- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t hate Apple but I do hate their influence. They release some wireless earbuds and then suddenly all the manufacturers “don’t have enough room for a headphone jack”, …get the fuck out of here.
i’m still angry about their initiatives on delicate phone bodies and non-removable batteries.
And “no physical keyboards”
Ehh, that’s ok. Slide out keyboards aside, having an on-display keyboard is a better idea by and large.
A keyboard without tactile feedback is objectively worse than a keyboard with tactile feedback, excluding other factors.
I’ve never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.
I’ve never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.
I’ve never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.
I’ve never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.
The way I see it there are exactly two real benefits to integrating a software keyboard into a touchscreen: reduced physical complexity (the entire device is essentially just one screen), and easier access to emoji. A touchscreen keyboard performs far worse as a keyboard. It’s a valid trade-off for a small mobile device, but it’s not objectively better.
A keyboard is not just to enter text It can do a multitude of things like emojis. Good luck remembering all the mappings on a physical one, or you end up with having them eat screen space. Might not be your use case, but a vast majority of the world uses it.
Additionally, this increases the overall screen real estate. Aside for sliding keyboards (which I did add a caveat for in my original comment), a physical keyboard would be in the way for most of the usage an average person makes on the phone, like watching videos, looking at pictures.
A physical keyboard would probably weight more as well (this is just a guess, based on the idea the membrane, and additional circuitry required for a keyboard would be more than the weight of a glass panel).
A physical keyboard adds an additional point of failure on your device as well.
I’m not saying virtual keyboards are perfect. Like any other thing, there are trade offs to make. But in the form factor phones work in, a virtual keyboard makes more sense according to me. The best of both worlds would probably be a sliding keyboard, but that does add more weight to the device.
There’s room for both in my opinion. Keyboards are good for accuracy. Touchscreens are good for custom inputs and slightly faster to type on. In an ideal world, we’d have both.
To be frank, I find touchscreens so abhorrently useless that I just use my phone less than I’d like to - for example, I’m much more likely to just flat out ignore messages because of how tedious input is on phones. I don’t know if a keyboard would make a huge difference for me since I think mobile devices are garbage in more ways than one, but the lack of a keyboard is by far the biggest issue.
A physical keyboard adds an additional point of failure on your device as well.
A hercon keyboard, like in old military stuff, will last far longer than any touchscreen. Its feedback is weaker than for most keyboards, but still better than any touchscreen.
If we are choosing between a touchscreen alone and a touchscreen plus keyboard, then yeah, only this isn’t a fair comparison.
A fair one would be keyboard vs touchscreen.
To add, I personally have had all of the complaints of digital keyboards happen to physical ones. Just not the removal of the numpad. The others, wordt of which is lag, Ive had plenty. Input lag IS THE WORST.
Might not be your use case, but a vast majority of the world uses it.
The breakthrough in ergonomics caused by mass production of stuff for people of different metrics and problems and everything during WWII was entirely about this sentence being wrong.
A good interface is not for “the majority” or for “the average user”, it’s customizable for all the extremes, so for every user with just a bit of initial effort.
I’ve never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.
It’s all I can do not to contact the web admin when this happens! Two days ago I used a form where the first box was set correctly and the second wasn’t. (Also how about when a site tells your password manager to input the p/w in the email field, uhg.)
I’ve never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.
Pretty rare, no?
I’ve never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.
Might’ve seen that twice in the past year.
I’ve never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.
Interesting, just checked and I suppose I kind of wait a millisecond but it’s essentially imperceptible. (Have a pretty new flagship phone.)
Gotta check reviews on the Clicks now that I think it’s been out a couple months:
For whom?
Yeah, but I like physical keyboards because they’re cool, and non-physical keyboards are lame. They reduce my hardware experience to a joyless, abstracted, sterile experience, where I don’t have the ability to click any buttons, turn any knobs, flip any hinges. Then, on top of that, the software experience also ends up being standardized and sterile.
It is more practically efficient, sure. But I like the inefficiency. It’s like driving a stick-shift, it’s less convenient, but the tactility and inconvenience, the physicality, makes the object more real, less confined to cyberspace. I am forced to become a more conscious driver, I can’t drink a drink while I drive, or drive one-handed. Old phones are like portable games consoles. New phones are magic mirrors that steal your soul.
There’s also probably something to be said that there’s a sort of two-way causal relationship, where the phones becoming more practical devices enables more reliance upon them, and phones becoming more practical devices is driven by a need from private interests to make these devices more reliable and frictionless. More joyless. Cars used to be a simple toy and a fool’s replacement for the horse and buggy. In many ways, I would’ve much preferred if they had remained confined to that use case, rather than evolving to take over american civic infrastructure and life.
