The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s
strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half
of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.

The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware
and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company’s
devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke
anonymously because the investigation was active.

Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better
with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks
competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s
payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from
offering similar services, these people said.

https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/05/u-s-moves-closer-to-filing-sweeping-antitrust-case-against-apple/

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:52:02 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company�s
> strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half
> of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.

Since when has it been illegal to lock competition out of your devices?

Am 06.01.24 um 01:47 schrieb Oliver:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:52:02 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
>> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company┬
>> strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half
>> of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
>
> Since when has it been illegal to lock competition out of your devices?

Are you seriously asking this? The EU answered this question years ago
very clearly. To artificially raise hurdles to access devices and
services is anticompetitive behaviour and as a consequence illegal.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 1/5/24 6:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s
> strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half
> of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
>
> The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware
> and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company’s
> devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke
> anonymously because the investigation was active.
>
> Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better
> with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks
> competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s
> payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from
> offering similar services, these people said.
>
> https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/05/u-s-moves-closer-to-filing-sweeping-antitrust-case-against-apple/
>
Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
but was never anywhere close.

That's the American way. Let the best man win.

They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
compete, tough nougies...

--
Because we're here lad. Nobody else. Just us.

On Jan 5, 2024 at 6:52:02 PM EST, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s
> strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone

What "dominance of the iPhone"? Having 30% of the global phone market is not
"dominance". Having 56% of the U.S. market is not "dominance".

Having popular products does not mean you are a monopoly. Anti-trust laws
exist to protect consumers, not competitors. No iPhone users are complaining
about Apple. Only "green (bubbles) with envy" Android users are whining.

And even filing such a case does not mean Apple is a "monopoly". Hint: Apple
is not a "monopoly". You can't have a "monopoly" on your own products.
Monopolies exist in markets, not individual products.

This is like "investigating" Rolls Royce cars because they are so nice that
once you drive one you never want to drive anything else. Thus, people are
"locked in".

It could very well be true, but no one is "illegally locked in". In free
markets (which is what the U.S. has), no one is forced to buy anything.
People buy whatever they like and can afford.

Can't afford a Rolls Royce? Too bad, buy something else. Can't afford an
iPhone? Too bad, buy something else. Rolls Royce should not be forced let
other car makers use their designs, engines, dashboards and whatever. Neither
should Apple be forced to move their designs, chips, software and UI to
Android.

Its called "competition" for a reason. If my product is perceived as "better
than yours", that is YOUR problem. Not mine.

On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne" <bourne@rorke.za>
wrote:

> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
> but was never anywhere close.
>
> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>
> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
> compete, tough nougies...

Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by Epic
against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".

Am 06.01.24 um 17:45 schrieb Tyrone:
> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne" <bourne@rorke.za>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>> but was never anywhere close.
>>
>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>
>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>> compete, tough nougies...
>
> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by Epic
> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".

Bullshit. Neo-darwinistic bullshit that killed many American industries.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2024-01-06, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2024 at 6:52:02 PM EST, "badgolferman"
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into
>> Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the
>> company’s strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone
>
> What "dominance of the iPhone"? Having 30% of the global phone market
> is not "dominance". Having 56% of the U.S. market is not "dominance".
>
> Having popular products does not mean you are a monopoly. Anti-trust
> laws exist to protect consumers, not competitors. No iPhone users are
> complaining about Apple. Only "green (bubbles) with envy" Android
> users are whining.
>
> And even filing such a case does not mean Apple is a "monopoly". Hint:
> Apple is not a "monopoly". You can't have a "monopoly" on your own
> products. Monopolies exist in markets, not individual products.

The Android users pushing for this don't care about facts like that.
They just want to be able to use Apple's products (at the very least the
iMessage service) no matter what and make up these bogus claims to
justify the means.

