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

[ender78]

It’s really hard to see any of these accusations having merit, but as the Masimo lawsuit has shown, Apple needs to be lucky every time, while the DOJ only needs to get lucky just once.

The DoJ needs to win on all/most counts. Winning a few arguments is unlikely to allow for the DoJ to assert that Apple needs to completely change the way it does business.

Apple will put all its resources at rebutting the arguments the DoJ makes. They will come to a compromise and make some concessions. The fully open utopia that some believe is the remedy will never happen.

What changes to I want from Apple ? I want to be able to put an M.2 SSD inside my Mac mini or MacBook Pro. The price of storage upgrades is very painful.

I want a curated experience for the rest of the ecosystem. Android and Windows offer fully open architectures. Why are so many people telling me that I cannot have that experience. You cannot have a fully open platform and the curation that Apple offers me today. Bugs aside, I know that if I buy Apple products that they will ALWAYS work together. I don't want to do any research, I select the products that I can afford and know they will work together.

 

[Beautyspin]

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?

As long as it improves the security and privacy of iOS users (of which I am one), any solution is better than none. I do not use Messages because most of my friends are on WhatsApp.

 

[Beautyspin]

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.

Did anyone say Apple degrades SMS? Apple degrades the experience of iOS users is what the accusation is.
As the DOJ says, Apple uses the Privacy mantra when it suits them. They really do not care about Privacy at all. The fact that they put Google as the default search by taking 36% of the search revenue shows that Apple's privacy is for sale. It is elastic.

 

[wbeasley]

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.

so exactly how does something worked and was legal when you were a little company suddenly become wrong when you grow to be a bigger company?

we've had comments on here about the EU changes and what would happen with the 50 cent app fee if something went viral? this is sort of the same... everything is legal and fair when it is low popularity but hit the big time and everyting changes?

Apple grew back from the brink by lots of clever work and vision.

The DoJ need to be very clear in arguing their case. Even when Apple was smaller, were users trapped by Apple?

I dont know anyone who has said they feel trapped. I've known people who have happily swapped platforms, to iOS and to Android, because they liked the hardware and bought it. They reloaded the apps they commonly use that were available on both platforms. They set their mail up again. And imported their contacts. Sorted. In a few hours. It's hardly the hardest job you do... barely harder than upgrading to a new phone on the same OS. And tools exist to help you for harder tasks.

 

[Beautyspin]

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.

Apple uses its dominant position to lockin users into their eco system. Even that is not illegal.

"The DOJ describes a sweeping arc of behaviors by Apple, arguing that it adds up to a pattern of illegal monopoly maintenance. Rather than focusing on two or three illegal acts, the complaint alleges that Apple engages in a pattern of behaviors that further entrench consumers into their ecosystem and make it harder to switch, even in the face of high prices and degraded quality."

‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ’s sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise

An uphill battle lies ahead, but the Justice Department has opened with a strong, strategically sound attack.

www.theverge.com

 

[Beautyspin]

I was actually asking @Beautyspin this (again).

The APIs being discussed were messaging APIs so non Apple Watches could code to send messages directly.

All the security APIs should only be used, and seem to be already, to flag the app you are verified not give them the biometrics data. Banks let you select if you want to use Face ID to validate yourself. Other apps too.

If Apple allowed a case by case API access and charged for it, would people be happy?

A bank or cc company already has all your data. Currently, it is not better than a bank or CC company. The quicker you know it, the better it is for you. Lol!

"The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed that digital wallets such as Apple Pay should be regulated, and currently lack safeguards.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been investigating Big Tech's digital wallets, including a "very careful look" at services such as Apple Pay Later. It's now proposed that 17 firms from Apple and Google, to PayPal and Block's CashApp, should be subject to supervision."

US watchdog wants Apple Pay regulated like a bank

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed that digital wallets such as Apple Pay should be regulated, and currently lack safeguards.

appleinsider.com

 

[Ludatyk]

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

Yes. After years of push back and guess who told them to do so... China, it's not as Apple did it willingly.

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.

The point I'm making... they didn't even contribute to making it better. They stood still while keeping the status quo... keeping iPhone to Android a poor experience.

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...

I think Android users would settle for this... at least it would be a better experience than what they currently have now.

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

Lol... Believe me, I know it's bogus. But that's the society that we are in now.

 

[Beautyspin]

I repeat, would you be happy if Apple charged for access to these private APIs?

