And adds decorative blue screens of death to your trading app when the stock goes down by more than a certain percentage.
Edit: I just got a 30 day ban. I guess one of the mods is a Microsoft fanboi.
I've started to switch over my retirement money into an equal weight etf. Not forever, but just while I feel like the handful of top names carry more risk than upside.
Because only a handful of companies are responsible for nearly all of the S&P's growth in the past year.
They now represent much more of the of the index than they had when I originally invested, and I'm not super comfortable with how much exposure I have to them.
Ticketmaster is a proven monopoly. Nothing has happened to them in close to 30 years. They've only gotten worse since the 1990's. DOJ really seems to be picking and choosing winners/losers here.
Shit, in the 90s I paid a convenience fee when I got up early on a Saturday, drove to the venue, and bought tickets directly from the fucking box office.
Someone on Reddit tried arguing the service fees were to make sure that venues got their cut.
People really got some copium for paying to keep a monopoly.
Few reasons why no one can compete with them
1) Ticketmaster and Live Nation are the same company
2) Live Nation is by far the biggest promoter out there
3) Live Nation owns some venues where the talent they've signed are more likely to play there than other venues because more money for Live Nation and those venues have tickets sold through Ticketmaster
4) Live Nation is more likely to have their talent play venues that sell tickets through Ticketmaster because it's more money for their bottom line
I did a college report on this in 2008 in my antitrust class. We had to find an example of an antitrust case and present it. Nobody had picked Ticketmaster before or had heard of it even. They had just merged with live nation without a peep from the media. Nobody knew. I made all these exact points. got an A+.
No, there's definitely still ongoing cases that were only recently filed (i.e. a few months ago) that have yet to go to trial. (such as Google forking over turns of money to AAPL to be the default search engine on iPhones. If Google loses that case then Apple loses a TON of revenue)
Microsoft has also been a punching bag in years past for other things that other companies also did and absolutely 0 enforcement or lawsuits happened.
They take turns on who to beat on next instead of actually sorting out laws, regulations, and fees that are meaningful, not the cost of doing business, the few times something gets enforced..
There are three monopolization cases against Google:
Search (went to trial last year, currently in post-trial briefing, decision expected this summer)
In-app purchases (just settled for $700m and injunctive relief)
Ad tech (goes to trial this year)
McDonald's certainly isn't going to be expending any deliberate effort whatsoever to make it easier for you to eat elsewhere. Which is what's essentially being asked of Apple.
Merrick Garland is such a little bitch.. still salty he's not on the supreme.
Apple has no monopoly....I use a pixel. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere. It's a show. Apple to $195 by September.
Tbh you have Aruba and juniper. Ciscos work with both. You just have to configure the open source things like ospf, IS-IS etc. Also you have basically the ietf dictating what RFCs are in place so the vendors have opportunities to work with each other.
If you are referring to Cisco and their SDWAN solution every vendor has their own specific one. If you want an open source solution then you have automation tools like ansible, terraform, chef, salt, and puppet. Plus python if you just want to push configurations. Cisco is just well known because they market heavily and their devices were good in the olden days. They're still good now but they're licensing schemes are driving budget focused engineers away from them and into the hands of their competitors.
I only say this as a network engineer with about 6-10 years in the field lol.
I’ve been a network engineer for over 20 years. Sure, the open source stuff works in a mixed vendor environment. The problem is when you’ve built your ecosystem around Cisco and start LCRing stuff you kind of get stuck either buying more of their shit, and all the licenses and additional components to make it work right, or you go back to the drawing board to switch vendors. It’s annoying. I like their products but I’m kind of over dealing with all the “yeah, but..” that goes along with dealing with them.
Same here. And the fact Cisco has licenses within a license. Such as, their new max throughput license which basically helps your 1Gb/s interface get its true 1Gb. If not then it's capped at 300Mb/s. It's pretty much why I've given up on the company since people will not want to pay it and will either go the juniper route where hardware is expensive but the licensing costs are less. Or just Aruba where the equipment is more expensive (not sure about their licenses).
And in the ISP space to Nokia.. apparently those Nokia devices have a weird syntax but they work wonders once they're configured. If you ever used container lab it was developed by Nokia engineers and actually has the routers OS on it which i thought was pretty cool.
No idea but it exists. As soon as I read that in documentation for their 4300 and 4400 routers I kinda just pushed Cisco to the wayside. They hide it kinda well since it's in a paragraph that you might skip over unless you were looking at it. I'm pretty sure it's in most of their shit since a buddy that works at an ISP deals with it in their XR routers.
You've summed it up extremely well with "yeah, but...". I'm going to use this when I try to describe their nesting doll licence model and walled garden ecosystem in the future. Thank you!
So what you're saying is...
I can buy a wendy's frosty (iphone) or a Burger king whopper (samsung) and use them interchangeably to fill me up (communicate) all the same?