It’s sort of like, dwarf fortress has an appeal, not just in playing the “game”, right, not just in doing the things in the game, but also in memorizing the layouts and how to interface with the horrible UI, where it makes you feel smart for understanding how to parse it, even if in reality it’s a fairly useless skill, and it’s not actually that complicated.
Not all phones have gone to the dark side - https://www.fxtec.com
Their propaganda you mean.
Deliberately degrading picture quality when the metadata says it’s from a competitor to push the narrative that they have the best cameras is also pretty low. Points for the sheer audacity, though.
Wait is there actually proof of this? That’s pretty damning.
The proof is the status quo. Video texts from Android users look bad on an iPhone. Apple could choose to fall back to RCS instead of SMS from iMessage. RCS would offer better video quality than SMS, which overall improves the interoperability of all phones. Because RCS is a standard and the natural successor to SMS, refusing to support the standard makes it less likely to succeed, with the intent of defending their dominant market share.
While I agree with you, this isn’t as outright as I though it would be though. Apple fan boys could very easily just handwave this away. Frankly I don’t live in the US so no one here uses iMessage anyways so I don’t really have any examples I have seen or could use to show people.
Vote with your wallet.
I’m one of the few people that use my headphone jack with Grado headphones and have had Motorola phones so I can listen to music the way I want.
Don’t even get me started on the light green bubble shit.
Fuck Apple.
But that’s not illegal. Apple can’t force competitors to be influenced by them. If Samsung, Google and the like choose to be sheep, that’s on them. I don’t use Apple products. They’re not impacting my life.
It’s probably safe to assume that’s not the basis for the monopoly claim
I should hope not. They have about 61% market share in the US. A large chunk to be sure, but hardly a monopoly. With plenty of Android OS manufacturers, there are plenty to choose from.
Did you read the article? Their concerns are a number of anticompetiive behaviours from Apple,. Not the lack of competition. But that said, “Android” is not a competitor, Android is an OS. Samsung is a competitor and they’re nowhere near Apples size in the US
The Android OS is a competitor to iOS. Yes, Android is produced by several different manufacturers.
It’s not a competitor in the sense of a being a company that can monopolise, which is the context of the discsussion
According to the article, the main points are:
Disrupting “super apps” that encompass many different programs and could degrade “iOS stickiness” by making it easier for iPhone users to switch to competing devices
Blocking cloud-streaming apps for things like video games that would lower the need for more expensive hardware
Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android
Limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches with its iPhones and making it harder for Apple Watch users to switch from the iPhone due to compatibility issues
Blocking third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets with tap-to-pay functionality for the iPhone
The enforcers are asking the court to stop Apple from “using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps,”
I’m somewhat conflicted. As much as I despise Apple, they have complete rights on their operating systems and thus can tell what they want or don’t want there, kinda like how videogame consoles work. Far from ideal for both consumers and developers, obviously, especially with how Apple hates both.
As a court case, this sounds dumb and likely to go nowhere. If it was a law proposal that would force them and any future wannabes to open up like PCs, however, I’d be fully behind it.
I seldom argue against capitalism, but this is a good example of runaway capitalism. Apple has been causing a lot of problems and grief. If this isn’t the solution, what is? People are too stupid en mass to make the change we need here.
As I said in my comment, a better solution would be a law instead of a court case. Even if it sets a precedent, it still leaves all the legal wiggle room needed for Apple, or anyone else, to fuck around in a different manner and get back in the same spot again.
Agreed. I have no love for the company, but this is government overreach. If Apple users/developers have a problem with any of these items, they have the option to choose another platform.
Now, if Apple was literally the only game in town, I would probably feel differently.
If you own a phone, Apple impacts your life. Don’t be naive.
That’s silly. I own a Samsung phone. Checking email and the weather on it hardly “impacts” my life. Furthermore, you have the option to move to another platform if it bothers you that much. If people don’t leave, that indicates their users are willing to tolerate these issues.
Apple impacts your life, if indirectly, by shaping the market that they control over 50% of. I haven’t owned an Apple product since my 4th gen click wheel iPod, and I’d be a fool to suggest that their decisions don’t have an influence on my life.
Influence and impact are not interchangeable. I would agree they have some influence (indirect) as they affect their competitors and I purchase products from their competitors. They don’t impact (direct) me as I do not use any of their services or products. Apple and I do not have a direct relationship.
Lol ok semantics.
“Impact” doesn’t mean “direct” necessarily, that’s why the word is often used with the word “direct” or “indirect” as a modifier.
