Hmm. Does this qualify as a monopoly? I've never owned an Apple device (largely because I am not a fan of being walled into their environment). I've always been able to purchase a non-Apple...
Hmm. Does this qualify as a monopoly? I've never owned an Apple device (largely because I am not a fan of being walled into their environment). I've always been able to purchase a non-Apple smartphone even so.
But, I'm not a lawyer and I am all for encouraging competitors.
Here's the overall guidelines, they seem pretty accessible to non-lawyers like me. The single biggest factor is probably this one: The FTC has a pretty solid case to be made given that Apple has a...
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.
The FTC has a pretty solid case to be made given that Apple has a long term (and current!) ability to lock out competitors or raise prices. Apple could, tomorrow, ban all third-party apps from the app store which compete with their offerings, and raise their cut on the app store to 95%. It doesn't matter whether they will do these things, merely that they could. Spotify only exists on the iPhone with Apple's blessing, and Apple has a competing product. For witnesses, they could call up every single app developer that has an app on Android and iOS and ask two questions:
If Google banned your app from the Play Store, are other options available to publish your app?
If Apple banned your app from the App Store, are there other options available to publish your app?
Pair that with a 53%+ marketshare in the USA (@semsevfor), and climbing, tells me that they are on a trajectory to total dominance, and that their full control of the ecosystem is problematic.
I'm not even getting into the Internet Explorer levels of power they can exert via defaults and networking effects ala iMessage...especially with them trying to force out compatible clients like Beeper.
This lawsuit could pave the way in the USA for something like the DMA to take effect.
After reading it in more detail, while I get while Apple is very opposed, I think it makes perfect sense that if Apple can make accessories for its products, that competitors should be able to as well. It wouldn't be acceptable for Microsoft to ban all non-Microsoft mice from working in Windows, it shouldn't be acceptable for Apple to restrict non-Apple smartwatches.
Oh this would be awesome if this could force Apple to open up their mobile operating systems to allow downloading apps from the internet. I like the way it works on MacOS where you can download...
Oh this would be awesome if this could force Apple to open up their mobile operating systems to allow downloading apps from the internet. I like the way it works on MacOS where you can download programs from the internet, but Apple just yells at you if they don't trust the developer. The Mac App Store is still very useful, but I like that it's not the only way to install programs.
And that's how it is on pretty much every single sufficiently sophisticated computer where it isn't locked down by the manufacturer. The only reason you can't make and publish a Nintendo Switch...
And that's how it is on pretty much every single sufficiently sophisticated computer where it isn't locked down by the manufacturer.
The only reason you can't make and publish a Nintendo Switch game independently is because Nintendo says so. Rinse/repeat for your car's infotainment system, your smart TV, other game consoles, and pretty much anything else with a screen and a CPU.
I'm really hoping that everyone wises up and we get some sort of law that neuters anti-circumvention and operating system lockdowns more broadly.
Yeah, it is crap that when you buy a physical thing (e.g. a broom)... you just get the thing, but when you buy something with digital aspects (e.g. a phone)... you don't just get the thing. Like...
Yeah, it is crap that when you buy a physical thing (e.g. a broom)... you just get the thing, but when you buy something with digital aspects (e.g. a phone)... you don't just get the thing. Like the software that came with the thing should be 100% yours if you want it to be (and as long as you're only modify for personal use). It becomes your hardware with what should be your software on it. I understand that if you want to go that route, they do have a reasonable argument to exclude you from their live ecosystem. But like if Apple had done that so people could actually modify shit on their own phones (and not tried to build the biggest walled garden ever), then there'd be a whole subset of alternate/open apps competing by now is my guess. Even like an alternative open OS that runs well on the hardware. That's the part that really gets me -- you're still purchasing a physical thing, to my mind you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want to that thing (again for personal use only).
I could (in theory) strap a couple of leafblowers to that broom I just bought if I wanted and try to make a hoverbroom. It sucks that I can't do the same with digital stuff.
I for example would love a smart tv I had full control of. I'd turn it into a server with a USB hard drive, use the camera as a motion sensor for the room, repair the CEC controls. But since I...
I for example would love a smart tv I had full control of. I'd turn it into a server with a USB hard drive, use the camera as a motion sensor for the room, repair the CEC controls.
But since I don't have control, I don't want a spy device for adverts in my living room.
This can certainly be done with an HTPC setup, but that takes work and space compared to having all the tech built into the display. It's also getting harder (though not impossible, yet) to find...
This can certainly be done with an HTPC setup, but that takes work and space compared to having all the tech built into the display.
It's also getting harder (though not impossible, yet) to find "dumb" TVs, especially if you care about things like 4k or HDR.
Yes. That's more or less what I do now. But it's mostly a silly waste of hardware since what I mostly need out of the TV is a not-broken CEC implementation and Kodi or a Jellyfin client. And that...
Yes. That's more or less what I do now. But it's mostly a silly waste of hardware since what I mostly need out of the TV is a not-broken CEC implementation and Kodi or a Jellyfin client. And that most of the hardware already sits in the TV, probably even with a Linux OS under the hood. Just locked behind some encryption keys.
Edit: What I mean about a not-broken CEC implementation is being able to send all keypresses to other devices. My 2010ish Vizio could do that, letting me control a raspberry pi using the stock TV remote. My 2020ish Vizeo (as well as the Samsung and LG I tried) can only send power signal, audio return channel, and volume control...not the navigation keys.
In part because it's a smart TV. And if you use the apps on your smart TV, which requires accepting their terms and conditions and connecting it to the internet, they get to collect a metric...
In part because it's a smart TV. And if you use the apps on your smart TV, which requires accepting their terms and conditions and connecting it to the internet, they get to collect a metric fuckton of viewing data about you and resell it. They make almost as much profits from this as they do hardware.
A working CEC implementation makes it easier to use other devices and not connect the smart TV to the internet, depriving them of secondary profits (bear in mind, the hardware is still profitable as-is).
Oh, I completely forgot: The CEC controls also worked for the PS4 media viewing. At a time when it was one of the best Blu-Ray players out there.
I can’t help but wonder if the CEC spec itself is broken. Especially since it only seems to work when you only have devices from one manufacture attached to the TV. All the manufacturers give it...
I can’t help but wonder if the CEC spec itself is broken. Especially since it only seems to work when you only have devices from one manufacture attached to the TV. All the manufacturers give it their own name, come to think of it.
I have a device that I needed to buy a special adaptor that disconnects a pin on the HDMI connector because whenever it was plugged in, both CEC and EARC stopped working. There must be something seriously wrong.
Nope, just there's no compatibility enforcement so each vendor did half-ass implementations and nobody bothered testing with anybody else. Also it's often off by default and each vendor has their...
Nope, just there's no compatibility enforcement so each vendor did half-ass implementations and nobody bothered testing with anybody else. Also it's often off by default and each vendor has their own name for it.
Like Nintendo did with their USB-C implementation.
CEC actually was on by default when we bought our TV. And to be fair, it did work perfectly seamlessly with the soundbar. But the important distinction was that both of them were made by Sony. But...
CEC actually was on by default when we bought our TV. And to be fair, it did work perfectly seamlessly with the soundbar. But the important distinction was that both of them were made by Sony.
But the fact that a misbehaving device could break the functionality that was already there doesn't make much sense to me; the soundbar is connected directly to the TV, so why would putting another device on the TV mess up that connection? Is CEC a new implementaiton of token ring or something?
Honestly, I never dove too deep into the specs. I do recall that the order things are initialized matters in some fashion, which is why buggy untested implementations are everywhere. I wouldn't...
Honestly, I never dove too deep into the specs. I do recall that the order things are initialized matters in some fashion, which is why buggy untested implementations are everywhere.
I wouldn't rule out CEC being a flawed protocol. But I do think those flaws would have been managed if there was a much more rigid enforcement for compatibility, the way Zwave is done.
That's where issues begin, it's so easy to share software en masse that the line between "personal use" and a mass market of modified content is razor thin. Technically, no one is actually going...
Like the software that came with the thing should be 100% yours if you want it to be (and as long as you're only modify for personal use)
That's where issues begin, it's so easy to share software en masse that the line between "personal use" and a mass market of modified content is razor thin. Technically, no one is actually going to hunt you down if you learn how to jailbreak and make apps youself, but very few people can do that from scratch. They would be downloading tools and reading instructions from others.
These principles should be applied to other tech sphere companies too, though, and I worry they won’t be. For example, Spotify has made it practically impossible to write a TOS-abiding third-party...
These principles should be applied to other tech sphere companies too, though, and I worry they won’t be.
For example, Spotify has made it practically impossible to write a TOS-abiding third-party client for its paying customers to use with it or for devices without their blessing (Spotify Connect) to work with it.
Or Google, which is already approaching a global monopoly on web browsers with Chrome which is only extended by the growing number of Chrome-reskin Blink-based browsers.
I won’t argue that Apple shouldn’t change its practices, but if the DOJ is being fair it won’t stop with Apple.
Ultimately we can't rely purely on administrative court rulings. We're gonna need some level of legislation, which can hopefully use some of these court proceedings as precedent when inevitably...
Ultimately we can't rely purely on administrative court rulings. We're gonna need some level of legislation, which can hopefully use some of these court proceedings as precedent when inevitably challenged.
The way I see it, there's four main things that need protected, which would cover most use cases.
Mandate that users can unlock the bootloader for any device they own to flash unauthorized operating system mods.
Mandate users can always install and run any unauthorized third-party software.
Revoke laws banning sharing of circumvention methods.
Codify a 'right to access.' If I can access it with an official interface, I should have a right to access it with an alternative interface, provided that the alternative client operates within the same reasonable boundries for network access as the official client (ie no downloading all of Netflix in 3 days).
Thanks, this is helpful. I know that Apple has been involved in other recent lawsuits regarding their app store, so it'll be interesting to see what role those play in this lawsuit.
Thanks, this is helpful. I know that Apple has been involved in other recent lawsuits regarding their app store, so it'll be interesting to see what role those play in this lawsuit.
That reminds me of this recent post to Tildes about Apple terminating Epic Games' developer account in Sweden, before quickly reversing the decision. Apple claimed it was due to Epic violating...
The FTC has a pretty solid case to be made given that Apple has a long term (and current!) ability to lock out competitors or raise prices. Apple could, tomorrow, ban all third-party apps from the app store which compete with their offerings, and raise their cut on the app store to 95%. It doesn't matter whether they will do these things, merely that they could.
I can’t speak for the actual laws, but I can speak for what I think would be best for the market. The entire point of capitalism is that competition creates innovation and forces prices down. This...
Exemplary
I can’t speak for the actual laws, but I can speak for what I think would be best for the market.
The entire point of capitalism is that competition creates innovation and forces prices down. This works quite well when the item in question is relatively simple. When you buy a shirt, you only have a few questions to think about: is the quality good, is the design good, do they use child labor? Market forces allow the good companies to prosper and bad companies to die. This is working as intended.
When products get more complicated, market forces have a harder time. Take for example the car. Let’s say that you as a consumer want the gas fill port on the right and you need AWD. Needing AWD already rules out a ton of the car market. Wanting the gas fill on the right rules out even more. This is a pretty contrived example, but I hope it makes my point. As a product category gets more complicated, the buying decision becomes much more complex and the market forces are much less able to control and correct the market.
The smartphone market is so complex and the market players are split into a duopoly that are extremely similar. Let’s say I want to buy a smartphone that pays developers a better percentage than 70% (this is slowly changing, but let’s assume not for the sake of argument). Well, touch luck. There are many similar “decisions” that aren’t really decisions in the smartphone market. That is why capitalism is failing the smartphone market.
We can also look at this from the developer perspective. If I want to develop a website that takes payment. I can use Stripe, PayPal, Square, or possibly others as a payment processor. These services are better because of the competition. Now I want to develop an app to go with it. What payment processor do I use from among the competition? Just kidding, there is no competition in the payment processor market on smartphones. You use Google AND Apple depending on the platform. Apple can make their payment processor as terrible as they want because there is no competition. Customers can’t “vote with their wallet” because Google does the exact same thing.
It may seem tautological to say that Apple has a monopoly on its own consumers, but it is actually really important. To use a metaphor, it would be like if California banned gas stations and you could only buy gas at Government run gas stations. California would have a monopoly on people in their state. That is just as tautological. And it is just as much an example of where capitalism cannot improve the market.
This is the issue that regulators and some consumers are bringing up. Apple has built their business to remove competition in certain sectors. The fact that they do this is not an issue. If we as a society continue to allow them to do this, that is a problem.
I mean, this has always been the case with Android. I've purchased a number of apps in the years that I've used Android where I bought a license directly from the dev's website and just put a...
The smartphone market is so complex and the market players are split into a duopoly that are extremely similar. Let’s say I want to buy a smartphone that pays developers a better percentage than 70% (this is slowly changing, but let’s assume not for the sake of argument). Well, touch luck.
I mean, this has always been the case with Android. I've purchased a number of apps in the years that I've used Android where I bought a license directly from the dev's website and just put a license key into the app that I got from the Play Store to unlock the full features of the app. I once even bought an APK that the dev provided themselves, outside of the Play Store. 😱 If those devs weren't taking the full payment, lacking processing fees that are usually 3-5% on the top end of things, then that was on them, they certainly had the option to take it all if they wanted it, there was nobody else involved in the transaction.
The options are there even if most people don't like going outside of the "curated" experience of the Play Store with Android.
That is very true, and I don’t want to diminish it, but I think my argument still stands. This is just one example where Google is slightly better (and it’s only slightly, not significantly)....
That is very true, and I don’t want to diminish it, but I think my argument still stands. This is just one example where Google is slightly better (and it’s only slightly, not significantly). Let’s say a potential consumer also wants to buy a smartphone from a platform that supports user privacy and is good to developers. I don’t think that is even an unusual set of requests from users. That rules out the entire phone market. There are so many situations where even two consumer requests rules out the entire market. That is why there isn’t meaningful competition in many parts of the smartphone market.
I know that lineage and degoogled android exist. But they are so small that I doubt Google or Apple feel any competitive pressure from them.
If that’s the case, why doesn’t the government incentivize tech companies to build new smartphones then? I don’t understand why the play is to cripple an existing phone maker just because they are...
If that’s the case, why doesn’t the government incentivize tech companies to build new smartphones then? I don’t understand why the play is to cripple an existing phone maker just because they are a popular choice rather than attempt to foster more competition.
How is it supposed to incentivize? It's not about the smartphones themselves, its the OS and the ecosystems. The constant acquisitions and mergers of companies over many decades has led to...
How is it supposed to incentivize? It's not about the smartphones themselves, its the OS and the ecosystems. The constant acquisitions and mergers of companies over many decades has led to companies so big that new entrants cannot reasonably compete. The government has no reasonable incentive course here. The government "crippling" an existing phone maker is actually just a necessary step in turning back the clock of allowing gigantic corporations to exist that have such sprawl that few others can amass the resources needed to compete. Globalization led to a race to the bottom, because you want your country's corporations to be bigger and better than other countries' corporations, but at a certain point you do reach the bottom.
Companies like Apple in its current form should not exist. Not just Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc. all should not exist in their current forms. Instead of seeing them as being crippled, you should see it as them being 'rightsized' to use their own corpo-speak against them.
"Incentivization" requires picking sides. The government would have to pick who got "incentives" and who didn't. Pick what the incentives were. Monitor and maintain them. That's not government's...
"Incentivization" requires picking sides. The government would have to pick who got "incentives" and who didn't. Pick what the incentives were. Monitor and maintain them.
That's not government's role, and would be hugely corrupt and abusable if it were. Goverment's role, theoretically, is to be the arbiter. The rules. The guidelines. The enforcers. It's a role the US government has stepped way, way, way back from in the past several decades. Mostly due to regulatory capture.
Once upon a time, government would go after big companies and break them up. Government didn't step in and say "okay, AT&T, you're cool and we'll tell you what and how you can be cool. But you other companies with ideas about telephones, you're not cool because we said so which means get out."
