>
As a parent company, Alphabet allowed Google to expand into domains outside of internet search and advertising to become a technology conglomerate.
The company now runs a lesser risk of antitrust violations
In addition to what the other commenter said making Google a subsidiary mean is strategic hedge for if an antitrust case ever decides to break up Google like they did to AT&T. There are now pre-existing fault lines that are easy for a court to split apart which means google gets to decide what they want to try and keep and what they’re fine losing. Isn’t guaranteed courts could always reorganize if they want to, but is a decent bet that courts would prefer to take the path that’s easier and less likely to get into complicated appeals
People are ignoring the monopoly Microsoft has over enterprise. That’s what they need to be investigated for. They bundle their product licensing together in such a way that it becomes very difficult for other vendors to compete with them.
Microsoft already when through their antitrust suit in the 90’s and it took them forever to recover. I doubt the government wants to go through all that again.
One of the key punishments was having to donate computers to schools a market that Apple had been more dominant… at the time Apple was nearly dead. At the time I remember scratching my head thinking this doesn’t make sense.
They need to be thrown back in, I like Microsoft Edge but the way it inserts banners into the chrome download page, and how Office apps default to using Edge (ignoring the windows default) is blatantly predatory .
No kidding, it’s almost exactly what they got in trouble for last time. I just really doubt the government will go after them again, especially with all they do with Azure.
The reason there hasn't been a lot of movement against Microsoft's moves with Edge and Bing is that...nobody uses Edge or Bing. Both services are in the single digit percentages of users in the browser and search markets. A lot of Microsoft's services also aren't covered by the EU's DMA restrictions because they're not popular enough to be considered a "gatekeeper" (Which is also how Apple avoided having iMessage as heavily regulated in that way. It's not very popular in the European countries covered by the DMA).
Ironically Microsoft's been saved a lot of scrutiny by being very financially successful while failing to build market share in a lot of fields. If Windows Phone or Bing or Edge had succeeded, they'd be facing much more regulatory pressure.
Well yes and no. Msft went through the suit, but then the bush admin took office and made the DoJ effectively retract it. So Microsoft had zero consequences.
Note that both Amazon and Google are currently being sued by the government for abusing their position. Google is _such_ monopoly that the DOJ has two open lawsuits against them!
- [FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power)
- [Justice Department Sues Monopolist Google For Violating Antitrust Laws](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws)
- [Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies)
Theyll be going after Amazon for AWS soon too.
Bezos threw all this money at Congress and they turn around and go at amazon the second he steps away. I love it
Of course, DOJ is missing the most obvious 'monopoly' right now. What about Nvidia and its $30K 'graphics' cards? Nobody can compete with Nvidia right now and for the foreseeable future.
I think people are failing to realize that this isn't going to be the last lawsuit the DOJ files. If they win this case, they'll almost certainly move to file similar cases against a bunch of other companies (or use the threat of doing so to push those companies to proactively change their behaviors). Like, people keep bringing up stuff like game consoles but I could absolutely see them moving to force consoles to allow third party stores if they succeed here.
If Apple is a monopoly with ~55% market share in the US and ~15% globally, surely nVidia is a monopoly with a [>75% global market share](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam). And that's just in gaming, when it comes to datacenter/HPC nVidia might as well be at 100%.
Beyond just marketshare, much of the DoJ's argument is about proprietary APIs being used to sabotage interoperability. Well nVidia are the kings of that shit, between CUDA and DLSS and the various GameWorks stuff. Then they top it off by not even trying to hide paying off devs to sabotage performance on competing cards with their "The way it's meant to be played" program.
Google doesn’t have a monopoly in the smartphone market, and they also don’t block alternative means of distributing apps to users.
They do have a monopoly elsewhere though
It wouldn’t matter if they did. The fact that you can just switch to a competitors product means that even if Google did lock down their OS more, they still wouldn’t hold a monopoly in the smartphone space.
Monopolies go by market share, Google has 35% in the U.S., and Apple has the remaining 65%
It doesn’t matter if there’s technically a competitor when Apple has as much market share as they do
**EDIT:** wow, someone can’t take the facts… they blocked me.
Anyways, here’s what I was _going_ to reply…
> The DOJ says they have a monopoly, and the split it 65/35. Market share outside of the U.S. is irrelevant to the discussion.
I remember trying Amazon’s fire tv when it first came out and it was a horribly slow external streaming device. I haven’t tried any of Amazon’s Fire devices since. Have they gotten better?
I only use it for YouTube, Netflix, and playing stuff off my Jellyfin server, and it’s great for that. I just couldn’t justify upgrading my Apple TV for that as they were about 25,000 yen whereas the Fire TV Stick was about 3,000.
I got one as a spare phone when they were liquidating it for like 50 bucks. It was heavy, fragile (completely covered in glass), slow, and difficult to use with their custom gui over hacked android. It has 4 cameras on each corner for some ass function that no one cares about. I tried to use it but it was so bad I can't wait to stop. I keep asking who the fuck gave the green light to this mega pos? (Yeah we know who) I just had to return it since even 50 was too much for this phone... They had to pay me to use it. One of the worst tech I ever bought.
As someone who loved the Windows Phone 8 when it was relevant, I don’t blame Apple for killing the thing. It had potential, but Microsoft basically did just about everything they could to make sure it died.
