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.
RCS needs to be integrated into the system and is not an add on app. Apple agreed to integrate. That should be the end of the interoperability complaint as far as messaging. However there is nothing within the specifications that says the bubbles must now be all the same.
quote: “Let's start simply, by looking at Attorney General Merrick Garland's…”
The big question about this trial is… What is AG Garland going to earn? No the case in itself… but… Will he get a judicisry promotion? A political stance?
Everything else are… just details to get there. A big win over the biggest company… What a promotion!
Anything from political points for career ambitions (I'm sure he'd still love a Supreme Court seat) to more (unconstitutional) cooperation deplatforming content the government says is 'harmful' to maybe a whispered 'this could go away if you open a few back doors for us'. Snowden revealed massive illegal spying by our government - he's now in exile in Russia while the people who ran the illegal programs sit on the MSM news programs telling us about what a threat to democracy everyone else is. Crazy times.
(OTOH, maybe they'll drop the case if Tim starts talking about how he was just talking to Mitterand recently?)
Legal arguments aside. I do not recall seeing such a Hollywood staged press conference by the DOJ for other tech companies being targeted. Or 'individuals' who deserved a lot more attention when it comes to justice required. Garland staged this, with his backdrop of loaded AGs for effect, not information, as reflected by a very short Q&A. There were enough journalists that could have asked some tough questions about 'why this, why now'? This had effect. AAPL tanked by 4% wiping out almost 200B in value, harming many investors as well as pension plans. This is not nothing. There really was no need for this except for the grandstanding show of it, to counter Garland's image as an ineffectual AG and to shift the focus of voters away from 'other issues' in the news.
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!
What makes the iMessage accusations absurd is that the very fact the Messages app has different color bubbles is because it is interoperable between different messaging services.
All the antitrust accusers are completely confused because they don’t realize there is a difference between the Messages app (which supports multiple messaging protocols) and iMessage which is one of those protocols. One that runs on Apple servers (at considerable expense) to provide added value for Apple’s customers.
The antitrust accusers seem to think that Apple should run iMessage for everyone in the world and allow third party apps to build businesses on top of it that pay Apple nothing. But there is already messaging interoperability between Apple’s Messages app and the rest of the world because Messages supports not just iMessage but also SMS and soon RCS.
There are other messaging services out their whose apps are closed systems that do not have interoperability, Apple’s Messages app is open.
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.
You not getting it. There is nothing wrong with any company developing a product than only works with one OS. How many software are for PC only? I can probably list a dozen games that are available on PC's and not available on Macs. How many games are PlayStation only? Should Apple be forced to license out iOS for other hardware makers? Otherwise they can be accused of having an "illegal monopoly" on devices that operate on iOS.
If want to take advantage of the superior sharpness of a Nikkor lens ...... you have to buy a Nikon camera. Sure you might be able to buy an adapter that will allow you to mount a Nikkor lens on to other cameras but you're going to lose any auto aperture feature and maybe compromise on sharpness. And don't expect Nikon to make the adapter. And Nikon is not required to make Nikkor lenses that works on other cameras. But third party lens makers are allowed to make lenses for Nikon cameras. Sounds exactly like Apple with their Apple Watches and iPhones ...... doesn't it? And how long have Nikon (and other camera companies) been like this? Way before there was ever an Apple Computer, let alone iPhones and Apple Watches.
Need an extra key (fob) for your Mercedes? Better be prepare to drive your Mercedes to a dealer and provide them with the registration and show some ID. It's going to cost about $150 for the key and another $300 to program it to your Mercedes. And it might take several days for the key to arrive at the dealership as Mercedes dealers don't keep blank keys in stock. For security reasons, they might have to be special order from Germany. (This includes cutting the metal key (if any) that only opens the door and trunk.) There is no other way to buy a key for a Mercedes, no way to re-program a used key and no way to buy a blank key. BMW and Porsche have about the same policy. Need a key for a Honda or Toyota? Depending on the model, one can most likely buy a blank from an auto locksmith for $100 or a used one on eBay for $50 and then program (or reprogram) it by sticking into the car ignition, entering your security PIN and go through a few easy steps. Mercedes, BMW and Porsche are like Apple and iOS. Honda and Toyota are like Android. Mercedes. BMW and Porsche takes security seriously.
