The Questionable Nature Of DOJ vs Apple
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มี.ค. 2024
- The US DOJ has put it's foot down. I have concerns. We need to talk about this.
SOURCES
www.washingtonpost.com/docume...
www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24...
/ 1770906845739090303
spyglass.org/good-luck-doj/
Edited by Ph4se0n3 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I disagree that apple has always been pro open-standards. It took them years to adopt usb-c, and overall their entire business model is very anti-consumer.
You have to ignore some aspects of his talk cause he is first and foremost a fanboy. My opinion is that his company is directly affected by the monopolistic actions apple has taken towards the software side. Otherwise, I believe he would have a hard time seeing how Apple would be monopolistic if it was just a hardware monopoly.
I personally think that fanboyism is the main catalyst to apples present behavior and monopolistic actions. People stopped looking at the company objectively, and that gave Apple the arrogance to believe that they didn't have to actually be a innovative company no more. The wall garden got justified, and people percieved Apple's dominance as evidence that it was the superior product. but It's easy to look superior whenyou'rer purposely sabotaging the industry for your benefit. Simply put, it's easy to win the game when you're making the rules.. it's even easier when the crowd believes you have the right to. Apple realized they couldn't innovate anynore so they moved onto the other "I"
Intimidate.
Theo might be thinking about how Safari is pro-CSS, hardware Thunderbolt, etc.
But yea I wish USB-C was adopted faster.
@@tombyrer1808 can you explain pro-css? I actually find that Safari tends to lag behind other browsers, but that might just be anecdotal
true, they always jumping in late and then brandish themselves as the leadership, and apple fans always think it was all thanks to them, while in the reality everything was holding back because the popularity of apple products
Apple hasn’t been open standard since the 1980’s
6:12 I completely disagree with the notion that the EU, particularly the European Commission, sues Apple based on a mere "perceived vibe". In reality, the EU takes legal action against Apple for specific violations of EU law. As the body responsible for enforcing EU law, the European Commission takes its task very seriously.
You are confusing reason with excuse.
@@akam9919 Breaking EU law (or any law for that matter) isn’t an excuse. They are there for a reason. If you don't like it, don't do business in the EU’s single market.
Leaving it to small businesses to sue apple would go really well. I wonder who will be able to afford the best lawyers?
It's much better for governments to prevent anti-competitive practices, than expect that to work.
it works in the EU because lawsuits don't get that expensive.
US needs to clean up the court system so that lawsuits don't balloon to such high costs.
@@ayoCCThat's intentional design in the US.
Even in EU, lawsuits can be prohibitavly expensive for individuals.
@@HA7DN probably depends on the country because in Germany, lawsuits are fine, especially if you have a lawsuit insurance. My father had a lawsuit insurance and didn't have to pay anything to sue a landlord who refused to install separate counting device. He didn't install a counting device settled to pay 500 Euro less on rent
... Anyways, I'm no expert, but in Germany most things have a fixed price for the lawsuit and if you're too poor you actually don't need to pay for the lawsuit
.... The problem with you vs the government suing is that you would go bankrupt before Apple ever had to give a shit about what the law was. There is a reason that the only ones suing them are other equally as rich companies and the government and not people.
Yes SMS (and now RCS) isn't the greatest messaging standard, but they should absolutely support it, they are telecom standards not google things. And when your phones don't support Telecom, it's not a phone anymore, rather like the iPod.
Google's RCS E2E encryption protocol is not proprietary. I don't know where you got that information. There are at least three separate implementers.
Google supports RFC 9420, a published open standard that has no patent traps, and uses cryptographic primitives that iOS and iCloud already use.
I recently had to create an apple id for work. First they had me enter my credit card information. Then they verified my email with a code. Next they verified my phone number with a code. Then they told me my email was invalid. Yeah, fuck apple.
It's always interesting to see layman's interpretations of legal artifacts that essentially have no connection to how those artifacts would be interpreted in a court.
You're so on point
this is how i start my sentences if I really want to insult the intelligence of the source - I wonder if you share this use case@@teaman7v
can you give a specific example?
@@cornheadahh That part he got so up in arms about talking about the UI being different between android and iphone? That was purely in there becasue for a court casr oyu need to establish the full extend no matter how trivial; that paragraph as explaining one part of how moving away from iPhone to anything else would go not that they were pursuing apple to change that just answering in legal terms "what hinderences exist to moving away from apple ecosyste (no matter how small, be thorough)
Did Theo really just use phone cases as an example for 'you can't make everything work on every phone'? I get the point but there's no way this is a serious argument.
Also 'airpods are the best way to listen to music on android'?? I guess we live in different realities at this point. Or maybe it's such a good experience that you don't actually ever need to update the firmware of the headphones.
Theo introduces that segment with "like where is the line here?". I believe the case thing was an example to show something that's very obviously on the "doesn't need to work with every phone" end of the spectrum to highlight the problem of deciding how far to go towards the other end of the spectrum before drawing the line.
In the first 12 minutes of this video he said so many objectively wrong things that I couldn't comment cause the magnitude of the whole comment would be 30 pages. The thing is, he even contradicts in that time frame. So let me get this right.. Apple is allowed to essentially restrict its hardware to its hardware and shouldn't be made to comply with compatibility.. "should apple have to make cases that fit phones that aren't apple.. .where's the line?"
