I am not sure if the iPhone 16 features are worth waiting for or just get the 15 now. Also the next version of the Ultra watch... Should I wait for the DOJ or EU reviews on what is best choice for Apple's new products? LOL
For as long as I have been involved with Apple products, which started with an Apple II, I have always heard people from the IBM world reject everything Apple does. Just for the record, I have worked with Windows boxes at various times while working onsite at client companies. The Windows platforms are invariably chaotically organized, inconsistent, and prone to unintended user error. Apple products usually cost more, because Apple takes the time and care to refine the hardware and the software to allow the user to accomplish real work. As a result, Apple has earned customer loyalty, which has made them a highly successful company. Others in the market rely on clever marketing to move the boxes. Now they're jealous and are increasing their vitriolic attacks on Apple, but I have no sympathy for them. They manufacture computers the way Detroit used to make cars. Lots of horsepower and glitzy trim don't make them any better.
Most of the charges leveled by the DOJ involve differences in standards and protocols. For a long time, it took a platoon of horses to convert text to or from IBM to Apple format, but Apple led the way in establishing standards that worked for everyone. The same is true of the totally absurd accusation that Apple is deliberately blocking Android messaging formats from iPhones -- solely to profit from forcing people buy iPhones! Standards are great, but that's why we have federal regulatory agencies to establish industry-wide standards. There's your culprit! All the people who hate government regulation are suffering from the chaos that lack of standards causes. We have many standards in the computer industry, from WiFi to telephone signals, but we have been lax in setting up the protocols for modern computers. Yes, patents are involved, but agreeing on standards before implementing them is cheaper than litigation lasting longer than the devices using them. Even worse, identifying competing factions in the industry with political parties is absurd. Just remember what Trump did to the covid pandemic, with various "experts" speaking at the White House in favor of quack cures.
As much as the world is a better place for Apple having existing, I feel that Apple has to be taken down a notch - forced obsolescence in operating systems, software, hardware, and online services; morality police in passwords and data; over the top DEI initiatives; endless 'highly exclusive' proprietary wireless, chips, and online services; etc., etc. Apple hasn't done much really, really wrong as they have horribly neglected to do much 'politically' and socially right. This means they should win the suit but lose much money, customer loyalty, and developer/vendor attention/ service. Maybe a 30% drop in stock prices can deride the Arrogance. Hopefully, Apple will be a bit more like Tesla with absurdly open protocols and standardization - benefitting the industry more and the bottom line less.
Ummm.... care to site some evidence of forced obsolescence?
I'm not suggesting Apple couldn't do better, but in reality, their hardware is supported for 5-7 years by OS updates and can physically last for 10+ years with care. I have 10+ year-old functional devices in almost every market Apple sells: iPhones, Macbooks, iMacs, Macs, iPads, and Watch( well almost -series 2), so I'm not far off. This seems pretty good seeing it is still functional as at least the date of purchase. Nothing other our teams own demands is forcing a replacement if they do useful things.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
Yeah, after 5 to 6 years of investigating Apple for antitrust, this is what they come up with? This utter amateurish dreck? It was going to be a hard set of complaints to lay as it should not take 5 to 6 years to develop a set of cogent antritrust arguments, but this is what they come up with?
Just read pages 62 to 70 or so on the market construction, if you can call it that. That fact that I had to get to page 62 to read it was a bad sign. The market at which the Apple iPhone has a monopoly on and what they claim Apple is abusing is "performance smartphones". It's mentioned 43 times in the DOJ complaint. So the market is not the smartphone market in the USA as a whole, but one of expensive smartphones. They didn't even have the guts to say what dollar amount this "performance smartphones" market started at. Then, they seem to interchangeably use revenue share and market share. Never mind that they never actually stated what Apple's actual unit share in this "performance smartphones" market is. They may have, I just couldn't tell if some number was revenue share or unit share or what ever share.
The only good thing on the DOJ side is that judges are also human, and you never know what sort of craziness they have.
It’s a hack job. Apple didn’t break the law, doesn’t have a monopoly, and hasn’t done anything unethical.
The garland “points” are easily refutable (except the streaming gaming one, which has some merit. It’s more smoke and mirrors to appeal to uneducated idealists of the public who hear words like “closed vs open” etc and side with those against the supposed “closed” side - while the government abuses its power to force an issue they’re on the wrong side of.
Ultimately, a company has the right to design their product as they deem would make them the most money, given regulations and requirements, or laws. The hardware and software is Apple's product and they can choose to limit any software, service and content they want. It could be entirely FOSS, completely closed like consoles, or in-between. The platform owner can limit game streaming apps at their whim. There is no there there.
