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?
The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies.
Greensill, Wirecard AG are two examples where they didn’t just go after companies, but shut them down. Glencore they heavily fined for taking bribes. That aside, the reason they probably do is that American companies could be coming in thinking they can do whatever they want while most EU companies are playing by the rules? You just made my point. Those companies are not Google or Apple. Also Notice the EU never does anything bs China,….
Your point was that the EU generally only goes after American companies. That is not true. I gave you three examples where you were wrong. Not sure how that “makes your point”. As for China, they have put limits on Huawei 5G equipment so one can hardly say it “never does anything” against Chinese firms (your sentence was a little vague so I could be misquoting you there.)
Talk to me when EU goes after the biggest Chinese company or their own biggest company. Or you think the Chinese companies or Biggest European companies are just angels compared to Apple Evil Empire.
Please, it quite obvious EU has no fear of any repercussions from American leadership when they attack American companies that they would get of it’s a Chinese company or big European companies
Here you go with your opinions as facts - “quite obvious” The only thing that is becoming obvious to me it that you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
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.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
And don’t get me started on the misguided Tick Tock ban because of politicians’ “feelings.”
More like because Tik tok massively and invasively spies on users (it’s in the agreement) and sends the data back to China, where the government litwrally controls everything (even apple data centers there.
That’s not “feelings.” Those are facts.
Doing something about it is the responsible thing.
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.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
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.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
Additionally, the former President is arguing in a case that SCOTUS has agreed to hear that a President can do whatever they want without anyone being able to do anything about it. If that is the case then the current President can do whatever HE wants to do too and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it either. Silly I know but it it applies to one then it applies to the other. In fact, Biden could just forgo the whole court case and jump to splitting Apple up. Again, ridiculous but that is where this silliness goes.
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.
Ah yes, Joe is incapable of stopping this issue from proceeding. Your point is certainly ignorant and the fact you continue to state that you do not have a political stance even though it is OBVIOUS who you are defending. Why is it that other issues that were “started two years into the Trump administration” were prevented/canceled by the current administration?
And then we have this…” Apple tried to make Apple Watch compatible with Android, and chose not to, as is its right. AppleInsider has confirmed that the company tried for years to make it work, but didn't want to compromise the product in doing so.”
Somehow this is OK? Let’s compare this to other products, shall we? Let’s say you purchased a TV, BUT in order for you to access all of the features you had to have an iPhone. “4K is only available to iOS”. Let’s go deeper…You purchase a vehicle and your tires are limited to 1,000 miles. In order to have the tires that have 10,000 miles you must purchase a special tool directly from the car manufacturer to change the tires, this tool only works for this specific model of vehicle. Yes, 1,000 miles isn’t bad but 10,000 is quite better.
Shouldn’t a WATCH be compatible with the wearer regardless of the OS? It’s a WATCH. Imagine if Rolex decided that you have to have a Rolex phone to wear one of their watches.
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.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
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.
Why not this one? Maybe because the executive branch should not attempt to interfere with the judicial branch. Biden would be rightly criticized if he did attempt to interfere. Let the lawsuit play out on its merits, or lack thereof.
Additionally, the former President is arguing in a case that SCOTUS has agreed to hear that a President can do whatever they want without anyone being able to do anything about it. If that is the case then the current President can do whatever HE wants to do too and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it either. Silly I know but it it applies to one then it applies to the other. In fact, Biden could just forgo the whole court case and jump to splitting Apple up. Again, ridiculous but that is where this silliness goes.
Trump Should be careful what he wishes for. If his desired take on presidential immunity is upheld then Biden could banish him to the jail at Naknek Air Force Base, at the head of the Aleutian Islands in remote Alaska. Plenty of salmon there, but no roads out.
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.
Ah yes, Joe is incapable of stopping this issue from proceeding. Your point is certainly ignorant and the fact you continue to state that you do not have a political stance even though it is OBVIOUS who you are defending. Why is it that other issues that were “started two years into the Trump administration” were prevented/canceled by the current administration?
And then we have this…” Apple tried to make Apple Watch compatible with Android, and chose not to, as is its right. AppleInsider has confirmed that the company tried for years to make it work, but didn't want to compromise the product in doing so.”
Somehow this is OK? Let’s compare this to other products, shall we? Let’s say you purchased a TV, BUT in order for you to access all of the features you had to have an iPhone. “4K is only available to iOS”. Let’s go deeper…You purchase a vehicle and your tires are limited to 1,000 miles. In order to have the tires that have 10,000 miles you must purchase a special tool directly from the car manufacturer to change the tires, this tool only works for this specific model of vehicle. Yes, 1,000 miles isn’t bad but 10,000 is quite better.
Shouldn’t a WATCH be compatible with the wearer regardless of the OS? It’s a WATCH. Imagine if Rolex decided that you have to have a Rolex phone to wear one of their watches.
