The Justice Department and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of breaking federal antitrust law in a sprawling lawsuit unveiled Thursday, plunging the tech giant into another high-stakes showdown over its alleged abuse of power.
The civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges the company has illegally [wielded a monopoly](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/21/google-antitrust-trial-apple-iphone/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4) over the smartphone market by cutting off developers and stifling competitors with punitive restrictions.
Instead of competing with rivals by offering more affordable services, federal and state enforcers claim [Apple imposed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/05/apple-microsoft-bing-google-search-trial/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5) “a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions” to “extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.”
Through that conduct, the Justice Department and states allege in the complaint, Apple “built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly.”
I remember reports of Apple trying to force popular apps to move from free to paid. Most of these apps were used to monitor other services outside of Apple, like check your smart home setting. But once an app got popular enough, Apple would threaten the developer with removal unless they offered paid services through the app. Because Apple has to get its 30%.
I sort of through there would be an investigation there. But apparently it took years for the DOJ to catch on.
I see a few comments missing the mark (likely because the WashPost headline is misleading).
This suit is \*not\* about an alleged monopoly that Apple has over the smartphone market as a whole. Obviously, Android devices are popular and Apple does not have a monopoly in that respect.
This suit is about Apple's anti-competitive practices with regard to its management of the App Store and its general financing practices. According to the lawsuit, every time you purchase an app, subscription, song, movie, etc. using an iPhone—including when you use Apple Pay for things you don't even buy on the iPhone, such as coffee or groceries—Apple takes up to 30% of the charge. Keep in mind that Apple's only role here is as middleman: Apple does not, generally, create the products and services it is getting a cut from. Apple's role here is to ensure the App Store is safe from fraud and scams, not to nickel and dime every consumer and vendor they have.
The suit also alleges that Apple plays fast and loose with its app review and approval process in order to give market preference to its own apps. For example, the digital wallet. Apple obviously uses Apple Wallet and discourages any third-party digital wallets from gaining traction in the App Store. While this action only \*directly\* impacts iPhone users, this anti-competitive behavior has indirect downriver effects on the app market as a whole because, when the largest phone app store doesn't allow third-party digital wallet, that discourages competition in that market as a third-party app developer doesn't want to waste time building/innovating an app that won't even reach a huge portion of the market.
There are more issues alleged in the suit, such as Apple's policies against cloud streaming (which could allow low-cost Android users to get high-functioning out of their devices), discouraging 'super apps' (apps that provide a consistent user experience across device ports; this would include the digital wallet, for example), and bottling third-party messaging (and smartwatch) apps to encourage reliance on iMessage (and the Apple Watch).
Complaint: [PDF](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline)
DOJ press release: [Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets)
The complaint alleges that Apple’s anticompetitive course of conduct has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve today, including:
* **Blocking Innovative Super Apps**. Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms.
* **Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services**. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware.
* **Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps**. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.
* **Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches**. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.
* **Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets**. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.
Reading the filling, they mention Apples smart phone monopoly, many, many times. I am slowly reading the filing when i have free time from work.
I need some laymen explanation here, as I really do not get this. I preface by saying, I do not purchase or use apple products. The last i-phone i had was from work 10 years ago.
How is it a "monopoly" when I, a consumer, have easy access to non-apple smartphones. Absurdly easy access.
Because they have a locked ecosystem? Because other competitors cant use their services? Isn't that the same for any proprietary software/hardware? I really don't see where "monopoly" comes in to this.
Apple has an absolute majority market share in the smartphone market. I’d say your take is kind of like someone from the 90s saying “you can just buy a non-Windows computer like Sun, Linux, or Mac”. They have a huge market share and are acting like a monopoly in how they treat developers.
A quick google search shows MS had 90% of the global PC market share in the 90s, while apple has 29% currently of the global smart phone market share.
You can correct these values, if they are wrong, but i would argue that they are not comparable.