Now, Apple could be considered too onerous by customers, developers, and service/content providers, and therefore they could be looking for alternatives. So, Apple is going to balance what customers, developers can tolerate versus the success they perceive they can get. Not buying an iPhone and buying an alternative phone or not developing an app or service for iPhones is the single best thing customers and developers can do. There are very good Android phones on the market. This is a figurative dial in Apple's heads that is continually turned every single day on what features would benefit Apple the most or what policies are bad.
For the USA gov't, they have to prove that Apple's success is retarding innovation, making costs higher, and leaving the platform nearly impossible, either that switching costs are too high or there are not any alternatives. Cases can definitely be made for anti-trust. Just can't see it here, or outlined in the DOJ complaint.
The DOJ literally defined the market as the premium phone market and Apple's dominance is preventing the premium phone market from innovating, that Apple has chosen to retard iPhone innovation itself (quoted email regarding "good enough" features), and that buyers really don't have alternatives. That's straight-up crazy to say for the portion of the market with the most money to spend with the most options available to them on the market.
But you never know with judges. Well, at least discovery will be interesting to read. Dirty laundry. Yeah, judges. Like in the eBooks cases deemed Jobs email drafts were admissible while the actual email said something different.
As much as the world is a better place for Apple having existing, I feel that Apple has to be taken down a notch - forced obsolescence in operating systems, software, hardware, and online services; morality police in passwords and data; over the top DEI initiatives; endless 'highly exclusive' proprietary wireless, chips, and online services; etc., etc. Apple hasn't done much really, really wrong as they have horribly neglected to do much 'politically' and socially right. This means they should win the suit but lose much money, customer loyalty, and developer/vendor attention/ service. Maybe a 30% drop in stock prices can deride the Arrogance. Hopefully, Apple will be a bit more like Tesla with absurdly open protocols and standardization - benefitting the industry more and the bottom line less.
How does a stock price reduction 'hurt' Apple? It doesn't. It only hurts investors which includes pension funds that pay dividends to seniors. The options to senior executives are plush even with a 50% drop. And no, I do not want Apple to become Tesla, even a little bit especially in leadership.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
It literally says in the article that we talked to DC antitrust lawyers.
Two years is optimistic. I'd be surprised if this was done in five -- which is also addressed in the piece.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
It literally says in the article that we talked to DC antitrust lawyers.
Two years is optimistic. I'd be surprised if this was done in five -- which is also addressed in the piece.
Mike, I think your article and use of antitrust lawyers sources is excellent. And much appreciated by those of us who were mostly fuming. However your warnings on political references in the comments are at ends with an action brought by the DOJ that is almost entirely political. As you correctly conclude Apple has already made most of the changes. What else is left but the politics?
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
It literally says in the article that we talked to DC antitrust lawyers.
Two years is optimistic. I'd be surprised if this was done in five -- which is also addressed in the piece.
Mike, I think your article and use of antitrust lawyers sources is excellent. And much appreciated by those of us who were mostly fuming. However your warnings on political references in the comments are at ends with an action brought by the DOJ that is almost entirely political. As you correctly conclude Apple has already made most of the changes. What else is left but the politics?
I'm fine with political discussion, if it remains sane. The Apple-related discussion has been, the discussion about the filing has been.
"Cloud streaming games... can improve smartphone competition by decreasing the importance of expensive hardware for accomplishing high compute tasks on a smartphone," says the DOJ. "Suppressing cloud streaming games harms users by denying them the ability to play high-compute games, and it harms developers by preventing them from selling such games to users."
This quote literally makes zero sense. The attraction of cloud gaming is primarily about AAA games. That's because the developers that make AAA games don't see much of a financial incentive to port them to mobile due to mobile gaming prices being incredibly low compared to PCs/consoles. So the idea that playing those games via the cloud as a way to "increase competition" is laughable. None of the smartphones on the market...."high compute" or "low compute" or "whatever compute" are going to typically have access to AAA game ports. In other words, if you own an expensive "high compute" smartphone then you're just as likely to use cloud computing to get access to a AAA game as any other smartphone user. It wouldn't have any impact on competition whatsoever.
Besides...cloud gaming could already be done via the browser without Apple changing course and allowing cloud gaming apps in the App Store. If you go to Microsoft's cloud gaming pages, you're not going to see them saying that the browser version of the service sucks. They promote it as being just as good as any of the other choices. After all, if the "high compute" is really happening somewhere else then it isn't going to matter if it's in the browser.
Joe Biden needs to go. I am sorry but I am not usually political but this guy is ridiculous
This started two years into the Trump administration.
Sure did! Biden erased many of Trump's initiatives.
- Why not this one?!
- What's the angle?
- Does the administration hate Apple that much that they are looking for Any reason to knock an American company?
I appreciate the perspective of nudging Apple to change, but the ridiculous part is using a lawsuit to extract - what? extraction concessions? extract cash? - from Apple.
Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
It literally says in the article that we talked to DC antitrust lawyers.
Two years is optimistic. I'd be surprised if this was done in five -- which is also addressed in the piece.
Talking to a lawyer and actually having a whole justice department of lawyers is two very different things. To play on some of the politics going on here, Trump talks to his lawyers all the time but he hasn’t won a single “the election was stolen” case because of it! Or maybe go ask Mike Lindell for his expert views? Pick a time period that you like. I’ll be here. Till then it is just speculation as there is just so much that is unknown. Till then my money is still on the DOJ.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
"Cloud streaming games... can improve smartphone competition by decreasing the importance of expensive hardware for accomplishing high compute tasks on a smartphone," says the DOJ. "Suppressing cloud streaming games harms users by denying them the ability to play high-compute games, and it harms developers by preventing them from selling such games to users."
This quote literally makes zero sense. The attraction of cloud gaming is primarily about AAA games. That's because the developers that make AAA games don't see much of a financial incentive to port them to mobile due to mobile gaming prices being incredibly low compared to PCs/consoles. So the idea that playing those games via the cloud as a way to "increase competition" is laughable. None of the smartphones on the market...."high compute" or "low compute" or "whatever compute" are going to typically have access to AAA game ports. In other words, if you own an expensive "high compute" smartphone then you're just as likely to use cloud computing to get access to a AAA game as any other smartphone user. It wouldn't have any impact on competition whatsoever.
Besides...cloud gaming could already be done via the browser without Apple changing course and allowing cloud gaming apps in the App Store. If you go to Microsoft's cloud gaming pages, you're not going to see them saying that the browser version of the service sucks. They promote it as being just as good as any of the other choices. After all, if the "high compute" is really happening somewhere else then it isn't going to matter if it's in the browser.
You can find stupid senseless statements in the complaint all over the place. Maybe their real complaints and arguments will be more cogent, but what is inside this initial complaint is utter dreck.
Like, they said iPhone customers are unable to switch to Android or alternatives because they work differently! WTF?!
Anyways, there are obvious reasons why Apple doesn’t like cloud streaming apps and games. It devalues their platform. They want developers to use Swift to keep their app ecosystem strong and relevant. There is going to be a golden path they have to walk on allowing certain Web technologies while not devaluing the platform.
For the cloud gaming, the only business model that makes sense is that they are able to convert AAA gamers to more expensive subscription services. Game developers and publishers will not make more money and will be pressured for lower revenue splits. Consumer hardware vendors will not make more money. The whole intent of the cloud gaming business model is to drive down costs and revenue for anyone but the cloud gaming vendor. They are buying a bunch of servers for gamers to play on. Isn’t going to cheap.
Only time will tell if you are right. Why don’t you reschedule this post for an update in 2 years. Personally my money is on the DOJ who, you know has actual lawyers and stuff, as opposed to two writers of an Apple blog.
If only Apple had a few actual lawyers and stuff.
Couple of thoughts, it isn’t Apple’s lawyers that AppleInsider is quoting. I doubt that Apple’s lawyer's see this as this simple or are so cavalier. Further, Apple couldn’t win a case where Cook made statements on a QER which is typically covered by a catch all disclaimer that is almost lawsuit proof and paid out close to a half billion dollars that AppleInsider then blew off as insignificant. They couldn’t hold off the EU regulations and also just got hit with a 1.84B Euro fine. Their brilliant legal minds also sued a tiny company with a pear logo and ended up having to help redesign their logo given the public blowback. They lost the Apple Watch case and settled with Qualcomm. This is their top notch legal team that they are bringing to this fight?
Apple+EU has been a disaster for years. Apple spent 10 years on promising before finally being forced to USB-C. Now EU has had enough with politicians hitting Apple in several ways causing disruptions to hardware and software. Apple is taking a beating every week.
Apple never promised USB-C for 10 years. What nonsense it that?
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.
At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.
Apple has lost of pretty clear-cut cases where (to me) they were plainly and clearly not in the wrong and I wonder how dumb the lawyers they get are to lose those cases.
I read through the complaint because I work for an investment firm and had to do it as soon as it came out.
i have to say, this complaint is simply filled with pure idiocy and outdated claims, I am not a lawyer but it’s hard to see how the DOJ can prevail here.
This complaint is a perfect example and great argument for small government and how stupid and outdated these people are quite honestly.
What is the goal here? Are they going to claim Tesla software is a monopoly as well and they have to share it with Chinese companies?
The 5 percent stock loss today is a buying opportunity.
