Debunking the US vs. Apple Anti-trust Lawsuit: Hilarious Or Serious?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- The US Department of Justice filed suit against Apple today for alleged anti-trust violations., saying Apple has created a monopoly in the smartphone industry, citing the Apple Watch, App Store, Messaging, and a lot of other stuff.
🔥Check out jasontlewis.com for more tech content and deals. Join the mailing list!
🎙 Check out my Amazon Buying Guides on headphones, cameras, and audio gear: www.amazon.com/shop/painfully...
💥Become a channel member: tinyurl.com/thyrzbf
🎤 Subscribe to my music channel: bit.ly/3zqmH6C
💥 MY SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS AND MORE:
linktr.ee/painfullyhonesttech 
Наука
3:28 that’s not what they are saying in the case. The issue is that Apple does not let third-party applications integrate SMS messages. That is something within apples control. On android you can choose your default messaging platform and send SMS messages through that application.
LOL change default SMS? what next? They sue Apple for not having blue bubble on their custom SMS app? ridiculous
Exactly! Android! People have choices; they can choose whatever platform they prefer. People choose Apple because it works well for them.
@@vandeljasonstrypper6734 lmao 🤣 how far up Tim cooks Coochie are you? Offering people a choice is not a bad thing. You do not have to use a different messaging platform if you don’t want to. But it is a fact that has actively prevented people from using a messaging platform of their choice as their default. They have made the experience objectively worse by doing so. No one is talking about colors. SMS is a basic function provided by your mobile carrier. Apple has intentionally blocked, third-party applications and being able to access a basic function of the phone.
@@vhines10 as a developer of a messaging platform you actually don’t have a choice. Not if you want your app to actually survive. You need to support both iOS and android. And limiting the functionality of your application in favor of their own messaging platform is definition anti-competitive. Whether it’s anti-trust is up for the courts to decide. But the US government does seem to think they have a case.
Everyone who says Apple is going to support RCS is missing the point. They are supporting an inferior version of it that doesn't support as many features or encryption. It still is a very similar issue, just a shinier piece of turd, but still a piece of turd. Not everything Apple does is a problem, but the things they do that create problems are very important because they are the market leaders by a huge margin. Large enough to be a monopoly in America. Their features are locked to their ecosystem and that keeps people in it. People don't want to try other devices.
Then get an android
Thats not Apple’s fault if people don’t want to use other products lol
All my devices are Apple, it's not because they are forcing me to buy their products. They are just simply better than any other product on the market. IPhone, iPad, airpod pro, airpod max, airtags, homepods, Macbook, Vision Pro, Apple Watch. I own every single one of these products and to me there are no other product on the market that are better than these. They are not a Monopoly. Just a company that makes quality devices.
@@joshuamahabir8434 I think everybody should have a right whether they want to use android or iPhone
Apple Watch reminds me when iPods only worked with Macs. If they made watch work with android their watch market share would only increase. Maybe they want iPhone to allow google and other wallets on be installed. 30% App Store fees is basically close or the same as other app/game stores. I also remember paying the government about 30%+ on all my income.
The issue with the App Store is only partly with the 30% share. It has more to do with Apple disallowing apps that would compete with the App Store (and other Apple apps). Android allows other app stores be installed so app developers could choose another appstore to share their app in. (Other anticompetitive stuff going on over there though and Google is being sued for that aswell). Steam similarily has a lot of competition with game studios publishing their own launchers, yet people keep using Steam and devs keep publishing on Steam, not because its the only option but because its just better.
Also Apple doesn't even allow apps to process payments by themselves or link to a website or even mention that an in app purchase can be done cheaper somewhere else. They instead force apps to process payments through Apple pay, where they get another 30% cut.
iPods working with Macs was not really Apples decision but up to Microsoft making their technologies work worse on Windows, quite in the same way Apple is doing to apps on their platform that compete with Apples own apps.
Them turnig a bigger profit by making Apple Watch work with Android is even listed as an argument in the lawsuit, as there has to be another incentive that outweighs the short term gain of making their watches compatible with Android. They argue that it is reasonable to assume that this is because of Apple wanting to reinforce their monopolistic position in hte market.
There's more to this story that the D. O. J. wants from Apple that's not being shared with us. Will Apple secretly give them permission through a back door on our devices or not?
When you cant attack an argument, make up a conspiracy or where is this going?