Is it going to? Do you have any link or proof that Apple will charge for its APIs?

 

[ender78]

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

So you expect that Apple solves the world's problems? Apple has made great strides in improving working conditions in the factories of its suppliers. Doing so is not in their financial interest, yet they did it anyways. Some of that took external reporting to bring the issues into the public forum.

Apple has insisted on minimum salary for workers, understanding that it would raise their costs. No other company anywhere close to its size has made the efforts that it has to improve the lives of the people making their products. Until it can be fully automated, electronics assembly will always be a tough job.

The jobs in Chinese factories have elevated hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. There is much more room for improvement.

 

[ender78]

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

That was my argument. Lock in is a thing and it's not illegal, simple enough for you? Do you have a better analogy as to why iMessage and Apples APIs should be fully open and free? I',m waiting.

 

[ender78]

Is it going to? Do you have any link or proof that Apple will charge for its APIs?

We are asking you a question.. would opening the APIs for a fee be the solution? That is a remedy we can debate. Apple may or may not do that willingly, but regardless of why they do it, is opening the APIs a remedy and if so, why not?

 

[Beautyspin]

Your constant anti Apple comments make me wonder why you are on here?
You want Apple slapped.

The DMA was brought about by whinging lobby groups for Epic and Sportify in the EU.
The DoJ ... well who knows why? Their aims dont seem particularly clear on what they want to achieve...

I have an iPhone 11, iPad Pro M2 12.9, MBP M1, Airpods Pro, and AW. I had been in the Android ecosystem for more than a decade. So, yes, I am interested in Apple becoming more innovative, more open so that I can use the devices bought with my hard-earned money as best as they can be. I am a user of Apple products, not its fan. Just like I want my shoes, my pen, and the rest of my utilities, I want Apple to sell me the phone and stop meddling in it after that.

 

[wbeasley]

Apple uses its dominant position to lockin users into their eco system. Even that is not illegal.

"The DOJ describes a sweeping arc of behaviors by Apple, arguing that it adds up to a pattern of illegal monopoly maintenance. Rather than focusing on two or three illegal acts, the complaint alleges that Apple engages in a pattern of behaviors that further entrench consumers into their ecosystem and make it harder to switch, even in the face of high prices and degraded quality."

‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ’s sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise

An uphill battle lies ahead, but the Justice Department has opened with a strong, strategically sound attack.

www.theverge.com

as was pointed out elsewhere, if the "degraded quality" refers to SMS then they cant substantiate that claim as SMS is based on industry created limited char text messages that were later combined more seamlessly. But the underlying tech is still very basic. And Apple hasnt degraded that in any way for Android users. They still combine multiple messages better than SMS used to (do people really not remember when long text messages were broken down into multiple separate ones and we all typed with awful T9 keypads?)

how exactly does high prices and degraded quality sit in the same sentence? that makes no sense at all.

Apple extended message with another added layer for iOS users. that used Apple servers not phone numbers.
It has the advantage they tie it to you AppleID and i get notifications across all my logged in Apple devices not just the one phone an SMS would go to. Since an Android user wont have the ID if falls back the basic function of SMS to a phone number. And all the limits that already existed for plain old SMSes.

cant wait to see what this "pattern of behaviours" is.
most corporations have patterns of behaviour such as communication style sheets that dictate branding, communication tone and documentation layout.

Apple do have a very consistent style for presenting information.
Their design language for interfaces mirrors across devices.
Their material choices for building products have an Apple style.
it's what Apple is. And they reinforce that with updates and new products to foster trust.
and it seems to have worked.

 

[Beautyspin]

I have read and watched the complaint. It was fairly lackluster. Wishy washy even. Motherhoody.
Like what exactly does "consumer preferences" mean? A thousand different things to different users and Apple?

Anticompetitive conduct? You can buy an Android phone easily. Cheaper often. With many of the same apps ready to download and run. You can swap over from an Apple device... websites tell you how easy and seamless it is.

But perhaps the worry is the net flow to iOS devices ranges between 11% and 15% for the past few years. Hmmm. These are switchers not people locked in mercilessly to the evil Apple Empire. They chose the path to swap over.

Google paid the millions of dollars to be the default Search engine. Why? Because it sees a value in being there placing ads and capturing as much user data to sell on. Even if Apple limit the data flow. Google needs Apple. And it knows it. And pays.

"Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—... offering governments ... more private and secure versions of app stores" should read "Apple complies with app store requirements in some countries as the government decrees". They didnt want to say China. But the EU is also forcing security changes onto Apple. And business operating in another country has to obey the laws of that land. Forced to not chose to.

As I said initially, wishy washy "arguments".

That is fine. I was not aware that you were a legal expert. I am not. Since I do not know anything about your expertise, surely you are not going to begrudge me if I go for the opinion of more well-known legal experts than yours.

 

[ender78]

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.

It's his anecdotal experience and mine as well. And while the statement is over the top, I don't have to worry about my mom installing malware from a third party on her iPhone because it is currently not possible. By being closed, the attack vector simply doesn't exist.

Have you ever gotten SMS scam via iMessage ? My count is ZERO.

Like bSolar I have spent way to much time over the years removing malware from friend and family computers, I have never had to do that on a Mac.

 

[ender78]

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.

The hardest part of this lawsuit will be determining the remedies.

 

[wbeasley]

A bank or cc company already has all your data. Currently, it is not better than a bank or CC company. The quicker you know it, the better it is for you. Lol!

"The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed that digital wallets such as Apple Pay should be regulated, and currently lack safeguards.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been investigating Big Tech's digital wallets, including a "very careful look" at services such as Apple Pay Later. It's now proposed that 17 firms from Apple and Google, to PayPal and Block's CashApp, should be subject to supervision."

US watchdog wants Apple Pay regulated like a bank

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed that digital wallets such as Apple Pay should be regulated, and currently lack safeguards.

appleinsider.com

Apple Pay removes card details when paying making it much more secure if someone intercepted the data.

Banks hate Apple Pay. They wanted their own app and avoid any fees to Apple.
Fortunately for Apple customers, it is simple to press a button and choose a payment card. No matter which shop you are in or how many bank cards you have.

Apple Pay Later is just like any other partial payment system and should be regulated as it is a credit facility and falls under laws. Just like all the other financial services offering similar payment deals. Thats outside the scope of the DoJs claims currently...

 

[wbeasley]

That is fine. I was not aware that you were a legal expert. I am not. Since I do not know anything about your expertise, surely you are not going to begrudge me if I go for the opinion of more well-known legal experts than yours.

snide comment. low act.
you stated i hadnt read the claim.
i have and i never said I was a legal expert. more insults...

but the press release was made public and should have been aimed so the general public could understand what the DoJ were planning to take action on.

legal experts will have different opinions and you can bet both side will have some fairly well versed and highly paid lawyers on hand who will disagree endlessly. Being a legal expert makes no difference at all on where you stand on matters. They are there to work for their clients not know what is right or wrong. the Court will decide that from arguments presented and make a ruling.

but the media also like to play things out as well and manipulate public sentiment without too much legal detail.

Your posts always want to slap Apple down. you seem to have a personal grudge against them.

my opinions are formed on years of using Apple products and being happy with the way things work for me and people I know who also use them. I dont agree with almost every point the DoJ made about trapping customers and manipulating them. I like how different products work together most of the time. Sales data shows Apple are striking a chord with buyers. this should be taken into consideration as well when making decisions.

 

[wbeasley]

The hardest part of this lawsuit will be determining the remedies.

remedies shouldnt adversely affect people who are happy currently.
that could be hard to ensure...

 

[Beautyspin]

Apple Pay removes card details when paying making it much more secure if someone intercepted the data.

Banks hate Apple Pay. They wanted their own app and avoid any fees to Apple.
Fortunately for Apple customers, it is simple to press a button and choose a payment card. No matter which shop you are in or how many bank cards you have.

Apple Pay Later is just like any other partial payment system and should be regulated as it is a credit facility and falls under laws. Just like all the other financial services offering similar payment deals. Thats outside the scope of the DoJs claims currently...

Apple Pay and the DAN

Many merchants see increased fraud and chargebacks from Apple Pay users. The secret is understanding what other data you can use to prevent, detect and manage this risk.

www.sardine.ai

Accepting payments is where the fraud liability is the biggest issue for Apple Pay. The merchants have fraud liability and don't have the underlying card numbers. Issuers do have the card number but don't carry liability for fraud losses, so they're not motivated to stop the fraud. For them, a transaction is the merchant takes revenue, and a fraud loss hit.

