The U.S. Presidential election is 100 days away. We could all use an independent, objective, and trustworthy source of news now more than ever. Today's sponsor, Ground News, is a great way to understand your news consumption better and find underreported stories. Get 30% off using this link: ground.news/polymatter
The fact that right to repair isnt mentioned is crazy. Apple knowingly designs products that are not repairable and incentivizes their customer base to purchase the new iPhone every year. I havent read the the DOJ suit, but if that isnt mentioned on there, they completely missed the biggest argument against Apple and their anti-consumer behavior. Edit: 1) for the people commenting how it's "not just Apple" doing this, they were the people that started making their phones more and more inaccessible each year and other companies followed suit with each passing year because they saw it worked. Apple makes stupid amounts of money on people even if they're just a trade in from the previous years' models. They make even more on their awful repair service that is overpriced and under delivers. 2) to the people saying that anti-consumer behavior isn't the same as a monopoly, and therefore isn't in the suit as such, ultimately misses the entire point of the argument here. You are getting screwed just the same, you have less access to quality phones at a reasonable price, you have less ability to fix your own phone and only having 2 major players in the field hurts competition. 3) "I've had my iPhone for x years and it works just fine!" Cool. Nobody asked lol. 4) If you're a person that truly cares about the environment and ownership of things at purchase, then I highly encourage you to watch Rossman Repair Group and High Jeffreys on YT. Both creators highlight the core issues with these devices and why ultimately you shouldn't buy them. For those that are old enough, phone used to have a back panel and a battery that you could just pop out and replace with ease, since this was a part that wore down first on most phones. All new higher end phones LACK this invaluable feature now. IPhones have an adhesive around their perimeter where after you heat dry it open, it will never seal the same again, making it less resistant to the environment after the repair, even if only swapping out a battery. Apple's attempts at making a repair kit that you can rent are so clearly an attempt to appease regulators and to curtail further actions against them like the EU did.
An unusually bad poly matter video... The iMessages section completely misses the point. Green bubbles are unecrypted and bad (low image quality) because apple makes it that way. Ignoring the RCS standard for so long was a choice they made to incentivize users from leaving apple and theyve only decided to now include some features of RCS due to increase scrutiny from the DoJ. Andriod users texting each other dont use SMS because it hasnt been the standard for years
yea, this video screams "paid for by apple" because it ignores all the reasons why it's anti-consumer. Imessages purposedly degrades non-iphone messages. Usually, I assume polymatter videos are neutral with valid viewpoints, but I guess I was wrong.
RCS is not natively encrypted, that’s a feature of Google Messages. If someone is using RCS in Samsung Messages for example, their messages are not encrypted.
@@rangersfan7757 Can't you use Google Messages on a Samsung device? Apple specifically blocks other apps from accessing SMS service. iPhone users are forced to use iMessage for SMS.
The worst thing about Apple is that they have a monopoly over the repair industry as well. They do not allow independent repair shops access to parts, and overcharge for repair. You should have included that in your video. Louis Rossmann has been advocating for Right to Repair for quite some time.
Lack of repairability has nothing to do with “using your monopoly power to lock people into an ecosystem”. It is bad but a small company can also build impossible-to-repair products.
@@matthewmizrachi1877 might be the case, but it’s only his videos that are on my feed 🤷♂️ He seems like a scrupulous man, who is not afraid to call out anyone for their wrongdoing. Genuinely likeable.
Bro… what’s going on with this video? The super apps argument isn’t valid because the original white paper states that “Apps that create alternate desktops/homescreen environments will be rejected” and it’s NOT even about Super Apps. It is very likely referring to the Android launchers that are available for users to create custom versions of their home screen environments (like completely copying the iOS home screen styles). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Super Apps like Wechat. And the green bubble argument is missing the point - the fact that it creates a barrier that forbids android users to receive the same treatment in traditional messaging means like SMS, but NOT other cloud messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal. Apple has JUST recently added the RCS messaging feature, which enables Android and iPhone users to react and send high def. media in messages. Even this would be a much better argument. Tbh, It feels kinda off that Polymatter misses the point that far. Edit: Thanks for the likes. Fixed errors. Fun fact, I myself is using an iPhone, and had used two androids in the past.
Yes this video is absolutely fanboy rubbish that straw mans the actual criticism. I'm not even in favor of the suit because I say let Apple customers have their preferred lock in, but at least just admit that's what you're arguing for. This video is absolutely not representing the case.
Of course Apple fanboys don't understand market monopoly and power abuse If side loading and side payments are allowed then it wouldn't have issues with USA anti monopoly and market abuse under free market act currently developing in EU with restricted access Apple fan boys don't get it without the EU regulations RCS wouldn't even have existed it took Apple 10+ years to get it
It seems like this video idea came straight out of Apple's HR department. I think you missed the entire point of what the lawsuit is claiming and why apple is being Anti-Competitive.
@@Ash-vt7uu Apple exists as pretend competition so the actual big players (Google for phones and Microsoft for computers) can claim they still aren't a literal monopoly.
@@dhruv9744 I think the implication is that Polymatter must be an Apple employee and was instructed in no uncertain terms to make a propaganda video for them... or else. Sad part is I could actually see them doing that.
Have you even watched the entire video? It concludes that the DOJ is going after issues perceived by non-Apple users, rather than the actual issues typical Apple users care about.
True… The super apps argument isn’t so valid and the green bubble argument is missing the point - the fact that it creates a barrier that forbids android users to receive the same treatment in traditional messaging means like SMS, but NOT other cloud messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal. Apple has JUST recently added the RCS messaging feature, which enables Android and iPhone users to react and send high def. media in messages. Even this would be a much better argument. Tbh, It feels kinda off that Polymatter misses the point that far. Edit: Fix errors.
@@enryhen6859 Agreed. And he uses satisfaction rates to argue iphone is fine? I don't think your average person is considering the competitive effects when purchasing a phone?
"small" lol 14:22 "Apple isn't benevolent, but we can't hope for better, let's hope they continue acting in our best interests so long as we pay them money" I'm sorry but this is some of the most blatant shilling for a megacorp I've ever seen, it's a company, not some old god who needs to be appeased with ritual sacrifices of money lest they smite us...
A weak video that has me questioning your previous videos. 1. You haven't talked about competing industry standards like RCS that support typing indicators, read receipts, high res media, E2E encryption etc. Apple greatly resisted implementing this & finally is doing in iOS18. I suspect this lawsuit is one of the main motivators. 2. Claiming that Alphabet has split Android, Search & Gmail into adversarial products is patently false. They, along with Drive/Docs form the backbone of integrated Google software ecosystem. 3. DOJ claims on super apps literally comes from internal Apple presentation that states "Apple cited super apps as a “major headwind” to boosting iPhone sales in countries where they’re popular because of “[l]ow stickiness” and “[l]ow switching costs.”"
I too am questioning all their previous videos. I am about to scroll through a few on topics I am familiar with and check for a pattern of bias. It's unlikely to be just one video. At the very least, I will no longer be taking @polymatter at their word any more.
The green bubble is actually very useful for another reason. Namely it lets you know that the message is going over SMS rather than over data. So if you're overseas for example and charged for SMS but are on wi-fi and thus not for data it is really important to know how your message would be sent.
@@aruak321 you are correct. Apple is right to differentiate SMS messages from native iMessages & they cannot be blamed for the stigma that people associated with green bubbles. They can be blamed however for delaying RCS adoption till after the lawsuit or for not creating an industry standard ~RCS. Remember this is the world's largest company by valuation & can surely afford to do the above.
@@CherryMid I would argue that given the ubiquity of messaging apps like WhatsApp, FB Messenger, etc. which serve the lion share of messages that this is really a non-issue. The threatened Chinese regulations were more about protecting their domestic smartphone market and as in many cases where the EU intervened, they did so about the wrong thing (and will likely not achieve the goals they want) and done in an unfounded way, especially given that iPhones by no means represent the majority of phones in Europe.
I think you have missed the point on the messaging section at least, RCS would allow all messages to be encrypted. Apple being forced to allow interoperability with other key standards (RCS) does not stop them from being able to offer higher integration with their own system it just stops them from deliberately reducing the quality for everyone else.
I feel like he glosses over a lot of very crucial information in favor of admonishing the DOJ. - Apple doesn't need to wall off its ecosystem to other companies in order to benefit from its tightly integrated ecosystem. That's still something MS and Google utterly fail to pull off and would make competing apps better on IOS than Android/windows. - For whatever reason, after talking about the inexcusable act of not allowing other companies to use tap-to-pay, he just moves on to keys needing to be added to apple wallet and glosses the whole thing over as "simplifying the experience"
It's about QC. When you control every single piece you can ensure 100% seamless functionality. This is the exact reason many of us choose apple products in the first place.
I've watched your videos for years, but the arguments in this video were so poor, it made me question all the previous videos. I agree the DOJ could have done more, but ignoring the harm to consumers when a company has such control is misleading viewers. Apple continuing to take actions to not only maintain their monopoly but expand it in other markets (some only emerging) is very harmful to consumers and potential growth of various markets.
He’s not saying that Apple’s dominance isn’t harmful to consumers-it definitely is. But what’s the alternative? Super apps? The viable options we observe today are generally worse substitutes. At least Apple offers substantial value in terms of user experience. Taking something down without having a better alternative just leads to a downward spiral.
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
@@frankxu4795 there's no alternative and the DOJ suing apple is not about giving power in hands of some other company, it's about giving apple less power over how other apps provide service on Apple's platform. See it as Amazon absuing their power on their site and launching amazon basics branded products by analyzing which products are popular and selling their own version at loss to bleed their competitors till they can't survive
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
To System Integration: Making communications possible to competitors does not mean they have to gift away their features. The only thing apple has to do is to make specifications how the required Data is Transmitted. If Apple thinks that Making it complicated is better for some reason, they can still make it complicated. The communication is there (apple uses it). Apple is just holding it hostage. No one is forcing apple to add a sepetate Port for a competitors Feature.
Apple was fine ripping off Microsoft office suite to make their own interoperable office suite. Meanwhile Apple will nuke any app that does the same to Apple until the rubble glows.
NGL.... This video misses a lot of point, and just seems to be defending Apple. The point about Green Bubble especially...... A bit dissapointing, because I thought Polymatter is a neutral, non-biased source of information :I
The green bubble is actually very useful for another reason. Namely it lets you know that the message is going over SMS rather than over data. So if you're overseas for example and charged for SMS but are on wi-fi and thus not data it is really important to know how your message would be sent.
@@notapplicable7292 The blue is absolutely an indicator that your message is going over iMessage. With RCS I believe there is will be an additional indicator to differentiate between that and SMS.
I think that this vídeo fundamentally misses the point of it all, is not what users are getting is what users are missing, things could be so much better without the monopoly of apple every time that a monopoly has been taken back the users benefit
Is that true?, that monopolys always lead to a worse deal of the user? I think it's historically been true for steel, coal, railroads and stuff. But this seems different. Fuel and transport would exist even if monopolys that dominated their markets didn't. One person alone could dig up coal, or could walk a big distance, so all the monopolys can offer is convenience, efficiency and comfort. These tech companies are a bit different. There's no way a single person could design and manufacture an iphone or program it's os. Smart phones don't naturally exist so all features these monopolys offer are new creations, so there's massive room for innovation. To be clear tech companies and other monopolys can and do abuse their position of power, and we should take steps to stop that. But since the situation has changed, it makes sense so should our thinking and tactics.
@@ocularrecords Unless you have an Apple watch, their premium wireless earbuds. That $1300 phone purchase is now like a $2500 phone purchase if you don't want to have your other items not work or have extremely reduced functionality. Imagine if Mercedes Benz paid $50 billion to be the only person to have Apple Car play in their automobiles. There would be so many MB sold in so fucking fast.
@@HAFBeast91 understandable but, no. Pay the fees. Apple does license there tech to other companies for compatibility but they don’t want to pay. So either reverse engineer for your customers or cut it. My Samsung Ear buds lose functionality on an iPhone just the same. No company will ever be fully all inclusive so to expect Apple to do so? Why. That’s my point. Just go elsewhere if that’s the case. You buy it knowing the consequences. If you want to be a consumer and do it mindlessly you don’t get to complain as well.
You're glossing over a lot of very crucial information in favor of admonishing the DOJ. - Apple doesn't need to wall off its ecosystem to other companies in order to benefit from its tightly integrated ecosystem. That's still something MS and Google utterly fail to pull off and would make competing apps better on IOS than Android/windows. - For whatever reason, after talking about the inexcusable act of not allowing other companies to use tap-to-pay, you move on to keys needing to be added to apple wallet and gloss the whole thing over as "simplifying the experience" Allowing other wallets to exist on the phone would not impair the simplicity of having your car keys on Apple Wallet. Two exclusive concepts that you rolled into one.
People liked their phone services under Bell, but then realized that they didnt like it after seeing how the broken up anti-trust version was better and cheaper
Did you watch the video? He is looking at DoJ lawsuit and if it has merit on all 5 points. He even mentioned a 6th item (30% commission thing) which SHOULD have been included. I think he is mostly on point. DoJ lawsuit is about using monopoly power to lock into an ecosystem. Not about if Apple cares about “android consumers”
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
@@spooky.- Seriously. How are people confused by this? There are so many things they could be arguing against Apple, but they aren't. It's likely deliberately missing the winning goal in a soccer match because you want to make a point. What does it actually achieve?
The "Return RUclips Dislike" chrome plugin is a godsend and I'm so glad it exists. I can see this video has a rougly 45:55 like:dislike ratio, and deservingly so
@PolyMatter - I think you should read the comments, take this video down, revise it and reupload it. You have not delivered an impartial summary of this topic.
