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

[RSB96]

There are certain things I don't understand.

Regarding CarPlay, is it dominant? Almost all manufacturers interchangeably put Android Auto and CarPlay, so the car, regardless of the model, allows both systems without problem.

They raise doubts with CarPlay 2.0 and access to aspects of the vehicle. Android Automotive, actually equipped in Polestar, Volvo, Renault and GM vehicles, does not pose any problem? Android Auto does not pose the same problems?

Honestly, I do not understand that CarPlay is dominant in vehicles. Maybe we should ask ourselves why people use Android Auto or CarPlay instead of the native in-car system. Maybe it's because all in-car infotainment systems were garbage, and today many still are, such as Toyota, Honda, Stellantis group, etc. Tesla, Volvo, Polestar, Renault and the latest versions of VAG's infotaiment are quite good, but the rest of the groups still have very improvable systems.

Regarding that it is difficult to change operating system because you have "an adaptation period", it makes no sense at all. If you have a Toyota and you buy a Volkswagen, don't you have to get used to the new functionalities and interface of the vehicle? If you have a Mac and you switch to Windows don't you have to get used to the new interface? If you have a Pixel don't you have to get used to Samsung's One UI interface?

As for the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android... Android Wear is compatbile with the iPhone? Oh, no, isn't it?

Then they blame Apple for the failure of Windows Phone and Amazon Phone. At the time, Apple didn't have any mainstream services, nor did most of today's services exist, at most iMessage and FaceTime in their early versions. is Apple really to blame for that? I think it was Google that made Windows Phone fail by not incorporating its apps in the Windows Store, when it is well known that most Google services are dominant (Gmail, YouTube, search engine...).

I can understand giving Apple a slap on the wrist with certain things, but a lot of that demand makes no sense at all.

 

[truthsteve]

Basic notifications.
- Messaging
- email
- calls
- music
- calendar alerts
- basic exercise - calories, steps, etc…
- basic health - heart rate etc…
- weather alerts
- map info
- etc…

All iPhone notifications can be relayed to the watch. I literally can get all of those notifications (iMessage, Mail app, FaceTime app, Apple Music, Calendar, run keeper, Heartify, Weather, Apple + Google Maps) on a Fitbit, on a Mac, on a Windows, etc... I don't know if Galaxy Watch *does* do it, but the capability is literally there for Samsung to implement.

You're wrong here. If you're going to keep denying facts then I'm going stop repeating myself. I'm moving on.

 

[MacFarmer]

It was long time clear that this is coming. This is what happens when you stop bribing politicians, oh sorry, "when you stop playing exorbitant amounts to lobbyists".

 

[ender78]

There are certain things I don't understand.

Regarding CarPlay, is it dominant? Almost all manufacturers interchangeably put Android Auto and CarPlay, so the car, regardless of the model, allows both systems without problem.

They raise doubts with CarPlay 2.0 and access to aspects of the vehicle. Android Automotive, actually equipped in Polestar, Volvo, Renault and GM vehicles, does not pose any problem? Android Auto does not pose the same problems?

Honestly, I do not understand that CarPlay is dominant in vehicles. Maybe we should ask ourselves why people use Android Auto or CarPlay instead of the native in-car system. Maybe it's because all in-car infotainment systems were garbage, and today many still are, such as Toyota, Honda, Stellantis group, etc. Tesla, Volvo, Polestar, Renault and the latest versions of VAG's infotaiment are quite good, but the rest of the groups still have very improvable systems.

CarPlay and AndroidAuto are popular for the reasons that you state plus bringing a UI that users like to their car. Car makers are terrified of both loosing control, ability to create a user experience, and most importantly loose revenue related to that in car experience. Users took control away from the auto makers by being able to choose the UI they like.

A survey a year back found that 79% of US car buyers would not even consider buying a car without CarPlay. That speaks to how bad the car interfaces are today.

