- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
You must log in or register to comment.
With Apple tipping over the ~50% market share in the US and with the current rulings in the EU, maybe the US DOJ smell blood in the water. Hopefully something unusually good for the consumer will come of this, but I won’t be shocked if it doesn’t.
I only recently found out about iPhones having 50% market share in the US and that’s insane to me. I think anyone who’s used both Android and iPhones a lot knows that iPhones are both a worse product and worse value for money, so in a fair market they would be the minority
They’re certainly a much worse value for the money and intentionally constrained in ways that maximize the profits of Apple services by making it inconvenient or impossible to use alternatives, but the UI is substantially better than Android. Aside from that and Apple device interoperability benefits, nearly any Android phone is a better choice for most people.
but the UI is substantially better than Android.
Yeah, hard disagree
For one, you can make Android look/behave like anything you want.
In general, I agree. I’ll add two things:
- Android allows you to use third party launchers if you don’t like the one that comes with your phone. I use Nova Launcher, for instance. I’m not an Apple person, but to my knowledge that’s either not possible or a pain to do on an iPhone. It also lets me buy from different Android device manufacturers and keep a consistent UI across all of them.
- Android has some serious UX issues in a few places. The one that gets me the most is when you share something. The interface you get differs based on the source app, sometimes only has a handful of visible options with no sorting or recency options, and it hides the fact that’s you can scroll to see more, but never more than about four at a time.
Still, I’ll take it over an iPhone any day.
The IOS UI is so cumbersome
but the UI is substantially better than Android
For children and drunks, maybe.
Agree to disagree I guess! I used an iPhone X as my daily driver for 3 years and was overjoyed to get the Android UI back when I switched back. The iPhone visuals are more consistent but the UX is significantly worse imo. There are a few things that I reckon are mainly just Apple being stubborn and refusing to admit they were wrong - e.g. the lack of a back button
I’m reminded that Macs did not have right buttons for decades because Steve Jobbs didn’t want them.
I have an iMac for work. Right-click is still disabled by default on macOS. One of the first things our company has us do is re-enable it. I was provided a third-party mouse, some others were provided a Magic Mouse which doesn’t have a right mouse button.
The UI is terrible. Unintuitive and can’t be customized. What’s good about it?
Hard disagree. iOS UI/UX is sub par compared to Android. Consistent visuals and fancier animations don’t mean that the UI is good.
I find the UI to be so much worse lol
Now we just need the US to force carriers to automatically unlock phones after they are paid off.
They do actually. What you’re talking about is unlocking the bootloader.
I wanted to borrow a friend’s [old] phone to try out graphene but he got it from Verizon and they keep the bootloaders locked so it was worthless.
A lot of carriers make you wait a certain period of time before unlocking. I’m hoping that I can get my phone unlocked so I can install graphene OS. I got a good deal on it so that’s why I bought it locked, I’m going to degoogle it as much as possible until I can get the bootloader unlocked.
Hang a phone carrier unlocked and unlocking the bootloader are very different things.
I am well aware but you can’t unlock the boot loader without having a phone carrier unlocked.
It’s been a while since I did it, but every single time I’ve unlocked a bootloader it’s been on a carrier-locked device. I’d usualy do it to remove carrier bloat.
Carrier Unlocking is required before a phone can be bootloader unlocked, at least on my Pixel 8.
Ahh - I think I see what you’re getting at.
I think the Pixel allows unlocking the bootloader, so it’s just the carrier in the way.
Most phones have to be hacked to unlock the bootloader because of the manufacturer locking it, so the carrier doesn’t really matter since you’re having to bypass locks anyway.
As soon as smartphones started becoming commonplace in like 2009 or so, I dropped Verizon because I wasn’t going to pay $500 for a smartphone that couldn’t have custom roms. Verizon can go fuck themselves.
What? Unbelievable. I’m shocked. Shocked, I say. This really comes as a surprise. I would’ve never expected this. No one would have seen this coming. This is really outrageous. They are innocent. I can’t comprehend this. No way! It’s not acceptable! /i
– Apple Fan, probably (without the irony flag then)
I mean I’m an Apple user, although not exclusively, and I am very surprised, not because Apple doesn’t deserve it, they absolutely need to be reigned in like all big tech companies. I’m surprised as hell that the US government in 2024 is attempting to crack down an extremely profitable business. You love to see it
While I prefer remaining in the Walled Garden because Apple makes it a veritable Eden compared to so many customer-hostile apps, I can see this. I still think the Walled Garden is better for customers (assuming you can also choose a different ecosystem) and it’s ok for one of many competitors, the rules have to change once you dominate the market. se la vie.