One of the examples in the documents today was that the amazon fire phone failed in 2014 LMAO such an absurd argument. That phone failed because it sucked, nothing to do with Apple.
A monopoly + underpay workers
They don't underpay, they pay what the market bears. If they underpaid, they wouldn't have any workers at all.
I think you misunderstood the watch part. I think the point they're trying to make about the Apple watch is that Apple watch can only work with iPhones. For example, If you want to try out an Apple watch (which I think it's a great product except for the battery) for fitness or health tracking purpose, you'll be forced to buy an iPhone only. Samsung or Pixel watches also don't work with iPhones due to Apple limited/restriction on which type of devices work with their iPhones. In the other hands Android/Windows/third party devices work seamlessly together across the platforms. You can have a Pixel phone and use a Samsung watch no problem. Or you can have Samsung phone and use Garmin smartwatch no problem. I think that's a problem with Apple. Apple product only works with other Apple products such as iPhones. I understand that Apple has their own eco-system, but they're forcing customers to only buy iPhones to use their product is ridiculous to me.
All of those watches work because they’re all Android watches. It’s two different business models. The Apple Watch is made to work with the iPhone. The devices are interconnected. It’s a feature, not a bug.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH I understand that but what I think the DOJ trying to say here is that maybe the company shouldn't limited their products to only work with their other products and no one else. Maybe it's not fair to the consumers who don't want to own everything Apple. Well, that's just my opinion.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH This is the most iSheep comment I've read from you in a lot of time.
Providing access to sensor information through APIs and similar technologies is something very doable. However they block the use of such information by third parties.
I could understand if they made it better when using products in the ecosystem, for instance by providing deeper insights into the metrics or any other way, however this isn't better vs worse. This is it works vs it doesn't.
Same with Samsung and Google. Nobody is forcing anyone into their eco-system. Pixel watch can only be used with Pixel phones. Choose which eco-system that makes you happy. The Government doesn't get to dictate our happiness
One rule for Apple, one rule for the others. That’s how the Sherman Act is written, and I think (British citizen here) it’s right. The biggest fish should be made to play fair, since otherwise there will soon be no fish.
Is RUclips a monopoly?
No
@@peacefullytechnical883LOL wow
Pretty much. More so than apple is.
@@nebyliczaOK DOKEY
Its a monopoly because no other company is stupid enought to try and maintain an ad based free video streaming platform. The datacenter costs do the monopoly part. Apple on the other hand clearly engages in anticompetitive behavior.
I appreciate your point of view, I just disagree that apple hasn't participated in anticompetitive practices to keep their position.
The way Apple jerked Spotify around for years was proof of that. Apple Music could undercut Spotify on Apple's platforms, because Apple took the 30% cut, and Spotify's business model had to make up that amount. Then they wouldn't let Spotify advertise to Apple users that they could buy the damn subscription on their webpage. Etc etc.
Apple is absolutely scummy. They make fantastic hardware, but it's like Nintendo. I love Nintendo the developer. I hate Nintendo the company. lol
His Fanboy point of view is stupid. For example, emulators (legal emulators) are totally open in Android, for iPhone you can use an emulator ONLY if don't hurts APPLE gaming business. Basically you buy a product, but it is not yours 😂 😂
It's painfully honest that most people in the world cannot afford a new iphone, this attention is a breath of fresh air. Even if Apple is not found guilty.
I don’t understand why that is a problem? There are budget phones and older models available. No one is entitled to a new iPhone.
@@wlsntech I completely agree with you and I own apple products as well but I would be nice if the sms protocalls were streamlined though to accommodate larger then 3.5mb we have the tech to do it why should we be beholden to what apple and or Google wants or to another 3rd party app when one group of friends might use one app, work may use another, and family and so on and so forth. I usually don't agree with these egregious doj antitrust cases but this one is a long time coming especially if it forces these companies to play nice to up data limits on standerd protocalls.
In 1999 (?), Microsoft was charged with acting as a market monopolist by making it hard for users to install competing software on their Windows computer and then making it hard to UNINSTALL Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft’s built-in web browser shipped with every version of Windows.
The whole time, Microsoft argued that their users had the freedom to use products such as Mac or Linux and could download and install other web browsers, etc.
Microsoft spoke, uh, unfavorably of their loss in the ruling and alleged bias.
Sound familiar?