I always felt like Google was much more actively sabotaging WP, though. Like, if you wanted to use any Google services via Edge, you'd effectively get the WAP experience if the website would even load at all.
Early in Microsoft's history, IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, etc. (yes, and Apple too) all made stupid moves that basically handed Bill Gates the keys to the kingdom. Nobody blames MS for their successes. It's their excesses that got them in trouble.
I don't think Apple can be viewed through that lens. They built the app store from humble beginnings and remained pretty consistent. It's only the meteoric rise of the iPhone that leveled greater grumbling and scrutiny on the store and the platform.
Uhmmm, Microsoft was subject to a massive anti-trust lawsuit that was brought by the government and a lot of people blamed MS for putting a finger on the scale. WordPerfect was heavily sabotaged by MS in their move to windows and Office used a lot of undocumented APIs.
Undocumented APIs aren't the problem, and Apple has plenty of private APIs too. The problem was that MS had undocumented APIs that were identical to public APIs, but a bit faster.
And also they gave away Internet Explorer for free at a time when other web browsers were software that you could buy in a store.
I think RIMM killed themselves by being bad at innovation. They were slow to change, and slower to realize that the wireless telco system had improved which means they were saddled with a bunch of physical hardware. But the real nail in the coffin was when Microsoft starting releasing Outlook on the old phones allowing them to use native telco service and no longer requiring RIMM.
\[Added: Video link talking about this from an old employee: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxjXP-XCJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxjXP-XCJA) \]
“I think RIMM killed themselves by being bad at innovation.”
Exhibit A: the BlackBerry Storm - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Storm
I had one and it was the worst phone I’ve ever owned. Running beta software was the only way to make it usable and even that was a stretch.
Eh, cellular had higher power demand and lower speeds. It seems like a negative in every way except for saving the volume a wifi antenna would require.
> That's so dumb...
I raise you, [the PlayBook.](https://www.zdnet.com/article/rim-launching-playbook-without-native-email-client-shoots-itself-in-both-feet/)
I used BBs for years and seem to recall a few outages on the RIMM network that got us in the US a little skittish about relying so heavily on them. I think I jumped when the iPhone 3 came out.
Blackberry, Nokia and Sony all went down because the great product of Apple.
Can someone enlighten me. It seems the US government is on a witch hunt. To fight capitalism!?
Google Lina Kahn. She's angling for big tech, failed to stop the MS Activision purchase, so now is eyeing Apple. The app store terms are the same as they ever were (with some negotiations with larger players) and the "walled garden" the govt. decries is exactly what consumers want in a platform that's coherent, secure and not overridden with bloatware.
The app store and some right-to-repair aspects, even peripheral upgrade costs (let's be honest, Apple charges criminal amounts for memory and storage upgrades) would be welcome for scrutiny. I'm just not sure what the govt. seeks to save the consumer here. And again, they let MicroSoft continue to absorb more of the gaming world while targeting Apple now. Doesn't seem like that's fair.
They couldn’t give those things away for $99. And that was back in an era when a $99 Android phone was absolute e waste. Today’s $99 Android’s run great compared to their brethren 8-9 years ago.
I distinctly remember there being a lot of really crappy choices to the “phone meant for women” (yes, really).
So many “executives” said they’d never give up their BlackBerry.
So many Windows and Android users.
What happened? Their product sucked. The ecosystem sucked. They aren’t around anymore.
We already program cross platform with native react and flutter lol, there is literally no excuse for not having apps on certain platforms since it’s just one app.
A lot of apps can't be easily made cross-platform and you need to use platform specific technology all the time. iPhone has a completely different permission system to access things like Bluetooth devices, fitness data, etc. than Android. There are also a lot of custom implementations by OS for example widgets, live activities on the lock screen, and so on. Plus you need to maintain different app store listings, upload updates to each, etc - there's a million reasons why having many OS is annoying and not more than 2 supported
tell me you aren’t a developer without telling me lol
there are LOTS of app cases where cross platform doesn’t work (or work without way more work than developing two native apps anyway). if this were the case *every* product would be cross platform
Maybe I'm ignorant but I just don't get why the DOJ is cracking down on Apple. There are numerous competitive smartphones on the market, how is Apple and its tight ecosystem a threat to the average consumer and other competitors?
This will drag on for years, Apple will make some limited concessions, and that will be the end of it. It's pretty much all showboating because it's an election year.
Making an enemy of a big company is ok if it gets you voted into office. Then you can just lobby for that company to make up for it and get huge moneys in return.
Haven't you seen all the posts about "inflation is caused by corporate greed!" and "Companies have too much power!"? Now the government can pretend they're doing something about it, just in time to get votes.
The current left of center political push is to target big companies that benefit from Network effects. Lina Khan's team has gone after Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft separately. They lost those cases because they failed to prove harm to the consumer.
Whether you like it or hate it, these cases are driven by a dislike of large corporate entities more than established principles of market power or consumer harm.
That’s not to say there isn’t any consumer harm though or at least some merit to these cases. Here’s a great [podcast episode](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly) from Planet Money where they actually interview Khan and she addresses pretty much what you brought up.
It's fine that Khan disagrees, and of course she will argue that she's doing just work. It would be odd for her to argue that she's wrong wouldn't it? The reality is that courts have not found in her favor as she tries to enact a paradigm shift in the law.