But how is that Apple’s fault? Weird argument.
OC isn’t claiming that the shift in the industry is solely Apple’s fault:
I don’t hate Apple but I do hate their influence
The reality is that what OC said is exactly what happened. Apple removed the headphone jack to coerce people into buying AirPods. Everyone else released their own wireless earbuds to compete, and also removes their headphone jacks for the same reason.
Actually it coincided with IPX rating for smartphones. The last headphone jack smartphones did not have water resistance, but the newer models did. People voted for a more sealed phone with their wallets.
These days you can get both, but my phone has a 3.5mm jack and NO ipx rating that I could find
Actually it coincided with IPX rating for smartphones. The last headphone jack smartphones did not have water resistance, but the newer models did. People voted for a more sealed phone with their wallets.
My rugged phone is IP68 but it has Usb C connector and SIM/SD tray, so adding a headphone jack while having an IPX rating seems not impossible.
My phone has IP68 with an usb-c and headphone jack, and the SIM/SD tray. Not a rugged phone though.
It’s not impossible, they just didn’t do it back then so we ended up in the situation we are in now. By the way, the DAC in my phone is low quality, so I hear popping and distortion when I play
http://plasticity.szynalski.com/
at the same time, my phone doesn’t do output to a DAC through USB because it already has a 3.5mm port, so I can’t use something higher quality
I don’t think DAC is reason behind popping and distortion. Probably shit power circuit or amplifier.
It’s both, because I hear little bells in the background even at low volume. An IEM is very sensitive so needs very little power, the amplifier will perform worse as it needs to output more power.
In fact when I use over ears, it sounds better because I increase the device volume which increases the input voltage
Anyway, the $9 Apple dongle blows my phone’s 3.5mm jack out of the water. My tablet and desktop have the same issue, but when I connect the same devices to my ancient laptop they sound perfect.
The point is the 3.5mm jack actually gets me worse sound quality because my phone doesn’t output audio to usb, so I only use it with my TWS. Which, by the way, also sound like crap in the same game, but it might just be Bluetooth issues
People voted for a more sealed phone with their wallets.
LOL imagine if capitalism actually worked this way…
Edit: People seem to be missing the point. I am aware that phones with 3.5mm jacks exist. I also just understand that capitalism and “free markets” don’t actually work the way people seem to think they do. Maybe if the headphone jack was the most important feature to people, it would do better. Or maybe if it was an mp3 player and not a phone. Or maybe, simply, if it was manufactured by a brand people have heard of. Sometimes it’s literally that simple.
But that isn’t the case, is it?
There are literally phones still around with 3.5 jacks. You just don’t want one.
There are still phones with 3.5mm jacks and they are not the best selling models
Maybe people aren’t spending $500-$1200 on a device just because it has a headphone jack. Like that’s anyone’s top concern.
Zen phone 10 has everything you need and a 3.5mm jack
Why isn’t it outselling the rest of them?
Are you asking me to explain microeconomics to you? Ask 100 people in the US if they’ve ever heard of Zen Phone, and 99 will tell you no.
And, again, that’s nobody’s top concern. Maybe if it was an mp3 player, rather than a phone, whether or not it has a headphone jack would be higher up on the priority list.
Then why can they waterproof the usb plug-in but not the headphone jack?
What’s a headphone jack?
the 3.5mm rounded hole where you can insert your wired earphones, wired headphones, or stereo speakers
What’s a computer?
An iPad Pro, specifically
Oh, that thing is garbage. I prefer the 6.35mm RGA jacks for superior hi fidelity quality. It’s a shame they don’t make phones with those.
Hey guys look, I found a troll! Please don’t feed them.
How dare. 6.35mm is superior and I for one want it on my phone. The larger jack size provides a greater surface area for conductance. Why is this important? Glad you asked, more surface area translates to less resistance at the junction, thus allowing more electrons to flow freely from your device to your ocular cavity, where sound is processed from compression waves into electromagnetic waves. The 6.35mm jack is the best option for hi-fi 256 bit color. As you can see, it’s all basic science. Source: I’m a stientist
That’s not Apple, that’s the free market. Samsung touted wired headphones and a headphone jack and the market still showed they wanted wireless.
But we had wireless headphones already. The choice to have both was nice. Not being able to charge and use headphones sucks. Also tiny e waste pods with tiny non recyclable batteries are terrible for the environment compared to a wired pair when thrown in a landfill.
No it’s definitely Apple.
and the market still showed they wanted wireless
Or maybe people just need phones and there are only like 3 actual options.
That’s simply not true. Have you been in a mobile phone store recently? There’s far more than 3 brands of phone let alone 3 models per brand.
