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

[Shirasaki]

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!

Bold for you to think I am thinking US government only tax $1 per citizen. Nope. If DOJ only has $330m budget, they can only do what $330m budget allows them to do. Last Time I check US GDP is around $25T in 2022, but there is no way government would pour trillions, or even billions into fighting Apple. However, im not DOJ insider or sth so just ignore my speculation and watch.

 

[bgillander]

Trying to be obtuse?
Beeper solved the problem but since it used Apple's credentials, it is illegal and hence was shutdown. Nobody is arguing that point.
It just means that there exists a solution that is more secure than SMS that Apple could have adopted (and it would have been legal since it is Apple coming up with the solution).
Since one person came up with the solution, it means it is trivial to implement.
However, Apple did not implement a more secure solution because it is after profits and not for the security and privacy of its users.

The question is not about the quality of Android phones or the feelings of Android users. It is the security and privacy of iOS users that is getting compromised. Any messages sent by iPhone users to Android users will be insecure. Can you understand the concept now? There is a solution that Apple could have implemented trivially and made iOS users' communications more secure, but Apple put profits ahead of its user's security and privacy.

Are you getting it now?

Ignoring the fact that probably the majority of non-trivial inventions of history were the creations of some person working alone, I believe it wasn’t actually trivial, as it requires a client installation on the Android side… wasn’t Beeper effectively an Android and Windows iMessage client?

You are saying that the solution to Apple potentially being a monopoly is that they should make Messages/iMessage available on other platforms and take over the messaging market to an even higher percentage. While that does actually almost make sense in this current Bizarro world, it would create many other complaints of unfair competition and their leveraging their market share.

Apple simply adopting RCS into Messages at least reduces the chance of those complaints, because it doesn’t involve installing an Apple Messages app on Android, as RCS is natively supported by Android.

 

[bgillander]

Bold for you to think I am thinking US government only tax $1 per citizen. Nope. If DOJ only has $330m budget, they can only do what $330m budget allows them to do. Last Time I check US GDP is around $25T in 2022, but there is no way government would pour trillions, or even billions into fighting Apple. However, im not DOJ insider or sth so just ignore my speculation and watch.

Not bold, just doing the math.

 

[Shirasaki]

Not bold, just doing the math.

And here is the problem. When I see your number, I simply cannot link your $330m number to US population together, and isn’t that too much to assume?

 

[weckart]

Apple spearheaded the entire modern smartphone industry and added countless jobs in America and around the world…but ok

Yeah, innovated by charging €1000 for an UNLOCKED iPhone, when the courts stepped in to stop Apple breaching existing laws. Twice the price of a locked phone. Apple set its store out from the start.

 

[wbeasley]

Yeah, innovated by charging €1000 for an UNLOCKED iPhone, when the courts stepped in to stop Apple breaching existing laws. Twice the price of a locked phone. Apple set its store out from the start.

courts dont set phone prices... and exchange rates have a lot to do with local prices...

 

[wbeasley]

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.

um no they (Apple) do not need to open up their private APIs at all.

you might like or want them to but there is no requirement for it to happen.
lots of companies use exactly the same thing.

Android APIs are more open, just like installing any app you want.
That's the nature of the beast.
Are there any private APIs in Android land you cant access?
I'd bet theres some lurking around because they are deemed too powerful to allow access to and could bring the system to a grinding halt or put risk on other apps and data.

let's say a function exists to delete an app.
if an API was available surely a malicious app could uninstall other apps without your input.
should apps be able to access private APIs in this instance?

 

[truthsteve]

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.

any third party tracker can piggy back on Find My app which users explicitly give permission to.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

Thanks, but I have already crunched the numbers with my staff. The point is Steam + Unity/Unreal costs MORE than just straight up iOS development. My argument was that is why I think Apple's cut is fair.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

I expect the lawsuit to go one of two ways.

1) Apple succeeds in getting this antitrust complaint dismissed. It's business as usual.

2) Even if Apple does go to trial, it will likely take several years to play out. During this time, a lot of things can happen. I suspect many of the complaints will end up being made irrelevant by market forces. For example, we already see RCS coming to iMessage and game streaming apps being allowed on iOS (though the irony of the latter is that it came only after the shuttering of Google Stadia). Either way, it's still business as usual for Apple. They are no stranger to lawsuits after all.