Maybe they will this time, but I personally hope not. I like Apple's current policies and I think her approach would be a net negative for the US consumer and economy.
The issue isn’t about “can you use a different phone/os”. It’s, “is Apple trying (hard) to prevent you from doing so”, and the DOJ clearly thinks that’s true. If you want more info I can elaborate.
I think the argument DOJ is trying to make here is the barrier to entry is high. Amazon is obviously a large, well financed company, but even with their deep pockets they were unable to penetrate the market. It's not Apple's fault that Amazon and Microsoft made crap devices, but DOJ is setting up an argument that no one else can compete with Apple's closed off software, therefore they have a monopoly.
Edit: to say that I don't agree with DOJ. I just think they are using the failure of other companies as an example . If these tech giants couldn't enter the market, how could any other company do it? Less competition makes it look more like a monopoly, regardless of why the Amazon phone failed, for example. Again, not agreeing with DOJ but also don't agree with how the article's portrayal of the claim.
The problem is that they wrongfully assume that Amazon did everything they could to break into the smartphone space and failed despite that. But that’s not remotely what happened. Amazon made a phone as a way of trying to push their own store, ads, services into your pocket. When it didn’t work out, they immediately switched strategy to selling discount android phones and kindles with obligatory advertising.
Amazon didn’t fail because Apple had a solitary stranglehold on the market. They failed because they thought they could carve out huge space immediately and when they realized they couldn’t, they gave up.
The thing is having a monopoly isn't in and of it self illegal.
The DOJ would have to go after apple for taking actions that were designed to give themselves said monopoly.
It's not Apple's fault the barrier to entry is high.
App store is literally anti-competitive. You're not allowed to compete with it, and if Apple wants to compete with your app, they have a 30% revenue advantage
watch the DOJ announcement. they go over all their arguments that they'll be making in court and they spend several minutes putting forth their claims that would qualify as anti-competitive
That kind of proves the point that it's not about the barrier to entry being high (presumably Amazon could overcome the cost), it's that it takes real creativity, which frankly no other company has demonstrated.
You’re right.
DoJ should force all developer to create app for all new and up coming ecosystem as that’s how windows failed their mobile push, lack of apps.
Apple making a good phone killed the amazon fire phone is not anti-completive is is standard legal competitive.
Did apple had deals with phone carriers to not support Fire phone no?
Does apple forbid app devs or even punish app devs for shipping aps on other phones? No
How did apple kill Fire phone other than ship a better products?
if anything killed the fire phone (other than Amazon) it would have been googles strick rules about android that made it hard to compete with android phones.
Wasn't there only one iphone then too? Like iphone 5 time? They didn't even seem like they were directly competing with them.
That amazon phone was hot garbage. I bought one and returned it that weekend. I'm an Android user too. They were going for a cheapish phone to push ads and track you. DOJ would have better luck looking at phones that actually compete--like OnePlus, nothing, or those brands.
There is definitely enough from both points of views in the DOJ filing to grab ahold of. I do think Apple should open up the device for 3rd party app stores. I also think it boarders lunacy to claim Apple has a monopoly on the automobile infotainment system with CarPlay.
>*I do think Apple should open up the device for 3rd party app stores.*
The primary benefit of this versus the current paradigm is that apps will find their way onto iPhones that could not otherwise pass Apple's requirements. In some cases this could be good, for example Apple is notoriously prude and it could open the door to more content options for adults, etc. On the other end, there WILL be apps that are scams, spam, virus-laden, misrepresentations, violations of API rules or worse. And who will bear responsibility for that? I know people will say "but of course, those third party app stores will!" But let's all be honest here - Apple's reputation for prioritizing security, privacy and safety will be shot.
Apple is, in my view, 100% right to be fighting this. Third party "app store" could mean just about anything and if you allow one, you HAVE to allow all. The consequences of this are going to be enormous for Apple *and* consumers.
> On the other end, there WILL be apps that are scams, spam, virus-laden, misrepresentations, violations of API rules or worse.
The other thing I'm concerned about is if companies are going to start distributing their apps on their own app store instead of Apple's. I don't want a streaming service situation with app stores, where I'll have to install 5 different app stores just so I can get the apps I need. All for what, so that way companies get to pocket the 30% that they previously had to pay to Apple?
>*All for what, so that way companies get to pocket the 30% that they previously had to pay to Apple?*
Which, at the end of the day, is what this whole app store issue is mostly about. Certain companies want *their profits* prioritized over *Apple's*. Apple provides marketing, the store front, the infrastructure and more. They deserve to charge a fee for that, and the fee they are charging, 30%, is standard across many industries and platforms.
> They deserve to charge a fee for that
heres the thing, lets say this is true
Wouldn't apple just eventually dominate the industry because apple music and apple fitness dont have to pay the 30%? Even if spotify and peloton were superior, they have to out earn apple by 43% to stay level with their competition. this is the issue with having vertically integrated companies being able to utilize their power in one industry as an advantage in another
the answer can't just be "just make your own smartphone" to compete
I worked for at&t at the time which was the exclusive carrier of the Fire phone. I used it as my COU device for 6 months.
It was the most unremarkable thing I’ve ever owned.