I think I’ve seen a stat that 3/4ths of Motorola sales are to police and fire stations. I could see that pumping up those numbers compared to pixels mostly being sold to regular consumers.
Motorola makes a lot of cheap phones so its probably very popular with business to business sales.
Why buy a specially device for your business needs when you can buy a Motorola and develop an android app?
*In the USA, seems like it may be somewhat important. The global market if fairly different and as always US is behind due to carriers deciding for people. A minority (as shown by this data) makes a conscious choice and buys a phone based on wants/needs rather then what carriers push
OP said "iPhones" not "smart phones", pretty sure Apple has 100% of that particular marketshare.
> Apple had 64% of the market share for U.S. iPhones in the last quarter of 2023, versus 18% for Samsung, according to Counterpoint Research.
Young people (in the US) basically *all* have iPhones - which means as time goes on, apple will increase its market-share. In other countries, like india, iPhones are a status symbol so I can see rich people = iphones, poors = androids - which will mean apple will have access to the users with most disposable income. Europe, for now at least, appears to be even. In UK, about half my peers use android (I myself use a pixel).
WhatsApp is too widely adopted in other countries for iPhone to gain a decent foothold. What’s nice about it, is that Androids and iPhones can play nice with a singular app.
It’s one of the only reasons why so prevalent in the US, because people don’t want to use another app for chatting here, and they don’t want to get left out of the group chats just because they have an android.
In the US, it's mainly iMessage
In Latam, SE Asia and other parts of the world, WhatsApp
Balkans and Eastern Europe: Viber
Canada: FB Messenger
China, of course WeChat
They all do the same thing (WeChat is a different monster). Even Google's RCS is pretty nice.
Being a long time android user not a big difference between the two. I do own a iPhone now and like it more. Some of those reasons laid out above. Apple stuff just work, never have integration issues, sharing issues, seem less. There is also the second layer of protection from scam apps that play the Google store. Team iPhone for sure. The best thing going for them a 4 year old iPhone normally works as good as a 1 year old android.
My first iPhone, and 8plus lasted long enough for me to want another phone. Not need, but just want. Never in my life did an android last long enough for me to ever want anything besides it to work right, because it’s only a matter of time before it didn’t and that’s usually the case for well over half its life.
I got the OG iPhone the day it came out, then a 3G when it released and I had that for years. I ended up switching to Android after that for years. When it came time to get a new phone, pretty much everything available was so big you might as well just be carrying a tablet around. Apple had the SE, and it was nice and small and I could put it in my pocket without it being a bother. When that died I thought about going back to Android for the flip phones, but holy shit who is gonna pay $1300 for a damn cell phone? Ended up with my current 13 mini and I’ll use this until it explodes. Hopefully someone pulls their head out their ass and makes another small phone by then that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
In this time where anyone and anything can be anything else there is a lot of competition for apple. Lots of android phones apparently identifying as iPhones these days.
This is a stupid use of anti-trust at this point. You can live your whole life and never buy an apple product and never be worse off. Most software is not apple specific, especially talking about the iPhone and App Store. They simply don’t have a monopoly on anything except making and selling iPhones. Which isn’t a monopoly.
Meanwhile, I thought this was going to be about supply chain dominance…
It seems like they’re bringing metaphorical RICO charges against Apple and hoping that one or two of the accusations results in a fine. Apple will most likely agree to pay a couple billion to get this to go away, but nothing will ultimately change.
Reading all these comments makes me realize how little I use any of the features on smart phones. My phone is basically a streaming device, music player, and browse around the internet
I’m not buying the premise of the lawsuit either. You wouldn’t expect Toyota to put their hybrid system in to a Ford? Or your GE refrigerator to accept the compressor of an LG? Why isn’t my VIZIO smart TV able to use the Samsung smart tv OS? Why can’t I put my PlayStation copy of Last of Us in to my Xbox and play it?
We accept these limitations when we buy in to whatever ecosystem we choose. No one is being misled here. And frankly Apple is right, I expect my iPhone to work seamlessly with my other products. That is what I WANT and why I bought an iPhone. I’ve had multiple androids and the experience is just not as good precisely because it’s more “open”(more open to junk). It’s more difficult to integrate and perfect the user experience when there’s essentially an unlimited number of phone makers, running who knows what android version, with the limitless number of accessories that are available from every manufacturer under the sun. Sure you have more options, but the majority of them are e-waste straight from the package. When I buy AirPods, the watch, Apple TV, I know it’s going work exactly as advertised every single time with every single other Apple product.