No. Government stepped in and proved AT&T being that big, and having that much control over the telephone system from end to end, from coast to coast, everywhere in the country, was bad for the country. Bad for the economy, for competition, for progress, for innovation.
But they didn't dictate what happened after they secured their "victory". After establishing that AT&T in its then current form was illegal, it was left up to "the market" to decide how to change. AT&T decided to break up into a bunch of local pieces, and mostly just hung on to the long distance aspect.
Those local companies have since spent the intervening decades merging and remerging, growing, until they're bigger than AT&T at the time ever was. Verizon for example.
Apple is too big for it to be legal for them to exercise dictatorial control over the smartphone market. There's i, and Android, and those are the choices. And on the Android side, you have how many handset manufacturers? How many individual flavors of the underlying OS that could go on those handsets?
Meanwhile, on the i side, Apple won't even let software interoperate with competitor products. And they certainly don't allow any other non-Apple hardware to play in the iGarden.
That business with messaging recently proves the case for the Justice department. Texting, messaging, is a poster child of an example for what should be interoperable. The thought of people needing to own the "right" handset, running the "right" OS, just to successfully exchange basic communications with one another using a communications device that's become ubiquitous around the world is textbook monopolistic behavior. Anti-competitive behavior.
Cook was quoted at one point, in response to a question at an event where the audience member wondered about why their family couldn't all connect with one another since some had iPhones and some didn't, his reply was "well they can all just buy iPhones then."
The only shocker about the DoJ suing Apple to rein all this shit in is it took this long to initiate the suit. We've gone decades with regulatory capture, and this is the kind of thing it means when that happens; government stops doing its job because corporations are busy out of the direct public eye making sure government can't or won't. Working to guarantee corporations get to do whatever they want without interference.
Apple exercises far too much dictatorial control over their ecosystem. 65% of the US smartphone market is i, according to the DoJ. All funneling through Apple. Not just the hardware, though that's extensive. All the software too, since they have iron-clad control over who can or can't operate on the app gardens that feed into the closed iGarden ecosystem.
And Apple takes a cut of each and every app they allow in.
Meanwhile, on the Android side, anyone who wants to can build a handset and go to market with it. Anyone can start developing Android software and go to market with it. Want to hook your Android phone up to a tv, or a headset, to your computer? Sure, there's probably a bunch of ways to do that.
On the side Apple, not so much. That's the definition of monopolistic control.
Standard Oil controlled the oil business from drilling rigs to gas tanks, and were rightly broken up. AT&T controlled communications from coast to coast, and were rightly broken up. Microsoft tried to bury any competition in the web browser market by pushing (hard pushing) Internet Explorer to the detriment of other potential browsers, and were enjoined from continuing the practice.
If the DoJ is permitted to pursue their case against Apple to the logical conclusions, there will need to be some changes in how Apple approaches the US market. And it's past time too.
But what are they incentivizing? If you look at how a government can incentivize markets in other scenarios, lets say electric cars for example, tax rebates or such for purchasing an electric car...
But what are they incentivizing? If you look at how a government can incentivize markets in other scenarios, lets say electric cars for example, tax rebates or such for purchasing an electric car is sort of reducing the cost to buy-in to electric cars. Since they're new technology and for what is required to meet customer standards currently, they cost more than ICE cars generally speaking. There's also different pain points of being an early adopter, and sometimes can be a bit of a catch-22 where if you don't get the early adopters, you can't build out your charging network or other potential infrastructure needs to continue to grow the market past that point. So the incentives try to help bridge that gap. You can look at it as, the incentives are there to help electric cars overcome ICE cars. The goal isn't to make one company lose more than other, though that can certainly be a byproduct of it, but it's to encourage development in a different market with different technology.
What you are proposing is simply incentivizing companies to enter an established market to compete against entrenched market players. The issue with this is that it doesn't examine why those market players are as entrenched as they are, or why there aren't enough incentives currently to bring other competitors into that established market. It's throwing money at a problem without knowing what the problem is or taking a closer look at how to solve it. In business, it's all about money, so whatever incentives you're proposing that the government supposedly would have as an option to it, it's almost certainly going to cost the government money to implement such an incentive. You also don't even know how much money it requires to throw into this to make it viable. If you don't put enough money into it, you're just throwing money away. Microsoft couldn't even compete in the mobile phone market. Microsoft. I'm not saying it like they're so renowned for their incredible groundbreaking products and services, but I'm saying that they were a big player in the precursor market to the modern mobile phone market and yes their own mistakes led to them no longer being relevant, but a company of that size, with that amount of resources, with the amount of control they had over the desktop market etc., if they can't get back into the market, then what hope is there for the government to create incentives to get others in? The government would be so far out of its depth, it would almost certainly just end up looking like incompetence, or corruption potentially, and waste taxpayer money (or future revenue through tax abatement etc.)
The problem isn't that there is a lack of incentive. Everyone and their grandmother has a mobile phone. There's few if any markets bigger than the one these companies are in. The money is there, the consumer demand is there. The problem is that the product and service offerings are so interwoven and complex that it's near impossible to build a competing product. You mention Fairphone, which is simply just running Android effectively. You're bound to many of the same things any other phone running Android is. The market isn't Fairphone, Samsung, Google, Apple, Sony, etc., the market is Google and Apple with Android and iOS respectively. That's it.
There are tons of things they could incentivize, just like they do with any other industry and with moving production and manufacturing back to the US. EVs are a terrible example as the incentives...
There are tons of things they could incentivize, just like they do with any other industry and with moving production and manufacturing back to the US. EVs are a terrible example as the incentives are for purchasers and not for the companies producing the cars. The incentives I’m talking about are incentives for the companies producing the phones in question. Also, it’s the government. They can create whatever incentives they want - requiring the devices to be open source, to be software agnostic, to support open source hardware, etc. They can literally incentivize any number of things that Apple would be ineligible for simply by virtue of how they’ve set up their stack. They could even incentivize phones that allow side loading (if only our politicians knew what that even was).
The rest of your statement about this being throwing money at the problem is just a deflection and you prove that by your Microsoft example. Microsoft couldn’t compete because they made an inferior product that seemed polished but had no support from developers and, therefore, no apps for end users. If people weren’t ok with iPhones, they would have bought the Microsoft phones back then. You saying “the consumer demand is there” is such an empty statement that there’s no point in taking it seriously. Consumer demand squarely supports the iPhone. Claiming it doesn’t is simply dishonest.
Your last statement even proves my point further. There’s nothing stopping Fairohone, Samsung, HTC, Sony, or anyone else from running their own OSes in their devices. For some reason, you’re completely ignoring why they didn’t, don’t, and won’t do that. All of these companies (except Fairphone) existed before iPhone and Android and have the resources and money to make their own tightly interwoven offerings but they didn’t and don’t. They put themselves at a disadvantage. That wasn’t Apple’s fault then and it isn’t their fault now.
Yep, and all of those are no guarantee of any success. That would be the government creating incentives for things it doesn't even know if it works. As I said, it would just look like corruption...
They can create whatever incentives they want - requiring the devices to be open source, to be software agnostic, to support open source hardware, etc. They can literally incentivize any number of things that Apple would be ineligible for simply by virtue of how they’ve set up their stack. They could even incentivize phones that allow side loading (if only our politicians knew what that even was).
Yep, and all of those are no guarantee of any success. That would be the government creating incentives for things it doesn't even know if it works. As I said, it would just look like corruption or incompetence when companies start checking off boxes to get government money or tax abatement.
The rest of your statement about this being throwing money at the problem is just a deflection and you prove that by your Microsoft example. Microsoft couldn’t compete because they made an inferior product that seemed polished but had no support from developers and, therefore, no apps for end users. If people weren’t ok with iPhones, they would have bought the Microsoft phones back then. You saying “the consumer demand is there” is such an empty statement that there’s no point in taking it seriously. Consumer demand squarely supports the iPhone. Claiming it doesn’t is simply dishonest.
Deflection? Dishonest? You're being antagonistic and accusing of things that I wasn't doing. It's clearly not a good idea to continue engaging with you any further.
Comments like these mystify me, because you correctly identify the factors that make for terrible outcomes for smartphones, yet fail to extend that understanding to other markets. What makes you...
Comments like these mystify me, because you correctly identify the factors that make for terrible outcomes for smartphones, yet fail to extend that understanding to other markets. What makes you think that something similar isn’t happening in many other areas? To say nothing of natural monopolies like power companies, or collusion like that which occurs with ISPs.
The best way to profit, it turns out, is to not have competition at all. Free markets are suicidal, and late-stage capitalism has continued to prove this.
Acting like there’s no middle ground between a completely unbridled market and a command economy is some tankie rhetoric, mate. Well-regulated markets have a much better track record than...
The best way to profit, it turns out, is to not have competition at all. Free markets are suicidal, and late-stage capitalism has continued to prove this.
Acting like there’s no middle ground between a completely unbridled market and a command economy is some tankie rhetoric, mate.
Well-regulated markets have a much better track record than centralized planning, historically speaking.
I never said middle-grounds don't exist, and I don't see how on Earth what I've said should constitute "tankie rhetoric," but for the sake of argument I'm going to ignore the name-calling (and the...
I never said middle-grounds don't exist, and I don't see how on Earth what I've said should constitute "tankie rhetoric," but for the sake of argument I'm going to ignore the name-calling (and the second-paragraph topic-swap).
A market does not have to be "completely unbridled" to be suicidal. Many a regulation was obliterated once enough money was applied to the right politicians. If the market is not inherently beholden to the working class, it will devolve into one that abuses them as much as possible for the sake of greed, and that's what's happening to us right now.
I'm not prepared to say my ideal solution is planned economies – though I am not convinced of their inefficacy, either – but it is imperative to bear in mind that free market-oriented ideologies will have to continually fight against that very market's attempts to self-immolate; when they don't, you get monopolies at best, or fascism at worst.
I'm not going to lie to you in that I'm probably not the best person to ask that question. There are... a lot of solutions of many varieties and which incorporate planning or lack thereof to many...
I'm not going to lie to you in that I'm probably not the best person to ask that question. There are... a lot of solutions of many varieties and which incorporate planning or lack thereof to many different degrees. I'm not a scholar, here. Still, I appreciate the curiosity.
If I had to answer the question, though, then I think the core aspect that hardens an economic system against this kind of backslide is that it be "inherently beholden to the working class" as I said earlier. There are a lot of ways to do this, both wholly and partially, and anything I suggest here would not be a fully-packaged answer to the question. But they could help. Some ideas:
Nationalize natural monopolies. Private ownership simply cannot work in these areas for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Make a market that consists primarily (if not exclusively) of some form of worker cooperatives. The more inherently democratic the market, the less likely it is to push for undemocratic changes (though it is not immune).
Extend the above further; if customers of a business also get a say, you've got yourself an even more democratic system.
Ensure, as much as you feasibly can, that elections are not decided by money. Ban stock trading during and after terms; reverse Citizen's United or precedent/law like it; make running for office not require immense wealth or donations generally. Countless other possibilities exist.
This is what I can think of off the top of my head, but hopefully it's a start as to how this kind of issue can be addressed. You don't need a planned economy to address this, so long as you bear the problem in mind and account for it. I said "free market-oriented ideologies" for a reason, mind — since things like libertarianism tend to venerate the free market like it's holy gospel, they tend to utterly ignore the risks to the concept. An ideology incorporating a free market is not, in and of itself, broken.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from now - thanks for explaining/sorry for the misread. I can totally get behind those core ideas… ironically I think they’re kinda a “free-market” ideology in their...
Oh, I see where you’re coming from now - thanks for explaining/sorry for the misread.
I can totally get behind those core ideas… ironically I think they’re kinda a “free-market” ideology in their own right, in that those policies maximize the agency of individual actors in the market.
I posit that because all markets tend toward monopoly if left unregulated, that a command economy is the natural outcome. And that the primary differentiator is to whom the operator of the economy...
I posit that because all markets tend toward monopoly if left unregulated, that a command economy is the natural outcome. And that the primary differentiator is to whom the operator of the economy is accountable. A command economy is only problematic if its instituted in an undemocratic way. At the rate we've been going, Amazon's CEO will be the dictator for our command economy,
Isn't the internal structure of most companies a command economy? Why does that not scale to an entire economy? Different sectors of the economy are little different than different companies reporting to a parent company.
One of the most legitimate criticisms of a command economy was that a large economy was too complex to be able to properly plan because it was impossible to aggregate and make decisions on that data in a reasonable timeframe. We've solved that problem since about 2005 or so thanks to advancements in computing. However, there hasn't really been any substantial chance for a command economy to take root, I suspect in no small part due to inertia with existing market-based economies, and political instability in areas without that inertia.
All of the improvements to planning and logistics which facilitate JIT supply chains could be used to similiar or better ways to power a commnd economy. The primary thing holding it back is a lack of data sharing to a central authority.
Let’s say I want to buy a phone where the manufacturer has made me an implicit promise that any software I install on it will never fuck my battery, install secret rootkits, or do other weird shit...
Let’s say I want to buy a smartphone that pays developers a better percentage than 70% (this is slowly changing, but let’s assume not for the sake of argument). Well, touch luck.
Let’s say I want to buy a phone where the manufacturer has made me an implicit promise that any software I install on it will never fuck my battery, install secret rootkits, or do other weird shit that’s not advertised. You would wish to make that business model illegal.
What? What part of my post says I want that business model to be illegal? If governments force Apple to allow sideloading, you can still choose to only install software from the Apple App Store....
What? What part of my post says I want that business model to be illegal? If governments force Apple to allow sideloading, you can still choose to only install software from the Apple App Store. Nothing I said, and no proposed regulations I have read, would prevent you from doing that. You can buy an android phone and only install from the google play store just fine. In fact, if Apple does allow sideloading, I would still recommend that everyone install only from the App Store or play store. Battery saving and user protections would be a competitive advantage of the App Store. That would be a good thing if competition were to exist.
This is simply not how the real world works. Because my bank or my insurance company or some smart home device I need or the social network all my friends are on will require me to side load their...
If governments force Apple to allow sideloading, you can still choose to only install software from the Apple App Store.
This is simply not how the real world works. Because my bank or my insurance company or some smart home device I need or the social network all my friends are on will require me to side load their app to use it. Once the door is open it’s all the way open.
Having a large corporate maintaining that boundary on my behalf is the only way it works. They simply have more negotiating leverage than any individual consumer does.
Like this isn’t theoretical. The market for software on PCs is a fraction of what it is on mobile. It’s not even close from an indie developer perspective among “normies” because the level of trust is on the floor. The web is even more of a hellscape, with people being phished and scammed in droves. The problem of how to get people to pay for software has been a tough nut to crack for years.
Apple cracked the code on creating a business model where indie developers can make real money, and not just by being data sources to funnel information to ad networks.
Why would anyone choose a bank or insurance company that don’t offer a website? How are smart home apps or social network apps essentials? You’ve lost touch with reality now. AAA games, Adobe...
Why would anyone choose a bank or insurance company that don’t offer a website? How are smart home apps or social network apps essentials?
The market for software on PCs is a fraction of what it is on mobile.
You’ve lost touch with reality now. AAA games, Adobe Suite/Figma, Ableton and other DAWs/media editors, CAD tools, proprietary DBs? The revenues on all of those sectors individually are comparable to iOS apps revenues.
Mobile sales are a joke compared to desktop as a whole, and the iOS ecosystem is deeply unhealthy due to a greedy 30% tax and developers fearing the random, arbitrary review process every time they push an update.
If you had included the sentence that you omitted in your quote, it would have been pretty clear that I was talking about smaller, indie developers: And you’ll notice when you say AAA games,...
If you had included the sentence that you omitted in your quote, it would have been pretty clear that I was talking about smaller, indie developers:
It’s not even close from an indie developer perspective among “normies” because the level of trust is on the floor.
And you’ll notice when you say AAA games, figma/Adobe, Ableton, etc. that these are all expensive applications from very large companies, many of which are purchased through business licenses. It’s simply not the same market. None of this stuff is even on the radar for the typical non-techie grandparent.
