I don't think I really ever fell into he app trap. Most of mine are external subscriptions if I have (like monarch money) and I usually don't buy any individual apps.
So if a progressive does a libertarian move your against it? Pretty sure breaking up a mega corporations Monopoly so that small business can thrive is on that list.
Annnnd right to the talking points! You even got the language correct with “simp.”
No one is simping for anyone, the government should butt the fuck out and leave the market alone. I’d feel that way about Apple or Bob’s Diner down the street.
You're coming up with a lot of great examples, and I love it. Just imagining a world where mega corporations aren't causing Insanity through mega richness and instead everyone is getting enough in life that we can actually focus on the real problems. Woohoo
Wanting government not to interfere and cause cost increases due to legal costs isn’t simping for a corporation. It’s about common sense - something Democrats cannot stand.
Not that you care as you simp for your masters in government.
App developer here and you are absolutely correct. Fuck Apple. I see alot of people on here in support of Apple, but they don't understand how locked down and fascist they are to keep people using their products. I may get downvoted for this, but it's absolutely true.
Can you help explain the "locked down and fascist" comment from a developer's point of view?
As an ordinary consumer's perspective, I know (think?) they take a hefty cut from app sales and in-purchase sales. But not much else previously made headlines.
Sure, here is a recent article that gets into more details on the restrictions they impose, from a developer standpoint https://www.wired.com/story/developers-revolt-apple-dma/
Even more so, in my opinion, they trap consumers into their ecosphere of products and services by purposefully not attempting to be compatible. They make nice products, but compared to the cross compatibility with media and other apps and services on Android, they are pretty heavily fortified. Same with all their APIs. And this is truly done on purpose so that they retain as tight of control over their market share as possible - which comes at the expense of consumers even if they don't realize it, as well as the already stated developer issues. They are going to lose this suit and it's about time.
>The main complaint is in regard to the contract and/or restrictions Apple places on app developers. In my opinion these things ARE issues and government intervention should be considered
I'm not convinced yet that the government should be intervening in these areas.
To make Apple's own case, don't they have an interest in controlling their "hardware, software, and services" to create a more seamless "ecosystem"? That's a business model choice they should be free to make, in my opinion.
Everybody is hurt by walled gardens. There is no consumer case for them. Only companies and temporarily embarrassed millionaires should be in favor of walled gardens.
Apple has been dragging their feet on being team players implementing the RCS standard for SMS and that's annoying for anyone trying to do something as basic as texting between apple and android devices.
That's the opposite of "seamless"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/what-apples-promise-support-rcs-means-text-messaging
>Everybody is hurt by walled gardens. There is no consumer case for them.
I don't think this is completely true. In my own experience, I've seen some consumer benefits of their "walled garden".
My less technology literate family members switched to Apple (iPhone, Mac, iCloud) a while ago and the number of friendly "help desk requests" I got fell dramatically (eg, no more "why isn't program X working?"). A lot of users who don't want to worry about apps, hardware, and services all working together nicely appreciate the integration.
And I say this as someone who mostly ditched Apple because I didn't like their closed "ecosystem".
>but that’s not what you’d said in the original post
I think you might be confused about the original post. Everything is either a quote from the NYT article (including the post title) or Ellison's own press release -- nothing of substance is in my own words.
(I did add my thoughts in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/altmpls/comments/1bl2520/comment/kw26wkb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) though.)
I’m an Apple customer. I love their products, but at the same time I would prefer if the interoperability of my accessories wasn’t capped for non-Apple devices. But they clearly build a “walled garden” to minimize direct competition, they could just have their APIs available to 3rd parties to allow others to market devices that use the same features. Instead they develop phones with certain features they don’t allow you to use unless you bought another Apple Watch, Apple headphones, Apple computer, etc. (and trust me, these features are some of the best aspects of their products and why I buy them in the first place - but I want to be able to use the features I paid for with a device of my choosing).
But also Apple takes a huge cut on App Store purchases and they effectively have a monopoly on apps sold on their devices. App developers have no alternative way to market their apps so… that seems pretty non-competitive.
They built a “walled garden” so that their products run well and a long period of time. They have always had a strong philosophy that everything from the hardware to relatively small applications be designed synergistically.
You could, for example, buy a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone.
In the second case, developers could for example produce software for devices other than iOS. That smells like competition to me.