Show me where it's obvious who I'm defending. Hint: I'm not "defending" anybody, and it's clear which administration is in charge right now. All I've been saying is, blaming it on one administration or party or the other is flat-out wrong. If I was defending one party or another, I'd say so, explicitly. I have no need to hint, as the soapbox is literally mine.
And, your examples are irrelevant and nonsensical compared to the quote you pulled out of the text. A better, real, and actually relevant example would be the DoJ nonsensically demanding that Google or Samsung must make their devices compatible with the iPhone -- which Google and Samsung have chosen not to do. This is addressed in the text, and are further examples of watches that aren't compatible with the wearer regardless of the OS.
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
Could be, and that would be a better point -- had the DoJ actually said that.
Apple has made its products worse for so long, I bought so many I feel like I’m living in a company town.
lol the comments like this are so ridiculous. They haven’t made their products “worse”, clearly, as they are the market leaders and have the highest resale value. People love their iPhones and vote with their wallets.
Further, plenty of crummy knockoff brands to choose from if you desire. What’s stoppin ya?
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
Could be, and that would be a better point -- had the DoJ actually said that.
Don't they? Item #89 of the DoJ's complaint reads "Apple has not [added support for RCS] yet, and regardless it would not cure Apple's efforts to undermine third-party messaging apps because third-party messaging apps will still be prohibited from incorporating RCS just as they are prohibited from incorporating SMS."
Maybe the problem is not that Apple is going to finally bring RCS to the iPhone in 2024. Maybe the problem is that only Apple can bring RCS to the iPhone platform, instead of letting whatever app users choose provide RCS functionality on the iPhone platform, whether or not Apple thinks RCS is ready.
Could be, and that would be a better point -- had the DoJ actually said that.
Don't they? Item #89 of the DoJ's complaint reads "Apple has not [added support for RCS] yet, and regardless it would not cure Apple's efforts to undermine third-party messaging apps because third-party messaging apps will still be prohibited from incorporating RCS just as they are prohibited from incorporating SMS."
So they did! Nice find, and I stand corrected on my forum statement. However, it’s not at all certain that’s the case.
by the time this all goes to trial in about two years, it will be, though
The problem with the suit is there is no discernible underlying legal or economic theory that will explain why something is objectionable when Apple does it but it's okay when other companies do it. 30% commissions are supposedly a horrible thing. Hello? Ask any retailer what margins they slap on their merchandise. 30% is on the low side. Now ask Walmart if any manufacturer can just put their products on Walmart's shelves. But Apple should just let any app developer get on the iPhone platform and for free, or at a cost dictated by the government? Maybe you have an argument if Apple is the only smartphone out there and so the government has to step in to make sure that the smartphone monopoly doesn't get abused. But Android is available and what the DOJ is trying to do amounts to going after Apple because Android is such a lousy product that smartphone customers and thus app developers avoid it like the plague.
There is also the issue, hardly mentioned but implicit in the litigation: Is the iPhone platform, which is infrastructure built with private funds, a public space, in the same way that streets, side walks, parks, shoreline, etc. are public spaces where easement is guaranteed to anyone who wants to use it (as long as its for legal purposes)? Or related to this, is the iPhone by itself -- not all smartphones taken together, mind you-- a public utility like power grids, telecoms, water, etc. and is thus subject to more regulation as to who can hook up to the system and what services the utility is required to offer? This question has far-reaching implications and should be decided by Congress, not the courts. I don't think as highly of the Supreme Court as I used to but I expect if it even reaches them, they will slap down this lawsuit like a soggy, flea-bitten dish rag.
Kuminga said: The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies...
What about BMW, Mercedes and Louis Vuitton?
In July 2021, BMW was fined €875 million along with Volkswagen for being involved in an "emissions cartel" that restricted design standards for AdBlue fuel additive.
On March 21, 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Mercedes-Benz must compensate owners of diesel cars with unauthorized defeat devices if the buyer suffers damages. The ECJ also ruled that owners of vehicles equipped with such devices are entitled to compensation in both cases of intention and negligence.
we have Android and IOS, people can freely chose. Why is this DOJ trying to get involved?
what will be next , All Tesla cars must share and look like Fords? Or Disneyland must look like Yosemite National park to make sure the people who CHOSE FREELY to visit Yosemite don’t feel left out because Disney land is different?
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?
The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies.
Greensill, Wirecard AG are two examples where they didn’t just go after companies, but shut them down. Glencore they heavily fined for taking bribes. That aside, the reason they probably do is that American companies could be coming in thinking they can do whatever they want while most EU companies are playing by the rules?
You just made my point. Those companies are not Google or Apple. Also Notice the EU never does anything bs China,….
Your point was that the EU generally only goes after American companies. That is not true. I gave you three examples where you were wrong. Not sure how that “makes your point”. As for China, they have put limits on Huawei 5G equipment so one can hardly say it “never does anything” against Chinese firms (your sentence was a little vague so I could be misquoting you there.)