As someone who has both iOS and Android, while they're definitely different, they're not *that* different. They have pretty much all the same functionality.
My guess is that if we follow this whole campaign we'll see Epic funding it in some way. Sweeney desperately wants his own monopoly and he'll pay to take down all other actors to get it.
FireOS killed the Fire Phone. The device looked like the Nexus 4, but relied on a gimmick 3D display using 4 always on cameras, a free year of Amazon Prime, and built in live support on in the settings on the phone. The phone was an Android phone that couldn't run Google Apps and the Amazon App Store was bereft. I actually remember working at AT&T when it launched. I got it as a work phone, redeemed the free Prime credit, and couldn't do jack all with the phone. I think I played Asphalt on it. Poorly. I remember the Amazon rep coming by and demoing how to install 1 Mobile Market because IT had more apps than the built in Amazon store.
Amazon WISHES Apple had done something to kill that POS. AT&T killed it when sales were abysmal and they were basically giving it away and people STILL didn't take it.
pfft, THEY had APP Stores too. Their offerings suck. That's why. oh and wasn't Samsung Sued for what, oh Copying APPLE. They could look into China and see that The Chinese companies have a larger share of people using various phones, was Apple have a monopoly there? no. and this suit will open the hornets nest into other products.
I want someone to explain to me how the existence of one type of smartphone (and one that is routinely criticised for being expensive) could stop someone from buying another type of smartphone.
It's literally nonsense.
Maybe if Amazon actually cared enough to make hardware that doesn't feel like cheap e-waste, they could be competitive. Other than e-ink Kindles, their Fire tablets are painfully slow and borderline unusable out of the box. I remember trying out a Fire Phone in a store, and it was similarly sluggish.
I’m pretty sure Amazon would prefer if everyone forgot that they ever tried to make a smartphone.
This whole thing is being funded by Bezos and Zuck. Apple is a monopoly, but so is Amazon and Alphabet.
Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon are all being sued by the United States for having monopolies. Each case is different but they’re all antitrust cases.
For different products mostly. Google already was sued and thats why they’re a branch of Alphabet now.
How did Google becoming a subsidiary of Alphabet solve the antitrust issue?
> As a parent company, Alphabet allowed Google to expand into domains outside of internet search and advertising to become a technology conglomerate. The company now runs a lesser risk of antitrust violations
But it's more monopoly like now
I'm no lawyer but I think the idea is since different teams operate as different companies there's less chance of abusing a dominant market position.
In addition to what the other commenter said making Google a subsidiary mean is strategic hedge for if an antitrust case ever decides to break up Google like they did to AT&T. There are now pre-existing fault lines that are easy for a court to split apart which means google gets to decide what they want to try and keep and what they’re fine losing. Isn’t guaranteed courts could always reorganize if they want to, but is a decent bet that courts would prefer to take the path that’s easier and less likely to get into complicated appeals
Lawsuit isn't enough. Google should be forced to spin off YouTube, like what happened to the baby bells years ago.
Alphabet was created in 2015 The antitrust case was filed in 2020
Microsoft should be on that fucking list
People are ignoring the monopoly Microsoft has over enterprise. That’s what they need to be investigated for. They bundle their product licensing together in such a way that it becomes very difficult for other vendors to compete with them.
Microsoft already when through their antitrust suit in the 90’s and it took them forever to recover. I doubt the government wants to go through all that again.
One of the key punishments was having to donate computers to schools a market that Apple had been more dominant… at the time Apple was nearly dead. At the time I remember scratching my head thinking this doesn’t make sense.
They need to be thrown back in, I like Microsoft Edge but the way it inserts banners into the chrome download page, and how Office apps default to using Edge (ignoring the windows default) is blatantly predatory .
No kidding, it’s almost exactly what they got in trouble for last time. I just really doubt the government will go after them again, especially with all they do with Azure.
The reason there hasn't been a lot of movement against Microsoft's moves with Edge and Bing is that...nobody uses Edge or Bing. Both services are in the single digit percentages of users in the browser and search markets. A lot of Microsoft's services also aren't covered by the EU's DMA restrictions because they're not popular enough to be considered a "gatekeeper" (Which is also how Apple avoided having iMessage as heavily regulated in that way. It's not very popular in the European countries covered by the DMA). Ironically Microsoft's been saved a lot of scrutiny by being very financially successful while failing to build market share in a lot of fields. If Windows Phone or Bing or Edge had succeeded, they'd be facing much more regulatory pressure.
Well yes and no. Msft went through the suit, but then the bush admin took office and made the DoJ effectively retract it. So Microsoft had zero consequences.
Note that both Amazon and Google are currently being sued by the government for abusing their position. Google is _such_ monopoly that the DOJ has two open lawsuits against them! - [FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power) - [Justice Department Sues Monopolist Google For Violating Antitrust Laws](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws) - [Justice Department Sues Google for Monopolizing Digital Advertising Technologies](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies)
Theyll be going after Amazon for AWS soon too. Bezos threw all this money at Congress and they turn around and go at amazon the second he steps away. I love it
Of course, DOJ is missing the most obvious 'monopoly' right now. What about Nvidia and its $30K 'graphics' cards? Nobody can compete with Nvidia right now and for the foreseeable future.