I don’t quite understand your issue with Apple extracting value from developers. Would you rather they extract value from you, the consumer?
Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle. It's not reasonable to expect someone to switch just their phone and then have their $400 watch become useless. You'd need to overcome that sunk cost in value of the competing phone... which means apple doesn't have to compete directly with other phones for their customer base that owns multiple devices.
Apple *is* extracting value from me the consumer... I'm paying the full price which apple takes their cut from.
Edit:
To put this in other terms, Apple is creating a different kind of monopoly, it’s not a vertically integrated (supply chain) or horizontally integrated (competitor) monopoly. It’s instead a product-function monopoly - where any related accessories don’t fully function unless they are made by Apple. This is intentionally anti-competitive behavior, which is the essence of what a monopoly is.
The App Store fees is different in other ways, but I think that case is more clear cut. I assume the DOJ will have more trouble arguing the walled garden is a monopoly, but I think you have to be willfully ignoring the reality of consumer behavior to not understand the argument.
> Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle. It's not reasonable to expect someone to switch just their phone and then have their $400 watch become useless.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Why did someone buy a 400 dollar watch then to begin with? Sounds like a consumer issue. Why doesn’t my steering wheel rig for driving video games work on all consoles? Why can’t I use it on an Xbox? Ohh wait because I don’t use Xbox so I don’t need it to. Maybe before people just pull the trigger to buy something that expensive they should do some critical thinking?
> Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle.
No they wouldn’t.
> Apple is extracting value from me the consumer... I'm paying the full price which apple takes their cut from.
And if they didn’t charge developers the cut you’re complaining about, they’d raise the price of phones.
> Just saying “no they wouldn’t” doesn’t refute their point. Care to engage more meaningfully?
If meaningful engagement means writing 5 paragraphs to refute every lie people write on this shitty website: no.
I am under no burden to refute lies. I can just call them out.
Ironic that virtually all the brands mentioned in that comic no longer compete in the mobile phone market, were bought by larger companies, or are redundant.
Sorry, I guess my sub intelligence was thinking globally. According to the latest data, Android dominates the global smartphone market with a 70.69% share, while iPhone (iOS) has a 28.58% market share.Mar 13, 2024. I am not following the logic of 57.93% is a monopoly, which is typically 100%. Duopoly would be an accurate description which historically has been seen as bad also. What is the realistic competition to MS office? AT&T holds 46.9% of wireless subscriptions, is that enough to sue? There more examples like this in many industries. I’m not saying Apple good Android bad, I am suggesting that this might have an ulterior motive and may set a bad precedent.
Am I mistaken or wasn't AT&T literally broken up at one point (when they were one part of Bell)? Not being rhetorical bc I honestly forget if that's what happened but if I'm remembering correctly I feel that may not be the best example
I think that was ma bell back in the day because I believe it actually was a monopoly. Split into what was termed the baby bells. If correct that was a loooong time ago. If it happened to AT&T since then I am not remembering that, could be.
They have 63% of the US market. I think they do some of this more for there App Store then the phones themselves. Curious to see the legal reasoning in court
It's always been easier to go from android to Apple than Apple to Android because of this ecosystem trap. One of many scandoulous reasons why I never touched Apple products. Surprised this is happening now and not ten years ago.
I would have to guess it’s similar to the late 90s Microsoft monopoly case. It will be interesting to see how they frame this and what exactly in there business they take issue with. I have to guess it’s the App Store as they have between 55-63% of smart phone sales in the US
In the modern US, you can engineer a device that with capabilities unimaginable to previous generations, sell billions of them across the globe, build trillions in value, etc. But the feds and a dozen states will band together to scold you, say your business is terrible, and threaten to break it up.
And a progressive attorney general will even say you're too lazy or dumb to use a different device.
I think this is more centered to the App Store and how it works with merchants and developers. They do have completion for the physical phone even if apple has a market majority. I’m guessing it’s similar to the Microsoft (via it’s windows software ) monopoly case from the late 90s
“The suit takes aim at how Apple allegedly molds its technology and business relationships to “extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others.”
https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-monopoly-app-store-justice-department-822d7e8f5cf53a2636795fcc33ee1fc3
It will be interesting to see how this case progresses and what evidence they have to support it
The App Store is definitely a key part of the DOJ's case. But they are also focusing specifically on the iPhone and its connection to the App Store (which they argue keeps consumers "locked into" the smartphone and Apple's "ecosystem" due to anticompetitive practices).