It would take a big dose of hopium to believe this will amount to anything.
The anti-trust pressure has increased with this administration. Lina Kahn has been effective at the FTC in bringing a number of cases forward.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ is a very well executed newsletter with more detailed information regarding anti-trust if you’re interested.
Lina Kahn
She was pretty good on Planet Money : https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly
Yeah and hasn’t she lost pretty much every case she’s brought forward? She failed big fucking time with the Microsoft/Activision merger even though all the antitrust evidence was right in front of her nose. I’m glad the FTC is trying, because they’re actually doing their job, but they’re doing an awful job when it comes to actually being in court and proving their case.
People shit on Sony for trying to block the merger, but they absolutely were right for trying to block it and now games like starfield, the new Indiana Jones, and probably more in the future will be deliberately left off the PlayStation platform altogether. But that’s all okay right? Because now you get call of duty on gamepass!!! RIGHT???
I see a bunch of complaints against Kahn, but I haven’t been able to find articles on what she did that someone else would have done to be more effective. I don’t normally follow this type of news, so if anyone can point me to some articles, I’d appreciate it.
I’ve heard a few interviews with Kahn, and she sounds like someone looking to make a difference, so I’d like to cheer her on, but if she’s not the right person for the job, it’d be nice to see some examples why. I’d think much could go on to make her lose without it necessarily being due to her actions or inactions.
https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2023/07/18/lina-khans-antitrust-losses-cast-doubt-on-her-sue-dont-settle-philosophy/?slreturn=20240221150002 apparently she’s just taking the sledgehammer approach of suing companies instead of working with them to understand their motives and to make reasonable concessions that will benefit everyone. If those concession discussions fail then you sue and have more leverage in your case I guess. Either way, it’s a fair criticism IMO, and for the record I’m not really a right leaning individual, I just think she’s jumping into lawsuits without doing her homework first.
Dang paywall. That’s at least something I can look into more directly though, so thank you.
Lemmy makes me feel right wing anymore. I think the general news and politics here might be worse than Reddit, which is a shame. There’s a lot of things I’d like to learn or discuss, but half the threads might as well be bizarro MAGA rallies with how cultish they get.
I just came back to this post from one on Angela Chao, and just like the last one about that story, people are cheering on this lady’s death because they don’t like her brother-in-law. I haven’t been able to find anything about Angela that would indicate she had it coming, but that isn’t stopping anyone. If people have valid criticism of a person or idea, share it. Don’t just keep shouting “such-and-such bad!” over and over.
It’s getting worse and worse, completely agree. The reasonable people are getting pushed out by brainless zombies, just like on Twitter or something.
We need to work more on getting in the first few comments before they get there. If I come in and hot takes are all I find, I just move on. I’m sure others do the same.
It didn’t used to seem that way but some of the discussions I’ve had here are actually worse than reddit recently. Take a discussion about Instagram drug sale spammers. I mean, people selling likely counterfeit “xanax” etc to anyone on social media by spamming. Who would stand up for these scumbags? People on Lemmy, apparently, who consider themselves leftists and communicate like sophomoric 19 year olds. “Drugs should be legalized anyway!” Well, that’s not going to make it legal or safe for addictive drugs to be sold on social media and uh, Xanax is legal. I found discussion of the same article on Hacker News and the difference in quality of comments was vast.
Lol that’s exactly the stuff I mean. Legalize drugs, sure. Make them safe and take the business from cartels. Legalize anonymous strangers selling random chemicals, nah.
It was good maybe the first 3 months of the Great Migration, then had a sharp decline. Those first few months were great.
I’m not here for anyone’s militant views on politics, software licensing, diet, or religion. I just tend to avoid most comment sections anymore.
Why are so many people misspelling her surname? Or is the URL to the news article wrong?
I looked up the difference, and it seems that the majority of us have probably been raised in a place where Kahn is the more common spelling we’d encounter.
I mean the Activision case was a bad case though. Microsoft bought their way into… Third place, it’s not enough to need anti trust. Furthermore, Starfield and Indy were already going to be exclusives, those are Bethesda and that acquisition was already long since completed. Plus, it’s not like that’s the invention of exclusives. Sony isn’t exactly pumping over their games to Xbox here.
Substack 🙄
I’m willing to take the movement as a good sign. The fact that we haven’t even been talking about this shit for decades now was just depressing. It’s long past time for this shit, and the ball needs to get rolling.
There’s a lot of corporate competitive behavior that’s ok, when you’re one of many, that isn’t anymore when you dominate the market.