@@Ash-vt7uu If consumers want to willingly use a product, it fundamentally isn't anti-consumer. This is like asking why people use Steam when it's a monopoly; it's not a monopoly, and people use it because it's the best on the market.
@@heychrisfox Steam is not a monopoly because you can install game in your computer without it. Can you imagine if your computer is not allow to install any paid app/game without paying microsoft 30% fee? This is exactly what happen to iphone right now. That 30% fee will ultimately get paid by you the consumer. Computer would not have so much creative program/website if microsoft was allow to charge 30% on everything since the 80s.
Really this is just an illusion of control. Corporations still have an oligopoly in this country and nothing we do will change that without a regime change and bodies in the streets !
It always blows my mind how people still see Apple as the most superior phone brand. No matter how overpriced their phones get, people will still buy it. Even if they've been slowly removing features (like ports, only to upsell you cables and adapters), people will see right past it. Why?
most people in world don't care about functionality and use cases and reliability. All they care about is looks and status. In fact, it is true for general life. not only this case
I can tell you why I buy Apple products, I prefer their form of polish (most of the time), compared to Samsung, although they both are taking ideas from each other so maybe i'll change in the future -edit I also own a Mac & a Steam deck, in that case its because I just hate windows & trust Apple more than Microsoft for daily stuff
I switch just a few months ago when a iPhone 15 pro was cheaper than the Samsung 24 and my last 3 Samsung phones batteries blew up from me doing nothing Then newer iPhones can use the same cable as Samsungs so that not an issue I’m not an iPhone or Apple fan boy just giving a reason why some people move or stay with Apple products
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
@@spooky.- Girl, he's using the vague stats that "80% like their iPhones" as an argument not to change anything. This has nothing to do with the topic. If you're gonna be the comments police you better get to work, cause most people seem to think just like me
It's pointless to argue whether Apple's market monopoly is good or bad, and whether users like or dislike the iPhone. It is a longstanding economic fact that monopolies are harmful to consumers in the long run and no single company should be allowed the power to have a functioning monopoly unless it's absolutely necessary and those must be highly regulated (see natural monopolies such as utilities). Allowing Apple to apply anti-competitive practices because (for now) it builds a good product that consumers enjoy opens up a terrible legal precedent. In other words, Apple and no other company should be trusted with building a monopoly through anti-competitive practices, whether this resulted so far in a good product or not is irrelevant. If Apple consciously used monopolistic practices, as you admitted is the case for each one of the DOJ's arguments, they must be prosecuted and forced to open up their product. The EU and its competition authority understand this for years, happy to see its counterparts on the other side of the pond finally joining the party.
This. Arguing that apple restricting their competitors is "apple is protecting us from super apps" is an insane argument to make, if antitrust is enforced properly *nither* of them would restrict freedom and competition that is the entire point, Apple shouldn't be above the law and decide what is good for us, and most users simply don't care about apps having multiple functions within it, he acts like that's a world ending scenario.
I think people living in first-world countries are clueless to the dangers of monopolies. My country is basically owned by 5 families. There's one mobile network operator, one cable service, one electric company, one property developer. Imagine your internet is down for 2 weeks, text messages don't arrive, and you can't make calls half the time. They don't provide refunds you can't threaten to go to another company because there's no competitor. When we see people defending monopolies, we realize how naive, clueless, and pampered they are.
You're missing the point of monopoly laws. There would be no Apple if Microsoft was allowed to do the things that Apple is doing now. Your precious Apple would have gone bankrupt if Microsoft hadn't felt compelled to bail it out of bankruptcy to avoid monopoly laws.
As european it's good that our authorities try to protect our data but the fact is we are submissive to american companies and USa in general. Russia and China may be totalitarian regim but at least they have devellop autonomy or partial autonomy on critical sector. If in the future we are no longer good dogs and we lose acess to GAFAM's services we will have no alternative. We are always reacting to the change like the IA act rather than provoking it. The worst is that we are stiffling the ground with this to devellop ia in our territories in the meantime usa companies continues to eat our data to train their ia models. These fines are just pebble in the path of the GAFAM's. In the meantime with the extraterritoriality of american laws our companies are subject to these laws. If they are not bought because WE can't defend them even when they are in a critical sector.
uh the thing about Messages is that messages to android users aren't encrypted. That's the problem. They should be encrypted. Apple refuses to encrypt them.
Citing that 80% of iPhone users are satisfied with their experience is pretty disingenuous considering most have probably either never used a different type of phone or are using and iPhone purely out of peer pressure. Non-iPhone's consistently have better more innovative features at lower prices, but apple users have essentially no idea that these are options. This is like saying 80% of households are satisfied with their kerosene lamps because they've never used electric lights.
A part of the issue is though, a lot of those features come at the cost of overall experience as it’s usually buggy at first and the average person doesn’t care. Apple’s popularity has risen partially because they just “do everything for you”. Customizations are for the tech enthused; average joe just wants to see all his apps in one place. Sure there are other options, but why switch and learn new software when what you had works? I’ve used both Andoird and Apple phones in the past and I always go back to Apple cause it’s fluid, and overall feels smooth to use where I’ve found Androids to feel more clunky and less polished
You’ve overlooked what most users actually need-a basic phone that just works. They might not care about high-end gaming or endless customization options, but they definitely care about everyday functionality. And guess what? Apple nails it in that area. Almost everything works straight out of the box with minimal hassle.
@@frankxu4795 What in the world are you using that is a hassle straight out of the box with anything. Any of the big brand Android systems are going to work right out of the box with no hassle just as well as an Apple device. If you are comparing a cheap less than $100 Android phone to a name-brand phone obviously there is going to be a difference. If you want a competitive system you are going to have to pay competitive prices. But the thing is even the cheapest Android phones still aren't too much of a hassle straight out of the box. And are still packed with everyday functionality. I think you got caught up in the Apple propaganda. Same as this video.
@@deamichaelis1 For years I used a $300 android phone. The only problem I had was that the camera wasn't as good. The phone was just as easy to use as any iPhone, it had just as many features (more, in reality), and it wasn't extra complex in any way. Then, when I decided to upgrade to a more expensive phone made by a different brand I just could! It wasn't hard transferring all my data! I didn't lose access to anything I had paid for previously! And the best part? It was easy and uncomplicated. iPhone is a status symbol, and the only way the can keep their users is by artificially making other brands look worse through things like not allowing HD images to be sent through messages across platforms. Apple will never see a dollar out of my wallet.
As far as I am aware, antitrust legislation has been a positive for the consumer every single time it has been enacted. If you believe this is not true, considered making a video exploring historical examples of antitrust legislation having unitended anti consumer effects. That video would be interesting and would add something new to this discussion, as opposed to this one which just repeats corperate talking points. Corperations voices are loud enough already. They do not need your help.
(I made another long comment which included this sentiment, but I wanted something short and to the point, since I think this is the key problem with this video.)
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Ok, look at the breakup. That's what I said wasn't it? Antitrust legislation that backfired would make a good video topic. Corporate talking points do not.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I, and the vast majority of commenters, do not think the arguments in this video are interesting or insightful. It feels like a valueless regurgitation of corporate talking points. Is there a particular argument Polymatter made which you felt was so insightful that it justified the existence of this video?
I'm new to this channel and was thrilled to see it getting slammed for this utterly biased video that almost purely straw mans the government's case. I'm glad it's only the creator and NOT most viewers/subscribers who is an Apple sycophant.
The videos on this channel are usually good. This is getting absolutely roasted because the viewers are frankly shocked at how bad this is. So much is glossed over or simply not mentioned entirely. I'm stunned at the lack of accuracy compared to the rest of the channel. It's why the dislikes outweigh the likes and the comments are so savage.
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
The problem is the comment section is full of android fanboys and were expecting him to dunk on them. These people are unable to think critically, that’s why they used laggy android phones for years while apples phone was far better. They can’t handle the fact that he looked at the issues objectively.
@@Dumbledore6969x I think that his video is biased and wrong, and I am typing this on my Macbook while listening through my Airpods Pro. I just switched to iPhone this year from Android and I can tell you that stuff like purposefully delayed iMessage / RCS Integration to make "iPhone families" in the US, the long time ban on Streaming Apps and sideloading, their fight against right to repair, Lightning Cables with the Mfi tax, the forced 30% cut on digital goods and their strict rules on what content is and is not allowed on the App Store are actively hurting customers.
@@gfrewqpoiuI don't think the video is biased. His point is "I'm confused why the DOJ can win on these arguments". He isn't saying who's right or wrong, just that this looks weird. The points he discussed are the ones the lawsuit points to as evidence that apple is anticompetitive. The fact the DOJ didn't focus on right to repair or subscriptions was a mistake.
I did try them with maximum subscription for a while and the bias stuff was a major joke. It wasn't checked per article at all, instead it was for each news outlet. But at least in Norway, one news outlet can be biased in multiple directions. Also, the spectrum is not left to right. There is no connection between far right extremists (such as Nazis), people that want economic rules that benefit companies, and abortion. Anti-abortion for example could just as easily be a left cause given a certain political climate.
The Percentage of satisfied users is a weak argument. In other legal cases, I admit far darker ones (such as grape, assault, psychological torture) the victim's opinion is discarded mostly. The prosecution continues without their (probably nonsensical due to personal issues) opinion. I dont think this is comparable here, but the idea that percentage satisfied users from the affected is a great counter is by itself weak. One can make the argument that a reasonable mind may disagree with them and be more correct than they are.
They are already invested, and they are more likely to say they are satisfied with it than to say it was a waste of their money because nobody likes to think they are the ones who fell for a scheme to take their money. I must be happy with it because there is no way I wasted my money like other people might have. 🤣
You are conflating criminal and civil law. In the former the state, not the victim, is the aggrieved party. In cases such as the this the united states is suing on behalf of the consumer, presuming they are aggrieved in the first place.
Yes, it very much reminds me of a famous quote by Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach: "Happy slaves are the bitterest enemies of freedom." Even if 80% of iPhone users say they are satisfied with the status quo, we as a society should still aim to give freedom to everybody so they can choose and decide for themselves if they would be more satisfied using an Apple product together with a non-Apple product when both integrate via open standards (like USB 3.0 for example) or if they stick only to Apple products because they want to, not because they don't have an option.
@@Epidombe Polymatter is trying to come off as an unbiased expert on the matter, but it's pretty obvious that he has a significant bias for Apple. He blatantly ignores some of the most important ways Apple has abused their monopolistic lead like with right to repair issues, and the various ways Apple has made it difficult to switch (like the difficulty of getting your photos off icloud). Also the insistence that Apple will do the best thing for the customer because that's what makes the most money has to be THE STUPIDEST argument I have ever heard in my entire life. What is best for the customer is never the thing that will get a corporation the most money in the short term. Short term gains benefit greatly from customer exploitation. We cannot trust corporations to do what is best for us nor should we.
@@totengraben Companies making money is literally in their best interest. No company would willingly do something that makes them less money if they have the option of doing something that makes more money. This is capitalism 101.
@@heychrisfox Thats why we have laws regulating the actions companies can take. What apple is doing is blatant anti consumer behavior and should get slapped down.
The argument that only a monopolistic company can make an experience integrated and cohesive is not just condescending to developers, its just outright wrong. All of the integration features mentioned in this argument have free, competitive, and open source alternatives that dont limit who can make them. Programming itself as an activity can be viewed as making and using interfaces and protocols, all the way down, and there is no technical reason why these protocols cannot be made at least available to third parties, if not outright free and open source.
Few actually know how the internet works, but fun fact, there are several different vendors and operating systems running on the backbone. Networks and protocols exist for this reason, to make integration possible. There are less sophisticated software that does some of the integration that happens in the Apple, Huawei, Samsung or Xiaomi ecosystems. One such example is Synergy, its a KVM software, you can use the keyboard or mouse from a designated device in your network to control the others. Any argument that we need a monopoly for tighter integration is BS. What we need are standards, which already exist but are being eroded by 'big tech' for obvious reasons.
2 месяца назад
Exactly, it is actually against ToS to use APIs which makes Apple Music and other Apple applications better integrated into Apple ecosystem. The moment you will try to use them, you are not going to pass the review on App Store.
Came here (from nebula) to post exactly this! The FOSS community is proof that different groups *can* work together and produce deep integrations, it just takes the desire and open communication.
Sorry, but you're totally missing the point of the green bubbles. Apple forced green bubbles to be unencrypted because Apple refused to adapt the industry standard RCS (Rich Communication Services, sometimes also called Advanced Messaging or SMS+) and instead only displayed messages with their own proprietary standard that no competitor can adapt as secure. It's similar to the Apple charging cable when the rest of the world uses USB 3.0. But it gets even worse, after they refused to adapt RCS in 2022, they announced last month in June 2024 that they will adapt it, so iPhones can receive encrypted messages from non-iPhones. All good you might say now because if these messages are encrypted, then by Apple's logic they should be blue, right? right... ? RIGHT? But that would look like Apple isn't better than all the other manufactures, so of course Apple doesn't do that and secure RCS messages will get green bubbles... which completely invalidates your argument for blue bubbles. I usually like your videos, but you dropped the ball hard this time and this is the first video of yours I'll dislike.
I’ve never been able to articulate my gripe with Apple. Then you encapsulated it in one phrase. “Others are forced to innovate Apple has the option to not” truest shit ever. Full disclosure: written on an iPhone.
Time to get yourself a phone that follows EU law, allows right to repair, doesn't artificially decrypt your messages, is less expensive, runs more apps, and gives you more power over your own phone in general.
14:23 but it’s insensitives aren’t aligned with its users. It’s aligned with squeezing the most money out of its customers. Louis Rossmann literally goes over every way that Apple makes repair of its products as difficult as possible.