Ok.. so by your logic.. apple should be allowed to deny the ability to listen to music on your phone and app isn't compatible with there new audio format.. that only works on their headphones...that does the exact same thing
I'll provide a better example...the text message to android argument.. he thinks it's stupid and Google wants people to use it so you pay fees.. apple isn't going to force some non standard bs..
But apple is always forcing people to do non standard bs. You just said apple forces user to use apple pay. Which is worst cause theres choice. They had lighting charger and nobody could use that. How about headphones? STANDARD headphones jack gone! And that's before you realize that you just advocated for apple to make there OWN hardware to work ONLY on their devices.
So what is it.. are we supporting standards or are we encouraging no support on standards? Cause the fanboy in you is making completely different arguments depending on the company.
Walled gardens are funny. They've always looked justified to neighbors in the neighborhood. Why wouldn't they? Gardens are great behind fences.. the problem is that providing a fence means that there is inevitable a limit to how much a garden can grow...
Unless you expand the fence.
And corporations' goal is to expand that fence
But the only way you could do that in the neighborhood is to get the neighbors on board. Even if they get on board, those gardens also have to up your standard..so your lawnmowers, your plants, your fences. The gotta stay maintained under your schedule, under your conditions... to enforce all those you have to take away freedom..
Soon, you're not a neighbors no more.. you're now a worker.
And you know who accept all that first... the fanboys.
Yeah, he is a very deep fanboi and can see his way out
@@MeepMu I mean I get that but I feel like software and hardware are not on the same 'spectrum' or 'line'.
And I am not sure that Apple fans would like to talk about hardware standardization at all, given that literal regulations were needed so that Apple standardizes the ports among it's own products, let alone the rest of the world. Also courageously removing the 3.5mm jack (standard on every device until then).
I tried airpods on an Android. You can't switch between noise cancellation and transparency mode on an Android because there's no app for it. Certainly not the best audio device for Android.
Apple's statement is very vague designed to get an emotional response from users. (Notice how many adjectives they've used, that's on purpose)
And major difference with Samsung… they are not the only android phone
Same with Apple
@@SuperiorZeekosay what?
@@SuperiorZeeko what
I have no fkn idea
10:41 apple makes other watch manufacturers difficult to compete with Apple Watch because they don't have access to the same APIs on the iPhone that the Apple Watch does.
"the Fact that Apples UI is better than Androids" is wrong, but it's indeed stupid in the lawsuit, because there are thousands of UIs for android, that aren't even similar to eachother, so it's actually impossible for Apple to be similar.
Having a headphone jack and wired headphones is the only way that i want to listen to the music, miss me with that 5 diferent things on charges every night
real
Have we forgotten how Safari is the only actual web browser on iOS? All other browsers are just a reskinned Safari.
You are a very intellectual individual, please never change
The lawsuit includes examples of how Apple actually harms other companies, users and innovation by blocking certain APIs and constantly changing Appstore rules and blocking certain Apps and features to push their own services and Apps. Regarding messaging its more about the restrictions regarding other messaging apps compared to iMessage, which makes iMessage a superior application on iOS in terms of usability and some features, which are also mentioned in the lawsuit.
I'd say, the problem isn't apple not supporting for other devices, but rather going out of their way to make it not work on other devices. Apple watch and imessage would work perfectly fine on android, if apple didn't push updates to make it specifically not work on non-apple devices
No that is not a problem either. That is correct, is called private property rights and freedom of association. If you don't like it then you can vote with your fingers by installing another messaging App like whatsapp, signal or telegram, why in the world do you have to be so naive and use the preinstalled app and not explore your options.
the entire planet is not using iMessage
The real problem is when Apple violates the customer's private property rights, by using the state to steal your property like in the case of the youtube channel of iPadRehab's JessaJones, she sent her own iphone to China to fix for a special component they had and she couldn't find in the USA and when the Chinese company resent it back Customs stole it from her claiming it was Apple's piracy.
Have you ever tried or your just assuming things,the imessage the green bubble from android user,they intentionally do not encrypt end to end from android to iPhone imessage,pictures from android to iPhone looks bad but and they did that intentionally to degrade android
Your interpretation of this situation is so bad I almost want to accuse you of interpreting it poorly on purpose.
Even in the first 3 minutes, you read the line "accuses Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its phones" and then talk about how Apple's phones aren't the most expensive. That line said literally nothing about the price of Apple's phones, it's talking about the fact that Apple locks you in to their devices and then nickel and dimes you for every little thing.
I won't even bother watching the rest because I know your analysis from that point onward is going to be worthless. Holy smokes, man.
Frfr
watching 10% of a video and thinking you can dismiss the entire thing is peak youtube commenter
@@SoggyBagelz after watching the whole video... He's not entirely wrong tbh
@@SoggyBagelz the rest of the video ain't any better my man
I generally like Theo's videos but this just felt so out of touch. Like you said, it almost feels like he's intentionally misinterpreting this.
2:20 factually wrong, sure, the s series are expensive, but they also have the A series which provide the most of the stuffs the the s series have with a few unimportant compromises, not to mention samsung phones go on big sales very very often. There are also many other brands to choose from like oneplus, nothing, google, which have very competitive pricing, for example, the oneplus 12r at $500, even if you dont want all that flagship features, there is the nord lineup. By the way, on the foldable topic, the phone can fucking fold, of course it's gonna be expensive, what are you talking about?