It’s slightly comical to hear folks apologize for Apple‘s anti-competitive behavior when 25 years ago, many of the same people were complaining about Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior.
Microsoft's browser STILL ships with every install of Windows. And it's STILL nigh impossible to get rid of it. This isn't about software. The software offerings on Mac are not the issue. It's not like they're making you use Pages instead of Word. This is about Apple building an ecosystem that people have bought into , but I guess the opinion is the ecosystem works so well the other companies (who have trying to build their own ecosystems and failing) can't compete.
So the government steps in to tell Apple they can't be as successful as they are because it's not fair?
People have choices. More people are choosing Apple. This lawsuit didn't happen because Apple users were complaining they couldn't use a Samsung Watch. It's about the government deciding if the SHOULD be able to choose that, which would defeat the purpose of buying into the Apple ecosystem. The interoperability is a feature, not a bug. And no one who buys into it is crying over their inability to is an Android tablet instead of an iPad.
This is laissez-faire economics at its best. Let the market decide. And they have. It's up to other companies to compete. So far they've failed.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH My house is full of products emblazoned with Apple logos so I don’t disagree with the quality and reliability of the Apple ecosystem.
Having significant market power in America means more scrutiny around pricing, transparency, and even the illusion of unfairly limiting competition. Much like the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit, this one is not about the fact that the Apple ecosystem exists and is popular with customers but about any monopolistic behavior Apple may employ to protect it.
As I mentioned, Apple acts much like the Microsoft that lost their antitrust argument 25 years ago.
"Apple, you're doing too well, therefore we need to criticise and penalize you." Unbelievable.
The whole thing is ludicrous
It really isn't
As a long time iPhone user, I can safely say this NEEDED to happen.
@@brotherhoodofsteel3090ok, but you're wrong. Apple getting sued for these reasons is dumb.
@@dancruzeBut it's funny though 😂😂
The problem is that only Apple Pay can use the NFC chip.
There are far bigger problems for this government to deal with than this. First, fix the other major problems, and then they can worry about second and third tier problems such as these.
They are trying to cover up the major problem
You do realize that there are different deparemnts in the 'government', right? Like, what would you like the Despartment of Justice to fix instead of this? If you don't name what you're talking about, your comment makes no sense.
Oh, wow... it was real! Silly situation. This doesn't make much of sense to me, but I am an old geezer using Android without a "watch" or extreme usage of it!
Ipad still doesn't have a calculator
Great content. The only thing me personally have a problem with Apple, is the freedom. The freedom to make your phone yours. And you know what I mean. Now as for this law suit. What a joke. Apple is apple, samsung is samsung, Mercedes is Mercedes. Each is there own company. Dont get me wrong. I dont like apple. But it would be like the DOJ telling me I cant have samsung only products in my house. Is my house an monopoly if I only use samsung products 🤔
That is not what the lawsuit is about at all. The thing they are sued over is (1) the intentional "stickyness" of their products to keep people from switching off of Apple devices and (2) the stifling of competition that could threaten them on the iPhone platform through disabling certain APIs and arbitrarily disallowing apps that would compete with Apples apps.
talking about the apple watch, it's unique in function because apple limits for example Garmin to use more smart features, like sending a message on the watch itself, you can only do that on the apple watch, not open for others
Seems to be in favor of the Pixel!
I would bet no of the people involved in bringing this suit have ever even seen a Pixel.
So they can't make iMessage interoperable?
They can, they just wont. Look up Apple v Beeper Mini. Its possible, Apple just doesn't want it to happen because it would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
Every upload is a god damn movie 🍿
The most interesting part if this is how this legal action as really bought out the tech channel Fanboy attorney's.
Hahaha... Coming from you . This is rich 😂
You can say Samsung is a bit more open to competition cause on Samsung devices you can pick either Samsung pay or Google wallet and android has a few different payment methods for different countries etc.
As oppose to iPhone apple only forcing people to be stuck using apple pay only.
Also with Android devices you can use just about any smartwatch with different android devices.
You can use Samsung watch with google pixel watch or OnePlus watch etc..
As oppose to iPhone apple users being forced to only being able to use a apple watch only.
And yes Apple is a monopoly cause their not as open as android.
Also with Android devices your not forced to only use the Google Play store to get apps. Androids have been open to being able to install any APK app outside of their app store since forever.