Comments
Most of the charges leveled by the DOJ involve differences in standards and protocols. For a long time, it took a platoon of horses to convert text to or from IBM to Apple format, but Apple led the way in establishing standards that worked for everyone. The same is true of the totally absurd accusation that Apple is deliberately blocking Android messaging formats from iPhones -- solely to profit from forcing people buy iPhones! Standards are great, but that's why we have federal regulatory agencies to establish industry-wide standards. There's your culprit! All the people who hate government regulation are suffering from the chaos that lack of standards causes. We have many standards in the computer industry, from WiFi to telephone signals, but we have been lax in setting up the protocols for modern computers. Yes, patents are involved, but agreeing on standards before implementing them is cheaper than litigation lasting longer than the devices using them. Even worse, identifying competing factions in the industry with political parties is absurd. Just remember what Trump did to the covid pandemic, with various "experts" speaking at the White House in favor of quack cures.
I'm not suggesting Apple couldn't do better, but in reality, their hardware is supported for 5-7 years by OS updates and can physically last for 10+ years with care. I have 10+ year-old functional devices in almost every market Apple sells: iPhones, Macbooks, iMacs, Macs, iPads, and Watch( well almost -series 2), so I'm not far off. This seems pretty good seeing it is still functional as at least the date of purchase.
Nothing other our teams own demands is forcing a replacement if they do useful things.
Now, Apple could be considered too onerous by customers, developers, and service/content providers, and therefore they could be looking for alternatives. So, Apple is going to balance what customers, developers can tolerate versus the success they perceive they can get. Not buying an iPhone and buying an alternative phone or not developing an app or service for iPhones is the single best thing customers and developers can do. There are very good Android phones on the market. This is a figurative dial in Apple's heads that is continually turned every single day on what features would benefit Apple the most or what policies are bad.
For the USA gov't, they have to prove that Apple's success is retarding innovation, making costs higher, and leaving the platform nearly impossible, either that switching costs are too high or there are not any alternatives. Cases can definitely be made for anti-trust. Just can't see it here, or outlined in the DOJ complaint.
The DOJ literally defined the market as the premium phone market and Apple's dominance is preventing the premium phone market from innovating, that Apple has chosen to retard iPhone innovation itself (quoted email regarding "good enough" features), and that buyers really don't have alternatives. That's straight-up crazy to say for the portion of the market with the most money to spend with the most options available to them on the market.
But you never know with judges. Well, at least discovery will be interesting to read. Dirty laundry. Yeah, judges. Like in the eBooks cases deemed Jobs email drafts were admissible while the actual email said something different.
How does a stock price reduction 'hurt' Apple? It doesn't. It only hurts investors which includes pension funds that pay dividends to seniors. The options to senior executives are plush even with a 50% drop. And no, I do not want Apple to become Tesla, even a little bit especially in leadership.
Two years is optimistic. I'd be surprised if this was done in five -- which is also addressed in the piece.
This quote literally makes zero sense. The attraction of cloud gaming is primarily about AAA games. That's because the developers that make AAA games don't see much of a financial incentive to port them to mobile due to mobile gaming prices being incredibly low compared to PCs/consoles. So the idea that playing those games via the cloud as a way to "increase competition" is laughable. None of the smartphones on the market...."high compute" or "low compute" or "whatever compute" are going to typically have access to AAA game ports. In other words, if you own an expensive "high compute" smartphone then you're just as likely to use cloud computing to get access to a AAA game as any other smartphone user. It wouldn't have any impact on competition whatsoever.
Besides...cloud gaming could already be done via the browser without Apple changing course and allowing cloud gaming apps in the App Store. If you go to Microsoft's cloud gaming pages, you're not going to see them saying that the browser version of the service sucks. They promote it as being just as good as any of the other choices. After all, if the "high compute" is really happening somewhere else then it isn't going to matter if it's in the browser.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-will-get-usb-c-charging-as-apple-says-it-will-comply-with-eu-law/
As the article also states it all started in 2009 when Apple signed a proposal for using a common charger to reduce e-waste (EN/IEC 6268). Obviously Apple never delivered on that but allowed other companies to sell dongles so that users could connect to the common charger. That is not how e-waste is reduced. So - either 10 or 15 years.
Anyways, there are obvious reasons why Apple doesn’t like cloud streaming apps and games. It devalues their platform. They want developers to use Swift to keep their app ecosystem strong and relevant. There is going to be a golden path they have to walk on allowing certain Web technologies while not devaluing the platform.
Oh snap - facts!
At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.
AppleI read through the complaint because I work for an investment firm and had to do it as soon as it came out.
i have to say, this complaint is simply filled with pure idiocy and outdated claims, I am not a lawyer but it’s hard to see how the DOJ can prevail here.
This complaint is a perfect example and great argument for small government and how stupid and outdated these people are quite honestly.
What is the goal here? Are they going to claim Tesla software is a monopoly as well and they have to share it with Chinese companies?
The 5 percent stock loss today is a buying opportunity.