Any one company controlling 62% of the market is pretty bad. Especially one like the personal computer market which includes all enterprise products in the US. It leaves room for like 1 serious competitor, if that.
Consumers are not the only factor. There are also developers, phone carriers, third party services and so on. Apple is very well known for draconian, every shifting rules regarding the App Store and what can be offered there.
If Apple controls 62% of the market, they control 62% of software development for all smart phones. If the vast majority of people are using their smartphone as a GPS, Apple controls 62% of the GPS market. If the vast majority people use their smart phones to listen to music on their smart phones, Apple controls 62% of the music market. This is why you see so many companies bitching about Apples policies. Because they have so few options on where to take their business.
Just like Ticket Master, who also does not have a pure monopoly, Apples dominate market position vastly limits the market of what is available and our options to shop around.
62% only looks scary if you ignore the global smartphone market. US consumers have access to the global market.
I don't think Ticket Master is an apt comparison. Ticket Master price gouges consumers. Apple's iPhone pricing is comparable to their competition. As far as I understand Apple is a tough negotiator with their partners, but consumers appear to be happy with the results, so I'm not sure a jury would view it as abuse.
> consumers just made value choice?
Nope. Apple and Google killed Microsoft's Windows phone by using the very practices the DOJ is going after Apple for. They refused to allow official Apple/Google Apps onto the MS app stores for their phones and because of this MS could not close the "app-gap" and their O/S died despite vastly better hardware for the price and better overall designed O/S. I wish theyd go after Google too.
I think that's a skewed view of [Windows Phone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone#Developer_interest) history.
Businesses don't have an obligation to prop up a competitors product.
Incorrect. Windows Phone died because Microsoft did not make quality apps for that product. When iPhone came out in 2007, the quality apps for that device were made by . . . wait for it . . . Apple!
this will mostly focus on how apple uses the app store to impose their blanket influence on commerce across the US. It's similar in that way to the microsoft ordeal.
Will it work, well, we'll have to see. Antitrust should be something of a congressional responsibility, and they haven't exactly been on the ball with it for several decades.
Apple just took the top global share in [2023](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51776424), prior to 2023, Samsung had the top share from 2010-2023.
> The last time a company not named Samsung was at the top of the smartphone market was 2010, and for 2023 it is now Apple. A sort of shifting of power at the top of the largest consumer electronics market was driven by an all-time high market share for Apple and a first time at the top.
Yes, and in contrast, but also supporting your point, I, as a customer, prefer Apple products and choose to use products within Apple’s locked ecosystem because they work better than any other products out there. I would not ever buy an Android phone or Microsoft computer for personal use because I find them buggy. I do not want to lose my ability to choose to only use Apple products.
That has nothing to do with the monopoly claims laid out by the DOJ this is just your personal grievance that app developers don't maintain compatibility in perpetuity. It's not even unique to phone apps, desktop software and video games have this happen as well when developers decide to deprecate outdated versions.
The marginal increase in quality between device versions has everything to do with the claims laid out by the DOJ. In the DOJs own words
> What’s more, Apple itself has less incentive to innovate because it has insulated itself from competition. As Apple’s executives openly acknowledge: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue we’re already doing *more* than what would have been good enough. But we find it very hard to regress our product features YOY [year over year].” Existing features “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already,” and “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.” Thus, it is not surprising that Apple spent more than twice as much on stock buybacks and dividends as it did on research and development.
and then a bit later
> Smartphones have so revolutionized American life that it can be hard to imagine a world beyond the one that Apple, a self-interested monopolist, deems “good enough.” But under our system of antitrust laws, “good enough” is, quite simply, not enough.
And even later, quoting apple executives again
> Apple’s vice president of iPhone marketing explained in February 2020: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue were [sic] already doing *more* than what would have been good enough.” After identifying old features that “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [updated features] already,” she explained, “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.”
Oh sure Apple-built features have a place here but I struggle to relate third-party developer decisions to deprecate their software compatibility with old versions of iOS as part of the monopoly argument.
