this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
979 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
2967 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.

So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

No, they can’t really force it. But it’s evidence in support of the accusation.

But I wanted to point out, Android is much, much more permissive in what peripherals and apps can do. And they’d likely be able to bake Android support in by utilizing the already available Wear OS API.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 12 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit.

It alleges that Apple “selectively” imposes contractual restrictions on developers and withholds critical ways of accessing the phone, according to a release.

“Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others,” the DOJ wrote in a press release.

“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of ‘Whac-A-Mole’ contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies,” DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

Apple is the second tech giant the DOJ has taken on in recent years after filing two separate antitrust suits against Google over the past two administrations.

It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple.


The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 8 months ago (10 children)

antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry

United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).

A market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not.

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)

load more comments (10 replies)

heard this on radio first

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›