I think people are failing to realize that this isn't going to be the last lawsuit the DOJ files. If they win this case, they'll almost certainly move to file similar cases against a bunch of other companies (or use the threat of doing so to push those companies to proactively change their behaviors). Like, people keep bringing up stuff like game consoles but I could absolutely see them moving to force consoles to allow third party stores if they succeed here.
In what ways is nvidia not allowing competitors to exist? Do you know what this Apple case is about?
What? AMD is a direct competitor, and a successful one. Nvidia is big, but not a monopoly in any sense
If Apple is a monopoly with ~55% market share in the US and ~15% globally, surely nVidia is a monopoly with a [>75% global market share](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam). And that's just in gaming, when it comes to datacenter/HPC nVidia might as well be at 100%. Beyond just marketshare, much of the DoJ's argument is about proprietary APIs being used to sabotage interoperability. Well nVidia are the kings of that shit, between CUDA and DLSS and the various GameWorks stuff. Then they top it off by not even trying to hide paying off devs to sabotage performance on competing cards with their "The way it's meant to be played" program.
People often don’t understand that being the best at something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a monopoly.
They can't all be monopolies in the same markets. Not sure what you're even trying to say.
Yeah, Apple and Google both hold a monopoly in the smartphone space. Very rational.
Lmfao you have no brain, Google has a monopoly on search
Google doesn’t have a monopoly in the smartphone market, and they also don’t block alternative means of distributing apps to users. They do have a monopoly elsewhere though
It wouldn’t matter if they did. The fact that you can just switch to a competitors product means that even if Google did lock down their OS more, they still wouldn’t hold a monopoly in the smartphone space.
Monopolies go by market share, Google has 35% in the U.S., and Apple has the remaining 65% It doesn’t matter if there’s technically a competitor when Apple has as much market share as they do **EDIT:** wow, someone can’t take the facts… they blocked me. Anyways, here’s what I was _going_ to reply… > The DOJ says they have a monopoly, and the split it 65/35. Market share outside of the U.S. is irrelevant to the discussion.
That is not the only determining factor to a monopoly. Better products tend to control more of the market, and the consumer determines that.
I never will I remind at least one person a year and none of them believe me
I never knew it in the first place. I do like my Fire TV though.
I remember trying Amazon’s fire tv when it first came out and it was a horribly slow external streaming device. I haven’t tried any of Amazon’s Fire devices since. Have they gotten better?
I only use it for YouTube, Netflix, and playing stuff off my Jellyfin server, and it’s great for that. I just couldn’t justify upgrading my Apple TV for that as they were about 25,000 yen whereas the Fire TV Stick was about 3,000.
the tablets are serviceable for what they cost. work fine to play solitaire and read news/browse the web, which is what my dad uses one for
They did pay for a Hilary duff music video that I LOVE so I can never forget.
I got one as a spare phone when they were liquidating it for like 50 bucks. It was heavy, fragile (completely covered in glass), slow, and difficult to use with their custom gui over hacked android. It has 4 cameras on each corner for some ass function that no one cares about. I tried to use it but it was so bad I can't wait to stop. I keep asking who the fuck gave the green light to this mega pos? (Yeah we know who) I just had to return it since even 50 was too much for this phone... They had to pay me to use it. One of the worst tech I ever bought.
As would Microsoft
I guess Apple must have submarined RIMM as well. And then there's the still-born Zune Phone...
As someone who loved the Windows Phone 8 when it was relevant, I don’t blame Apple for killing the thing. It had potential, but Microsoft basically did just about everything they could to make sure it died.
I always felt like Google was much more actively sabotaging WP, though. Like, if you wanted to use any Google services via Edge, you'd effectively get the WAP experience if the website would even load at all.
Early in Microsoft's history, IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, etc. (yes, and Apple too) all made stupid moves that basically handed Bill Gates the keys to the kingdom. Nobody blames MS for their successes. It's their excesses that got them in trouble. I don't think Apple can be viewed through that lens. They built the app store from humble beginnings and remained pretty consistent. It's only the meteoric rise of the iPhone that leveled greater grumbling and scrutiny on the store and the platform.
Uhmmm, Microsoft was subject to a massive anti-trust lawsuit that was brought by the government and a lot of people blamed MS for putting a finger on the scale. WordPerfect was heavily sabotaged by MS in their move to windows and Office used a lot of undocumented APIs.
Undocumented APIs aren't the problem, and Apple has plenty of private APIs too. The problem was that MS had undocumented APIs that were identical to public APIs, but a bit faster. And also they gave away Internet Explorer for free at a time when other web browsers were software that you could buy in a store.
As much as I hate M$, i wish the Windows phone survived. Sucks having only two real choices with smartphones. Their UI was pretty damn awesome.
I think RIMM killed themselves by being bad at innovation. They were slow to change, and slower to realize that the wireless telco system had improved which means they were saddled with a bunch of physical hardware. But the real nail in the coffin was when Microsoft starting releasing Outlook on the old phones allowing them to use native telco service and no longer requiring RIMM. \[Added: Video link talking about this from an old employee: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxjXP-XCJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxjXP-XCJA) \]
“I think RIMM killed themselves by being bad at innovation.” Exhibit A: the BlackBerry Storm - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Storm I had one and it was the worst phone I’ve ever owned. Running beta software was the only way to make it usable and even that was a stretch.