I have a 2017 Subaru Forester. Subaru introduced CarPlay starting in 2019. Can I get CarPlay via software upgrade, nope. Can I have Subaru swap my head unit for a new one, nope ! Subaru wants me to buy a new car. Cars are not devices that most of us buy on a life cycle of less than 5-10 years. I might pay $800-1200 for the ability to swap the head unit at the dealership. But I have zero option to do so. I have yet to see anyone introduce an after market solution that meets my needs.

 

[RSB96]

CarPlay and AndroidAuto are popular for the reasons that you state plus bringing a UI that users like to their car. Car makers are terrified of both loosing control, ability to create a user experience, and most importantly loose revenue related to that in car experience. Users took control away from the auto makers by being able to choose the UI they like.

A survey a year back found that 79% of US car buyers would not even consider buying a car without CarPlay. That speaks to how bad the car interfaces are today.

I have a 2017 Subaru Forester. Subaru introduced CarPlay starting in 2019. Can I get CarPlay via software upgrade, nope. Can I have Subaru swap my head unit for a new one, nope ! Subaru wants me to buy a new car. Cars are not devices that most of us buy on a life cycle of less than 5-10 years. I might pay $800-1200 for the ability to swap the head unit at the dealership. But I have zero option to do so. I have yet to see anyone introduce an after market solution that meets my needs.

The only brand that has allowed that is Mazda with some models (2013 onwards). The rest none, regardless of price and prestige...

 

[dk001]

i like how some people's ideas of "BASIC" are quite specific to the hardware...
Health (which would actually depend on the watch hardware sensors specific to that watch). Maps. Weather Alerts...
Messages... Almost like you should buy the watch that is designed as the accessory that goes with the OS, isnt it?
But that would be a solution and they dont want that.

I buy nice pens.
But I have to buy refills specific to that pen. I'm only writing. That's a basic function. Surely all pens should support the same refills...

Or razors. Damn, the replacement blades only fit one specific brand. It's control. It's a conspiracy. It's anticompetitive...

I'm surprised Facebook Messenger arent on the list - oh they stopped doing notifications themselves, didnt they? Although mine still seems to work.

My other ”smartwatch” is a Garmin Fenix. I am looking at upgrading my Garmin to replace my current AWU. I get better functionality on Android for Garmin than on iOS. Because of Apple restrictions. Wonder why Apple doesn’t allow my AW to connect to my iPad. As for my definition of Basic, it is what I have come to expect looking at numerous smartwatches and seeing what the abilities are on both iOS and Android.If my Apple Watch can do these and a lot more, why wouldn’t I expect it (Basic) on iOS?

Love how you try to make GU consignment items fit this discussion. Try again. Pens and razors .

For social media, anything Meta I avoid if at all possible. I haven’t used FB in well over a decade plus.

 

[dk001]

All iPhone notifications can be relayed to the watch. I literally can get all of those notifications (iMessage, Mail app, FaceTime app, Apple Music, Calendar, run keeper, Heartify, Weather, Apple + Google Maps) on a Fitbit, on a Mac, on a Windows, etc... I don't know if Galaxy Watch *does* do it, but the capability is literally there for Samsung to implement.

You're wrong here. If you're going to keep denying facts then I'm going stop repeating myself. I'm moving on.

I don’t know why you are hung up on the Galaxy Watch. Look at other smartwatches. For me it is Garmin.
What version FitBit do you use? Tried the wife’s Charge 5 on my 15PM and it doesn’t do half that.

Personally I would love to keep my AWU but it is locked to iOS only.

 

[Ethosik]

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...

Yep. Major companies are taken down just by one email and got ransomware. It’s a big big BIG concern. I have dealt with companies where I had to restore data and sanitize the entire organization just from one email.

 

[Ethosik]

Forgot to respond to this:

Since Unity/Unreal are game engines vs Steam which is a sales platform this comparison doesn't make sense. Many many games on iOS also use Unity/Unreal so pitting iOS vs Unity/Unreal seems an odd comparison to be making.

When I say iOS I mean iOS entirely. Using SceneKit etc.

