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

[wbeasley]

But they are. I would love to use an S24, it’s objectively better than the 15 Pro. However I can’t, because I’m not prepared to give up my AW Ultra, which is objectively better than any other smartwatch.

This should not have to be an either/or choice - there is zero reason , other than anti competitive market position leverage, that there is no Apple Watch app on Android making it possible to use the two together.

but you bought an AW knowing it required an iPhone.
your choice.

now you want an S24... then you made a bad choice and have to live with the consequences of that choice.

you can get that new phone and buy a lesser watch or stay with your iPhone (what is so much lesser about the 15 Pro???) and use that superior AW.

Apple have no compunction to make an AW app for Android.
They took ages to make iTunes for Windows.
They took ages to make Apple Music for Android.
There is never any certainty, if ever, that Apple will make an app for another platform so you shouldnt rely on that when making a purchase decision.

 

[wbeasley]

The explanation pointing to Apple was stated here:

that sounds very anticompetitive of Samsung... DoJ will be on their case soon no doubt...

 

[wbeasley]

I have serious doubts on the validity of that statement. I see them and others in my family with iPhones routinely.
The majority of the latest round involve shipping or held packages.

These show as iMessage, not just SMS.

i believe the poster is saying they didnt get scam messages via iMessage (which would have been sent to their Apple ID rather than their phone number) since SMS only target phones.

yes they will receive scam messages but it will be through SMS that show in Messages.

 

[Ludatyk]

This resembles a witch hunt rather than something factual wrong and suggested remediation IMHO. Look at that line I highlighted, its like imagining the worst with everything rather then being reality based.

Is the DOJ running with some fortune tellers that predict crimes before they are crimes?

You might come to that conclusion... but the point DoJ is trying to make... which seem to get glossed off, Apple has the influence to hinder new business... that's what's at stake.

Let's look at Google for example, imagine if Microsoft wasn't investigated by the DoJ and were able to keep running however, they see fit. Google search engine wouldn't be where it's at... definitely not Chrome and who knows if Android would have existed.

Another argument was made... the iPod probably wouldn't have taken off the way that it did... maybe Microsoft would have decided to not allow it on its platform.

 

[wbeasley]

You might come to that conclusion... but the point DoJ is trying to make... which seem to get glossed off, Apple has the influence to hinder new business... that's what's at stake.

Let's look at Google for example, imagine if Microsoft wasn't investigated by the DoJ and were able to keep running however, they see fit. Google search engine wouldn't be where it's at... definitely not Chrome and who knows if Android would have existed.

Another argument was made... the iPod probably wouldn't have taken off the way that it did... maybe Microsoft would have decided to not allow it on its platform.

Microsoft had no control over iPod being allowed on it's system.

Apple wrote a Windows app that allowed a USB plugged in device to be accessed and have content uploaded and managed by that app. Microsoft couldnt stop it because it used generally available code to access the device the same way other USB devices communicated. And it didnt need to be loaded by an app store they controlled.

Other browsers became popular even when Microsoft defaulted to IE.
First things many people would do when buying a new machines was to download Firefox or Chrome.
And never use IE again.

The DoJ decision to force choice was a good result because it made it easier to what people were already doing.

What the DoJ are doing now is a totally different thing. Much of their claim is based on assumptions and extrapolating vague ideas and possibilities rather than actions users are doing to workaround perceived issues. You know the limitations before you buy an Apple product.

 

[MacGekko]

why? anecdotal evidence is real world experience of what happens and how it affects users such as myself.

i'm not some individual who only uses Apple products.
i have years of helping people use their devices, both Apple and Android (and Windows), and that experience has shown the types of problems and issues people run into when they can install apps without checks and just do silly things like clicking on links they shouldn't.

The amount of effort to clean up these mistakes is time consuming.

You and many here might be tech savvy. The general population arent. They are a weak point exploited by bad agents.

Even you cannot deny that.