"80% of iPhone users like their device". Asking Apple users if they like the products is the same as asking cult members if they like their cult leader.. Apple's greatness comes from marketing, story telling, rather than technical advantages or design superiority. It's a strong brand, people associate Apple with status and are willing to swallow any price increase or lack of features... that's why apple is big in nations with high levels of consumerism and individualism.
Nevermind alleged 'cult' behaviour: consumer preference is not an absolute defense against monopoly abuses. The famous antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90s was predicated on Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 98+ and taking over the browser market, even though late-90s Internet Explorer was genuinely preferred by many.
Yeah the Apple users seem to be a cult. In schools, if you don't have an iPhone, you can be ostracized, it's not happened to me, but I've seen it happen.
something feels off about these arguments. i disagree some arguments, especially considering the use of "we" point of view. funny how "right to repair" and 30% tax isn’t mentioned 😅
It's funny that the sponsor for the vídeo is a website that don't want to have a bias opinion when this video is super biased in favor of apple, even tho the arguments presented always signals some anti competitive behaviour...
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No, it isn't. It is very easy to convince people to defend things that go against their own interests. Politicians do it and so does Apple.
The most glaring & egregious monopolisation is in Apples repair of iphones (and other Apple products). Apple goes to extreme lengths to monopolise this area, yet somehow it's missing from this suit!? From control of parts supply from third parties to ensuring that new parts won't work until paired with any given phone makes this one of the most insidious and aggressive forms of monopolisation on the face of the planet.
Be honest bro, how much did Tim Cook pay you for this? It's almost like you went out of your way to mischaracterize a few salient points about this Lawsuit. I'm not bashing your hustle though, just wanna know how much Tim Cook was willing to shell out for this?
Tim cook doesn't need to pay him...lol Most youtubers are iphone users anyways.Apple just have to give him some free subscriptions or something to make him do things.
People descending into paranoid schizophrenia because they're that tribal on an issue. If you watched the video to the end you'd see he acknowledges Apple does some severely anticompetitive things that are only briefly mentioned in the lawsuit. Europe is better at holding companies to account for these things because they have a real concept of economics and society.
What a silly argument about super apps. The point is to make them available so people can choose to use them or not. And saying that they can go to Android is a non-answer. People might want them in IOS because they have other reasons to use IOS.
@@enryhen6859 My point was that the government argued that because of Apple's dominant position in the US, they should not use that power to force or "steer" consumers toward or away from anything, be it apps or superapps or anything else.
14:40 Saying that 80% of users are satisfied, does not make the DOJ's argumentation "lose all credibility." Jumping to that conclusion completely overlooks the possibility that: _By_ being so anticompetitive, Apple is _creating_ a user experience in which the competition _appears_ to deliver inferior quality. That you didn't take this one extra step in logical thinking, makes this video seem biased in favor of Apple. And I'm not saying that that extra step is "The Truth" or anything... It could be that Apple users _have_ experienced what else is out there. But since it's _made_ so punishing to step outside of the ecosystem (of iCloud, watches, messages, etc.), it's _plausible enough_ that very few Apple users have ever known anything better. So it's _at least worth mentioning_ that alternative explanation too! (even if it's just a possibility, and not claimed to be "The Truth" either) And the video wouldn't seem so biased if only more than one option had been mentioned...
The competition does deliver inferior quality. For example how Android keyboards will change a word you spelled correctly because it believes you meant to say something else. Insane stuff like that never happened on IOS. They just corrected my spelling.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz See, that's the thing. I downloaded a separate keyboard app because I didn't like the default one. Not sure whether they have SwiftKey on ios though 🙃
@@MrNicoJac Microsoft Swiftkey is available on iOS and Android. I tried Swiftkey and had the same issue. Both Swiftkey and GBoard are trying to use predictive AI and it ends up inserting random words you didn't say even after you spell them correctly. I support antitrust laws against Apple but to say the product is inferior is just false. The fact the complaint about green text bubbles is more prescient among Americans than the actual anticompetitive practices like the ones mentioned at the end of this video shows we have our heads buried in the sand. Europeans continuing to show us up when it comes to regulation.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Hmm, interesting... I don't have that issue on SwiftKey. I presume you checked the settings, and found no option to turn it off? I just checked my settings, and I _can_ turn off Autocorrect and Quick Prediction Insert... (on Android) Mine usually does correct me, but (as far as I've noticed at least) that's always been because I mistyped one letter (or more). Although it used to always change fuck into duck 😂 But it got better after I typed it in a few times, haha I've never had it suggest a totally different word that I never typed (in combination with what I typed being 100% correct, at least). It does get words wrong when I want a simple past tense verb and it picks the plural instead (for the words where that overlap is possible). But it usually suggests them way before I'm done typing, so I just click the wrong option and change the last letter :) I have tried to use my gf's iPhone though, and I always failed to make it pick what I typed instead of what it thought I meant. We're in the EU, so there's a lot of times where we type an English word in a native language sentence, and I feel like hers freaks out about that much more than mine 🤣 (I've downloaded both languages/dictionaries, so it's got both options to pick from - not sure what her settings are exactly, since I think she types much less in English, typically) Overall, there's only one thing mine struggles with, and that's if the first letter of what I typed is incorrect - it really struggles getting that right. Anyhow, I hope you find something that works for you ^^
@@MrNicoJac Thanks. I'll give SwiftKey another shot. Lack of customization, and new features that are in a sense downgrades, is a problem across many platforms, RUclips for example. I guess it comes from the fact we don't own any of the software we use, rather we're just given permission to borrow it.
Apple integrates its own products with APIs. This is no different from any other software company. Any smartwatch could integrate just as smoothly with an iPhone if Apple would make those APIs public. There is no trade-off there. Apple would still be able to offer smooth integration of all their products - but so would other products.
I'll never understand how someone can have even an average knowledge of tech and willingly buy an Apple device. They are by far the most predatory, anti-consumer, anti-competition tech company on the planet.
Well, I for one happen to love an OS that doesn't crash every week or month, even if it's much more difficult to customize. I hate Windows with a passion, after having worked as unofficial IT support for Win machines since 2007 - I've encountered every single common fault of that long lineage of pieces of shit, and then some. In my decade as a Mac user, I've had to solve a serious software issue twice... ever.
@@Ildskalli I like how you specified software issues. You seem to be well educated enough to at least know how anti right to repair Apple is. If anything breaks it's either intentionally designed to be impossible or near impossible to repair or the swapping of new parts will cause pre-programmed malfunction. Don't even get me started on their pre-programmed obsolescence (which they were caught for a few years ago) as an IT guy I'm surprised you can even openly support this kind of manichean anti customer practices. I'm stunned
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I agree there would need to be a firm standard, but isn't that what the lawsuit would provide? When each side can have control over those decisions?
@@willhudson5625 That will not achieve integration on the level apple users expect. Look at the incompatibility problems of PC hardware and software. Mac has ZERO of this.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Mac computers also have the problem of not being able to upgrade or replace the hardware. Which makes the PC far better then the Mac. If something happens to the Mac Mini or Mac Studio in regards to RAM have fun buying a new one. Me if my RAM fails that's all I have to buy is new RAM and replace it. SO get off your damn soap box.
Imagine while having RCS still giving green bubbles so that if you use Android your friend would just ignore sending you text because they think it's not free... And this man comes here and defends iMessage?? Are you fr ???
I strongly dislike this video, and I don't understand your motive in making it. Every one of the things you described as a positive for consumers was designed with the explicit intention of being anticompetitive. They may be positives, but they are also anticompetitive. The DOJ is arguing that you can have your cake and eat it too, and you provided no reason to believe that is not true. Why can the apple watch not be closely integrated with the IPhone while allowing other watches to also be closely integrated? Of course it can. The only argument you made was saying that apple won't be motivated to innovate if they are forced to be open. This is the same argument made by the Chicago School and Regan types for the past 60 years and it has been proven wrong every time it is tested. What's more, you specifically undermined the basis for that argument by acknowledging that users do want tight integration of products. If users want tight innovation, then Apple will always be incentivised to integrate tighly, even if the DOJ grows a pair and forces that tight integration to be done in a non-anticompetitive way. Even assuming the Regan types were right, your incentives argument does not hold up under the framework you yoursef set out.
After some thought, I want to expand a bit more on my comment about motivations. This case has been covered by several popular tech channels, and has always been covered positively, as the government finally stepping up to protect consumers. You frame this video as a second look at the issue, bringing a more careful analysis of both sides. You acknowledge that Apple engages in anticompetitive practices, so the suit has merit, but your motivation for making the video seems to be that you think the issue is more nuisanced (i.e. the antitrust case is not an unambiguously good thing). You present two arguments in this direction. First, that the case could have been made more strongly if it focused on more egregious anticompetitive behavior, and second, that antitrust regulation might not be all good for the consumer. The first point is clearly not enough of an issue to justify a Polymatter video. It might make sense for Legal Eagle to make a video about how the arguments in a lawsuit could have been made more strongly but not a Polymatter video. So undoubtedly your motivation for making the video is the second. However, you really don't provide a strong defense of the second point. "Antitrust legislation hurts the consumer." is an argument that has been made by monopolies since antitrust legislation was invented, but nearly every time antitrust legislation is enacted, the consumer benefits. If you think this is not true, going through a list of historical examples of times when antitrust legislation has had negative consequences would make a genuinely interesting video and would potentially be a strong defense of your point. Instead, you just repeated the Apple press release talking points without adding anything of value. That's the part that really offends me about this video. Even if Apple was right that it would hurt the consumer, they are already making this argument as loudly as they can. They don't need you playing defense for them. Quite disappointed by the quality of this video. I hope it is promptly removed.
You cannot tightly integrate when you don't have 100% control. That's the entire reason so many of us chose Mac over PC back in the day and iphone over android today. Brand X infiltration leads to failures and crashes.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I feel like it isn't a terrible thing for the consumer if different companies found a hiccup in integration for a second as they're forced to cooperate with each other at a really basic level. Eventually, "brand x" infiltration would force different companies to play nice with each other, and I think that'd benefit us by giving us integration yet choice and options.
@@mojrimibnharb4584what leads you to believe that if Apple opened up its integration APIs for use by other companies, Apple’s products would suddenly stop working with each other? Nobody here is arguing the Apple Watch needs to stop integrating with the iPhone, they’re saying anything the Apple Watch can do on the iPhone, other companies should be able to do too
Among other comments i would to point out that not having the ability to compete is the problem, not the argument of will it be better. Time and time again apple has taken away the ability to compete which is not their decision to make.
@@InternetDisplayofPower i might be a random joe to you. But in reality i am a senior engineer and i have my own company. I pay tons of money for macbooks pro every 2 years and they breakdown fast. Macbooks were much more robust before. I don't mind paying a lot of money but i demand quality. The quality isn't there anymore. This is why i am saying they are incompetent. I am judging them based on the amount of money they are charging me. When you have a team of international engineers and start to get all sorts of weird problems with applecare+ in different countries, then we can talk again.
@@InternetDisplayofPower I had posted a long comment explaining my position. However, this comment has disappeared for unknown reasons. Possibly, Google has incompetent people on the RUclips services teams. In short, I am an engineer and I have my company with an international team and we spend a lot of money with apple. MacBooks break down abroad and applecare sucks.
This video misses the mark in so many ways. I used to trust polymatter, but ignoring the main point of a lawsuit and claiming that it's not in the interest of users is journalistic malpractice.
Yeah, I'm concurring with the others here - Polymatter, I'm disappointed. This entire thing reeks of bias, even by the 3 minute mark. Jumping onto the first point, line 2.5.8. doesn't refer to superapps - it's the ability to flash, emulate or run other OSes onto your iPhone like variants of iOS or even Android. I'm really disappointed in you - you can do better than this. Can't you?
Anti-competitive practices sometimes are popular with consumers, but that doesn't make them not anti-competitive. Another example is Net Neutrality. When an ISP makes special deals with companies that will pay, consumers might get special access to those companies. This is still anti-competitive to companies that can't pay, and in the end, that could entrench current popular stalwarts and stifle technological innovation, even though consumers may enjoy the current entrenched technology. The point of enforcing these policies is to protect small businesses and small innovators from the elevated power of the current titans of business. Helping consumers is a more nebulous and future secondary effect. Consumers might not realize that a new & better option for something isn't being allowed to float to the top of the pack.
Apple roads, using Apple fuel, Apple radio, Apple charging accessories, wearing apple clothes and apple cell service, driving to the Apple store. "But what about the seamless ecosystem? It's so good!" 🙄🙄 I'm so disappointed with this channel and am questioning all their other videos integrity.
This seems a very biased view. You totally ignore that a lot of these technologies can work seamlessly cross iOS and Android... Like the green bubbles. There are message enrcrytion protocols open to both parties but Apple doesn't want to adopt a standard as this will reduce consumer stickiness. Same thing with the smart watch functionality. Same thing with the lighting cable and USB C. Only that one they finally conceded didn't they. Trust, they will slowly concede to all finally giving the consumer the ability to switch freely and match devices however they see fit. Then, it will be a truly open competitive environment where the manufacturers produce the very best for the consumer not lock you in.
False Dichotomy with the Super App criticism. Open protocols, and healthy competition can create good ecosystems. I don't care what enail address or email provider you use, it's just email. Why don't chat, payments, appointments, calendars, etc... have a similar compatible and diverse ecosystem?
11:06 That catch isn't right: Allowing others to have the same integration doesn't prevent apple to keep their current integration... E.g. letting other smartwatches have the same features doesn't make the Apple Watch worse.