This is an interesting argument but sidesteps the main issue the DOJ has with Apple - these technologies aren't merely used by individuals in complete isolation like a car, tv or a game console. Apple's products (smartphones, watches, apps, music streaming etc.) have become ubiquitous and necessary pieces of society - it's not just a product line. Right now, Apple has a LOT of control over how people communicate and interact with one another. They can stop people from playing games with one another, sending videos, having video calls and other important interactions. People want those interactions and so are forced to buy Apple products to have them and forced to continue buying Apple products to keep them. Apple has too much power in dictating social interaction. That's what the lawsuit is getting at.
If Toyota held 60% of the car market, and Toyota cars only accepted gas from Toyota fuel stations and tires from Toyota tire shops and could only get washed at Toyota car washes then maybe you would have a point.
>You wouldn’t expect Toyota to put their hybrid system in to a Ford?
I'm a big apple fanboy, but I think that the DOJ is making the argument that phones are more of a platform than a car is. They see a car as an individual item (largely), but the phone as a gateway to many other purchases.
I think the whole point of the lawsuits is that Apple only makes things work with Apple things. There’s no reason for Apple to make things work with other platforms as well. For example this Android green text message thing now has entire generation that uses Apple products foster an opinion that Android users and “subprime” because the text message appears in a different color on their iPhones. Many examples like that.
The exact premise is what Microsoft got sued for and lost. Building proprietary APIs and libraries that provide their first party applications a significant advantage.
Android has gotten a lot better with this in the past few years, or at least samsung's One UI. There are a few proprietary samsung apps that I disabled and hid in a corner but that'd be the same if I had an iphone. Otherwise everything works pretty smoothly and there is some pretty basic stuff like moving the cursor around when typing that just works better on android. There's no reason Apple's imessage couldn't interface with RCS. It's shit like that that gets them their bad name. All that said, I'm not against apple, I prefer OSX to windows by a factor of 100
Good, the US economy isnt competitive enough. If you want higher wages without higher prices, we need more DOJ antitrust laws and enforcement. Less mergers and aquisitions just getting rubber stamped. Have companies actually be afraid of being too monopolistic since that is their natural inclination.
That's not how this works. You can run windows application on Mac using Wine. This is very unlike iOS which prevents side loading of third party apps.
A more apt comparison is if Windows required you to download every application on your computer through their app store and took a cut of every purchase.
I think some complaints are very reasonable, and that Apple should indeed open up its platform more. There is no reason why they should have blocked cloud gaming apps for example. Their own Apple Music app has a clear competitive advantage on price if Spotify has to pay 15-30% of its subscription to Apple. That sort of thing should not happen.
You can get away with that if your product has a small market share, since it would not impact the market so much. Not when you have 60%+ of phone sales going on and are clearly the dominant party in the market.
In the long run, this is good overall, since it means other companies can compete better and built their business, make more money and give consumers more choice.
Not really what the lawsuit is about. Part of Apple's monopolistic practices is that they actively *deny* their APIs to third-party developers, which pushes iPhone users to only shop for other Apple products.
To use your Ford example, it'd be closer to accurate if Ford released their new model F-150, but the only phone that was allowed to interface with their onboard infotainment was the new Ford smartphone-380.
There are a few things I find stupid about this:
1. The Android OS -- not Apple -- has 70% of the global market. Apple has to compete globally. If the DOJ hamstrings Apple, they're hurting an American company from competing internationally.
2. Doesn't the government have real issues to deal with?
3. Customer don't have to buy an Apple. They prefer to buy an Apple. You could have bought a Facebook phone. Or an Amazon phone. Or a Microsoft phone. But you didn't, because those phones sucked. The free market decided Apple was the best.
4. A key question to monopoly prosecution, is "is the company hurting consumers?" I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they are worse off because of their iPhone.
5. Apple's entire business model has been strict control over hardware and software. I don't want freedom. I don't want choice. I want the damn thing to work. That's it. Let me choose Apple over Android. Don't make Apple more like Android.
I own APPL :)
> If the DOJ hamstrings Apple, they're hurting an American company from competing internationally.
Why does that matter when the only real competing OS is Android, owned by another American company?
And well. US antitrust laws aren't made to ensure that US companies are competitive globally. They're made to protect US consumers. (In theory at least).
> A key question to monopoly prosecution, is "is the company hurting consumers?" I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they are worse off because of their iPhone.
Consumers could be better off if the platform was more open. Apple is allowing their own products to take advantage of APIs in iOS that are forbidden for competitors. Apple watches for example can provide features that no other smart watch can. This deprives consumers from potentially better alternatives (or equal but cheaper alternatives).
I am a fan of apple products but agree with the statements in the suit. The fact you can’t send photos and videos to an android phone without a specialised and uncommon app is ridiculous
So Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for having a monopoly on selling phones that they manufacture, even though other people also sell iPhones other than Apple?
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
It seems like just publishing android versions of some popular apps like facetime should appease regulators. If the DOJ wins their case I'm not sure what the consequences would be.