- Apple hasn’t dominated US cell phone market for decades yet
- the same behavior is perfectly legit for laptops, because Apple is a small player in that market
- Smartwatches are interesting - I don’t know the dynamics of that market but I don’t know anyone whose smartwatch is not Apple
- Phones haven’t been around for decades and that’s a dumb point
- They actually don’t do the same behavior on macs because it’s illegal
- Thank you for demonstrating the case’s point.
Apple has dominated the smartphone market since the iPhone 5 in the us. I’ve managed my works mdm tool for a decade and never have I seen the android collective share surpass 10% in the pie chart it shows me of versions
Looks like the stats are all over the place but iPhones are about 50% of US market ± 10%. Neither you nor I are representative
Very true, mine is just anecdotal evidence in the end, no matter how much it is
All I want is RCS on iPhone. I know Apple already said they’re working on it, but I hope legal pressure like this will force them to make the RCS/iMessage integration actually work well (instead of half-assing it which I assume is what they want to do, cuz they want their users to feel frustrated when texting their Android friends)
Can’t we just move past carrier managed messaging? I’d rather my telecom to just be dumb pipes and move everyone to Signal and similar.
The iMessage lock-in is too real for some of us. I know some iPhone users who won’t even install FB Messenger (I know, I don’t use it either. Fuck the Zuck) because it’s not Apple/iMessage. I finally got my family on Signal and “OMG! We can send videos and pictures now!” Yeah, been saying it for years lol.
All I want is RCS on iPhone
Me too, but isn’t this a chicken and egg situation?
- why should Apple add it if carriers don’t support and you haven’t go through Google if you want secure messaging?
- why should carriers support it if so many phones don’t, and why are they ceding security to Google?
- is not Google also a monopolist?
- is RCS even a useful standard if there’s not a consensus to make it ubiquitous?
Damn, I am stealing this. Too many good uses:
“She lives in a hopium den”
“Hopium addict”
“Hopium of the masses”
Oh it’s a pretty common Internet thing these days. Hopium and copium.
We can hope. Happy to take a chunk out of Apple as they’re often given a free pass as their marketing and branding is so good that customers lap it up.
Be prepared for a lot of hand-wringing about “security”.
Apple, Microsoft, and Google all learned in the last couple years “security” shuts down any arguments, and they use it at every turn to justify whatever they want, regardless of the actual dangers or alternative mitigation methods they could take.
If our modern software security means anti-competitive behavior and user lock-in tactics are OK, then that’s a problem with our security practices, and we need to reevaluate some things.
If they utter “security for children” the government will probably not only drop the lawsuit but pay Apple $20 billion.
they could get an extra 50 billion if they say “security for children, against terrorists”
Make it $100 billion if the terrorist children have brown faces.
And deduct all billions if we’re talking about domestic terrorism, or if there’s any mention of insurrection.
Market security maybe What’s next im not allowed to read the EULA because i may come up with nefarious ways to still use the service?
If you can read the EULA, then you can learn how to skirt around it, and therefore, letting you read the EULA is against the spirit of the EULA, and should be banned.
They learned this line from the government. You can’t criticise goverments after they utter the magical national security buzzwords.
*Sees EU fining Apple*
Oh shit we can tell corporations what to do!
This. Smells like me too (the expression, not the movement) as opposed to a well thought out plan as to how they’ll tackle the monopoly.
Biden appointed a bunch of pretty vehemently anti-monopoly people to power, this is just how long it actually takes them to conduct an investigation thorough enough to bring suit.
The investigation actually started in 2019 under Trump’s DoJ.
Right. Real Estate is a shit show and has been a shit show for decades with corporations buying out SFH homes and properties, driving up prices and making them unaffordable for the average American. If I was stack list of problems to tackle impacting Americans, that would be pretty high up the list instead of a tech company.
Of course, you can and should do both, but considering time and money are finite resources, it’s very on the nose to pick this fight instead of the one that impacts Americans the most.
I don’t think monopolies should exist, but also, we should be looking at regulations and law making instead of law suits.
I don’t know how much of that falls under the DOJ’s purview. Based on what I’ve heard from various congressional staffers, a physical letter mailed to your congressional representative actually does mean something. You can also go to your city council meetings and tell the city council they should do something about housing.
Oh, I’m in the heart of a place well known for exorbitant property values, and there’s been plenty of talk of “fixing housing”. Literally everybody runs on the platform of lowering property values, so I’m sure the letting your congressional staffer know has been done to death.
In addition to that, countless articles, op-eds, research has been published in the last 4 years alone and the point I’m making is, that this DOJ move seems more political theater than anything, which is surprising coming from folks that are supposedly about consumer rights and protections.