I am not writing that you are adding nothing to the discussion with your real world experience, just as to the case of whether or not some people feel like it is more difficult to leave once they are entrenched in Apple's world, outside of your universe, there could be a large number of people who feel like it is very difficult.

I agree with what you wrote about he lifespan of Apple products, in my anecdotal experience, one Macbook Pro lasted 7 years, another one is going on 9 years, speakers just became distorted, so time for a new Air or Pro, I am willing to pay more because I prefer the MacOS, the longetivity that I have experienced, no bloatware, better privacy, less malware directed at it, to name a few things, there are many positives in this Apple World, but personally I would like to see smartwatches have more of an ability to cross over between operating systems, but I really would like to see a fully independent smartwatch.

Even though I see many benefits to Apple products, I disagree over this DOJ action, I think it has merit and I think it could open up more competition, we shall see.

On a side note, if it were not for Samsung, one could argue there are a bunch of things Apple added to the Iphone in response, things like always on display and a greater ability to tweak the homepage and utilize widgets, so much so that people stopped jailbreaking Iphones because there was little need to do so.

Because of that I root for other companies to get more innovative and force Apple to respond with their own answers, that is my two cents.

 

[wbeasley]

I am not writing that you are adding nothing to the discussion with your real world experience, just as to the case of whether or not some people feel like it is more difficult to leave once they are entrenched in Apple's world, outside of your universe, there could be a large number of people who feel like it is very difficult.

I agree with what you wrote about he lifespan of Apple products, in my anecdotal experience, one Macbook Pro lasted 7 years, another one is going on 9 years, speakers just became distorted, so time for a new Air or Pro, I am willing to pay more because I prefer the MacOS, the longetivity that I have experienced, no bloatware, better privacy, less malware directed at it, to name a few things, there are many positives in this Apple World, but personally I would like to see smartwatches have more of an ability to cross over between operating systems, but I really would like to see a fully independent smartwatch.

Even though I see many benefits to Apple products, I disagree over this DOJ action, I think it has merit and I think it could open up more competition, we shall see.

On a side note, if it were not for Samsung, one could argue there are a bunch of things Apple added to the Iphone in response, things like always on display and a greater ability to tweak the homepage and utilize widgets, so much so that people stopped jailbreaking Iphones because there was little need to do so.

Because of that I root for other companies to get more innovative and force Apple to respond with their own answers, that is my two cents.

I agree that competition is what drives feature additions.
But using the DoJ to force things I dont see is the way to achieve that.

For 15 years we've had iOS vs Android.
One side creates something, the other evaluates and adds the feature if they think users want it.

The leaps in phone camera quality is staggering in that time frame.
Digital camera sales have plummeted to niche products.

The amount of memory, graphic processing, biometrics, payments, dictation, health apps, network speed and soon AI (which hopefully improves the lacklustre Siri to be a much better assistant) have really pushed user experience forward and made carrying your phone everywhere almost essential.

At least supporting other platforms to innovate and force Apple forward is a good thing.

It's just tiring on here to read comments from those who just want Apple to fail and be brought down as their only aim. That adds value to noone as Android need Apple too to keep pushing them forward.

 

[transmaster]

Expect the AW is meant to be an extension of iOS/iPhone.

I put off getting an AW for years didn't really have and interest in one because I stopped wear wrist watches many years ago. The cardiopulmonary monitoring functions at My age could not be ignored anymore. I purchased an AWU2. I quickly learned that it was the part of the iPhone that I didn't know was missing. This missing thing inspired me to get the AirPod Pro 2's. Again it was the part of the iPhone I didn't know was missing. Now it is "how did I get along without them" thing.

