I’m not usually pro-corporation but I’m a little puzzled how you can have a monopoly on your own product—isn’t that kind of what capitalism is about?
I’m puzzled as to what the end-game is here?
Are all businesses required to give competitors access? What about Microsoft? Or are they not a “monopoly” because they run on other companies hardware?
Justice has a very weird and confusing case that really doesn’t fit the concept of monopoly.
https://moneywise.com/news/sen-elizabeth-warren-calls-out-apple-for-dirty-tactics
@feloneouscat Since Apple controls a major portion of telecommunications through their platform, and that telecommunications is part of general communications systems that are legally required to interoperate, when Apple prevents other services from using all features or accessing their phones, they're using monopoly tactics to push people into abandoning competitors.
They're unfairly using market control on something meant to be interoperable for the community.
And yet they do interoperable.
As for the “general communications” attempt, we can agree that no phone manufacturer HAS to have text communication, correct? In fact, there are many phones (aka dumb phones) that have ZERO ability to text.
Is the argument that ALL communications (I.e FB, et Al) are required by law to have APIs?)
As an engineer for over 40 years, I’m anxious to see that law.
I’m at a loss as Microsoft and Google (aka Android) has faced no such pressure.
Having a “monopoly” on the product you make is not illegal.
This is merely a bogus argument. Apple has not prevented anyone from making an app to communicate. I do so all the time with FB messenger.
Cell phones MUST interoperate with phone networks. That is law. Apple, along with every other cellphone manufacturer, does. There is no illegal monopoly going on.
Likewise, their Messaging app DOES allow operation with Android. Whether the message bubble is green or blue is irrelevant as it is only seen one iPhone, not on Android. I’m puzzled why that is even an issue.
How is the color of a message bubble an interoperation issue? This seems rather ludicrous.
@feloneouscat We currently really have two giant monopolies controlling the entire phone market. Android at least licenses its OS out to different phone manufacturers, but between them, they have almost the entire smartphone market locked up.
Phones, like everything else, use communication standards and protocols that are meant to be agreed-on, so for instance, people who buy one brand of phone can still talk to people on another. Same with broadcast devices.
...
@feloneouscat One of the things Apple does is refuse to use the standard protocol for text messaging that carriers and phone providers (smart and dumb phones) use. This strips formatting, attachments, and other features. It's only broken because Apple wants it that way, and their CEO's response is if you don't like it, buy all Apple stuff.
So that alone is likely basis for some of the troubles Apple has.
...
@feloneouscat The color of the bubble is not the issue. The stripping out of other data and metadata, causing a fully-functional message to appear broken, unformatted, or without images or other content (done to make it appear other phones are the problem) is the issue.
.
@AskTheDevil “the color of the bubble” actually is the issue as it indicates an SMS message.
MERRICK GARLAND: As any iPhone user who has ever seen a green text message or received a tiny, grainy video can attest, Apple's anticompetitive conduct also includes making it more difficult for iPhone users to message with users of non-Apple product.
They literally are mad because they don’t know that the green bubble means SMS protocol.
In the bad old days, telecom companies (NOT APPLE) charged people for using SMS. That is why the bubbles are green (or as some wag put it, “the green color is to let you know you are spending money”).
Now most telecoms offer unlimited messaging. The green bubbles are a holdover, NOT designed to be discriminatory. The fact Justice doesn’t know this shows you the lawsuit is ignorant of history.
This is why the lawsuit is hilarious.
@feloneouscat @AskTheDevil from a legal perspective the DOJ will have a very difficult time with this. This is very similar to the multiple lawsuits brought to stop mergers that have failed, but are admittedly brought to put pressure on industry. Unless the law changes, they will not win and if it does change, then the Switch, Playstation, and Xbox are going to be forced open too.
“Unless the law changes, they will not win and if it does change, then the Switch, Playstation, and Xbox are going to be forced open too.”
And THEN I can bitch at GM for using their own dashboard system instead of Apple’s CarPlay which works (vs GM’s system which is buggy as hell).
If Justice does succeed this will do incredible and long lasting damage to business and increase costs for consumers.
1/2
2/2 Because businesses will have to assure that their systems will have to be interoperable WHETHER OR NOT anyone really wants them to be.
As someone who has led design of hardware as well as software based solutions, this will have a chilling effect on novel solutions.
Tesla created a NON-STANDARD design because there was no legal requirement to do so. If Justice gets it’s way, the first design will become the “standard”—even if it is crappy (like SMS).
@Gambit_1 @AskTheDevil
What most people do not see, or understand, is how much time and effort goes into creating API’s (as well as the time-intensive testing that is required). This will quite literally KILL small competitors, not help them—because THEY TOO will have to assure that everyone has access to THEIR protocols.
This is a nightmare.
Today, I can create a protocol without Justice peering over my shoulder. Justice is talking about a cost they do not understand (nor do many others).