To be extremely fair - criticizing samsung's S series for getting too expensive is fair IMO. What's funny is that Theo himself said that this was accepted because of what Apple had been doing for a long time. Same with the headphone jack removal. Same with anti right to repair shit. Apple is big enough so anything bad they do is copied by the others. I am not sure how that is a good thing for Apple.
Samsung and Apple have very different strategies, so I would say it is fine that Apple chooses not to compete on low price products (excluding the SE phones because they seem like a joke). But yeah, of course folding phones will be more expensive. Just wait until Apple releases one (in the next 5-10 years, once the tech matures)
@@user-er1fs3je4xSmartphone price inflation has been due primarily to Moore's trend (it was never a law) ending in 2012. Smartphones used to depreciate quickly, which caused people to not want to invest much in them. With smartphones holding their values better these days (also due to software support being extended out many years, which is something Samsung copied from Apple), naturally, people are willing to spend more to acquire them.
All providing inferior UI/UX experience because of Android. And this is coming from someone who used Android all hia life, including high end phones.
I just hope the DOJ doesn't screw iOS UI because of some stupid reason like users have to relearn things when switching to Android (genuinely the most stupid part of the whole thing).
@@murtadha96That's your opinion, I can argue android is better in this department. I have a universal back gesture, I can change the volume for each individual app, I can use multiple apps at once in multiple different ways I can change my phone's behaviour to exactly how I want it. I don't have to go into the settings to change a setting in an app when I can just change the setting directly from the app etc etc.. UX is subjective
@@murtadha96 how are people on about Apple Vs Android UI, the common launchers are all the same anyways, I see App Icon, I tap App Icon... MUI, OneUI, IOS, Microsoft Launcher all the same.
Then there are things like the minimalist launchers one might like or not, but are a specialty thing anyways
17:27 Microsoft and Google make software that works with every device. Why can't Apple?
I mean, Apple doesn't *have* to do that. And that's not really at the heart of the lawsuit either.
The biggest issue is that if Google and Microsoft want to make hardware/software for Apple, they have to go through Apple's gatekeeper processes to do it, and there are literally just functions that Google and Microsoft will never be able to touch on Apple's OS, while Apple themselves can do these things freely.
Versus Microsoft Windows - or even Android, where you don't have to go through Microsoft to develop shit for it. They've got open APIs and documentation. You can develop on Microsoft's platforms, touch Microsoft's internal tools, all without paying for it. Microsoft does not control whether or not you can develop hardware for their platform, or develop software for it.
The Apple Watch is a great example of this, because - it has very specific integrations with the Apple OS platform. Integrations that no one else can touch. For example, iMessage. You can get iMessage receipts on your Apple Watch. If Samsung had continued to go through the hoops necessary to keep the Galaxy Watch working with iOS, you still wouldn't be able to get iMessage on it. Etc. Etc. There is no reason that Samsung shouldn't be able to hook into the iMessage API calls from Apple, and send back and forth in a safe/secure method that Apple creates for this process.
Apple's biggest hurdle in this case is going to be the fact that they've shut out platforms like xCloud, Spotify, etc - over the years, shut out other hardware vendors that didn't want to play *exactly* by their rules, and railroaded users into their implementation first and foremost, because the other implementions literally cannot compete with them on their platform, because of Apple's lack of "fair" access.
There was a video that MKBHD did about Apple's "paradox of choice," and that is *exactly* the sort of thing that the DOJ is going to nail Apple's balls to the wall on. Also, how they ruined .flux for MacOS, basically. They shut the flux devs out of certain feature sets, and then built their own implementation of it. Flux has pretty much ceased to "be" on MacOS.
Well except for bringing office and visual studio pro to Linux
"It's not the worst statement Apple has made" - That says more about earlier statements.
What Apple says in that statement is that it is only able to provide what makes them special, if they are allowed to maintain their monopoly and use it in they way they did. "It's who we are". That means that if the court concludes that the monopoly is illegal, Apple cannot just change their ways, they had to be changed. Just like they reacted to the EU's recent intervention - malicious compliance.
But is Apple's premise actually right? When Apple made revolutionary innovations, it was not the monopolist. The iPhone was not put out by a company that controlled the smartphone market. Apple was not even in that market. It was the innovation - the unique blend of functionality, the well designed interface and the beauty of the product together that was able to completely destroy the existing concept of a smartphone and replace it with their concept. The iPhone was what provided Apple with the first stage of the monopoly they have today. And that monopoly could not prevent competition to produce copies of the iPhone.
Then came apps. That was a huge boom that yet again revolutionized the concept of the phone, so much so that the actual phone functionality is mostly replaced and reduced to provide connectivity for the apps. Was that Apple's innovation? Apple certainly helped define the way how these apps work, by means of their UI guide lines, APIs and maybe even the review process. Though in the beginning, Apple did not so much impose control, as they actually supported developers. Here Apple was a gatekeeper in a positive sense. And yet, Android showed that the result of a much less controlled developer community is not all that different. Some people stay with Apple because of the App-landscape. Few move from Android to Apple for that reason. But that's not what's defining the market. I see no unique innovation from Apple in this department - mobile software. I see no ground breaking contributions from Apple. Any yet, this is one of the major sources for Apples income. And of course, the competition copies Apple's approach, at least to some degree, all of that resulting in paywalls and an industry that is controlled and anything but free to innovate. What is left for software developers is to try to capitalize on the crumbs that Apple, Samsung and Google are not interested in.