Apple is monopoly with their app store because apple doesn't allow installing apps outside of their app store.
google pixel watch does not work with iphone 🤷
Yeah, but how many Pixel Watches are out there? 13?
probably 18 😂
I think you are missing the point. I use Samsung products, I have a Galaxy watch, smartphone and laptop, but if I decided for example that their watch is not for me, perhaps I don't like the software, its too expensive or I don't like its design or size; I could happily pair other brands of watches to my smartphone or laptop. Im not limited to Samsung products. I have choice. In the Apple world, if you have fallen for their charms and you are locked into all things Apple, breaking away from this is incredibly hard and expensive. They have you by the short and curlies!
I know what you’re saying, but Apple’s system is designed to work that way for the net benefit of the user. If you don’t want to be a part of that system, you spend your money elsewhere. It’s a feature, not a bug. It’s not like you have to buy every Apple product. You can choose what works from you and within that framework there are many models to choose from of every product.
I would hate for a system that works so well to be hobbled because someone can’t use a Pixel watch or something. Every company out there has been trying to create their own version of this for years. The fact that they failed to do so doesn’t make Apple a monopoly.
It feels like their issue is with ecosystems. But Samsung and google are equally as liable.
Samsung and Google haven’t been nearly as successful with their ecosystems, so it feels like Apple is being punished for succeeding.
there's only two choices atm. two or more companies locking out competition legally falls under monopoly laws.
people have fanboy-ed themselves into accepting the lack of alternatives because they don't know any other way.
So I’m in the Android world Google pixel & Pixel watch etc no one held a gun to my head and said buy these products just like no one held a gun to someone head & said “Buy an iPhone and Apple” people chose of their own free will to make an informed purchase I don’t feel I am missing out on life because I didn’t but the fruit based phone
The thing they are sued over is the intentional "stickyness" of their products to keep people from switching off of Apple devices and the stifling of competition that could threaten them on the iPhone.
Extremely overdue actions.
Heck MS got done for IE back in the day, you could still install other browsers they just didn't get the same OS hooks. That's across most things in iOS and your can't even have a 3rd party browser at all just a skin.
I comparisons to precedents like MS case, Apple's so much more far reaching and broad.
Defending Apple by comparison is pretty Fanboy when the reason Apple is copping this is because of their manipulation and restrictions.
The action is against Apple, not a comparison to others.... others that oddly are 11ty x more interoperable
Jason, can you please provide the links you’re getting this information from? Because looking at the actual DOJ website where they overview their points. Is nothing like what you describing. What you’re describing is a massive twist on what the genuine concerns are and is Extremely disingenuous. I would like to think that you just getting a bad source. But unless you post those sources, I can’t know and so can only assume that painfully honest tech is being misleading and less than honest.
Every thing I quoted was a quote. If you want to accuse me of being disengenuous and that's what you think of me, I don't have time for you.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH I don’t want to think your being disingenuous. I’ve followed you for a long time. that’s why I’m asking for the sources. I would love to have an open conversation about this.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH it’s really sad that you are not open to having open discussions. So much for being painfully honest.
It's kind of a unique situation I think. It doesn't seem like a monopoly on paper but it does look like one when you look at the overall picture. I think that is where the gray area is and probably where there's a lot of confused older politicians lol. I almost feel like it's 4 years too late because of the RCS adoption. To me that is the biggest thing keeping people from switching to a different phone. But at the end of the day this may just be the biggest waste of tax payer money. The government should be more concerned with what social media is doing to our youth. They should be suing Mark Zuckerberg and Google for what they have done to the mental health of many Americans and most of our young generation.
I carry a Pixel and an iPhone. Apple may behave in an anticompetitive way, but I don't think it rises to monopolistic, like AT&T or Standard Oil
I think Google Search is more of a monopoly in the traditional sense. Apple made a superior product line up. People like it. That’s it
@@karenandrews4224 Thats not it. Read the lawsuit itself and not any inherently biased recap of it if you are convinced thats it and are ready to have your views challenged. Its even a more pleasant read than I expected.
It’s consumer choice to buy what products they want. No one is forcing anyone to buy the whole eco system.
there's only two choices. a duopoly.
No you don't because the whole American society is all about iphone
Apple’s greatest strength is growing markets it enters. The markets for smartphones, tablets, app stores, online music stores, MP3 players, and smart watches were relatively tiny before Apple entered them. The Palm Treo, the Diamond Rio, Microsoft tablet, Microsoft SPOT watch, Microsoft Phone, and wireless Bluetooth earbuds never grew their respective markets, and ultimately failed once Apple entered these markets, growing them dramatically. Apple is never the first to market, but its products and software often come to own their markets.
