "legit" app...

 

[wbeasley]

Unless you are going to live like the Amish, nobody can fully walk away from any top 10 tech company, even if you own zero Apple products, they can have a negative impact on your life and implications far reaching that one can imagine.

that reads like a Horoscope...
and about as open to interpretation.

 

[bsolar]

you dont have to be riddled with malware.

So you do agree that "riddled with malware" was an hyperbolic exaggeration...

 

[wbeasley]

So you do agree that "riddled with malware" was an hyperbolic exaggeration...

I think you are confusing posters (CrapShak?)... I dont recall saying "riddled with malware" and looking back I can see you say it to another poster...

 

[spazzcat]

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.

Here is the thing: having private APIs on your software isn't illegal. I do it consistently, so some APIs are public, and some are private. Also, no law states Apple has to make Garmin watch work as well as the AW does on iOS. Now, if Apple in iOS 18 made it so Garmin didn't work anymore, then you may have a case.

 

[Ludatyk]

Why is it Apple's fault that users choose to stick with iMessage and not switch to WhatsApp or telegram? It's ultimately their choice at the end of the day.

This constantly keep coming up… why do Apple users stick to iMessage and not move to another messaging platform?

Because here in the US… SMS was our primary way of exchanging messages, the situation is different in other countries. They all made the move to a different messaging platform. It’s as a simple as this… if your social circle is using a particular form of communicating, what would you do?

Use their form of communicating or tell them to switch to a platform of your choice? That’s the argument people tend to dismiss… If my social circle has already determined how they want to communicate, I alone have to tell them to switch? It’s not as easy as it seems.

 

[MacGekko]

that reads like a Horoscope...
and about as open to interpretation.

Yes, please come up with a powerpoint presentation, I just opened up a fortune cookie, and it reads...

 

[Abazigal]

This constantly keep coming up… why do Apple users stick to iMessage and not move to another messaging platform?

Because here in the US… SMS was our primary way of exchanging messages, the situation is different in other countries. They all made the move to a different messaging platform. It’s as a simple as this… if your social circle is using a particular form of communicating, what would you do?

Use their form of communicating or tell them to switch to a platform of your choice? That’s the argument people tend to dismiss… If my social circle has already determined how they want to communicate, I alone have to tell them to switch? It’s not as easy as it seems.

Which then brings me to my next question.

I can acknowledge that the stranglehold which iMessage currently enjoys in the US can be inconvenient to android users. However, just because something is not to be advantage doesn't necessarily make it illegal or worthy of an antitrust lawsuit.

Not to mention, if the government were to force Apple to support iMessage for android somehow (or at least adopt RCS), you are basically entrenching imessage's dominance in the US and there really won't be any reason for anyone to ever move away from it for another cross-platform messaging app.

Is this really what the US is okay with?

 

[MacGekko]

These analogies are getting quite dumb now... .

What, you didn't appreciate the one with Milwaukee tools and Dewalt, something battery, something.

 

[Abazigal]

Here is the thing: having private APIs on your software isn't illegal. I do it consistently, so some APIs are public, and some are private. Also, no law states Apple has to make Garmin watch work as well as the AW does on iOS. Now, if Apple in iOS 18 made it so Garmin didn't work anymore, then you may have a case.

Another thing is that developing these APIs cost money, which Apple earns back by selling hardware. I really can't see the case for forcing Apple to make these APIs publicly available for free, which would allow competitors to undercut Apple because they don't have to invest anything into R&D in those areas.

At best, a case could be made that Apple must license those APIS at a fair and reasonable cost (kinda like FRAND patents), but I feel it is ridiculous to expect that the competition automatically have equal access to the same technology that Apple puts in their own Apple Watches, just because.

 

[bsolar]

Here is the thing: having private APIs on your software isn't illegal.

From what I understand basically none of the practices the DoJ alleges apple did are "per se" illegal: they can become illegal in the context of Apple having monopoly power though.

This is IMHO what some are missing: the exact same practice can be perfectly legal or an antitrust violation depending on the determination of having monopoly power or not.

The DoJ alleges that Apple has monopoly power and it's IMHO the hardest hurdle they have to overcome to prevail, but if they do suddenly that "private API" might become a problem for Apple whereas if they fail that private API would be a legitimate business decision.

 

[MacGekko]

Yeah thats the way these things go.

But shouldnt the DoJ be held accountable for the reputation and market price damage this announcement has made?

At the moment they issue vaguely worded "breaches" and watch the value drop.
If they had concerns, there should have been a private way to deal with them until a point where Apple wasnt cooperating. Currently all Apple can do is say they are wrong and will vigorously defend themselves. That response says "we didnt see this coming and this is all we can say about it". Sure they probably knew something would come at some stage. Sure they probably have planned a strategy about it with maybe even a roadmap of changes they could/would make if needed.

