The lawsuit caps years of regulatory scrutiny of Apple’s wildly popular suite of devices and services, which have fueled its growth into a nearly $3 trillion public company.
  • niucllos@lemm.ee
    152·
    8 months ago

    The point is that iPhone users are locked into (or strongly penalized for not using) Apple services like Apple wallet and storage and other apple devices like apple watches or earbuds, rather than competing openly. My partner has an iPhone and the hoops we have to jump through to get some–not all–google photos, Fitbit, and Klipsch headphones features working is mindboggling. Apple watches also straight up wouldn’t work without another apple devices to phone home to last I checked. That’s the anticompetitive lawsuit

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      15·
      8 months ago

      This may be a bad take but why did you buy a iPhone knowing it won’t work with anything else? It seems like there is at least some fault of the consumer. You have the freedom to buy what you want for the most part. I can’t help someone who can’t help themselves.

      With that being said, it there isn’t any other options on the market then your point is completely valid

    • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
      110·
      8 months ago

      iPhone users aren’t a species, they’re human beings that don’t have to be iPhone users. Thanks to competition they are free to choose from a wide variety of other competitors.

      This is the equivalent of saying that Walmart has a monopoly because Walmart customers are being forced to purchase items from within Walmart. That because Target isn’t allowed to set up a stall in Walmart, it’s a monopoly.

      • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
        61·
        8 months ago

        Once you are using a service, it shouldn’t be difficult to transfer away.

        It’s like if Walmart required customers to add money to a Walmart card before they could shop. Customers would find it difficult to start shopping elsewhere