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.
.
@feloneouscat
It would be like if a giant TV manufacturer got 2/3 of the market for TVs and broadcast towers, and broadcast signals that stripped out the color from transmissions going to any TVs but the ones they make, or from any programs that didn't pay them a fee.
Antitrust has little to do with who made something. It has to do with when a company controls so much of a market that they can set the rules however they like, harming customers and competition.
@feloneouscat When a company controls multiple levels of a market they have enormous leverage that can allow them to manipulate and control that market in ways that prevent competition, innovation, and choice.
For instance, Elon Musk can be as obnoxious as he wants, because he can restrict Starlink access. Or Apple can force people to use weird non-standard expensive connectors (until the EU stopped them!), or strip out message data from people's messages.
You keep trying to argue that a protocol is “standard” when in fact there is rarely a single protocol. The US at one point had FIVE different cellphone protocols (let the market decide and you end up with multiple competing protocols). Are any of them “standard”?
No.
Are connectors “standard? No. What your argument is devolves into “until a law is passed, it isn’t standard” which is an interesting take. It’s how laws work, not how engineering works.