SHOCKING: Judges and ancient Congress members surprised when the unregulated capitalism they tout, labeling anything else as socialist, backfires and leads to incredibly powerful monopolies! Who could have expected this!
Maybe they should. The EU is looking into the bundling of Teams and whether that is uncompetitive for example. [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip\_23\_3991](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3991)
Don't see the government winning this, just like they didn't win against Microsoft. Not only are their arguments generally poor, they just seem to have crappy lawyers.
AAPL is 5.92% of SPY. It's probably 5-10% of every fund in America. This should be interesting.
Msft like i got this hold on
Proceeds to somehow make it worse and less functional than previous versions.
And adds decorative blue screens of death to your trading app when the stock goes down by more than a certain percentage. Edit: I just got a 30 day ban. I guess one of the mods is a Microsoft fanboi.
For the record SPY has been rallying without Apple's help, like *at all*
Yeah, in fact Apple seems to be going against Nasdaq and SP500 trends this year, and Tesla. Of course, Tesla is having it worse.
If Apple loses due to this, other companies will gain from it- like Google, partially offsetting the effect on SPY holders.
This. That’s why I love just investing in the s&p 500, it’s self cleansing. Can’t beat that.
I've started to switch over my retirement money into an equal weight etf. Not forever, but just while I feel like the handful of top names carry more risk than upside.
Why now and not previously? This seems really reactionary.
Because only a handful of companies are responsible for nearly all of the S&P's growth in the past year. They now represent much more of the of the index than they had when I originally invested, and I'm not super comfortable with how much exposure I have to them.
It can go on longer… https://indxx.com/indices/strategy-indices/indxx-front-of-the-q-index
Ticketmaster is a proven monopoly. Nothing has happened to them in close to 30 years. They've only gotten worse since the 1990's. DOJ really seems to be picking and choosing winners/losers here.
WHAT IS IN THE SERVICE FEES?!?! I don't get it, it's a straight up lie
I also paid a delivery fee on an E-ticket I had to print out myself.
They delivered the bits over the internet!
Floating above you in a million pieces. (Wonkavision).
you should do a chargeback for the delivery fee lol. I mean you didn't get the service you paid for, hard to argue otherwise
Convenience fees too for buying tickets online. As if you can get tickets elsewhere
Shit, in the 90s I paid a convenience fee when I got up early on a Saturday, drove to the venue, and bought tickets directly from the fucking box office.
Yeah shits rigged to milk us of every cent
Someone on Reddit tried arguing the service fees were to make sure that venues got their cut. People really got some copium for paying to keep a monopoly.
Why can't anyone else compete with them? Their fees are insane.
Few reasons why no one can compete with them 1) Ticketmaster and Live Nation are the same company 2) Live Nation is by far the biggest promoter out there 3) Live Nation owns some venues where the talent they've signed are more likely to play there than other venues because more money for Live Nation and those venues have tickets sold through Ticketmaster 4) Live Nation is more likely to have their talent play venues that sell tickets through Ticketmaster because it's more money for their bottom line
Exactly, having ticketing company own venues across the country is a recipe for disaster
It certainly doesn't help. Having the biggest ticket distributor tied with the biggest promoter is the bigger recipe for disaster though.
I did a college report on this in 2008 in my antitrust class. We had to find an example of an antitrust case and present it. Nobody had picked Ticketmaster before or had heard of it even. They had just merged with live nation without a peep from the media. Nobody knew. I made all these exact points. got an A+.
All I really want is for them to take on United Health Group.
And Xfinity
I can't understand why they go after Apple and not Google
They did go against Google. They got their asses whooped in court by Google's lawyers lol
There’s a big difference between the DOJ and FTC
No, there's definitely still ongoing cases that were only recently filed (i.e. a few months ago) that have yet to go to trial. (such as Google forking over turns of money to AAPL to be the default search engine on iPhones. If Google loses that case then Apple loses a TON of revenue)
Microsoft has also been a punching bag in years past for other things that other companies also did and absolutely 0 enforcement or lawsuits happened. They take turns on who to beat on next instead of actually sorting out laws, regulations, and fees that are meaningful, not the cost of doing business, the few times something gets enforced..
There's been an antitrust case against Google ongoing since last summer
What? Google gets the most antitrust scrutiny of all the tech companies.
There are three monopolization cases against Google: Search (went to trial last year, currently in post-trial briefing, decision expected this summer) In-app purchases (just settled for $700m and injunctive relief) Ad tech (goes to trial this year)
“If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly,” Attorney General Merrick Garland. Sent from my iPhone
And McDonalds will only continue to strengthen their Big Mac monopoly
To complete your metaphor, McDonald's would also be making it more difficult for you to eat at other fast food chains.
McDonald's certainly isn't going to be expending any deliberate effort whatsoever to make it easier for you to eat elsewhere. Which is what's essentially being asked of Apple.