 

[Beautyspin]

snide comment. low act.
you stated i hadnt read the claim.
i have and i never said I was a legal expert. more insults...

but the press release was made public and should have been aimed so the general public could understand what the DoJ were planning to take action on.

legal experts will have different opinions and you can bet both side will have some fairly well versed and highly paid lawyers on hand who will disagree endlessly. Being a legal expert makes no difference at all on where you stand on matters. They are there to work for their clients not know what is right or wrong. the Court will decide that from arguments presented and make a ruling.

but the media also like to play things out as well and manipulate public sentiment without too much legal detail.

Your posts always want to slap Apple down. you seem to have a personal grudge against them.

my opinions are formed on years of using Apple products and being happy with the way things work for me and people I know who also use them. I dont agree with almost every point the DoJ made about trapping customers and manipulating them. I like how different products work together most of the time. Sales data shows Apple are striking a chord with buyers. this should be taken into consideration as well when making decisions.

The only reason I am not repeating the statement that you did not read the complaint is because I do not want to be rude. If you had read the complaint, you would not have made so many comments that are already explained in the complaint.

I was not making snide remarks. I am not a legal expert so I am going by what experts have said about the complaint. I am not saying DOJ will win, I am saying they have a good case. Apple has to win every point; DOJ needs to win only some. There will be a discovery phase which will bring out many points that Apple might not want to and will/may remove the sheen of Apple.

Bullies get their comeuppance. Nothing wrong.

 

[bsolar]

so exactly how does something worked and was legal when you were a little company suddenly become wrong when you grow to be a bigger company?

Because the practices in question are (IMHO) not illegal per se, but might be illegal under the rule of reason:

While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonably restrain trade.

 

[MacGekko]

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.

You missed the point and at this point it is pointless to go back and forth, I heard Tim Cook is imploring Apple's lawyers to use the "Remote Control" defense.

Newsflash, that doesn't mean the talks did not happen, wait for the reporting.

You missed my point, if the DOJ loses, the consequences are negative PR for the Biden admin, people here acting as if this is a risk free move by the DOJ.

This is about as big as it gets, you go after Apple, you better win, you better think you have a damn good case, people's careers can be made on a case like this.

 

[MacGekko]

so exactly how does something worked and was legal when you were a little company suddenly become wrong when you grow to be a bigger company?

we've had comments on here about the EU changes and what would happen with the 50 cent app fee if something went viral? this is sort of the same... everything is legal and fair when it is low popularity but hit the big time and everyting changes?

Apple grew back from the brink by lots of clever work and vision.

The DoJ need to be very clear in arguing their case. Even when Apple was smaller, were users trapped by Apple?

I dont know anyone who has said they feel trapped. I've known people who have happily swapped platforms, to iOS and to Android, because they liked the hardware and bought it. They reloaded the apps they commonly use that were available on both platforms. They set their mail up again. And imported their contacts. Sorted. In a few hours. It's hardly the hardest job you do... barely harder than upgrading to a new phone on the same OS. And tools exist to help you for harder tasks.

Your anecdotal evidence means nothing in this case.

 

[MacGekko]

So you expect that Apple solves the world's problems? Apple has made great strides in improving working conditions in the factories of its suppliers. Doing so is not in their financial interest, yet they did it anyways. Some of that took external reporting to bring the issues into the public forum.

Apple has insisted on minimum salary for workers, understanding that it would raise their costs. No other company anywhere close to its size has made the efforts that it has to improve the lives of the people making their products. Until it can be fully automated, electronics assembly will always be a tough job.

The jobs in Chinese factories have elevated hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. There is much more room for improvement.

I never wrote anything of the kind, but since you asked me what I want, for Apple to stop parading as a holier than thou company, or at least mildly criticize the Chinese government in the face of human rights abuses or their actions against democracy in Hong Kong, just to be a little more transparent in their pursuit of profits, I don't deny their China policy is smart and good for business.

Are you certain doing so is not in their financial interest, it is good PR for Americans concerned about such things for Apple to do some good things for the Foxconn workers or support such things in good faith, it is good for their image, which is good for selling more phones, good for the brand, potentially good for the share price, the hit on costs is probably outweighed by the PR boost. Of course we'll never know as to their full motivations.

Secondly there are not many companies of their size but when you write that no other company comes close, how can you be certain of this, where is your evidence to back that statement up or is just how you feel?

It is true though on this front, there is nowhere for the consumer to go, every company has to buy Lithium, much of it mined through the abuse of children and workers, and most if not all companies use Chinese factories to build their tech products.