Win, lose, life goes on.

 

[webkit]

courts dont set phone prices... and exchange rates have a lot to do with local prices...

Exchange rates are a factor but Europe's high VAT, which is around 21% on average, is typically the major factor. Remove the VAT and iPhone pricing in Europe is generally not far off pre-sales tax pricing for same phone in the U.S.

 

[wbeasley]

All the complaints about Apple having private APIs...

Google have a doc about their APIs, and guess what...

Their doco is just as limiting as to what you can do legally and solely at Google's discretion.

It is ludicrous to slam Apple for private APIs when Google (and no doubt all other software vendors) do exactly the same. Section C would clearly mean undocumented private APIs are off bounds.

So now can we stop the "my Samsung Watch should be able to use Apple's private APIs"?

 

[1129846]

All the complaints about Apple having private APIs...

Google have a doc about their APIs, and guess what...

View attachment 2363220

Their doco is just as limiting as to what you can do legally and solely at Google's discretion.

It is ludicrous to slam Apple for private APIs when Google (and no doubt all other software vendors) do exactly the same. Section C would clearly mean undocumented private APIs are off bounds.

So now can we stop the "my Samsung Watch should be able to use Apple's private APIs"?

You are confusing OS API and play service APIs.

Google own Apps when talking with the Android OS goes through the exact same APIs to the OS. Same rules same restrictions.

Another example from Android. All Apps can access sms once the user grants said app permission. This allows someone to change their sms client.

If someone wants to say use Facebook messager as their sms client they could in theory.

Messager on iOS is the only app that can access sms hence a lot of restrictions and makes it difficult for another messaging app to get hold tractions on iOS.

But hey keep trying to twisting things to confusing people when Apple behaving very different than everyone else.

 

[dk001]

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.

There is control of the environment then there is the impediment against the user if they are looking to enhance, move on or expand.

Take another look at APIs. The Apple restrictions are more than that. There is protecting your data and there is limiting functionality to impede competition. Apple does both. If you think open access will give the competition a leg up, you really don’t understand the Apple API structure.

As for external apps…. LMAO!!!! That is very limited.

 

[dk001]

All the complaints about Apple having private APIs...

Google have a doc about their APIs, and guess what...

View attachment 2363220

Their doco is just as limiting as to what you can do legally and solely at Google's discretion.

It is ludicrous to slam Apple for private APIs when Google (and no doubt all other software vendors) do exactly the same. Section C would clearly mean undocumented private APIs are off bounds.

So now can we stop the "my Samsung Watch should be able to use Apple's private APIs"?

If it isn’t an Apple approved public API, Apple denotes it as non-public and prohibits their use. This includes private APIs. Google’s designation on API use on Android is far less restrictive.

 

[weckart]

courts dont set phone prices... and exchange rates have a lot to do with local prices...

Don't be so obtuse. It was an price arbitrarily set in a fit of corporate pique. Apple charged twice as much for the exact same locked phone in Germany after the courts said Apple had to offer an unlocked option in accordance with local regulations. It had nothing to do with exchange rates.

That trashy gimmick fell apart when Apple entered the Belgian market where locked phones were illegal altogether. Suddenly all iPhones in the EU lost their provider lock with no change in the purchase price.

 

[Smith288]

How do you think these lawsuits get paid for?

Through the budget process that the president proposes and 12 sub committees then negotiate varying degrees with both parties in congress and try to agree on a consensus and ultimately the president endorses and signs into law.

 

[bgillander]

Yeah, innovated by charging €1000 for an UNLOCKED iPhone, when the courts stepped in to stop Apple breaching existing laws. Twice the price of a locked phone. Apple set its store out from the start.

The unlocked phone is the exact same price as the locked phone in my country. The telecom is just taking the difference out of your monthly phone bill. But please let me know if you can find a locked phone at half the price of the unlocked one without a plan that requires you paying more than the difference in your phone bill.

 

[webkit]

Don't be so obtuse. It was an price arbitrarily set in a fit of corporate pique. Apple charged twice as much for the exact same locked phone in Germany after the courts said Apple had to offer an unlocked option in accordance with local regulations. It had nothing to do with exchange rates.