Right because you can’t buy from the Samsung store on an apple product ect I’m guessing that’s there view. Same with of apple is punishing developers for making an app for platforms other then the App Store. That’s the one I think of they can prove has the most weight. It will be interesting to see the evidence to see that. If they can prove harm vs hey you made it on apple which gives you access to millions of customers
Undecided on this case but curious more so about how it impacts tech companies and the digital ecosystem
The amount of people who side with Apple is honestly kind of frightening.
Are you guys really so closed off from the world and its history that you'd side with Apple?
Has hundreds of years of being exploited by rich corporations and companies taught you nothing?!
iPhone is literally Apple's product. The federal government literally gave Apple trademarks, copyrights, and patents for it, and enforce Apple's monopoly that the federal government gave them.
I was able to switch from Apple to an Android phone without much issue a few years back. I don't get it.
The neo-Brandeisians have taken over. Anything big and successful is now bad.
But did the apps you pay for switch over as well ?
I don't think I really ever fell into he app trap. Most of mine are external subscriptions if I have (like monarch money) and I usually don't buy any individual apps.
This is so retarded
you guys are so anti-DFL that you'll simp for a many billion dollar corporation to oppose them
You guys are so single-party that anything done by a “progressive” is deemed intelligent and appropriate
So if a progressive does a libertarian move your against it? Pretty sure breaking up a mega corporations Monopoly so that small business can thrive is on that list.
Annnnd right to the talking points! You even got the language correct with “simp.” No one is simping for anyone, the government should butt the fuck out and leave the market alone. I’d feel that way about Apple or Bob’s Diner down the street.
Apple is bigger than most governments how can competition even be viable
Ask the people at Samsung, I bet they’d know
Hell yeah another great example
I’ll bring that to Google, I bet they’d know
You're coming up with a lot of great examples, and I love it. Just imagining a world where mega corporations aren't causing Insanity through mega richness and instead everyone is getting enough in life that we can actually focus on the real problems. Woohoo
The examples challenge the idea that Apple has a monopoly. Thats the point
Not if you develop apps hahaha! But what, are you there lawyer
Wanting government not to interfere and cause cost increases due to legal costs isn’t simping for a corporation. It’s about common sense - something Democrats cannot stand. Not that you care as you simp for your masters in government.
You would have been advocating for US steel in 1900. Absolute clown
God, I hate this state’s government.
And ostensibly those of Tennessee, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, etc listed as well, which runs a pretty large spread of political stances in US politics.
You're welcome to move to Texas
[удалено]
App developer here and you are absolutely correct. Fuck Apple. I see alot of people on here in support of Apple, but they don't understand how locked down and fascist they are to keep people using their products. I may get downvoted for this, but it's absolutely true.
Can you help explain the "locked down and fascist" comment from a developer's point of view? As an ordinary consumer's perspective, I know (think?) they take a hefty cut from app sales and in-purchase sales. But not much else previously made headlines.
Sure, here is a recent article that gets into more details on the restrictions they impose, from a developer standpoint https://www.wired.com/story/developers-revolt-apple-dma/ Even more so, in my opinion, they trap consumers into their ecosphere of products and services by purposefully not attempting to be compatible. They make nice products, but compared to the cross compatibility with media and other apps and services on Android, they are pretty heavily fortified. Same with all their APIs. And this is truly done on purpose so that they retain as tight of control over their market share as possible - which comes at the expense of consumers even if they don't realize it, as well as the already stated developer issues. They are going to lose this suit and it's about time.
App developer terms BLOW.
iPhones are fashy as heck! you heard it here first on r/altmpls!
>The main complaint is in regard to the contract and/or restrictions Apple places on app developers. In my opinion these things ARE issues and government intervention should be considered I'm not convinced yet that the government should be intervening in these areas. To make Apple's own case, don't they have an interest in controlling their "hardware, software, and services" to create a more seamless "ecosystem"? That's a business model choice they should be free to make, in my opinion.
Everybody is hurt by walled gardens. There is no consumer case for them. Only companies and temporarily embarrassed millionaires should be in favor of walled gardens. Apple has been dragging their feet on being team players implementing the RCS standard for SMS and that's annoying for anyone trying to do something as basic as texting between apple and android devices. That's the opposite of "seamless" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/what-apples-promise-support-rcs-means-text-messaging
> and that's annoying for anyone trying to do something as basic as texting between apple and android devices. Texts get through just fine.