> This is like "investigating" Rolls Royce cars because they are so nice
> that once you drive one you never want to drive anything else. Thus,
> people are "locked in".
>
> It could very well be true, but no one is "illegally locked in". In
> free markets (which is what the U.S. has), no one is forced to buy
> anything. People buy whatever they like and can afford.
>
> Can't afford a Rolls Royce? Too bad, buy something else. Can't afford
> an iPhone? Too bad, buy something else. Rolls Royce should not be
> forced let other car makers use their designs, engines, dashboards and
> whatever. Neither should Apple be forced to move their designs, chips,
> software and UI to Android.
>
> Its called "competition" for a reason. If my product is perceived as
> "better than yours", that is YOUR problem. Not mine.

BINGO

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne" <bourne@rorke.za>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>> but was never anywhere close.
>>
>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>
>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>> compete, tough nougies...
>
> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by Epic
> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".

Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
device) may well be considered "wrong".

Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed
>>> strategies and
>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own
>>> small business
>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>
>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>
>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other
>>> guys can't
>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>
>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims
>> made by Epic
>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>
> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both
> users and developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they
> jailbreak the device) may well be considered "wrong".
>
It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As
long as the customers are happy, it will continue to exist. We
live in a Ferengi society.

On 1/6/24 4:16 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>
>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>
>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>
>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>> Epic
>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>
> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
> device) may well be considered "wrong".
>
>
Yeah but only by do-gooder bed-wetting liberals with no understanding of
how a successful capitalistic economy works ;-)

--
Because we're here lad. Nobody else. Just us.

On 2024-01-06 00:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> Are you seriously asking this? The EU answered this question years ago
> very clearly. To artificially raise hurdles to access devices and
> services is anticompetitive behaviour and as a consequence illegal.

Nothing Apple does prevents competition in the smartphone space - indeed
Android phones outnumber iPhones. A lot.

If Apple wants to offer premium features and services to their clients,
that is their right and they don't have to share these features with
competitors.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-01-06 12:36, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.01.24 um 17:45 schrieb Tyrone:
>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>
>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>
>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>
>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>> Epic
>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>
> Bullshit. Neo-darwinistic bullshit that killed many American industries.

Offering better isn't being monopolistic. Indeed monopolies tend to not
innovate. Apple is the opposite.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-01-06 16:16, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>
>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>
>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>
>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>> Epic
>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>
> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
> device) may well be considered "wrong".

Or it can be considered a gateway that helps (immensely) protect
customers against malware.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-01-06 17:27, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small
>>>> business
>>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>>
>>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>>
>>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>>
>>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>>> Epic
>>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>>
>> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
>> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
>> device) may well be considered "wrong".
>>
> It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long as
> the customers are happy, it will continue to exist. We live in a Ferengi
> society.

You can stay outside of the country club and do all you like. Or join
the country club and have all you like + whatever the country club offers.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 1/5/2024 3:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple
> and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company’s
> strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half
> of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter.
>
> The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware
> and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company’s
> devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke
> anonymously because the investigation was active.
>
> Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better
> with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks
> competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple’s
> payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from
> offering similar services, these people said.
>
> https://dnyuz.com/2024/01/05/u-s-moves-closer-to-filing-sweeping-antitrust-case-against-apple/

Sounds like a crock.

OMG, the Apple watch only works with iPhones, who would have thought?!
It was a strategic decision since the Apple Watch is the best smart
watch and supporting Android devices would have resulted in fewer iPhone
sales, maybe.

I'm sure that Apple calculated the profit from more Apple Watch sales to
Android users versus the losses from fewer iPhone sales from those that
use iPhones because of the Apple Watch.

Actually, the Apple Watch works with Android devices, with limited
functionality
<https://www.androidpolice.com/apple-watch-pair-use-android-tutorial/>.

Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would be
better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and used
WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:07 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote

>> Are you seriously asking this? The EU answered this question years ago
>> very clearly. To artificially raise hurdles to access devices and
>> services is anticompetitive behaviour and as a consequence illegal.
>
> Nothing Apple does prevents competition in the smartphone space - indeed
> Android phones outnumber iPhones. A lot.
>
> If Apple wants to offer premium features and services to their clients,
> that is their right and they don't have to share these features with
> competitors.

I don't see why Apple needs to open up to anyone if they don't want to.

If Apple has a capability that Android doesn't have, they can copy it.

Why should Apple just give it to the Android competition for nothing?