Still ipad doesn't have a calculator
Not an Apple fan but this doesn't seem like a monopoly. AT&T was a monopoly before they were broken up in the 80's,(yes I'm that old I remember) but the only thing I see here is that Apple still doesn't play well with others outside the Apple eco system. Look at earpods they make compared to other TWS sets. Yes they will work with the iPhone, but with less features they have set up. Will a Galaxy watch(or any other smart watch) work with an iPhone? I don't know, but if it does, I bet it is handcuffed like TWS earphones not made by Apple. Hate to say it though, this is not a monopoly.
Jason,
Apple makes great products. However there is some latency with third-party devices. I have smart locks in my home. One of the features is auto-unlock. When using my iPhone it's a 50/50 chance it will unlock. Using my Pixel. It unlock 100% of the time. I added a Starling home hub to get things to work better with HomeKit and still have delays or zero response from my iPhone. So, there is some funny business going on with Apple. I still love my iPhone. I just wish everything would work. 100% of the time.
Merrick Garland is an incompetent fool. None of his arguments make sense at all.
Coming from a retail manager in the telecom industry there is NO monopoly here. I sell plenty of competitor’s phones, but iPhone outsells everyone else and it’s not close.
People come back to the iPhone again and again because they want to, not because they HAVE to.
If Apple wins this case, then other companies will follow Apple 💯
Other companies have been trying to follow Apple for years. You think Samsung hasn't been trying to build an ecosystem people want to buy into? Of course they have. Everyone has. The only difference is, everyone failed.
You should watch the DOJ presentation more carefully
You didn’t properly explain any of their arguments.
not an apple hater by any means...but i am done with iphone...software and battery sucks...way overpriced...i have a moto 2022 edge 144hz refresh 256gb storage...all for 350.00...so ya...but i dont think they are a monopoly..DOJ are idiots...seriously🤷🏼♀️
This is the simplest answer, you don’t like certain things so you made the choice to use another phone. Nobody is holding folks at gunpoint
Someone speaking sense! Thank you
The Apple fans will say no. The Google and Microsoft fans will say yes and didn't Microsoft get into trouble for monopolisation in the past? Everyone else couldn't care less, albeit feeling some slight amusement when Apple gets fined. 😂
Everyone skips over the real messaging issue. Apple doesn't allow other apps to send sms/mms. That's the complaint. Apple keeps portions of the OS locked down and only accessible via their own apps. They don't provide access to third parties to create competing apps (super app argument). This is anti-competitive.
The thing is, Apple’s messaging app is the way they bring in messages. It’s a different way of doing it from Android, but no less valid. I can’t think of why someone would want a 3rd party messaging app. Less secure, not integrated with the system software, etc. could they do it? Yeah. But it would result in a compromised experience for the user and user experience is paramount to Apple’s business.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH You're still thinking about it surface level and from your own bubble. "Less secure" is just misinformation at this point. I'm still dealing with unsecure SMS when I message an iPhone.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH Just because you dont understand why someone would do something, doesnt mean that there would be no reason. There are features missing listed in the lawsuit (Paragraph 87). Apple has no competition in the messaging market on iPhone because Apple chose to make the API private, so they have no reason to innovate on messaging due to their antocompetitive behavior.
Messages might even be more secure if a rival to the default messaging app could provide encrypted messages to non iPhone users.
You’re wrong about messaging between iPhone & android. Apple still uses the old sms/mms & when an android send pics to an iPhone, the sms/mms degrades the photo & make it look terrible. With rcs, any phone manufacturer can use it & add stuff to it, to make it work differently with their phone, but it also don’t degrade things, like a iPhone does. Samsung S24 take great photos & them photos keep it appearance when it’s sent to another android, but when it’s sent to a iPhone, it loses that appearance & look terrible.
I have never heard of this issue. My friend, who’s an android user, sends me pics and vids all the time, and they’re never pixelated. I do understand that sms is old tech, so it’s good that Apple is switching to RCS.
Jason,I have been a long time fan of your channel. But your bias to Apple is rearing its head again. The problem with Apple is that you are a captive of their ecosystem. You know you cannot customize an I Phone like you can an Android.