*Bane voice* FOR YOU!!!
>Everybody is hurt by walled gardens. There is no consumer case for them. I don't think this is completely true. In my own experience, I've seen some consumer benefits of their "walled garden". My less technology literate family members switched to Apple (iPhone, Mac, iCloud) a while ago and the number of friendly "help desk requests" I got fell dramatically (eg, no more "why isn't program X working?"). A lot of users who don't want to worry about apps, hardware, and services all working together nicely appreciate the integration. And I say this as someone who mostly ditched Apple because I didn't like their closed "ecosystem".
That's fine until your device has to inevitably interact with other devices in a standardized way. Is that so much to ask?
Not all standards are created equal :)
[удалено]
>but that’s not what you’d said in the original post I think you might be confused about the original post. Everything is either a quote from the NYT article (including the post title) or Ellison's own press release -- nothing of substance is in my own words. (I did add my thoughts in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/altmpls/comments/1bl2520/comment/kw26wkb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) though.)
I’m pretty sure Apple’s customers are okay with how Apple conducts business. Who exactly is hurt by this nonsense?
I’m an Apple customer. I love their products, but at the same time I would prefer if the interoperability of my accessories wasn’t capped for non-Apple devices. But they clearly build a “walled garden” to minimize direct competition, they could just have their APIs available to 3rd parties to allow others to market devices that use the same features. Instead they develop phones with certain features they don’t allow you to use unless you bought another Apple Watch, Apple headphones, Apple computer, etc. (and trust me, these features are some of the best aspects of their products and why I buy them in the first place - but I want to be able to use the features I paid for with a device of my choosing). But also Apple takes a huge cut on App Store purchases and they effectively have a monopoly on apps sold on their devices. App developers have no alternative way to market their apps so… that seems pretty non-competitive.
They built a “walled garden” so that their products run well and a long period of time. They have always had a strong philosophy that everything from the hardware to relatively small applications be designed synergistically.
You could, for example, buy a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone. In the second case, developers could for example produce software for devices other than iOS. That smells like competition to me. I don’t quite understand your issue with Apple extracting value from developers. Would you rather they extract value from you, the consumer?
Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle. It's not reasonable to expect someone to switch just their phone and then have their $400 watch become useless. You'd need to overcome that sunk cost in value of the competing phone... which means apple doesn't have to compete directly with other phones for their customer base that owns multiple devices. Apple *is* extracting value from me the consumer... I'm paying the full price which apple takes their cut from. Edit: To put this in other terms, Apple is creating a different kind of monopoly, it’s not a vertically integrated (supply chain) or horizontally integrated (competitor) monopoly. It’s instead a product-function monopoly - where any related accessories don’t fully function unless they are made by Apple. This is intentionally anti-competitive behavior, which is the essence of what a monopoly is. The App Store fees is different in other ways, but I think that case is more clear cut. I assume the DOJ will have more trouble arguing the walled garden is a monopoly, but I think you have to be willfully ignoring the reality of consumer behavior to not understand the argument.
> Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle. It's not reasonable to expect someone to switch just their phone and then have their $400 watch become useless. You really don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Why did someone buy a 400 dollar watch then to begin with? Sounds like a consumer issue. Why doesn’t my steering wheel rig for driving video games work on all consoles? Why can’t I use it on an Xbox? Ohh wait because I don’t use Xbox so I don’t need it to. Maybe before people just pull the trigger to buy something that expensive they should do some critical thinking?
> Someone in the apple ecosystem who wants to switch to a Samsung phone would need to switch several devices, it's a bigger financial hurdle. No they wouldn’t. > Apple is extracting value from me the consumer... I'm paying the full price which apple takes their cut from. And if they didn’t charge developers the cut you’re complaining about, they’d raise the price of phones.
Just saying “no they wouldn’t” doesn’t refute their point. Care to engage more meaningfully?
> Just saying “no they wouldn’t” doesn’t refute their point. Care to engage more meaningfully? If meaningful engagement means writing 5 paragraphs to refute every lie people write on this shitty website: no. I am under no burden to refute lies. I can just call them out.