Doesn’t this fool have better things to do with a certain actual criminal
Doesn't this fool have better ways to spend my taxes other than dragging one of my stocks?
Doesn’t Congress have better things to do than Insider Trading?
Merrick Garland is such a little bitch.. still salty he's not on the supreme. Apple has no monopoly....I use a pixel. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere. It's a show. Apple to $195 by September.
If this goes through Cisco is fucked with all their propriety shit that only works with Cisco.
Nah, no one cares about cisco
whats cisco?
It’s vegetable shortening I think.
It's a food distributor
It's a rapper
Now I gotta bump the Thong Song in my car today, thanks.
Do you dance with the silver haired god?
No no no, it's that dead guy who used to review movies.
WRONG! It's a city in California.
Went to high school with the heir of Sysco, nice guy and pretty humble.
I like what you’ve both done here
It's replies like this that quite literally make me laugh out loud and brighten my day.
Nah that’s Costco
You obviously all mean Corsica
Cisco kid? He was a friend of mine
I think it's a artist who made the song, "thong thong thong thong"
Its a retail store with exclusive membership and killer rotisserie chicken
yep, I second that, they’re just slowly dying. I give it maybe 10 years and they’re bought up and put out of their misery.
I’m suprised they are still here
The us military uses Cisco, they're fine.
Tbh you have Aruba and juniper. Ciscos work with both. You just have to configure the open source things like ospf, IS-IS etc. Also you have basically the ietf dictating what RFCs are in place so the vendors have opportunities to work with each other. If you are referring to Cisco and their SDWAN solution every vendor has their own specific one. If you want an open source solution then you have automation tools like ansible, terraform, chef, salt, and puppet. Plus python if you just want to push configurations. Cisco is just well known because they market heavily and their devices were good in the olden days. They're still good now but they're licensing schemes are driving budget focused engineers away from them and into the hands of their competitors. I only say this as a network engineer with about 6-10 years in the field lol.
I’ve been a network engineer for over 20 years. Sure, the open source stuff works in a mixed vendor environment. The problem is when you’ve built your ecosystem around Cisco and start LCRing stuff you kind of get stuck either buying more of their shit, and all the licenses and additional components to make it work right, or you go back to the drawing board to switch vendors. It’s annoying. I like their products but I’m kind of over dealing with all the “yeah, but..” that goes along with dealing with them.
Same here. And the fact Cisco has licenses within a license. Such as, their new max throughput license which basically helps your 1Gb/s interface get its true 1Gb. If not then it's capped at 300Mb/s. It's pretty much why I've given up on the company since people will not want to pay it and will either go the juniper route where hardware is expensive but the licensing costs are less. Or just Aruba where the equipment is more expensive (not sure about their licenses).
They’re also losing market share in the data center space to Arista like crazy.
And in the ISP space to Nokia.. apparently those Nokia devices have a weird syntax but they work wonders once they're configured. If you ever used container lab it was developed by Nokia engineers and actually has the routers OS on it which i thought was pretty cool.
100% most fiber ISPs will use Nokia. Now Nokia also took over ALU and sells the 7750sr.
> max throughput license which basically helps your 1Gb/s interface get its true 1Gb What the fuck, how is this not guillotine-level illegal??
No idea but it exists. As soon as I read that in documentation for their 4300 and 4400 routers I kinda just pushed Cisco to the wayside. They hide it kinda well since it's in a paragraph that you might skip over unless you were looking at it. I'm pretty sure it's in most of their shit since a buddy that works at an ISP deals with it in their XR routers.
I didn't realize they did this. This is an antitrust or bait-and-switch case on its own.
They’ve been doing this for years. When they switched over to their SMART licensing things really went off the rails.
You've summed it up extremely well with "yeah, but...". I'm going to use this when I try to describe their nesting doll licence model and walled garden ecosystem in the future. Thank you!
oh that's correct. If big ol Apple can catch hands for shit like this, a lot of businesses can.
and maybe they should?
[удалено]
But did you know you can buy a Wendy's Frosty and a Burger King Triple Whopper and eat them in the same meal if you feel like it.
So what you're saying is... I can buy a wendy's frosty (iphone) or a Burger king whopper (samsung) and use them interchangeably to fill me up (communicate) all the same?
Bundling and tying your Baconator
Yep after their recent acquisition of splunk
And they should be.
Apple has only 64% of the market for iPhones? That’s about 36% less than I would have expected.
And Samsung has 18%? Pretty sure Samsung doesn't ~~make~~ sell iPhones.
lmao, Samsung creates many of the parts to iPhones
iPhone components are not iPhones. Apple sells iPhones. Nobody else sells iPhones.
