[mensetmanusman]

As Apple continues to dominate, we can’t forget that the iPhone is approaching >90% utilization by the youth: https://www.howtogeek.com/778355/new-study-says-87-of-us-tee...

This means we will soon enough have a situation where a corporation controls the primary medium of communication of the citizens. At this point a smart society would consider how to regulate this situation to safely prevent domination abuse, but I doubt it will happen.

[manuelabeledo]

> we can’t forget that the iPhone is approaching >90% utilization by the youth

In the US.

And while I agree that anything nearing a de facto monopoly should be strictly regulated, I think any effort should be directed at any messaging app with a large user base, e.g. WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger.

[thephyber]

I have a de facto monopoly on comments posted on HN by users named “thephyber” (I am playing with the granularity of the definition of industry). That does not constitute anti-trust violations.

So long as there is a near substitute for Apple smartphones, I fail to see what that is sufficient grounds for anti-trust action.

The messaging apps are not a good example of monopoly violations. They are all market options which have many many solutions. WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Signal, iOS Messages, SMS, Discord, Slack, Google Hangouts, MS Teams, Zoom, Skype, and a thousand web forums have similar capabilities. The comms market is remarkably healthy. What most people complain about is the contract they agree to which has lots of restrictive clauses (some which are very vague). Those general contract terms in SaaS services is what I would aim to regulate, rather than the biggest incumbents in the disparate comms apps.

[MattGaiser]

Microsoft is probably 90% of computers already for everyone.

[Kranar]

Going off Wikipedia, Windows is approximately 75%, macOS is 15%, and other OS's (ChromeOS, Linux) make up the remaining 10% [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...

[zamadatix]

~20 years ago this was true (for the US at least, and they had run into antitrust problems as a result) but nowadays it's more like 75%. ChromeOS is very popular in K-12 and macOS is decently common in University/Tech and not unheard of for the average consumer either. Traditional Linux is still marginal. This is only counting traditional desktop computing.

[mensetmanusman]

You can write an OS on Windows, the same is not true on iOS.

[supernova87a]

Is this just a knee-jerk thing to say because it seems like it must be true, and it's fashionable to take an alarmist position about any big company? Is there any critical thought behind such a statement?

Apple has not (in my recollection) sought to exert control over content of what is being said or shared among users. In fact, they seem to keep quite a distance from wanting to know or be responsible for that.

And you're claiming that iMessage is the "primary medium of communication of the citizens"? That is just a little overblown, don't you think?

I would argue, if you have that position, maybe you should spend your energy or concern on cable TV news and other media outlets, who do far worse, with far less share of their markets.

[ksec]

>Apple has not (in my recollection) sought to exert control over content of what is being said or shared among users. In fact, they seem to keep quite a distance from wanting to know or be responsible for that.

You may want to search for Telegram and Apple.

[eoinboylan]

They did remove Parler from the App Store, then reinstated it months later.

[DeusExMachina]

Gab is not allowed on the App Store.

[threeseed]

Gab and Parler both had issues with lack of content moderation.

You can't expect Apple to allow apps which wilfully tolerate illegal content.

[arvinsim]

Is Apple the arbiter of illegal content(adult content is not allowed in the App store)?

[thephyber]

Is that because Gab has a specific type of political content (IMO unlikely) or because Gab fails to keep illegal content or Apple’s minimum level of moderation (the reason Apple removed Parler)? I would bet money on the latter based on the coverage I have seen of Gab’s content.

[avalys]

Well, they decided all of their phones are going to analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography, and upload questionable photos to the cloud for human review...

They also block apps that involve politically controversial content, or content that they disagree with (e.g. pornography).

[gherkinnn]

> Well, they decided all of their phones

Announced but not (yet) implemented.

> analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography

Nope. Only the ones on iCloud.

> and upload questionable photos to the cloud for human review

Also a misrepresentation.

> or content that they disagree with (e.g. pornography).

True. And yes, I should have a wank to whatever I please. Legality permitting.

It is so easy to criticise Apple. So many angles to attack them on. So don't misconstrue facts. There's really no need.

[dijit]

> > analyze your locally-stored photographs for child photography

> Nope. Only the ones on iCloud.

Nope. Only the ones your device intends to send to iCloud.

They’re already scanned on iCloud, this was on device scanning before upload. Likely it was a requirement for them to add encryption on the files they store and not have the unsealing keys.

Sort of a pre-emotive avoidance of certain political conversations.

[nomel]

> Only the ones your device intends to send to iCloud.

From a practical perspective, for most everyone, "intending to send" and "on iCloud" is probably a 300ms delta in time.

[dijit]

It’s a capability problem. Once they scan files that are due to be uploaded it’s not very difficult to just.. scan all files.

It’s the motte and bailey.

[smoldesu]

Well, 900ms now that we have to start up a process to scan it before it's sent off.

[dwaite]

> They’re already scanned on iCloud

They are not. Other file and photo hosting platforms do not encrypt the data, so they are able to scan server-side. The content is encrypted for iCloud, and the encryption keys are not known by the hosting infrastructure.

This means as an example that shared iCloud albums could be used as a distribution mechanism for child pornography, operating silently until one of the members' accounts gets subpoenaed or they confess and share the list.

[threeseed]

Apple uses AES encryption for iCloud Photos: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Underlying cloud providers that Apple uses e.g. AWS may not have the key but Apple definitely does. And that key could be embedded in a CSAM detection app.

So unless you work for Apple and have definitive proof that they do not have such an app I think we should assume they do.

[universenz]

Correction: They /attempted/ to add an /optional/ feature for your /children's/ account(s).