“using private APIs to undermine crossplatform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets,”
- I don’t understand and why all the chat apps don’t disqualify messaging as a concern
- what’s the deal with watches? You can use an Apple Watch without an Apple device. Granted I never looked into other smart watches on an iPhone, so I do t know: what’s the limitation?
- sorry, but confidential stuff like wallets and health records should remain controlled. …. Even if Walmart is funding this
I want to be able to choose a walled garden for my phone, just like I want to choose for game compatibility on my laptop, and ultimate freedom on my servers. Those are the right tools for my needs
I’m always impressed how far corporations managed to convince people to be loyal to them. Not saying it’s a person’s fault, I used to fall pretty badly for corporate bullshit myself.
The whole “walled garden” concept is inherently anti-consumer. Have you ever asked yourself why there hasn’t been any real innovation in the phone/smartwatch fields for years now. Or why phones aren’t cheap to fix anymore. Or why battery life gets so bad after two or so years that most people are forced to buy a new one.
Things don’t have to be this way. We can have well designed products that work together without all the lock in.
I completely disagree. As long as there are valid choices, an option to choose a walled garden has benefits. It’s only a problem when that’s your only realistic choice. In this case, as long as Android is common enough to be a valid choice and there are multiple Android manufacturers, then you really don’t see any of these problems.
If you don’t think there’s any innovation in phones, either
- phones are maturing. They are very powerful and do a lot: revolutionary change is much less likely now
- news fatigue. There are significant improvements in every model; I bet your self from ten years ago would be amazed. Also it’s silly to expect revolutionary change every year. Look less often
Or why battery life gets so bad after two or so years that most people are forced to buy a new one.
- iPhones seem to have better battery life. Come on over to the dark side
- I gave my two year old iPhone to my teen and battery health was still high eighties percent
- it’s really not that expensive to replace a battery. I mean, it might be in the latest models, but I historically pay Apple to do it after 2-3 years (so I can give it to my kid with full battery health) and it really doesn’t seem any more expensive after inflation than it’s been for decades. And there are cheaper places that can do it. While it’s a little frustrating that it’s difficult to do yourself, it’s just not put that bad
Your first point is fair, and I’m not really sure if it’s just the technology maturing or a symptom of stifled innovation. Personally, I think there are still innovations to be made in this space, even big ones. But it’s not just Apple’s fault. The duopoly of iOS and Android has completely cornered the international market, new players have almost no chance, and the 30% cut app developers have to give Apple or Google puts them at a big disadvantage. I think a shakeup in the phone market would be very good for consumers.
iPhones seem to have better battery life.
I just have annecdotal evidence from people I know with iPhones (and mine, too, though it has been a while). It seemed to me, at least, that Apple phones tend to slow down quite a bit after a few years, and they start having battery problems. Some people I know seem to have gotten lucky with the battery thing, others not so much. But if it works well for you, then great!
More importantly, the “garden” is not the problem. If someone chooses to, they should be able to only use Apple products, download only Apps from the Appstore, and trust Apple with their data. It is the “walled” part of the deal which is the problem. Once inside, there should be an out. That is what the DOJ and the EU are trying to accomplish.
“Please sir, don’t take away my manacles. I don’t know how to not be a slave!”
You can only use an Apple Watch with an iPhone. While you CAN use one without a phone, you need an iPhone to configure it the first time (or if you need to reset).
Thry are very locked in.
I once got an Apple Watch as a bonus at work. Had to sell it to a buddy because I couldn’t use it without an iPhone. So dumb.
It would take a big dose of hopium to believe this will amount to anything.
Damn, I am stealing this. Too many good uses:
“She lives in a hopium den”
“Hopium addict”
“Hopium of the masses”
Oh it’s a pretty common Internet thing these days. Hopium and copium.
The anti-trust pressure has increased with this administration. Lina Kahn has been effective at the FTC in bringing a number of cases forward.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ is a very well executed newsletter with more detailed information regarding anti-trust if you’re interested.