 

[bcortens]

When I say iOS I mean iOS entirely. Using SceneKit etc.

So you’re comparing the licensing costs of SceneKit vs Unreal/Unity for iOS only development or cross platform development?

I don’t think Unity has fully fixed their terrible license model so they can be ruled out right away.

Unreal + Steam however gets you a 30% commission if your income is less than $1 million and 35% if above (since Unreal wants 5% as well)
vs.
iOS + SceneKit is 15% commission on revenue Less than $1 million and 30% above $1 million.

Given steam doesn’t exist on iOS I don’t know why you would be comparing that anyway though, it’s kind of a weird comparison.

Let’s just keep thinking though…

The 5% fee for Unreal Engine is (I think) a somewhat reasonable cost to gain access to Windows, Epic Games Store, PlayStation, XBox, and self distribution via your own website. If you don’t need access to those platforms/distribution mechanisms then SceneKit is definitely a great way to go if you only care about Apple’s platforms.

The question is should Steam have a small business percentage like Apple does for access to macOS? If you‘re using Unreal you can target Mac and Windows with only a 5% fee to Unreal if your revenue exceed $1 million and you host it on your own website, or free even if you have less than $1 million in revenue.

If you only care about selling on Apple’s platforms sure you can make a little more money selling via the App Store. If you’re selling cross platform than Unreal makes more sense than SceneKit. With Unreal you can release in the App Store on iOS and macOS, Steam, Epic, etc… all at the same time.

 

[1129846]

i like how some people's ideas of "BASIC" are quite specific to the hardware...
Health (which would actually depend on the watch hardware sensors specific to that watch). Maps. Weather Alerts...
Messages... Almost like you should buy the watch that is designed as the accessory that goes with the OS, isnt it?
But that would be a solution and they dont want that.

I buy nice pens.
But I have to buy refills specific to that pen. I'm only writing. That's a basic function. Surely all pens should support the same refills...

Or razors. Damn, the replacement blades only fit one specific brand. It's control. It's a conspiracy. It's anticompetitive...

I'm surprised Facebook Messenger arent on the list - oh they stopped doing notifications themselves, didnt they? Although mine still seems to work.

You are confusing hardware part (like heart rate) with API access.

Lets take health and heart rate. A watch should be able to send updates to those things with out having to route threw another App once connect to the phone. Heart rate can be fed directly to apple health app.

Notifications again if the notifcation appears on the iPhone then any 3rd party watch should be able to access the same info threw the connection to the phone.

The basic part is Apple watch should not be grant a bunch of private API as at this point they are fairly stand along devices. Mind you Apple give the watch a lot more access to private things.

We can also go look at say Apple Air tags vs Tile. Tile requires the App to be running and granted access to always access to location to work. Air tags just need an Apple device with location turned on to update location of an air tag. no one else can tie into that network easily. No public access way to tie to update it but Apple air tags can instead of saying requiring Find My app (full app) being active in the back ground and it has to be granted the same permision of tile.

It boils down to Apple grants a lot of private API access to their own stuff and actively blocks others. It is find when you are smaller.
This is more about using the leverage in one market to squeeze out or take control over another.

 

[Abazigal]

Fight, Apple. Continue to fight and continue to win.

Apple is basically being accused of not doing enough to prop up the competition, which to me is an extremely ridiculous claim no matter how one attempts to spin it.

I don't believe Apple has broken any existing US laws, and I honestly don't see these lawsuits making any headway. You want to regulate Apple, the US needs to pass new laws akin to the DMA, but I don't see what happening seeing how split Congress is right now. They can't even agree on supplying basic aid to Ukraine!

 

[wbeasley]

You are confusing hardware part (like heart rate) with API access.

Lets take health and heart rate. A watch should be able to send updates to those things with out having to route threw another App once connect to the phone. Heart rate can be fed directly to apple health app.

Notifications again if the notifcation appears on the iPhone then any 3rd party watch should be able to access the same info threw the connection to the phone.