What else came out of Apple? The iPad. Okay, a nice device. But not a game changer. It's a big phone or a small laptop. It could be either or both, but it can't be, because Apple prevents it to be used as either a phone or a laptop. So what exactly is the unique role of an iPad if it's forbidden to also be a phone or laptop? What is the benefit for society to let Apple dictate that this cannot be a computer or iPhone or more specifically that it can only be used the exact way Apple wants it to be used? After all, Apple is not renting these devices, it's selling them. After sales, they are supposed to belong to their owners.
The Apple watch. It's probably still the best watch out there. I tried many alternatives over the years, and none were as good and certainly not better. But I found the Apple watch disappointing. There are so many use cases such a device could support and doesn't. I developed software for iOS, I could have implemented some of these use cases, but I couldn't because Apple wouldn't let me. Or at least it would have been a pain down there to do it circumventing all the walls Apple erects around its devices. And the other watches? Well most are worse in terms of hard and software, but their makers are no better then Apple, or at least not much. Why? Because they don't need to be. Were Apple watches open, would they belong to their owners, then the Apple watch would be an entirely different device and Samsung or Google would have a hard time selling their watches at all. Nobody needs to be innovative because of Apple, Google and Samsung, and thus nobody who is not in the club will be allowed to be innovative. If Steve Jobs was an App-Developer, he would certainly not reinvent the phone or the watch or the iPad, and neither does Tim Cook at the head of Apple today. They add Smiley to the keyboard.
I used Apple for more than 10 years - intensively. The reason why I'm no longer using it, is because there is no unique benefit to the platform and a huge number of massive restrictions and problems. This is to some extend specific to my user requirements. I don't need the latest hardware, I don't want to buy every new generation. So it bugs me when my hardware is no longer supported even though it's perfectly usable for my use case. It's annoying that Apple is not fixing bugs that they are not interested in fixing and that still prevent devices from doing what they were advertised to be capable.
"That is who we are" - Yes, I can see that - But that is not who you were when you invented the iPhone. And it's also not who is needed today. If what we need is a gatekeeper, there is an oversufficieny of candidates to choose from. The Chinese or American government is skilled at that, Google does that brilliantly. Well any Mafia organization can do that job easily. Apple is entirely replaceable if that is who Apple wants to be in the future.
11:00 LMAO Theo going out of his way to defend Apple yet again. Sony's LDAC has FOUR times the bitrate of the Airpods Max, not to mention the older models. Apple is using an audio codec standard meant for COMPRESSED MP3 FILES. Not to mention 3.5mm headphones support higher bitrates than Bluetooth could ever give, and at a fraction of the price. How has Apple been following the 3.5mm standard again?
As a person who works in software, I strongly disagree with you on the point of how difficult it is to make something generic. There are entire types of programming/development based on the idea of making things generic.
For example Apple writes documentation that explains the APIs the Watch app uses, and enables the background states that the Apple Watch’s communication app has for other developers. The communication between the third party app and their Watch need not use Apple’s methods, it’s only that the app on the phone needs the same level of information, and time on the processor as Apple’s inbuilt app
i was quite sskeptical when he said this. It wouldnt be a huge effort making something generic infact what is stopping most app for example from being generic is either hardware limitations or access to the Api to use these hardware. However in apple case it is not a lack of technology it is just a blatant attempt at stmaping out competition. Thers is nothing fancy about receiving information from an hard ware such as a phone to your phone or vice versa it is just data. so that excuse is invalid , and yes the time thing could be circumvented using software.
I went and watched your other iMessage video, and in that video you mentioned that you'd be in favor of requiring Apple to allow users to set a third party messaging apps as the default SMS app on their devices. Is that not the exact same thing as what the DOJ is citing in the messaging provision of the lawsuit? What am I missing here?
That's exactly it. Theo seems to be incapable of critical thinking in this video.
Apple watch is a separate product from iPhone and so are Apple music and Safari. Using your success in one category to support your products in other categories is monopolistic behaviour.
Remember Microsoft case about Windows and Internet Explorer?
"Europe did it first and we felt like remembering our purpose" This is how it sounds after being so damn late to do anything. If over 10% of my life justice ain't doing shit then that justice is simply uneffective.
DOJ suing someone isn't a problem, they do that all the time in criminal offenses, aka when something is illegal. The victim shouldn't need to take the burden of suing if the act is potentially illegal.
Failing to support Android messages in your app is not illegal. This case is a joke.
Forcing users to use your service by exploiting your status as monopoly is tough.
This video is just Theo saying the actions apple takes that are beneficial to me are dumb parts of the lawsuit and all the things that are not beneficial for him as good parts of the lawsuit.
I think the angle you chose to interpret this is highly flawed.