I’m trying to read your statements in the best possible light, and I don’t think your wording suggested that at all. That second sentence is written as a “zoomed-in” specific example. The market...
If you had included the sentence that you omitted in your quote, it would have been pretty clear that I was talking about smaller, indie developers.
I’m trying to read your statements in the best possible light, and I don’t think your wording suggested that at all. That second sentence is written as a “zoomed-in” specific example.
you’ll notice when you say AAA games, figma/Adobe, Ableton, etc. that these are all expensive applications from very large companies, many of which are purchased through business licenses.
The market doesn’t exist for big-ticket iOS apps because no large company capable of making such products wants to invest in an ecosystem where they’re entirely beholden to Apple’s whims. It’s a concrete case of stifled innovation, so I think it’s entirely fair to compare.
I doubt it would turn out the way you envision. You only have to look at android to see the alternative. The play store is much less restrictive than the App Store (especially with regards to...
I doubt it would turn out the way you envision. You only have to look at android to see the alternative. The play store is much less restrictive than the App Store (especially with regards to battery life), but basically all apps are still available exclusively from the play store. There are huge advantages to ditching the play store (namely the 30% cut) but companies just don’t leave. There aren’t any (to my knowledge or experience) banks or insurance companies that require the customer to download an apk or install a third party App Store. I am sure there are some smart devices that require that, but it’s certainly not the majority, and you probably don’t want those devices anyway.
I don’t know how much experience you have with the Mac, but it has a thriving developer scene despite the Mac App Store, not because of it.
The App Store will always have a huge competitive advantage because it’s pre installed. The vast majority of users will never sideload an app or install a third party store. The changes regulators are proposing just require Apple to get some competitive pressure in the App Store market. Many developers will never leave the App Store no matter how good third party app stores get. If you listen to the accidental tech podcast, Marco Arment, developer of Overcast, is all for regulations like the EU DMA, and has also said that he is never moving Overcast to a third party App Store. Apple can easily make an App Store that is better than the competition. We know this, because they already made their store far better than the Google play store without any competitive pressure. Imagine how good it could be with some competitive pressure.
The scale of indie software adoption by normies on the Mac is simply nowhere near what the App Store has enabled on the phone. It’s really not even close. The Mac basically coasts off the...
I don’t know how much experience you have with the Mac, but it has a thriving developer scene despite the Mac App Store, not because of it.
The scale of indie software adoption by normies on the Mac is simply nowhere near what the App Store has enabled on the phone. It’s really not even close. The Mac basically coasts off the historical legacy of desktop computing, where everything was basically trusted by default and, when you go far back enough, you had to compile the code yourself to run anything.
I listen to ATP, I think Marco is letting his frustration with App Store review processes cloud his judgement honestly. Developers, in general, start to lose the view from the user’s perspective after a while and forget that the relationship between end-user and app developer can often be as antagonistic as it is cooperative. Yeah the application adds value, but for the developer your primary concern is my experience of using your application, but not my experience of using my phone and all the other effects the application has on that. Guys like Marco assume everyone is going to approach it like him, but I’ve looked at investment pitches from skeezy, fly-by-night game and application developers before and it’s pretty.
I would say, if anything, there should be a whole lot fewer apps on the App Store and the code review policies should be quite a bit stricter. In an ideal world Apple would make devs go through some sort of certification program and only permit passing developers on, but in the real world companies like Google and Meta probably shouldn’t pass but would need to be allowed in anyway.
Your bank could just do that now. They could just say "sorry we don't support iOS. You need to get an android, enable this setting for 3rd party app installs and download this .APK to use our app"...
Your bank could just do that now. They could just say "sorry we don't support iOS. You need to get an android, enable this setting for 3rd party app installs and download this .APK to use our app"
That would be absolutely insane though. They'd miss out on the vast majority of customers who don't want to go through all that.
How would a company make any sort of promise to you that the things you do to your phone are safe? It's your phone. The company you bought it from doesn't have any say in what you do with it.
Apple can't even make that promise currently. I could jailbreak it and put all the viruses in want on it. I could smash it and cause the battery to catch on fire. I could throw it up in the air and have it land on my head.
The best thing they could, and the only thing they should do, is say "we have vetted and ensured that all software on the official app store is safe". whether you actually trust Apple on that statement is up to you, as there have been many instances of malware on officially "vetted" app store software. At least opening up the platform would give you the option of trusting someone else instead.
I think you’re proving their point rather than their own. Banks don’t do that precisely because a majority of people favor the current ecosystem that Apple has set up. If that gets torn down, then...
I think you’re proving their point rather than their own. Banks don’t do that precisely because a majority of people favor the current ecosystem that Apple has set up. If that gets torn down, then they absolutely will do what he’s saying. It already happened in the 90s and 2000s with other platforms.
What’s backing your assertion that people generally favor the Apple ecosystem, rather than accept it for lack of viable alternatives? The key premise of the DOJ’s complaint is that Apple is...
What’s backing your assertion that people generally favor the Apple ecosystem, rather than accept it for lack of viable alternatives? The key premise of the DOJ’s complaint is that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior to prevent users from having other options - where do you think their arguments in the filing fall apart?
(Ironically, I would quote from the linked PDF, but iOS Safari won’t let me copy text from it.)
On a different note, do you think such fragmentation and idiosyncratic installation flows have happened on the Android ecosystem? If not, why would the Apple ecosystem be different?
What’s backing my assertion is that the iPhone has 3 things that, factually, support it: Apparently, the iPhone has a 70% market share The iPhone has an incredibly small amount of people that...
What’s backing my assertion is that the iPhone has 3 things that, factually, support it:
Apparently, the iPhone has a 70% market share
The iPhone has an incredibly small amount of people that switch from it to Android (even amongst former Android users that switched to it) while also having a large percentage of Android users switching to it (a steady rate of about 15% per year)
The iPhone, amongst any piece of technology, has one of the highest rates of customer satisfaction amongst its users and the highest rate of users who say that their next purchase will also be an iPhone
You can take 2 major conclusions away from this (amongst several smaller ones):
Either people like their iPhones so much that switching isn’t even a thought for them or Apple is locking people in and they have to stay with iPhones. The number of people switching to iPhone from Android and the insanely high satisfaction ratings year to year lead me to think that it’s the first. Anecdotally, this conclusion holds true for most of the people I know and the non-techie users whose phones I’ve had to support bear that further. Those with Android phones tolerate them or have to use them because they got them for free/cheap. Those with iPhones mostly love them. The only group this doesn’t hold true for is very techie people who care about things like skinning, viewing runtime info about their device, or being able to pirate apps.
I'm just raising an anecdotal counterpoint as a non-techie person who doesn't root their phone or pirate apps and hates the Apple ecosystem since iTunes originally came out (and further every time...
I'm just raising an anecdotal counterpoint as a non-techie person who doesn't root their phone or pirate apps and hates the Apple ecosystem since iTunes originally came out (and further every time I have to use an iPhone or iPad for work)
Once people are used to it, I they seem to be stuck in it. Which is fine if they like it but I don't get the appeal
That’s not a counterpoint. You have a preset bias that existed before the iPhone even came out. That’s hardly the majority of people nor is it even representative of any of the population of...
That’s not a counterpoint. You have a preset bias that existed before the iPhone even came out. That’s hardly the majority of people nor is it even representative of any of the population of iPhone owners. The fact is that people switch from Android to iPhone in 1/5 of the cases where the person was new to either platform while the inverse is that less than 1% switch from iPhone back to Android and the only way to make that number higher is to constrain it to people this used Android first, then switched, and then switched back (which makes it a 4% rate).
Just because you don’t get the appeal doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people share that sentiment.
It can already happen on Android, but it doesn't. There are already a few 3rd party app installers already like f-droid. You can also just side load .apks. No bank forces you to use those methods...
It can already happen on Android, but it doesn't.
There are already a few 3rd party app installers already like f-droid. You can also just side load .apks. No bank forces you to use those methods to install their apps.
While this is true, I think the reason why it’s this way is because it’s not worth the extra fuss to set up custom distribution for a single platform, particularly with the platform in question...
While this is true, I think the reason why it’s this way is because it’s not worth the extra fuss to set up custom distribution for a single platform, particularly with the platform in question being Android which has historically been the less profitable userbase between it and iOS.
I think iOS opening up will change this and expect to see an increase of things that can’t be found on the Play Store and App Store in the coming year. It’s already started with Epic having stated their intent to launch an iOS + Android store of their own.
Isn’t this a bit dishonest? Android only has a 30% market share in the US so there’s no reason to do this rather than investing in the web and this does happen in other countries (China, for...
Isn’t this a bit dishonest? Android only has a 30% market share in the US so there’s no reason to do this rather than investing in the web and this does happen in other countries (China, for example). It already happens with payment processing (Zelle didn’t exist until 2 years after Apple Pay and Google Pay launched and banks had an “oh shit” moment) and would happen again with any area of business where banks could stand to make money by offering their own alternatives. Android, unfortunately, is dwarfed by the profits gained from iOS equivalents so banks won’t go there until there’s a financial incentive for them to do so.
Zelle existing isn't a bad thing. And no, it's not dishonest at all. Whats going on on android is exactly the scenario they're proposing. No alternative app store has taken up any significant...
Zelle existing isn't a bad thing. And no, it's not dishonest at all. Whats going on on android is exactly the scenario they're proposing.
No alternative app store has taken up any significant market share, because why would they? They exist on Android, yet the vast majority of people still use the official app store. And yes, android only has 30% market share in the US, but it's absolutely dominant everywhere else and the play store is still the #1 player by a long shot, apart from special cases like China, which has a lot more to do with it's government than the market.
They do spend money on android. There are a ton of paid apps on the play store. I just spent 74 bucks for one. The developer could have potentially made an extra 20 bucks from me had I purchased...
They do spend money on android. There are a ton of paid apps on the play store. I just spent 74 bucks for one. The developer could have potentially made an extra 20 bucks from me had I purchased it from an app store they owned, but they don't do that.
They know that virtually no one would be willing to install a new 3rd party app store just for a single app.
If anything, people would be even less likely to be willing to do that on iOS rather than more.
They don’t, though. I don’t mean that there has never been a purchase on Android (but I would hope that that would be clear without me having to point out something so obvious). I mean that,...
They don’t, though. I don’t mean that there has never been a purchase on Android (but I would hope that that would be clear without me having to point out something so obvious). I mean that, comparatively, people spend so much less within the Android ecosystem (globally) that the ROI on external app stores would basically be non-existent. That’s not the case with Apple’s App Store.
And your assertion that “they know that … no one would be willing to install a 3rd party app store” is comically wrong. They absolutely would do that if there was no other alternative. If Meta created their own App Store and required people to install their apps from there, I can guarantee that their users would do that. Meta would even go so far as to require it for future usage of their apps. They didn’t do that on Android because there’s nothing to gain from that. There’s a ton to gain from that happening on iOS, though.
You can kind of see in Apple’s rules around it exactly the sorts of sneaky ways around their restrictions that companies have done in the past. They require a special set of API calls that have to...
You can kind of see in Apple’s rules around it exactly the sorts of sneaky ways around their restrictions that companies have done in the past. They require a special set of API calls that have to be authorized, they initially didn’t want to permit you to run a store that only sells your company’s apps, etc. This all seems to be designed to prevent stuff like the facebook Onavo scam or companies setting up 3rd party stores solely to distribute their own spyware.
It doesn’t even have to be something that’s happened to Apple in the past. It’s just obvious to anyone who has any tech experience that companies will attempt to take advantage of anything that...
It doesn’t even have to be something that’s happened to Apple in the past. It’s just obvious to anyone who has any tech experience that companies will attempt to take advantage of anything that makes things easier or more accessible to laypeople.
They would have had to pay to set up their own store to get your extra $20, and it probably would have cost them nearly that $20 to do it. It doesn’t pay to run your own store until you get into...
The developer could have potentially made an extra 20 bucks from me had I purchased it from an app store they owned, but they don't do that.
They would have had to pay to set up their own store to get your extra $20, and it probably would have cost them nearly that $20 to do it. It doesn’t pay to run your own store until you get into very very large install bases.
In the real world, there's already a mobile OS that allows sideloading, and what do all of the businesses and social media networks do in this ecosystem? They use the Google Play Store.
This is simply not how the real world works. Because my bank or my insurance company or some smart home device I need or the social network all my friends are on will require me to side load their app to use it. Once the door is open it’s all the way open.
In the real world, there's already a mobile OS that allows sideloading, and what do all of the businesses and social media networks do in this ecosystem?
The EU is about to launch an investigation into Google privileging the Play store as part of its anti-steering efforts. They pretty clearly don’t want the platform owners to own their own...
The EU is about to launch an investigation into Google privileging the Play store as part of its anti-steering efforts. They pretty clearly don’t want the platform owners to own their own application store at all.
Today it requires a decent amount of extra work to do the sideloading, the lower the barriers to doing it are, the more companies will start to cajole (or induce with freebies) users into doing it.
I mentioned it in another comment, but the EU pretty clearly sees the platforms owning their own app stores as inherently problematic and are trying to untangle them in clumsy ways. It takes too...
I mentioned it in another comment, but the EU pretty clearly sees the platforms owning their own app stores as inherently problematic and are trying to untangle them in clumsy ways. It takes too much work to sideload on Android now for broader adoption, but the EC clearly views those hurdles as anti-competitive and is going to continually try to knock them down. Google is already under investigation for this and it’s probably not gonna go well.
Right now it’s not worth it for most of the third parties to run their own App Store because iOS doesn’t permit it and they’re not gonna run a separate stores that omits the majority of the addressable market of people who pay for software. If the gates are open on iOS the math makes a lot more sense to set up the infrastructure to run a separate storefront.
They’ve had a thirty percent cut of all app sales to fund a high-quality review process for over a decade. Still didn’t do it and they have Apple stans breathlessly defending them anyway, so why...
They’ve had a thirty percent cut of all app sales to fund a high-quality review process for over a decade. Still didn’t do it and they have Apple stans breathlessly defending them anyway, so why should they start now?
There’s no incentive for them to improve the quality of their offering because they’re using their monopoly to trap users instead of provide better services - that’s a key argument of the DOJ filing.
A high quality review process would probably require more than a 30% cut to actually execute. Nothing about the DOJ’s suit is geared towards making them improve their curation, it’s geared towards...
They’ve had a thirty percent cut of all app sales to fund a high-quality review process for over a decade.
A high quality review process would probably require more than a 30% cut to actually execute.
Nothing about the DOJ’s suit is geared towards making them improve their curation, it’s geared towards making them curate less and instigating a race-to-the-bottom effect against curating at all.
If we wanted to improve curation we’d flatly just ban casino games and leave it at that. It’s too tempting for Apple to continue permitting that dirty money to slosh around in their store and it trying to police abuses around it drains resources away from doing anything else.
Apple ended 2023 with a reported cash on hand amount of 80 billion USD. That's $80 billion that's sitting in bank accounts, unused, without Apple knowing what to do with it, just loose change they...
Apple ended 2023 with a reported cash on hand amount of 80 billion USD. That's $80 billion that's sitting in bank accounts, unused, without Apple knowing what to do with it, just loose change they have laying around. That would fund 160,000 highly paid reviewers, if the reviewers were paid $500k each per year.
Apple has the money, they've had the money for a long time, they're not scraping by, they're one of the most highly successful companies in the world today, and it would be highly impressive if something were to actually meaningfully affect their profitability.
Apple isn't doing it because they don't seem to want to -- not because "gosh darn they just don't have enough money to pay people to make sure apps work, if only they could take an even bigger cut of app store profit, oh well".
That’s not how corporate accounting works. Business units have to justify their existence individually, not just say “well the company as a whole has cash reserves so it’s fine to be a major cost...
That’s not how corporate accounting works. Business units have to justify their existence individually, not just say “well the company as a whole has cash reserves so it’s fine to be a major cost center.”
