Apple Lawsuit

[Darren101]

External Link/Members Only

Anyone else think it’s just a cash grab by the US Gov? .

No one is forced to buy an iPhone as there’s plenty of alternatives. If you want Apple’s eco system, access to their app store, etc,  no one’s forcing you to buy the ‘latest’ iPhone

 

[Steve2]

Exactly my thought too but it happened in the EE and Apple paid out as far as I know

[RandomGuy99]

They are very controlling with apps though. If they don't like your app it doesn't get onto their app store.

I agree that nobody is forcing you to buy an iphone.

The US government usually doesn't start a law suit unless it thinks it can win.

Like you say probably a money grab and force Apple to loosen their hold on some aspects, which may or may not turn out to be a good thing.

The whole COVID app thing probably annoyed a lot of governments.

[PepeMAGA]

In some ways I can see the point of the lawsuit, but at the same time, there is sufficient competition from Android phones to give people a choice. So in a way they're saying we need to sue apple because our citizens are too stupid to not follow a trend.
The advantage of apple having tight control of apps etc is that the phone is optimized and it'll run faster with less and less chance of security issues, compared to Android

[PilotMan]

You have to think what the law suit is about and how the law protects YOU.

You may be getting a great product, but you may be missing out on the potential for something even better.

Apple have reached a position where they are able to assert their control over the market, that position means that consumers have no choice if Apple decide to do "X".

This behaviour actually (deliberately the Government would argue) stifles new entrants to the market. This has a direct and negative impact on consumers, restricting their choice, and leading to the consumer paying more and being subjected to other controlling behaviour.

You should be grateful that such laws exist, otherwise you might find other areas of everyday life are being controlled, against the consumers and businesses best interests.

Just like with Microsoft when they argued that their browser couldn't be unbundled from the Windows operating system. Look at how the arguments Apple are presenting, are similar to what Microsoft said back in the day. Look at what Microsoft did to Netscape. Without the government intervening then, we would probably only have the default browser that comes bundled with windows, and we would all be using Bing.

I believe we have a similar situation with Google and their control of search engines.

Joe public probably don't realise it, but what they see and buy online is heavily controlled by Google and their dominant position. Advertisers have very little choice other than to use Google Adwords, that position I believe negatively impacts both businesses and consumers.

So be grateful, and not cynical of the laws we have that are there to protect us.

The people making the most money out of this are the lawyers.

[Darren101]

You have to think what the law suit is about and how the law protects YOU.

You may be getting a great product, but you may be missing out on the potential for something even better.

Apple have reached a position where they are able to assert their control over the market, that position means that consumers have no choice if Apple decide to do "X".

So be grateful, and not cynical of the laws we have that are there to protect us.

I see your point and such laws can be good but I'm still not seeing the point of this particular lawsuit.  There might be better products but Apple isn't stopping me from switching away. If I like the Apple ecosystem enough to stick with it , then it's my choice. Do we tell them not to bother to innovate going forwards?

Apple accessories like Airpods work with Android devices. If there's something better, up to the other brand to let everyone know. If I hear about it, up to me whether to try it.

Apple have reached a position where they are able to assert their control over the market, that position means that consumers have no choice if Apple decide to do "X".

If you like the Apple ecosystem, then you roll with it. If not, switch. Sure it's a bit of hassle but nothing stopping you. It's actually fairly easy to migrate stuff from an iphone to a Google phone.  Quite often they just move things around, add new features, etc much like how Microsoft do the same with each MS Windows iteration despite annoying all users and IT admins. They too force people to upgrade.

This behaviour actually (deliberately the Government would argue) stifles new entrants to the market. This has a direct and negative impact on consumers, restricting their choice, and leading to the consumer paying more and being subjected to other controlling behaviour.

They're not stoppng any new phone manufacturers coming on the market. There's loads of choice already including small brands and I think it's up to the new brands in their marketing to persuade people to try their product.  There are other big brands to choose from. Are they all guilty of the same and should be sued too?   Getting into the market with most industries isn't easy when it's already quite saturated but can't really tell the big brands to just stop coming up with new things IMO.

I don't hear about the UK Gov sueing companies like the US. I still think it's a cash grab thing the US Gov likes to do. They've done it with a lot of companies and they normally just settle to avoid a long drawn out lawsuit which will bleed money.  I've heard some big brands that would just cave otherwise they'd go broke if trying to fight the US Gov.