Saying that apple being forced to share its innovations with other companies is bad for innovation consumers is very odd, considering polymatter literally made a video on patents saying the opposite, that patents (Giving companies complete monopoly and control over products) is bad for innovation and consumers ??
@@primetime3422 ya our political system is a shitshow, no question about that. However that isn't why the arguments from the DOJ aren't very good, it's because this is, at best, a shockingly and uncharacteristically skewed and biased video from this channel and at worst, an intentionally misleading representation or driven by lack of understanding of the problem (and hence has no right to make a video on the topic)
congress @ Microsoft in the 90's: "whoa whoa whoa, there is way too much power in this tech giant, it needs to be broken up!!" congress today: ahh, yes, apple. nice and safe, I dont think theres a monopoly, but, I GUESS we should maybe look into it
@@mojrimibnharb4584iirc, Internet Explorer had to be separate from the Windows operating system: Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers to run on their devices, and not promote their own browser over another; wheras, for example, apple pay is actually starting to replace cash and debit card transactions, our current financial system
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No, it's because by that point transnational megacorporations - including Microsoft - had already made massive progress in their efforts to corrupt government and gain effective control over public policy. Microsoft - and, to a lesser extent, other companies who were concerned about the precedent an antitrust breakup of Microsoft might create - was throwing enough lobbying dollars around to buy enough support that any efforts to break up Microsoft ultimately would've failed due to manufactured/purchased political opposition. Also, antitrust laws were gradually *gutted* over the years prior, starting with the Reagan administration.
Apple’s dumb mouse just shows that Apple is anti competitive, terrible design but it’s only seemless and smooth bc it doesn’t allow other mouse to do so
This video sounds like it was sponsored by Apple. As other commenters have noted, PolyMatter has missed the point on a number of things in defense of Apple. Disappointing, biased video for sure.
I think the US could have a strong argument concerning planned obsolescence. Users that are content are almost forced to buy new products after several updates once certain features stop working.
"the product will get worse if apple won't be monopoly 😢" that is the same exact argument AT&T had before the government broke it apart and everything got cheaper and better
Horrible takes, the entire premise of arguing whether a monopoly good is flawed, it has been time and time again that monopolies are always bad for consumers in the long term and we continue to see this happen right now with e.g. the Microsoft Activation-Blizzard acquisition and Apple. Here let's break down each and every one: - Super Apps: Who are apples to decide if super apps are bad for me? Who are you to tell me that? And there's this cool thing to ensure that if a super app does control too much of the market it cannot abuse it's position to hurt users and competition called antitrust, you might've heard of it. Arguing that "this monopoly is better than a hypothetical monopoly that might exist, and it'll make everything worst for users because they'll have to do everything inside an app" is insane, the DOJ doesn't "want us to have a super app", it wants to enforce the free market that the laws are supposed to protect. - Cloud Streaming: I think it's dumb to say that "cloud streaming is good for users" outright, there's a reason companies like subscriptions, but otherwise ok. - Green Bubbles: The fact you omitted RCS is very malicious and makes pretty much the entire point outdated and irrelevant, and yes there's a giant difference between iMessage's market share and the market share of other messaging services - those users are not locked into an iPhone. Also that chart being multiple choice (I assume? It's sums up to almost 200%) probably under counts iMessage by a lot as there are more people that use it as their main messaging app and another messenger to fill in the gap for non-iMessage users than users who mainly a different messaging app and iMessage occasionally. Actually I dug a bit more into this survey, and it's deeply flawed: they asked "Which of the following messaging services or apps do you currently use?" which *inflates Instagram massively*. - Smartwatches: This is simply not true, there's no technical limitation preventing devices from different manufacturers integrating together, and there's no better example than Matter, the smart home and IoT protocol (that Apple only implemented because of antitrust pressure), also RCS (which should've been mentioned in the Green Bubbles section, it's outright malicious to omit it) and the FediVerse protocol for social network (which isn't as mainstream but still shows it's possible to do well). Apple doesn't have magic, it's all ones and zeros. And companies have incentives to innovate, it's like saying that every non-ecosystem-related feature (most of them) isn't worth innovating and investing in because other companies can copy them - of course they do **eventually** but you still get positive press and marketing, and a time frame where only you have that feature.
Keep in mind that RCS is a)not encrypted, that’s a google thing, b)badly implemented even in countries that have all the reasons to use it, and c)doesn’t, on its own, provide extra compatibility with anything It does provide better multimedia capabilities, and better group chats, but that’s about it
The green bubble segment here is leaving out a lot of details. Like this doesn't explain why the iMessage doesn't support RCS, which is the successor to SMS/MMS and can be encrypted and can support things like high definition photos, videos, reactions, etc. Also, it doesn't really explain why all of the other messaging apps can't support SMS/MMS, and the reason is Apple. They simply don't allow any app other than iMessage to use SMS/MMS on iPhone. Also Apple doesn't allow any way to change your default messaging app on iPhone. Maybe you could argue that these tactics aren't successful in making Apple the leader in the messaging game, but it doesn't change the fact that their intent is one hundred percent anti-competition.
Another Apple video from Poly after all this time! I sometimes forget that this channel was famous for its Apple and China video just a few years back.
The irony of an American talking about " the great wall of china keeping out american companies" in the era of what is being done to Huawei...is really laughable
This video is way to much biased for apple. The problem is they don't get sued enough not to little. Their app store is still the only realistic way to get apps.
You saying Apple users like apple is like saying AT&t users liked using at&t during the 80s before they were forced to break up their monopoly, what happened afterwards was increased competition and innovation.
this video is so unfortunate. lying by ommission is still lying youve completely misrepresented key points on multiple fronts here. the koolaid is strong with this one,
Aha, you are getting payed by Apple. Otherwise I don't see how you can make half of these arguments with a straight face. Really? Apples incentives are aligned with their users? When they have repeatably, and obviously done anti-user actions?
The green color is also present on the RUclips scrubber, and it is the default color that shows me there is a pending sponsor being skipped. Thus, green = bad.
I have always know Poymatter to be a fan of Apple's product/service portfolio and when I saw the title, I thought, yes, I get to hear one of the best researchers on RUclips who happens to be an Apple fan, talk about the lawsuit without bias but alas, you missed on this one. I guess we all have those products we love so much that we don't realise that we are strawmanning the other's arguments. This was an L but look forward to the next video, hopefully a non-Apple one cause it appears you have blinders when it comes to the fruit company.
The episode is about the complaints brought by the DOJ, not whether or not Apple engages in monopolistic practices. The EU already concluded both of these tech companies are monopolistic and Polymatter wouldn't dispute that. He even provided an example of something truly egregious done by Apple at the end. Did you watch till the end?
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz I watched the whole thing. His arguments were weak while ironically calling the DOJ’s weak. - Super apps should be an option and customers get to choose which monopoly they want. Apple doesn’t get to play God, deciding they are not good for us. - Polymatter completely missed the mark on green bubbles. Apple was intentionally making the experience worse for both Apple and Android users to force people to “buy their mom an iPhone.” The pressure, especially on teens is real. RCS has been around for a while and would have fixed a number of problem SMS caused, eg potato quality photos and videos shared cross platform. - Giving competitors like Spotify the same playing field does not preclude Apple from working its magic. Apple Music has its advantages which don’t need to be protected by making the subscription process difficult for Spotify. Compete on library, lossless, playlists, AI, UI, etc - Even if 100% of users were happy with their iPhone, the DOJ still needed to act to limit the monopoly’s power. Monopolies ALWAYS end up bad for the consumer. Unless we’re saying Apple somehow aren’t human.
It is not about having one overlord vs. another overlord. It just means that we have the option to choose one overlord over another, or choose not to go for any one overlord. Consumer choice, very important. That and right to repair.
Signal used to have SMS. They got rid of it because regular SMS is awful in every way and definitely not secure. Because the user doesn't necessarily understand the difference between SMS and an encrypted message they decided to remove SMS support
![OhGeesy x Lefty Gunplay - What It Iz [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0yzW9t2ixk/mqdefault.jpg)
The U.S. Presidential election is 100 days away. We could all use an independent, objective, and trustworthy source of news now more than ever. Today's sponsor, Ground News, is a great way to understand your news consumption better and find underreported stories. Get 30% off using this link: ground.news/polymatter
The irony is not lost on me with the sponsor you have and the bias presented in your video.
Maybe it’s some kind of ironic video that will be called out in the next one for how easy it is for large companies to buy off the media.
@@PolyMatter maybe you use groundnews to make a better video next time
@@deleted-something ouch 😢
Watching this video convinces me to use groundnews to get a less biased news. So well done, I guess
The fact that right to repair isnt mentioned is crazy. Apple knowingly designs products that are not repairable and incentivizes their customer base to purchase the new iPhone every year. I havent read the the DOJ suit, but if that isnt mentioned on there, they completely missed the biggest argument against Apple and their anti-consumer behavior.
Edit: 1) for the people commenting how it's "not just Apple" doing this, they were the people that started making their phones more and more inaccessible each year and other companies followed suit with each passing year because they saw it worked. Apple makes stupid amounts of money on people even if they're just a trade in from the previous years' models. They make even more on their awful repair service that is overpriced and under delivers.
2) to the people saying that anti-consumer behavior isn't the same as a monopoly, and therefore isn't in the suit as such, ultimately misses the entire point of the argument here. You are getting screwed just the same, you have less access to quality phones at a reasonable price, you have less ability to fix your own phone and only having 2 major players in the field hurts competition.
3) "I've had my iPhone for x years and it works just fine!" Cool. Nobody asked lol.
4) If you're a person that truly cares about the environment and ownership of things at purchase, then I highly encourage you to watch Rossman Repair Group and High Jeffreys on YT. Both creators highlight the core issues with these devices and why ultimately you shouldn't buy them. For those that are old enough, phone used to have a back panel and a battery that you could just pop out and replace with ease, since this was a part that wore down first on most phones. All new higher end phones LACK this invaluable feature now. IPhones have an adhesive around their perimeter where after you heat dry it open, it will never seal the same again, making it less resistant to the environment after the repair, even if only swapping out a battery. Apple's attempts at making a repair kit that you can rent are so clearly an attempt to appease regulators and to curtail further actions against them like the EU did.
This is the big kicker. Apple expects people to drop £1500 on a new phone each year and £3000 on a new laptop every 1 or 2 years.
Because not just apple is anti repair, that's a much bigger case the DOJ probably don't want to go after until something big happens
@@n00dl3except nothing stops someone from not buying a new iPhone? Like a phone lasts more then two years?
@@KYOVG You underestimated social pressure too much. Adult aside, for kids and teenager. Social pressure is quite big factor when deciding something.
@@KYOVG They are also already invested in the ecosystem. So it is not much of a choice.
An unusually bad poly matter video... The iMessages section completely misses the point. Green bubbles are unecrypted and bad (low image quality) because apple makes it that way. Ignoring the RCS standard for so long was a choice they made to incentivize users from leaving apple and theyve only decided to now include some features of RCS due to increase scrutiny from the DoJ. Andriod users texting each other dont use SMS because it hasnt been the standard for years
yea, this video screams "paid for by apple" because it ignores all the reasons why it's anti-consumer. Imessages purposedly degrades non-iphone messages. Usually, I assume polymatter videos are neutral with valid viewpoints, but I guess I was wrong.
RCS is not natively encrypted, that’s a feature of Google Messages. If someone is using RCS in Samsung Messages for example, their messages are not encrypted.
@@rangersfan7757 Can't you use Google Messages on a Samsung device? Apple specifically blocks other apps from accessing SMS service. iPhone users are forced to use iMessage for SMS.
He literally said that if its a green bubble it unencrypted. People mad at his nuanced argument which is something that I applaud him for doing.
Regardless of whether you think it's monopolistic, not mentioning RCS in that section is egregious
The worst thing about Apple is that they have a monopoly over the repair industry as well. They do not allow independent repair shops access to parts, and overcharge for repair. You should have included that in your video. Louis Rossmann has been advocating for Right to Repair for quite some time.
@suspicionofdeceit Right.. it’s surprising that the DoJ didn’t include that in their lawsuit, because it would only bolster their case, wouldn’t it?
Lack of repairability has nothing to do with “using your monopoly power to lock people into an ecosystem”. It is bad but a small company can also build impossible-to-repair products.
Chefnyc you need to watch the video again
apparently other people have done more work than him, according to him, fun fact
@@matthewmizrachi1877 might be the case, but it’s only his videos that are on my feed 🤷♂️
He seems like a scrupulous man, who is not afraid to call out anyone for their wrongdoing. Genuinely likeable.
Bro… what’s going on with this video? The super apps argument isn’t valid because the original white paper states that “Apps that create alternate desktops/homescreen environments will be rejected” and it’s NOT even about Super Apps. It is very likely referring to the Android launchers that are available for users to create custom versions of their home screen environments (like completely copying the iOS home screen styles). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Super Apps like Wechat.
And the green bubble argument is missing the point - the fact that it creates a barrier that forbids android users to receive the same treatment in traditional messaging means like SMS, but NOT other cloud messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal. Apple has JUST recently added the RCS messaging feature, which enables Android and iPhone users to react and send high def. media in messages. Even this would be a much better argument. Tbh, It feels kinda off that Polymatter misses the point that far.
Edit: Thanks for the likes. Fixed errors.
Fun fact, I myself is using an iPhone, and had used two androids in the past.
Im on iOS 18 developer beta 3 . Still no RCS
This is what I was thinking! Thank you
Thank you!!
Yes this video is absolutely fanboy rubbish that straw mans the actual criticism. I'm not even in favor of the suit because I say let Apple customers have their preferred lock in, but at least just admit that's what you're arguing for. This video is absolutely not representing the case.