The company’s total cash on hand doesn’t mean they can just fund individual business lines to operate at a loss forever. Unless it’s a capital investment to fund future growth (which more moderation wouldn’t be, it’s a cost center and a bottomless pit at that) it doesn’t make business sense to do that.
And it’s not like you just throw money at a problem and it’s magically solved. That’s also how engineering works. If it was, Apple would be rolling cars off the assembly line today.
I don’t think any amount of money will create a review process that satisfies even most people as long as they have as much of an open door policy for developers. And no, $20Bn total isn’t crazy...
I don’t think any amount of money will create a review process that satisfies even most people as long as they have as much of an open door policy for developers.
And no, $20Bn total isn’t crazy much for the scale of the App Store. There are 5 million apps in there. That would be about $4,000 per app, including all the infrastructure and associated API development, partnerships, bugs, etc. That’s a tidy profit, but unless the individual problems are really scalable that won’t be a ton, because I think you’d ideally need to have a bunch of engineering liaisons (expensive) with small portfolios (lots of people) to support each developer.
I think the only (but still predominant) issue with this argument is that the entire reason for this is that only a few companies have the ability and the resources to create products that are...
I think the only (but still predominant) issue with this argument is that the entire reason for this is that only a few companies have the ability and the resources to create products that are this advanced and complex.
To use your car example, nothing is stopping companies from putting the fuel port on the right side. That’s a design design that’s informed by iteration from previous products. Technically, there’s nothing stopping a new player from coming onto the market with only right port cars just like there’s nothing stopping a new player from coming onto the market with a new smartphone. The issue is that there’s vast hardware, software, and administrative/logisticsl knowledge that comes together to make these devices.
Based on that, I don’t see why Apple would have to open up their business just because they put the time, effort, and resources to create these complex, intricate products any more than anyone else should have to open their store to products they don’t want to sell. On a smaller scale, it seems no different than telling me that I need to offer other people to sell their products in my store just because there’s not another store in the area (despite there being a similar store just down the street). I just don’t see how it can be said consumers don’t have a choice as long as Android exists.
I’m not disagreeing with your comment or, if I’m being honest, contributing much to the conversation, but I can’t for the life of my find a decent shirt! They all tend to be made of materials that...
I’m not disagreeing with your comment or, if I’m being honest, contributing much to the conversation, but I can’t for the life of my find a decent shirt! They all tend to be made of materials that throw off microplastics, use crops that are grown with far too much water, exploit foreign workers terribly, fit badly, don’t layer well, etc.
A lot of things are complicated, not just electronic toys! It seems like markets really only care about what’s cheap, and the only options reasonably available to me are the cheapest ones imaginable (or are unimaginably expensive).
I think at least some of the race to the bottom for prices could be solved with better information availability and wages. Consumers can't make informed decions when marketing lies and consumer...
I think at least some of the race to the bottom for prices could be solved with better information availability and wages.
Consumers can't make informed decions when marketing lies and consumer testing information is obtuse.
If you had two knives side by side, one costing $5 and the other costing $25, more people will buy the $5 one. If you have a clearly labeled information chart that shows the $5 knife will break inside of a year, while the $25 knife will last 20, consumers will be able to make better choices. Especially if they have high enough wages to not have to say 'But I only have $10 and need a knife today'.
I think the easist paths to get there would be a combo of severely limiting marketing and advertising, and reasonably high mandatory minimum waranties on all non-perishable goods.
No more '1 year limited waranty' on a $200 dishwasher. Make the minimum a '10 year parts and labor full waranty' for goods such as that. Prices will go up, but it will put a floor on quality.
Perhaps that’s reasonable? But in my heart, I don’t feel that the average human has enough extra energy (“spoons”) to handle the complexity of choosing between multiple products in a category on a...
Perhaps that’s reasonable? But in my heart, I don’t feel that the average human has enough extra energy (“spoons”) to handle the complexity of choosing between multiple products in a category on a regular basis. For whatever reason, the average person seems to crave convenience and simplicity for everything that “isn’t their problem”, even to their detriment …
As you suggest, perhaps regulations to enforce minimum quality bars are the way forward, since people can’t be trusted to think about what they’re buying (beyond always buying the easiest, simplest, cheapest thing).
Yea, I'm envisioning something like a Consumer Reports score that's put next to the price tag. Ideally from say 2-3 testing organizations. Rather than the online "user reviews" which tend to be...
Yea, I'm envisioning something like a Consumer Reports score that's put next to the price tag. Ideally from say 2-3 testing organizations. Rather than the online "user reviews" which tend to be very subjective (and fake) than objective.
I'll shamelessly copy a comment from Hacker News summarizing the lawsuit details: Lawsuit summary (tangent on a tangent: I do love the option to collapse a bunch of information that may be useful...
I'll shamelessly copy a comment from Hacker News summarizing the lawsuit details:
Lawsuit summary (tangent on a tangent: I do love the option to collapse a bunch of information that may be useful but also a tangent. more forums need this)
For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims:
"Super Apps"
Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.
Cloud streaming apps
Similar to "super apps", the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service.
Messaging interoperability
Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set.
Smartwatches
Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.
Digital wallets
It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement "tap to pay" on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.
With that context in mind, it does seem like this lawsuit was in the making for years. From Pebble to Tile to Gamepass to Epic to Garmin to Beeper, it's been clear that Apple would suffice having a popular app until they wanted in, or simply never allowed an "in" to begin with if they felt it threatened anything about their garden. Microsoft got charged decades ago for doing much less with Windows, and at this point IOS is beyond a doubt a general purpose OS and not just "a phone with some games on it".
Even if this merely brings an end to the "green bubble" texting I'd consider this a win. I should be able to recieve pictures larger than 144p from my parents' iphones without going around to some other app.
You already should...it's the videos that should pose an issue in the current state of things. If you are getting tiny photos, that's not an Apple thing.
I should be able to recieve pictures larger than 144p from my parents' iphones without going around to some other app.
You already should...it's the videos that should pose an issue in the current state of things. If you are getting tiny photos, that's not an Apple thing.
Yeah I'm curious what their grounds are for this. Clearly they are a big mover of smartphones, but Android phones dominate the market share and usually have features ahead of Apple. I don't see...
Yeah I'm curious what their grounds are for this. Clearly they are a big mover of smartphones, but Android phones dominate the market share and usually have features ahead of Apple.
I don't see how this argument makes sense. I despise Apple and would love for them to get taken down a few pegs if not shut down completely, but this case doesn't quite make sense to me.
I don't know if that's true anymore that Android dominates the US market. Android continues to dominate the global market, but I think Apple is ahead in the US. Cursory search says this: A couple...
I don't know if that's true anymore that Android dominates the US market. Android continues to dominate the global market, but I think Apple is ahead in the US.
According to the latest stats from Statcounter, the global market share looks like this:
Android: 67.56%
iOS: 31.6%
But in the U.S., that market share looks like this:
iOS: 62.13%
Android: 37.47%
A couple other sources show similar, though the gap isn't as large. So maybe "dominate" isn't the right term. In any case, iPhones are certainly ahead in the US.
This probably changes the calculus a bit. If Apple was in the minority, yeah OK, who cares? But given that Apple's share continues to increase over the competition, especially among younger people, I'm not against the DoJ making some moves against Apple.
And I say this as an Apple user. I'm typing this on my new MBP, with Apple Watch on my wrist, and my iPhone right next to me.
If the “move” ends up being “make your ecosystem and product offerings shittier so cheap commodity vendors can compete with you” I am 100% against that. A lot of people have hate boners for Apple...
I'm not against the DoJ making some moves against Apple.
If the “move” ends up being “make your ecosystem and product offerings shittier so cheap commodity vendors can compete with you” I am 100% against that.
A lot of people have hate boners for Apple for what are functionally just tech-hipsterism reasons.
Oh I did not know it had shifted that much...yikes. I feel like a few years ago when I looked it was like 10% Apple, 85% Android, and the rest a mix of Windows and more obscure types of devices
Oh I did not know it had shifted that much...yikes.
I feel like a few years ago when I looked it was like 10% Apple, 85% Android, and the rest a mix of Windows and more obscure types of devices
I thought for sure there would be a strong Linux contender by now. There are a few options out there, but it locks you out of enough that it's just not a practical choice. It's not the same as my...
I thought for sure there would be a strong Linux contender by now. There are a few options out there, but it locks you out of enough that it's just not a practical choice.
It's not the same as my laptop, where I can easily find open source replacements for 95% of what I want to do.
I think the real reason is the app stores. Ultimately, I need about 5-6 apps that are only available on iOS or Android for work. Things like MFA. Which means you've basically got to have a...
I think the real reason is the app stores.
Ultimately, I need about 5-6 apps that are only available on iOS or Android for work. Things like MFA.
Which means you've basically got to have a seperate, secondary Android subsystem to retain any functionality at all with existing third parties...and the more tightly they integrate with Android, the less sense it makes to make anything other than an Android phone.
The problem with Linux is that most of the development for it is done by or funded by companies whose use cases are not general purpose desktop or mobile usage. They want servers, hypervisors,...
The problem with Linux is that most of the development for it is done by or funded by companies whose use cases are not general purpose desktop or mobile usage. They want servers, hypervisors, embedded operating systems, etc. As a result, projects relevant to end-user use cases don't get the money or development time needed to compete with commercial operating systems that already fulfill consumer needs.
I hadn't realized the numbers had changed so much. I have noticed lately that people seem to assume I have an iPhone, but hadn't really thought much about it. That's a subtle shift that can mean a...
I hadn't realized the numbers had changed so much. I have noticed lately that people seem to assume I have an iPhone, but hadn't really thought much about it. That's a subtle shift that can mean a lot. It's not trivial to make an app that works on both systems, I just don't have access to some of the apps I want to use unless I want to drag my iPad around and tether it. I do not.
Not the person you were replying to, but anecdotally, Apple phone users are SO. ANNOYING. I've lost count of how many times people have asked me why I don't have an iPhone, and when I reply with...
Not the person you were replying to, but anecdotally, Apple phone users are SO. ANNOYING.
I've lost count of how many times people have asked me why I don't have an iPhone, and when I reply with "I want things Apple has decided aren't important, such as a microSD slot or a headphone jack," I get the identical answer of "why would you want that though? That's dumb."
I don't really care what phone people want to use, but Apple has seemingly fostered a culture of AGGRESSIVE tribalism where anyone without an iPhone is a lesser human.
Never mind I've paid for some apps on the Google store that aren't even available on the apple store. I shouldn't keep using the desktop I built myself. I should pay Apple thousands of dollars to get all new electronics and learn an entirely different operating system than the one I grew up with, all because "what kind of idiot still uses Android instead of the clearly superior iPhone"
I may be a little biased but in my own experiences Apple phone users can be so insulting and aggressive and just plain mean for no real reason other than "apple good everyone else trash"
The headphone thing in particular really brought that out. Apple users largely defended it fervently, even though it really didn't provide any additional waterproofing protection over say the...
The headphone thing in particular really brought that out. Apple users largely defended it fervently, even though it really didn't provide any additional waterproofing protection over say the Galaxy S5. And destroyed yet-another useful bit of my cellphone choices. It doesn't help that so many companies try chasing Apple's lead, which means once Apple makes a decision, odds are the market will follow.
I contend the Galaxy S5 is still one of the best phones ever made. IR blaster, FM radio, replaceable battery, microSD card, headphone jack. The only reason it doesn't work anymore is software bloat and lack of open drivers for some parts. There's nothing missing from the hardware that would stop my daily workflow if not for the lack of security patches.
They make terrible products, they are incredibly anti-consumer and clearly are trying to form a monopoly. What of that is good? They're still selling your data, they just might be sneakier about it
They make terrible products, they are incredibly anti-consumer and clearly are trying to form a monopoly.
What of that is good?
They're still selling your data, they just might be sneakier about it
I can't stand their GUIs personally, it feels like you've gotta fight the machine just to navigate around and do basic tasks. Even Android was a lot more usable before it became completely focused...
I can't stand their GUIs personally, it feels like you've gotta fight the machine just to navigate around and do basic tasks.
Even Android was a lot more usable before it became completely focused on the touchscreen and gestures for input...based on the iPhone being popular.
This is a subjective assessment where you will find considerable disagreement. One can just as easily say Google makes terrible products. That is a pretty bold claim seeing as it would be in...
They make terrible products,
This is a subjective assessment where you will find considerable disagreement. One can just as easily say Google makes terrible products.
They're still selling your data, they just might be sneakier about it
That is a pretty bold claim seeing as it would be in violation of their own privacy policy. Do you have evidence to back it up?
If you think Crapple products are terrible, just wait until you see their competitors. Still no PC vendor has made a touchpad as nice as 2008 Apple laptops.
If you think Crapple products are terrible, just wait until you see their competitors. Still no PC vendor has made a touchpad as nice as 2008 Apple laptops.
I've been using their competitors my entire life, and they're far superior. I work in IT and have to deal with MacBooks and iPhones, and am forced to use an iPhone for work. It's all dogshit.
I've been using their competitors my entire life, and they're far superior.
I work in IT and have to deal with MacBooks and iPhones, and am forced to use an iPhone for work. It's all dogshit.
Well it seems a little obvious you haven't used any of the Apple Silicon laptops, because they've been very hard to beat on size, performance, and battery life. The HP Z-Book my employer provided...
Well it seems a little obvious you haven't used any of the Apple Silicon laptops, because they've been very hard to beat on size, performance, and battery life. The HP Z-Book my employer provided me for development work is slower, hotter, has a shittier screen, and gets worse battery life than my personal M2 MBP. It also costs about $300 more, and has already needed the keyboard and trackpad replaced twice after only 18 months of usage.
I'm also skeptical you've managed to find Windows laptops with better trackpads.
I worked IT for 5 years starting in 2008 before moving to software development.
I feel I should clarify that I'm not here to fanboy. I daily drive Windows, macOS, and Linux, and I have a laundry list of praises and complaints for each of them.
If I had it my way, I would make everyone in my office use Macs. And yeah, Apple Silicon 100%. That's not to say there aren't downsides, especially with centralized management of the laptops (I'm...
If I had it my way, I would make everyone in my office use Macs. And yeah, Apple Silicon 100%. That's not to say there aren't downsides, especially with centralized management of the laptops (I'm sure it can be done via third party tools; I just haven't looked into it that much), but putting on my helpdesk/desktop support hat, my Mac users have so fewer tickets compared to the Windows users. There's always weird shit going on with either Windows or the hardware itself (we're mainly a Dell shop, but I have a couple HPs in the mix, unfortunately).
I have to replace the Windows computer every 3-4yrs, sometimes even 2yrs. The Macs can, and usually do, go for 5+ yrs. In all the years at this company, there's only been one Macbook Pro that broke; the screen stopped working after like 2yrs. Known issue; not because of the user.
And the price of M1, and now M2s, is so inexpensive for the power! Aside from a couple users working in the design department (who have better-specced Macs), everyone else could easily make do with an M1 Macbook/Air. Because all they're doing is basic productivity stuff.
I envy you. My first IT job was at a company that only bought Dells, and they were always so great to work with. Then we got acquired by a company that bought exclusively from Lenovo and it was a...
we're mainly a Dell shop, but I have a couple HPs in the mix, unfortunately
I envy you. My first IT job was at a company that only bought Dells, and they were always so great to work with. Then we got acquired by a company that bought exclusively from Lenovo and it was a noticeable downgrade (sorry Thinkpad fans). Supporting machines isn't really my concern anymore, but I can tell that HP causes nothing but headaches for the IT department at my current employer. Every machine they have given me has had hardware problems within 8-12 months despite my laptop usually just sitting there docked for weeks or months at a time.
For me, it’s quite the opposite. Especially when wearing my mobile app developer hat, there are few things I hate more than the hellscape of different android devices and their varying degrees of...
For me, it’s quite the opposite. Especially when wearing my mobile app developer hat, there are few things I hate more than the hellscape of different android devices and their varying degrees of compatibility and OS version.
I'll throw out an example from PC history. Old PC games all assumed that your resolution would be one or more of (depending on year): 320x240 640x480 800x600 1024x768 And game developers would...