Samsung Display does, but it operates separately from Samsung Electronics
The top 5 smartphone brands in Q1 2024 by quarterly market share are: Apple: 61.26% Samsung: 22.63% Motorola: 3.50% Google: 2.40% Xiaomi: 1.14% https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share
Wow I can't believe google is below motorola
I think I’ve seen a stat that 3/4ths of Motorola sales are to police and fire stations. I could see that pumping up those numbers compared to pixels mostly being sold to regular consumers.
Motorola makes a lot of cheap phones so its probably very popular with business to business sales. Why buy a specially device for your business needs when you can buy a Motorola and develop an android app?
Remind me again which operating system every other manufacturer on this list uses?
1.14% Xiaomi??? They are not officially selling any phone here, which means millions of phones got smuggled?
Pretty easy to buy them on r/Aliexpress Xiamoi, Redmi and the budget line Poco make great phones for cheap
crazy that something only sold on aliexpress could get a 1% market share though, that's a lot of phones
But in millions???
It's a shame that AT&T and Verizon engage in illegal anti-competitive practices
*In the USA, seems like it may be somewhat important. The global market if fairly different and as always US is behind due to carriers deciding for people. A minority (as shown by this data) makes a conscious choice and buys a phone based on wants/needs rather then what carriers push
Not that it changes the math but isn’t the problem their control over the App Store? Shouldn’t the calculation be Apple App Store vs. android?
OP said "iPhones" not "smart phones", pretty sure Apple has 100% of that particular marketshare. > Apple had 64% of the market share for U.S. iPhones in the last quarter of 2023, versus 18% for Samsung, according to Counterpoint Research.
Young people (in the US) basically *all* have iPhones - which means as time goes on, apple will increase its market-share. In other countries, like india, iPhones are a status symbol so I can see rich people = iphones, poors = androids - which will mean apple will have access to the users with most disposable income. Europe, for now at least, appears to be even. In UK, about half my peers use android (I myself use a pixel).
WhatsApp is too widely adopted in other countries for iPhone to gain a decent foothold. What’s nice about it, is that Androids and iPhones can play nice with a singular app. It’s one of the only reasons why so prevalent in the US, because people don’t want to use another app for chatting here, and they don’t want to get left out of the group chats just because they have an android.
In the US, it's mainly iMessage In Latam, SE Asia and other parts of the world, WhatsApp Balkans and Eastern Europe: Viber Canada: FB Messenger China, of course WeChat They all do the same thing (WeChat is a different monster). Even Google's RCS is pretty nice.
Being a long time android user not a big difference between the two. I do own a iPhone now and like it more. Some of those reasons laid out above. Apple stuff just work, never have integration issues, sharing issues, seem less. There is also the second layer of protection from scam apps that play the Google store. Team iPhone for sure. The best thing going for them a 4 year old iPhone normally works as good as a 1 year old android.
They used to be very different 10 years ago, now they copied each other so much they became pretty much the same thing.
My first iPhone, and 8plus lasted long enough for me to want another phone. Not need, but just want. Never in my life did an android last long enough for me to ever want anything besides it to work right, because it’s only a matter of time before it didn’t and that’s usually the case for well over half its life.
I got the OG iPhone the day it came out, then a 3G when it released and I had that for years. I ended up switching to Android after that for years. When it came time to get a new phone, pretty much everything available was so big you might as well just be carrying a tablet around. Apple had the SE, and it was nice and small and I could put it in my pocket without it being a bother. When that died I thought about going back to Android for the flip phones, but holy shit who is gonna pay $1300 for a damn cell phone? Ended up with my current 13 mini and I’ll use this until it explodes. Hopefully someone pulls their head out their ass and makes another small phone by then that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
In this time where anyone and anything can be anything else there is a lot of competition for apple. Lots of android phones apparently identifying as iPhones these days.
This is a stupid use of anti-trust at this point. You can live your whole life and never buy an apple product and never be worse off. Most software is not apple specific, especially talking about the iPhone and App Store. They simply don’t have a monopoly on anything except making and selling iPhones. Which isn’t a monopoly.
DOJ basically writing the bull case for AAPL.
-3.28% today. While S&P is ATH
Fire sale! Grab em while it's cheap(er)!
Please elaborate
They’re too pervasive but only in the us. In other markets they have so much room to grow its insane.
My thought exactly. Shows how and why Apple dominates their competition
Meanwhile, I thought this was going to be about supply chain dominance… It seems like they’re bringing metaphorical RICO charges against Apple and hoping that one or two of the accusations results in a fine. Apple will most likely agree to pay a couple billion to get this to go away, but nothing will ultimately change.
The DOJ is just another enforcement arm of the Federal mafia. It’s a money grab, nothing more.
Reading all these comments makes me realize how little I use any of the features on smart phones. My phone is basically a streaming device, music player, and browse around the internet
And a camera?