Of course Apple fanboys don't understand market monopoly and power abuse
If side loading and side payments are allowed then it wouldn't have issues with USA anti monopoly and market abuse under free market act currently developing in EU with restricted access
Apple fan boys don't get it without the EU regulations RCS wouldn't even have existed it took Apple 10+ years to get it
It seems like this video idea came straight out of Apple's HR department. I think you missed the entire point of what the lawsuit is claiming and why apple is being Anti-Competitive.
i think you meant to say PR* (public relations) department. HR is human resources.
Apple is def anti competitive
@@Ash-vt7uu Apple exists as pretend competition so the actual big players (Google for phones and Microsoft for computers) can claim they still aren't a literal monopoly.
@@dhruv9744 I think the implication is that Polymatter must be an Apple employee and was instructed in no uncertain terms to make a propaganda video for them... or else.
Sad part is I could actually see them doing that.
Have you even watched the entire video? It concludes that the DOJ is going after issues perceived by non-Apple users, rather than the actual issues typical Apple users care about.
Am i tripping or is there a small pro Apple bias in this video? The quality of argument seems unusual for polymatter
True… The super apps argument isn’t so valid and the green bubble argument is missing the point - the fact that it creates a barrier that forbids android users to receive the same treatment in traditional messaging means like SMS, but NOT other cloud messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal. Apple has JUST recently added the RCS messaging feature, which enables Android and iPhone users to react and send high def. media in messages. Even this would be a much better argument. Tbh, It feels kinda off that Polymatter misses the point that far.
Edit: Fix errors.
@@enryhen6859 Agreed. And he uses satisfaction rates to argue iphone is fine? I don't think your average person is considering the competitive effects when purchasing a phone?
Is not a small bias at all. It's pretty blatant and sizeable.
"small" lol 14:22 "Apple isn't benevolent, but we can't hope for better, let's hope they continue acting in our best interests so long as we pay them money" I'm sorry but this is some of the most blatant shilling for a megacorp I've ever seen, it's a company, not some old god who needs to be appeased with ritual sacrifices of money lest they smite us...
definitely not tripping
A weak video that has me questioning your previous videos.
1. You haven't talked about competing industry standards like RCS that support typing indicators, read receipts, high res media, E2E encryption etc. Apple greatly resisted implementing this & finally is doing in iOS18. I suspect this lawsuit is one of the main motivators.
2. Claiming that Alphabet has split Android, Search & Gmail into adversarial products is patently false. They, along with Drive/Docs form the backbone of integrated Google software ecosystem.
3. DOJ claims on super apps literally comes from internal Apple presentation that states
"Apple cited super apps as a “major headwind” to boosting iPhone sales in countries where they’re popular because of “[l]ow stickiness” and “[l]ow switching costs.”"
I too am questioning all their previous videos. I am about to scroll through a few on topics I am familiar with and check for a pattern of bias. It's unlikely to be just one video. At the very least, I will no longer be taking @polymatter at their word any more.
The green bubble is actually very useful for another reason. Namely it lets you know that the message is going over SMS rather than over data. So if you're overseas for example and charged for SMS but are on wi-fi and thus not for data it is really important to know how your message would be sent.
@@conradotieno612 Found anything?
@@aruak321 you are correct. Apple is right to differentiate SMS messages from native iMessages & they cannot be blamed for the stigma that people associated with green bubbles.
They can be blamed however for delaying RCS adoption till after the lawsuit or for not creating an industry standard ~RCS.
Remember this is the world's largest company by valuation & can surely afford to do the above.
@@CherryMid I would argue that given the ubiquity of messaging apps like WhatsApp, FB Messenger, etc. which serve the lion share of messages that this is really a non-issue. The threatened Chinese regulations were more about protecting their domestic smartphone market and as in many cases where the EU intervened, they did so about the wrong thing (and will likely not achieve the goals they want) and done in an unfounded way, especially given that iPhones by no means represent the majority of phones in Europe.
I think you have missed the point on the messaging section at least, RCS would allow all messages to be encrypted. Apple being forced to allow interoperability with other key standards (RCS) does not stop them from being able to offer higher integration with their own system it just stops them from deliberately reducing the quality for everyone else.
I feel like he glosses over a lot of very crucial information in favor of admonishing the DOJ.
- Apple doesn't need to wall off its ecosystem to other companies in order to benefit from its tightly integrated ecosystem. That's still something MS and Google utterly fail to pull off and would make competing apps better on IOS than Android/windows.
- For whatever reason, after talking about the inexcusable act of not allowing other companies to use tap-to-pay, he just moves on to keys needing to be added to apple wallet and glosses the whole thing over as "simplifying the experience"
Apple encrypted their messages 7 years before RCS. I think they are salty of it.
@@xodima yeah, Android has RCS why not apple
RCS is not encrypted by default. Google's implementation of RCS is encrypted, but encryption is not in the RCS standard.
It's about QC. When you control every single piece you can ensure 100% seamless functionality. This is the exact reason many of us choose apple products in the first place.
I've watched your videos for years, but the arguments in this video were so poor, it made me question all the previous videos. I agree the DOJ could have done more, but ignoring the harm to consumers when a company has such control is misleading viewers. Apple continuing to take actions to not only maintain their monopoly but expand it in other markets (some only emerging) is very harmful to consumers and potential growth of various markets.
Poly been on corporate payroll for years. That's why all his takes on China over the years have been so wrong.
He’s not saying that Apple’s dominance isn’t harmful to consumers-it definitely is. But what’s the alternative? Super apps? The viable options we observe today are generally worse substitutes. At least Apple offers substantial value in terms of user experience. Taking something down without having a better alternative just leads to a downward spiral.
@@frankxu4795 Break up the phone duopoly. That's the answer. Which poly was paid to NEVER mention
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
@@frankxu4795 there's no alternative and the DOJ suing apple is not about giving power in hands of some other company, it's about giving apple less power over how other apps provide service on Apple's platform.
See it as Amazon absuing their power on their site and launching amazon basics branded products by analyzing which products are popular and selling their own version at loss to bleed their competitors till they can't survive
$2000 has been deposited on your AppleID account
Maybe $20,000 if he has a hint of integrity. 🤣
lol yea this is not up to par, this is Apple propaganda.
I'll buy a used 4 wheeler with it
After the content of this video I was honestly expecting the sponsor to be Apple.
@@BenBe native advertising is better. That doesn't have to be declared to us plebs
For real... iMessage is not just "SMS" it's iMessage... Android phones can use SMS, but not iMessage.
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
It probably is "off the record" lol
@@BenBe it is
To System Integration:
Making communications possible to competitors does not mean they have to gift away their features. The only thing apple has to do is to make specifications how the required Data is Transmitted. If Apple thinks that Making it complicated is better for some reason, they can still make it complicated.
The communication is there (apple uses it). Apple is just holding it hostage. No one is forcing apple to add a sepetate Port for a competitors Feature.
Apple was fine ripping off Microsoft office suite to make their own interoperable office suite. Meanwhile Apple will nuke any app that does the same to Apple until the rubble glows.
Polymatter casually making unfair arguments to defend the largest corporation in the world
I think is Jews suing Apple because they aren’t letting them get into our phones
So true
Polymatter is jew what do you expect.
@@SerPapus Jews are behind the lawsuit.
@OmPathak-bi8jl A Jew is defending the company being sued.
Both: Jews must be doing something bad.😂
@@SerPapusare you a moron?
NGL.... This video misses a lot of point, and just seems to be defending Apple. The point about Green Bubble especially...... A bit dissapointing, because I thought Polymatter is a neutral, non-biased source of information :I
Yeah, this comment is much more informative than the video. NOT.
The green bubble is actually very useful for another reason. Namely it lets you know that the message is going over SMS rather than over data. So if you're overseas for example and charged for SMS but are on wi-fi and thus not data it is really important to know how your message would be sent.
Non-bias is not an ideal to strive for.
@@aruak321It's not an indicator of that. Case in point they added rcs and still maintained the green bubble.
@@notapplicable7292 The blue is absolutely an indicator that your message is going over iMessage. With RCS I believe there is will be an additional indicator to differentiate between that and SMS.
I think that this vídeo fundamentally misses the point of it all, is not what users are getting is what users are missing, things could be so much better without the monopoly of apple every time that a monopoly has been taken back the users benefit
there is no Monopoly just get a different fucking phone
Is that true?, that monopolys always lead to a worse deal of the user? I think it's historically been true for steel, coal, railroads and stuff. But this seems different.
Fuel and transport would exist even if monopolys that dominated their markets didn't. One person alone could dig up coal, or could walk a big distance, so all the monopolys can offer is convenience, efficiency and comfort. These tech companies are a bit different. There's no way a single person could design and manufacture an iphone or program it's os. Smart phones don't naturally exist so all features these monopolys offer are new creations, so there's massive room for innovation.
To be clear tech companies and other monopolys can and do abuse their position of power, and we should take steps to stop that. But since the situation has changed, it makes sense so should our thinking and tactics.
@@ocularrecords Unless you have an Apple watch, their premium wireless earbuds. That $1300 phone purchase is now like a $2500 phone purchase if you don't want to have your other items not work or have extremely reduced functionality.
Imagine if Mercedes Benz paid $50 billion to be the only person to have Apple Car play in their automobiles. There would be so many MB sold in so fucking fast.
@@HAFBeast91 understandable but, no. Pay the fees. Apple does license there tech to other companies for compatibility but they don’t want to pay. So either reverse engineer for your customers or cut it. My Samsung Ear buds lose functionality on an iPhone just the same. No company will ever be fully all inclusive so to expect Apple to do so? Why. That’s my point. Just go elsewhere if that’s the case. You buy it knowing the consequences. If you want to be a consumer and do it mindlessly you don’t get to complain as well.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
You're glossing over a lot of very crucial information in favor of admonishing the DOJ.
- Apple doesn't need to wall off its ecosystem to other companies in order to benefit from its tightly integrated ecosystem. That's still something MS and Google utterly fail to pull off and would make competing apps better on IOS than Android/windows.
- For whatever reason, after talking about the inexcusable act of not allowing other companies to use tap-to-pay, you move on to keys needing to be added to apple wallet and gloss the whole thing over as "simplifying the experience" Allowing other wallets to exist on the phone would not impair the simplicity of having your car keys on Apple Wallet. Two exclusive concepts that you rolled into one.
People liked their phone services under Bell, but then realized that they didnt like it after seeing how the broken up anti-trust version was better and cheaper
Bell was a government guaranteed monopoly. Apple has gained Market Dominance (not a monopoly) on its own accord.
@@AgtsmirnoffThat's what a monopoly is where's one company has complete domination over a market.
@@shaunhayes4614 monopoly by its definition means complete dominance without any competition, which does not apply to Apple
Rare to see PolyMatter be actually biased. Towards a soulless corporation of all things.
"How dare you be biased toward this multinational corporation. I'm busy being biased toward the OTHER multinational corporations. This isn't fair!"
@@heychrisfox who are you quoting? no one said that?
@@infernaltoaster_ I see sarcasm is difficult for you.
@@heychrisfox mechanistic thinking
Defending the incredibly anti-consumer practices of a soulless trillion dollar company is crazy
The only part I really agree with is the DOJ’s super app thing…that would 100% be used for censorship and surveillance
Did you watch the video? He is looking at DoJ lawsuit and if it has merit on all 5 points. He even mentioned a 6th item (30% commission thing) which SHOULD have been included. I think he is mostly on point.
DoJ lawsuit is about using monopoly power to lock into an ecosystem. Not about if Apple cares about “android consumers”
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
He’s calling out the DOJ saying they have a shitty case that will likely waste a lot of time and go nowhere.
@@spooky.- Seriously. How are people confused by this? There are so many things they could be arguing against Apple, but they aren't. It's likely deliberately missing the winning goal in a soccer match because you want to make a point. What does it actually achieve?
Disabling dislikes cotinues to be the worst decision youtube ever made
The "Return RUclips Dislike" chrome plugin is a godsend and I'm so glad it exists. I can see this video has a rougly 45:55 like:dislike ratio, and deservingly so
5.7k likes, 7.7k dislikes.
@PolyMatter - I think you should read the comments, take this video down, revise it and reupload it. You have not delivered an impartial summary of this topic.
I think he should revise and upload a new version but not take this one down
@@CentreMetre but will he give apple their hush money back? 😂
Super biased in Apples favor
I still can’t wrap my head around why Apple wallet isn’t anti consumer
Apple forces a fee on the transactions
Your biased opinion
@@Ash-vt7uu If consumers want to willingly use a product, it fundamentally isn't anti-consumer. This is like asking why people use Steam when it's a monopoly; it's not a monopoly, and people use it because it's the best on the market.
@@heychrisfox Steam is not a monopoly because you can install game in your computer without it. Can you imagine if your computer is not allow to install any paid app/game without paying microsoft 30% fee? This is exactly what happen to iphone right now. That 30% fee will ultimately get paid by you the consumer. Computer would not have so much creative program/website if microsoft was allow to charge 30% on everything since the 80s.
EU has long restricted Apple for their opportunistic tendencies. Now this. Finally we are taking back control over these corporations.
say goodbye to innovation.
@bluebitproductions2836 ah yes this will totally destroy innovation
Lamo apple is behind its competitors by several years.@@bluebitproductions2836
The EU is a joke. They are regulating themselves into irrelevance. The future belongs to the US.
Really this is just an illusion of control.
Corporations still have an oligopoly in this country and nothing we do will change that without a regime change and bodies in the streets !
