[smoldesu]

Why do we even let Apple do our banking in the first place? I can't really imagine a situation where I'd rather let Apple have all my banking data instead of some random bank. Centralizing your entire digital life like that is begging for identity theft, at least from where I'm standing.

[lotsofpulp]

Apple does not do any banking in the first place. They are not a bank, do not function as a bank, nor do they have any the requisite licenses to be a bank.

[vineyardmike]

Not in a legal sense... but the apple credit card through a first party apple app only available on an apple phone that apple manages the UI and controls the marketing and perception is pretty close to an apple bank even if some other legal entity has the excel spreadsheet with account balances (...obvi not how that really works)

[lotsofpulp]

Apple doesn’t lend any money, is not owed any money, and takes no part in the financing aspect.

If anything, Goldman Sachs is the one that continues to be a bank, and Apple is providing the technical front end for it. It’s the opposite of vertical integration. A tech company is doing the tech part, a finance company is doing the finance part.

[vineyardmike]

> Goldman Sachs is the one that continues to be a bank, and Apple is providing the technical front end for it.

Yeah, not disagreeing at all. This is the exact correct reality of this business arrangement...

But its meant to feel like apple is the bank. The only time you see GS is in the fine print. Its clearly meant to be an "apple experience", and you'd be forgiven for not remembering GS was involved at all.

I have an apple card and a amazon visa card. This is completely an apple experience, and not a store card like the amazon one. Regardless of who is issuing bank, the lived experience of using it is that it feels like apple is managing my money. Esp. with apple pay and apple cash (which also all technically use existing financial infra including other banks), you would have no idea.

[ocdtrekkie]

Fundamentally, the issue is that a single company is allowed to operate a mobile OS, a web browser, an app market, a banking solution, physical hardware, retail stores, and various other verticals. Google has the exact same problems, for the exact same reasons.

Ban vertical integration. The government needs to force divestiture of each product category into a separately run company.

[lotsofpulp]

>Ban vertical integration. The government needs to force divestiture of each product category into a separately run company.

Can you give an idea for how this law is written? For example, where is the line for a company that sells butter? Are they able to sell milk? Cheese? Ice cream? Frozen dinners? Wholesale to other restaurants? Are they allowed to open restaurants where they sell the same things they sell in the grocery store?

[alacombe]

How is such a ban any different than multiple independent company owned by the same parent entity (either a company, or an individual / group of individual). Each of these company having exclusive deal with each others.

You can't ban private property Rights / freedom of association.

[ocdtrekkie]

You absolutely can, and the government has, banned exclusive deals and associations before. The government would require that any interactions given between two products Google presently offers as something competitors can replace either side of, with no special advantage permitted to be offered to the formerly Google products, for example.

So, for example, Google could be forbidden from requiring Google product apps are preloaded on Android phones. They could be required to give alternate web browsers and account systems equal visibility in new Chrome installs, for free. Google could face penalties for injecting Google Meet links into Zoom emails received by Gmail users.

The ways the government could prevent Google's self-preferencing is a very large matrix.

Apple has some similar examples, though less. I think Epic v. Apple will accomplish some big things there, particularly around the App Store.

[alacombe]

[citation needed]

[ocdtrekkie]

I mean, the comment is largely examples of actions the DOJ or FTC could take, so I'm not sure what your comment is trying to prove.

An example would be what was done with AIM. As a condition of AOL merging with Time Warner, AOL had to agree to allow competitors to interoperate with AIM: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/aol-near-release-of-in...

Many of the other potential actions are similar to those already proposed or imposed upon Google in various European or other international jurisdictions. Though some of the search engine choice screen options have proven ineffective, and if the US wants to carry that forward, they might need to prohibit auctioning off the slots or other methods that just serve to add to Google's revenue at the expense of everyone else.

[alacombe]

The AIM case was entirely different as it was in the mist of the Time Warner merge event. Also, many would argue that Google or Apple are in no monopolistic position.

[echelon]

I'd say this is horizontal integration, but they've built so much of a monolith and captured so much commerce, that it almost feels like a vertical stack.

[smoldesu]

I very much agree. The security threat it poses is not limited to just Apple, and it ultimately leads to a less competitive industry overall.

[ocdtrekkie]

I remember a book from a number of years ago, called Jennifer Government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government which suggested companies ran the world, and were divided into two customer loyalty program-based alliances. Everyone essentially belonged to one camp or the other, and it's surrounding ecosystem. It's hard not to feel that as an example of today, where people live in either the Apple or Google ecosystems, and only use products or services that integrate with that ecosystem.