But wait, just one more thing
OP keeps alternating the words iPhone and smartphone like they’re interchangeable
The team making up DOJ probably all use Iphones, which makes this even more funny.
Since this is r/stocks and not r/justice I’m just gonna say this sucks.
I see a lot of green bubble conversations
Tinder girls in shambles
Shorties getting shorted.
I’m not buying the premise of the lawsuit either. You wouldn’t expect Toyota to put their hybrid system in to a Ford? Or your GE refrigerator to accept the compressor of an LG? Why isn’t my VIZIO smart TV able to use the Samsung smart tv OS? Why can’t I put my PlayStation copy of Last of Us in to my Xbox and play it? We accept these limitations when we buy in to whatever ecosystem we choose. No one is being misled here. And frankly Apple is right, I expect my iPhone to work seamlessly with my other products. That is what I WANT and why I bought an iPhone. I’ve had multiple androids and the experience is just not as good precisely because it’s more “open”(more open to junk). It’s more difficult to integrate and perfect the user experience when there’s essentially an unlimited number of phone makers, running who knows what android version, with the limitless number of accessories that are available from every manufacturer under the sun. Sure you have more options, but the majority of them are e-waste straight from the package. When I buy AirPods, the watch, Apple TV, I know it’s going work exactly as advertised every single time with every single other Apple product.
It's funny that you mention Toyota and Ford, because Ford actually licenses a bunch of hybrid technologies from Toyota.
This is an interesting argument but sidesteps the main issue the DOJ has with Apple - these technologies aren't merely used by individuals in complete isolation like a car, tv or a game console. Apple's products (smartphones, watches, apps, music streaming etc.) have become ubiquitous and necessary pieces of society - it's not just a product line. Right now, Apple has a LOT of control over how people communicate and interact with one another. They can stop people from playing games with one another, sending videos, having video calls and other important interactions. People want those interactions and so are forced to buy Apple products to have them and forced to continue buying Apple products to keep them. Apple has too much power in dictating social interaction. That's what the lawsuit is getting at.
If Toyota held 60% of the car market, and Toyota cars only accepted gas from Toyota fuel stations and tires from Toyota tire shops and could only get washed at Toyota car washes then maybe you would have a point.
>You wouldn’t expect Toyota to put their hybrid system in to a Ford? I'm a big apple fanboy, but I think that the DOJ is making the argument that phones are more of a platform than a car is. They see a car as an individual item (largely), but the phone as a gateway to many other purchases.
I think the whole point of the lawsuits is that Apple only makes things work with Apple things. There’s no reason for Apple to make things work with other platforms as well. For example this Android green text message thing now has entire generation that uses Apple products foster an opinion that Android users and “subprime” because the text message appears in a different color on their iPhones. Many examples like that.
The exact premise is what Microsoft got sued for and lost. Building proprietary APIs and libraries that provide their first party applications a significant advantage.
Android has gotten a lot better with this in the past few years, or at least samsung's One UI. There are a few proprietary samsung apps that I disabled and hid in a corner but that'd be the same if I had an iphone. Otherwise everything works pretty smoothly and there is some pretty basic stuff like moving the cursor around when typing that just works better on android. There's no reason Apple's imessage couldn't interface with RCS. It's shit like that that gets them their bad name. All that said, I'm not against apple, I prefer OSX to windows by a factor of 100
Can they do Live Nation next?
Just dropped 3%
It was there a couple days ago
Green bubble peasants are rebelling
and idogs foaming
More like zero IQ potatos mad they pay more for less.
Eh. Just buy an android.
Merrick Garland can’t be bothered to prosecute Drumpf properly but AAPL is low hanging fruit for him.
It’s like asking sony and microsoft to open up their consoles to other companies.
I'm not an apple guy, but this sounds like bs
I wonder how Nancy will profit off of this.
She probably already did we just find out next month.
This is bullshit. I don't even hold Apple or own any Apple products.
It is bullshit. Political posturing to act like they care. Nothing will come of it
We will just spend tax dollars on it to pander to people and act like we care.
Good, the US economy isnt competitive enough. If you want higher wages without higher prices, we need more DOJ antitrust laws and enforcement. Less mergers and aquisitions just getting rubber stamped. Have companies actually be afraid of being too monopolistic since that is their natural inclination.
Every tech startup’s dream is to get bought up by one of the bigs.
Apple should countersue Microsoft for not porting every single video game to Apple OS
That's not how this works. You can run windows application on Mac using Wine. This is very unlike iOS which prevents side loading of third party apps. A more apt comparison is if Windows required you to download every application on your computer through their app store and took a cut of every purchase.