I'm sure Apple aren't entirely ethical as a company but again, this still seems like a cash grab.

[RandomGuy99]

I don't hear about the UK Gov sueing companies like the US. I still think it's a cash grab thing the US Gov likes to do. They've done it with a lot of companies and they normally just settle to avoid a long drawn out lawsuit which will bleed money.  I've heard some big brands that would just cave otherwise they'd go broke if trying to fight the US Gov.

The UK government has tried and generally the US companies have better lawyers and the UK loses. US competition law is also stronger.

[PilotMan]

@Darren101

That's quite a naïve response.

Given the choice if you were the boss of Apple or any other business would you;

A) Position yourself so that it’s hard for competitors to enter your space, restrict them access to leverage anything that you create?

B) Make it easy for anyone else to enter your arena and offer a competing product / service?

It's the former that Apple are guilty of, can you not see that?

[PilotMan]

The UK government has tried and generally the US companies have better lawyers and the UK loses. US competition law is also stronger.

The EU are usually quite successful in litigation against US companies.

[PilotMan]

I'm sure Apple aren't entirely ethical as a company but again, this still seems like a cash grab.

Should the Government just prosecute companies and tell them off in writing, but not financially?

That would lead to other businesses thinking, It's OK for us to break anti competition and other corporate laws, there's no real punishment, we'll just take the telling off.

 

[Darren101]

Edit:  This was in response to post #7

Sure, if they spend a fortune coming up with something then they're entitled to patent and protect their technology.  If you create something, is it right if someone just copies your work and profits from it?

Other companies can still make phones and sell them, just not take Apples patented designs/tech.  So again, I'm not seeing it so do enlighten me if I've missed something.

“We allege that Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market, not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law,” Attorney General Merrick Garland told a news conference.

“If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly. The Justice Department will vigorously enforce antitrust laws that protect consumers from higher prices and fewer choices,” he added.

Garland also noted that Apple’s net income “exceeds the individual GDP of more than 100 countries”. He said this is a result of the iPhone’s success. “Apple’s share of the entire US smartphone market exceeds 65 percent,” he added.

To me, that just reads.... Apple phones are popular and sell better than that of their competitors because people choose to buy them.  It's not like Samsung, Google Pixel, Motrola, etc don't exist. Also plenty of smaller brands I see popping up.

The antitrust thing being they won't let others use their technology.  Isn't the point of patents to protect your Intellectual Property Rights?  If any company spends millions, innvoates and creates something new, are they supposed to just share it with everyone and lose their edge? 

The last sentence.... Apple are a big company.  So they don't want companies to get that big?

The US government argues that Apple “undermines apps, products and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone”.

How? 

What exactly do the US Gov want from Apple?  Sell phones that people don't want? Don't innvovate?   Or pay them a chunk of money and then they'll just keep doing what they're doing after the lawsuit.

The EU forcing Apple to use USB-C made more sense as I see the reasoning. Let's see where this lawsuit goes.  At least Apple have plenty of money to fight it.

[PumpDump]

I believe we have a similar situation with Google and their control of search engines.

Google search is fucked, they are playing catch up with ChatGPT which is far superior.

[RandomGuy99]

The EU are usually quite successful in litigation against US companies.

It's a British thing. We get scared by threats of large legal bills.

We also don't protect our industries as much as other countries

[Markus]

There are a number of issues which are not only common with iPhones, an example being where more software updates continually slow down your phone for which they were rightly penalised and were made to give to provide battery replacements at a cheaper/free cost.

As much as I love IPhones , Apple were forced to move to USB C with the IPhone15 whereas every other android company had done it years ago.  The amount of waste for lightning cables just so Apple could make extra billions from cables was very annoying.  Also doing things like keep their base models at 60HZ whereas every other cheap android manufacturer could move their consumers to 90Hz/120HZ for very little cost really bugs me.   It’s a very transparent way of forcing the consumer to upgrade to a new IPhone much early then they would for an android.   And given that their phones are eye watering expensive, it makes my blood boil. 

There is also the fact that developers have to pay 30% in many cases to apple for their apps to be on the App Store.   The play store to my recollection charge around 10%.   

