<story><title>U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>idle_zealot</author><text>I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple&amp;#x27;s behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don&amp;#x27;t allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It&amp;#x27;s their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.</text></item><item><author>empath-nirvana</author><text>I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don&amp;#x27;t want apple to change anything about it.  I sort of think apple shouldn&amp;#x27;t try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.&lt;p&gt;If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.</text></item><item><author>Fripplebubby</author><text>For folks who don&amp;#x27;t have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it&amp;#x27;s so big. Here are those claims:&lt;p&gt;1. &amp;quot;Super Apps&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as &amp;quot;Super Apps&amp;quot;, which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several &amp;quot;mini programs&amp;quot; within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a &amp;quot;super app&amp;quot; of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.&lt;p&gt;2. Cloud streaming apps&lt;p&gt;Similar to &amp;quot;super apps&amp;quot;, the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service.&lt;p&gt;3. Messaging interoperability&lt;p&gt;Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set.&lt;p&gt;4. Smartwatches&lt;p&gt;Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.&lt;p&gt;5. Digital wallets&lt;p&gt;It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement &amp;quot;tap to pay&amp;quot; on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>d35007</author><text>&amp;gt; That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.&lt;p&gt;Luckily, you have a choice. Other companies make handheld computers that align better with your definition of ownership.</text></comment>
<story><title>U.S. sues Apple, accusing it of maintaining an iPhone monopoly</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>idle_zealot</author><text>I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple&amp;#x27;s behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don&amp;#x27;t allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It&amp;#x27;s their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.</text></item><item><author>empath-nirvana</author><text>I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don&amp;#x27;t want apple to change anything about it.  I sort of think apple shouldn&amp;#x27;t try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.&lt;p&gt;If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.</text></item><item><author>Fripplebubby</author><text>For folks who don&amp;#x27;t have time to read a 90 page document, the case rests on specific claims, not just the general claim that iPhone is a monopoly because it&amp;#x27;s so big. Here are those claims:&lt;p&gt;1. &amp;quot;Super Apps&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Apple has restrictions on what they allow on the App Store as far as &amp;quot;Super Apps&amp;quot;, which are apps that might offer a wide variety of different services (specifically, an app which has several &amp;quot;mini programs&amp;quot; within it, like apps within an app). In China, WeChat does many different things, for example, from messaging to payments. This complaint alleges that Apple makes it difficult or impossible to offer this kind of app on their platform. Apple itself offers a &amp;quot;super app&amp;quot; of course, which is the Apple ecosystem of apps.&lt;p&gt;2. Cloud streaming apps&lt;p&gt;Similar to &amp;quot;super apps&amp;quot;, the document alleges that Apple restricts apps which might stream different apps directly to the phone (like video games). It seems there are several roadblocks that Apple has added that make these kinds of apps difficult to release and promote - and of course, Apple offers their own gaming subscription service called Apple Arcade which might be threatened by such a service.&lt;p&gt;3. Messaging interoperability&lt;p&gt;Probably most people are familiar with this already, how messages between (for example) iOS and Android devices do not share the same feature-set.&lt;p&gt;4. Smartwatches&lt;p&gt;Other smart watches than the Apple Watch exist, but the document alleges that Apple restricts the functionality that these devices have access to so that they are less useful than the Apple Watch. Also, the Apple Watch itself does not offer compatibility with Android.&lt;p&gt;5. Digital wallets&lt;p&gt;It is claimed that Apple restricts the APIs available so that only Apple Pay can implement &amp;quot;tap to pay&amp;quot; on iOS. In addition to lock-in, note that Apple also collects fees from banks for using Apple Pay, so they get direct financial benefit in addition to the more nebulous benefit of enhancing the Apple platform.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>paulddraper</author><text>Isn&amp;#x27;t that &lt;i&gt;exactly&lt;/i&gt; what the EU went after?&lt;p&gt;They didn&amp;#x27;t tell Apple not to charge 30% for their App Store. They can charge 90% for all they care.&lt;p&gt;They told Apple they mustn&amp;#x27;t block other installation methods.</text></comment>