Using <news:XKmmN.143494$p%Mb.100546@fx15.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:

>>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>>
>>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>>
>>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>>
>>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>>> Epic
>>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>>
>> Bullshit. Neo-darwinistic bullshit that killed many American industries.
>
> Offering better isn't being monopolistic. Indeed monopolies tend to not
> innovate. Apple is the opposite.

The juries in the epic battle against both Apple & Google agreed that Epic
lost mostly in their case against Apple but won everything against Google.

https://www.theverge.com/23994174/epic-google-trial-jury-verdict-monopoly-google-play

It's Google with the monopoly. Not Apple.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:04:51 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote

>>>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small
>>>>> business
>>>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>>>> Epic
>>>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>>>
>>> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
>>> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
>>> device) may well be considered "wrong".
>>>
>> It is wrong, but it's a key component of the apple garden. As long as
>> the customers are happy, it will continue to exist. We live in a Ferengi
>> society.
>
> You can stay outside of the country club and do all you like. Or join
> the country club and have all you like + whatever the country club offers.

Not only can you join the Apple country club if you want all its perks, but
if the competition doesn't like those perks, Apple will work with your
competing country clubs to enable them to also have those same perks.

With Apple's help, both country clubs can have the same capabilities.
Without one country club invading the space of the other country club.

An example of Apple working together to allow everyone to have the same
perks is how Apple helped Google, Microsoft and Mozilla to copy AirDrop so
they too could securely transfer files directly over the local network
between devices without needing to configure anything on the device and
without having to upload the files to any server first and without needing
to add any software (as ShareDrop works on all the systems, even Apple's).

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
>> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
>> device) may well be considered "wrong".
>
> Or it can be considered a gateway that helps (immensely) protect
> customers against malware.

It's a myth that Apple's security is any better than Android security.
But you have to look at security as a whole, not by cherry picking things.
An example is Apple has less malware but many more zero-click exploits.

On 6 Jan 2024 17:45:12 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> And even filing such a case does not mean Apple is a "monopoly". Hint:
>> Apple is not a "monopoly". You can't have a "monopoly" on your own
>> products. Monopolies exist in markets, not individual products.
>
> The Android users pushing for this don't care about facts like that.
> They just want to be able to use Apple's products (at the very least the
> iMessage service) no matter what and make up these bogus claims to
> justify the means.

What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?

Using <news:unctia$qapf$2@dont-email.me>, sms wrote:

> Not sure why Apple would be required to open up iMessage. It would be
> better if the U.S. followed most of the rest of the world and used
> WhatsApp instead of iMessage or SMS.

With RCS implementation finally coming to Apple devices later this year,
why would anyone on Android even want Apple to open up iMessage to Google?

On 07.01.24 00:51, Colour Sergeant Bourne wrote:
> On 1/6/24 4:16 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-01-06 16:45:27 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>> On Jan 6, 2024 at 11:28:07 AM EST, "Colour Sergeant Bourne"
>>> <bourne@rorke.za>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sounds to me like well developed and then executed strategies and
>>>> tactics. I tried to do things like that when I ran my own small business
>>>> but was never anywhere close.
>>>>
>>>> That's the American way. Let the best man win.
>>>>
>>>> They're being persecuted for their own success. If the other guys can't
>>>> compete, tough nougies...
>>>
>>> Exactly correct. As the judge said when dismissing the claims made by
>>> Epic
>>> against Apple, "Being successful is not illegal".
>>
>> Being successful isn't illegal, but forcing customers, both users and
>> developers, to *only* use your App Store (unless they jailbreak the
>> device) may well be considered "wrong".
>>
>>
> Yeah but only by do-gooder bed-wetting liberals with no understanding of
> how a successful capitalistic economy works ;-)

And you think you know it? Look at the per capita GDP and the life
expectancy of Japan and Western European countries. Not really positive
for your "darwinistic capitalist economy".

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

Patrick wrote:

>What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?

The Blue Bubble...

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:28:26 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>>What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?
>
> The Blue Bubble...

I know you're joking about that but it was a serious question.
What do those iMessage services give Android users that RCS doesn't?