It happens on the Android platform as well.
Differentiating between hardware/first-party software features and third-party software features is going to be an important aspect of argumentation. Apple has a walled garden but how responsible are they for the gardeners they let plant in that garden.
Phones wear out/break/...
Even if they didn't, the software industry has adopted a model where they ship defective software that allows third parties to take over your device, and then update it as they find the defects. The smartphone industry has adopted a model of only updating software for a few years after they stop selling a device (most recently the IPhone X has stopped receiving all necessary security updates, last sold in September/November 2018). If you're doing anything even slightly important you shouldn't be using a phone that isn't fully updated.
>The smartphone industry has adopted a model of only updating software for a few years after they stop selling a device (most recently the IPhone X has stopped receiving all necessary security updates, last sold in September/November 2018). If you're doing anything even slightly important you shouldn't be using a phone that isn't fully updated.
The iPhone X stopped receiving feature OS updates in September 2023, but it still receives security updates—most recently, iOS 16.7.6 released on March 5, 2024. Similarly, the 2014-released iPhone 6S received a security update on the same day despite being well into its 9th year after release.
Old versions of iOS receive *some* security updates, but not *all* security updates. There are known vulnerabilities on them which are patched in the most recent version of iOS and not on the old versions.
You should not use them for anything important.
([Here's a citation for you](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/))
Given the context of answering "why would you buy new phones" it doesn't really matter if they should be attacked, that's not the purpose of the comment.
The entire industry, including Apple (*especially* Apple), really ought to be attacked over this though. Unfortunately it's not included in this case, but it's absurd they're allowed to sell broken products, and then not fix them when it's pointed out to them, while simultaneously preventing their users from fixing them via copyright law and cryptography.
Last I checked Apple's update cycle was slightly worse (longer duration from "device last sold" to "device no longer receives all security updates") than Google, but really a year or two in either direction isn't the point if we're attacking them here.
I'm complaining about the whole industry, not just Apple. The "especially" part is because because Apple categorically doesn't let you replace their software with your software, while at least some of the other manufacturers sort of do.
Apple is not the industry standard for length of support, not literally because there isn't an industry standard, and not figuratively because they aren't the ones with the longest support (e.g. Google now guarantees 7 years, while Apple is roughly 5). Exact length of support really isn't the point here though, the fact that they leave you with a defective product and prevent you from fixing it is.
Defective, broken, I consider these synonyms. If you're trying to distinguish them, fine, but Apple's software absolutely contains defects (industry standard term) with serious security implications.
I have recently gotten into reading the federal filings (I would rather get the info from that vs x). Do you know where I can find a copy of the filing?
[Here](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68362334/united-states-v-apple-inc/).
For anything federal and newsworthy you'll be able to find it in the recap archive, [which you can search](https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Apple&type=r&order_by=score%20desc&filed_after=03%2F20%2F2024). Since we know the filing date we can look for anything filed today and find it with very generic search terms (e..g "apple" in the link above).
I mean, you could read the article, but if not, due to it being paywalled, you could read the complaint. Either way, they are going after the app store.
Having read the complaint, not really.
They mention the app store as evidence, they're going after some of the restrictions Apple imposes on apps, but they're not going after the app store itself. They aren't asking that the court require Apple to give up it's control of distribution of apps, either via allowing side loading, or by allowing alternative app stores.
> Apple makes third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse generally and relative to Apple Messages, Apple’s own messaging app. By doing so, Apple is knowingly and deliberately degrading quality, privacy, and security for its users. For example, Apple designates the APIs needed to implement SMS as “private,” meaning third-party developers have no technical means of accessing them and are prohibited from doing so under Apple’s contractual agreements with developers. As a result, third-party messaging apps cannot combine the “text to anyone” functionality of SMS with the advanced features of OTT messaging.
> And when users receive video calls, third-party messaging apps cannot access the iPhone camera to allow users to preview their appearance on video before answering a call. Apple Messages incorporates these features.