If you don't like it buy an android. That's not a monopoly.
If you want customization, YOU KNOW APPLE AINT FOR YOU. Please get yourself an android and stay happy. Government regulation of what tech advances/experience the consumers should get is absurd. The iPhone ecosystem is EXACTLY why a lot of people buy Apple because it really does makes a lot of people’s lives easier. I just built my first gaming pc and every time I wanna reply to my messages or answer a phone call without getting up from my desk, I’m reminded of why I love using Apple products.
People know what they are buying.
Then buy an android? It’s not like apple products are cheaper so you don’t have other options lol
I mean let's be honest here You're not held captive to the ecosystem. How much money is it really going to cost to switch platforms? $100 in lost apps? I've switched back and forth many times and it's pretty annoying to be honest but it is totally possible. It's not like I'm held in jail to my iPhone. I decide to take the SIM card out and put it in my Galaxy and that's it. I think the reality here is that the iPhone is just a much more user friendly consumer-friendly device and that's the reason why it's so damn popular. Even with its shortfalls. I actually wonder if this isn't just a MoneyGrab to Apple. Actually that's definitely what it is.
Apple have created hardware and software that work well together and instead of making something like it or better they want to break them down. No one is forcing them to buy apple products and the last time I check Apple don't make food, clothing or shelter.
And they could make still make it better to work with Android but their sole reason is because they wanna keep you captive, not make it a better experience for everyone. The way you defend a company that gives zero shits about you is mind boggling
@@Phoun Relax LOOOOOL......you come off as someone who would share their significant other with someone else just to make others happy.
@@Phoun One question.....Why is the google and some Android apps not even on Huawei devices? I like Huawei device so Google gives zero shits about me and it's mind boggling.
@@neilwright6509Because the government has banned Google from supporting Huawei products.
This is so ridiculous, people vote with their wallets, then don’t buy Apple products.
and if they have the same issues with Google/Android go without a phone?
exactly
if so then why apple him self charge microsoft a lawsuit on microsoft ...making itunes to be integrated.?
Follow up to my earlier comment. What the AG is saying is if you buy a Chevy you can only put Chevy fuel in it to make it run, where as with a Ford it will run on anybody 's fuel. That gas been the problem with Apple products from day one. I have owned 3 Apple products, a Mac Book Pro and 2 I Phones. Had nothing but trouble with all 3. Back with Samsung and here us where I will Stat. I love your content keep it up!
I think a more apt analogy would be if you buy a Chevy, it’ll make it so it’s hard to drive on the same road with other cars - and, because Chevy has significant market penetration - it corners everyone into driving a Chevy or having an unnecessarily bad experience on the road.
While I do think that American anti-trust needs to be updated and become more rigorous, the current administration's anti-trust policy is just there to keep Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders happy as opposed to serious issues like Europe does.
No one in the government wants to keep Bernie or Warren happy. They ridiculous. Everyone hates them. If they had that power, one of them would be president right now. And what serious issues is the EU tackling? USB-C? Come on.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH The government is taking on these painfully weak cases against tech giants simply because the Warren wing thinks that $1 trillion companies shouldn't exist. This Apple case is as pathetically weak as the Microsoft/Activision merger and the Amazon case.
And at least the EU is getting behavioral changes.
To my knowledge Warren isn't involved in this.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH She isn't personally involved, but the Biden Administration still has to make the progressive base happy on something. They were never warm to him in the first place.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH Youre really not up to date with what the EU is doing, are you. The EU enforced the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. You should probably look up what they dictate. Not to mention the GDPR.
I would believe the monopoly reasoning more if most of the world didn't run on Android. It's around a 58/42 (iOS/Android) split in the US and 30/70 split worldwide. The complaints reads like a wish list of things that Apple SHOULD do to help the competition by doing ABC things. Unless the DOJ gives me more, I'm not buying their reasoning. We have actual monopolies that they've allowed to continue, that they've refused to tackle. This Apple suit just comes across as not enough donations to a particular political party on the face of it.
Most of south Korea is owned by like 3 families so this must be only an American thing
Samsung is literally a monopoly, most on the world runs on android but what’s the first brand that you think of when u hear that.
This lawsuit is to punish Apple for not helping the Government break into iPhones.
Jason, you've got it wrong. You said it yourself: what they're probing is how Apple blocks third party apps from accessing full communication capabilities from carriers.