Monopolistic behaviors is only the outcome of a Monopolistic mentality. Monopolies arent conditional. You can be for and against standards. I dont like rcs cause theyre not standard and then say.. no you can't use a standard jack, standard charger or standard whatever. Thats not being for a standards... that being for only my standards.
The DOJ accusation isn't about Apple driving up the costs of iPhones as much as it's driving up the costs of apps, subscriptions and purchases through their store fees. A good bit of evidence are all the services that do not allow you to subscribe through the App store and instead you need to visit the service's website to sub there, and how some services are allowed to do it while others (i.e. Epic with Fortnite) not. In fact, Epic offering their purchases at a lower price when they evade Apple's fees is good evidence about Apple's monopoly.
Of course, this invites comparisons with consoles, which I believe has been argued in courts, with console manufacturers making the argument that consoles aren't sold at a profit, and the business model relies entirely on the monopoly over the store. They argue that they aren't preventing other industries from existing, but rather creating a new industry by selling hardware at a loss. Apple can't make that argument because they don't sell the iPhones at a loss. The end goal should be to keep costs for the end consumers low, which is why console manufacturers can get away with it and Apple won't be able to.
The real argument is actually that consoles have review for quality not to stop you doing stuff they don't like per say, if you run your own infra then they dont stop you using it just from doing so in a low quality way that would reflect badly on them that's why it's a legal middleground they give specific review of things that dont pass their tests and once fixed and retested its approved
First it was Microsoft now it’s Apple, and yes the government has the ability to sue…… it’s the US Government if they want you they will have you
No, you can get galaxy phones under $800
6:16 that doesn't work... it'll always be better to establish a precedent or law beforehand, than have to rely on an individual to then sue a company after-the-fact and set a more dangerous precedent after that.
Bu, honestly that points is more a matter of personal believe on how that law should work, but about the messaging stuff...
Regarding messaging stuff, it's really not "bullshit", in the context of the DOJ's case.
Even if you don't use Google for their encryption for RCS, and implement it without it (insecure, just like traditional SMS), you'd still have a higher quality experience than what we have today. With regarding to installing another app like WhatsApp or Telegram, (...etc.), this is something I agree with, we really shouldn't be using SMS.
But its important to remember that the DOJ is suing in the US, about a US company, that affects US citizens... it then becomes a lawsuit about something that affects Americans, and as such it'll have some footing because they can equate it to intentional degraded quality of a core cell-service like calling but for SMS.
An example of apple locking your devices into the ecosystem are the vision pro, and the apple watch. You need an idevice to activate any of both, and none have even limited functionality with an android phone paired with them
Thing I dislike the most about companies like Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, other popular smartphone makers, is how they use software to prevent me from actually owning the device that I paid for. Why am I not allowed to take an old smartphone that I own, wipe it, and then put another OS on it? I wanted to do this as a way of continuing to make old tech useful like turning an old phone into a dumb media player, but you mostly can't and even if there is a way it's really hard. It's been a few years and I've not checked on this in a while, but I'm willing to bet that it's just been getting worse.
The fact that I pay for the device, but they still own it is IMO the biggest problem. Much like how John Deer does with farm equipment. If we could put another OS on our devices then we would have had more than just 2 REALISTIC options for our phones today and then companies like Apple would not be able to lock down the market like they are currently doing as competition from other options would make that a bad choice for Apple.
We desperately need more competition in the smartphone OS market.
The reason is money. It's always money. Mcdonalds supplier Tyler made bank on broken ice cream machines. It's by design to extract more money out of you.
Google is now the only manufacturer that allows you to do this by default with "almost full" functionality preserved but more and more apps are implementing hard root checks which can't be bypassed. I remember using some chinese app and there was an ungodly amount of weirdness with it that while showing zero errors. Turns out it was doing a hard root check at almost every single tap you made. Why? Why not just 1 at app launch or at payment screens? Got an unrooted phone and the app worked as expected. Annoying af. I'm slowly starting to use my iphone more and more because of this nonsense.
GrapheneOS ftw.
About the Apple watch, it’s not that Apple has to make sure their ecosystem work on all other smartwatches. But more that they should not restrict features. Meaning they should let other manufacturers use the APIs they use and already have in place for their product.
I don’t think anything hinders innovation here. They had the same speech when talking about lightning vs USB-C. It’s true that imposing a connector hinders innovation if something better comes out. But they cannot always use this excuse. They were on 480Mb/s speeds 😂
Ideally the developers and people should get the tools to sue such big companies. But in the moment it’s easier to just demand correction.
You can still get a cheap, good Samsung phone. It's often complained about the price depreciation, that's by design for marketing. They release their phones very expensive to show they are aiming high and that it's a flagship device, and after only 2-3 Months massive price drops appear more to the actual price, that also entices the customer thinking they get a great deal.
And loads of Android companies aim directly at the lower- to middle- range
RCS isn’t encrypted because of data retention laws in the United States. Basically, the government reserves the right to wiretap any telecommunications infrastructure, so any encryption has to be applied on top of what the telcos can provide. That’s why Google has a separate encryption standard on top of RCS to provide encryption.
I was at Google when they were trying to convince the telcos to agree on an RCS standard. Encryption _was_ something they tried to include, but it just wasn’t legally feasible to implement it at the telco level. There are plenty of things Google does to exert monopoly control, but I promise you RCS isn’t one of them. Telecommunications law is really thorny and complicated, and there just wasn’t any way to add it directly into the RCS standard.
