Class action lawsuit over Apple's 5GB iCloud limit and iOS backup restrictions
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
There are a number of issues with how Apple implemented and markets iCloud:
1. Apple offers no options to help manage what you would like to remove to free up space, but rather presents a plan upgrade as the only option.
2. Apple also encourages the syncing of as many devices as possible and unnecessarily offloads unused items into iCloud to fill the storage space. Again, Apple does not explain to users how they can reduce the use of storage.
3. I recently helped a friend's child use Quicktime. It was not possible to start new recordings in the app until the annoying "Upgrade your storage" pop-up was closed.
To summarize, Apple's iCloud storage feels very shady and gimmicky relative to their old ethos of focusing on the customer. It is especially designed to help the shareholder, not the user.
But like, built into your OS? That's a new low that was reserved only for Microsoft for a while. I agree with the parent comment - this sort of first-party advertisement was one of the things that soured me on MacOS.
> Much of the lawsuit’s emphasis is on the fact that iPhone users only have one option when it comes to full device backups
I buy iPhones because I want a tightly integrated environment.
The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.
Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition. If you want a more open platform, just get an Android phone.
That's Apple's core issue, maybe.
Now, look at it from the perspective of a sovereign market. Their core issue (a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.) is how much they are willing to allow while admitting market access. In Microsoft's case, their manipulation of technical capabilities was considered illegal monopoly action. Apple is treading on the exact same ground with Safari and going even further in the case of the App Store - corrective litigation was an inevitability.
Apple ultimately doesn't have to abide by the EU's decisions if they don't intend to intend to access their markets. Governments[0] already[1] control[2] so much[3] of iOS[4] though[5] that it's kinda a moot point =)
> Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition.
It can be argued that competition with Android is not what iCloud, Safari and App Store regulation is about. It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the DMA or Japan's equivalent legislation.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Prism_sl...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/us/politics/nso-contract-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
[4] https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
[5] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-sta...
Can't you see how ridiculously anticompetitive this attitude is?
I will vote with my wallet. If Ikea branded meatballs and their bowls combo provides more value for me, I would buy them.
No, you can always do a full backup with your PC/Mac. And as with any local backup, of course you can move it to any cloud storage you want.
Anyone arguing that they want to use some of these more obscure cloud backup solutions almost certainly has a Mac or PC at home.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the same ease of use and integration that iCloud affords, but extended to other clouds. Requiring additional steps (back up to machine, then upload to cloud) are, technically, nonsense, and is simply Apple flexing its’ anti-competitive muscle.
https://github.com/libimobiledevice/libimobiledevice/issues/...
Bunch of people suing Apple because they don't like how their iPhones back up to iCloud is an equivalent of a child throwing tantrums because their favourite toy won't accept other batteries it wasn't designed for.
It's not like Apple put a gun to anyone's head to force them to buy iPhones and Apple has been clear about how their devices work from the get-go. If people are salty about how iPhones work, they should choose to buy other devices or pound sand. Because, some people actually like how their iDevices work with the closed-loop integrations it offers.
Your car doesn't limit which brand of tires you buy or which streets you take. Your TV doesn't limit what channels you watch. Why should your phone be any different?
The good news is, Apple has a clear-cut path to compliance that really only interferes with their business ambitions. If they can set aside some of their arbitrary limitations, even optionally, then the iPhone can continue to be sold alongside other smartphones. But nobody owes Apple access to a market they intend to abuse; you've lost all understandings of boundaries if you believe that kind of Ayn Rand nonsense.
> is an equivalent of a child throwing tantrums because their favourite toy won't accept other batteries it wasn't designed for.
You either misunderstand why people are angry, or you're deliberately leaving out the details that make this important.
These are grown adults who are rightfully angry that their smartphone limits it's software compatibility to exploit them. In your backwards analogy, it's more like a child being confused that they can't use their favorite toy because the proprietary AAA batteries cost 30-50x more than a normal battery. That is called market manipulation, and it can be illegal if sufficient damages are proven.
Setting aside the remarks about Apple vs EU regulators, which, by the way I think are in bad taste, but I won't get into it here because then we might get distracted, I think that the people who are angry because "it's more like a child ... a normal battery" are wrong because Apple has been transparent from the start about how their ecosystem works and before people invest in this ecosystem.
It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people to the effect of "one can use standard AAA batteries in this toy" to close a sale and then told them something to the effect of "sorry, it only accepts proprietary batteries".
Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.
I'm sincerely sorry if I offended any Apple employees in the process. Otherwise I'm not really sure what "bad taste" you could be referring to. Maybe I scared off a few $AAPL shareholders by suggesting the obvious? Help me at least understand my mistake before we ignore it.
> It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people
Nor did Microsoft when they sold Windows with Netscape-inhibiting features. Nor did Ma Bell when they modified telephones to work on their network. Both of those ended with the courts recommending a company breakup, Apple is going to need a stronger defense if it's purely based on non-deception.
Apple's arbitrary limitation of basic capabilities cannot persist in a competitive market. The USB-C regulation was proof that Apple can acquiesce, the world did not crumble because Lightning or MFi is now depreciated. Similarly, holding Apple to minimum standards shouldn't threaten their bottom line if they truly offer superior first-party services. Their kicking and screaming more or less confirms that Apple's profitability hinges on total control, not premium differentiation.
> Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.
It's based on my understanding of the history and precedent of US and European antitrust rulings. If that doesn't apply to your jurisdiction then maybe you're right. In the majority of Apple's meaningful markets, their service revenue is seriously threatened.
I completely accept the history associated with Microsoft and Bell. But I also do not discount the possibilities that, sometimes, the regulators are wrong. There is plenty of criticisms of those verdicts in the pages of history already which don't need to paraphrased here again.
If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die. No harm no foul. It is actually great for people because it opens opportunity to disrupt the market. Therefore, I think that ultimately, letting Apple do its own thing is actually the best thing to do. Let them decide how they want to handle their company.
On which grounds? Wrong as-in, you disagree with their interpretation of the law, or as-in disagree with their punishment? Or do you have evidence the regulators lacked?
The greatest lawyers in the world were payed yacht-club money to figure this out, and the furthest they got was saving Microsoft from a breakup. I don't agree with every law or court decision either, but in hindsight it almost feels like the US hasn't done enough antitrust regulation. Google and Apple are both well overdue for a reckoning.
> If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die.
Well, not exactly. Pretty much every single modern antitrust lawsuit has arisen because the company in question won't die. Anticompetitive behavior often benefits users to entice them into defending a broken system, like offering ActiveX or free long-distance service. Again, neither of those things necessarily "killed" their parent company (nor effectively functioned as a defense in court).
> Let them decide how they want to handle their company.
That's a good note to leave things off on. Likewise, let Europe's constituent states decide how to handle their markets and neither of us will end up disappointed.