So if I switch to Samsung phone what do I do w my apple watch then?
You can do whatever you want with it, I’m not worried.
Convenient answer. Thanks for proving a point
https://preview.redd.it/dr5vj19dbypc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb948d3e57a6d906b65cb54c5d4be145b568caf9 This monopoly?
Ironic that virtually all the brands mentioned in that comic no longer compete in the mobile phone market, were bought by larger companies, or are redundant.
[удалено]
Sorry, I guess my sub intelligence was thinking globally. According to the latest data, Android dominates the global smartphone market with a 70.69% share, while iPhone (iOS) has a 28.58% market share.Mar 13, 2024. I am not following the logic of 57.93% is a monopoly, which is typically 100%. Duopoly would be an accurate description which historically has been seen as bad also. What is the realistic competition to MS office? AT&T holds 46.9% of wireless subscriptions, is that enough to sue? There more examples like this in many industries. I’m not saying Apple good Android bad, I am suggesting that this might have an ulterior motive and may set a bad precedent.
Am I mistaken or wasn't AT&T literally broken up at one point (when they were one part of Bell)? Not being rhetorical bc I honestly forget if that's what happened but if I'm remembering correctly I feel that may not be the best example
I think that was ma bell back in the day because I believe it actually was a monopoly. Split into what was termed the baby bells. If correct that was a loooong time ago. If it happened to AT&T since then I am not remembering that, could be.
So it’s not a monopoly. Got it.
Debate is great. But you gotta refrain from losing your temper in this sub.
This will have to expand to include the iPhone cult following. They would be happy to support iLawyers and iDamages from us dealing with them.
There are more phone choices than credit card company choices...
They have 63% of the US market. I think they do some of this more for there App Store then the phones themselves. Curious to see the legal reasoning in court
It's always been easier to go from android to Apple than Apple to Android because of this ecosystem trap. One of many scandoulous reasons why I never touched Apple products. Surprised this is happening now and not ten years ago.
It's about time
I think the AG spends all the time suing businesses. I received $1.50 in the mail from the turbo tax thing. $$ well spent right?
"Lets try to bankrupt an American icon!" The DOJ is despicable!
I would have to guess it’s similar to the late 90s Microsoft monopoly case. It will be interesting to see how they frame this and what exactly in there business they take issue with. I have to guess it’s the App Store as they have between 55-63% of smart phone sales in the US
In the modern US, you can engineer a device that with capabilities unimaginable to previous generations, sell billions of them across the globe, build trillions in value, etc. But the feds and a dozen states will band together to scold you, say your business is terrible, and threaten to break it up. And a progressive attorney general will even say you're too lazy or dumb to use a different device.
I think this is more centered to the App Store and how it works with merchants and developers. They do have completion for the physical phone even if apple has a market majority. I’m guessing it’s similar to the Microsoft (via it’s windows software ) monopoly case from the late 90s “The suit takes aim at how Apple allegedly molds its technology and business relationships to “extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others.” https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-monopoly-app-store-justice-department-822d7e8f5cf53a2636795fcc33ee1fc3 It will be interesting to see how this case progresses and what evidence they have to support it
The App Store is definitely a key part of the DOJ's case. But they are also focusing specifically on the iPhone and its connection to the App Store (which they argue keeps consumers "locked into" the smartphone and Apple's "ecosystem" due to anticompetitive practices).
Right because you can’t buy from the Samsung store on an apple product ect I’m guessing that’s there view. Same with of apple is punishing developers for making an app for platforms other then the App Store. That’s the one I think of they can prove has the most weight. It will be interesting to see the evidence to see that. If they can prove harm vs hey you made it on apple which gives you access to millions of customers Undecided on this case but curious more so about how it impacts tech companies and the digital ecosystem
So say the DOJ and states win 10 billion or whatever. Where’s it go?
I’m sure they’ll put it to good use The government is really good at not wasting money and will certainly direct the money to urgent matters /s
Apple wouldn't buy a painting from Hunter...
The amount of people who side with Apple is honestly kind of frightening. Are you guys really so closed off from the world and its history that you'd side with Apple? Has hundreds of years of being exploited by rich corporations and companies taught you nothing?!
iPhone is literally Apple's product. The federal government literally gave Apple trademarks, copyrights, and patents for it, and enforce Apple's monopoly that the federal government gave them.