Substack 🙄
The content is good, so I support the content.
If all we ever do is hold purity contests over secondary and tertiary concerns, like the platform, we’ll never accomplish anything.
I didn’t say anything about the content. Just… Like… Substack 🙄
Yeah and hasn’t she lost pretty much every case she’s brought forward? She failed big fucking time with the Microsoft/Activision merger even though all the antitrust evidence was right in front of her nose. I’m glad the FTC is trying, because they’re actually doing their job, but they’re doing an awful job when it comes to actually being in court and proving their case.
People shit on Sony for trying to block the merger, but they absolutely were right for trying to block it and now games like starfield, the new Indiana Jones, and probably more in the future will be deliberately left off the PlayStation platform altogether. But that’s all okay right? Because now you get call of duty on gamepass!!! RIGHT???
I mean the Activision case was a bad case though. Microsoft bought their way into… Third place, it’s not enough to need anti trust. Furthermore, Starfield and Indy were already going to be exclusives, those are Bethesda and that acquisition was already long since completed. Plus, it’s not like that’s the invention of exclusives. Sony isn’t exactly pumping over their games to Xbox here.
I see a bunch of complaints against Kahn, but I haven’t been able to find articles on what she did that someone else would have done to be more effective. I don’t normally follow this type of news, so if anyone can point me to some articles, I’d appreciate it.
I’ve heard a few interviews with Kahn, and she sounds like someone looking to make a difference, so I’d like to cheer her on, but if she’s not the right person for the job, it’d be nice to see some examples why. I’d think much could go on to make her lose without it necessarily being due to her actions or inactions.
Why are so many people misspelling her surname? Or is the URL to the news article wrong?
I looked up the difference, and it seems that the majority of us have probably been raised in a place where Kahn is the more common spelling we’d encounter.
https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2023/07/18/lina-khans-antitrust-losses-cast-doubt-on-her-sue-dont-settle-philosophy/?slreturn=20240221150002 apparently she’s just taking the sledgehammer approach of suing companies instead of working with them to understand their motives and to make reasonable concessions that will benefit everyone. If those concession discussions fail then you sue and have more leverage in your case I guess. Either way, it’s a fair criticism IMO, and for the record I’m not really a right leaning individual, I just think she’s jumping into lawsuits without doing her homework first.
Dang paywall. That’s at least something I can look into more directly though, so thank you.
Lemmy makes me feel right wing anymore. I think the general news and politics here might be worse than Reddit, which is a shame. There’s a lot of things I’d like to learn or discuss, but half the threads might as well be bizarro MAGA rallies with how cultish they get.
I just came back to this post from one on Angela Chao, and just like the last one about that story, people are cheering on this lady’s death because they don’t like her brother-in-law. I haven’t been able to find anything about Angela that would indicate she had it coming, but that isn’t stopping anyone. If people have valid criticism of a person or idea, share it. Don’t just keep shouting “such-and-such bad!” over and over.
It didn’t used to seem that way but some of the discussions I’ve had here are actually worse than reddit recently. Take a discussion about Instagram drug sale spammers. I mean, people selling likely counterfeit “xanax” etc to anyone on social media by spamming. Who would stand up for these scumbags? People on Lemmy, apparently, who consider themselves leftists and communicate like sophomoric 19 year olds. “Drugs should be legalized anyway!” Well, that’s not going to make it legal or safe for addictive drugs to be sold on social media and uh, Xanax is legal. I found discussion of the same article on Hacker News and the difference in quality of comments was vast.
Lol that’s exactly the stuff I mean. Legalize drugs, sure. Make them safe and take the business from cartels. Legalize anonymous strangers selling random chemicals, nah.
It was good maybe the first 3 months of the Great Migration, then had a sharp decline. Those first few months were great.
I’m not here for anyone’s militant views on politics, software licensing, diet, or religion. I just tend to avoid most comment sections anymore.
It’s getting worse and worse, completely agree. The reasonable people are getting pushed out by brainless zombies, just like on Twitter or something.
We need to work more on getting in the first few comments before they get there. If I come in and hot takes are all I find, I just move on. I’m sure others do the same.
