In the government’s telling, these actions reflect a concerted scheme to lock users into Apple’s “walled garden” -- and then charge them monopoly rents for the privilege. By restricting innovative middleware that could make the underlying smartphone hardware less important, the argument goes, Apple prevents the iPhone from becoming a mere commodity.
Anyone who’s survived just fine in life with an Android phone knows this lawsuit is a bogus money-grab by the Biden admin. “Tim Apple” apparently forgot to allocate 10% to the Big Guy
I’m pleased with my walled-off Apple environment, in fact I sought it out as an improvement over android. Apps are designed with Apple hardware in mind, apps (from what I understand) have more stringent security requirements, and everything works within my Apple environment logically and seamlessly.
Uncle Sam should but out and let the market decide (by innovation and competition) decide.
My problem with iPhones is that the batteries are a PITA to replace.
THAT’s the “crime” they need to convicted of.
The suit is utter BS.
There is PLENTY of competition to the iPhone.
In fact, I think most smart phones in the US and Europe and Asia...the world...are NOT Apples products.
In the XXXXXXX telling, these actions reflect a concerted scheme to lock users into XXXXXXX “walled garden”
XXXXX = Government.
At least with Apple it’s competition and a product you don’t have to buy-—but the audacity of the government pointing a finger at Apple while they’re doing FAR worse by taking our hard earned money, by force and using it against us.
20+years ago the Clinton Regime went after Microsoft blah blah blah...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/sep/08/microsoft.business
“ Let’s unpack the key issues at play…”
1. Cook and Apple failed to pay the Big Guy enough.
Someone forgot to pass up to the Big Guy.
Look how it worked for Dish Networks. A nearly 10 year old case dropped after generous donations to Biden.
Under what antitrust law is Apple being prosecuted...The Sherman Act or something else?
Utterly ridiculous.
Apple took the App Store idea from “Chumby”, an internet connected alarm clock with apps and an app store they and others submitted apps to.
Altruistic, open Chumby company didn’t pursue.
On the first item:
“Blocking “super apps” and cloud gaming services that could reduce dependence on iPhones.”
Nonsense. There are a number of successful cloud gaming services that do not require an Apple device or service (just for instance Amazon, Xbox and Playstation).
On the second item:
“Degrading the functionality of third-party messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets.”
The first part of that may or may not be true. I know on my Samsgin phone wich uses the Android system I can use the messaging app the Goodle/Android provides, or I can use a different one supplied by Samsung itself. I do not know what the situation is with the iPhone.
As for smart watches, there are many on the market supplied by various makers and Apple has no monopoly on them.
As for “digital wallets” we have again an item where Apple is not alone in that market. Various banks and others are providing digital wallets that do not need an Apple device.
As for the last two items:
“Denying access to key APIs and hardware components to hinder cross-platform technologies......”Imposing onerous fees and taxes on app developers to access the iOS ecosystem.”
Why should Apple not protect the proprietary environment of its own products?
NY sued MS for the browser nonsense, Intel for some other nonsense.
NY is running out of money.
That is why this is going on.
AG Garland, describing Apple as a criminal.
When there is obviously plenty of competition producing hardware and software, features, and ventures.
Apple must have crossed the powers that be somehow. Strange since I thought they were in the left’s good graces.
Apple is massively successful.
In the eyes of a Communist, that’s a sin.
It is interesting to watch Communists go after capitalists.
but Leftist Capitalists.
I’m no fan of Apple’s politics, but I wonder which of Apple’s rivals benefit from this lawsuit? Next biggest players globally would be Samsung and Xiaomi. Of the two, I’m most curious about Xiaomi, but both have a stake.
* * *
https://thehill.com/lobbying/4270548-bottom-line-samsung-lobbies-up-on-semiconductor-tax-issues/
Bottom Line: Samsung lobbies up on semiconductor, tax issues
BY TAYLOR GIORNO - 10/24/23 6:00 AM ET
Samsung Semiconductor Inc. hired Covington & Burling LLP to lobby on issues including the advanced manufacturing investment credit, which incentivizes domestic semiconductor production. The firm will also focus on the United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act, which the Senate Finance Committee unanimously advanced in mid-September, less than a week before the effective lobbying registration date. Ed McClellan, former tax counsel on the Senate Finance Committee, will work on the account. . .
Chip companies are at the center of what has been an escalating row between Beijing and Washington. The U.S., where the majority of the technology originates, believes that restricting China’s access to it will bolster national security and hold back the Asian nation’s efforts to advance its military capabilities. The companies have argued that being cut off from their largest market will harm their ability to spend on advancing their technology and ultimately undermine U.S. leadership.
Representatives for the three companies declined to comment.
Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon gets more than 60% of his company’s revenue from the China region by supplying components to smartphone makers such as Xiaomi Corp. Intel’s Pat Gelsinger, who visited Beijing earlier this month to show off his company’s latest artificial intelligence chips, counts the nation as his biggest sales region. The country provides about a quarter of Intel’s sales. And for Nvidia, run by co-founder and CEO Jensen Huang, China provides about a fifth of revenue.
* * *
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-lobbyists-drop-chinese-clients-amid-tightened-scrutiny-/7513459.html
The effort to tighten scrutiny of China’s lobbying activities follows the U.S. Department of Defense’s release in late January of a list of “Chinese military companies” operating directly or indirectly in the United States known as the 1260H list.
Lawmakers subsequently said they were considering a measure prohibiting lobbyists who represent companies on the list from meeting with members of Congress, even to discuss matters on behalf of their American clients.
Following the release of the 1260H list, a chart began circulating on Capitol Hill that named various Chinese companies, including some military firms, as well as the names of their lobbying firms and whether they appear on the 1260H list.
Responding to the chart, at least five U.S. lobbying firms dropped Chinese clients as of late February. Steptoe LLP has terminated its contract with Shenzhen biotech company BGI. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld filed cease-and-desist documents to stop lobbying for Chinese LiDAR maker Hesai Group and terminated its cooperation with Xiaomi, a Chinese electronics company not on the 1260H list. The Vogel Group has also dropped lobbying services for Chinese drone company DJI and Complete Genomics, a subsidiary of genetic technology company BGI.
* * *
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2023&id=D000102748
$460,000
Total Lobbying Expenditures, 2023
5
Number of Lobbyists
5 (100.00%)
Number of Revolvers ?more info
Lobbyists representing Xiaomi Inc, 2023
imore info
Filter by Revolving Door Profiles:
All
Filter by Former Members of Congress:
All
Lobbying Firm Hired Total Amount* Client Lobbyist
BGR Group $360,000 Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Lester Munson
BGR Group $360,000 Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Walker Roberts
BGR Group $360,000 Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Edward M Jr Rogers
BGR Group $360,000 Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Maya Seiden
BGR Group $360,000 Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Hunter Strupp
I smell a multibillion dollar settlement already earmarked for some organization like Act Blue, Obama style.
What an ingenious way to skirt campaign finance laws.
EC