It always blows my mind how people still see Apple as the most superior phone brand. No matter how overpriced their phones get, people will still buy it. Even if they've been slowly removing features (like ports, only to upsell you cables and adapters), people will see right past it. Why?
most people in world don't care about functionality and use cases and reliability. All they care about is looks and status. In fact, it is true for general life. not only this case
I can tell you why I buy Apple products, I prefer their form of polish (most of the time), compared to Samsung, although they both are taking ideas from each other so maybe i'll change in the future
-edit I also own a Mac & a Steam deck, in that case its because I just hate windows & trust Apple more than Microsoft for daily stuff
Flagship iPhones are just as expensive at Flagship Samsungs though
@@Generic_Noob Samsung has way more features though
I switch just a few months ago when a iPhone 15 pro was cheaper than the Samsung 24
and my last 3 Samsung phones batteries blew up from me doing nothing
Then newer iPhones can use the same cable as Samsungs so that not an issue
I’m not an iPhone or Apple fan boy just giving a reason why some people move or stay with Apple products
Glazing is crazy 🫡🫡
Oh no, is Apple slipping you something something? ...used to be fair and logical before 😢
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
And he still is. You’re the one who is biased. Did you read through and research the whole case?
@@spooky.- Girl, he's using the vague stats that "80% like their iPhones" as an argument not to change anything. This has nothing to do with the topic. If you're gonna be the comments police you better get to work, cause most people seem to think just like me
It's pointless to argue whether Apple's market monopoly is good or bad, and whether users like or dislike the iPhone. It is a longstanding economic fact that monopolies are harmful to consumers in the long run and no single company should be allowed the power to have a functioning monopoly unless it's absolutely necessary and those must be highly regulated (see natural monopolies such as utilities). Allowing Apple to apply anti-competitive practices because (for now) it builds a good product that consumers enjoy opens up a terrible legal precedent.
In other words, Apple and no other company should be trusted with building a monopoly through anti-competitive practices, whether this resulted so far in a good product or not is irrelevant. If Apple consciously used monopolistic practices, as you admitted is the case for each one of the DOJ's arguments, they must be prosecuted and forced to open up their product.
The EU and its competition authority understand this for years, happy to see its counterparts on the other side of the pond finally joining the party.
This. Arguing that apple restricting their competitors is "apple is protecting us from super apps" is an insane argument to make, if antitrust is enforced properly *nither* of them would restrict freedom and competition that is the entire point, Apple shouldn't be above the law and decide what is good for us, and most users simply don't care about apps having multiple functions within it, he acts like that's a world ending scenario.
👏👏👏
I think people living in first-world countries are clueless to the dangers of monopolies. My country is basically owned by 5 families. There's one mobile network operator, one cable service, one electric company, one property developer. Imagine your internet is down for 2 weeks, text messages don't arrive, and you can't make calls half the time. They don't provide refunds you can't threaten to go to another company because there's no competitor. When we see people defending monopolies, we realize how naive, clueless, and pampered they are.
You're missing the point of monopoly laws. There would be no Apple if Microsoft was allowed to do the things that Apple is doing now. Your precious Apple would have gone bankrupt if Microsoft hadn't felt compelled to bail it out of bankruptcy to avoid monopoly laws.
As european it's good that our authorities try to protect our data but the fact is we are submissive to american companies and USa in general. Russia and China may be totalitarian regim but at least they have devellop autonomy or partial autonomy on critical sector. If in the future we are no longer good dogs and we lose acess to GAFAM's services we will have no alternative. We are always reacting to the change like the IA act rather than provoking it. The worst is that we are stiffling the ground with this to devellop ia in our territories in the meantime usa companies continues to eat our data to train their ia models. These fines are just pebble in the path of the GAFAM's. In the meantime with the extraterritoriality of american laws our companies are subject to these laws. If they are not bought because WE can't defend them even when they are in a critical sector.
uh the thing about Messages is that messages to android users aren't encrypted. That's the problem. They should be encrypted. Apple refuses to encrypt them.
And that's Apple's fault for using SMS
They intentionally made it that way
Apple literally is the one who made the problem, and they could’ve fixed it over a decade ago
@@gamingforfun8662 yes that's what i was saying.
except apple does now with RCS in iOS18
That was a highly biased and Apple-shilling video from PolyMatter. It's disappointing.
our hopes are too high
the truth hurts
That’s your biased opinion ironically
Citing that 80% of iPhone users are satisfied with their experience is pretty disingenuous considering most have probably either never used a different type of phone or are using and iPhone purely out of peer pressure. Non-iPhone's consistently have better more innovative features at lower prices, but apple users have essentially no idea that these are options. This is like saying 80% of households are satisfied with their kerosene lamps because they've never used electric lights.
A part of the issue is though, a lot of those features come at the cost of overall experience as it’s usually buggy at first and the average person doesn’t care. Apple’s popularity has risen partially because they just “do everything for you”. Customizations are for the tech enthused; average joe just wants to see all his apps in one place. Sure there are other options, but why switch and learn new software when what you had works? I’ve used both Andoird and Apple phones in the past and I always go back to Apple cause it’s fluid, and overall feels smooth to use where I’ve found Androids to feel more clunky and less polished
You’ve overlooked what most users actually need-a basic phone that just works. They might not care about high-end gaming or endless customization options, but they definitely care about everyday functionality. And guess what? Apple nails it in that area. Almost everything works straight out of the box with minimal hassle.
The lawsuit is not about “should we ban peer pressure”. Or “should iphone uers be forced to try android”. Anti-trust laws don’t give that authority.
@@frankxu4795 What in the world are you using that is a hassle straight out of the box with anything. Any of the big brand Android systems are going to work right out of the box with no hassle just as well as an Apple device. If you are comparing a cheap less than $100 Android phone to a name-brand phone obviously there is going to be a difference. If you want a competitive system you are going to have to pay competitive prices. But the thing is even the cheapest Android phones still aren't too much of a hassle straight out of the box. And are still packed with everyday functionality.
I think you got caught up in the Apple propaganda. Same as this video.
@@deamichaelis1 For years I used a $300 android phone. The only problem I had was that the camera wasn't as good. The phone was just as easy to use as any iPhone, it had just as many features (more, in reality), and it wasn't extra complex in any way.
Then, when I decided to upgrade to a more expensive phone made by a different brand I just could! It wasn't hard transferring all my data! I didn't lose access to anything I had paid for previously! And the best part? It was easy and uncomplicated.
iPhone is a status symbol, and the only way the can keep their users is by artificially making other brands look worse through things like not allowing HD images to be sent through messages across platforms.
Apple will never see a dollar out of my wallet.
As far as I am aware, antitrust legislation has been a positive for the consumer every single time it has been enacted. If you believe this is not true, considered making a video exploring historical examples of antitrust legislation having unitended anti consumer effects. That video would be interesting and would add something new to this discussion, as opposed to this one which just repeats corperate talking points. Corperations voices are loud enough already. They do not need your help.
(I made another long comment which included this sentiment, but I wanted something short and to the point, since I think this is the key problem with this video.)
False. Look at the breakup of ma bell.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Ok, look at the breakup. That's what I said wasn't it? Antitrust legislation that backfired would make a good video topic. Corporate talking points do not.
@@Jesse_Carl He's making a case for why this antitrust suit will fail to provide what is advertised.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I, and the vast majority of commenters, do not think the arguments in this video are interesting or insightful. It feels like a valueless regurgitation of corporate talking points. Is there a particular argument Polymatter made which you felt was so insightful that it justified the existence of this video?
I'm new to this channel and was thrilled to see it getting slammed for this utterly biased video that almost purely straw mans the government's case. I'm glad it's only the creator and NOT most viewers/subscribers who is an Apple sycophant.
The videos on this channel are usually good. This is getting absolutely roasted because the viewers are frankly shocked at how bad this is. So much is glossed over or simply not mentioned entirely. I'm stunned at the lack of accuracy compared to the rest of the channel. It's why the dislikes outweigh the likes and the comments are so savage.
At least he didn’t turn off the comment section.
This comment section really isn't going as Polymatter expected.
He probably was paid enough by Apple to not care, however
The whole video is actually explaining how the case is just stupidly made and that DOJ is missing stronger arguments they could've used, I don't understand how people don't get the idea of the video 🤦♂
The problem is the comment section is full of android fanboys and were expecting him to dunk on them. These people are unable to think critically, that’s why they used laggy android phones for years while apples phone was far better. They can’t handle the fact that he looked at the issues objectively.
@@Dumbledore6969x I think that his video is biased and wrong, and I am typing this on my Macbook while listening through my Airpods Pro. I just switched to iPhone this year from Android and I can tell you that stuff like purposefully delayed iMessage / RCS Integration to make "iPhone families" in the US, the long time ban on Streaming Apps and sideloading, their fight against right to repair, Lightning Cables with the Mfi tax, the forced 30% cut on digital goods and their strict rules on what content is and is not allowed on the App Store are actively hurting customers.
@@gfrewqpoiuI don't think the video is biased. His point is "I'm confused why the DOJ can win on these arguments". He isn't saying who's right or wrong, just that this looks weird. The points he discussed are the ones the lawsuit points to as evidence that apple is anticompetitive. The fact the DOJ didn't focus on right to repair or subscriptions was a mistake.
@@gfrewqpoiu Oh yes I totally believe you that you’re not biased, all because you use an Apple product. LMFAO 🤣
Ground news sponsorship is chefs kiss irony is not lost
I did try them with maximum subscription for a while and the bias stuff was a major joke. It wasn't checked per article at all, instead it was for each news outlet. But at least in Norway, one news outlet can be biased in multiple directions.
Also, the spectrum is not left to right. There is no connection between far right extremists (such as Nazis), people that want economic rules that benefit companies, and abortion. Anti-abortion for example could just as easily be a left cause given a certain political climate.
The Percentage of satisfied users is a weak argument. In other legal cases, I admit far darker ones (such as grape, assault, psychological torture) the victim's opinion is discarded mostly. The prosecution continues without their (probably nonsensical due to personal issues) opinion.
I dont think this is comparable here, but the idea that percentage satisfied users from the affected is a great counter is by itself weak. One can make the argument that a reasonable mind may disagree with them and be more correct than they are.
They are already invested, and they are more likely to say they are satisfied with it than to say it was a waste of their money because nobody likes to think they are the ones who fell for a scheme to take their money. I must be happy with it because there is no way I wasted my money like other people might have. 🤣
You are conflating criminal and civil law. In the former the state, not the victim, is the aggrieved party. In cases such as the this the united states is suing on behalf of the consumer, presuming they are aggrieved in the first place.
@mojrimibnharb4584 i make the distinction. But in a logical argument its irrelevant. This is not about the law per say.
@@CharcharoExplorer It's entirely relevant as civil and criminal law serve entirely different purposes.
Yes, it very much reminds me of a famous quote by Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach: "Happy slaves are the bitterest enemies of freedom."
Even if 80% of iPhone users say they are satisfied with the status quo, we as a society should still aim to give freedom to everybody so they can choose and decide for themselves if they would be more satisfied using an Apple product together with a non-Apple product when both integrate via open standards (like USB 3.0 for example) or if they stick only to Apple products because they want to, not because they don't have an option.
I was half expecting a "this video is brought to you by Apple" disclosure at the end
that would be a half as interesting video
You are too invested in apple to make a video on this topic.
Could you explain what you mean by
@@Epidombe Polymatter is trying to come off as an unbiased expert on the matter, but it's pretty obvious that he has a significant bias for Apple. He blatantly ignores some of the most important ways Apple has abused their monopolistic lead like with right to repair issues, and the various ways Apple has made it difficult to switch (like the difficulty of getting your photos off icloud).
Also the insistence that Apple will do the best thing for the customer because that's what makes the most money has to be THE STUPIDEST argument I have ever heard in my entire life. What is best for the customer is never the thing that will get a corporation the most money in the short term. Short term gains benefit greatly from customer exploitation. We cannot trust corporations to do what is best for us nor should we.
@@totengraben Companies making money is literally in their best interest. No company would willingly do something that makes them less money if they have the option of doing something that makes more money. This is capitalism 101.
@@heychrisfox Thats why we have laws regulating the actions companies can take. What apple is doing is blatant anti consumer behavior and should get slapped down.
The argument that only a monopolistic company can make an experience integrated and cohesive is not just condescending to developers, its just outright wrong. All of the integration features mentioned in this argument have free, competitive, and open source alternatives that dont limit who can make them. Programming itself as an activity can be viewed as making and using interfaces and protocols, all the way down, and there is no technical reason why these protocols cannot be made at least available to third parties, if not outright free and open source.
Few actually know how the internet works, but fun fact, there are several different vendors and operating systems running on the backbone. Networks and protocols exist for this reason, to make integration possible. There are less sophisticated software that does some of the integration that happens in the Apple, Huawei, Samsung or Xiaomi ecosystems. One such example is Synergy, its a KVM software, you can use the keyboard or mouse from a designated device in your network to control the others. Any argument that we need a monopoly for tighter integration is BS. What we need are standards, which already exist but are being eroded by 'big tech' for obvious reasons.
Exactly, it is actually against ToS to use APIs which makes Apple Music and other Apple applications better integrated into Apple ecosystem. The moment you will try to use them, you are not going to pass the review on App Store.
"You can copy on iPhone and paste on iMac"
*Laughs in KDE connect*
Yeah. Even Microsoft Phone Link (copy, paste and a lot more) works for both Android and iOS.
Shh, don't let the sheep know, you'll scare them......
Came here (from nebula) to post exactly this! The FOSS community is proof that different groups *can* work together and produce deep integrations, it just takes the desire and open communication.