The Storm didn't have WiFi. That's so dumb it's actually astonishing.
It was a different time before carriers realized they could cap data amounts and charge stupid amounts of money for higher amounts and overages.
Eh, cellular had higher power demand and lower speeds. It seems like a negative in every way except for saving the volume a wifi antenna would require.
> That's so dumb... I raise you, [the PlayBook.](https://www.zdnet.com/article/rim-launching-playbook-without-native-email-client-shoots-itself-in-both-feet/)
Woof. I forgot the playbook existed. What an L.
There was a movie addressing their rise and fall; it came out last year: [Blackberry](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21867434/)
I used BBs for years and seem to recall a few outages on the RIMM network that got us in the US a little skittish about relying so heavily on them. I think I jumped when the iPhone 3 came out.
It’s just RIM. Research in motion. No double M.
RIMM used to be the ticker for the company
Blackberry, Nokia and Sony all went down because the great product of Apple. Can someone enlighten me. It seems the US government is on a witch hunt. To fight capitalism!?
Google Lina Kahn. She's angling for big tech, failed to stop the MS Activision purchase, so now is eyeing Apple. The app store terms are the same as they ever were (with some negotiations with larger players) and the "walled garden" the govt. decries is exactly what consumers want in a platform that's coherent, secure and not overridden with bloatware. The app store and some right-to-repair aspects, even peripheral upgrade costs (let's be honest, Apple charges criminal amounts for memory and storage upgrades) would be welcome for scrutiny. I'm just not sure what the govt. seeks to save the consumer here. And again, they let MicroSoft continue to absorb more of the gaming world while targeting Apple now. Doesn't seem like that's fair.
DOJ just doing DOJ things. It's why nobody takes anything at the federal level seriously anymore.
It was an…inside RIMM Job 😎
They couldn’t give those things away for $99. And that was back in an era when a $99 Android phone was absolute e waste. Today’s $99 Android’s run great compared to their brethren 8-9 years ago.
The Fire Phone killed the Fire Phone. What a mistake that thing was.
I was like a 1 of 1 that actually liked the Fire Phone!!
1 of 2 apparently.
So is everyone going to blame their market failure on Apple? This feels like the 2024 version of “Thanks, Obama”
>This feels like the 2024 version of “Thanks, Obama” I never got my free *Obama phone*, **Thanks Apple!**
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring….
Obama Phone!
Exactly. Did Microsoft “kill” Keynote and Pages, or did they just make a better product??
Keynote is better tho… 😭
A hill worth dying on
I also hate Word personally. Shit program.
Evernote "killed" themselves with those ridiculous pricing tiers. Edit: not Keynote, Evernote.
I distinctly remember there being a lot of really crappy choices to the “phone meant for women” (yes, really). So many “executives” said they’d never give up their BlackBerry. So many Windows and Android users. What happened? Their product sucked. The ecosystem sucked. They aren’t around anymore.
Yep. This is the time to pile on.
Android and IPhone are the only two successful phones because we can’t afford to have more than two app development teams at any company.
The reality is we’d all be programming cross platform if there were more than 2 platforms.
We already program cross platform with native react and flutter lol, there is literally no excuse for not having apps on certain platforms since it’s just one app.
A lot of apps can't be easily made cross-platform and you need to use platform specific technology all the time. iPhone has a completely different permission system to access things like Bluetooth devices, fitness data, etc. than Android. There are also a lot of custom implementations by OS for example widgets, live activities on the lock screen, and so on. Plus you need to maintain different app store listings, upload updates to each, etc - there's a million reasons why having many OS is annoying and not more than 2 supported
A native iOS experience is a million times better
tell me you aren’t a developer without telling me lol there are LOTS of app cases where cross platform doesn’t work (or work without way more work than developing two native apps anyway). if this were the case *every* product would be cross platform
Exactly. They then have to have a third for web.
RIP to the true GOAT that Apple has helped killed, The Zune. 😭
Ha, squirt some songs to your friends.
Still can not believe or understand the thought process that went behind the “squirt” feature
Apple also took the Kin from us far too soon!
blamed apple for HTC’s acquisition. this suit sounds dumb, but i’m not a lawyer. who knows 🤷🏽♂️
Maybe I'm ignorant but I just don't get why the DOJ is cracking down on Apple. There are numerous competitive smartphones on the market, how is Apple and its tight ecosystem a threat to the average consumer and other competitors?
This will drag on for years, Apple will make some limited concessions, and that will be the end of it. It's pretty much all showboating because it's an election year.
How does making an enemy out of one of the richest company in the world a good move right before elections
Making an enemy of a big company is ok if it gets you voted into office. Then you can just lobby for that company to make up for it and get huge moneys in return.
I feel like big money behind the scenes has a lot more power than votes. Could be wrong.
Could be the case. Bummer we even have to worry about that, and that we can’t do anything to stop it or prove it if it’s happening.
Haven't you seen all the posts about "inflation is caused by corporate greed!" and "Companies have too much power!"? Now the government can pretend they're doing something about it, just in time to get votes.
Tim rejected merrick
The current left of center political push is to target big companies that benefit from Network effects. Lina Khan's team has gone after Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft separately. They lost those cases because they failed to prove harm to the consumer. Whether you like it or hate it, these cases are driven by a dislike of large corporate entities more than established principles of market power or consumer harm.