We need actual problems to be solved, not grand gestures and showboating of supposed take downs of “monopolies” when the laws around monopolistic practices are about as ancient as the presidential candidates trying to win points with their voter base.
Also, as everybody knows, governments can only do one thing at a time.
Awhile back a non tech person at work got hoodwinked into a sales pitch by a no name “AI” vendor. They, of course, invited a distribution list of all the IT and IT adjacent people to this pitch, thinking their ingenuity was going to transform our workplace and they were going to get accolades.
During the pitch, the sales guy (or CEO?) talked about Google getting surprised by Open AI, and that they rushed to build Bard, so they “could have their own ‘Me Too’ moment.” (With an inflection to indicate the Me Too comment was a reference.)
While I was watching people unmute, stay silent, then mute again, multiple group chats lit up at once.
(And the guy either didn’t understand LLM’s, or was hoping we really didn’t. It was peak marketing speak. He got crushed in the Q&A, ultimately revealing that the extent of his offering was to resell access to an established LLM vendor.)
Hahahaha that’s awesome! All the while scary to see the snakeoil-ism in tech.
With Apple tipping over the ~50% market share in the US and with the current rulings in the EU, maybe the US DOJ smell blood in the water. Hopefully something unusually good for the consumer will come of this, but I won’t be shocked if it doesn’t.
I only recently found out about iPhones having 50% market share in the US and that’s insane to me. I think anyone who’s used both Android and iPhones a lot knows that iPhones are both a worse product and worse value for money, so in a fair market they would be the minority
They’re certainly a much worse value for the money and intentionally constrained in ways that maximize the profits of Apple services by making it inconvenient or impossible to use alternatives, but the UI is substantially better than Android. Aside from that and Apple device interoperability benefits, nearly any Android phone is a better choice for most people.
Hard disagree. iOS UI/UX is sub par compared to Android. Consistent visuals and fancier animations don’t mean that the UI is good.
I find the UI to be so much worse lol
Agree to disagree I guess! I used an iPhone X as my daily driver for 3 years and was overjoyed to get the Android UI back when I switched back. The iPhone visuals are more consistent but the UX is significantly worse imo. There are a few things that I reckon are mainly just Apple being stubborn and refusing to admit they were wrong - e.g. the lack of a back button
I’m reminded that Macs did not have right buttons for decades because Steve Jobbs didn’t want them.
I have an iMac for work. Right-click is still disabled by default on macOS. One of the first things our company has us do is re-enable it. I was provided a third-party mouse, some others were provided a Magic Mouse which doesn’t have a right mouse button.
but the UI is substantially better than Android.
Yeah, hard disagree
For one, you can make Android look/behave like anything you want.
In general, I agree. I’ll add two things:
- Android allows you to use third party launchers if you don’t like the one that comes with your phone. I use Nova Launcher, for instance. I’m not an Apple person, but to my knowledge that’s either not possible or a pain to do on an iPhone. It also lets me buy from different Android device manufacturers and keep a consistent UI across all of them.
- Android has some serious UX issues in a few places. The one that gets me the most is when you share something. The interface you get differs based on the source app, sometimes only has a handful of visible options with no sorting or recency options, and it hides the fact that’s you can scroll to see more, but never more than about four at a time.
Still, I’ll take it over an iPhone any day.
The IOS UI is so cumbersome
The UI is terrible. Unintuitive and can’t be customized. What’s good about it?
but the UI is substantially better than Android
For children and drunks, maybe.
lol this is going to go nowhere
I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.
The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.
Little will come of this.
SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases – they don’t have the expertise and single-issue cases which don’t present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.
And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal
Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.
The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.
This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.
I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.
Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.
The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.
Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.
At least it happened.
If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.
Because???
If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it’s quite possible that it’s just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it’s still possible it’s messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it’s more likely they think something’s actually there, and they don’t want to waste their time playing nice with the “other side”.
Bet you’re not quite right on that.
What? Unbelievable. I’m shocked. Shocked, I say. This really comes as a surprise. I would’ve never expected this. No one would have seen this coming. This is really outrageous. They are innocent. I can’t comprehend this. No way! It’s not acceptable! /i
– Apple Fan, probably (without the irony flag then)
I mean I’m an Apple user, although not exclusively, and I am very surprised, not because Apple doesn’t deserve it, they absolutely need to be reigned in like all big tech companies. I’m surprised as hell that the US government in 2024 is attempting to crack down an extremely profitable business. You love to see it
Kick their asses DOJ!
Did EU bite US?
We’re contagious, and we’re not sorry
Good, don’t sorry, bite more.
Kinky! Are you on Recon?