So waht, they want to use an inferior app that's not as well integrated into the operating system to access the vastly inferior SMS/MMS system and forgo the ability to use iMessage? I mean, who would want to do that? If you want to do that, there's no point in buying an Apple device. Buy an Android device. It's better suited to your desires.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH Why would a competitor be "inferior". If most of your friends and family owned Android devices, or you want interoperability with your Linux or Windows PC and a competitor would offer encrypted messages instead of SMS to everyone using this interoperable app, the Apple messaging app would be far inferior for that specific case.
I'm not sure what to make of this. These suits always go by whatever the whims of the administration in power is.
Right now in Europe and the US, they seem to have it out for large successful corporations. It's a bad time to do business in either place. Microsoft dealt with this decades ago.
I feel the catalyst for this was Apple blocking beeper.
Dang Jason, are you really that desperate to get the apple cult on your side you're gonna make arguments like a defense attorney? The painfully honest truth is you are officially an apple shill these days. So sad, but that's the real truth
Ah, go fly a kite. this is what I think. your tribal BS doesn't mean anything to me. It's childish and naive and frankly, boring as hell.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH I don't mean it as an attack on you personally, appreciate most of your commentary and especially your podcast with others. You know being in this space hoe anti consumer apple has been. Most people in the general public doesn't care enough about all the little things that we tech nerds do. The corporations in this country have gotten way too powerful and influential (look at the Boeing situation). You can like apple products and it is the best for most people but you also can be critical of how awful they've been.
7:00 The issue highlighted here is that Apple only allows the app to run through the Apple payment system for payment rather than just using NFC like PayPal would through an Android. Apple charges a commission when their payment system is used. They fail to allow other competing payment platforms to work on iPhone even though a large population would benefit from being provided alternatives which would lower costs and reduce stress on the banks that offer the payment methods.
The main issue here is the failure to allow other competing devices to work with Apple's garden. They would rather push other competitors away than allow them to have interoperability. They are not saying Apple cannot have their garden. They are saying that their garden may not have the walls.
So Jason, you reckon the Apple doesn't have any monopolistic behaviors at all? How biased can u be?
To put your app up on the App Store, developers have to pay up to 30% of their revenue in order to operate on the App Store. So developers charges consumers more money for the same app than they charge their Android consumers. Developers must operate on the App Store... So they can't choose not to pay. Consumers who wants the app have to pay more. That's definitely monopolistic behavior! No one gains, everybody loses, except Apple.
What about Type C cables vs Thunderbolt? Why not force Apple to provide Type C sockets for all its products in the name of being environmentally friendly? Why not force Apple to provide a charging brick if consumer demonstrate that theirs is spoilt, of an older technology, or for first time Apple buyers? That is essential item for the phone to work... Why must the cables, wires be Apple compliant? Why can't I buy an Apple TV or an Apple Watch and have an app designed by Apple to be placed in Playstore so that Android users can buy an Apple Watch without switching to Apple phones AND without a "not ideal" performance of the watch on Android? You said you are Painfully Honest, I can only sense you are Painfully Biased
The Apple Watch allegation is ludicrous. The Apple Watch is specifically made for the iPhone. It is an accessory to the iPhone. It is not a commodity that dominates the smart watch market share. If you have an iPhone, you don’t need a watch. If you re interested in additional features and user experience, you have the choice to buy the watch. Apple doesn’t have to make the watch compatible with any other platform. It’s the seller’s choice to offer a product under their terms and services. If you’re not interested you don’t have to buy it, there are plenty of other watches that work on other platforms, or even independently.
The major accusation was Apple forbidding other companies to use existing APIs once they released their Apple Watch, arbitrarily allowing other watches far less features, destroying competition to the Apple Watch on iOS through abusing their power over the iPhone platform.
In my humble opinion, the weakest part of this lawsuit is that they could petition to dismiss based on on the fact that everyone using those apps and services has agreed to its own terms and services and Apple can ask you for that to use their products. However, the DOJ seems to be saying "you shouldn't force that terms and conditions" and let iOS and Android entirely compatible
not so honest sir
When Apple entered the smartphone market with the iPhone in 2007, it was a small market, but with several competitors, including Palm, RIMM, and Danger. In subsequent years, Google and Microsoft entered the market. No one company was large enough to dominate, so customers voted with their wallets, eventually forcing Palm, Microsoft, and RIMM out of the market. We ended up with a duopoly because Google copied the iPhone to create Android, which is supported by smartphones from multiple companies. Apple controls 51% of the world market, and 61% of the U.S. market, and neither is anywhere close enough to force Google to do a damned thing. In fact, many features in today’s iPhone appeared years prior on Android, and Apple had to add those features to remain competitive. This DOJ suit is just ridiculous.