What laws specifically are blocking it? I would love to see sources.
Messaging only works if the receiver also has the same messaging system. Markets and monopolies are really complex and monopoly power can be gained and used in many ways.
Apple is also not going to be forced to support other devices. It's going to be forced to open up the same api's that they are using for the tight integration. Like you can't pair other earbuds in the same way apple can.
I have a Garmin smartwatch. When I use my smartwatch, my iPhone never auto reconnects to the watch. On top of that, I cannot use quick connect pages. I have to go into Bluetooth settings and find it in the full list. It is just a bit more work, I assume because it’s not an Apple Watch. I had an android before, and it never had a problem reconnecting…
Apple is a monopoly because my watch doesnt auto connect lmfao
@@SoggyBagelz"Ha ha, the biggest car company is a monopoly because they intentionally make fuel pumps from all companies, except one, not work on their cars"
You sound delusional. Intentionally braking compatibility of open standards to everyone except yourself is textbook monopolistic behavior
@@SoggyBagelz
I mean apple severely limits the API for any non apple watch. Non apple watches aren't even allowed to reply to a text or do many other basic things because apple software blocks it. This is part of the artificially nerfing other products while only allowing their products certain basic permissions
A non-apple Bluetooth keyboard also has this annoying wake-up time that doesn't occur on any other computer, except on Macs. Y literally have to wait for a few seconds to type my password from a Bluetooth keyboard on a Mac! And then there is that other minor annoyance where the Caps Lock key doesn't light up, only on a Mac. Oh, I almost forgot that headphones start to drop 'frames' and a Bluetooth mouse will 'ghost' when you connect to many devices (less than 7 devices)
One thing that is tremendously wrong is that if you do provide laws for people to sue apple individually it becomes worse not better, because individuals cannot pay for lawsuits. Apple has endless money who can sue them? Only another huge entity with endless money, that's how it works unfortunately. Brazil has PROCON (consumer defense foundation) to protect the consumer where one individual can put a formal complaint and they will go after the company legally because they have the resources for it, and it's a government org that is connected with the justice department as well. That is a more feasible solution that is proven to work
I've lived in China for the last 15 years. WeChat doesn't have crypto, or a fancy camera. Crypto is de facto banned in China. Whilst his generalisation was on point, his grasp of the details is weak.
16:44 It isn't that they're going to require Apple to make every smartwatch work as well as their own watch. It is just that all the functionalities, APIs and so on that the Apple Watch can use and others can't, should be accessible for everyone. And then it is up to those other people to make it work.
Apple actively going out of their way not to support it to make other watches seem inferior is the problem here.
I wanted to cancel a subscription for a service I didn't want to use anymore. I could not cancel the subscription on their site, as I have subscribed on an iPhone. I had to download iTunes and cancel the subscription there. That's just hilarious.
I'm pretty sure that it's that service's fault there, no Apple's.
"Airpods are the best way to listen to music on android"?
There's 25 dollar IEMs that are amazing, and 200 dollar IEMs that are even better.
Exxxcceeeppppttt you know, they've become a lot harder to use because a certain company removed the headphone jack.
So much for "supporting open standards."
Theo would be helped by a convo or guest interview with a legal expert.
23:00 That's a really strange point for you to focus on, The point of that paragraph is all about lock in, UI changes are a small part of that. People often say that if you want choice, you should get an Android instead of an iPhone. But if you have spent hundreds of dollars on apps that don't transfer to Android, it's harder to switch because you'll have to buy and a new phone and rebuy everything. For those people, bringing choice to iPhone is beneficial.
Hating on Sony just because airpods have lean bass is sad.
This reminds me, very much, of what happened back in the day with Microsoft in 1999
I know if someone is bad faith on this whole Apple situation based on their opinion with the messaging problem. I thought this was going to be a good video, but when you griped about RCS sucking because of encryption being controlled only by google I knew this was going downhill. If you think that, then you should understand everything about this because it's the same concept with Apple in reverse.
The proper phone case analogy would be if apple would make their iphones only compatible with their own cases. And they would if they could. There's probably a failed attempt of a patent out there.
Isn't 3rd party smartwatches being uncompetitive on iOS the same reason as the Internet Explorer thing?
They don't have access to APIs that clearly exist since Apple is using them for their own watch.
The situation the other way around is not as clear but if you buy AirPods and don't own an iPhone they're basically like "fuck you for not owning more of our products, you don't get firmware updates". Which they obviously could enable if they wanted to. Of course that costs Apple money and you have the choice to buy something else, which is why it's not nearly as clear cut.
Dude…nobody can put a store or their own payment methods in apps. And when they try, they get banned.
It's true that you have to buy all those apps again if you switch to Android. Would be better if you could just buy it straight from the developer for all platforms.
"That's hard to sue. That's scary, and even the government doesn't necessarily have the position to do that easily, although on the other hand, they are the only ones that have it." Someone let Tim Sweeney know lmao
I think you misunderstood "Limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches with its
iPhones and making it harder for Apple Watch users to switch from
the iPhone due to compatibility issues"
They probably meant that Apple limits the SDK that app developers can use on Apple platforms compared to what they (Apple) can do with their Apple Watch
Requiring a developer license to develop and install software on my own g*d d*mn phone is why I won't touch an iOS device.