👀
Can you be more contagious? Virulently so? Pandemic level? I need some of that good EU user privacy law plague in my life.
Uuuh careful what you wish for, that’s how you get a Napoléon
As long as he destroys the HRE
We’ll stamp Europe with
spqrWith French empire
Apple did some sort of “tech innovations” through years, but its economical success has always been based on its locked down ecosystem.
Apple’s marketing about its customers being part of an elite, hence zero compatibility with the ‘mass’, is disgusting imho.
Glad to hear it could be over, especially if it comes from US lawmakers.
EU has been trying to regulate them for years.
Were perhaps finally getting somewhere with this. I’m still afraid it’s too slow though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66708571
#New iPhone, new charger: Apple bends to EU rules
I think they were fine before, because they were offering the best experience for the people who want someone else to configure things for them and make decisions on privacy, security, etc., for them. Problem now is that they no longer offer much in the way of brand new user experiences that no one else offers, and additionally they don’t prioritize the user’s privacy and convenience and prioritize how much money they can make with the centralized user information they control and don’t allow the user to make decisions on their own privacy and security.
Now we just need the US to force carriers to automatically unlock phones after they are paid off.
They do actually. What you’re talking about is unlocking the bootloader.
I wanted to borrow a friend’s [old] phone to try out graphene but he got it from Verizon and they keep the bootloaders locked so it was worthless.
As soon as smartphones started becoming commonplace in like 2009 or so, I dropped Verizon because I wasn’t going to pay $500 for a smartphone that couldn’t have custom roms. Verizon can go fuck themselves.
A lot of carriers make you wait a certain period of time before unlocking. I’m hoping that I can get my phone unlocked so I can install graphene OS. I got a good deal on it so that’s why I bought it locked, I’m going to degoogle it as much as possible until I can get the bootloader unlocked.
Hang a phone carrier unlocked and unlocking the bootloader are very different things.
I am well aware but you can’t unlock the boot loader without having a phone carrier unlocked.
It’s been a while since I did it, but every single time I’ve unlocked a bootloader it’s been on a carrier-locked device. I’d usualy do it to remove carrier bloat.
Carrier Unlocking is required before a phone can be bootloader unlocked, at least on my Pixel 8.
Ahh - I think I see what you’re getting at.
I think the Pixel allows unlocking the bootloader, so it’s just the carrier in the way.
Most phones have to be hacked to unlock the bootloader because of the manufacturer locking it, so the carrier doesn’t really matter since you’re having to bypass locks anyway.
We all know that these accusations are true.
So much so that I need to ask: is it really illegal to do all these things?
Smarter Americans in that past recognized that freedom, including the free market, doesn’t just happen of its own accord, that it has to be defended, legislated. That is how antitrust laws came to be in arguably the most capitalist nation on earth.
Apathetic Americans now have lost sight of the importance of protecting their freedoms.
“Illegal” is not just some hypothetical moral absolute. It is the politics of defending one’s values. Americans clearly no longer value either their freedoms or the free market.
No, these are not illegal activities until you add “as a monopoly”. Antitrust laws are fine with all sorts of behavior as part of competition but not when you dominate a market and it keeps new competitors out
Everything here will hinge on whether Apple is a monopoly in the markets of concern. I’m sure there are legal definitions and precedents for that.
The EU said so, and the US did successfully sue valve for monopoly practices.
Except it wasnt successful since its still in the court, and Valve has counter sued for the lawsuit “abuse(ing) the legal process and interfer(ing) with Valve’s relationships with its customers”
Oh lol my b. I saw the ads for being eligible for compensation and thought they lost.
EU decisions carry no legal weight in US, and I’m sure the laws are very different. Maybe it signals opportunity and regulator opinion but they’re completely independent decisions
Why did you respond that all the answers are here but I didn’t read them, when you seem to be asking the same question yourself?
Because I asked a different question than you asked. How old are you?
Not really. We both asked whether it was actually illegal.
I’ve wondered that in the past when people say Apple has a monopoly - there seems to be choice in the market. One can function fine with an Android phone. But people have said “they have a monopoly on iPhones” which doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course they do, but that’s not the same as a monopoly on mobile phones. Also having a monopoly isn’t illegal, only abusing it is. It’s not legal to have a successful proprietary product?
I’ve wondered that in the past
Well, now you have your answers here in all detail, but it seems you didn’t read them.
I also wonder the same, and wish you’d point to those answers, but I think that’s what this whole thing is : a day in court to establish those answers
I didn’t say I was wondering now. I said I was wondering in the past. In any event, i expect to find out from the court case, not online comments from people who probably lack expertise in antitrust law and are not attorneys.