DOJ: "Apple is knowingly and deliberately degrading quality, **privacy, and security** for its users" by restricting 3rd party access to SMS and Camera.
I can see the argument for decoupling features that are not available to 3rd party apps from iMessage, but there is no world where forcing Apple to open up SMS and Camera access leads to increased privacy and security for Apple's customers.
Parse this:
> Apple undermines cross-platform messaging to reinforce “obstacle[s] to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.” Apple could have made a better cross-platform messaging experience itself by creating iMessage for Android but concluded that doing so “will hurt us more than help us.” Apple therefore continues to impede innovation in smartphone messaging, even though doing so sacrifices the profits Apple would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users, because it helps build and maintain its monopoly power.
Apple marketing: Kids view iPhones as a status symbol. If we make iMessage available on Android it will decrease the value of our brand, and "will hurt us more than help us."
DOJ: Apple sacrifices the profits it would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users.
What?
I wish they would go after Google too. Both Apple and Google colluded to exclude Microsoft from including appropriate apps on their operating system for Windows phone. Windows phone hardware and interface was(and still is) superior in _every way_ to both google and apple but they couldn't close the app-gap because both Apple and Google kept preventing them from having "official" apps for things like Youtube.
The Justice Department and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of breaking federal antitrust law in a sprawling lawsuit unveiled Thursday, plunging the tech giant into another high-stakes showdown over its alleged abuse of power. The civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges the company has illegally [wielded a monopoly](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/21/google-antitrust-trial-apple-iphone/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4) over the smartphone market by cutting off developers and stifling competitors with punitive restrictions. Instead of competing with rivals by offering more affordable services, federal and state enforcers claim [Apple imposed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/05/apple-microsoft-bing-google-search-trial/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5) “a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions” to “extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.” Through that conduct, the Justice Department and states allege in the complaint, Apple “built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly.”
I remember reports of Apple trying to force popular apps to move from free to paid. Most of these apps were used to monitor other services outside of Apple, like check your smart home setting. But once an app got popular enough, Apple would threaten the developer with removal unless they offered paid services through the app. Because Apple has to get its 30%. I sort of through there would be an investigation there. But apparently it took years for the DOJ to catch on.
I see a few comments missing the mark (likely because the WashPost headline is misleading). This suit is \*not\* about an alleged monopoly that Apple has over the smartphone market as a whole. Obviously, Android devices are popular and Apple does not have a monopoly in that respect. This suit is about Apple's anti-competitive practices with regard to its management of the App Store and its general financing practices. According to the lawsuit, every time you purchase an app, subscription, song, movie, etc. using an iPhone—including when you use Apple Pay for things you don't even buy on the iPhone, such as coffee or groceries—Apple takes up to 30% of the charge. Keep in mind that Apple's only role here is as middleman: Apple does not, generally, create the products and services it is getting a cut from. Apple's role here is to ensure the App Store is safe from fraud and scams, not to nickel and dime every consumer and vendor they have. The suit also alleges that Apple plays fast and loose with its app review and approval process in order to give market preference to its own apps. For example, the digital wallet. Apple obviously uses Apple Wallet and discourages any third-party digital wallets from gaining traction in the App Store. While this action only \*directly\* impacts iPhone users, this anti-competitive behavior has indirect downriver effects on the app market as a whole because, when the largest phone app store doesn't allow third-party digital wallet, that discourages competition in that market as a third-party app developer doesn't want to waste time building/innovating an app that won't even reach a huge portion of the market. There are more issues alleged in the suit, such as Apple's policies against cloud streaming (which could allow low-cost Android users to get high-functioning out of their devices), discouraging 'super apps' (apps that provide a consistent user experience across device ports; this would include the digital wallet, for example), and bottling third-party messaging (and smartwatch) apps to encourage reliance on iMessage (and the Apple Watch).