The basic part is Apple watch should not be grant a bunch of private API as at this point they are fairly stand along devices. Mind you Apple give the watch a lot more access to private things.

We can also go look at say Apple Air tags vs Tile. Tile requires the App to be running and granted access to always access to location to work. Air tags just need an Apple device with location turned on to update location of an air tag. no one else can tie into that network easily. No public access way to tie to update it but Apple air tags can instead of saying requiring Find My app (full app) being active in the back ground and it has to be granted the same permision of tile.

It boils down to Apple grants a lot of private API access to their own stuff and actively blocks others. It is find when you are smaller.
This is more about using the leverage in one market to squeeze out or take control over another.

no.

Apple designs hardware accessories and writes private APIs to allow access to those devices.
Hence these devices dont work well on other hardware.

These APIs are often specific to the hardware so letting other vendors have access to the APIs isnt going to improve competitors products. They dont have access to the same Apple APIs on Android devices. They access different, maybe somewhat compatible functions, but as they are private you dont know what goes on inside the code.

My bank lets me move money easily between accounts in the same bank.
They put a lot of limits and time constraints on sending money outside their bank.
Does that give them a competitive advantage? I'd bet the aim is to keep you using their products and you as a customer in their fold.

Competitive advantage happens in all manufacturing. Automotive, banking, electronics, health.

 

[wbeasley]

The only brand that has allowed that is Mazda with some models (2013 onwards). The rest none, regardless of price and prestige...

Car interfaces have come a long way lately.

The last few vechicles we had allowed or included Carplay or AndroidAuto.
Tried it, nah. Especially when they wanted to charge extra for it.

Live Maps in Tesla and routing info with streaming music meets our demands when driving.
Phones notify text messages on screen.
Some functions I can choose to control by voice.

Is the interface perfect? No but there is some configuring you can do.

Perhaps more people could concentrate on driving better than playing with their screens?

 

[1129846]

no.

Apple designs hardware accessories and writes private APIs to allow access to those devices.
Hence these devices dont work well on other hardware.

These APIs are often specific to the hardware so letting other vendors have access to the APIs isnt going to improve competitors products. They dont have access to the same Apple APIs on Android devices. They access different, maybe somewhat compatible functions, but as they are private you dont know what goes on inside the code.

My bank lets me move money easily between accounts in the same bank.
They put a lot of limits and time constraints on sending money outside their bank.
Does that give them a competitive advantage? I'd bet the aim is to keep you using their products and you as a customer in their fold.

Competitive advantage happens in all manufacturing. Automotive, banking, electronics, health.

Bad example as it is staying inside the same basic product.

Watch to phone is very different.

It is more like your bank saying you can only bill pay AT&T for your cell phone provide or saying AT&T customer can call the help line.

So come up with better example.

Over all I am back to ignoring this thread as it has turn into group that believes Apple can do no wrong and will twist everything to match that and everyone else.

 

[wbeasley]

looks like someone has used up their thumbs down quota for today on my posts

 

[wbeasley]

Bad example as it is staying inside the same basic product.

Watch to phone is very different.

It is more like your bank saying you can only bill pay AT&T for your cell phone provide or saying AT&T customer can call the help line.

So come up with better example.

Over all I am back to ignoring this thread as it has turn into group that believes Apple can do no wrong and will twist everything to match that and everyone else.

it's not about saying Apple can do no wrong but it is saying Apple create products that work with their software because they control both.

other vendors create hardware and rely on others for the software.
perhaps that was their mistake?
they are beholden to what Microsoft or Google allow them to do as well in those OSes.
they now expect Apple to give them the same access. it's Apple IP. they have no interest in doing so.

Watches are accessories not main computing devices.
It's quite clear when you buy one is uses a phone to update itself and is closely linked.

Buying a Watch from a retail store:

 

[dk001]

it's not about saying Apple can do no wrong but it is saying Apple create products that work with their software because they control both.

other vendors create hardware and rely on others for the software.
perhaps that was their mistake?
they are beholden to what Microsoft or Google allow them to do as well in those OSes.
they now expect Apple to give them the same access. it's Apple IP. they have no interest in doing so.