Lina Kahn
She was pretty good on Planet Money : https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly
I’m willing to take the movement as a good sign. The fact that we haven’t even been talking about this shit for decades now was just depressing. It’s long past time for this shit, and the ball needs to get rolling.
There’s a lot of corporate competitive behavior that’s ok, when you’re one of many, that isn’t anymore when you dominate the market.
- Apple hasn’t dominated US cell phone market for decades yet
- the same behavior is perfectly legit for laptops, because Apple is a small player in that market
- Smartwatches are interesting - I don’t know the dynamics of that market but I don’t know anyone whose smartwatch is not Apple
- Phones haven’t been around for decades and that’s a dumb point
- They actually don’t do the same behavior on macs because it’s illegal
- Thank you for demonstrating the case’s point.
Apple has dominated the smartphone market since the iPhone 5 in the us. I’ve managed my works mdm tool for a decade and never have I seen the android collective share surpass 10% in the pie chart it shows me of versions
Looks like the stats are all over the place but iPhones are about 50% of US market ± 10%. Neither you nor I are representative
Very true, mine is just anecdotal evidence in the end, no matter how much it is
We can hope. Happy to take a chunk out of Apple as they’re often given a free pass as their marketing and branding is so good that customers lap it up.
All I want is RCS on iPhone. I know Apple already said they’re working on it, but I hope legal pressure like this will force them to make the RCS/iMessage integration actually work well (instead of half-assing it which I assume is what they want to do, cuz they want their users to feel frustrated when texting their Android friends)
Can’t we just move past carrier managed messaging? I’d rather my telecom to just be dumb pipes and move everyone to Signal and similar.
The iMessage lock-in is too real for some of us. I know some iPhone users who won’t even install FB Messenger (I know, I don’t use it either. Fuck the Zuck) because it’s not Apple/iMessage. I finally got my family on Signal and “OMG! We can send videos and pictures now!” Yeah, been saying it for years lol.
All I want is RCS on iPhone
Me too, but isn’t this a chicken and egg situation?
- why should Apple add it if carriers don’t support and you haven’t go through Google if you want secure messaging?
- why should carriers support it if so many phones don’t, and why are they ceding security to Google?
- is not Google also a monopolist?
- is RCS even a useful standard if there’s not a consensus to make it ubiquitous?
We all know that these accusations are true.
So much so that I need to ask: is it really illegal to do all these things?
The EU said so, and the US did successfully sue valve for monopoly practices.
Except it wasnt successful since its still in the court, and Valve has counter sued for the lawsuit “abuse(ing) the legal process and interfer(ing) with Valve’s relationships with its customers”
Oh lol my b. I saw the ads for being eligible for compensation and thought they lost.
EU decisions carry no legal weight in US, and I’m sure the laws are very different. Maybe it signals opportunity and regulator opinion but they’re completely independent decisions
Smarter Americans in that past recognized that freedom, including the free market, doesn’t just happen of its own accord, that it has to be defended, legislated. That is how antitrust laws came to be in arguably the most capitalist nation on earth.
Apathetic Americans now have lost sight of the importance of protecting their freedoms.
“Illegal” is not just some hypothetical moral absolute. It is the politics of defending one’s values. Americans clearly no longer value either their freedoms or the free market.
I’ve wondered that in the past when people say Apple has a monopoly - there seems to be choice in the market. One can function fine with an Android phone. But people have said “they have a monopoly on iPhones” which doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course they do, but that’s not the same as a monopoly on mobile phones. Also having a monopoly isn’t illegal, only abusing it is. It’s not legal to have a successful proprietary product?
I’ve wondered that in the past
Well, now you have your answers here in all detail, but it seems you didn’t read them.
I didn’t say I was wondering now. I said I was wondering in the past. In any event, i expect to find out from the court case, not online comments from people who probably lack expertise in antitrust law and are not attorneys.
I also wonder the same, and wish you’d point to those answers, but I think that’s what this whole thing is : a day in court to establish those answers
No, these are not illegal activities until you add “as a monopoly”. Antitrust laws are fine with all sorts of behavior as part of competition but not when you dominate a market and it keeps new competitors out
Everything here will hinge on whether Apple is a monopoly in the markets of concern. I’m sure there are legal definitions and precedents for that.
deleted by creator
Because I asked a different question than you asked. How old are you?
deleted by creator
Lol nice
The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.