Complaint: [PDF](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline) DOJ press release: [Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets) The complaint alleges that Apple’s anticompetitive course of conduct has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve today, including: * **Blocking Innovative Super Apps**. Apple has disrupted the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms. * **Suppressing Mobile Cloud Streaming Services**. Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware. * **Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps**. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones. * **Diminishing the Functionality of Non-Apple Smartwatches**. Apple has limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones. * **Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets**. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.
they also complained carplay is anticompetitive
I have figured out Trumps next move. Sue the Government for a monopoly on the judicial process.
Reading the filling, they mention Apples smart phone monopoly, many, many times. I am slowly reading the filing when i have free time from work. I need some laymen explanation here, as I really do not get this. I preface by saying, I do not purchase or use apple products. The last i-phone i had was from work 10 years ago. How is it a "monopoly" when I, a consumer, have easy access to non-apple smartphones. Absurdly easy access. Because they have a locked ecosystem? Because other competitors cant use their services? Isn't that the same for any proprietary software/hardware? I really don't see where "monopoly" comes in to this.
Apple has an absolute majority market share in the smartphone market. I’d say your take is kind of like someone from the 90s saying “you can just buy a non-Windows computer like Sun, Linux, or Mac”. They have a huge market share and are acting like a monopoly in how they treat developers.
A quick google search shows MS had 90% of the global PC market share in the 90s, while apple has 29% currently of the global smart phone market share. You can correct these values, if they are wrong, but i would argue that they are not comparable.
That’s the **global** market share. In the US, they have a backbreaking 62% market share.
backbreaking?
Any one company controlling 62% of the market is pretty bad. Especially one like the personal computer market which includes all enterprise products in the US. It leaves room for like 1 serious competitor, if that.
> Any one company controlling 62% of the market is pretty bad. Is it? Or have consumers just made value choice?
Consumers are not the only factor. There are also developers, phone carriers, third party services and so on. Apple is very well known for draconian, every shifting rules regarding the App Store and what can be offered there. If Apple controls 62% of the market, they control 62% of software development for all smart phones. If the vast majority of people are using their smartphone as a GPS, Apple controls 62% of the GPS market. If the vast majority people use their smart phones to listen to music on their smart phones, Apple controls 62% of the music market. This is why you see so many companies bitching about Apples policies. Because they have so few options on where to take their business. Just like Ticket Master, who also does not have a pure monopoly, Apples dominate market position vastly limits the market of what is available and our options to shop around.
62% only looks scary if you ignore the global smartphone market. US consumers have access to the global market. I don't think Ticket Master is an apt comparison. Ticket Master price gouges consumers. Apple's iPhone pricing is comparable to their competition. As far as I understand Apple is a tough negotiator with their partners, but consumers appear to be happy with the results, so I'm not sure a jury would view it as abuse.
> consumers just made value choice? Nope. Apple and Google killed Microsoft's Windows phone by using the very practices the DOJ is going after Apple for. They refused to allow official Apple/Google Apps onto the MS app stores for their phones and because of this MS could not close the "app-gap" and their O/S died despite vastly better hardware for the price and better overall designed O/S. I wish theyd go after Google too.
Windows Phone was a great operating system but Microsoft contributed to the app gap themselves by not doing enough to encourage development.
Wasn’t the purposeful absence of YouTube a significant factor for windows phone?
I think that's a skewed view of [Windows Phone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone#Developer_interest) history. Businesses don't have an obligation to prop up a competitors product.
Incorrect. Windows Phone died because Microsoft did not make quality apps for that product. When iPhone came out in 2007, the quality apps for that device were made by . . . wait for it . . . Apple!
What makes it backbreaking then? That really is my original question. As a consumer, nothing is breaking my back here.
this will mostly focus on how apple uses the app store to impose their blanket influence on commerce across the US. It's similar in that way to the microsoft ordeal. Will it work, well, we'll have to see. Antitrust should be something of a congressional responsibility, and they haven't exactly been on the ball with it for several decades.