It means the chickens are coming home to roost.
RCS is only coming to Apple because EU forced them. Apple could have let their messaging interoperate for years, and it’s still just a promise. Meanwhile they shamelessly encourage the myth among kids it’s because android is for poors.
Why can’t I use another tap to pay system on my iphone?
Why can’t I buy an app from a website and load it on my iphone?
Why can’t I use my Apple Watch with my android if I choose to switch?
Why can’t I get the full feature set of a samsung watch if like that watch better?
Because apple is engaged in anti competitive practices. Period.
Android isn't for poor people. Consumers have a choice and choose what makes them happy. Apple and Android isn't forcing anyone to buy their products. It's your own choice. No different from choosing what grocery store you gonna shop at.
The answer to all your questions is: Why would you want to? There are better options for every question you pose here. And I think you're projecting your own insecurities with the "androids are for poors" thing. That's a fabrication of your mind.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECHbecause customers should have the choice. And ignore it as you might but there is a very strong connotation applied to the green bubble, that the person is poor.
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH Damn it seems like youre deep into thinking Apple is superior at everything they do.
Do you not think it harms competition that Apple disallows competition to their Apple Pay system through which they rake in huge amounts of fees while a competitor could use the margins on lower fees to innovate?
Do you not think it harms competition that Apple disallows competition that Apple disallows competition to the App Store through which they rake in huge amounts of fees while a competitor could use the margins on lower fees to innovate?
Do you not think it harms competition that Apple disallows competition that Apple disallows competition to the Apple Watch through which they bind customers to the iPhone, forcing them to either render their smart watch an expensive paperweight or buy another iPhone even if they like other phones and watches better?
Apple harming competition through using their marked dominance in one sector is anticompetitive.
Will Toyota be next for having number one car sales? Every tech platform has their pros and cons. I left the Android and Microsoft ecosystem many years ago and google phones don't appeal to me. There's no doubt that Apple on the surface appears to be expensive. But the user experience between their different products offered works somewhat seamlessly. Complaining about the non-Apple users interaction and inability to receive larger or clearer files is ridiculous. It's like telling a Rolls Royce car company or any other ultra luxury company to make their product more affordable or to provide some of their proprietary technology and parts to be available for all cars on the market with MSRP of 20K or less. There's no argument that flying first class or business you can arrive at your destination with a different level of enjoyment from having some added creature comforts. But, the coach passengers all made to the same destination safe and sound at a fraction of the cost. If someone really desires to enjoy using Apple product features they should buy one and stop wasting time trying to make a Toyota into a Rolls Royce.
I asked the same thing about Toyota. Where's the line with all this stuff?
@@PAINFULLYHONESTTECH Let me explain where the line is: One can simply buy another car if they so please, without significant financial loss. Another car can still be fueled at the same gas stations, fits in the same garage and can drive yout to work on the same streets. With Apple devices, to switch off the iPhone you need to buy a new smart watch, you cannot update your Airpods anymore, until recently you had to buy a new charging cable, your smart home devices cant be controlled anymore and so on.
This is a painfully apple biased take, complete trash 🚮
Your show too leniency toward Apple. Unsubscribing.
Subscribing to make up for this comment
I do think the Blue Bubble 🫧 Green Bubble thing is so lame I have an iPhone but I don’t want others to feel like they are lesser because they have a green bubble I think Apple did that.
This video misrepresents the lawsuit in so many ways, I really dont think you read the lawsuit itself.
As if I needed ANOTHER reason to HATE Government. Also, I have Signal and it works just fine with my Android pals.
This story is as old as time. Microsoft and Google both have faced this same story in Windows and with Chrome... This is long overdue, Apple definitely engages anti-competitive practices, way more than Microsoft and Google did in the past if you ask me.
In general the problem with iMessage, Apple Pay, the App Store, is the fact that you're blocking third party options and essentially looking to lock users into their ecosystem. Imagine for example if the only cloud storage option was iCloud... that would be insane, so they pull all the tricks that people will more or less accept...