It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes.
$2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.
If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.
Edit: I don't, for instance, have issues with how they use patents with macbooks. There they don't abuse their monopoly on certain hardware features to get and extract money from a secondary monopoly on software.
I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent.
For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a rounded rectangle, so I'm skeptical that patent is really holding other phones back, either
I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxyge...
Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing.
All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
Equivalent as in a literal exact copy of an iPhone. Lots of factories can produce those, seeing as Apple contracts out production. If we get rid of those patents and give free choice to those factories and consumers, well they would be glad to produce a modified "Open" iPhone.
Lets make a free market by stopping this government intervention of the patent system that supports monopolies.
What matters is the competitive situation. Given that you're practically required to have either a Google or Apple device to participate normally in modern society, Apple and Google should be precluded from forcing customers and suppliers[0] to use their other services, like payment services, app stores, delivery networks, ad networks, etc.
But if Apple were the 4th biggest phone platform with at most 10% of the market, Apple would definitely be entitled to remain a walled garden. Even if their phones had features no-one else can implement due to patents.[1]
0: E.g. app developers
1: I'd claim this is the only position that is consistent with being in favor of patents. But I'm mildly anti-patent, so YMMV.
I.e. I'm entitled to anti-trust protection. Or I'm entitled to patent-misuse protection. I don't really care which set of laws you put it under.
Even if Apple were 10% of the phone market they would still have 100% of the distributing software to devices with Apple's patented technology market, and that should be enough for anti trust protection to kick in.
(I'm also mildly anti patent, but I've been carefully selecting only arguments in this thread that I believe are entirely consistent with a pro patent belief system. E.g. if Apple treated their phones like their laptops - where they also have patents - all the positions and arguments I've taken would not have an issue with their behavior)
If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense.
You shouldnt say 'buy a different phone' if you want to use ugreen cables.
If you're a consumer, you should be on the side of more choice and more competition. If you're a Apple/Apple employee, you should 100% say what you just did :)
And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?
>It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.
That has always been the case when market participants become too dominant e.g.
United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948)
United States v. AT&T (1984)
United States v. Microsoft (2001)
Anti-trust regulation would have dealt with Apple, Google and co by now if the lobbying weren't so out of control compared to previous times.
Or if you only want to use iPhones then it seems like the downsides of the locked down app store aren't worth switching in which case it seems like you've already made your choice.
The app sideloading changes they're about to introduce[0]? Affects their Pixels, Samsungs, OnePlus, Sony, etc, old and new. It can't be disabled. The work around is to use ADB to install apks.
So while you have more choice of hardware, Android skins with more or less features, different long term support, prices, etc, in practice you're stuck with what Google wants. Your options are Apple or Google.
---
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...
I've always used this method: work out what are the most benefits, with the fewest annoying 'features', between various manufacturers that have items within your budget, and choose something. In my country we call it 'shopping'.
Ergo, if you care about maintaining a free market, then you care about limiting what kind of moves you can make in the free market, in order to preserve a free market. A truly free market with no rules has an end state where it is not a free market, more like a much more sophisticated version of the nobles of the land owning everything. So we declare many activities that make it difficult for others to compete that are not simply about manking a better product, "anti-competitive" and illegal.
Outside of Apple and Samsung (only because they make a lot of their own parts), the phone market is a commodity race to the bottom
The apple iPhone is a locked down system engineered in such a way to extract maximum value from consumers and developers. It is impossible to compete.
What makes you think the "free market" always produces the best outcome for consumers?
An unregulated market leads to monopoly and anti-competitive practices.
Capitalism is one of the best models we've discovered, but its markets must be appropriately regulated.
Capitalism should be difficult. An eternal treadmill. You shouldn't be able to wedge yourself into a market as a quarter-century long hegemon.
You shouldn't be able to capture the key touch point of all consumers to their digital life and then tax it for eternity. It's putting incredible strain on innovation and all other market participants.
Companies should die and be replaced by younger startups regularly. It's a renewing forest fire that de-ossifies technology.
Rewarding startups puts the capital rewards in the hands of innovation capital rather than large institutions. Large companies do everything they can to minimize labor costs. Venture funds are even hurting in that the monopolies put a cap on the number of startups that can reach decacorn or centacorn status.
And before I field any complaints that consumers don't care about this - most consumers are laypeople and do not understand what is happening to them. They can't articulate these points. This is why we require regulators to police the system.
And how to I get support for the products I just bought when your government regulators terminate the existing of the product developer / manufacturer.
Government trimming the weeds using prescribed rules and tests.
Get rid of monoclonal overgrowth to increase ecosystem diversity and health. Make the ecology better at exploring all the nooks and crannies.
You're saying, companies should be able to do whatever they want, even if it's bad for the consumer. How can you describe that position as "being on the side of the consumer"?
The Government needs to break up this duopoly.
Mobile should have hundreds of choices, three or four OS options, and free web-based installs without a gatekeeper or taxation.
Mobile providers shouldn't be able tyrannically set defaults for search, payments, or anything else either.
A duopoly is not a choice.
>I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working.
It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution.
[0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...
Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
>What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.
It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA.
More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation:
https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c...
https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook
>Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia.
Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected.
"A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1
>Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel"
As Cory Doctorow writes:
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
>Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.
There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.
> A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios and keeping the bad actors out,” a Google spokesman said.
"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.
The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.
According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."
In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:
- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode
- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned
- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period
- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out
Android users on the other hand could proactively:
- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes
- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely
- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers
Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.
But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is:
An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur.
An Android phone was only vulnerable if it was NOT properly secured.
So 100% of iPhone users were vulnerable, while Androids were only vulnerable if misconfigured.
So I was and I am still 100% correct, but you simply decided to nitpick that one sentence of mine that was prone to being nitpicked without bothering to understand what the significant difference between the systems were.
>But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
Yes they did, after a lot of time and pressure. And if you read my comment again, you can see that I have already stated that they have implemented it. So what's the point of you telling me something that I have already mentioned several times?
"I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me explain the difference:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690226
After me clarifying what I've meant, the response wasn't "Oh I see now what you intended to say, thanks for elaborating", but misquoting me and making hostile and snide comments. That is someone who wants to be confrontational and lacks honesty in trying to understand what was meant in the first place.
Another simple test is we can compare the amount of malware running on closed ecosystems with open systems. Which system hosts more malware: linux/windows or iOS?
I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no financial benefits for Google/Apple. I am saying there ARE financial benefits to users and businesses on these platforms.
"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:
https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...
But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...
For small developers, like myself, this is great, because I don't have to put a large upfront capital to pay Apple to audit my app.
If 30% isn't the right number, what is the right number to pay for app store infra, payments, QA services, global tax audits and collection, global licensing limits, etc?
Maybe clever engineers at MacOS could help iOS engineers with this?