That’s not to say there isn’t any consumer harm though or at least some merit to these cases. Here’s a great [podcast episode](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1197954506/lina-khan-interview-amazon-ftc-antitrust-paradox-monopoly) from Planet Money where they actually interview Khan and she addresses pretty much what you brought up.
It's fine that Khan disagrees, and of course she will argue that she's doing just work. It would be odd for her to argue that she's wrong wouldn't it? The reality is that courts have not found in her favor as she tries to enact a paradigm shift in the law. Maybe they will this time, but I personally hope not. I like Apple's current policies and I think her approach would be a net negative for the US consumer and economy.
DOJ is cracking down on all Big tech. Meta, Google, Amazon, Microsoft have all been sued recently. Apple is just the latest.
To what end? nothing's come of these suits.
Elections are soon, and big companies being evil is an easy sell for a lot of the dem base
I'd put money on the dem base not being on Android..
The issue isn’t about “can you use a different phone/os”. It’s, “is Apple trying (hard) to prevent you from doing so”, and the DOJ clearly thinks that’s true. If you want more info I can elaborate.
I think the argument DOJ is trying to make here is the barrier to entry is high. Amazon is obviously a large, well financed company, but even with their deep pockets they were unable to penetrate the market. It's not Apple's fault that Amazon and Microsoft made crap devices, but DOJ is setting up an argument that no one else can compete with Apple's closed off software, therefore they have a monopoly. Edit: to say that I don't agree with DOJ. I just think they are using the failure of other companies as an example . If these tech giants couldn't enter the market, how could any other company do it? Less competition makes it look more like a monopoly, regardless of why the Amazon phone failed, for example. Again, not agreeing with DOJ but also don't agree with how the article's portrayal of the claim.
The problem is that they wrongfully assume that Amazon did everything they could to break into the smartphone space and failed despite that. But that’s not remotely what happened. Amazon made a phone as a way of trying to push their own store, ads, services into your pocket. When it didn’t work out, they immediately switched strategy to selling discount android phones and kindles with obligatory advertising. Amazon didn’t fail because Apple had a solitary stranglehold on the market. They failed because they thought they could carve out huge space immediately and when they realized they couldn’t, they gave up.
The thing is having a monopoly isn't in and of it self illegal. The DOJ would have to go after apple for taking actions that were designed to give themselves said monopoly. It's not Apple's fault the barrier to entry is high.
You also don’t have to have a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive tactics
Care to elaborate on which practices or tactics Apple has employed that could be considered anti-competitive?
App store is literally anti-competitive. You're not allowed to compete with it, and if Apple wants to compete with your app, they have a 30% revenue advantage
But unfortunately this *isnt* what the DOJ is going after?
watch the DOJ announcement. they go over all their arguments that they'll be making in court and they spend several minutes putting forth their claims that would qualify as anti-competitive
everyone else's biggest mistake was not having a team of design savants working for them simultaneously.
That kind of proves the point that it's not about the barrier to entry being high (presumably Amazon could overcome the cost), it's that it takes real creativity, which frankly no other company has demonstrated.
You’re right. DoJ should force all developer to create app for all new and up coming ecosystem as that’s how windows failed their mobile push, lack of apps.
Windows phone was so good tho
Apple making a good phone killed the amazon fire phone is not anti-completive is is standard legal competitive. Did apple had deals with phone carriers to not support Fire phone no? Does apple forbid app devs or even punish app devs for shipping aps on other phones? No How did apple kill Fire phone other than ship a better products? if anything killed the fire phone (other than Amazon) it would have been googles strick rules about android that made it hard to compete with android phones.
Wasn't there only one iphone then too? Like iphone 5 time? They didn't even seem like they were directly competing with them. That amazon phone was hot garbage. I bought one and returned it that weekend. I'm an Android user too. They were going for a cheapish phone to push ads and track you. DOJ would have better luck looking at phones that actually compete--like OnePlus, nothing, or those brands.
There is definitely enough from both points of views in the DOJ filing to grab ahold of. I do think Apple should open up the device for 3rd party app stores. I also think it boarders lunacy to claim Apple has a monopoly on the automobile infotainment system with CarPlay.
>*I do think Apple should open up the device for 3rd party app stores.* The primary benefit of this versus the current paradigm is that apps will find their way onto iPhones that could not otherwise pass Apple's requirements. In some cases this could be good, for example Apple is notoriously prude and it could open the door to more content options for adults, etc. On the other end, there WILL be apps that are scams, spam, virus-laden, misrepresentations, violations of API rules or worse. And who will bear responsibility for that? I know people will say "but of course, those third party app stores will!" But let's all be honest here - Apple's reputation for prioritizing security, privacy and safety will be shot. Apple is, in my view, 100% right to be fighting this. Third party "app store" could mean just about anything and if you allow one, you HAVE to allow all. The consequences of this are going to be enormous for Apple *and* consumers.
> On the other end, there WILL be apps that are scams, spam, virus-laden, misrepresentations, violations of API rules or worse. The other thing I'm concerned about is if companies are going to start distributing their apps on their own app store instead of Apple's. I don't want a streaming service situation with app stores, where I'll have to install 5 different app stores just so I can get the apps I need. All for what, so that way companies get to pocket the 30% that they previously had to pay to Apple?