If you enjoy a good laugh, then head over to hackernews to see the meltdown apple bros are having: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39778999
The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.
So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.
I can’t imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn’t even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.
Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?
They don’t have to force them to make an app. Instead they could make them provide an interface that an app can use. Instead of their current strategy of thwarting any attempt to make their ecosystem interoperable with competitor’s devices. I imagine them instantly killing Beeper’s connection to iMessage was a part of this move.
I can’t imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn’t even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.
No, they can’t really force it. But it’s evidence in support of the accusation.
But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do. And they’d likely be able to bake Android support in by utilizing the already available Wear OS API.
But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do.
That’s kinda true, but not what I was getting at. Android has restrictive background processing limits and the APIs around it keep getting more restrictive and the OEMs like Samsung keep ignoring the rules of how things should work and break your apps when you do it right anyway… Ultimately it’s incredibly difficult to write an app and guarantee background work.
Apple, is even worse on its restrictions of background work, but Apple owns the OS and and can bypass it all for their watch.
Apple will never get to bypass the fuckery you have to deal with on Android, only the Android OEMs get that.
I could be totally wrong, IANAL, but I think this has more to do with how Apple restricts access of features or services to third-parties than anything else…
For example, Apple offers Apple Pay on the iPhone. They claim it is highly secure due to hardware end-to-end encryption and that not even Apple has access to the data. Because of these beliefs and others, Apple doesn’t allow any other Pay or wallet application on the iPhone or app store. Other companies like Google, Visa, MasterCard, etc have tried to submit Pay / wallet applications to the iPhone app store, but Apple denies them because it claims access to the NFC hardware APIs would reduce security.
In this example, Apple stands to gain everything as the sole digital Pay / Wallet proprietor on the iPhone just based off of a “wink, wink, nod, nod” type of response. Yes, while Apple’s response could be accurate, letting third-parties have access to the hardware NFC APIs would reduce security, Apple is making that decision from a monopolistic point of view.
It would be different if Apple didn’t have a digital Pay / Wallet system or if Apple allowed the companies to have the application on the iPhone / app store but maybe it had to go through a more thorough security approval process.
Now take for example how Apple operated back in 2008 / 2009 when it released GPS Navigation support on the iPhone. They partnered with Garmin (Garmin had access to the Assisted / GPS APIs); however, Garmin wasn’t the only third-party able to submit a GPS Navigation application. In the end, Apple eventually created their own Maps with Turn-by-turn navigation and I think we all know how shit that was for a long time, but imagine if they had gone Apple Maps from the get-go and blocked third parties forcing people to use their tech only…
What do you do though if Apple is telling the truth and allowing 3rd party wallets would degrade the security even for their own wallet?
I would ask them to prove that claim in court for starters.
I would ask them why they feel they’d be liable for users who installed and gave permission to an app that would use NFC readers for payments.
I would ask them why access to the NFC reader by a 3rd party app in any way allows access to Apple Pay’s stored, encrypted data (which it doesn’t need)
I would ask why permission settings and security validations couldn’t be made on API calls with the potential to be harmful. Even for third-party app stores, Apple could still require app reviews and code signing for any apps that want to conduct financial transactions; they just don’t want to because they’ll make less money from Apple Pay.
Apple often handholds user flows and restricts access to features because non-technical folks might be tricked into installing a malicious or insecure service, and Apple stuff is built for non/technical people. But, on the flipside, they often leverage this position to wall you into their garden. This is the problematic practice that needs to be addressed.
Perhaps they aren’t lying, but claims about security often involve theoretical weaknesses that aren’t practical to exploit in the real world. Apple is very skilled at making sure those claims align with their business interests.
It would not. It’s really as simple as that, saying as someone with two degrees in cyber security and 7 years of experience as a security consultant for various companies from small shops to multinational businesses, banks, and insurance companies.
I would love to see their threat modelling to justify what they’re saying to brainwash their acolytes… It’s a pure strawman to justify their bullshit.
They don’t have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.
- You can use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.
- anyone can create and sell a Watch App - Apple maintains the store and basic functionality
- you can use another brand Watch with an iPhone - I see the apps
I think the point though is you might be able to connect a Garmin to your iPhone but only Apple Watches get special access to certain APIs because “security”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit.
It alleges that Apple “selectively” imposes contractual restrictions on developers and withholds critical ways of accessing the phone, according to a release.
“Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others,” the DOJ wrote in a press release.
“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of ‘Whac-A-Mole’ contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies,” DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.
Apple is the second tech giant the DOJ has taken on in recent years after filing two separate antitrust suits against Google over the past two administrations.
It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple.
The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