Sorry, but you're totally missing the point of the green bubbles. Apple forced green bubbles to be unencrypted because Apple refused to adapt the industry standard RCS (Rich Communication Services, sometimes also called Advanced Messaging or SMS+) and instead only displayed messages with their own proprietary standard that no competitor can adapt as secure. It's similar to the Apple charging cable when the rest of the world uses USB 3.0. But it gets even worse, after they refused to adapt RCS in 2022, they announced last month in June 2024 that they will adapt it, so iPhones can receive encrypted messages from non-iPhones. All good you might say now because if these messages are encrypted, then by Apple's logic they should be blue, right? right... ? RIGHT? But that would look like Apple isn't better than all the other manufactures, so of course Apple doesn't do that and secure RCS messages will get green bubbles... which completely invalidates your argument for blue bubbles.
I usually like your videos, but you dropped the ball hard this time and this is the first video of yours I'll dislike.
Absolutely correct ! And like you, this is also the first Polymatter video I've disliked.
🥤
Louis Rossmann wants to have a small talk regarding this video
I’ve never been able to articulate my gripe with Apple. Then you encapsulated it in one phrase. “Others are forced to innovate Apple has the option to not” truest shit ever. Full disclosure: written on an iPhone.
@@MrLittletube you have been trusted
Time to get yourself a phone that follows EU law, allows right to repair, doesn't artificially decrypt your messages, is less expensive, runs more apps, and gives you more power over your own phone in general.
What happened to unbiased Polymatter? Like where did he go?
@Writer-Two groundnews lol
@@FunSunSet Ha
Someone was paid by apple at some point.
If someone has a different perspective they should be paid right 😂
14:23 but it’s insensitives aren’t aligned with its users. It’s aligned with squeezing the most money out of its customers. Louis Rossmann literally goes over every way that Apple makes repair of its products as difficult as possible.
"80% of iPhone users like their device". Asking Apple users if they like the products is the same as asking cult members if they like their cult leader.. Apple's greatness comes from marketing, story telling, rather than technical advantages or design superiority. It's a strong brand, people associate Apple with status and are willing to swallow any price increase or lack of features... that's why apple is big in nations with high levels of consumerism and individualism.
"80% of users like their iPhones" "88% of voters vote for Putin", turns out if you give people one option, they'll choose that one option, who knew?
Exactly, why would someone buy apple product just to dislike it
Exactly
Nevermind alleged 'cult' behaviour: consumer preference is not an absolute defense against monopoly abuses. The famous antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in the 90s was predicated on Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 98+ and taking over the browser market, even though late-90s Internet Explorer was genuinely preferred by many.
Yeah the Apple users seem to be a cult. In schools, if you don't have an iPhone, you can be ostracized, it's not happened to me, but I've seen it happen.
Yikes for the first time. Polymatter has totally missed the mark. Might as well label this a sponsored video.
something feels off about these arguments. i disagree some arguments, especially considering the use of "we" point of view. funny how "right to repair" and 30% tax isn’t mentioned 😅
He discussed the issues surrounded the app stores issues when discussing Spotify. He just didn't outright state the reasons.
@heychrisfox I might the yearly tax for developers to put the apps on the app store, not the transaction fee as mentioned in the Spotify argument
Government finally taking action is better than years and years of inaction against this kind of crap.
It's funny that the sponsor for the vídeo is a website that don't want to have a bias opinion when this video is super biased in favor of apple, even tho the arguments presented always signals some anti competitive behaviour...
Broooo? The person who wrote this clearly doesn't understand anything about the technology
"Some people like iPhone" is not an argument in favor of monopolistic behavior.
Actually it is. Customer satisfaction is what anti-monolopy legislation is about.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No, it isn't. It is very easy to convince people to defend things that go against their own interests. Politicians do it and so does Apple.
@@Miranox2 True, but legally irrelevant. Where civil law is concerned there must be an aggrieved party to be made whole.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Yes, but the aggrieved party can't be only Apple fans.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Lol dead wrong. You aren't a lawyer, you are an apple fan boi.
The most glaring & egregious monopolisation is in Apples repair of iphones (and other Apple products). Apple goes to extreme lengths to monopolise this area, yet somehow it's missing from this suit!? From control of parts supply from third parties to ensuring that new parts won't work until paired with any given phone makes this one of the most insidious and aggressive forms of monopolisation on the face of the planet.
Strong pro-apple vibes from this video
Be honest bro, how much did Tim Cook pay you for this? It's almost like you went out of your way to mischaracterize a few salient points about this Lawsuit.
I'm not bashing your hustle though, just wanna know how much Tim Cook was willing to shell out for this?
Tim cook doesn't need to pay him...lol
Most youtubers are iphone users anyways.Apple just have to give him some free subscriptions or something to make him do things.
People descending into paranoid schizophrenia because they're that tribal on an issue. If you watched the video to the end you'd see he acknowledges Apple does some severely anticompetitive things that are only briefly mentioned in the lawsuit. Europe is better at holding companies to account for these things because they have a real concept of economics and society.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zztalks about tribalism, then says Europe is better 😂😅
@@4quall I'm American.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz your point? Mine still holds . It's one or the other. You're either hypocritical or asinine you decide.
What a silly argument about super apps. The point is to make them available so people can choose to use them or not. And saying that they can go to Android is a non-answer. People might want them in IOS because they have other reasons to use IOS.
BuTt cHiNaaaaaA!
But like the white paper is not even about super apps.
@@enryhen6859 My point was that the government argued that because of Apple's dominant position in the US, they should not use that power to force or "steer" consumers toward or away from anything, be it apps or superapps or anything else.
@@woofinu yeah I get your point, this polymatter video is way too inaccurate.
14:40 Saying that 80% of users are satisfied, does not make the DOJ's argumentation "lose all credibility."
Jumping to that conclusion completely overlooks the possibility that:
_By_ being so anticompetitive, Apple is _creating_ a user experience in which the competition _appears_ to deliver inferior quality.
That you didn't take this one extra step in logical thinking, makes this video seem biased in favor of Apple.
And I'm not saying that that extra step is "The Truth" or anything...
It could be that Apple users _have_ experienced what else is out there.
But since it's _made_ so punishing to step outside of the ecosystem (of iCloud, watches, messages, etc.), it's _plausible enough_ that very few Apple users have ever known anything better.
So it's _at least worth mentioning_ that alternative explanation too!
(even if it's just a possibility, and not claimed to be "The Truth" either)
And the video wouldn't seem so biased if only more than one option had been mentioned...
The competition does deliver inferior quality. For example how Android keyboards will change a word you spelled correctly because it believes you meant to say something else. Insane stuff like that never happened on IOS. They just corrected my spelling.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz
See, that's the thing.
I downloaded a separate keyboard app because I didn't like the default one.
Not sure whether they have SwiftKey on ios though 🙃
@@MrNicoJac Microsoft Swiftkey is available on iOS and Android. I tried Swiftkey and had the same issue. Both Swiftkey and GBoard are trying to use predictive AI and it ends up inserting random words you didn't say even after you spell them correctly. I support antitrust laws against Apple but to say the product is inferior is just false. The fact the complaint about green text bubbles is more prescient among Americans than the actual anticompetitive practices like the ones mentioned at the end of this video shows we have our heads buried in the sand. Europeans continuing to show us up when it comes to regulation.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz
Hmm, interesting...
I don't have that issue on SwiftKey.
I presume you checked the settings, and found no option to turn it off?
I just checked my settings, and I _can_ turn off Autocorrect and Quick Prediction Insert... (on Android)
Mine usually does correct me, but (as far as I've noticed at least) that's always been because I mistyped one letter (or more).
Although it used to always change fuck into duck 😂
But it got better after I typed it in a few times, haha
I've never had it suggest a totally different word that I never typed (in combination with what I typed being 100% correct, at least).
It does get words wrong when I want a simple past tense verb and it picks the plural instead (for the words where that overlap is possible).
But it usually suggests them way before I'm done typing, so I just click the wrong option and change the last letter :)
I have tried to use my gf's iPhone though, and I always failed to make it pick what I typed instead of what it thought I meant.
We're in the EU, so there's a lot of times where we type an English word in a native language sentence, and I feel like hers freaks out about that much more than mine 🤣
(I've downloaded both languages/dictionaries, so it's got both options to pick from - not sure what her settings are exactly, since I think she types much less in English, typically)
Overall, there's only one thing mine struggles with, and that's if the first letter of what I typed is incorrect - it really struggles getting that right.
Anyhow, I hope you find something that works for you ^^
@@MrNicoJac Thanks. I'll give SwiftKey another shot. Lack of customization, and new features that are in a sense downgrades, is a problem across many platforms, RUclips for example. I guess it comes from the fact we don't own any of the software we use, rather we're just given permission to borrow it.
Apple integrates its own products with APIs. This is no different from any other software company. Any smartwatch could integrate just as smoothly with an iPhone if Apple would make those APIs public. There is no trade-off there. Apple would still be able to offer smooth integration of all their products - but so would other products.
I have my wife's old air pods, and use them on android. It definitely lacks some features that are actually part of the Bluetooth spec
I'll never understand how someone can have even an average knowledge of tech and willingly buy an Apple device. They are by far the most predatory, anti-consumer, anti-competition tech company on the planet.
Well, I for one happen to love an OS that doesn't crash every week or month, even if it's much more difficult to customize. I hate Windows with a passion, after having worked as unofficial IT support for Win machines since 2007 - I've encountered every single common fault of that long lineage of pieces of shit, and then some. In my decade as a Mac user, I've had to solve a serious software issue twice... ever.
@@Ildskalli I like how you specified software issues. You seem to be well educated enough to at least know how anti right to repair Apple is. If anything breaks it's either intentionally designed to be impossible or near impossible to repair or the swapping of new parts will cause pre-programmed malfunction. Don't even get me started on their pre-programmed obsolescence (which they were caught for a few years ago) as an IT guy I'm surprised you can even openly support this kind of manichean anti customer practices. I'm stunned
I bet bros knees are sore after this video goddamn
You could have at least tried to make this seem non biased
How does making the playing field level negatively affect product integration? Seems like a bizaare claim that only benefits Apple?
You cannot seamlessly integrate without absolute control.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I agree there would need to be a firm standard, but isn't that what the lawsuit would provide? When each side can have control over those decisions?
@@willhudson5625 That will not achieve integration on the level apple users expect. Look at the incompatibility problems of PC hardware and software. Mac has ZERO of this.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Sure you can.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 Mac computers also have the problem of not being able to upgrade or replace the hardware. Which makes the PC far better then the Mac. If something happens to the Mac Mini or Mac Studio in regards to RAM have fun buying a new one. Me if my RAM fails that's all I have to buy is new RAM and replace it. SO get off your damn soap box.
Imagine while having RCS still giving green bubbles so that if you use Android your friend would just ignore sending you text because they think it's not free... And this man comes here and defends iMessage??
Are you fr ???
I mean I am reading some of these sources and man they are biased in the same way. I think it was just a failure of research.
@@Volsung24 isn't it Just stupidity... Or was he rage bating us??
I strongly dislike this video, and I don't understand your motive in making it. Every one of the things you described as a positive for consumers was designed with the explicit intention of being anticompetitive. They may be positives, but they are also anticompetitive. The DOJ is arguing that you can have your cake and eat it too, and you provided no reason to believe that is not true. Why can the apple watch not be closely integrated with the IPhone while allowing other watches to also be closely integrated? Of course it can.
The only argument you made was saying that apple won't be motivated to innovate if they are forced to be open. This is the same argument made by the Chicago School and Regan types for the past 60 years and it has been proven wrong every time it is tested. What's more, you specifically undermined the basis for that argument by acknowledging that users do want tight integration of products. If users want tight innovation, then Apple will always be incentivised to integrate tighly, even if the DOJ grows a pair and forces that tight integration to be done in a non-anticompetitive way. Even assuming the Regan types were right, your incentives argument does not hold up under the framework you yoursef set out.
After some thought, I want to expand a bit more on my comment about motivations. This case has been covered by several popular tech channels, and has always been covered positively, as the government finally stepping up to protect consumers. You frame this video as a second look at the issue, bringing a more careful analysis of both sides. You acknowledge that Apple engages in anticompetitive practices, so the suit has merit, but your motivation for making the video seems to be that you think the issue is more nuisanced (i.e. the antitrust case is not an unambiguously good thing). You present two arguments in this direction. First, that the case could have been made more strongly if it focused on more egregious anticompetitive behavior, and second, that antitrust regulation might not be all good for the consumer. The first point is clearly not enough of an issue to justify a Polymatter video. It might make sense for Legal Eagle to make a video about how the arguments in a lawsuit could have been made more strongly but not a Polymatter video. So undoubtedly your motivation for making the video is the second.
However, you really don't provide a strong defense of the second point. "Antitrust legislation hurts the consumer." is an argument that has been made by monopolies since antitrust legislation was invented, but nearly every time antitrust legislation is enacted, the consumer benefits. If you think this is not true, going through a list of historical examples of times when antitrust legislation has had negative consequences would make a genuinely interesting video and would potentially be a strong defense of your point. Instead, you just repeated the Apple press release talking points without adding anything of value.
That's the part that really offends me about this video. Even if Apple was right that it would hurt the consumer, they are already making this argument as loudly as they can. They don't need you playing defense for them. Quite disappointed by the quality of this video. I hope it is promptly removed.
You cannot tightly integrate when you don't have 100% control. That's the entire reason so many of us chose Mac over PC back in the day and iphone over android today. Brand X infiltration leads to failures and crashes.
@@mojrimibnharb4584 I feel like it isn't a terrible thing for the consumer if different companies found a hiccup in integration for a second as they're forced to cooperate with each other at a really basic level. Eventually, "brand x" infiltration would force different companies to play nice with each other, and I think that'd benefit us by giving us integration yet choice and options.
