Apple was ordered on Wednesday to face a private antitrust lawsuit by payment card issuers accusing the company of thwarting competition for its Apple Pay mobile wallet.
Well Tesla is starting to open up the charging stations, plus just about every EV manufacturer is moving over to the NACS plug standard in 2025, NACS is the Tesla plug standard.
How is that the same? Tesla doesn’t force you to use their superchargers you can charge anywhere really: charge point, evgo or any of the other options. More of the reverse is true where you can’t use superchargers in other manufacturers, but like the other user commented they are opening that up soon albeit not all stations just a portion.
More than a century ago we decided that that kind of monopolistic behaviour is bad for the economy and society in general, so we made laws to ban it. You’re welcome to lobby your politicians to dismantle anti-trust laws. You just won’t get much support. Monopolies are quite terrible.
There are many Android phone manufacturers. But only one iPhone manufacturer. It would be no different if Microsoft started blocking other software competitors in Windows.
Windows largely does actually have a monopoly though. They make up 70% of the desktop OS market. Apple makes up less than 30% of the smartphone OS market share with Android making up over 70% across those dozens of Android OEMs.
Again, nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. There’s a plethora of competition for phones and Apple is a minority player in the market. Real hard to have an anti trust/monopoly case against a player that doesn’t even hold a majority market share.
It should be noted that antitrust laws are broad, and don’t have any arbitrary market share requirement to trigger. Players can distort markets in many ways, directly and indirectly.
You can also just use the physical card; there are plenty of choices. Consumers want to use Apple Pay specifically though because Apple created a really compelling experience for the end user.
It’s also worth pointing out that with Apple Pay, banks are forced to compete against each other for every transaction. Every card is treated exactly the same as every other card from every other bank, and they all get the same (best) user experience. Banks would prefer if their app were the default for NFC, making it more difficult to mix your use of cards from different banks.
Locking down NFC for payments is in many ways, paradoxically, pro-competition.
Certified Apple biggest sheep spotted. If it’s done by Apple, everything is great and perfect; just like how they don’t collect personal data without user consent. 😂 🤣
You do realize this whole thing is just a little squabble between a big tech company and big banks over money, right? It’s not like there’s even a “little guy” to root for anyway. I’m just pointing out that Apple’s policies force the banks to compete against each other on a more-even footing.
And all you’ve got to contribute is a lazy ad hominem and a straw man.
I’m not rooting for anyone. If you think that one corporation blocking another from providing unique experience and forced them to play on their own field is pro consumer, you don’t know the basics of how Free Market works. With Apple entering financial market with their Apple Card services, they’re providing themselves a good ground for manipulation. This is exactly how monopolistic behavior works.
The existence of other options isn’t sufficient defence against anti-trust suits. There are other options to Windows, but Microsoft has been the target of multiple anti-trust suits over the years.
Windows had a grater than 95% market share during their biggest anti trust suit.
There is no legal definition of a “legitimate monopoly.” 95% or 30% or even 0%. Anti-competitive practises which distort the market and prevent consumer choice are illegal. This has nothing to do with the market share Apple holds. It is about them restricting competition.
I’m sorry, no. I say this as someone who has been full on in the Apple ecosystem for decades. Other than my Linux gaming computer and my Garmin watch, pretty much all my personal devices are made by Apple.
I paid money for that NFC device in my iPhone. I should own it, not Apple. In the same vein, I paid money to have iOS running on the hardware I’m supposed to own. I should be able to decide what I want to run on it.
Unfortunately, at the moment I personally find all the alternatives much worse, so I begrudgingly accept those limitations. That doesn’t mean I like them, it doesn’t make them right, and it certainly doesn’t excuse Apple’s anti-consumer behaviour on those particular matters.
And I own the phone and I should be able to do what I want with it. Why does the company providing a product get more rights to that product than the individually physically owning it. Bs like that, like not supporting proper sideloading, is why I moved away from apple.
Apple decided to implement in their OS one wallet for payments, one consistent set of user experience with security and privacy, open to pretty much any payment card. If you want something else, use something else.
They didn’t decide one wallet for payments, they decided to prevent anyone else from implementing something that could compete with their own offerrings. This is like Microsoft forcing you to install Windows on mac hardware and you praising them for removing the choice to have alternatives.
Why not block? Apple makes the hardware and the os. They should have control over the things they make.
Imagine picking a gas station based on your car model…
I’m going to introduce you to Tesla.
Well Tesla is starting to open up the charging stations, plus just about every EV manufacturer is moving over to the NACS plug standard in 2025, NACS is the Tesla plug standard.