Talk to me when EU goes after the biggest Chinese company or their own biggest company. Or you think the Chinese companies or Biggest European companies are just angels compared to Apple Evil Empire.
Please, it quite obvious EU has no fear of any repercussions from American leadership when they attack American companies that they would get of it’s a Chinese company or big European companies
I gave you one. You said the EU never goes after Chinese companies. That is again not true. I am noticing a trend here in your posts …
If I don’t make it clear, I mean big Chinese or European companies. Sorry European version of Savmart doesn’t count
Kuminga said: The EU if you noticed, generally only goes after American Companies and never their own companies...
What about BMW, Mercedes and Louis Vuitton?
In July 2021, BMW was fined €875 million along with Volkswagen for being involved in an "emissions cartel" that restricted design standards for AdBlue fuel additive.
On March 21, 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Mercedes-Benz must compensate owners of diesel cars with unauthorized defeat devices if the buyer suffers damages. The ECJ also ruled that owners of vehicles equipped with such devices are entitled to compensation in both cases of intention and negligence.
Where is the anti Trust lawsuits forcing BMW to open up their engine design to GM? Like they want to force Apple to open up IOS design to androids?
What about suing Hermes for not sharing their leather processes with Coach?
We’ve all read this « analysis » before. last time when the European commission would fail at making Apply comply to antitrust laws. Remind me, who got « crushed » (crushed, really)
Alternatively, you can read the piece before commenting.
Agree. It’s impressive piece, well researched and reasoned.
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.
The 5 percent stock loss today is a buying opportunity.
The problem is that Jim Cramer agrees with you! (Sorry, insider investor joke where you always do the opposite of what Cramer recommends)
Jim Cramer gets a bad rap honestly. He is quite well respected in our world .
They go ahead and buy buy buy!
Just for context, DOJ went after Microsoft about 20 years ago and they had a much better case honestly than this one.
Today, 20 year later, same day government wants to interfere again with Apple,
Microsoft soft is at an all time high
I’m sure Apple is thrilled with you insightful investment analysis /s
I don’t care how Apple feels honestly. I just look at the facts
Um, what investment firm do you work for again? … 20 years ago the DOJ went after MSFT and now they are doing better than ever and on this one case I can now say that the “facts” are that it will be the same for AAPL! Yeah, solid investment thesis there! Again, /s
There is a point in there and I am shocked you don’t get it. But I am sure I don’t. Red to explain my point to most other people here.
Comments
Somehow this is OK? Let’s compare this to other products, shall we? Let’s say you purchased a TV, BUT in order for you to access all of the features you had to have an iPhone. “4K is only available to iOS”. Let’s go deeper…You purchase a vehicle and your tires are limited to 1,000 miles. In order to have the tires that have 10,000 miles you must purchase a special tool directly from the car manufacturer to change the tires, this tool only works for this specific model of vehicle. Yes, 1,000 miles isn’t bad but 10,000 is quite better.
And, your examples are irrelevant and nonsensical compared to the quote you pulled out of the text. A better, real, and actually relevant example would be the DoJ nonsensically demanding that Google or Samsung must make their devices compatible with the iPhone -- which Google and Samsung have chosen not to do. This is addressed in the text, and are further examples of watches that aren't compatible with the wearer regardless of the OS.
Further, plenty of crummy knockoff brands to choose from if you desire. What’s stoppin ya?
by the time this all goes to trial in about two years, it will be, though
There is also the issue, hardly mentioned but implicit in the litigation: Is the iPhone platform, which is infrastructure built with private funds, a public space, in the same way that streets, side walks, parks, shoreline, etc. are public spaces where easement is guaranteed to anyone who wants to use it (as long as its for legal purposes)? Or related to this, is the iPhone by itself -- not all smartphones taken together, mind you-- a public utility like power grids, telecoms, water, etc. and is thus subject to more regulation as to who can hook up to the system and what services the utility is required to offer? This question has far-reaching implications and should be decided by Congress, not the courts. I don't think as highly of the Supreme Court as I used to but I expect if it even reaches them, they will slap down this lawsuit like a soggy, flea-bitten dish rag.
On March 21, 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Mercedes-Benz must compensate owners of diesel cars with unauthorized defeat devices if the buyer suffers damages. The ECJ also ruled that owners of vehicles equipped with such devices are entitled to compensation in both cases of intention and negligence.
https://youtu.be/Bj9k5Isxy84?si=5EnmHRqNPOqHdlJX
we have Android and IOS, people can freely chose. Why is this DOJ trying to get involved?
what will be next , All Tesla cars must share and look like Fords? Or Disneyland must look like Yosemite National park to make sure the people who CHOSE FREELY to visit Yosemite don’t feel left out because Disney land is different?
What about suing Hermes for not sharing their leather processes with Coach?
This goes far beyond Apple.