For the apple watch, I don't think they are asking to make it like other watches. But such that it can be used with phones other than iPhone. I have a non apple watch which works with android as well as with iPhone. It gives the same functionality on the Android that it gives me on an iPhone.
So they lawsuit is focusing on the part that the apple watches become a piece of junk if you don't own an iPhone and effectively locking you down in the Apple ecosystem. This gives them an monopoly on what is allowed and what isn't which in turns can completely block competition.
Imagine if Microsoft had done to windows what apple does with iOS in the 90s. Apple getd away with it because they're running a cult.
This issue with Apple's iPhone can also apply to Microsoft's Xbox, Sony's Playstation and Nintendo's Switch gameconsoles. Depending on the outcome of these trials a case could be made against them as well.
24:00 the "market" being discussed isn't smartphones as a whole, but the iOS ecosystem. With the iOS/Android hegemony, those platforms by themselves are big enough to be considered their own market.
As someone who started writing software on Apple devices on a ][e, then an Fat Mac, and still write code daily… 40 years ago. It is clear Apple HATES it’s developers. Look at VS Code, Android Studio even, and of course Jet Brains IDE’s like PhpStorm, and AppCode (which Apple killed immediately when it End of Lifed). XCode is the Stockholm Syndrome of IDEs. And why, while I love the iPhone, I hate writing for it. Don’t get me started on the lack of Co-Pilot support in XCode… You aren’t crazy Theo!
The fold and flip cost what they do because A) they are new. B) they are nich. They are for a group of people that want new technology. C) Same goes for the ultra.
Go with there normal line and the prices stack right up to Apple. The s24 and s24+ are what really competes with the iPhone 15 and 15 pros.
Going with Pixel its the same thing. The fold is for a nich group of people.
Theo, hard disagree on the messaging platform bit. Apple requires you to disable iMessage on iCloud for you to be able to receive messages on a different device. If I have an emergency and cant get a message because of iCloud/iMessage "stickiness", yeah thats illegal.
Commenting again because it's not "Stupid Android fanboys".
Let's go with your keycard example you used, well let's say to get a key that works with your building you'd have to go with a lock vendor that Apple has blessed to get the keycard in your wallet. Otherwise it's not compatible. This will affect consumer choice. This is what a monopoly does.
The Apple you've always "known and loved" has always been a predator, remember that. They've always designed their products in a way so the consumer has to buy accessories (like with laptops with a single USB port) or buy the more expensive option (like when you have to pay a lot extra for 16 GB RAM if you want more than 8 GB. The apple loyalists always seem to forget that, strange 🤔
I wish there was a way to make them more consumer friendly but as long as people blindly buy their products they are going to do whatever they want (or until the US or EU intervenes).
The current 8GB Macs are unusably slow. FTC should stop them from selling them.
I suspect this DOJ lawsuit is taking an "everything and the kitchen sink" approach mainly to establish some precedent for various areas of tech anti-trust that don't have a good history of case law.
Even if parts of this lawsuit are very obviously frivolous or over-reaching, there is still value in pursuing a formal decision from a judge on these things. And even if some of the decisions wind up being wrong, at least there is SOME decision, and the appeals process can start.
I think each of these big companies should sit together with the President and talk about what should the next pandemic be?
apple wants to have its cake and eat it too, then smash its sibling's cake so they can't have any, from a business standpoint
Let the big Apple short begin.
The difference between Twitch and Apple is that Twitch uses this money to help other creators and Apple uses it to put others down.
We really reaaaaaaaaaally need a law about law length being under a word count of 500 or something
I appreciate your thoughts and previous research. A few notes based on the fact that you do not appear to be an attorney. A legal complaint (or a press conference) is not intended to present all of the evidence or fully flesh out arguments. Parties in a suit are allowed to present all arguments whether they are strong, weak, or even contradictory. In fact, failure to present an argument may prevent you from presenting that argument later, so to avoid limiting your future arguments, you should often make all of them. That doesn't mean that the order or focus of the complaint will be the same as what is presented in the court. Making a weak argument (e.g., one that you don't agree with) doesn't jeopardize the case or make it less credible.
The statute under which they are being sued appears to use a factors test instead of an elements test, which means that the court will be considering the aggregate of Apple's behavior and a somewhat subjective feel established by the aggregate of their behavior. It doesn't mean that the DOJ is trying to prove a defined set of elements. In factor-type tests, they are trying to prove that the company did as many "factors" as possible, which, in the aggregate, pushes the burden of proof over the line. For instance, it's not about saying that Apple did everything on a checklist, it's more about saying "Apple does lots of shady things, look at their MO." Apple will likely disprove some of the arguments/factors and the court will decide where the balance lies.
My understanding is that the DOJ does not (cannot?) make these suits on behalf of a harmed company, only on behalf of the harmed public, so it would be inappropriate to use the DOJ resources to defend a specific individual rather "going after" Apple themselves. The DOJ is allowed to do some things, but the law doesn't allow them to do whatever they want. Also, I believe that it's less about the market share/"monopoly" and more about market power/influence. Apple may not have whatever percentage of the mobile application market is a "monopoly" but the question is whether they have enough power over the market to prevent competition.