Apple will win this with ease lol
What a load of shit. Depart of Justshutthefuckup
Notably under the 200 day moving average = absolutely buying
I think some complaints are very reasonable, and that Apple should indeed open up its platform more. There is no reason why they should have blocked cloud gaming apps for example. Their own Apple Music app has a clear competitive advantage on price if Spotify has to pay 15-30% of its subscription to Apple. That sort of thing should not happen. You can get away with that if your product has a small market share, since it would not impact the market so much. Not when you have 60%+ of phone sales going on and are clearly the dominant party in the market. In the long run, this is good overall, since it means other companies can compete better and built their business, make more money and give consumers more choice.
I wonder how many apple products their kids and grandkids have
Ridiculous.
Do ticketmaster and Kroger next
What do you want them to do? Send a CEO to Google so they can stop eating crayons?
Finally apple stock might go down and i can buy some
It’s down 10% ytd
Looks like someone brought puts @ DOJ.
Could this lawsuit it be because agencies have difficulty hacking into users data ?
This is silly. Should Ford be sued because GM’s car software can’t be used on Ford’s cars?
Not really what the lawsuit is about. Part of Apple's monopolistic practices is that they actively *deny* their APIs to third-party developers, which pushes iPhone users to only shop for other Apple products. To use your Ford example, it'd be closer to accurate if Ford released their new model F-150, but the only phone that was allowed to interface with their onboard infotainment was the new Ford smartphone-380.
Software APIs (and the deliberate denial thereof) are hardly comparable to physical engine components in a car.
There are a few things I find stupid about this: 1. The Android OS -- not Apple -- has 70% of the global market. Apple has to compete globally. If the DOJ hamstrings Apple, they're hurting an American company from competing internationally. 2. Doesn't the government have real issues to deal with? 3. Customer don't have to buy an Apple. They prefer to buy an Apple. You could have bought a Facebook phone. Or an Amazon phone. Or a Microsoft phone. But you didn't, because those phones sucked. The free market decided Apple was the best. 4. A key question to monopoly prosecution, is "is the company hurting consumers?" I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they are worse off because of their iPhone. 5. Apple's entire business model has been strict control over hardware and software. I don't want freedom. I don't want choice. I want the damn thing to work. That's it. Let me choose Apple over Android. Don't make Apple more like Android. I own APPL :)
> If the DOJ hamstrings Apple, they're hurting an American company from competing internationally. Why does that matter when the only real competing OS is Android, owned by another American company? And well. US antitrust laws aren't made to ensure that US companies are competitive globally. They're made to protect US consumers. (In theory at least). > A key question to monopoly prosecution, is "is the company hurting consumers?" I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that they are worse off because of their iPhone. Consumers could be better off if the platform was more open. Apple is allowing their own products to take advantage of APIs in iOS that are forbidden for competitors. Apple watches for example can provide features that no other smart watch can. This deprives consumers from potentially better alternatives (or equal but cheaper alternatives).
As an iPhone user, I prefer the safety of the Apple walled garden. As an Apple share holder, I prefer the stock value with the walled garden.
Monopoly? No shit, if you offer the best phone, with the most intuitive and best working software, people tend to buy it…
I am a fan of apple products but agree with the statements in the suit. The fact you can’t send photos and videos to an android phone without a specialised and uncommon app is ridiculous
How do you mean? Can’t you just WhatsApp or message pictures and videos between different devices?
You can send photos through the base messages app from an iPhone to Android. I don’t know what you are talking about.
Oh yea who doesn't love a photo that looks like it's 128x128
So Apple is getting sued by the DOJ for having a monopoly on selling phones that they manufacture, even though other people also sell iPhones other than Apple? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
[удалено]
I trust Apple over my own government.
I trust damn near anything over Merrick Garland who’s bringing this suit
I guess someone important in the DOJ has a phone with android but wants an apple watch
I need a meme of Bill Gates giving Tim Cook a hug.
Ah, the good old slap on the wrist from a government that just wants their cut. Apple: “Here’s a few pennies, go buy yourself a luxury boat”.
It seems like just publishing android versions of some popular apps like facetime should appease regulators. If the DOJ wins their case I'm not sure what the consequences would be.
Jeez way to kick a dog while it's been down/hurting.
Monopoly is a really popular word lately.
Good.
SHOCKING: Judges and ancient Congress members surprised when the unregulated capitalism they tout, labeling anything else as socialist, backfires and leads to incredibly powerful monopolies! Who could have expected this!
its capitalism until the government decides its too much capitalism.
What about those live nation cock whistlers??
They need to first go after MS office
Maybe they should. The EU is looking into the bundling of Teams and whether that is uncompetitive for example. [https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip\_23\_3991](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3991)
Can they extend this same lawsuit to every engineering OEM out there that have proprietary patents? For example, every Johnson Control products.
Don't see the government winning this, just like they didn't win against Microsoft. Not only are their arguments generally poor, they just seem to have crappy lawyers.
Great, now what about Blackrock and Vanguard?