@@goofyahhlilrat Except that the hiccups never go away. Cf Win/PC. Please, keep your dumpster fire systems to yourselves.
@@mojrimibnharb4584what leads you to believe that if Apple opened up its integration APIs for use by other companies, Apple’s products would suddenly stop working with each other? Nobody here is arguing the Apple Watch needs to stop integrating with the iPhone, they’re saying anything the Apple Watch can do on the iPhone, other companies should be able to do too
Among other comments i would to point out that not having the ability to compete is the problem, not the argument of will it be better. Time and time again apple has taken away the ability to compete which is not their decision to make.
I want to sue apple for incompetence
Yeah random joe on the internet, the world’s most valuable company is incompetent while you are the master of competence.
@@InternetDisplayofPower i might be a random joe to you. But in reality i am a senior engineer and i have my own company. I pay tons of money for macbooks pro every 2 years and they breakdown fast. Macbooks were much more robust before. I don't mind paying a lot of money but i demand quality. The quality isn't there anymore. This is why i am saying they are incompetent. I am judging them based on the amount of money they are charging me.
When you have a team of international engineers and start to get all sorts of weird problems with applecare+ in different countries, then we can talk again.
@@InternetDisplayofPower ah, yes, the 1999 Cisco argument. LOL
@@MBarberfan4life If you don't mind, could you explain this reference to me?
@@InternetDisplayofPower I had posted a long comment explaining my position. However, this comment has disappeared for unknown reasons. Possibly, Google has incompetent people on the RUclips services teams. In short, I am an engineer and I have my company with an international team and we spend a lot of money with apple. MacBooks break down abroad and applecare sucks.
The analysis of the green bubbles was pretty weak. Whether or not apple is complacent is not the only issue here. It's still monopolistic.
The evil monopoly of colored text bubbles!
This video misses the mark in so many ways. I used to trust polymatter, but ignoring the main point of a lawsuit and claiming that it's not in the interest of users is journalistic malpractice.
Yeah, I'm concurring with the others here - Polymatter, I'm disappointed. This entire thing reeks of bias, even by the 3 minute mark. Jumping onto the first point, line 2.5.8. doesn't refer to superapps - it's the ability to flash, emulate or run other OSes onto your iPhone like variants of iOS or even Android.
I'm really disappointed in you - you can do better than this. Can't you?
1.) watched for 5 minutes, felt something was wrong
2.) checked comments, realized I'm not alone
3.) closed video
Then you missed the conclusion and just openly admitted to being closed minded and herd mentality.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zzyou sure want your opinion to be heard😂
Anti-competitive practices sometimes are popular with consumers, but that doesn't make them not anti-competitive. Another example is Net Neutrality. When an ISP makes special deals with companies that will pay, consumers might get special access to those companies. This is still anti-competitive to companies that can't pay, and in the end, that could entrench current popular stalwarts and stifle technological innovation, even though consumers may enjoy the current entrenched technology. The point of enforcing these policies is to protect small businesses and small innovators from the elevated power of the current titans of business. Helping consumers is a more nebulous and future secondary effect. Consumers might not realize that a new & better option for something isn't being allowed to float to the top of the pack.
Apple, like a luxury car you can only drive on certain roads.
Apple roads, using Apple fuel, Apple radio, Apple charging accessories, wearing apple clothes and apple cell service, driving to the Apple store.
"But what about the seamless ecosystem? It's so good!" 🙄🙄
I'm so disappointed with this channel and am questioning all their other videos integrity.
Regarding super apps, it's not about is super apps good for us, it's about having the freedom to choose to do so
This seems a very biased view. You totally ignore that a lot of these technologies can work seamlessly cross iOS and Android... Like the green bubbles. There are message enrcrytion protocols open to both parties but Apple doesn't want to adopt a standard as this will reduce consumer stickiness. Same thing with the smart watch functionality. Same thing with the lighting cable and USB C. Only that one they finally conceded didn't they. Trust, they will slowly concede to all finally giving the consumer the ability to switch freely and match devices however they see fit. Then, it will be a truly open competitive environment where the manufacturers produce the very best for the consumer not lock you in.
False Dichotomy with the Super App criticism.
Open protocols, and healthy competition can create good ecosystems.
I don't care what enail address or email provider you use, it's just email.
Why don't chat, payments, appointments, calendars, etc... have a similar compatible and diverse ecosystem?
The problem is, if you look closer at the white paper, doj is not even mentioning about super apps at all.
11:06 That catch isn't right:
Allowing others to have the same integration doesn't prevent apple to keep their current integration...
E.g. letting other smartwatches have the same features doesn't make the Apple Watch worse.
Saying that apple being forced to share its innovations with other companies is bad for innovation consumers is very odd, considering polymatter literally made a video on patents saying the opposite, that patents (Giving companies complete monopoly and control over products) is bad for innovation and consumers ??
@@richtigmann1 he almost made me forget about the patents video
I get the feeling that if our political system wasn’t full of old dudes, we might have a more cohesive and better argument from the DOJ
It's about time for the 30 somethings to step up
@@primetime3422 ya our political system is a shitshow, no question about that. However that isn't why the arguments from the DOJ aren't very good, it's because this is, at best, a shockingly and uncharacteristically skewed and biased video from this channel and at worst, an intentionally misleading representation or driven by lack of understanding of the problem (and hence has no right to make a video on the topic)
@@fredthebulldog529 Be greatful that at least its not china or japan something.Where everyone in the government is an old dude
FINALLY, a comment that's not calling Polymatter a shill while entirely misinterpreting his arguments. Took me way too long to find this.
@@zUJ7EjVD
+1
congress @ Microsoft in the 90's: "whoa whoa whoa, there is way too much power in this tech giant, it needs to be broken up!!"
congress today: ahh, yes, apple. nice and safe, I dont think theres a monopoly, but, I GUESS we should maybe look into it
Notice they decided not to break up MS? Seems they learned from the experience.
@@mojrimibnharb4584iirc, Internet Explorer had to be separate from the Windows operating system: Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers to run on their devices, and not promote their own browser over another; wheras, for example, apple pay is actually starting to replace cash and debit card transactions, our current financial system
@@mojrimibnharb4584 No, it's because by that point transnational megacorporations - including Microsoft - had already made massive progress in their efforts to corrupt government and gain effective control over public policy. Microsoft - and, to a lesser extent, other companies who were concerned about the precedent an antitrust breakup of Microsoft might create - was throwing enough lobbying dollars around to buy enough support that any efforts to break up Microsoft ultimately would've failed due to manufactured/purchased political opposition.
Also, antitrust laws were gradually *gutted* over the years prior, starting with the Reagan administration.
@@mojrimibnharb4584they didn't break them up but they didn't slap them with fine and regulations
This isn't Congress, its the Department of Justice
Apple’s dumb mouse just shows that Apple is anti competitive, terrible design but it’s only seemless and smooth bc it doesn’t allow other mouse to do so
This video sounds like it was sponsored by Apple. As other commenters have noted, PolyMatter has missed the point on a number of things in defense of Apple. Disappointing, biased video for sure.
3:44 The argument is not if it is good for users, users should have the option to choose.
I think the US could have a strong argument concerning planned obsolescence. Users that are content are almost forced to buy new products after several updates once certain features stop working.
Apple's support for their products is longer than most Android phones and comparable to flagship Galaxy phones.
"the product will get worse if apple won't be monopoly 😢" that is the same exact argument AT&T had before the government broke it apart and everything got cheaper and better
Horrible takes, the entire premise of arguing whether a monopoly good is flawed, it has been time and time again that monopolies are always bad for consumers in the long term and we continue to see this happen right now with e.g. the Microsoft Activation-Blizzard acquisition and Apple. Here let's break down each and every one:
- Super Apps: Who are apples to decide if super apps are bad for me? Who are you to tell me that? And there's this cool thing to ensure that if a super app does control too much of the market it cannot abuse it's position to hurt users and competition called antitrust, you might've heard of it. Arguing that "this monopoly is better than a hypothetical monopoly that might exist, and it'll make everything worst for users because they'll have to do everything inside an app" is insane, the DOJ doesn't "want us to have a super app", it wants to enforce the free market that the laws are supposed to protect.
- Cloud Streaming: I think it's dumb to say that "cloud streaming is good for users" outright, there's a reason companies like subscriptions, but otherwise ok.
- Green Bubbles: The fact you omitted RCS is very malicious and makes pretty much the entire point outdated and irrelevant, and yes there's a giant difference between iMessage's market share and the market share of other messaging services - those users are not locked into an iPhone. Also that chart being multiple choice (I assume? It's sums up to almost 200%) probably under counts iMessage by a lot as there are more people that use it as their main messaging app and another messenger to fill in the gap for non-iMessage users than users who mainly a different messaging app and iMessage occasionally. Actually I dug a bit more into this survey, and it's deeply flawed: they asked "Which of the following messaging services or apps do you currently use?" which *inflates Instagram massively*.
- Smartwatches: This is simply not true, there's no technical limitation preventing devices from different manufacturers integrating together, and there's no better example than Matter, the smart home and IoT protocol (that Apple only implemented because of antitrust pressure), also RCS (which should've been mentioned in the Green Bubbles section, it's outright malicious to omit it) and the FediVerse protocol for social network (which isn't as mainstream but still shows it's possible to do well). Apple doesn't have magic, it's all ones and zeros. And companies have incentives to innovate, it's like saying that every non-ecosystem-related feature (most of them) isn't worth innovating and investing in because other companies can copy them - of course they do **eventually** but you still get positive press and marketing, and a time frame where only you have that feature.
Ma Bell was great for consumers. Some things are just natural monopolies.
Keep in mind that RCS is a)not encrypted, that’s a google thing, b)badly implemented even in countries that have all the reasons to use it, and c)doesn’t, on its own, provide extra compatibility with anything
It does provide better multimedia capabilities, and better group chats, but that’s about it
@@mojrimibnharb4584 bell was notoriously BAD for people. Stop simping for your corporate overlords
Bro ripped him a new one
@@mojrimibnharb4584 bell was notoriously bad for people. They didn't care. They didn't have to. They were THE phone company
The green bubble segment here is leaving out a lot of details. Like this doesn't explain why the iMessage doesn't support RCS, which is the successor to SMS/MMS and can be encrypted and can support things like high definition photos, videos, reactions, etc. Also, it doesn't really explain why all of the other messaging apps can't support SMS/MMS, and the reason is Apple. They simply don't allow any app other than iMessage to use SMS/MMS on iPhone. Also Apple doesn't allow any way to change your default messaging app on iPhone. Maybe you could argue that these tactics aren't successful in making Apple the leader in the messaging game, but it doesn't change the fact that their intent is one hundred percent anti-competition.
Another Apple video from Poly after all this time! I sometimes forget that this channel was famous for its Apple and China video just a few years back.
The irony of an American talking about " the great wall of china keeping out american companies" in the era of what is being done to Huawei...is really laughable
This video is way to much biased for apple. The problem is they don't get sued enough not to little. Their app store is still the only realistic way to get apps.
You saying Apple users like apple is like saying AT&t users liked using at&t during the 80s before they were forced to break up their monopoly, what happened afterwards was increased competition and innovation.
Green bubble is still anticompetitive to me, it just doesn't work that much
this video is so unfortunate. lying by ommission is still lying youve completely misrepresented key points on multiple fronts here. the koolaid is strong with this one,
Aha, you are getting payed by Apple. Otherwise I don't see how you can make half of these arguments with a straight face.
Really? Apples incentives are aligned with their users? When they have repeatably, and obviously done anti-user actions?
The green color is also present on the RUclips scrubber, and it is the default color that shows me there is a pending sponsor being skipped. Thus, green = bad.
I have always know Poymatter to be a fan of Apple's product/service portfolio and when I saw the title, I thought, yes, I get to hear one of the best researchers on RUclips who happens to be an Apple fan, talk about the lawsuit without bias but alas, you missed on this one. I guess we all have those products we love so much that we don't realise that we are strawmanning the other's arguments. This was an L but look forward to the next video, hopefully a non-Apple one cause it appears you have blinders when it comes to the fruit company.
@@themobilegamer5582 lol alas indeed..
The episode is about the complaints brought by the DOJ, not whether or not Apple engages in monopolistic practices. The EU already concluded both of these tech companies are monopolistic and Polymatter wouldn't dispute that. He even provided an example of something truly egregious done by Apple at the end. Did you watch till the end?
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz I watched the whole thing. His arguments were weak while ironically calling the DOJ’s weak.
- Super apps should be an option and customers get to choose which monopoly they want. Apple doesn’t get to play God, deciding they are not good for us.
- Polymatter completely missed the mark on green bubbles. Apple was intentionally making the experience worse for both Apple and Android users to force people to “buy their mom an iPhone.” The pressure, especially on teens is real. RCS has been around for a while and would have fixed a number of problem SMS caused, eg potato quality photos and videos shared cross platform.
- Giving competitors like Spotify the same playing field does not preclude Apple from working its magic. Apple Music has its advantages which don’t need to be protected by making the subscription process difficult for Spotify. Compete on library, lossless, playlists, AI, UI, etc
- Even if 100% of users were happy with their iPhone, the DOJ still needed to act to limit the monopoly’s power. Monopolies ALWAYS end up bad for the consumer. Unless we’re saying Apple somehow aren’t human.
It is not about having one overlord vs. another overlord.
It just means that we have the option to choose one overlord over another, or choose not to go for any one overlord.
Consumer choice, very important. That and right to repair.
This video is so biased towards apple and lacking in sources to back up your arguments
Signal used to have SMS. They got rid of it because regular SMS is awful in every way and definitely not secure. Because the user doesn't necessarily understand the difference between SMS and an encrypted message they decided to remove SMS support