I'll throw out an example from PC history.
Old PC games all assumed that your resolution would be one or more of (depending on year):
320x240
640x480
800x600
1024x768
And game developers would hardcode against those resolutions, and as the tech evolved, enabling higher resolutions and differing aspect ratios, it broke all assumptions game developers had been making for decades.
And you'll notice that staring around 2004 or so, the tooling got better to make it easier to handle any arbitrary resolution.
The same can and will happen with Android over time. The biggest factor preventing it is the dependency on phone vendors and wireless providers to keep current. If we had proper open drivers and vendor-agnostic hardware as a default, there'd be a lot less problems there.
The second biggest factor is that Google killed Linux's "don't break userspace" mantra, and Google is Google and does Google things like killing off random things at random intervals.
I hate MacBook trackpads so literally anything else. They feel sluggish and unresponsive, and I have to swipe several times across it to get the cursor across the screen. The cheap Dell laptop I...
I hate MacBook trackpads so literally anything else. They feel sluggish and unresponsive, and I have to swipe several times across it to get the cursor across the screen.
The cheap Dell laptop I use for work is miles better.
I have personal Lenovo laptops that are better.
I used Lenovo Thinkpads a lot at a previous job, those were great
Fully agree. This doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. Two reasons immediately come to mind: Uneven monopolistic enforcement. The US has monopolies. In utilities, tv and internet services, in car...
Fully agree. This doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. Two reasons immediately come to mind:
Uneven monopolistic enforcement. The US has monopolies. In utilities, tv and internet services, in car distributors (dealerships), even the damn SodaStream had a market dominance that might have been considered close to a monopoly at one point.
In investing, one of the core things to look for is a “moat” which is a barrier to competition when looking for good long term investments. The US loves monopolies and I wonder just how much federal lobbying is dedicated to maintaining established players’ competitive advantage. I mean isn’t that all a monopoly really is? When some competitive advantage goes so far that everyone just gives up?
53% market share is nowhere near monopolistic. It just isn’t.
Privacy. Not only does Apple have a rock-solid legit security and privacy concern AND obligation to their customers to NOT open up platforms to potentially likely (more) compromised competitors, but IMO it’s entirely possible this is the real Trojan horse for the lawsuit.
Im not under any illusion that my aging iPhone keeps the NSA out, but it does keep out other parties better than an android phone, and I think that’s what this lawsuit is about. This might be advertisers, other law enforcement or espionage parties, Chinese or Russian-backed, or just that those three-letter agencies are tired of having to work so hard to crack iPhone security with every new model.
I’m no security expert, nor a lawyer, but I’ve watched from afar the shenanigans corporations get up to in trying to maintain or open new markets. We have a long list of those. This smells a lot more like underhanded manipulation than any actual good faith opening up of competition. If they wanted to do that, then move toward standardizing software security practices, code bases, and protocols to improve security to the point where Apple didn’t have the advantage it does currently. That’s the right way to move forward.
Just wanted to add- this bit from the article is some convoluted nonsense of the stupidest order. Somebody please explain how this can possibly make sense outside of “it kinda sounds good”:
Just wanted to add- this bit from the article is some convoluted nonsense of the stupidest order. Somebody please explain how this can possibly make sense outside of “it kinda sounds good”:
“Competition makes devices more private and more secure,” said Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. “In many instances, Apple’s conduct has made its ecosystem less private and less secure.”
This lawsuit was discussed in the New York Times' Hard Fork podcast. I thought some of the quotes the DOJ included in the complaint were pretty hilariously damning. It's quite obvious that Apple...
This lawsuit was discussed in the New York Times' Hard Fork podcast. I thought some of the quotes the DOJ included in the complaint were pretty hilariously damning. It's quite obvious that Apple saw a major problem with iPhone users being able to easily move over to Android (or Windows phones when that was briefly a thing).
I do have to wonder what the smartphone market would look like if Apple the hardware manufacturer and Apple the software company were two separate companies. Would people buy iPhones with Android on them? Would people buy Samsung Galaxy phones with iOS on them? Or, hell, just to look at the smartwatch market, how many iPhone users bought an Apple Watch because they really thought it was the best watch and how many thought they more or less had to because they owned iPhones?
At the end of the day, I know Apple will probably argue that nobody's buying an iPhone just because of the color of the bubbles of their text messages to other people, but all of it just creates an enormous amount of friction that is intended to lock people into their ecosystem. Because no gigantic corporation wants to compete on merits. They want to lock you in and keep you there. Which is not to say that the Apple ecosystem doesn't have any merits. Obviously it does. But it's also obvious that Apple would prefer not to have to compete on those terms.
We would lose some nice integrations with this, but I'd love to see the tech world with all of big tech cut into (relatively) small $10 Billion chunks. I would imagine the US's GDP would soar,...
I do have to wonder what the smartphone market would look like if Apple the hardware manufacturer and Apple the software company were two separate companies.
We would lose some nice integrations with this, but I'd love to see the tech world with all of big tech cut into (relatively) small $10 Billion chunks. I would imagine the US's GDP would soar, users would have more choices, and competition would result in tremendous innovation.
That’s fundamentally counter to the Apple design philosophy. This is THE differentiator between Apple and all the other OEM producers and Microsoft’s of the world. The integration is the whole...
I do have to wonder what the smartphone market would look like if Apple the hardware manufacturer and Apple the software company were two separate companies.
That’s fundamentally counter to the Apple design philosophy. This is THE differentiator between Apple and all the other OEM producers and Microsoft’s of the world. The integration is the whole deal. Take that away and you don’t have Apple.
Yes exactly. Ever since the Mac came out, their whole bread and butter has been sidestepping all of the janky awkward bits that are unavoidable with the model popularized by IBM clones by...
Yes exactly. Ever since the Mac came out, their whole bread and butter has been sidestepping all of the janky awkward bits that are unavoidable with the model popularized by IBM clones by designing it the entire product end-to-end.
A great example of this is how Apple bluetooth keyboards, trackpads, etc stay usable even when the Mac they’re connected to is in a pre-boot environment, long before the OS has loaded, and they’ve done this for over a decade at this point. This is exactly the sort of quality of life feature that isn’t really practical with generic PCs because there’s too many variables involved… even Microsoft struggles with bluetooth stuff under Windows, there’s no way that PC motherboard OEMs that contract out their firmware are going to even try.
Yeah it’s kind of a shame. I definitely wouldn’t want to live in a world where Apple is the only manufacturer or even one where the majority of computers are made by companies that operate like...
Yeah it’s kind of a shame. I definitely wouldn’t want to live in a world where Apple is the only manufacturer or even one where the majority of computers are made by companies that operate like Apple. BUT the world would be a whole lot poorer without a company like Apple making design trade offs that zig where everyone else zags.
If this does nothing but kill all the BS around iMessage and its green bubbles forever, I'll be quite happy. The cultural chilling effects of that alone are something I've been dreading for a while.
If this does nothing but kill all the BS around iMessage and its green bubbles forever, I'll be quite happy. The cultural chilling effects of that alone are something I've been dreading for a while.
While I think this is great, I think there are other companies the justice department should go after first, like Amazon, Temu, and Shein. Not that they can't go after Apple at the same time. I...
While I think this is great, I think there are other companies the justice department should go after first, like Amazon, Temu, and Shein. Not that they can't go after Apple at the same time.
But what is it that they do in a way that is monopolistic? Best I can tell they're yet-another-online-clothing retailer. They compete with Wayfair, Old Navy, Target, and countless others. And best...
But what is it that they do in a way that is monopolistic? Best I can tell they're yet-another-online-clothing retailer.
They compete with Wayfair, Old Navy, Target, and countless others. And best I can tell the barrier to competition is one web search for "buy clothing online" away.
Oh don't disagree that they're terrible for the planet. I think that's only gonna get solved with new laws which better impose total ecological impact from extraction to disposal. The greatest...
Oh don't disagree that they're terrible for the planet. I think that's only gonna get solved with new laws which better impose total ecological impact from extraction to disposal.
The greatest flaw of 'the market' is that it makes it incredibly easy to hide all these externalities behind infinite third parties, deflecting blame from everyone else in the supply chains that profit.
They are, but they have massive US operations. I do wonder how much harder it would be to go after them. I wonder if it's like the nonsense TikTok ban congress is trying to push.
They are, but they have massive US operations. I do wonder how much harder it would be to go after them. I wonder if it's like the nonsense TikTok ban congress is trying to push.
Don't forget Google is ongoing too. As well as Facebook. And let's not forget they moved to block Microsoft's acquisition of Blizzard. Biden's FTC anti-trust actions improvements are quite...
Don't forget Google is ongoing too. As well as Facebook. And let's not forget they moved to block Microsoft's acquisition of Blizzard.
Biden's FTC anti-trust actions improvements are quite possibly the single most important long-term changes that they're enacting.
Well luckily you can read the lawsuit and see what makes the Department of Justice think so here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/21/technology/apple-lawsuit.html The complaint starts...
The complaint starts on page 3, page 26 has "Apple Unlawfully Maintains Its Monopoly Power" up until page 49 where it goes in to "Anticompetitive Effects", etc.
Hmm. Does this qualify as a monopoly? I've never owned an Apple device (largely because I am not a fan of being walled into their environment). I've always been able to purchase a non-Apple smartphone even so.
But, I'm not a lawyer and I am all for encouraging competitors.
Here's the overall guidelines, they seem pretty accessible to non-lawyers like me.
The single biggest factor is probably this one:
The FTC has a pretty solid case to be made given that Apple has a long term (and current!) ability to lock out competitors or raise prices. Apple could, tomorrow, ban all third-party apps from the app store which compete with their offerings, and raise their cut on the app store to 95%. It doesn't matter whether they will do these things, merely that they could. Spotify only exists on the iPhone with Apple's blessing, and Apple has a competing product. For witnesses, they could call up every single app developer that has an app on Android and iOS and ask two questions:
Pair that with a 53%+ marketshare in the USA (@semsevfor), and climbing, tells me that they are on a trajectory to total dominance, and that their full control of the ecosystem is problematic.
I'm not even getting into the Internet Explorer levels of power they can exert via defaults and networking effects ala iMessage...especially with them trying to force out compatible clients like Beeper.
This lawsuit could pave the way in the USA for something like the DMA to take effect.
After reading it in more detail, while I get while Apple is very opposed, I think it makes perfect sense that if Apple can make accessories for its products, that competitors should be able to as well. It wouldn't be acceptable for Microsoft to ban all non-Microsoft mice from working in Windows, it shouldn't be acceptable for Apple to restrict non-Apple smartwatches.
Oh this would be awesome if this could force Apple to open up their mobile operating systems to allow downloading apps from the internet. I like the way it works on MacOS where you can download programs from the internet, but Apple just yells at you if they don't trust the developer. The Mac App Store is still very useful, but I like that it's not the only way to install programs.
And that's how it is on pretty much every single sufficiently sophisticated computer where it isn't locked down by the manufacturer.
The only reason you can't make and publish a Nintendo Switch game independently is because Nintendo says so. Rinse/repeat for your car's infotainment system, your smart TV, other game consoles, and pretty much anything else with a screen and a CPU.
I'm really hoping that everyone wises up and we get some sort of law that neuters anti-circumvention and operating system lockdowns more broadly.
Yeah, it is crap that when you buy a physical thing (e.g. a broom)... you just get the thing, but when you buy something with digital aspects (e.g. a phone)... you don't just get the thing. Like the software that came with the thing should be 100% yours if you want it to be (and as long as you're only modify for personal use). It becomes your hardware with what should be your software on it. I understand that if you want to go that route, they do have a reasonable argument to exclude you from their live ecosystem. But like if Apple had done that so people could actually modify shit on their own phones (and not tried to build the biggest walled garden ever), then there'd be a whole subset of alternate/open apps competing by now is my guess. Even like an alternative open OS that runs well on the hardware. That's the part that really gets me -- you're still purchasing a physical thing, to my mind you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want to that thing (again for personal use only).
I could (in theory) strap a couple of leafblowers to that broom I just bought if I wanted and try to make a hoverbroom. It sucks that I can't do the same with digital stuff.
I for example would love a smart tv I had full control of. I'd turn it into a server with a USB hard drive, use the camera as a motion sensor for the room, repair the CEC controls.
But since I don't have control, I don't want a spy device for adverts in my living room.
This can certainly be done with an HTPC setup, but that takes work and space compared to having all the tech built into the display.
It's also getting harder (though not impossible, yet) to find "dumb" TVs, especially if you care about things like 4k or HDR.
Yes. That's more or less what I do now. But it's mostly a silly waste of hardware since what I mostly need out of the TV is a not-broken CEC implementation and Kodi or a Jellyfin client. And that most of the hardware already sits in the TV, probably even with a Linux OS under the hood. Just locked behind some encryption keys.
Edit: What I mean about a not-broken CEC implementation is being able to send all keypresses to other devices. My 2010ish Vizio could do that, letting me control a raspberry pi using the stock TV remote. My 2020ish Vizeo (as well as the Samsung and LG I tried) can only send power signal, audio return channel, and volume control...not the navigation keys.
In part because it's a smart TV. And if you use the apps on your smart TV, which requires accepting their terms and conditions and connecting it to the internet, they get to collect a metric fuckton of viewing data about you and resell it. They make almost as much profits from this as they do hardware.
A working CEC implementation makes it easier to use other devices and not connect the smart TV to the internet, depriving them of secondary profits (bear in mind, the hardware is still profitable as-is).
Oh, I completely forgot: The CEC controls also worked for the PS4 media viewing. At a time when it was one of the best Blu-Ray players out there.
I can’t help but wonder if the CEC spec itself is broken. Especially since it only seems to work when you only have devices from one manufacture attached to the TV. All the manufacturers give it their own name, come to think of it.
I have a device that I needed to buy a special adaptor that disconnects a pin on the HDMI connector because whenever it was plugged in, both CEC and EARC stopped working. There must be something seriously wrong.
Nope, just there's no compatibility enforcement so each vendor did half-ass implementations and nobody bothered testing with anybody else. Also it's often off by default and each vendor has their own name for it.
Like Nintendo did with their USB-C implementation.
A not-terrible writeup
CEC actually was on by default when we bought our TV. And to be fair, it did work perfectly seamlessly with the soundbar. But the important distinction was that both of them were made by Sony.
But the fact that a misbehaving device could break the functionality that was already there doesn't make much sense to me; the soundbar is connected directly to the TV, so why would putting another device on the TV mess up that connection? Is CEC a new implementaiton of token ring or something?
Honestly, I never dove too deep into the specs. I do recall that the order things are initialized matters in some fashion, which is why buggy untested implementations are everywhere.
I wouldn't rule out CEC being a flawed protocol. But I do think those flaws would have been managed if there was a much more rigid enforcement for compatibility, the way Zwave is done.
Also good fucking god, I would love to have the source code for my TV so I could debug it and fix it when it segfaults >_<. Quality.
That's where issues begin, it's so easy to share software en masse that the line between "personal use" and a mass market of modified content is razor thin. Technically, no one is actually going to hunt you down if you learn how to jailbreak and make apps youself, but very few people can do that from scratch. They would be downloading tools and reading instructions from others.
These principles should be applied to other tech sphere companies too, though, and I worry they won’t be.
For example, Spotify has made it practically impossible to write a TOS-abiding third-party client for its paying customers to use with it or for devices without their blessing (Spotify Connect) to work with it.
Or Google, which is already approaching a global monopoly on web browsers with Chrome which is only extended by the growing number of Chrome-reskin Blink-based browsers.
I won’t argue that Apple shouldn’t change its practices, but if the DOJ is being fair it won’t stop with Apple.
Ultimately we can't rely purely on administrative court rulings. We're gonna need some level of legislation, which can hopefully use some of these court proceedings as precedent when inevitably challenged.
The way I see it, there's four main things that need protected, which would cover most use cases.
So things have changed a lot since I was last looking at numbers like this. I didn't know it was that drastic.