So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.
I can’t imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn’t even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.
Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?
- You can use an Apple Watch without an iPhone.
- anyone can create and sell a Watch App - Apple maintains the store and basic functionality
- you can use another brand Watch with an iPhone - I see the apps
I think the point though is you might be able to connect a Garmin to your iPhone but only Apple Watches get special access to certain APIs because “security”.
They don’t have to force them to make an app. Instead they could make them provide an interface that an app can use. Instead of their current strategy of thwarting any attempt to make their ecosystem interoperable with competitor’s devices. I imagine them instantly killing Beeper’s connection to iMessage was a part of this move.
They don’t have to make extra apps, just remove restrictions that make some functionality exclusive to iPhones or Apple Watches. So iPhones get the same access to Apple Watches as other phones, and Apple Watches get the same access to iPhones as other watches.
I can’t imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn’t even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.
No, they can’t really force it. But it’s evidence in support of the accusation.
But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do. And they’d likely be able to bake Android support in by utilizing the already available Wear OS API.
But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do.
That’s kinda true, but not what I was getting at. Android has restrictive background processing limits and the APIs around it keep getting more restrictive and the OEMs like Samsung keep ignoring the rules of how things should work and break your apps when you do it right anyway… Ultimately it’s incredibly difficult to write an app and guarantee background work.
Apple, is even worse on its restrictions of background work, but Apple owns the OS and and can bypass it all for their watch.
Apple will never get to bypass the fuckery you have to deal with on Android, only the Android OEMs get that.
deleted by creator
What do you do though if Apple is telling the truth and allowing 3rd party wallets would degrade the security even for their own wallet?
Perhaps they aren’t lying, but claims about security often involve theoretical weaknesses that aren’t practical to exploit in the real world. Apple is very skilled at making sure those claims align with their business interests.
It would not. It’s really as simple as that, saying as someone with two degrees in cyber security and 7 years of experience as a security consultant for various companies from small shops to multinational businesses, banks, and insurance companies.
I would love to see their threat modelling to justify what they’re saying to brainwash their acolytes… It’s a pure strawman to justify their bullshit.
I would ask them to prove that claim in court for starters.
I would ask them why they feel they’d be liable for users who installed and gave permission to an app that would use NFC readers for payments.
I would ask them why access to the NFC reader by a 3rd party app in any way allows access to Apple Pay’s stored, encrypted data (which it doesn’t need)
I would ask why permission settings and security validations couldn’t be made on API calls with the potential to be harmful. Even for third-party app stores, Apple could still require app reviews and code signing for any apps that want to conduct financial transactions; they just don’t want to because they’ll make less money from Apple Pay.
Apple often handholds user flows and restricts access to features because non-technical folks might be tricked into installing a malicious or insecure service, and Apple stuff is built for non/technical people. But, on the flipside, they often leverage this position to wall you into their garden. This is the problematic practice that needs to be addressed.
Is this really the biggest problem in the US right now? Can the justice department maybe spend some time on gun violence, climate denial, misinformation, dark money in politics…. Like 1000 other things that are literally killing people before we worry about this? Or is this just because it’s an election year and they think it will be popular…
were you breathing as you typed this out?
When your family does spring cleaning, does the entire family all focus on each specific thing individually, or are you capable of collectively handling multiple things at the same time?
Not necessarily the best example, if you split the work up too much, you can end up with a bunch of unfinished projects, when everyone works together on specific items together you are more likely to get specific things done quickly and have them be more fully ‘completed.’
Source: Actually have a family, actually do spring cleaning.
Well, in the case of the DOJ the “individual family member” is a group of people. I was just pointing out that one thing being done doesn’t mean other things are not also being done.
Did EU bite US?
We’re contagious, and we’re not sorry
Can you be more contagious? Virulently so? Pandemic level? I need some of that good EU user privacy law plague in my life.
Uuuh careful what you wish for, that’s how you get a Napoléon
As long as he destroys the HRE
We’ll stamp Europe with
spqrWith French empire
Good, don’t sorry, bite more.
Kinky! Are you on Recon?
👀
antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry
United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).
A market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)
In my opinion, the first quote doesn’t apply at all. Unless you can express how Apple is objectively superior?
