Lance Ulanoff needs to find someone to sit him down and explain monopolies and antitrust to him, and then reread the DoJ filing.
There’s so many inaccuracies in this article, if I were to enumerate them, I’d be rewriting his article.
> iPhone has just 57% of the US market share (though I've also seen numbers closer to 70%), and globally, it has roughly 20%. You don't need to be a math major to know that, by any measure, those are not "monopoly" numbers.
Sorry to break it to you bud, but market share is not monopoly power, and there is no rigid rule on market share, there’s some court cases that study companies with less than 50% market share as having sufficient monopoly power for antitrust!
>Apple Watch rant
It’s not illegal to make something incompatible with something else, it’s illegal to have a constellation of artificial barriers to attempt to monopolize, or maintain your monopoly.
>There are other head-scratching parts of this case, such as the DOJ’s accusation that Apple is "Suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services". Obviously, the DOJ can't be talking about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and countless other streaming platforms, all of which work on my iPhone, iPad, and best MacBook.
Probably the clearest evidence the author read nothing from the DoJ filing.
At this point, I’m done, some people bask in willful ignorance, some people are paid for it.
I couldn't disagree more, and this feels very tired.
Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures, which are detailed in the antitrust suit. It's also not like the government is trying to break Apple into multiple companies, like Standard Oil.
Moreover, the author himself then goes on to detail for most of an article some of the ways that Apple doesn't play nicely with others (of which there are many many others) and how their own reasoning for why they need to be this way doesn't hold up (all those fake Sora apps), but then comes to the conclusion that it's not bad enough for him (who happens to be inside the Apple ecosystem). The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble), but just says they didn't feel any pressure.
He doesn't even seem against the EU restrictions, but he still, without listing any concrete repercussions, doesn't want the government to make choices for Apple.
Overall, it was a pretty unhelpful article to me, with a kinda odd stance of yes they do bad stuff but I like my iPhone so the government shouldn't try to make them play nicely.
Oh, that would be a goddamn security nightmare. Trying to get them all on the same page at the same time would be impossible and someone would always be slowing everyone else down. Consumers wouldn't know who to trust.
It's too bad we have no evidence of products from different companies working together. I can't imagine how we would get, say, software from one company to work on hardware from another. Or a device from one manufacturer to communicate with one from another through some kind of standardized protocol.
The (a) problem here is what the 57-70% is, it’s something like “performance mobile device in the US”…. It’s not some smoking gun of “all mobile phones globally”, or even in the us, or even all mobile phones.
>> The author does not address people who are pressured to be in the Apple ecosystem (see teens & the green bubble),
See women in fashion, see teens and card and clothing and Jordan's and... This is a weak argument.
>>> Antitrust does not mean literal monopoly, and 57-70% share is certainly big enough to exert anti-competitive pressures,
" Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power" and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power." From: https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...
At 60 percent the DOJ's case is just over the practical limits. Its going to make the case that they seem to be wanting to present really tough. Using the watch as a form of lockin... is dumb. And the green bubbles thing is going to come up.. guess what that's about A) security and B) MMS being a 20 year old dumpster fire (the carriers not apple) ... Their tech working around the short comings of a protocol is going to be an easy argument to move them out of Market Power and into "Innovation".
The DOJ has ONE very narrow case they can make... that would be around blocking of MMS/Texting alternatives. With signal no longer in the market (mms) there is going to be an argument that "there isnt a viable alternative with security first principals".
I contend that the DOJ brought this case, and knows dam well its going to loose. Apple gets a day in court, wins and then every EU/china action after gets shouted down as Nationalism and anti free market by all of DC.
They should pretty obviously break up apple, microsoft,amazon, facebook, etc. Though. I am very free market and libertarian leaning but that seems completely obvious to me. The amount of market abuse from those guys is staggering.
"you really don't want xyz"
>offers zero reasons why you don't want xyz
>offers zero reasons xyz is bad
Trash clickbait. If apple is doing nothing wrong, let them prove it in court. If apple is doing something wrong, let the DOJ prove it in court. Anyone is free to comment on the legal aspects of what's occurring here, however none of that matters if it doesn't end up in that courtroom, which it won't.
I want not just the US Government to win its antitrust suit, but I want it to bring many more (against not just Apple).
> On the other hand, I don't believe companies should be forced to make their products work with competitors' products
To me, this is the crux of the issue. They shouldn't get to be competitors. No one company should be able to have such a large market share in so many different spaces. This is so obviously bad for consumers, as well as for smaller companies that might want to enter any of these spaces.
> Everything worked fine and I never felt that, for instance, my iPhone was trying to nudge me to switch to a Mac, or that my Apple Watch harbored secret disdain for the Windows platform.
I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on.
> I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on.
Good thing you don't need any of their hardware to stream AppleTV+ on. You can go stream directly from their website, https://tv.apple.com. Or maybe from your Samsung tv, or maybe from your Roku.
>>> I'm glad things have worked well for you, but this clearly is not the case in general. For example, I'd be happy to subscribe to Apple TV+, but they are not interested in me as I don't have any of their hardware to stream on.
“The process was eased, in part, by the ability of macOS, iPadOS, and iOS to work seamlessly with third-party systems like Microsoft Word, OneDrive, Google Drive, Google Docs, Gmail, and Chrome. To me, this is the best of both worlds, and not a single worldview that tries to force me to see things the Apple way.“
The author is a great FOSS and open-software advocate I see.
Seriously, reading this kind of press article makes me tired, I go to bed. What a way to end the day…
In what way?
Also, I have a pretty flawless android experience because of the ability to use other app-stores - I happily run ad-free FOSS software from F-Droid.
There's a reason I don't use Android and it's because I have to futz around forever to get apps to work and they never work together seamlessly (iOS apps require much less work).
My phone is for using - not managing. I have multiple desktops for playing around with configurations.
And while Open Source may be more secure, it's usually horrible for actually using the software.
There’s so many inaccuracies in this article, if I were to enumerate them, I’d be rewriting his article.
> iPhone has just 57% of the US market share (though I've also seen numbers closer to 70%), and globally, it has roughly 20%. You don't need to be a math major to know that, by any measure, those are not "monopoly" numbers.
Sorry to break it to you bud, but market share is not monopoly power, and there is no rigid rule on market share, there’s some court cases that study companies with less than 50% market share as having sufficient monopoly power for antitrust!
>Apple Watch rant
It’s not illegal to make something incompatible with something else, it’s illegal to have a constellation of artificial barriers to attempt to monopolize, or maintain your monopoly.
>There are other head-scratching parts of this case, such as the DOJ’s accusation that Apple is "Suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services". Obviously, the DOJ can't be talking about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and countless other streaming platforms, all of which work on my iPhone, iPad, and best MacBook.
Probably the clearest evidence the author read nothing from the DoJ filing.
At this point, I’m done, some people bask in willful ignorance, some people are paid for it.