I'm all for it, let's take em down
Thanks, this is helpful. I know that Apple has been involved in other recent lawsuits regarding their app store, so it'll be interesting to see what role those play in this lawsuit.
That reminds me of this recent post to Tildes about Apple terminating Epic Games' developer account in Sweden, before quickly reversing the decision. Apple claimed it was due to Epic violating policies in the past, but this was after Epic announced intentions to open its own third-party app store on iOS due to the DMA. The timing is suspicious, to put it lightly.
So basically, Apple has already shown they're willing to try to shut out competition even in the face of legal regulations.
I can’t speak for the actual laws, but I can speak for what I think would be best for the market.
The entire point of capitalism is that competition creates innovation and forces prices down. This works quite well when the item in question is relatively simple. When you buy a shirt, you only have a few questions to think about: is the quality good, is the design good, do they use child labor? Market forces allow the good companies to prosper and bad companies to die. This is working as intended.
When products get more complicated, market forces have a harder time. Take for example the car. Let’s say that you as a consumer want the gas fill port on the right and you need AWD. Needing AWD already rules out a ton of the car market. Wanting the gas fill on the right rules out even more. This is a pretty contrived example, but I hope it makes my point. As a product category gets more complicated, the buying decision becomes much more complex and the market forces are much less able to control and correct the market.
The smartphone market is so complex and the market players are split into a duopoly that are extremely similar. Let’s say I want to buy a smartphone that pays developers a better percentage than 70% (this is slowly changing, but let’s assume not for the sake of argument). Well, touch luck. There are many similar “decisions” that aren’t really decisions in the smartphone market. That is why capitalism is failing the smartphone market.
We can also look at this from the developer perspective. If I want to develop a website that takes payment. I can use Stripe, PayPal, Square, or possibly others as a payment processor. These services are better because of the competition. Now I want to develop an app to go with it. What payment processor do I use from among the competition? Just kidding, there is no competition in the payment processor market on smartphones. You use Google AND Apple depending on the platform. Apple can make their payment processor as terrible as they want because there is no competition. Customers can’t “vote with their wallet” because Google does the exact same thing.
It may seem tautological to say that Apple has a monopoly on its own consumers, but it is actually really important. To use a metaphor, it would be like if California banned gas stations and you could only buy gas at Government run gas stations. California would have a monopoly on people in their state. That is just as tautological. And it is just as much an example of where capitalism cannot improve the market.
This is the issue that regulators and some consumers are bringing up. Apple has built their business to remove competition in certain sectors. The fact that they do this is not an issue. If we as a society continue to allow them to do this, that is a problem.
I mean, this has always been the case with Android. I've purchased a number of apps in the years that I've used Android where I bought a license directly from the dev's website and just put a license key into the app that I got from the Play Store to unlock the full features of the app. I once even bought an APK that the dev provided themselves, outside of the Play Store. 😱 If those devs weren't taking the full payment, lacking processing fees that are usually 3-5% on the top end of things, then that was on them, they certainly had the option to take it all if they wanted it, there was nobody else involved in the transaction.
The options are there even if most people don't like going outside of the "curated" experience of the Play Store with Android.
That is very true, and I don’t want to diminish it, but I think my argument still stands. This is just one example where Google is slightly better (and it’s only slightly, not significantly). Let’s say a potential consumer also wants to buy a smartphone from a platform that supports user privacy and is good to developers. I don’t think that is even an unusual set of requests from users. That rules out the entire phone market. There are so many situations where even two consumer requests rules out the entire market. That is why there isn’t meaningful competition in many parts of the smartphone market.
I know that lineage and degoogled android exist. But they are so small that I doubt Google or Apple feel any competitive pressure from them.
If that’s the case, why doesn’t the government incentivize tech companies to build new smartphones then? I don’t understand why the play is to cripple an existing phone maker just because they are a popular choice rather than attempt to foster more competition.
How is it supposed to incentivize? It's not about the smartphones themselves, its the OS and the ecosystems. The constant acquisitions and mergers of companies over many decades has led to companies so big that new entrants cannot reasonably compete. The government has no reasonable incentive course here. The government "crippling" an existing phone maker is actually just a necessary step in turning back the clock of allowing gigantic corporations to exist that have such sprawl that few others can amass the resources needed to compete. Globalization led to a race to the bottom, because you want your country's corporations to be bigger and better than other countries' corporations, but at a certain point you do reach the bottom.
Companies like Apple in its current form should not exist. Not just Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc. all should not exist in their current forms. Instead of seeing them as being crippled, you should see it as them being 'rightsized' to use their own corpo-speak against them.
Hard disagree. The government has several paths to incentivize companies. You act like things like Fairphone don’t exist.
"Incentivization" requires picking sides. The government would have to pick who got "incentives" and who didn't. Pick what the incentives were. Monitor and maintain them.
That's not government's role, and would be hugely corrupt and abusable if it were. Goverment's role, theoretically, is to be the arbiter. The rules. The guidelines. The enforcers. It's a role the US government has stepped way, way, way back from in the past several decades. Mostly due to regulatory capture.
Once upon a time, government would go after big companies and break them up. Government didn't step in and say "okay, AT&T, you're cool and we'll tell you what and how you can be cool. But you other companies with ideas about telephones, you're not cool because we said so which means get out."
No. Government stepped in and proved AT&T being that big, and having that much control over the telephone system from end to end, from coast to coast, everywhere in the country, was bad for the country. Bad for the economy, for competition, for progress, for innovation.
But they didn't dictate what happened after they secured their "victory". After establishing that AT&T in its then current form was illegal, it was left up to "the market" to decide how to change. AT&T decided to break up into a bunch of local pieces, and mostly just hung on to the long distance aspect.
Those local companies have since spent the intervening decades merging and remerging, growing, until they're bigger than AT&T at the time ever was. Verizon for example.
Apple is too big for it to be legal for them to exercise dictatorial control over the smartphone market. There's i, and Android, and those are the choices. And on the Android side, you have how many handset manufacturers? How many individual flavors of the underlying OS that could go on those handsets?
Meanwhile, on the i side, Apple won't even let software interoperate with competitor products. And they certainly don't allow any other non-Apple hardware to play in the iGarden.
That business with messaging recently proves the case for the Justice department. Texting, messaging, is a poster child of an example for what should be interoperable. The thought of people needing to own the "right" handset, running the "right" OS, just to successfully exchange basic communications with one another using a communications device that's become ubiquitous around the world is textbook monopolistic behavior. Anti-competitive behavior.
Cook was quoted at one point, in response to a question at an event where the audience member wondered about why their family couldn't all connect with one another since some had iPhones and some didn't, his reply was "well they can all just buy iPhones then."
The only shocker about the DoJ suing Apple to rein all this shit in is it took this long to initiate the suit. We've gone decades with regulatory capture, and this is the kind of thing it means when that happens; government stops doing its job because corporations are busy out of the direct public eye making sure government can't or won't. Working to guarantee corporations get to do whatever they want without interference.
Apple exercises far too much dictatorial control over their ecosystem. 65% of the US smartphone market is i, according to the DoJ. All funneling through Apple. Not just the hardware, though that's extensive. All the software too, since they have iron-clad control over who can or can't operate on the app gardens that feed into the closed iGarden ecosystem.
And Apple takes a cut of each and every app they allow in.
Meanwhile, on the Android side, anyone who wants to can build a handset and go to market with it. Anyone can start developing Android software and go to market with it. Want to hook your Android phone up to a tv, or a headset, to your computer? Sure, there's probably a bunch of ways to do that.
On the side Apple, not so much. That's the definition of monopolistic control.
Standard Oil controlled the oil business from drilling rigs to gas tanks, and were rightly broken up. AT&T controlled communications from coast to coast, and were rightly broken up. Microsoft tried to bury any competition in the web browser market by pushing (hard pushing) Internet Explorer to the detriment of other potential browsers, and were enjoined from continuing the practice.
If the DoJ is permitted to pursue their case against Apple to the logical conclusions, there will need to be some changes in how Apple approaches the US market. And it's past time too.
But what are they incentivizing? If you look at how a government can incentivize markets in other scenarios, lets say electric cars for example, tax rebates or such for purchasing an electric car is sort of reducing the cost to buy-in to electric cars. Since they're new technology and for what is required to meet customer standards currently, they cost more than ICE cars generally speaking. There's also different pain points of being an early adopter, and sometimes can be a bit of a catch-22 where if you don't get the early adopters, you can't build out your charging network or other potential infrastructure needs to continue to grow the market past that point. So the incentives try to help bridge that gap. You can look at it as, the incentives are there to help electric cars overcome ICE cars. The goal isn't to make one company lose more than other, though that can certainly be a byproduct of it, but it's to encourage development in a different market with different technology.
What you are proposing is simply incentivizing companies to enter an established market to compete against entrenched market players. The issue with this is that it doesn't examine why those market players are as entrenched as they are, or why there aren't enough incentives currently to bring other competitors into that established market. It's throwing money at a problem without knowing what the problem is or taking a closer look at how to solve it. In business, it's all about money, so whatever incentives you're proposing that the government supposedly would have as an option to it, it's almost certainly going to cost the government money to implement such an incentive. You also don't even know how much money it requires to throw into this to make it viable. If you don't put enough money into it, you're just throwing money away. Microsoft couldn't even compete in the mobile phone market. Microsoft. I'm not saying it like they're so renowned for their incredible groundbreaking products and services, but I'm saying that they were a big player in the precursor market to the modern mobile phone market and yes their own mistakes led to them no longer being relevant, but a company of that size, with that amount of resources, with the amount of control they had over the desktop market etc., if they can't get back into the market, then what hope is there for the government to create incentives to get others in? The government would be so far out of its depth, it would almost certainly just end up looking like incompetence, or corruption potentially, and waste taxpayer money (or future revenue through tax abatement etc.)
The problem isn't that there is a lack of incentive. Everyone and their grandmother has a mobile phone. There's few if any markets bigger than the one these companies are in. The money is there, the consumer demand is there. The problem is that the product and service offerings are so interwoven and complex that it's near impossible to build a competing product. You mention Fairphone, which is simply just running Android effectively. You're bound to many of the same things any other phone running Android is. The market isn't Fairphone, Samsung, Google, Apple, Sony, etc., the market is Google and Apple with Android and iOS respectively. That's it.
There are tons of things they could incentivize, just like they do with any other industry and with moving production and manufacturing back to the US. EVs are a terrible example as the incentives are for purchasers and not for the companies producing the cars. The incentives I’m talking about are incentives for the companies producing the phones in question. Also, it’s the government. They can create whatever incentives they want - requiring the devices to be open source, to be software agnostic, to support open source hardware, etc. They can literally incentivize any number of things that Apple would be ineligible for simply by virtue of how they’ve set up their stack. They could even incentivize phones that allow side loading (if only our politicians knew what that even was).
The rest of your statement about this being throwing money at the problem is just a deflection and you prove that by your Microsoft example. Microsoft couldn’t compete because they made an inferior product that seemed polished but had no support from developers and, therefore, no apps for end users. If people weren’t ok with iPhones, they would have bought the Microsoft phones back then. You saying “the consumer demand is there” is such an empty statement that there’s no point in taking it seriously. Consumer demand squarely supports the iPhone. Claiming it doesn’t is simply dishonest.
Your last statement even proves my point further. There’s nothing stopping Fairohone, Samsung, HTC, Sony, or anyone else from running their own OSes in their devices. For some reason, you’re completely ignoring why they didn’t, don’t, and won’t do that. All of these companies (except Fairphone) existed before iPhone and Android and have the resources and money to make their own tightly interwoven offerings but they didn’t and don’t. They put themselves at a disadvantage. That wasn’t Apple’s fault then and it isn’t their fault now.
Yep, and all of those are no guarantee of any success. That would be the government creating incentives for things it doesn't even know if it works. As I said, it would just look like corruption or incompetence when companies start checking off boxes to get government money or tax abatement.
Deflection? Dishonest? You're being antagonistic and accusing of things that I wasn't doing. It's clearly not a good idea to continue engaging with you any further.
Comments like these mystify me, because you correctly identify the factors that make for terrible outcomes for smartphones, yet fail to extend that understanding to other markets. What makes you think that something similar isn’t happening in many other areas? To say nothing of natural monopolies like power companies, or collusion like that which occurs with ISPs.
The best way to profit, it turns out, is to not have competition at all. Free markets are suicidal, and late-stage capitalism has continued to prove this.
Acting like there’s no middle ground between a completely unbridled market and a command economy is some tankie rhetoric, mate.
Well-regulated markets have a much better track record than centralized planning, historically speaking.
I never said middle-grounds don't exist, and I don't see how on Earth what I've said should constitute "tankie rhetoric," but for the sake of argument I'm going to ignore the name-calling (and the second-paragraph topic-swap).
A market does not have to be "completely unbridled" to be suicidal. Many a regulation was obliterated once enough money was applied to the right politicians. If the market is not inherently beholden to the working class, it will devolve into one that abuses them as much as possible for the sake of greed, and that's what's happening to us right now.
I'm not prepared to say my ideal solution is planned economies – though I am not convinced of their inefficacy, either – but it is imperative to bear in mind that free market-oriented ideologies will have to continually fight against that very market's attempts to self-immolate; when they don't, you get monopolies at best, or fascism at worst.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I’m legitimately curious then - what’s a market without competition that’s not a command economy or monopoly?
I'm not going to lie to you in that I'm probably not the best person to ask that question. There are... a lot of solutions of many varieties and which incorporate planning or lack thereof to many different degrees. I'm not a scholar, here. Still, I appreciate the curiosity.
If I had to answer the question, though, then I think the core aspect that hardens an economic system against this kind of backslide is that it be "inherently beholden to the working class" as I said earlier. There are a lot of ways to do this, both wholly and partially, and anything I suggest here would not be a fully-packaged answer to the question. But they could help. Some ideas:
This is what I can think of off the top of my head, but hopefully it's a start as to how this kind of issue can be addressed. You don't need a planned economy to address this, so long as you bear the problem in mind and account for it. I said "free market-oriented ideologies" for a reason, mind — since things like libertarianism tend to venerate the free market like it's holy gospel, they tend to utterly ignore the risks to the concept. An ideology incorporating a free market is not, in and of itself, broken.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from now - thanks for explaining/sorry for the misread.
I can totally get behind those core ideas… ironically I think they’re kinda a “free-market” ideology in their own right, in that those policies maximize the agency of individual actors in the market.
I posit that because all markets tend toward monopoly if left unregulated, that a command economy is the natural outcome. And that the primary differentiator is to whom the operator of the economy is accountable. A command economy is only problematic if its instituted in an undemocratic way. At the rate we've been going, Amazon's CEO will be the dictator for our command economy,
Isn't the internal structure of most companies a command economy? Why does that not scale to an entire economy? Different sectors of the economy are little different than different companies reporting to a parent company.
One of the most legitimate criticisms of a command economy was that a large economy was too complex to be able to properly plan because it was impossible to aggregate and make decisions on that data in a reasonable timeframe. We've solved that problem since about 2005 or so thanks to advancements in computing. However, there hasn't really been any substantial chance for a command economy to take root, I suspect in no small part due to inertia with existing market-based economies, and political instability in areas without that inertia.
All of the improvements to planning and logistics which facilitate JIT supply chains could be used to similiar or better ways to power a commnd economy. The primary thing holding it back is a lack of data sharing to a central authority.
Let’s say I want to buy a phone where the manufacturer has made me an implicit promise that any software I install on it will never fuck my battery, install secret rootkits, or do other weird shit that’s not advertised. You would wish to make that business model illegal.
What? What part of my post says I want that business model to be illegal? If governments force Apple to allow sideloading, you can still choose to only install software from the Apple App Store. Nothing I said, and no proposed regulations I have read, would prevent you from doing that. You can buy an android phone and only install from the google play store just fine. In fact, if Apple does allow sideloading, I would still recommend that everyone install only from the App Store or play store. Battery saving and user protections would be a competitive advantage of the App Store. That would be a good thing if competition were to exist.