How is that the same? Tesla doesn’t force you to use their superchargers you can charge anywhere really: charge point, evgo or any of the other options. More of the reverse is true where you can’t use superchargers in other manufacturers, but like the other user commented they are opening that up soon albeit not all stations just a portion.
More than a century ago we decided that that kind of monopolistic behaviour is bad for the economy and society in general, so we made laws to ban it. You’re welcome to lobby your politicians to dismantle anti-trust laws. You just won’t get much support. Monopolies are quite terrible.
And you might have an argument if there weren’t a couple dozen different phone manufacturers.
Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone and participate in the Apple ecosystem. They’re far from the only option.
There are many Android phone manufacturers. But only one iPhone manufacturer. It would be no different if Microsoft started blocking other software competitors in Windows.
Windows largely does actually have a monopoly though. They make up 70% of the desktop OS market. Apple makes up less than 30% of the smartphone OS market share with Android making up over 70% across those dozens of Android OEMs.
Again, nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. There’s a plethora of competition for phones and Apple is a minority player in the market. Real hard to have an anti trust/monopoly case against a player that doesn’t even hold a majority market share.
Which is why Microsoft has been the target of multiple antitrust suits over the years.
iPhones command more than 50% in the US. In fact, iOS accounts for 67% of all app spending. The latter is what legislators care most about.
It should be noted that antitrust laws are broad, and don’t have any arbitrary market share requirement to trigger. Players can distort markets in many ways, directly and indirectly.
You can also just use the physical card; there are plenty of choices. Consumers want to use Apple Pay specifically though because Apple created a really compelling experience for the end user.
It’s also worth pointing out that with Apple Pay, banks are forced to compete against each other for every transaction. Every card is treated exactly the same as every other card from every other bank, and they all get the same (best) user experience. Banks would prefer if their app were the default for NFC, making it more difficult to mix your use of cards from different banks.
Locking down NFC for payments is in many ways, paradoxically, pro-competition.
Certified Apple biggest sheep spotted. If it’s done by Apple, everything is great and perfect; just like how they don’t collect personal data without user consent. 😂 🤣
You do realize this whole thing is just a little squabble between a big tech company and big banks over money, right? It’s not like there’s even a “little guy” to root for anyway. I’m just pointing out that Apple’s policies force the banks to compete against each other on a more-even footing.
And all you’ve got to contribute is a lazy ad hominem and a straw man.
I’m not rooting for anyone. If you think that one corporation blocking another from providing unique experience and forced them to play on their own field is pro consumer, you don’t know the basics of how Free Market works. With Apple entering financial market with their Apple Card services, they’re providing themselves a good ground for manipulation. This is exactly how monopolistic behavior works.
You’re just high on your Apple shill.
The existence of other options isn’t sufficient defence against anti-trust suits. There are other options to Windows, but Microsoft has been the target of multiple anti-trust suits over the years.
Windows had a grater than 95% market share during their biggest anti trust suit.
That’s a legitimate monopoly.
Apple is nowhere near a monopoly. There’s a plethora of competition.
There is no legal definition of a “legitimate monopoly.” 95% or 30% or even 0%. Anti-competitive practises which distort the market and prevent consumer choice are illegal. This has nothing to do with the market share Apple holds. It is about them restricting competition.
Look up anti competitive behavior and previous antitrust lawsuits to see how bad that becomes.
I’m sorry, no. I say this as someone who has been full on in the Apple ecosystem for decades. Other than my Linux gaming computer and my Garmin watch, pretty much all my personal devices are made by Apple.
I paid money for that NFC device in my iPhone. I should own it, not Apple. In the same vein, I paid money to have iOS running on the hardware I’m supposed to own. I should be able to decide what I want to run on it.
Unfortunately, at the moment I personally find all the alternatives much worse, so I begrudgingly accept those limitations. That doesn’t mean I like them, it doesn’t make them right, and it certainly doesn’t excuse Apple’s anti-consumer behaviour on those particular matters.
And I own the phone and I should be able to do what I want with it. Why does the company providing a product get more rights to that product than the individually physically owning it. Bs like that, like not supporting proper sideloading, is why I moved away from apple.
Then you made the right choice for you.
Apple decided to implement in their OS one wallet for payments, one consistent set of user experience with security and privacy, open to pretty much any payment card. If you want something else, use something else.
They didn’t decide one wallet for payments, they decided to prevent anyone else from implementing something that could compete with their own offerrings. This is like Microsoft forcing you to install Windows on mac hardware and you praising them for removing the choice to have alternatives.
And yet not at all like that
How is it not. Ons company using their position and influence to compel consumers to use their products the way company wants. I see the same