And Apple smartphone market share is at the higher end of your second quote. When all competitors are much lower, it may very well be that it is considered a monopoly. Though that’s literally what this case will determine.
Apple has been more successful in the US, so by definition one could conclude they’ve done something better than competitors, whether it’s the products, timing, or something else about their business activities. People aren’t forced to buy iPhones any more than they are forced to buy Android.
By this same logic, on a global scale they are not dominant, so they can be argued to be a worse product, not superior. Therefore, their dominance on the US must be forced by coercive actions and categorized as a monopoly.
Their actions in the US market and tastes of US customers are not necessarily the same as elsewhere in the world. If Apple concentrated marketing in the US, for example, that would be sufficient.
By this logic all monopolies could be described as being better.
I think you could analyze it based on a company’s history. Some companies clearly didn’t earn a monopoly, for instance if they had a market handed to them by the government. Or, if they did the thing that’s actually illegal under antitrust law - used a monopoly in one market to expand to another.
Objectively superior? Superior user experience is entirely subjective, but that is the main selling point of almost everything Apple has done in the last 17 years
Marketing and reality are two different things. It’s definitely not a superior experience. When Apple’s stuff stops working, and it frequently does, the user has zero control to fix anything. Instead, they’re shoehorned into having no recourse other than to use Apple’s support, making them entirely dependent on the company in order to use their device.
Apple purposely hamstrings the user experience to exert control over users.
Whoever down voted you is coping, this is easily seen all over their products. RCS, headphone ports, charging ports, not allowing you to side load apps, the walled garden, yadda yadda. Apple makes good (really expensive) hardware but the rest is marketing.
I think you’re just proving that it is entirely subjective. If it was objectively an inferior experience, I’m confident they wouldn’t be nearly as popular as they are. I get that there are plenty of people who believe firmly that total control over their own electronics is the best experience, and I can understand that. I enjoy tinkering in a Linux machine as much as any Lemmy user. However the vast majority of people do not want to be overwhelmed with the amount of ways they can configure their devices to the point that they can’t discern one choice from another. And my iPhone does exactly what I need it to just as much as my Android did.
Yeah, marketing is definitely part of it. They make their devices sound, look, and appear like they’re some sort of luxury experience. But there’s definitely something extremely smooth about the way Apple’s suite of software works with their hardware, and how their hardware works with each other, and I appreciate that for what it is.
Epic was unsuccessful so I don’t have hopes for this
Be prepared for a lot of hand-wringing about “security”.
Apple, Microsoft, and Google all learned in the last couple years “security” shuts down any arguments, and they use it at every turn to justify whatever they want, regardless of the actual dangers or alternative mitigation methods they could take.
If our modern software security means anti-competitive behavior and user lock-in tactics are OK, then that’s a problem with our security practices, and we need to reevaluate some things.
Market security maybe What’s next im not allowed to read the EULA because i may come up with nefarious ways to still use the service?
If you can read the EULA, then you can learn how to skirt around it, and therefore, letting you read the EULA is against the spirit of the EULA, and should be banned.
If they utter “security for children” the government will probably not only drop the lawsuit but pay Apple $20 billion.
they could get an extra 50 billion if they say “security for children, against terrorists”
Make it $100 billion if the terrorist children have brown faces.
And deduct all billions if we’re talking about domestic terrorism, or if there’s any mention of insurrection.
They learned this line from the government. You can’t criticise goverments after they utter the magical national security buzzwords.
Don’t piss off the small phone fans at the DOJ.
The crux of this suit seems to be that the DOJ believes that Apple needs to make its hardware fair to everyone that can develop on it, and make its software fair to all possible hardware that can run it, which is particularly interesting because Apple’s main product seems to be a pleasant and easy user experience that cuts through the physical barriers of the pieces of hardware it sells. And part of that user experience is the sense of security that is supposed to come with knowing that Apple is (more or less) able to decide who is allowed to access important, secure elements of their hardware.
On the software side of things, I don’t fully understand why or how the DOJ could force Apple to develop better integration support for cross-vendor hardware usage? Why do they need to go the extra mile to make an Apple Watch work well with an Android phone? Because the DOJ says so? I mean, sure I guess that would be better for everyone but it’s a weird thing to require.