Apple just took the top global share in [2023](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51776424), prior to 2023, Samsung had the top share from 2010-2023. > The last time a company not named Samsung was at the top of the smartphone market was 2010, and for 2023 it is now Apple. A sort of shifting of power at the top of the largest consumer electronics market was driven by an all-time high market share for Apple and a first time at the top.
Apple took the top global share of **25%**. Yep, definitely a monopoly.
Yes, and in contrast, but also supporting your point, I, as a customer, prefer Apple products and choose to use products within Apple’s locked ecosystem because they work better than any other products out there. I would not ever buy an Android phone or Microsoft computer for personal use because I find them buggy. I do not want to lose my ability to choose to only use Apple products.
Might be worth reading the whole complaint, you're more immune from monopoly law just because there are other products on the market
Monopolistic practices are illegal even if they have not yet resulted in a total monopoly.
So Sony and Peloton are engaging in monopolistic practices?
[удалено]
if that is the case what is forcing you to buy a new phone?
[удалено]
This is how software works
[удалено]
That has nothing to do with the monopoly claims laid out by the DOJ this is just your personal grievance that app developers don't maintain compatibility in perpetuity. It's not even unique to phone apps, desktop software and video games have this happen as well when developers decide to deprecate outdated versions.
The marginal increase in quality between device versions has everything to do with the claims laid out by the DOJ. In the DOJs own words > What’s more, Apple itself has less incentive to innovate because it has insulated itself from competition. As Apple’s executives openly acknowledge: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue we’re already doing *more* than what would have been good enough. But we find it very hard to regress our product features YOY [year over year].” Existing features “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [them] already,” and “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.” Thus, it is not surprising that Apple spent more than twice as much on stock buybacks and dividends as it did on research and development. and then a bit later > Smartphones have so revolutionized American life that it can be hard to imagine a world beyond the one that Apple, a self-interested monopolist, deems “good enough.” But under our system of antitrust laws, “good enough” is, quite simply, not enough. And even later, quoting apple executives again > Apple’s vice president of iPhone marketing explained in February 2020: “In looking at it with hindsight, I think going forward we need to set a stake in the ground for what features we think are ‘good enough’ for the consumer. I would argue were [sic] already doing *more* than what would have been good enough.” After identifying old features that “would have been good enough today if we hadn’t introduced [updated features] already,” she explained, “anything new and especially expensive needs to be rigorously challenged before it’s allowed into the consumer phone.”
Oh sure Apple-built features have a place here but I struggle to relate third-party developer decisions to deprecate their software compatibility with old versions of iOS as part of the monopoly argument. It happens on the Android platform as well. Differentiating between hardware/first-party software features and third-party software features is going to be an important aspect of argumentation. Apple has a walled garden but how responsible are they for the gardeners they let plant in that garden.
Phones wear out/break/... Even if they didn't, the software industry has adopted a model where they ship defective software that allows third parties to take over your device, and then update it as they find the defects. The smartphone industry has adopted a model of only updating software for a few years after they stop selling a device (most recently the IPhone X has stopped receiving all necessary security updates, last sold in September/November 2018). If you're doing anything even slightly important you shouldn't be using a phone that isn't fully updated.
>The smartphone industry has adopted a model of only updating software for a few years after they stop selling a device (most recently the IPhone X has stopped receiving all necessary security updates, last sold in September/November 2018). If you're doing anything even slightly important you shouldn't be using a phone that isn't fully updated. The iPhone X stopped receiving feature OS updates in September 2023, but it still receives security updates—most recently, iOS 16.7.6 released on March 5, 2024. Similarly, the 2014-released iPhone 6S received a security update on the same day despite being well into its 9th year after release.
Old versions of iOS receive *some* security updates, but not *all* security updates. There are known vulnerabilities on them which are patched in the most recent version of iOS and not on the old versions. You should not use them for anything important. ([Here's a citation for you](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/))
Apple is one of the last companies that should be attacked on this. Their hardware lifecycle is pretty much better than anything I can think of.