But Apple have no motivation to change. Customers are buying their products and income is at record highs (or close) so their methods have worked.

I can buy a universal learning remote for my tv.
It will do most common things my real remote does. Interoperability at work.
But it also doesnt look as nice, has buttons for functions my tv doesnt have and doesnt do everything.
A bit like what the DoJ are pushing.
But even if they win, as a consumer I'll be sticking with the Apple items that work together because they were designed to work that way and not added on because of some government decree. The DoJ cant force users to buy a competitor product. No matter how much they force "openness and choice"

If the DoJ win, who next? VIdeo consoles? They are even more tightly controlled.

Sure, Apple can roundly defeat them in court, a loss for the Biden admin's Justice Department is worth a few damaging points somewhere, and since you believe in Apple's chances so much, the government just gave you a buying opportunity, not too much, up today actually, but $172 is less than $176 per share.

Are you certain zero talks took place behind the scenes?

There are some really fancy and nice remotes out there, remote controls and smartphones are about as meaningful to this case as fortune cookies, but keep the analogies flowing.

Next up if Apple loses, Swiss Army Knives.

 

[webkit]

I don't like that because they are successful, then their initial practices are deemed anti-competitive after the fact.

Antitrust laws are largely designed to address potential "anticompetitive" behavior from "dominant" (which also tend to be "successful") companies because those companies have the greatest market control, power, influence, impact, etc. and therefore present the greatest risk or ability to unfairly disrupt or stifle competition, innovation, etc. The laws are not about addressing actions of small companies/products that have little market control, power, influence, impact, etc.

Why is Apple obligated to make their Apple Watch APIs publicly available for everyone to access?

One of the DOJ goals here is to try to help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in a market.

Another is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible and because Apple is the dominant player, they have the most control, influence, etc. and therefore are a focus here.

 

[wbeasley]

This constantly keep coming up… why do Apple users stick to iMessage and not move to another messaging platform?

Because here in the US… SMS was our primary way of exchanging messages, the situation is different in other countries. They all made the move to a different messaging platform. It’s as a simple as this… if your social circle is using a particular form of communicating, what would you do?

Use their form of communicating or tell them to switch to a platform of your choice? That’s the argument people tend to dismiss… If my social circle has already determined how they want to communicate, I alone have to tell them to switch? It’s not as easy as it seems.

well if your social circle all choose to use an old messaging app with limits on file size and compression (outside Apple's control) it is your choice. Youre welcome to keep using it.

but if transferring large files securely is important then you pick a different messaging tool.

It is the carriers who set the file size for MMS they will allow. not Apple.

so stop trying to make Messages work for you when there are better options available in 2024.
old habits die hard but honestly you set it up once and dont look back...

 

[wbeasley]

Yes, please come up with a powerpoint presentation, I just opened up a fortune cookie, and it reads...

why would anyone do a Powerpoint unless they want people to go to sleep?

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

Sure, Apple can roundly defeat them in court, a loss for the Biden admin's Justice Department is worth a few damaging points somewhere, and since you believe in Apple's chances so much, the government just gave you a buying opportunity, not too much, up today actually, but $172 is less than $176 per share.

Are you certain zero talks took place behind the scenes?

There are some really fancy and nice remotes out there, remote controls and smartphones are about as meaningful to this case as fortune cookies, but keep the analogies flowing.

Next up if Apple loses, Swiss Army Knives.

He and everyone else, just like us, has zero clue what has happened yet they constantly insist they know exactly what happened and is going to happen. The Apple defender squad don't stop.

 

[wbeasley]

Another thing is that developing these APIs cost money, which Apple earns back by selling hardware. I really can't see the case for forcing Apple to make these APIs publicly available for free, which would allow competitors to undercut Apple because they don't have to invest anything into R&D in those areas.

At best, a case could be made that Apple must license those APIS at a fair and reasonable cost (kinda like FRAND patents), but I feel it is ridiculous to expect that the competition automatically have equal access to the same technology that Apple puts in their own Apple Watches, just because.

private APIs can also be changed and upgraded/extended knowing the exact in house user audience of them.
if more people have access, you have to notify and coordinate a bigger group or everything could break when changes happen.

i worked supporting a Healthcare app. you could see the Tables they used and create CrystalReports to set up the data as you wanted. BUT they also had a lot of custom APIs they used and custom layouts they would sell you for $5000 each or wouldnt sell you at all. It was their IP and their competitive advantage. Some of our inhouse devs managed to work out ways to access some data and luckily they never changed the APIs much over time.

 

[ender78]

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."

I can take someone to court and make any accusation that I want. The fact that I make the accusation does not mean that the party cannot rebut it. Has Apple gotten too big and powerful, yeah probably. Does it abuse that size to get more money out of consumers, yeah probably.

