Assuming it passes, and assuming it passes in a form even slightly resembling its initial one.
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 Legislation Would Require Users to Be Able to Delete All Pre-Installed Apple Apps [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They do have the power to dictate arbitrary rules. What they don't have is the power to dictate absurd rules. While you may personally conflate arbitrary with absurd, they're two very different things.
Last edited:
Thats like telling a Supermarket they cannot stock their own brand items.
If there were only two supermarkets in existence, you might have a point.
2 supermarkets that sell each others competitors brands in their own store.
google has iOS apps and iOS has google apps.
It’s insane that the government is trying to suggest that Apple is a monopoly, but so is Google, and both have competing products, yet in both cases, these two companies also offer apps that the other company makes available on their respective devices so that consumers can use the services / apps that they want.
I’m not sure that falls into the category of what a monopoly is or does.
I just don’t understand why this is even an issue of needing to be “fair”. Why is it that Apple’s self developed hardware and software need to now be made so that competitors, who are also developer customers that will likely make money from Apple’s hardware and software, can get an even better shot at convincing the consumer to use their app instead of Apple’s own app? Should these companies be doing a better job marketing to get consumers to use their apps in the first place?
I’m not sure that falls into the category of what a monopoly is or does.
I just don’t understand why this is even an issue of needing to be “fair”. Why is it that Apple’s self developed hardware and software need to now be made so that competitors, who are also developer customers that will likely make money from Apple’s hardware and software, can get an even better shot at convincing the consumer to use their app instead of Apple’s own app? Should these companies be doing a better job marketing to get consumers to use their apps in the first place?
iOS is licensed to whom? Really? Microsoft could put IE on any computer THEY BUILT but they pressured OTHERS to use it by making it part of the OS.
Apple decided to use Safari or WebKit on iOS. There are nifty devs that build quite good alternative browsers for iOS/iPadOS. But until now, iOS IS Apple, the devices come from Apple. That is there appeal.
Thank you for your input. Good luck on your first semester at college.
Why do I get the sinking feeling this will open the doors to companies like AT&T and Verizon to have their own "app bundles" that they'll offer for a discounted rate or some such nonsense, when you choose them over Apple's? Or even worse, AT&T-branded iPhones.
Microsoft had a meeting with Netscape in which Microsoft said 'you can have the Windows 3.1 and Mac markets, but leave us the Windows 95 market or we will crush you.' Netscape refused. So Microsoft told PC vendors that if they wanted to preinstall Netscape then they could no longer put Windows on their PCs. They withheld API documentation from Netscape to make it harder for Netscape to develop its software for Windows. And they developed Internet Explorer and preinstalled it on Windows, funding it with the enormous war chest of cash they had from sales of Windows. In the US v. Microsoft antitrust trial, Microsoft's behavior was characterized as "cutting off Netscape's air supply."
There is simply no way to compete against a company who is going to clone all of your products and give them away for free until you're dead. People say 'Netscape should have just made better products;' you try doing that against a company who has near-infinite cash reserves and who is starving you.
The outcome of US v. Microsoft was that Microsoft was ordered to split into two companies; but on appeal that order was overturned, and they got away with a slap on the wrist.
Nothing that Apple has (been exposed to have) done comes close to the level of what Microsoft did in the 1990s. So if Microsoft could avoid being split up, I think Apple will be able to avoid it too.
So why don’t they charge $2,000 for iPhones, or take 50% of revenue? Does Apple not like more money? Are they just being altruistic by not charging customers or developers more?
Apple, just like every other company in the world, might be able to dictate arbitrary terms, but that doesn’t mean customers and suppliers will accept them. And if they don’t accept them, those rules are null and void.
Who decides whether terms are absurd or merely arbitrary? Aside from sanctimonious Congressmen and forum posters, of course. Customers and suppliers.
Regardless of how ridiculous this action by the government is, monopoly laws apply to all industries and protect you from a lot of bad things like extremely high priced internet and cellular plans.
Last edited:
That’s what a proposed bill would impose on Amazon: they wouldn’t be able to sell their own products like Amazon Basics. Congress again rescuing us from our choices and lower priced products.