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.
For the kind of money Rolex charges, I would make sure it worked for me before I purchased LOL.
I do not think your example is even close, as Apple Watch interoperability did not change after your purchase. You can use an Apple Watch with Android phones, but you need an iPhone to complete the initial setup and there is quite a bit of functionality that is not available (ie Health metric syncing). But it does get messages and does work as a watch.
quote: “Let's start simply, by looking at Attorney General Merrick Garland's…”
The big question about this trial is… What is AG Garland going to earn? No the case in itself… but… Will he get a judicisry promotion? A political stance?
Everything else are… just details to get there. A big win over the biggest company… What a promotion!
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.
Apple doesn't get government welfare/subsidies they have to pay their way by actually making a better products than their competition.
This action appears misguided. It would appear the DOJ intends to re-write well-estimated antitrust law. Apple does not have monopoly power in any market if you define the market correctly. The EU laws are different than in the US. If congress wants th change antitrust laws it can but despite Senator Klubachar’s best efforts, the congress was not interested in broadening government control, probably because of the recognition that is stifles innovation, changes the rules in the middle of the game for successful companies like Apple, and weakens an American company that has to globally compete with Chinese and South Korean companies. Truly misguided.
The government (Congress) is very interested in antitrust change but they want the court system to cover their rear end, in short they want someone to blame out in front.........
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.
RCS needs to be integrated into the system and is not an add on app.
That's Apple's view. But it doesn't need to be that way. The DoJ's complaint here is that only Apple gets to decide whether RCS is a core system service or something that can be added on by an app. If Apple were not a vertically-integrated monopoly, they would have to make a different decision.
So… the DOJ has been investigating Apple for the purpose of bribing antitrust arguments against them for at least SIX YEARS! Sox long years of investigation and this paltry list, full of fabrications, is the best they could do? Seriously?
Dang, you get paid for six years and don’t even have to show real fruit for your labor? Where do I find that job?
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.
RCS needs to be integrated into the system and is not an add on app.
That's Apple's view. But it doesn't need to be that way. The DoJ's complaint here is that only Apple gets to decide whether RCS is a core system service or something that can be added on by an app. If Apple were not a vertically-integrated monopoly, they would have to make a different decision.
Googles version of RCS means nothing to Apple.....As it should be and in light of this six year lawsuit fiasco by the DOJ the only good thing coming out of it maybe Apple deciding not to deal with Google and use the hallucinating Gemini AI model.
If DOJ is looking for a REAL monopolistic practice involving Apple, look no further than the auto industry. GM has already blocked CarPlay in all its products going forward, and many others have hobbled it—in my new Hyundai I can use it by plugging in my iPhone, but cannot access some other built in features simultaneously. With my old Bolt I can do both, and it’s wireless. Now, they are practicing navigation monopoly.
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?
I was attempting to satirize the insanely illogical statement in the government's filing. I spent 9 grand on Apple products last year for home/business, so the part about feeling like I live in Apple's company town was sincere as I might be just as well off accepting store credit as remuneration.
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.
Apple only converted to USB-C after the EU passed the law in 2022 and companies affect have until the end of 2024 to comply. Apple never promised to use USB-C ....... 10 years ago. And they never promised to use USB Micro 15 years ago. That's all in your imagination because of the way you twist the facts or a reading comprehension problem.
The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging. Which Apple did, rather than to replace their 30pin connector. There was no way that USB Micro connector can replace all the functions of their 30 pin connector. And it would make absolutely no sense to add a USB Micro port on iPhones, just for charging. Apple would not have signed the agreement if it meant replacing the port on iPhones with a USB Micro or USB-C.
The agreement also allowed for innovation. Telecom were not restricted from using better developed technology. This allowed for the standard to change from USB Micro to USB-C. If it weren't for this, USB-Micro would still be the standard. In 2009, Apple already had plans to replace their nearly 10 year old 30 pin connector with their Lightening connector, in 2012. Two years before USB-C specs were finalized. iPhones with Lightning connectors were probably already being designed in 2009, for release 2 to 3 years out. And the Lightening connector adhere to the USB charging standards and any USB Micro charger (with the correct adapter), can be used to charge iPhones and iPads.