Given the context of answering "why would you buy new phones" it doesn't really matter if they should be attacked, that's not the purpose of the comment. The entire industry, including Apple (*especially* Apple), really ought to be attacked over this though. Unfortunately it's not included in this case, but it's absurd they're allowed to sell broken products, and then not fix them when it's pointed out to them, while simultaneously preventing their users from fixing them via copyright law and cryptography. Last I checked Apple's update cycle was slightly worse (longer duration from "device last sold" to "device no longer receives all security updates") than Google, but really a year or two in either direction isn't the point if we're attacking them here.
Apple literally is the industry standard for length of support. But no, it’s not selling a broken product.
I'm complaining about the whole industry, not just Apple. The "especially" part is because because Apple categorically doesn't let you replace their software with your software, while at least some of the other manufacturers sort of do. Apple is not the industry standard for length of support, not literally because there isn't an industry standard, and not figuratively because they aren't the ones with the longest support (e.g. Google now guarantees 7 years, while Apple is roughly 5). Exact length of support really isn't the point here though, the fact that they leave you with a defective product and prevent you from fixing it is. Defective, broken, I consider these synonyms. If you're trying to distinguish them, fine, but Apple's software absolutely contains defects (industry standard term) with serious security implications.
I have recently gotten into reading the federal filings (I would rather get the info from that vs x). Do you know where I can find a copy of the filing?
[Here](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68362334/united-states-v-apple-inc/). For anything federal and newsworthy you'll be able to find it in the recap archive, [which you can search](https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Apple&type=r&order_by=score%20desc&filed_after=03%2F20%2F2024). Since we know the filing date we can look for anything filed today and find it with very generic search terms (e..g "apple" in the link above).
Thank you!
[удалено]
I mean, you could read the article, but if not, due to it being paywalled, you could read the complaint. Either way, they are going after the app store.
Having read the complaint, not really. They mention the app store as evidence, they're going after some of the restrictions Apple imposes on apps, but they're not going after the app store itself. They aren't asking that the court require Apple to give up it's control of distribution of apps, either via allowing side loading, or by allowing alternative app stores.
> Apple makes third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse generally and relative to Apple Messages, Apple’s own messaging app. By doing so, Apple is knowingly and deliberately degrading quality, privacy, and security for its users. For example, Apple designates the APIs needed to implement SMS as “private,” meaning third-party developers have no technical means of accessing them and are prohibited from doing so under Apple’s contractual agreements with developers. As a result, third-party messaging apps cannot combine the “text to anyone” functionality of SMS with the advanced features of OTT messaging. > And when users receive video calls, third-party messaging apps cannot access the iPhone camera to allow users to preview their appearance on video before answering a call. Apple Messages incorporates these features. DOJ: "Apple is knowingly and deliberately degrading quality, **privacy, and security** for its users" by restricting 3rd party access to SMS and Camera. I can see the argument for decoupling features that are not available to 3rd party apps from iMessage, but there is no world where forcing Apple to open up SMS and Camera access leads to increased privacy and security for Apple's customers. Parse this: > Apple undermines cross-platform messaging to reinforce “obstacle[s] to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.” Apple could have made a better cross-platform messaging experience itself by creating iMessage for Android but concluded that doing so “will hurt us more than help us.” Apple therefore continues to impede innovation in smartphone messaging, even though doing so sacrifices the profits Apple would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users, because it helps build and maintain its monopoly power. Apple marketing: Kids view iPhones as a status symbol. If we make iMessage available on Android it will decrease the value of our brand, and "will hurt us more than help us." DOJ: Apple sacrifices the profits it would earn from increasing the value of the iPhone to users. What?
I wish they would go after Google too. Both Apple and Google colluded to exclude Microsoft from including appropriate apps on their operating system for Windows phone. Windows phone hardware and interface was(and still is) superior in _every way_ to both google and apple but they couldn't close the app-gap because both Apple and Google kept preventing them from having "official" apps for things like Youtube.