Watches are accessories not main computing devices.
It's quite clear when you buy one is uses a phone to update itself and is closely linked.

Buying a Watch from a retail store:

View attachment 2363113

You make a great argument on why the DOJ is filing.

 

[wbeasley]

You make a great argument on why the DOJ is filing.

Because Apple like to control the end user experience by making hardware and software?
That's their point of difference.
Always has been. And why things work better. They know both inside out.

And they allow external apps on Macs and iOS device. Just not open slather.
And they dont grant access to private APIs... hence they are called PRIVATE.
Many vendors write private APIs. I supported an app from a vendor who wouldnt share data structures for their tables on the private data. that was their IP. open access could have given competitors a huge leg up with no groundwork required to duplicate their system.

 

[webkit]

Apple is basically being accused of not doing enough to prop up the competition, which to me is an extremely ridiculous claim no matter how one attempts to spin it.

Apple is being accused of doing things that block/restrict choice and hinder or stifle competition which is what antitrust laws are supposed to address.

 

[wbeasley]

You are confusing hardware part (like heart rate) with API access.

Lets take health and heart rate. A watch should be able to send updates to those things with out having to route threw another App once connect to the phone. Heart rate can be fed directly to apple health app.

Notifications again if the notifcation appears on the iPhone then any 3rd party watch should be able to access the same info threw the connection to the phone.

The basic part is Apple watch should not be grant a bunch of private API as at this point they are fairly stand along devices. Mind you Apple give the watch a lot more access to private things.

We can also go look at say Apple Air tags vs Tile. Tile requires the App to be running and granted access to always access to location to work. Air tags just need an Apple device with location turned on to update location of an air tag. no one else can tie into that network easily. No public access way to tie to update it but Apple air tags can instead of saying requiring Find My app (full app) being active in the back ground and it has to be granted the same permision of tile.

It boils down to Apple grants a lot of private API access to their own stuff and actively blocks others. It is find when you are smaller.
This is more about using the leverage in one market to squeeze out or take control over another.

it's called private for a reason... and it's not illegal.

 

[bcortens]

it's called private for a reason... and it's not illegal.

The DOJ seems to think you’re wrong… soooo… lets see how this goes over the next few years?

 

[1129846]

it's not about saying Apple can do no wrong but it is saying Apple create products that work with their software because they control both.

other vendors create hardware and rely on others for the software.
perhaps that was their mistake?
they are beholden to what Microsoft or Google allow them to do as well in those OSes.
they now expect Apple to give them the same access. it's Apple IP. they have no interest in doing so.

Watches are accessories not main computing devices.
It's quite clear when you buy one is uses a phone to update itself and is closely linked.

Buying a Watch from a retail store:

View attachment 2363113

And none of that has to change.
The differences is on the Apple watch example is they need to open up those private API so some one else can make a watch that can do a lot of the same things threw the same API.
It basically forces Apple to play by the same rules on iOS as everyone else.

A good example is oddly enough Android. Google's own Apps work on Android threw the exact same API as everyone else can use. Their are no back door loop holes they are using that someone else could not use to work on android OS. How Google's own Apps interact with the Android OS is the exact same as you and I can use. They are not using private back door APIs. Google own Android watches use the exact same API as say samgsung wants to use. Hell If Samsung wanted to create their own watch using their own OS same restriction on access Android.

That is the case. It is about removing Apple's cheating.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is being accused of doing things that block/restrict choice and hinder or stifle competition which is what antitrust laws are supposed to address.

They will have their day in court.

 

[bgillander]

But apples cash on hand is in the realm of billions, not millions. Apple will very likely drain US justice department budget if the case drags on for a decade or longer, unless US government takes extra steps to limit their ability to use said cash or other tactics.

Well, I was mainly joking about the government having 330 million pockets to reach into, but you actually think that the government limits itself to taking only 1 dollar from each of its citizens? That makes me wish you were in charge of taxation!