 

[wbeasley]

I put off getting an AW for years didn't really have and interest in one because I stopped wear wrist watches many years ago. The cardiopulmonary monitoring functions at My age could not be ignored anymore. I purchased an AWU2. I quickly learned that it was the part of the iPhone that I didn't know was missing. This missing thing inspired me to get the AirPod Pro 2's. Again it was the part of the iPhone I didn't know was missing. Now it is "how did I get along without them" thing.

oh youve been "trapped" by Apple

Took me until AW3 to get one. Assumed it was an impulse tech toy purchase. so did my partner.
It quickly became much more than that.

After a heart issue, bought partner an AW4 as it added worthwhile monitoring information.

We both upgraded to AW5 when they came out.

Battery life is proving to be an issue with the AW5 now (and more of an issue since WatchOS10 I'm sure).
It will be time to upgrade again.

But even the AW3 is still used when outside gardening or the AW5 is charging.

AirPod Pros are great how they sound for their size and knocking out noise very effectively.
Much easier than lugging large corded headphones around too.
The more I travel, the less i want to carry with me. At one stage I was carrying more tech than clothing!
Now an iPad mini, Watch, phone and AirPods are all I really need to stay connected.
And a fast charging block with local electrical plug adapter and many USB plugs

 

[Ludatyk]

Microsoft had no control over iPod being allowed on it's system.

Apple wrote a Windows app that allowed a USB plugged in device to be accessed and have content uploaded and managed by that app. Microsoft couldnt stop it because it used generally available code to access the device the same way other USB devices communicated. And it didnt need to be loaded by an app store they controlled.

But Microsoft could have opted to take a percentage of iTunes sales... no? Similar to what Apple do with the App Store?

Other browsers became popular even when Microsoft defaulted to IE.
First things many people would do when buying a new machines was to download Firefox or Chrome.
And never use IE again.

The DoJ decision to force choice was a good result because it made it easier to what people were already doing.

What the DoJ are doing now is a totally different thing. Much of their claim is based on assumptions and extrapolating vague ideas and possibilities rather than actions users are doing to workaround perceived issues. You know the limitations before you buy an Apple product.

So, back when DoJ was investigating Microsoft... the only browser that competed against Microsoft was Netscape, while IE held a 48% market share. So, where is the "others?"

And if going down that trajectory... Microsoft could have made it even harder for Netscape to compete.

 

[dk001]

i believe the poster is saying they didnt get scam messages via iMessage (which would have been sent to their Apple ID rather than their phone number) since SMS only target phones.

yes they will receive scam messages but it will be through SMS that show in Messages.

While true it doesn’t show as green, (mine are dark grey background) and most won’t know the diff. That said, I have had a couple recently that showed as if sent from an Apple device. The number sent from was flagged by Hiya.

 

[wbeasley]

But Microsoft could have opted to take a percentage of iTunes sales... no? Similar to what Apple do with the App Store?


So, back when DoJ was investigating Microsoft... the only browser that competed against Microsoft was Netscape, while IE held a 48% market share. So, where is the "others?"

And if going down that trajectory... Microsoft could have made it even harder for Netscape to compete.

No Microsoft didnt get anything from iTunes sales as it was a discreet app install (like all apps back then - there was no App store). You bought and paid through iTunes with your linked AppleID credit card or a store bought voucher card. You could load MP3s fairly easily as well. Dragged into iTunes and if the MP3 meta data was there it categorised files for you. MP3s were still a bit piratey. Ripping CDs was still a skill. Not sure if iTunes let you rip them of not at the time. Later you could and choose the format and bitrate. I believe Fraunhoffer licensed the MP3s codecs to encode. Playback was free. So in theory people should have bought software to rip...

Sony also had an alternative codec, ATRAC. It was designed for MiniDiscs and was proprietary. It was also lossless but let them put a CD worth of music on a much smaller capacity disc. Guess the DoJ would look down on that now too

Yes Netscape was the alternative way way back.
And you could go to their website and download it for free and install is without drama.
Microsoft couldnt stop you.
I think you had to choose to open HTML pages with it (back when users were good as finding things in Windows and setting values or fiddling with registry settings). It might not have been defaultable at the time but we just kept an icon on the desktop and ran it from there.