Let's make a car analogy, if one hasn't already been made after twelve pages of comments:
Car manufacturers should not be allowed to sell their cars with seats, steering wheels, pedals, shifters, entertainment units, speakers, tires, hubcaps, windshield wipers, headlights, etc - because that's unfair for third-party manufacturers of car parts.
Car manufacturers should not be allowed to sell their cars with seats, steering wheels, pedals, shifters, entertainment units, speakers, tires, hubcaps, windshield wipers, headlights, etc - because that's unfair for third-party manufacturers of car parts.
So you have a phone without a messaging app? Lol. You know you are in late stage democracy when the average IQ of the politicians is finally as low as their voter population.
Microsoft has 77% market share with Windows, probably significantly more if you consider only average home customers. When you enter into a store for a new laptop or desktop computer, there are virtually no options, except if they sell Macs. Microsoft has and always had total dominance in the industry. This is a monopoly. On the other hand, last time I checked, Apple had 11% market share in the smartphone market. When you enter into a store for a new smartphone, there are literally hundreds devices, of which 2 or 3 at most are the latest iPhones. Where is the monopoly here? The issue here is that software developers know that Android users dont spent money in the Google Marketplace as Apple users spent money in the AppStore. This is the only reason why they attack Apple and not Google which also pack Android with the set of google crap apps preinstalled.
What hot garbage.
If I wanted anything else I would not buy an apple iPhone in the first place! The apps define what user experience the buyer will get. This is basic common sense. If I wanted something else besides the apple apps I'd buy an android phone which I have plenty of. I am happy to pay a premium to lock out garbage apps and other side loading garbage because I paid a premium for a walled garden and ecosystem and I'm completely content with doing just that.
The ones that are lobbying anti-apple are clearly apple's competitors.
If I wanted anything else I would not buy an apple iPhone in the first place! The apps define what user experience the buyer will get. This is basic common sense. If I wanted something else besides the apple apps I'd buy an android phone which I have plenty of. I am happy to pay a premium to lock out garbage apps and other side loading garbage because I paid a premium for a walled garden and ecosystem and I'm completely content with doing just that.
The ones that are lobbying anti-apple are clearly apple's competitors.
This is dumb legislation. It’s ok for things like iWork but the dumbest of the dumb to not have the pre installed apps that enable to devices capabilities.
It’s like removing the keyboard on your computer and saying ‘Well maybe we should give a choice of Microsoft, Alienware or Apple keyboard on this MacBook Pro’
Dumb dumb dumb
Next these same bought and paid for politicians will say there should be a choice to install Windows on the iPhone instead of iPhoneOS.
It’s like removing the keyboard on your computer and saying ‘Well maybe we should give a choice of Microsoft, Alienware or Apple keyboard on this MacBook Pro’
Dumb dumb dumb
Next these same bought and paid for politicians will say there should be a choice to install Windows on the iPhone instead of iPhoneOS.
Don’t be like that, that has nothing to do with the conversation
Good. If this is what it takes for Apple to give users actual choice then so be it. Microsoft survived not being able to force internet explorer on windows users, I’m sure Apple will survive not having to force its god awful mail app on everyone as well.
Wait, so you're saying you can't download an alternative mail client from the app store? I just looked and saw at least 5-6....even one called 'boomer mail"
I agree with their map coverage vs google maps but it's not like apple didn't allow you to install google maps and allow you to use it as your primary mapping app either. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pre-installing your own apps on your own iDevice since it's your own ecosystem. All this hoopla is from competitors just red eyed since apple is so rich and they can't make a dime more than apple can. Stay the course apple, use your billions in cash and get your lawyers to fight this and win for buyers like myself.
I support you 100%. I just don't support the gimped features and so forth every iteration of new hardware; iPadOS still sucks vs a MacBook but that new MacBook I have only has 2 ports and it can't even support two monitors. Stuff like this should be more of a priority for apple to deal with.
And telling the supermarkets what shelves and shelf location the competing products go vs name brand. so, is Trader Joe and Aldi going to be required to carry brand name product?