Now this breakdown makes a lot of sense.
Monopoly on SMARTPHONES? That's absurd. They have an anticompetitive position in the exclusivity of their platform.
If they didn't have the anticompetitive restrictions on publishing non-malware for iOS, then they are totally in the clear from my perspective as an independent software vendor...
I think you do not understand the wording of the lawsuit in 0:20 its not about "which is the most expensive". It's about being trapped in an ecosystem and having not much choice for Apple pricing. In the Android ecosystem, you have plenty of choices. So yes, for somebody like you who do not understand the details of the lawsuit, it would seem like "questionable nature". But for the lawyers who have studied the case for so long, it's not questionable.
Apple’s airpods do NOT follow BT standards. Dude…
2:25 I bought my first iPhone (iPhone 4) for $350, still a 3-5x increase in cost for an iphone
I don't think this is about them forcing support. I think it is more about stopping them from blocking support. Like in your example with NFC, it didn't work because the developer did not have access, not because Apple didn't add support in his app.
RIP Apple - please someone, rescue all the talented designers!
RCS is coming to iPhone
Even though you say you disagree about driving up prices, from what I remember Apple was the first that started that avalanche. If one company starts to raise prices others will follow as well, and that's what happened. Although they were pretty cheap at the time in 2016 they had a 300% increase of the last years price and they havent stopped since.
And it's the same with the audio jack example, Apple removes it, others copy - only integrated storage, Apple started everyone followed - or the new "eco" trend where they don't give you adapters and/or new headphones when you buy a new phone, Apple started it now a lot have it already....
A lot of these practices which are good at making money but bad for the users were started by Apple, and it didn't take long for others to realize they could do the same thing... and here we are.
07:00 "more expensive hardware" comes from, xbox streaming is allowed, as long as it's your own xbox console already sitting in your living room
11:00 "restricting functionality" remember the days you could just.. transfer files, between phones, via a bluetooth standard?
my thought was that apple making it hard for "super apps" thing is basically what about what you're saying not allowing custom subscription models in-app for creator payout, game streaming, custom in-app app stores like epic's etc because wechat works because they can do all those things (from what I understand) as it's basically an app store so I could publish a mini app which runs within wechat. please correct me if i'm wrong
17:04 I dont think that cutting things is a good example, because we do have a tool that cuts apples, as well as most things pretty well. it's called a knife
How do you like them apples? 🍎
all i can say is that a 30% stake in every new transaction on their platform is ludicrous and that should be addressed, other than that i dont see an issue. its their platform. maybe in some areas there are inclusions they could make, but this should come down to how they review the apps that are submitted, rather than to what exactly their business model is.
Why i dont have option to change default SMS and Phone app ?
At least i should have option to decide because apple is not giving enough features in these 2 apps. I cant search contact by just dialing half phone number
Does this affect the situation with cancelling/crippling of PWAs in any way? I know it's not explicitly mentioned here, but is there some indirect result of this that could make the situation better?
Here in Brazil, we use WhatsApp or Telegram, and it works PERFECTLY WELL ... without "brand/ social status shaming" 😂
I'm surprised this virtual social shaming/gueto-like practice isn't against the law 🤨
Damn, this video has so many things wrong....
Let's go! I hope they bring back PWAs...
I can't argue allowing anyone to sue over something isn't effective... but it's just so gross of a solution. Both that you have to afford lawyer fees as the person wronged and that the defendant may lose arbitrarily large outsized amounts. When the whole system is broken we pile on more.
sorry but what you said about samsung driving up the prices is a bit delusional, since the newest fold's cost just as much as latest iPhone but have like what? 3 screens and more
we suing apple with this one 🗣🔥🔥
Maybe we will finally get smooth scrolling with non apple mouses :D
I'm a huge apple user, but I 100% support US bringing antitrust suits to Apple. It doesn't let me choose my cables, my watches, my browsers is annoying AF. 100% backing the government. Good use of my taxes. G o o d.
I will never use ipods on an android device.
As LTT said, "I'm an Apple customer, just not enough of one for them to care."
I tried using ipods. It was terrible and frustrating.
it;s really sad. I do not want other methods of payments other than apple pay. I do not want to have to register my credit card everywhere everytime. I do not want to have to sideload apps because they are not in the main store. If users wanted all of that they would go for Android, the alternative exists. They just don't want it. And now they are destroying what makes the Iphone great. The illusion of monopoly is dangerous, there are plenty of other options, users choose to go to the Iphone.
The John Deere crossover episode we didn’t know we needed till today IS NEEDED PLEASE EXPLAIN. I want a deep dive into raspberry pi right to repair
Apple automatically enabling motion pictures so they can turn a photo of a few megabytes to a few tens of megabytes so they can fill up storage and in turn sell more iCloud is anti consumer.
@Theo Rants Would it be interesting to make a stream or video format where there are exchanges of ideas and arguments. About such topics ?
You criticize Android Fanboys, but you are practically foaming at the mouth over Apple and defending their products in the same sentence and with greater vengeance. And I still buy a Galaxy phone for 300-400 ;-) Doesn't make me an Android Fanboy, my family just likes Samsung products. If Samsung was allowed to make phones with iOS maybe I would use it too, but you can't.