If only the conviction of macrumors posters about US laws was worth as much as the opinion of the lawmakers themselves, then Apple would have nothing to worry about.🤣
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Antitrust Committee Likens Tech Companies Including Apple to 'Oil Barons and Railroad Tycoons'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If only the conviction of macrumors posters about US laws was worth as much as the opinion of the lawmakers themselves, then Apple would have nothing to worry about.🤣
AWS is a monopoly in a secondary market. One needs an Amazon account? Right?
You're right, the comparison is as ridiculous as the report from the committee and the comparison to oil barons. The committee is just some political grandstanding. If they really wanted to do something, they would investigate how one's personal information gets passed around the internet, facilitated by facebook. And then pass some laws.
Not recommend breaking up one of the best tech innovators, because a bunch of devs who made $$$ doesn't like Apples' model.
Apple already ruined their own UI and hence the UX, and app developers know this and aren't even bothering to try anymore. Happened on MacOS as well. Have you noticed that it's a freaking free-for-all when it comes to design? Apps that used to be well-behaved "Apple-like" simply aren't bothering (i.e. remember when Firefox had a real Mac preferences dialog like Safari still does instead the crap Windows preferences in a web-page thing it now has?)
But that's pretty off-topic I admit. As much as I dislike quite a lot out of Apple these days, I think it is unbelievable that they are being called a monopoly in this case. It's just nuts. I do think big companies should be regulated, but let's start with crap like the way Apple is fighting the Right-to-Repair. That's a huge issue with massive repercussions well outside Apple or the tech industry (just ask John Deere owners). Apple simply isn't a monopoly except in the one, very specific instance that they have a monopoly on how apps are distributed on iThings. I don't know, possibly that's all the report is referring to, and I hope so (I obviously have not read the 450 page report).
seems to be working for video game consoles forever where development budgets exceed app development budgets by 100x or so.
[automerge]1602093810[/automerge]
then there’s no point in spending energy figuring out how multiple app stores would work on iOS
App Store UX so far has been great. I don’t know the magnitude of people asking for Xcloud, but other than a few limitations, people generally prefer apps on iOS vs apps on Android
Uh did I tell you what is better for you? On average phones know more about us than our computers. Good that you trust Windows macOS or Linux enough to store such critical data. I don't, many people I know don't and in general iPhones/any phone has more critical data than our computers these days. One bad malicious ad on a legitimate website can infect my system.
I do not take my computer with me on walks to record my health activity. I take my phone and watch.
I don't take my computer to pay for items at a store, I use my phone/watch with Apple Pay.
I do not do my banking on my computer, I do it on my phone.
You are in the minority that does nothing on their phone. However, you STILL need the ability to dial emergency services at any time without your phone acting up. This ALONE makes the macOS vs iPhone comparison invalid.
What competition does Apple face for app distribution (and the monetization of app distribution) on Apple devices?
Who said Apple needs competition for its' own platform? Can one force Apple to load another o/s other than IOS on it's phones? The entire infrastructure is a platform.
And sure laws could be written to force apple to open up the hardware and software, but we will see.
I dont believe Apple should face competition for app distribution on its own devices.
The way Apple handles it is via a ‘walled garden’, as far as I’m aware there is no legal necessity for it to be any different. Other manufacturers do it differently, Apple does it like this.
I’m not entirely sure why people don’t just move to other platforms if they don’t like it. Well, actually I do know- it’s becuase Apple has built up a massive customer base whom trust in the system, and a massive developer base who support the system.
Somewhere along the way, certain groups of people have decided that Apple should offer things for free, and change their established methods to suit them.
That’s such an entitled way of thinking. Get over yourselves. Your iOS success is on the back of Apple. There is a reason why android apps are less popular or less quality (in general) than their iOS counterparts, if they exist at all. There is a reason why android is a frangmented unsupported unupdated mess. Changing Apple to the same model can ONLY be detrimental to the users.
You might not do that, but whole Chinese iPhone owners will bypass Apple AppStore in favor of Chinese AppStore.
We actually do have laws against using your market position to act in an anti-competitive manner. This isn't about whether people like, don't like, or want a platform to change. It's about whether Apple is using its market position to unfairly benefit itself.
It’s a market place full of competitors to apples own apps and to each other within the ecosystem. How is it anti competitive?
The answer could be and maybe is: "Apple is using its' market position to fairly and legally benefit itself."
One example I just posted elsewhere. Apple can have a subscription gaming service called Apple Arcade, but Microsoft isn't allowed to have one on iOS? Of course Apple must see the writing on the wall since they changed the app store guidelines just last month to allow them, though in hobbled form. Amongst other limitations, those gaming services have to submit every game for review, an artificial limitation. Why would Apple force games available in the streaming service to be reviewed, meanwhile Netflix content isn't reviewed where one can stream "Cuties"?
Apple is one half of a duopoly and therefore has enormous market power. Apple has it's own gaming subscription service. Apple previously disallowed other streaming gaming services, though now allows them with significant restrictions. The former was 100% anti-competitive and it may still be currently if the burden Apple is placing on its competitors is undue.
Maybe, we'll see what lawmakers and regulators decide. To me, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I am generally more wary of large corporations. They have in excess of $500 billion dollars. Not that far off from the US government. Money tends to corrupt.
Sounds like what they call in the tech industry, "The Microsoft Retaliation"
Apple vets the games on arcade, and would be unable to vet the games on a similar competitors service, other than outlined in the change of terms to allow it.
games can contain malicious code, streaming media cannot.
Broadcast legalities and limits are governed by a separate body and have laws pertaining to age limits in viewing, etc, which are handled the the streaming service. it’s been this way on tv and across cinema for decades.
I don’t think you have seen cuties, judging by your reference, rather just read about it. It’s a take on the reality of the situation of these girls, rather than an abuse in itself.
The gaming services I'm talking about are also streaming. And you're right, I haven't seen Cuties, it sounds gross.
You know that going in and can make an informed decision (or you didn't know that and didn't do your homework). No different than buying a home where a HOA is in effect and you may be limited as to the types of things you can do with your property.
This is farcical. The same government that shut down small businesses while allowing big businesses to remain open during Covid wants to break up big businesses? The same government that allowed Sprint and T-Mobile to merge, giving consumers fewer options in an industry that already had too few players?
This is political theater; politicians and greedy DA's looking to make a name for themselves at the expense of successful companies.
This is political theater; politicians and greedy DA's looking to make a name for themselves at the expense of successful companies.
Naaa that’s a lie. Most companies are using aws and it’s not even close.
But more importantly they go to smaller players manufacturers and sell the same products for a cheaper rate putting the little guy out of business.
Remember that the games are already vetted and rated. Also the provider is Microsoft.
I suppose one could argue that Apple has a much larger share of the market among wealthier consumers. So if we defined market share in dollar terms rather than people terms, maybe there's more of an argument. Kind of a weird argument though.
That said, it’s funny that just a few years ago, everyone was arguing that Apple would lose and we would end up with an Android monopoly. In this sense, I consider it quite an achievement that Apple has, against all odds, gone on to stand toe to toe against a competitor that literally outclasses it 6:1 in terms of market share.
But either way, I don’t expect any lawsuit against Apple to stick.
That said, it’s funny that just a few years ago, everyone was arguing that Apple would lose and we would end up with an Android monopoly. In this sense, I consider it quite an achievement that Apple has, against all odds, gone on to stand toe to toe against a competitor that literally outclasses it 6:1 in terms of market share.
But either way, I don’t expect any lawsuit against Apple to stick.