Apple fights to keep DOJ antitrust suit from reaching trial
theverge.com
theverge.com
Both of these companies need to have their asses handed to them. Not just by the US DOJ, but by every country. What we do with our phones is bigger and more important than two companies that got there first. They'll still have their trillions dollar market caps after the DOJ tells them they must allow web installs.
Apple and Google's only role should be to provide a hermetic sandbox with permissions layer and do occasional malware scans. That's it. Once we buy the devices, they're ours, and these companies should have no say as to what innovation takes place and what customer relationships are built after the initial sales are made.
That's why DOJ (same DOJ that let Epstein walk because he "belonged to intelligence") won't do any such thing.
I have an iPhone. It just does its job. Updates in the background. Repairs are a peach, especially by mail. They don’t spam me.
If you’re asking why it’s luxury, it’s a combination of the materials, machining and service experience. Luxury products aren’t necessarily better, certainly not for someone who can’t afford them. They’re simply more luxurious. Easier, more comfortable, et cetera.
So what makes an iPhone more luxurious than say, a Galaxy S24 Ultra, Z Fold 6, Pixel 9 Pro XL or 9 Pro Fold?
The machine quality is totally different.
> what makes an iPhone more luxurious than say, a Galaxy S24 Ultra, Z Fold 6, Pixel 9 Pro XL or 9 Pro Fold
Start with the BOM.
When I say machine quality, though, I’m referring to their titanium and aluminum. I’ve machined some aluminum and know people who have done titanium. It’s really hard, and they do it well.
What does that add to the user experience? I can’t say it’s anything tangible. But I appreciate it. That’s luxury. It’s orthogonal to utility in many ways.
No, I mean luxury good. I upgraded my phone for satellite-based emergency SOS and the titanium form factor. Those are luxuries. Same for my 2020 Mac and M1.
Apple’s products aren’t priced high enough to function as Veblen goods in most developed-country social circles. They’re a mass market product.
I'm used to actual luxury goods, watches and clothing for example, where the quality is very much noticeably better. A Rolex or Audemars has way more attention to detail than, say, a Tissot or Tag which has far nicer materials than a Timex. Or suits, the kinds of fabric on higher end suits are very noticeable.
Or luxury restaurants. Where the ingredients, techniques, staffing levels and attention to detail far surpass normal restaurants.
Whereas with iPhone versus Samsung S24 Ultra, both are titanium, Samsung has nicer glass, less bevel and more utility (also costs more). The only real difference is Apple has much better marketing and their stores are nicer. Better logo too. Beyond that, there's no quantifiable quality advantage.
Yes. Me too. We’re rich and accustomed to luxury on HN. News at 11.
I don’t like the S24. Part of that is familiarity with iOS, which makes Android’s interface and design language feel clunky. Part of that is the squared-off look. I don’t deny that it’s a luxury product, too.
> Rolex or Audemars
Good example. I know plenty of watch connoisseurs who don’t believe Rolex makes a luxury product. They use similar arguments to yours, down to details of the movement and price. I think they’re wrong on designation even if I, too, don’t like Rolex either. (Patek and Vacheron Constantin.)
For instance if the EU or the DOJ were to require Apple to change their policies, we could say Apple isn't forced to do so, as they still can refuse and "just" pay enormous fines until bankruptcy.
I'm not sure what we would call "force" if we take that definition.
For instance if Apple had to pay a global total of 2 millions of fine every year for their AppStore policy, it would be rolled in as cost of doing business and they'd keep ignoring the rulings for decades. If Amazon only had minor punishment for breaking AppSore rules they'd do it yesterday.
A binding contract is only as strong as its penalties, and in that regard we can see laws a form of contract and vice versa.
Fines are not an exchange of value, even if some firms attempt to treat them that way. They are also not subject to agreement. They are risk and can be arbitrary.
So no. They are not the same.
How unchivalrous of them.
I have no earthly idea what Apple has done to earn 30% of the sale of an eBook by Amazon for the Kindle.
I have no idea if the cut is 30%, but that's the same cut that Amazon takes from an author when they sell a Kindle eBook (and sometimes that goes as high as 70%). What on earth did Amazon do to earn that much of an author's sale...
I have little sympathy for Amazon, the largest retailer in the world, trying to play in someone else's playground. You can buy directly from your Kindle if you really have to have that browse-and-buy experience, but the iPhone app really is more convenient, isn't it?
About as hard as opening a new phone network rivaling ATT back in the days, apparently.
If neither Amazon nor Microsoft couldn't do it you know it's not a matter of money and willingness to do it.
If you're referring to the Nokia acquisition, it was way past prime and relevance, at a time when Chinese makers were already on the rise.
I've had this while trying to install apps on an iPad (you need a payment method if the free app you're downloading has extra paid stuff you could buy from it, but why would they need to tell you that) and with their TV+ service where downloading too many (how much? who knows) things at the same time, like you're about to board a long haul flight, gets them stuck in a loop without downloading.
Another one of my favourites is "A USB device is consuming too much power, try disconnecting and reconnecting it" without any way of identifying which device it is.
I don't know how much it made sense when it was to allow blind UI navigation (could have been a "navigation" or "interactions" setting).
But nowadays with the amount of stuff in there, including permissions for password managers, animation reduction, audio EQ etc., it just makes less and less sense.
Nevertheless it’s nowhere near the powerful experience that was palm OS when it was selling palm pre and the like
- Please tell me, what's stopping us from being seen as a true luxury brand?