Have a listen to the latest episode of the ATP Podcast. The hosts make a really good case for the DoJ taking the wrong approach. I share their opinion that Apple needs to be regulated but that the DoJ is using the wrong reasons to make their case.

For the record you honour, Apple does not "degrade" SMS. SMS has never had security. Apple "elevates" iMessage and gives it features.

The principles that Apple runs the company in a way that is best for its financial interest and that my experience is what I want to be are not mutually exclusive.

How to change default search engine in iOS 17

1. Go to Settings.
2. Tap on Safari.
3. Look for Search.
4. Select either Search Engine or Private Search Engine.
5. Choose either Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo or Ecosia.

There is a way to change your default. I want for Google to be my default knowing fully well that it is not secure. Most people want it this way.

 

[Ludatyk]

I can acknowledge that the stranglehold which iMessage currently enjoys in the US can be inconvenient to android users. However, just because something is not to be advantage doesn't necessarily make it illegal or worthy of an antitrust lawsuit.

Well, it is... if you as big as Apple. When Apple were starting out, this method was perfectly alright. But now that they have gotten to the point where their scale is reaching millions (maybe billions) ... it's just the nature of how things are.

When there's studies that show teenagers overwhelming choosing the iPhone due to iMessage and the dating world paints a picture that if someone sends them a green bubble "I won't date them." It's to the point where... it needs to be dialed back.

And I stated, I don't mind iMessage being tied to Apple devices... but Apple should be willing to adopt a method (RCS) that will make the experience better for Android.

Not to mention, if the government were to force Apple to support iMessage for android somehow (or at least adopt RCS), you are basically entrenching imessage's dominance in the US and there really won't be any reason for anyone to ever move away from it for another cross-platform messaging app.

Is this really what the US is okay with?

I think forcing iMessage to support Android... is the wrong move, I'm personally not okay with that.

But Apple persistent on ignoring a modern standard that benefits everyone simple because it helps them sell more iPhones, I'm not okay with that.

 

[ender78]

That a heaps of them are not available shows that Apple is blocking them.

Why should any company be forced to offer their services for free. A case can be made to bring iMessage to other platforms, but that can and in my opinion should come with a cost. iMessage is now $10/month does that solve the problem? Apple runs the infrastructure, the iMessage protocol was never designed to be an open protocol like e-mail. SMS only works because every carrier runs servers that act as intermediaries. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to get every cell carrier world wide onboard to support a new protocol?

 

[wbeasley]

Sure, Apple can roundly defeat them in court, a loss for the Biden admin's Justice Department is worth a few damaging points somewhere, and since you believe in Apple's chances so much, the government just gave you a buying opportunity, not too much, up today actually, but $172 is less than $176 per share.

Are you certain zero talks took place behind the scenes?

There are some really fancy and nice remotes out there, remote controls and smartphones are about as meaningful to this case as fortune cookies, but keep the analogies flowing.

Next up if Apple loses, Swiss Army Knives.

hahaha

a remote is a remote.
they use the same communication tech in almost every one. hence universal ones exist and replacement ones.
you obviously missed the point of the analogy... people say a phone is a personal computing device and every one should be able to run everything the users wants and open access to all APIs. interchangeable like universal remotes. identical hardware with software.

the DoJ didnt say they'd had talks with Apple.
Apple didnt say they'd had talks with the DoJ.

Your comments about Biden's admin... ive worked in government here for many years. departments run their own game and governments put a spin on it. some times departments try to justify funding by making public announcements. this announcement is long on waffle and spin and short on hard facts.

 

[wbeasley]

Well, it is... if you as big as Apple. When Apple were starting out, this method was perfectly alright. But now that they have gotten to the point where their scale is reaching millions (maybe billions) ... it's just the nature of how things are.

When there's studies that show teenagers overwhelming choosing the iPhone due to iMessage and the dating world paints a picture that if someone sends them a green bubble "I won't date them." It's to the point where... it needs to be dialed back.

And I stated, I don't mind iMessage being tied to Apple devices... but Apple should be willing to adopt a method (RCS) that will make the experience better for Android.


I think forcing iMessage to support Android... is the wrong move, I'm personally not okay with that.

But Apple persistent on ignoring a modern standard that benefits everyone simple because it helps them sell more iPhones, I'm not okay with that.

Apple have already stated they will support RCS later this year.

But many carriers dragged their heels on implementing RCS as well. For years. It wasn't gaining traction.
And many have pointed out it is old hat and has issues as well. No doubt people will whinge once it is implemented.

Will Android people still like it if Apple continue to identify the OS of the incoming message and colour code it?
How ironic would it be if they got larger files sizes and less compression but still had to "suffer" being labelled green...

if the dating world judges you on the bubble your message is, youve probably just dodged a bullet if rejected