This case could drag on for years by which time a new president may be in situ and therefore not as pressing as an issue as it is for Biden.    These companies have way too much power and something like this case is not necessarily a bad thing if it regulates their clear monopoly over the smartphone industry.

[PilotMan]

Google search is fucked, they are playing catch up with ChatGPT which is far superior.

You're missing the point.

You can't use ChatGPT to advertise, it's a different tool.

Try using ChatGPT to find a shop near you selling wellington boots.

[PilotMan]

@Darren101

You're just missing the point.

It's not about someone creating a technology and being able to protect their patents, all businesses are entitled to and benefit from that protection.

It's about when a business dominates a market to such an extent that no other competition is possible. Eventually consumers will lose out. Apple have gotten so big, that it is nigh on impossible for anyone else to enter the market. Their restrictive business practices have already been brought to light with various law suits.

Read up about Anti Trust and the Competition Act and the history. You'll see how the laws have benefitted and protected us the consumer and how businesses have been forced to break themselves up and split off / sell off in to different constituent parts. There are plenty of other companies in the past that have had to change because of the law. For example, BT, BG the big supermarkets, former UK state owned businesses and so on.

You've already said that you don't think that Apple are entirely ethical, but you seem to be erring on the side that Apple's business practices and dominant position is good for the consumer and this anti-trust suit is just about the US Govt grabbing money.

[Darren101]

Why is competition no longer possible? There's plenty of people who don't like iPhones and opt for Android. New Android phones continue to be released.  I know people who prefer Android and will never move to Apple.

The ethical practice relating to Apple I'm thinking of is to do with environmental practices and labour conditions I've heard of in the past. Don't know if it's still an issue or not.  Oh and there was the software slowing down devices thing. 

[RandomGuy99]

Why is competition no longer possible? There's plenty of people who don't like iPhones and opt for Android. New Android phones continue to be released.  I know people who prefer Android and will never move to Apple.

The ethical practice relating to Apple I'm thinking of is to do with environmental practices and labour conditions I've heard of in the past. Don't know if it's still an issue or not.  Oh and there was the software slowing down devices thing.

It's not that it's not possible. They're suggesting that Apple have deliberately made it harder for other devices such as Apple watches to work with other makes of phone.  That encourages people to use iPhones as it's easier. I don't know if that's true as I dumped iPhones years ago because they were heavy and overpriced. I have considered an Apple watch but didn't go for it as it did seem to work better with iPhones.  Is that anti-competitve or just trying to differentiate yourself in the market?

[Private Parts]

Can’t see the point of the argument.
You have the option to buy or not to buy.
Given all the coverage.
If you can’t make your own mind up . Then you can always go on a media website and ask the question.
Don’t expect a rush. 

[petermisc]

Can’t see the point of the argument.
You have the option to buy or not to buy.
Given all the coverage.
If you can’t make your own mind up . Then you can always go on a media website and ask the question.
Don’t expect a rush. 

The problem is that once someone has made the choice to buy an iphone, Apple effectively have them by the short and curlies.  They decide what apps and software you are allowed to use, and how much of what you pay they are getting as their cut.

[RandomGuy99]

The problem is that once someone has made the choice to buy an iphone, Apple effectively have them by the short and curlies.  They decide what apps and software you are allowed to use, and how much of what you pay they are getting as their cut.

And for Apple Pay access they're very controlling, which allows them to take a percentage of every payment. Nice like earner for Apple, but gives app developers no choice of payment provider.

[Private Parts]

And there pm is the crux of the matter.

You have that choice.

Caveat emptor

 

[timsussex]

Actually you don't have a choice because of the number and scope of the patents

While it is admirable to protect hard work spent on development, patents can, and are, used to stifle competitors - imagine if Mercedes had managed to patent using 4 wheels on a car ?
Apple have patented "look and feel" of displays and even rounding the corners of devices with a rectangular screen and display of apps in a grid - name me a phone that doesnt use both ?

In last 5 years Apple have 1750 patents on networking, 1350 on device hardware, 650 on image capture etc etc They filed nearly 50,000 patents in 8 years

Samsung also has 350k patents  !

 

[Private Parts]

Still have a choice.
Go on your own and create a new system. They got in first so yah-boo to the rest.
 
You still have a choice between ICE and EV.
I continue to make my choice, rightly or wrongly.

I really can’t see why folk think we are being denied a choice.