So Microsoft couldnt make it harder. Lazy users who didnt know better just used the defaults. And that was fine if that met their needs. At least there was a browser installed.

 

[wbeasley]

While true it doesn’t show as green, (mine are dark grey background) and most won’t know the diff. That said, I have had a couple recently that showed as if sent from an Apple device. The number sent from was flagged by Hiya.

Thanks for the info. It shows hackers and scammers are always trying to push the envelope and find novel approaches to scam users. That's why we need to stay vigilant.

Opening up iOS just creates more loopholes for potential exploits that didnt exist before the EU decision. And if it is in the code base, even if not activated by the user, it still sits there and could be accessed.

 

[dk001]

I agree that competition is what drives feature additions.
But using the DoJ to force things I dont see is the way to achieve that.

For 15 years we've had iOS vs Android.
One side creates something, the other evaluates and adds the feature if they think users want it.

The leaps in phone camera quality is staggering in that time frame.
Digital camera sales have plummeted to niche products.

The amount of memory, graphic processing, biometrics, payments, dictation, health apps, network speed and soon AI (which hopefully improves the lacklustre Siri to be a much better assistant) have really pushed user experience forward and made carrying your phone everywhere almost essential.

At least supporting other platforms to innovate and force Apple forward is a good thing.

It's just tiring on here to read comments from those who just want Apple to fail and be brought down as their only aim. That adds value to noone as Android need Apple too to keep pushing them forward.

I use them both and for the last few years the iPhone (and iPad) have become stale. If it wasn’t for the OEM vs OEM (ex: foldables) Android would be the same. That’s immaterial. For the most part if I want to swap from Android OEM A to B it is easy and simple. Send pics, video, docs, data back and forth is easy peasy. To and from iOS though is a deliberate ball of mess. It isn’t from the Android side. If it wasn’t for the OEM vs OEM I suspect we would see Android right there with Apple in this suit. These have become almost required personal computers in everyday life. I can use an Android pretty much any way I want. An iPhone as long as it aligns with what Apple thinks I should be allowed. IOS is great until it isn’t and Apple does all it can to keep its users locked into the walled Apple world. That, IMHO, needs to change.

I want Apple to loosen the reins instead of tightening them as these devices become more and more a required part of life.

 

[dk001]

Thanks for the info. It shows hackers and scammers are always trying to push the envelope and find novel approaches to scam users. That's why we need to stay vigilant.

Opening up iOS just creates more loopholes for potential exploits that didnt exist before the EU decision. And if it is in the code base, even if not activated by the user, it still sits there and could be accessed.

Don’t agree. If it was specifically apps, yes. However the biggest issue is social engineering. Your pose is basically saying we need to constrain all users for the small amount that might be negatively affected.

 

[wbeasley]

Don’t agree. If it was specifically apps, yes. However the biggest issue is social engineering. Your pose is basically saying we need to constrain all users for the small amount that might be negatively affected.

i'd say the majority of users have little idea of how devices work. Or worry about viruses or malware.

The app I supported, I was amazed how few of the workers knew they Apple or Google passwords.
They got their kids to install apps for them.
And these are educated workers. Mostly over 40 years old in healthcare.

The under 40s were much better. But more reckless installing anything without question. A 30 year old installed an Android app that affected the whole network when she connected. IT finally tracked her down and had to add another layer of firewall protections (she shouldnt have been on the network as she shouldnt have known the password but you cant stop humans - her boss - from sharing things like that...)

I think we sometimes over estimate the public's interest in tech. To most, these are just tools that need to work. Like calculators. The moment they stop or have issues, people want to chuck them at the wall and rant and blame technology rather than their ill-informed actions

 

[ender78]

Don’t agree. If it was specifically apps, yes. However the biggest issue is social engineering. Your pose is basically saying we need to constrain all users for the small amount that might be negatively affected.