In wasn't until 2022, that the EU mandated that all mobile devices use a USB-C port. Until then, the agreement signed by most of the telecoms in 2009, only required that mobile devices use a USB charger (with either a Micro or C connector) for charging. No where did the 2009 agreement state that the port on the device must be a USB Micro or USB-C. This agreement was to standardize the charger, not the port on the device. As long as the device adopt the USB charging standard, the port on the device didn't matter, so long as it could be adapted to use a standard USB Micro (and later USB -C.) charger. By 2022, the lightening was already 10 years old technology and falling way behind USB3.2 specs. Apple probably already had plans on using USB-C but had to move up their plans because of the new EU law that passed in 2022.
"The 2009 agreement between the telecoms to use a standard USB charger with the Micro connector for charging, that was signed by Apple, only concern the charger. It allowed for the use of a dongle/adapter so that a charger with a USB Micro connector could be use for charging"
'Malicious Compliance' jumps to mind here. LOL.
The MoU didn't only concern the charger. Most of the texts from the period used the term 'common interface' and specifically mentioned micro-USB.
Putting a dongle into the equation does not really cut it and Apple never helped resolve the problem the EU wanted to tackle.
The MoU in no way shape or form meant that today we would have been stuck with micro-USB.
Fast forward to now and we have legislation as a direct result of industry not doing enough.
The directive is up for review in four years to see how it is progressing and perhaps take on the subject of wireless charging.
And who is to say that a 30 pin connector with a USB Micro dongle is not a USB Micro interface? You? LOL The 30 pin device can use the same USB Micro charger. And that's all that matters.
Well the EU allowed Apple to supply the dongle and considered it in compliance with the MoU. If you think it was "malicious compliance", what does that say about the EU? Why would they allow it if they thought it was "malicious compliance"? If the EU considered Apple in compliance, then who cares what you think? LOL
And think about it. Isn't it less e-waste for Apple to supply a dongle so their users can use both the older original 30 Pin (or Lightening) charger and also the newer USB Micro (or USB-C) charger. Rather than to change the port on their device to render the older chargers obsolete? There were a lot of Apple users that complained about having to carry the dongle but would you really rather have them throw away their old charger and buy a new one, so they don't have to carry the dongle?
One of the biggest generator of e-waste was the including of a charger with every new mobile device purchase. Chargers that most buyers didn't need. Apple was one of the first company to stop supplying a charger with each new purchase. And Apple did this worldwide, not just in the EU. And Apple got flak for it in some countries.
Of course it wasn't enough. That's because in 2014, the standard was changed to USB-C and consumers began throwing away their USB Micro chargers. Then faster charging became a thing a few years later and guess what? Older USB-C chargers and cables ended up as e-waste, as consumers went out to buy newer USB-C chargers and cables, for faster charging and some newer phones required it. And not to mention that laptops are now using USB-C for charging and require an even higher wattage USB-C charger that the standard mobile device USB-C chargers can't handle. The only way to end the ever increasing e-waste from chargers is to top innovating and use the same charger for as long as possible. Otherwise the EU is legislating just for the sake of legislating.
And you can't blame Apple for not using USB-C port on their devices, (even if that's all you want to do), for the EU not meeting any set criteria for the reduction in charger e-Waste. Since 2014 and the adoption of USB-C standard, Apple devices still used the Lightening port.This means that all this time, Apple users kept their lightening chargers. If Apple had converted to USB-C port, then there would have been a surge in lightening charges as e-waste. Don't you think?
Apple managed to use the same 30PIN connector and charger for 10 years before they switched to Lightening and still managed to use the same Lightening charger (abet a higher wattage one for iPads) for another 10 years, before now switching to USB-C. That was a better track record than the EU with their USB Micro charger standard that lasted about 5 years and then their USB-C charger standard that is still evolving and changing due to innovation in charging.
To this day, a 12 year old lightening charger can still be use to charge the newest iPhone. It might take a few hours more to fully charge from 20% but it's still works and no problem when charging overnight. In fact, it a known fact that the slower the charging, that longer the battery life. Thus reducing battery e-waste. A lightening charger should not be e-waste, if one still using an iPhone, unless it no longer works. But 5 years from now, lightening chargers will all become e-waste as older Apple devices using Lightening connectors begins to reach their end of life and all newer Apple device are using USB-C. Or what ever the standard is 5 years from now.