That trashy gimmick fell apart when Apple entered the Belgian market where locked phones were illegal altogether. Suddenly all iPhones in the EU lost their provider lock with no change in the purchase price.

Are you referring to the 2007 case regarding T-Mobile's exclusive iPhone carrier contract in Germany? Apple had a similar arrangement with AT&T in the U.S. which lasted until 2011. A reason the T-Mobile locked phone was cheaper was due to the 24 month T-Mobile contract obligation.

 

[wbeasley]

Don't be so obtuse. It was an price arbitrarily set in a fit of corporate pique. Apple charged twice as much for the exact same locked phone in Germany after the courts said Apple had to offer an unlocked option in accordance with local regulations. It had nothing to do with exchange rates.

That trashy gimmick fell apart when Apple entered the Belgian market where locked phones were illegal altogether. Suddenly all iPhones in the EU lost their provider lock with no change in the purchase price.

if game consoles were forced to unlock their environments, prices would also go up.

Look at printers... they made money back on selling ink and toner over the life of the product.

Locked phones were effectively subsidised up front and recovered over time.

 

[wbeasley]

the Google document says "Using Our APIs".

it doesnt differentiate on hardware or software.
It just tells you what you agree to do with any API.

And you can be allowed or not allowed and there are some limits you that Google determines.

How they implement their agreement is up to them. Users and devs get no final say.

 

[lartola]

The wording "refuse to use" isn't accurate, more like it's much too difficult to implement. The issue that it's a problem for Americans is relevant because this entire thread is about a lawsuit initiated by the UNITED STATES dept of justice. All of y'all in the EU can just keep the entire "just use Whatsapp" comments out of here because it's simply not a viable solution to the way text messaging evolved in this country.

Yeah, now it’s very hard to implement, but it all started with a refusal by american users to use anything but what was built into apple’s OS. It’s just like the metric system: the US refused to use it when the rest of the world first adopted it and now it would be practically impossible to make the change.

 

[weckart]

The unlocked phone is the exact same price as the locked phone in my country. The telecom is just taking the difference out of your monthly phone bill. But please let me know if you can find a locked phone at half the price of the unlocked one without a plan that requires you paying more than the difference in your phone bill.

I despair of this complete lack of logic. Apple did not want to sell an unlocked phone, so they made the price deliberately exorbitant to discourage others from demanding and buying unlocked phones. It had zero relation to the actual cost or Apple's bottom line. I suppose it was one way to stop phones being exported to countries where Apple had yet to agree terms with the relevant authorities but that is putting a generous spin on things as touts were in force when the queues formed to buy the newest model when they were put on sale.

When Apple entered the Belgian market, the Belgians were charged the same as buyers in other countries buying locked phones. The lock went pretty swiftly after that right across Europe.

 

[bgillander]

I despair of this complete lack of logic. Apple did not want to sell an unlocked phone, so they made the price deliberately exorbitant to discourage others from demanding and buying unlocked phones. It had zero relation to the actual cost or Apple's bottom line. I suppose it was one way to stop phones being exported to countries where Apple had yet to agree terms with the relevant authorities but that is putting a generous spin on things as touts were in force when the queues formed to buy the newest model when they were put on sale.

When Apple entered the Belgian market, the Belgians were charged the same as buyers in other countries buying locked phones. The lock went pretty swiftly after that right across Europe.

You seem to have no concept of the vendor subsidies I see in my country. Please provide an example of a locked phone you could buy outright for half price the price of an unlocked phone without also locking yourself into a high priced telecom contract, so I can understand the point you seem to be trying to make. I was not aware that scenario existed, and would be curious to see the exact pricing.

 

[webkit]

Apple did not want to sell an unlocked phone, so they made the price deliberately exorbitant to discourage others from demanding and buying unlocked phones.

Blame the carrier as it's they who wanted to lock customers into long-term (and potentially pricey) plan contracts and therefore offered "locked" phones with long-term contracts for less than "unlocked" phones that had no contract commitments. This was a common practice with carriers, at least in the U.S., even before the iPhone came out.