[PilotMan]

Still have a choice.
Go on your own and create a new system. They got in first so yah-boo to the rest.
 
You still have a choice between ICE and EV.
I continue to make my choice, rightly or wrongly.

I really can’t see why folk think we are being denied a choice.

So you think that two phone operating systems, controlling the market, one of which has an even greater control over the consumer, suppliers and market forces, and that purposely makes it impossible for others to join the market, gives us a choice? It's called monopolisation, but Apple have fooled you in to thinking it's a good thing.

Your argument saying we have a choice, could be compared to the argument of Putins cronies, saying the Russian public had a choice who to vote for, when the reality is far from that. A choice would be defined as a free market without monopolisation or coercive control - we don't have that.

And, your analogy is utter nonsense. The car market has lots of companies making a variety of vehicles powered by different methods, not just two. Your analogy would make sense if there were just two car manufacturers, who dictated what shopping you could put in your car and where you had to buy it from and with what method you paid for it, received commission from the fuel you used (airtime) and they received commission from everything and anything that went in and through your car, and you could only use their approved utilities, what roads and and tolls you were allowed to use when driving around (Apple Storage) pay for listening to music (iTunes).

You'd make a good Russian citizen though.

[Private Parts]

Pilotman.
You seem to think that I misunderstand the situation.
Are you about to launch a new operating system to rival the big two options?
If so Bully for you. I hope you can finance that system on its launch.
Or maybe you have a better idea.
I find it easier to post brief comments.
As for your referral to Putin and Russia. Grow up and give the members and readership some credence.

Yours

[PilotMan]

Pilotman.
You seem to think that I misunderstand the situation.
Are you about to launch a new operating system to rival the big two options?
If so Bully for you. I hope you can finance that system on its launch.
Or maybe you have a better idea.
I find it easier to post brief comments.
As for your referral to Putin and Russia. Grow up and give the members and readership some credence.

Yours

And therein you do actually see the problem and answer, but seem blissfully unaware that it's a problem, the two big are monopolising the market.

No new entrants to the arena would have a chance, regardless of the depths of their pockets. The Consumer doesn't have a real choice.

[Private Parts]

Glad you accept I do understand.
Short of standing on an orange box at speakers corner
Beating my chest, there is 2/3rd of 5/8th of sweet FA.

You could choose to opt for no mobile network.

But where’s the fun in that?

I wish you luck in changing things. 

[PilotMan]

I don't need luck to change things, the US Government are doing that.

Talking of choosing mobile networks...

When mobile phones first became available in the UK, there were just two operators, Vodafone and Cellnet, they had a duopoly.

A mobile tariff was a fixed £25 per month plus call charges. Call charges were on top at 33p per minute peak and 25p off peak. It's strange that both operators had exactly the same price plan, to the penny.

The premise of your argument would have us believe that we had a choice.

Fortunately the government stepped in, implemented strict sales controls,  issued more licenses, bringing greater competition, innovation and reduced prices for consumers.

Considering the cost of a phone contract in the 80's, Imagine what a mobile phone tariff would cost us now, if the government and regulator hadn't stepped in?

Be grateful, not cynical of what the US and other Governments do to stop anti competitive behaviour.

[Private Parts]

Pilotman.
Choice is —- take it or leave it.

Is that not a choice?

Please do not lecture me. I have an opinion to which I am entitled
  This is a forum where you can express an opinion.
Your vindictive  obsession with proving other members wrong is
Not what this platform is about.

Go help others. 

[PilotMan]

Pilotman.
Choice is —- take it or leave it.

Is that not a choice?

Please do not lecture me. I have an opinion to which I am entitled
  This is a forum where you can express an opinion.
Your vindictive  obsession with proving other members wrong is
Not what this platform is about.

Go help others. 

Ok, sorry you feel that way.

My choice is not agreeing with your opinion, or analogies, and offering an alternative perspective, I'm entitled to do that, am I not?

If you have something credible to say then say it, put your point across and be confident.

I like hearing well thought out opinions and perspectives, you haven't provided either, as far as I'm concerned.

So don't tell me what I can and can't say, just because I don't agree with you and you are unable to counter my opinion / perspective effectively.

[RandomGuy99]

EU joining in

BBC News - Apple, Meta and Google to be investigated by the EU
External Link/Members Only