- More than one calculator window.
open -na Calculator
They copied the best. Looking at UI trends, nobody gives a shit about their users, they just want their data.
Except it doesn’t
Tim Cook made it a juggernaut that holds more than half the market in many areas, can buyout whole supplies of a specific technology (e.g. TSMC and their 3nm process?), influences the relationships with a whole country (China) and has the size to weather most battles (e.g. the fight with the EU).
(I’m not interested in the green-bubble stuff; that argument holds no weight with me - especially since iOS supports RCS now)
The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?
Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning.
I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
Agreed about the App Store mess.
Apple could sell 1 phone a year and still have a monopoly if that single user can only install apps by using Apple services. You could argue the harms are irrelevant in that situation, but they certainly aren't with millions of users in the equation.
No, they're not, inside the US. In the US, iPhone has a majority of the marketshare now. Outside the US isn't all that relevant since this is a US case in US courts and concerning the US market.
Not in the US.
And yes, why on Earth should laws not have the outcomes that the citizens electing the government that passes them expect?
If people don't want a thing they call monopoly or any other word (and wanting that does not violate or contradict other norms or constitutional principles they want even more) isn't that what they should get in a democracy?
A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.
There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold.
In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?
Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.
The biggest irony in all of this is that AI is shaking things up in a major way. New entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic may very well end up beating Apple and Google in various markets over the next few years. The government is picking a time of intense competition and uncertainty to go after these companies.
Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all.
>Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)!
Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.
This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.
In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.
In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.
I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.
These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.
These companies are squeezing blood out of every company in existence, and there is no way out.
This racket hurts consumers, because there's no competition. Competition is impossible.
Apple and Google are an invasive species that have destroyed the ecosystem diversity, and now it's time for the government to step in and restore balance.
> big, successful companies
Disney is a big, successful company. Apple and Google are Blunderbores [1]. They control nearly all of computing. I can't think of a way you aren't paying them. They have their grubby hands on every part of the funnel, taxing it piece by piece.
They force you to pay for search, they force you to pay to deploy software, they tax your business transactions, they steal information about your business transactions, they keep you from forming a customer relationship yourself. They control what technology you use, they force you to make unscheduled updates, they prevent you from updating on your own or making your own choices.
They're Blunderbores, and the world is their kingdom until we cut them down a notch.
[1] If we don't have a better term than monopoly, let's use this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbore
Ummm, what? What about Microsoft that has a stranglehold on corporate computing? IBM, SAP, TSMC, ASML all dominate certain aspects of computing. Nvidia? Meta has a near monopoly on social networks (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram).
I personally do think Apple behaves very anti-competitively but none of these are actual monopolies IMO (ASML might be the closest but only because no one else has figured out how to do what they do).
Where should the new line be drawn though? And should we expect to move the line again when common opinion on the term adjusts and we again find that the legal definition is out if touch?
I'd feel a bit uncomfortable having laws and terms redefined to match what the average person thinks a word means. Its one thing to change a law that people actually disagree with, it feels off to me to change a law because people use words differently in everyday life compared to a court room.
Apple has more than 50% of mobile device market share. That means they're a monopoly.
Apple has 100% control of the app market for their device. This is also a classic form of Monopoly, kind of like a company store, but on a national scale.
Meanwhile, the legal definition has shifted because of activist judging by conservative judges, which created the "consumer harm" standard, which is nebulous, and much easier to turn into a wishy-washy judgment call than the actual, original definition. And conveniently lets corporate crony judges make judgments like "look how much consumer benefit there is from iPhones! we could care less how unfair Apple is to app developers," even though the idea that whatever features are in Apple devices that consumers get such benefits from won't still be available to consumers even if there's some anti-monopoly ruling.
Like many things in modern America, there's been extensive intentional erosion of things that shouldn't be controversial by what the founders would have referred to as "factions," IE special interests.
Classic definition according to whom?
"What? We're not that popular, I don't know what you're talking about, there's so many options out there, and lots of people don't like or want our things and we're not as big as everyone imagines".
Correct. They abuse their customers without losing business. Why is that?
> a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business.
Is the money a donation? WTF are you talking about?
Why would they voluntarily go to court if they can avoid it? Would any of you?
The cognitive dissonance is that "Mother Nature" would not fraternize with a company that treats oil barons like welcome bedfellows. The progressive marketing image that Apple promotes is insanely dilapidated when cross-examining the values they promote in real life.
> Assuming they have something like morality seems absurd.
That's the ultimate grab-bag defense of morally indefensible businesses. You could say that about Meta or Google but I'll be damned if they don't have dissonant marketing too.
It's not worth taking this personally when I'm just highlighting a proven fact. Apple could sell liberal customers a concealed firearm, and they'd all rush out to buy it because MKBHD and Snazzy Labs said it fired nicely compared to the Glock 18.
I personally use their products but have absolutely no illusions about them somehow being "the good guys". They're a for-profit corporation with interests and aesthetic preferences that sometimes do, and sometimes don't, overlap with mine. Assuming they have something like morality seems absurd.
"The wildcard, of course, is that a new administration will soon take over, with President-elect Donald Trump’s DOJ continuing the case argued by the agency under President Joe Biden. But Trump and likely members of his administration have dubbed “Big Tech” a persistent enemy, and Trump’s DOJ brought suits against other tech companies in his first term — so Apple likely can’t count on a reprieve."