This is simply not how the real world works. Because my bank or my insurance company or some smart home device I need or the social network all my friends are on will require me to side load their app to use it. Once the door is open it’s all the way open.
Having a large corporate maintaining that boundary on my behalf is the only way it works. They simply have more negotiating leverage than any individual consumer does.
Like this isn’t theoretical. The market for software on PCs is a fraction of what it is on mobile. It’s not even close from an indie developer perspective among “normies” because the level of trust is on the floor. The web is even more of a hellscape, with people being phished and scammed in droves. The problem of how to get people to pay for software has been a tough nut to crack for years.
Apple cracked the code on creating a business model where indie developers can make real money, and not just by being data sources to funnel information to ad networks.
Why would anyone choose a bank or insurance company that don’t offer a website? How are smart home apps or social network apps essentials?
You’ve lost touch with reality now. AAA games, Adobe Suite/Figma, Ableton and other DAWs/media editors, CAD tools, proprietary DBs? The revenues on all of those sectors individually are comparable to iOS apps revenues.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/
Mobile sales are a joke compared to desktop as a whole, and the iOS ecosystem is deeply unhealthy due to a greedy 30% tax and developers fearing the random, arbitrary review process every time they push an update.
If you had included the sentence that you omitted in your quote, it would have been pretty clear that I was talking about smaller, indie developers:
And you’ll notice when you say AAA games, figma/Adobe, Ableton, etc. that these are all expensive applications from very large companies, many of which are purchased through business licenses. It’s simply not the same market. None of this stuff is even on the radar for the typical non-techie grandparent.
I’m trying to read your statements in the best possible light, and I don’t think your wording suggested that at all. That second sentence is written as a “zoomed-in” specific example.
The market doesn’t exist for big-ticket iOS apps because no large company capable of making such products wants to invest in an ecosystem where they’re entirely beholden to Apple’s whims. It’s a concrete case of stifled innovation, so I think it’s entirely fair to compare.
I doubt it would turn out the way you envision. You only have to look at android to see the alternative. The play store is much less restrictive than the App Store (especially with regards to battery life), but basically all apps are still available exclusively from the play store. There are huge advantages to ditching the play store (namely the 30% cut) but companies just don’t leave. There aren’t any (to my knowledge or experience) banks or insurance companies that require the customer to download an apk or install a third party App Store. I am sure there are some smart devices that require that, but it’s certainly not the majority, and you probably don’t want those devices anyway.
I don’t know how much experience you have with the Mac, but it has a thriving developer scene despite the Mac App Store, not because of it.
The App Store will always have a huge competitive advantage because it’s pre installed. The vast majority of users will never sideload an app or install a third party store. The changes regulators are proposing just require Apple to get some competitive pressure in the App Store market. Many developers will never leave the App Store no matter how good third party app stores get. If you listen to the accidental tech podcast, Marco Arment, developer of Overcast, is all for regulations like the EU DMA, and has also said that he is never moving Overcast to a third party App Store. Apple can easily make an App Store that is better than the competition. We know this, because they already made their store far better than the Google play store without any competitive pressure. Imagine how good it could be with some competitive pressure.
The scale of indie software adoption by normies on the Mac is simply nowhere near what the App Store has enabled on the phone. It’s really not even close. The Mac basically coasts off the historical legacy of desktop computing, where everything was basically trusted by default and, when you go far back enough, you had to compile the code yourself to run anything.
I listen to ATP, I think Marco is letting his frustration with App Store review processes cloud his judgement honestly. Developers, in general, start to lose the view from the user’s perspective after a while and forget that the relationship between end-user and app developer can often be as antagonistic as it is cooperative. Yeah the application adds value, but for the developer your primary concern is my experience of using your application, but not my experience of using my phone and all the other effects the application has on that. Guys like Marco assume everyone is going to approach it like him, but I’ve looked at investment pitches from skeezy, fly-by-night game and application developers before and it’s pretty.
I would say, if anything, there should be a whole lot fewer apps on the App Store and the code review policies should be quite a bit stricter. In an ideal world Apple would make devs go through some sort of certification program and only permit passing developers on, but in the real world companies like Google and Meta probably shouldn’t pass but would need to be allowed in anyway.
Your bank could just do that now. They could just say "sorry we don't support iOS. You need to get an android, enable this setting for 3rd party app installs and download this .APK to use our app"
That would be absolutely insane though. They'd miss out on the vast majority of customers who don't want to go through all that.
How would a company make any sort of promise to you that the things you do to your phone are safe? It's your phone. The company you bought it from doesn't have any say in what you do with it.
Apple can't even make that promise currently. I could jailbreak it and put all the viruses in want on it. I could smash it and cause the battery to catch on fire. I could throw it up in the air and have it land on my head.
The best thing they could, and the only thing they should do, is say "we have vetted and ensured that all software on the official app store is safe". whether you actually trust Apple on that statement is up to you, as there have been many instances of malware on officially "vetted" app store software. At least opening up the platform would give you the option of trusting someone else instead.
I think you’re proving their point rather than their own. Banks don’t do that precisely because a majority of people favor the current ecosystem that Apple has set up. If that gets torn down, then they absolutely will do what he’s saying. It already happened in the 90s and 2000s with other platforms.
What’s backing your assertion that people generally favor the Apple ecosystem, rather than accept it for lack of viable alternatives? The key premise of the DOJ’s complaint is that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior to prevent users from having other options - where do you think their arguments in the filing fall apart?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
(Ironically, I would quote from the linked PDF, but iOS Safari won’t let me copy text from it.)
On a different note, do you think such fragmentation and idiosyncratic installation flows have happened on the Android ecosystem? If not, why would the Apple ecosystem be different?
What’s backing my assertion is that the iPhone has 3 things that, factually, support it:
You can take 2 major conclusions away from this (amongst several smaller ones):
Either people like their iPhones so much that switching isn’t even a thought for them or Apple is locking people in and they have to stay with iPhones. The number of people switching to iPhone from Android and the insanely high satisfaction ratings year to year lead me to think that it’s the first. Anecdotally, this conclusion holds true for most of the people I know and the non-techie users whose phones I’ve had to support bear that further. Those with Android phones tolerate them or have to use them because they got them for free/cheap. Those with iPhones mostly love them. The only group this doesn’t hold true for is very techie people who care about things like skinning, viewing runtime info about their device, or being able to pirate apps.
I'm just raising an anecdotal counterpoint as a non-techie person who doesn't root their phone or pirate apps and hates the Apple ecosystem since iTunes originally came out (and further every time I have to use an iPhone or iPad for work)
Once people are used to it, I they seem to be stuck in it. Which is fine if they like it but I don't get the appeal
That’s not a counterpoint. You have a preset bias that existed before the iPhone even came out. That’s hardly the majority of people nor is it even representative of any of the population of iPhone owners. The fact is that people switch from Android to iPhone in 1/5 of the cases where the person was new to either platform while the inverse is that less than 1% switch from iPhone back to Android and the only way to make that number higher is to constrain it to people this used Android first, then switched, and then switched back (which makes it a 4% rate).
Just because you don’t get the appeal doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people share that sentiment.
I was providing just a different anecdote that contradicted your experience. Not claiming anything about anyone else.
It can already happen on Android, but it doesn't.
There are already a few 3rd party app installers already like f-droid. You can also just side load .apks. No bank forces you to use those methods to install their apps.
While this is true, I think the reason why it’s this way is because it’s not worth the extra fuss to set up custom distribution for a single platform, particularly with the platform in question being Android which has historically been the less profitable userbase between it and iOS.
I think iOS opening up will change this and expect to see an increase of things that can’t be found on the Play Store and App Store in the coming year. It’s already started with Epic having stated their intent to launch an iOS + Android store of their own.
Isn’t this a bit dishonest? Android only has a 30% market share in the US so there’s no reason to do this rather than investing in the web and this does happen in other countries (China, for example). It already happens with payment processing (Zelle didn’t exist until 2 years after Apple Pay and Google Pay launched and banks had an “oh shit” moment) and would happen again with any area of business where banks could stand to make money by offering their own alternatives. Android, unfortunately, is dwarfed by the profits gained from iOS equivalents so banks won’t go there until there’s a financial incentive for them to do so.
Zelle existing isn't a bad thing. And no, it's not dishonest at all. Whats going on on android is exactly the scenario they're proposing.
No alternative app store has taken up any significant market share, because why would they? They exist on Android, yet the vast majority of people still use the official app store. And yes, android only has 30% market share in the US, but it's absolutely dominant everywhere else and the play store is still the #1 player by a long shot, apart from special cases like China, which has a lot more to do with it's government than the market.
Yes... this is precisely the point. There's nothing to gain from doing so on Android but there is on iOS. People spend money on iOS.
They do spend money on android. There are a ton of paid apps on the play store. I just spent 74 bucks for one. The developer could have potentially made an extra 20 bucks from me had I purchased it from an app store they owned, but they don't do that.
They know that virtually no one would be willing to install a new 3rd party app store just for a single app.
If anything, people would be even less likely to be willing to do that on iOS rather than more.
They don’t, though. I don’t mean that there has never been a purchase on Android (but I would hope that that would be clear without me having to point out something so obvious). I mean that, comparatively, people spend so much less within the Android ecosystem (globally) that the ROI on external app stores would basically be non-existent. That’s not the case with Apple’s App Store.
And your assertion that “they know that … no one would be willing to install a 3rd party app store” is comically wrong. They absolutely would do that if there was no other alternative. If Meta created their own App Store and required people to install their apps from there, I can guarantee that their users would do that. Meta would even go so far as to require it for future usage of their apps. They didn’t do that on Android because there’s nothing to gain from that. There’s a ton to gain from that happening on iOS, though.
You can kind of see in Apple’s rules around it exactly the sorts of sneaky ways around their restrictions that companies have done in the past. They require a special set of API calls that have to be authorized, they initially didn’t want to permit you to run a store that only sells your company’s apps, etc. This all seems to be designed to prevent stuff like the facebook Onavo scam or companies setting up 3rd party stores solely to distribute their own spyware.
It doesn’t even have to be something that’s happened to Apple in the past. It’s just obvious to anyone who has any tech experience that companies will attempt to take advantage of anything that makes things easier or more accessible to laypeople.
They would have had to pay to set up their own store to get your extra $20, and it probably would have cost them nearly that $20 to do it. It doesn’t pay to run your own store until you get into very very large install bases.
In the real world, there's already a mobile OS that allows sideloading, and what do all of the businesses and social media networks do in this ecosystem?
They use the Google Play Store.
The EU is about to launch an investigation into Google privileging the Play store as part of its anti-steering efforts. They pretty clearly don’t want the platform owners to own their own application store at all.
Today it requires a decent amount of extra work to do the sideloading, the lower the barriers to doing it are, the more companies will start to cajole (or induce with freebies) users into doing it.
I mentioned it in another comment, but the EU pretty clearly sees the platforms owning their own app stores as inherently problematic and are trying to untangle them in clumsy ways. It takes too much work to sideload on Android now for broader adoption, but the EC clearly views those hurdles as anti-competitive and is going to continually try to knock them down. Google is already under investigation for this and it’s probably not gonna go well.
Right now it’s not worth it for most of the third parties to run their own App Store because iOS doesn’t permit it and they’re not gonna run a separate stores that omits the majority of the addressable market of people who pay for software. If the gates are open on iOS the math makes a lot more sense to set up the infrastructure to run a separate storefront.
Still possible to have it locked down even tighter than that with device management too.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement
Stories of people getting scammed by the top search results on the iOS store btw: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272
This is an argument that Apple should be doing more and better, not less.
They’ve had a thirty percent cut of all app sales to fund a high-quality review process for over a decade. Still didn’t do it and they have Apple stans breathlessly defending them anyway, so why should they start now?
There’s no incentive for them to improve the quality of their offering because they’re using their monopoly to trap users instead of provide better services - that’s a key argument of the DOJ filing.
A high quality review process would probably require more than a 30% cut to actually execute.
Nothing about the DOJ’s suit is geared towards making them improve their curation, it’s geared towards making them curate less and instigating a race-to-the-bottom effect against curating at all.
If we wanted to improve curation we’d flatly just ban casino games and leave it at that. It’s too tempting for Apple to continue permitting that dirty money to slosh around in their store and it trying to police abuses around it drains resources away from doing anything else.
Apple ended 2023 with a reported cash on hand amount of 80 billion USD. That's $80 billion that's sitting in bank accounts, unused, without Apple knowing what to do with it, just loose change they have laying around. That would fund 160,000 highly paid reviewers, if the reviewers were paid $500k each per year.
Apple has the money, they've had the money for a long time, they're not scraping by, they're one of the most highly successful companies in the world today, and it would be highly impressive if something were to actually meaningfully affect their profitability.
Apple isn't doing it because they don't seem to want to -- not because "gosh darn they just don't have enough money to pay people to make sure apps work, if only they could take an even bigger cut of app store profit, oh well".
That’s not how corporate accounting works. Business units have to justify their existence individually, not just say “well the company as a whole has cash reserves so it’s fine to be a major cost center.”
The company’s total cash on hand doesn’t mean they can just fund individual business lines to operate at a loss forever. Unless it’s a capital investment to fund future growth (which more moderation wouldn’t be, it’s a cost center and a bottomless pit at that) it doesn’t make business sense to do that.
And it’s not like you just throw money at a problem and it’s magically solved. That’s also how engineering works. If it was, Apple would be rolling cars off the assembly line today.
To be clear, are you arguing an annual spend of >$20B is insufficient to fund an app review process? Or is there nuance I’m missing?
I don’t think any amount of money will create a review process that satisfies even most people as long as they have as much of an open door policy for developers.
And no, $20Bn total isn’t crazy much for the scale of the App Store. There are 5 million apps in there. That would be about $4,000 per app, including all the infrastructure and associated API development, partnerships, bugs, etc. That’s a tidy profit, but unless the individual problems are really scalable that won’t be a ton, because I think you’d ideally need to have a bunch of engineering liaisons (expensive) with small portfolios (lots of people) to support each developer.
I think the only (but still predominant) issue with this argument is that the entire reason for this is that only a few companies have the ability and the resources to create products that are this advanced and complex.
To use your car example, nothing is stopping companies from putting the fuel port on the right side. That’s a design design that’s informed by iteration from previous products. Technically, there’s nothing stopping a new player from coming onto the market with only right port cars just like there’s nothing stopping a new player from coming onto the market with a new smartphone. The issue is that there’s vast hardware, software, and administrative/logisticsl knowledge that comes together to make these devices.
Based on that, I don’t see why Apple would have to open up their business just because they put the time, effort, and resources to create these complex, intricate products any more than anyone else should have to open their store to products they don’t want to sell. On a smaller scale, it seems no different than telling me that I need to offer other people to sell their products in my store just because there’s not another store in the area (despite there being a similar store just down the street). I just don’t see how it can be said consumers don’t have a choice as long as Android exists.
I’m not disagreeing with your comment or, if I’m being honest, contributing much to the conversation, but I can’t for the life of my find a decent shirt! They all tend to be made of materials that throw off microplastics, use crops that are grown with far too much water, exploit foreign workers terribly, fit badly, don’t layer well, etc.
A lot of things are complicated, not just electronic toys! It seems like markets really only care about what’s cheap, and the only options reasonably available to me are the cheapest ones imaginable (or are unimaginably expensive).
I think at least some of the race to the bottom for prices could be solved with better information availability and wages.
Consumers can't make informed decions when marketing lies and consumer testing information is obtuse.
If you had two knives side by side, one costing $5 and the other costing $25, more people will buy the $5 one. If you have a clearly labeled information chart that shows the $5 knife will break inside of a year, while the $25 knife will last 20, consumers will be able to make better choices. Especially if they have high enough wages to not have to say 'But I only have $10 and need a knife today'.
I think the easist paths to get there would be a combo of severely limiting marketing and advertising, and reasonably high mandatory minimum waranties on all non-perishable goods.
No more '1 year limited waranty' on a $200 dishwasher. Make the minimum a '10 year parts and labor full waranty' for goods such as that. Prices will go up, but it will put a floor on quality.