And if you have any critical thinking skill, just how is the EU legislating that all devices must have a USB-C port, going to significantly reduce chargers e-waste? So far, every USB-C charger I've seen, comes with USB-C port on the charger and a cable with USB-C on both ends. This itself reduces charger e-waste significantly as one of the main reason why chargers get thrown away is because of a damaged cable that is built in to the charger. So now all that needs to be replaced is the cable. So what real difference in e-waste, does it make whether that cable have two USB-C ends or a USB-C and a Lightening end? It's only the detachable cable that is different. The USB-C charger is still the standard and can be used on any device with the right cable. In fact, one can use the same USB-C charger to charge an iPhone with Lightening, an Android phone with USB-C, headphones with USB-Micro and a camera li-ion battery charger with USB-Mini, all with the right cable. A cable that will most likely be damaged or lost, before it becomes useless and thrown away as e-waste.
Excellent points. Most of the DOJ's arguments are dated and make little sense. The only really solid case the DOJ could make are the (sometimes) 30% charges Apple makes for its 'monopoly' app store and no-alternative in-app charges made for services such as streaming music. But we shouldn't forget that this is 2014 with major elections coming up in November. Quite a few less tech-savvy voters will see this as the current administration looking out for consumers. Given the slow pace of legal disputes, if Biden & Co. had really wanted to go after Apple, it would have filed this lawsuit at least a year ago. Now is just political show-boating.
If DOJ is looking for a REAL monopolistic practice involving Apple, look no further than the auto industry. GM has already blocked CarPlay in all its products going forward, and many others have hobbled it—in my new Hyundai I can use it by plugging in my iPhone, but cannot access some other built in features simultaneously. With my old Bolt I can do both, and it’s wireless. Now, they are practicing navigation monopoly.
GM's decision is not an anticompetitive practice. That's just them designing their vehicles as they see fit. If CarPlay is the most important feature to you, get a different car.
There is the bad option of buying a 3rd party CarPlay unit, but you do what makes you happier. GM has decided not to support CarPlay. That's their right. Get a different car next time. That's your right.
Now, if you want to complain about autos, complain about auto insurance. Auto insurance may cost more over 10 years than your car itself. And you are legally required to buy in order for you to drive in the USA.
Comments
(OTOH, maybe they'll drop the case if Tim starts talking about how he was just talking to Mitterand recently?)
All the antitrust accusers are completely confused because they don’t realize there is a difference between the Messages app (which supports multiple messaging protocols) and iMessage which is one of those protocols. One that runs on Apple servers (at considerable expense) to provide added value for Apple’s customers.
The antitrust accusers seem to think that Apple should run iMessage for everyone in the world and allow third party apps to build businesses on top of it that pay Apple nothing. But there is already messaging interoperability between Apple’s Messages app and the rest of the world because Messages supports not just iMessage but also SMS and soon RCS.
There are other messaging services out their whose apps are closed systems that do not have interoperability, Apple’s Messages app is open.
A spot on the Google/Meta/Epic Boardroom......
Apple doesn't get government welfare/subsidies they have to pay their way by actually making a better products than their competition.
The government (Congress) is very interested in antitrust change but they want the court system to cover their rear end, in short they want someone to blame out in front.........
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Googles version of RCS means nothing to Apple.....As it should be and in light of this six year lawsuit fiasco by the DOJ the only good thing coming out of it maybe Apple deciding not to deal with Google and use the hallucinating Gemini AI model.
But we shouldn't forget that this is 2014 with major elections coming up in November. Quite a few less tech-savvy voters will see this as the current administration looking out for consumers. Given the slow pace of legal disputes, if Biden & Co. had really wanted to go after Apple, it would have filed this lawsuit at least a year ago. Now is just political show-boating.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1bkzvjy/doj_lawsuit_says_failure_of_amazon_fire_phone_end/
There is the bad option of buying a 3rd party CarPlay unit, but you do what makes you happier. GM has decided not to support CarPlay. That's their right. Get a different car next time. That's your right.
Now, if you want to complain about autos, complain about auto insurance. Auto insurance may cost more over 10 years than your car itself. And you are legally required to buy in order for you to drive in the USA.