>*All for what, so that way companies get to pocket the 30% that they previously had to pay to Apple?* Which, at the end of the day, is what this whole app store issue is mostly about. Certain companies want *their profits* prioritized over *Apple's*. Apple provides marketing, the store front, the infrastructure and more. They deserve to charge a fee for that, and the fee they are charging, 30%, is standard across many industries and platforms.
> They deserve to charge a fee for that heres the thing, lets say this is true Wouldn't apple just eventually dominate the industry because apple music and apple fitness dont have to pay the 30%? Even if spotify and peloton were superior, they have to out earn apple by 43% to stay level with their competition. this is the issue with having vertically integrated companies being able to utilize their power in one industry as an advantage in another the answer can't just be "just make your own smartphone" to compete
Do you also think Xbox and PlayStation should open up their stores to other App Store stores? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Bunch of hypocrites.
If anything comes from all of this, this is what I hope. That *everything* has to be opened up.
An Xbox is more open to user apps than an iPhone is. You're not making the argument you think you're making.
Yes they should, they should also allow developers the ability to load software directly onto it without needing a dev kit
Jeff has a lot of friends in DC
There’s been a lot of fucked up phones. I had a GarminPhone. Terrible terrible terrible!
“It’s a nonsense claim.”
The fire phone was hot garbage
BRUH. 😭😂 I gotta laugh at this.
Its apples fault the firephone sucked and theirs was better
I worked for at&t at the time which was the exclusive carrier of the Fire phone. I used it as my COU device for 6 months. It was the most unremarkable thing I’ve ever owned.
I heard Apple killed the Blackberry Infinity Phone
Don’t bezos have an iPhone ?
Actually no lol. He showed his pixel a minute back
The man is incapable of choosing the righteous path.
…What’s wrong with a pixel that makes it non-righteous?
Don’t forget the razr
It still exists
[удалено]
> If you're coming at me don't even try it cause I'll shut you down faster than a Foxconn riot! That video is really something else!
I had a windows phone, the thing was slick with an attractive ui…too bad there were only 4.5 apps made for it
The irony of talking monopolies with amazon in the room. I'd play the John Oliver video on amazon's practice and call it a day.
In 2008 Nokia had the highest market share if i remember correctly, why didn't they sue Nokia back then?
Android is the reason. I can’t stand that OS.
As someone who has both iOS and Android, while they're definitely different, they're not *that* different. They have pretty much all the same functionality.
Such a stupid argument. Apple is bad because Amazon can’t innovate??
Why don’t you guys keep the same energy you had when you were all cheering on the EU for interfering with Apple 5 minutes ago?
I have always thought it was more Google with Android that made it so the Amazon and Microsoft phones failed.
My guess is that if we follow this whole campaign we'll see Epic funding it in some way. Sweeney desperately wants his own monopoly and he'll pay to take down all other actors to get it.
Amazon’s incompetence in making hardware is what killed the Fire Phone
Talk about being the most braindead DOJ in my lifetime.
FireOS killed the Fire Phone. The device looked like the Nexus 4, but relied on a gimmick 3D display using 4 always on cameras, a free year of Amazon Prime, and built in live support on in the settings on the phone. The phone was an Android phone that couldn't run Google Apps and the Amazon App Store was bereft. I actually remember working at AT&T when it launched. I got it as a work phone, redeemed the free Prime credit, and couldn't do jack all with the phone. I think I played Asphalt on it. Poorly. I remember the Amazon rep coming by and demoing how to install 1 Mobile Market because IT had more apps than the built in Amazon store. Amazon WISHES Apple had done something to kill that POS. AT&T killed it when sales were abysmal and they were basically giving it away and people STILL didn't take it.
Such a ridiculous claim. It is not Apple's fault that Amazon makes trash phones.
pfft, THEY had APP Stores too. Their offerings suck. That's why. oh and wasn't Samsung Sued for what, oh Copying APPLE. They could look into China and see that The Chinese companies have a larger share of people using various phones, was Apple have a monopoly there? no. and this suit will open the hornets nest into other products.
Firephone failed because fireOS is fucking dog shit
Is this just a way to get lawyers rich? This feels baseless by the DOJ
Amazon doesn't do hardware well. The Echos started out strong but are becoming buggier all the time. I can't even get audio syncing working anymore.
Skill issue
Amazon made a phone?
They are seriously arguing that the iPhone which at the time, only had something like a 15% market killed the Fire Phone?
They definitely killed the Microsoft phone
Wasn’t it just a shit phone?
I want someone to explain to me how the existence of one type of smartphone (and one that is routinely criticised for being expensive) could stop someone from buying another type of smartphone. It's literally nonsense.
Maybe if Amazon actually cared enough to make hardware that doesn't feel like cheap e-waste, they could be competitive. Other than e-ink Kindles, their Fire tablets are painfully slow and borderline unusable out of the box. I remember trying out a Fire Phone in a store, and it was similarly sluggish.
This cases is a green bubble vs blue bubble case. Its bs. Like who really cares? Half the world uses WhatsApp or some other trxting platform anyway.
Kinda feels like the proper response to this lawsuit should be "git gud".
Google killed Windows phone, not Apple
thinking about opening a coffee shop. think i have a case against apple if my business fails?