Perhaps that’s reasonable? But in my heart, I don’t feel that the average human has enough extra energy (“spoons”) to handle the complexity of choosing between multiple products in a category on a regular basis. For whatever reason, the average person seems to crave convenience and simplicity for everything that “isn’t their problem”, even to their detriment …
As you suggest, perhaps regulations to enforce minimum quality bars are the way forward, since people can’t be trusted to think about what they’re buying (beyond always buying the easiest, simplest, cheapest thing).
Yea, I'm envisioning something like a Consumer Reports score that's put next to the price tag. Ideally from say 2-3 testing organizations. Rather than the online "user reviews" which tend to be very subjective (and fake) than objective.
I'll shamelessly copy a comment from Hacker News summarizing the lawsuit details:
Lawsuit summary (tangent on a tangent: I do love the option to collapse a bunch of information that may be useful but also a tangent. more forums need this)
For folks who don't have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it's so big. Here are those claims:
Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as "Super Apps", which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several "mini programs" within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a "super app" of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.
Similar to "super apps", the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service.
Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set.
Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.
It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement "tap to pay" on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.
With that context in mind, it does seem like this lawsuit was in the making for years. From Pebble to Tile to Gamepass to Epic to Garmin to Beeper, it's been clear that Apple would suffice having a popular app until they wanted in, or simply never allowed an "in" to begin with if they felt it threatened anything about their garden. Microsoft got charged decades ago for doing much less with Windows, and at this point IOS is beyond a doubt a general purpose OS and not just "a phone with some games on it".
Even if this merely brings an end to the "green bubble" texting I'd consider this a win. I should be able to recieve pictures larger than 144p from my parents' iphones without going around to some other app.
You already should...it's the videos that should pose an issue in the current state of things. If you are getting tiny photos, that's not an Apple thing.
Yeah I'm curious what their grounds are for this. Clearly they are a big mover of smartphones, but Android phones dominate the market share and usually have features ahead of Apple.
I don't see how this argument makes sense. I despise Apple and would love for them to get taken down a few pegs if not shut down completely, but this case doesn't quite make sense to me.
I don't know if that's true anymore that Android dominates the US market. Android continues to dominate the global market, but I think Apple is ahead in the US.
Cursory search says this:
A couple other sources show similar, though the gap isn't as large. So maybe "dominate" isn't the right term. In any case, iPhones are certainly ahead in the US.
This probably changes the calculus a bit. If Apple was in the minority, yeah OK, who cares? But given that Apple's share continues to increase over the competition, especially among younger people, I'm not against the DoJ making some moves against Apple.
And I say this as an Apple user. I'm typing this on my new MBP, with Apple Watch on my wrist, and my iPhone right next to me.
If the “move” ends up being “make your ecosystem and product offerings shittier so cheap commodity vendors can compete with you” I am 100% against that.
A lot of people have hate boners for Apple for what are functionally just tech-hipsterism reasons.
Oh I did not know it had shifted that much...yikes.
I feel like a few years ago when I looked it was like 10% Apple, 85% Android, and the rest a mix of Windows and more obscure types of devices
I thought for sure there would be a strong Linux contender by now. There are a few options out there, but it locks you out of enough that it's just not a practical choice.
It's not the same as my laptop, where I can easily find open source replacements for 95% of what I want to do.
I think the real reason is the app stores.
Ultimately, I need about 5-6 apps that are only available on iOS or Android for work. Things like MFA.
Which means you've basically got to have a seperate, secondary Android subsystem to retain any functionality at all with existing third parties...and the more tightly they integrate with Android, the less sense it makes to make anything other than an Android phone.
The problem with Linux is that most of the development for it is done by or funded by companies whose use cases are not general purpose desktop or mobile usage. They want servers, hypervisors, embedded operating systems, etc. As a result, projects relevant to end-user use cases don't get the money or development time needed to compete with commercial operating systems that already fulfill consumer needs.
I hadn't realized the numbers had changed so much. I have noticed lately that people seem to assume I have an iPhone, but hadn't really thought much about it. That's a subtle shift that can mean a lot. It's not trivial to make an app that works on both systems, I just don't have access to some of the apps I want to use unless I want to drag my iPad around and tether it. I do not.
... why? I like their privacy stance far more than Google at least.
Not the person you were replying to, but anecdotally, Apple phone users are SO. ANNOYING.
I've lost count of how many times people have asked me why I don't have an iPhone, and when I reply with "I want things Apple has decided aren't important, such as a microSD slot or a headphone jack," I get the identical answer of "why would you want that though? That's dumb."
I don't really care what phone people want to use, but Apple has seemingly fostered a culture of AGGRESSIVE tribalism where anyone without an iPhone is a lesser human.
Never mind I've paid for some apps on the Google store that aren't even available on the apple store. I shouldn't keep using the desktop I built myself. I should pay Apple thousands of dollars to get all new electronics and learn an entirely different operating system than the one I grew up with, all because "what kind of idiot still uses Android instead of the clearly superior iPhone"
I may be a little biased but in my own experiences Apple phone users can be so insulting and aggressive and just plain mean for no real reason other than "apple good everyone else trash"
The headphone thing in particular really brought that out. Apple users largely defended it fervently, even though it really didn't provide any additional waterproofing protection over say the Galaxy S5. And destroyed yet-another useful bit of my cellphone choices. It doesn't help that so many companies try chasing Apple's lead, which means once Apple makes a decision, odds are the market will follow.
I contend the Galaxy S5 is still one of the best phones ever made. IR blaster, FM radio, replaceable battery, microSD card, headphone jack. The only reason it doesn't work anymore is software bloat and lack of open drivers for some parts. There's nothing missing from the hardware that would stop my daily workflow if not for the lack of security patches.
They make terrible products, they are incredibly anti-consumer and clearly are trying to form a monopoly.
What of that is good?
They're still selling your data, they just might be sneakier about it
For me, it seems like they make the best in class products. By a vast margin.
Who are they selling my data to? Is there evidence?
I can't stand their GUIs personally, it feels like you've gotta fight the machine just to navigate around and do basic tasks.
Even Android was a lot more usable before it became completely focused on the touchscreen and gestures for input...based on the iPhone being popular.
This is a subjective assessment where you will find considerable disagreement. One can just as easily say Google makes terrible products.
That is a pretty bold claim seeing as it would be in violation of their own privacy policy. Do you have evidence to back it up?
If you think Crapple products are terrible, just wait until you see their competitors. Still no PC vendor has made a touchpad as nice as 2008 Apple laptops.
I've been using their competitors my entire life, and they're far superior.
I work in IT and have to deal with MacBooks and iPhones, and am forced to use an iPhone for work. It's all dogshit.
Well it seems a little obvious you haven't used any of the Apple Silicon laptops, because they've been very hard to beat on size, performance, and battery life. The HP Z-Book my employer provided me for development work is slower, hotter, has a shittier screen, and gets worse battery life than my personal M2 MBP. It also costs about $300 more, and has already needed the keyboard and trackpad replaced twice after only 18 months of usage.
I'm also skeptical you've managed to find Windows laptops with better trackpads.
I worked IT for 5 years starting in 2008 before moving to software development.
I feel I should clarify that I'm not here to fanboy. I daily drive Windows, macOS, and Linux, and I have a laundry list of praises and complaints for each of them.
If I had it my way, I would make everyone in my office use Macs. And yeah, Apple Silicon 100%. That's not to say there aren't downsides, especially with centralized management of the laptops (I'm sure it can be done via third party tools; I just haven't looked into it that much), but putting on my helpdesk/desktop support hat, my Mac users have so fewer tickets compared to the Windows users. There's always weird shit going on with either Windows or the hardware itself (we're mainly a Dell shop, but I have a couple HPs in the mix, unfortunately).
I have to replace the Windows computer every 3-4yrs, sometimes even 2yrs. The Macs can, and usually do, go for 5+ yrs. In all the years at this company, there's only been one Macbook Pro that broke; the screen stopped working after like 2yrs. Known issue; not because of the user.
And the price of M1, and now M2s, is so inexpensive for the power! Aside from a couple users working in the design department (who have better-specced Macs), everyone else could easily make do with an M1 Macbook/Air. Because all they're doing is basic productivity stuff.
I envy you. My first IT job was at a company that only bought Dells, and they were always so great to work with. Then we got acquired by a company that bought exclusively from Lenovo and it was a noticeable downgrade (sorry Thinkpad fans). Supporting machines isn't really my concern anymore, but I can tell that HP causes nothing but headaches for the IT department at my current employer. Every machine they have given me has had hardware problems within 8-12 months despite my laptop usually just sitting there docked for weeks or months at a time.
For me, it’s quite the opposite. Especially when wearing my mobile app developer hat, there are few things I hate more than the hellscape of different android devices and their varying degrees of compatibility and OS version.
I'll throw out an example from PC history.
Old PC games all assumed that your resolution would be one or more of (depending on year):
And game developers would hardcode against those resolutions, and as the tech evolved, enabling higher resolutions and differing aspect ratios, it broke all assumptions game developers had been making for decades.
And you'll notice that staring around 2004 or so, the tooling got better to make it easier to handle any arbitrary resolution.
The same can and will happen with Android over time. The biggest factor preventing it is the dependency on phone vendors and wireless providers to keep current. If we had proper open drivers and vendor-agnostic hardware as a default, there'd be a lot less problems there.
The second biggest factor is that Google killed Linux's "don't break userspace" mantra, and Google is Google and does Google things like killing off random things at random intervals.
What laptops have you found with trackpads that rival or exceed a MacBook? One of those mat be useful as a Linux laptop.
I hate MacBook trackpads so literally anything else. They feel sluggish and unresponsive, and I have to swipe several times across it to get the cursor across the screen.
The cheap Dell laptop I use for work is miles better.
I have personal Lenovo laptops that are better.
I used Lenovo Thinkpads a lot at a previous job, those were great
That's because that red nub thing IBM made in the 90s is way better than even Apples touch pads. Touch pads in general just kinda suck imo.
Fully agree. This doesn’t pass the sniff test to me. Two reasons immediately come to mind:
Uneven monopolistic enforcement. The US has monopolies. In utilities, tv and internet services, in car distributors (dealerships), even the damn SodaStream had a market dominance that might have been considered close to a monopoly at one point.
In investing, one of the core things to look for is a “moat” which is a barrier to competition when looking for good long term investments. The US loves monopolies and I wonder just how much federal lobbying is dedicated to maintaining established players’ competitive advantage. I mean isn’t that all a monopoly really is? When some competitive advantage goes so far that everyone just gives up?
53% market share is nowhere near monopolistic. It just isn’t.
Privacy. Not only does Apple have a rock-solid legit security and privacy concern AND obligation to their customers to NOT open up platforms to
potentiallylikely (more) compromised competitors, but IMO it’s entirely possible this is the real Trojan horse for the lawsuit.Im not under any illusion that my aging iPhone keeps the NSA out, but it does keep out other parties better than an android phone, and I think that’s what this lawsuit is about. This might be advertisers, other law enforcement or espionage parties, Chinese or Russian-backed, or just that those three-letter agencies are tired of having to work so hard to crack iPhone security with every new model.
I’m no security expert, nor a lawyer, but I’ve watched from afar the shenanigans corporations get up to in trying to maintain or open new markets. We have a long list of those. This smells a lot more like underhanded manipulation than any actual good faith opening up of competition. If they wanted to do that, then move toward standardizing software security practices, code bases, and protocols to improve security to the point where Apple didn’t have the advantage it does currently. That’s the right way to move forward.
Just wanted to add- this bit from the article is some convoluted nonsense of the stupidest order. Somebody please explain how this can possibly make sense outside of “it kinda sounds good”:
Agreed, I don’t understand how you can sue Apple without also filing suit against Google
This lawsuit was discussed in the New York Times' Hard Fork podcast. I thought some of the quotes the DOJ included in the complaint were pretty hilariously damning. It's quite obvious that Apple saw a major problem with iPhone users being able to easily move over to Android (or Windows phones when that was briefly a thing).
I do have to wonder what the smartphone market would look like if Apple the hardware manufacturer and Apple the software company were two separate companies. Would people buy iPhones with Android on them? Would people buy Samsung Galaxy phones with iOS on them? Or, hell, just to look at the smartwatch market, how many iPhone users bought an Apple Watch because they really thought it was the best watch and how many thought they more or less had to because they owned iPhones?
At the end of the day, I know Apple will probably argue that nobody's buying an iPhone just because of the color of the bubbles of their text messages to other people, but all of it just creates an enormous amount of friction that is intended to lock people into their ecosystem. Because no gigantic corporation wants to compete on merits. They want to lock you in and keep you there. Which is not to say that the Apple ecosystem doesn't have any merits. Obviously it does. But it's also obvious that Apple would prefer not to have to compete on those terms.
We would lose some nice integrations with this, but I'd love to see the tech world with all of big tech cut into (relatively) small $10 Billion chunks. I would imagine the US's GDP would soar, users would have more choices, and competition would result in tremendous innovation.
That’s fundamentally counter to the Apple design philosophy. This is THE differentiator between Apple and all the other OEM producers and Microsoft’s of the world. The integration is the whole deal. Take that away and you don’t have Apple.
Yes exactly. Ever since the Mac came out, their whole bread and butter has been sidestepping all of the janky awkward bits that are unavoidable with the model popularized by IBM clones by designing it the entire product end-to-end.
A great example of this is how Apple bluetooth keyboards, trackpads, etc stay usable even when the Mac they’re connected to is in a pre-boot environment, long before the OS has loaded, and they’ve done this for over a decade at this point. This is exactly the sort of quality of life feature that isn’t really practical with generic PCs because there’s too many variables involved… even Microsoft struggles with bluetooth stuff under Windows, there’s no way that PC motherboard OEMs that contract out their firmware are going to even try.
Yeah it’s kind of a shame. I definitely wouldn’t want to live in a world where Apple is the only manufacturer or even one where the majority of computers are made by companies that operate like Apple. BUT the world would be a whole lot poorer without a company like Apple making design trade offs that zig where everyone else zags.
If this does nothing but kill all the BS around iMessage and its green bubbles forever, I'll be quite happy. The cultural chilling effects of that alone are something I've been dreading for a while.
While I think this is great, I think there are other companies the justice department should go after first, like Amazon, Temu, and Shein. Not that they can't go after Apple at the same time.
I wonder why apple is the first domino.
They are going after Amazon as well. Never heard of Temu or Shein.
Temu and Shein are Chinese companies, so it might be harder? (Not a lawyer)
But what is it that they do in a way that is monopolistic? Best I can tell they're yet-another-online-clothing retailer.
They compete with Wayfair, Old Navy, Target, and countless others. And best I can tell the barrier to competition is one web search for "buy clothing online" away.
No idea. For me the problem with them is the fast fashion aspect, but I don't think they belong in a conversation about monopolies.
Oh don't disagree that they're terrible for the planet. I think that's only gonna get solved with new laws which better impose total ecological impact from extraction to disposal.
The greatest flaw of 'the market' is that it makes it incredibly easy to hide all these externalities behind infinite third parties, deflecting blame from everyone else in the supply chains that profit.
They are, but they have massive US operations. I do wonder how much harder it would be to go after them. I wonder if it's like the nonsense TikTok ban congress is trying to push.
I'm glad they're going after Amazon too! This makes me much happier.
Don't forget Google is ongoing too. As well as Facebook. And let's not forget they moved to block Microsoft's acquisition of Blizzard.
Biden's FTC anti-trust actions improvements are quite possibly the single most important long-term changes that they're enacting.
I hope the next term brings an end to citizens united along with all of these antitrust actions. I'm so glad they're happening.
How is it a monopoly?
People have choices whether outright or through telco
Well luckily you can read the lawsuit and see what makes the Department of Justice think so here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/21/technology/apple-lawsuit.html
The complaint starts on page 3, page 26 has "Apple Unlawfully Maintains Its Monopoly Power" up until page 49 where it goes in to "Anticompetitive Effects", etc.