Consumers have two choices today, Apple and Android. I choose the locked in Apple ecosystem. Why should my choice be diluted to satisfy the small amount of users who want to use an Apple Watch Ultra with Samsung phone. Android users have so many pools to pee in, stay out of the one we have.

 

[bousozoku]

Does anyone remember buying “shrink wrap” software off the shelf in retail stores? Those stores had rows and rows of shelves with software applications for the IBM PC. Some even might have had a small dusty shelf at the back with a few applications for that Apple platform.

If IBM had the same control over the software industry that Apple has today ALL those stores would have been IBM “App Stores”, and we all would still be shopping there. IBM had the money to try this at the time so it's not as far fetched as you might think...

Of course those IBM stores would not have had that dusty shelf in the back with applications for the Apple platform so Apple would have had to open their own stores to compete. They never would have survived.

Microsoft also would have never survived, but that’s the silver lining in this dark alternate reality

The software industry has been staunchly independent from the very beginning. Apple is hardware company and has never made money from developing software so it should NOT be allowed to exert such control over the software industry. This is the main anti-trust issue.

Ever heard of AppleWorks, Claris, FileMaker?

Apple was forced to spin off applications to another company.

 

[wbeasley]

Ever heard of AppleWorks, Claris, FileMaker?

Apple was forced to spin off applications to another company.

Funny how they were forced to spin them off and yet today offer better versions (Pages and Numbers) for free.

Dusty physical stores waste resources and reduce money to app devs.

Apple is a hardware and software company. That's why the ecosystem thrives to the envy of others.

Only Apple has really succeeded in setting up physical stores.
Microsoft, Samsung, Sony have tried to do similar and failed.

It is because Apple have the unique position of controlling their whole environment and their stores dont undercut their retailers to steal sales. Everyone wins.

 

[visualseed]

Ever heard of AppleWorks, Claris, FileMaker?

Apple was forced to spin off applications to another company.

Apple wasn't forced to form Claris. It made a business decision to do it and it has remained a wholly-owned subsidiary ever since. Even through its stint as "FileMaker, Inc."

 

[Beautyspin]

This process will take a while but the breakup of Apple would be a last resort, and an unlikely outcome IMO. Back in 2000, a U.S. district court had ordered the breakup of Microsoft but it was later reversed on appeal.

From what I read, DOJ is not even asking for it.

 

[Beautyspin]

"i did not want to be rude" hahaha.

the complaint explains nothing. it is waffly at best.

"I was not making snide remarks". again hahaha. that was your intent. totally. couldnt provide evidence so resorted to "oh you are a legal expert". even you know that's exactly the intent of your comment. just admit it.

so you admit you want the "sheen of Apple removed".

And implying Apple is a bully? it's a company that exists to make profit by building products to sell.

There's a lot wrong with your intent in making so much noise on this topic. Repeatedly you rail against Apple.
It's tiring and needs to be called out.

I will make as many comments as I like as this is a forum. You do. And I will call them out when I disagree.

So, you have not read the document. Please do so now at least and come back, will you? We can continue the discussion after that.

 

[Naraxus]

So the elephant in the room here: What happens when all this is said and done to Apple?

Do they get split into separate companies (hardware, software, services)? Does Apple not get split up but rather gets heavily monitored for a period of x-amount of years?

This whole thing is going to take eons to shake out.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What happens when all this is said and done to Apple?

They purchase...."THE WORLD"
Shut down all investigations of Mother Apple
And the new M4 MacBook Air starts at 64GB SSD and 4G RAM .. and upgrades start at $400 each

 

[truthsteve]

That's fine to argue, as long as you realize your advice is based on that assumption. If your assumption is wrong, your advice is completely illogical.

I don't think you're understanding how this works.

What I believe DoJ is doing is wrong. That statement itself cannot be objectively "wrong" because it is an opinion. Your reply is illogical.