Do you have kids? Daughters? Would you like better control over what they're exposed to? Being given the tools to track screen time, purchases and control where possible exposure to objectionable content for immature minds isn't a bad thing.. provided it is opt-in. Which the feature always was before the news cycle chose their own narrative.

[GeekyBear]

Isn't Google Play Protect scanning everything on device looking for malware by default already?

In addition to Google scanning everything in your Google account looking for child pornography for the last decade?

>a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account

https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...

In addition to Google scanning your online account looking for copyright violations?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405

[supernova87a]

Well, factually incorrect. (although they didn't do a great job of explaining it). They are said to analyze the fingerprint of photos that have been stored in iCloud, and flag if any match the fingerprints of known suspected criminal child porn photos. Photos are not being "taken" from you and uploaded without your consent, or being looked at by other people. Anyway, side point.

And on the 2nd point, they like any company, have to obey the laws of the countries they operate in. Whether they should operate in countries that call for them to censor political content, that's a different question. I'm sure you would say that companies have to follow the local laws.

[shuckles]

Doubly interesting because the root of the discussion was the claim that, “This means we will soon enough have a situation where a corporation controls the primary medium of communication of the citizens” yet the complaint is this corporation obeys the laws of the citizens’ government!

I think there are compelling arguments for making Apple open up which apps can access their SDKs natively, but I think most instances of its implementation will be driven by adversarial governments and bad for user freedoms.

[unix_fan]

I depend on WhatsApp for contacting family, college classes (teachers use it to communicate, and also for group projects), as well as contacting local businesses like pharmacies if I need something delivered.

How is that not a bigger monopoly?

[chunkyguy]

> “87% of teens own an iPhone

Doesn't this imply that parents are the one purchasing it for them? Would be interesting to see how many stick with iPhone when they start earning for themselves.

[coolso]

Probably most. And not even primarily because of inertia: for the average person, even the technically inclined person, there's really not much of a reason at all to move away from an iPhone. It just works, it almost always just works, it has the best build quality and fit/finish/polish, it's supported for many years, and you always know you're basically getting the best hardware.

And it's not Google.

[nomel]

If it were "87% of teens own Samsung phones", wouldn't this still be true?

[cbm-vic-20]

You don't want to be a lame-o green bubble, do you, loser?

[jdkjs]

Tell Google to make Android better.

[mojuba]

That would require them to dump JavaVM and rewrite everything except the kernel (and whatever parts are theirs but are not on JavaVM). And invent a new static programming language that is not GC-based and is not Go.

Also please, that should probably be done by a company that is not Google.

[JimDabell]

Android has never used the JVM. Early versions of Android used Dalvik and later ones use ART.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Only 90 percent? Clearly not a monopoly. /s

[zepto]

If you care about communications platforms, Facebook what you should care about.

Future concerns about what Apple might do in future are nothing by comparison.

[avalys]

Give me a break. Those teens can choose between Twitter, Youtube, Discord, iMessage, Signal, Telegram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitch, along with, you know, the rest of the public internet.

But 90% of them will still be doing all of this on an Apple device. Yet you think Facebook is the company to worry about, not Apple?

[supernova87a]

> Those teens can choose between Twitter, Youtube, Discord, iMessage, Signal, Telegram, TikTok, Reddit, Twitch, along with, you know, the rest of the public internet.

So you just demonstrated that teens have so much choice. Why are you concerned that they're doing it on an Apple device then, if an iPhone is just the hardware on which all these apps operate, and has nothing to do with what's said within the apps?

[avalys]

Because regardless of which service they choose to use, Apple controls the platform they’re running on in every case. They actually don’t have a meaningful choice in that area.

Imagine it was Amazon in this situation. Or Microsoft. Or Google. Or, gasp, Facebook. Where 90% of teens were using a hardware and software platform made by one company. Seems like a problem, right?

Imagine how much people would be freaking out if Facebook came out with a phone and OS and had 90% of teens using it. The wailing and gnashing of teeth could be heard from the Moon.

[zepto]

It doesn’t seem like a problem at all. You seem to be just saying that without explaining it.

The communication is not being done using software that Apple provides.

People have a vast array of choices for communications and Apple isn’t harming that.

In addition, there is nothing preventing Google or Facebook from executing on what Apple does other than their own lack of focus.

[makomk]

It's being done using devices that only run software approved by Apple, and Apple already uses that power to dictate what communications are allowed. By their mandate, apps like Discord and Telegram are forced to hard-block users on iOS from joining or viewing servers and communities with adult content, and for some communities with a more, ah, relaxed attitude to sex this fundamentally affects how they communicate with their friends. It doesn't matter what communications software they use because the mandate comes from Apple and every single competing option is required to impose the same restrictions. Arguably this restriction is going to shape how our culture thinks in the long term too.

[threeseed]

> Apple controls the platform they’re running on in every case. They actually don’t have a meaningful choice in that area.

Except they do. They can choose to use Android like many non-teens do.

Where all of those apps except for one is available.

[ksec]

That is like saying Microsoft Windows is not a monopoly in the 90s because they have a choice to choose Mac or Linux.

[jahewson]

A stupid society on the other hand will have a government that is exempt from oversight and seizes any and all power for its own misuse.

[paxys]

How does Apple control communication on an iPhone? And the only thing this "regulation" will do is shift control over to the government, which is worse in every way.

[idle_zealot]

> How does Apple control communication on an iPhone?

They control what messaging apps you are allowed to install on your iPhone.

[ravenstine]

And what browser engine you're allowed to use and, thereby, the extent to which you can control your web experience.

Then there's the App Store being both a point of control, a burden on developers, and highway robbery with Apple's 30% cut.

[zepto]

Easily avoided if you care, by simply buying Android. Apple can’t stop that.

[threeseed]

Apple's cut is 15% for all developers making up to $1m/year.

And if you think the App Store is a burden you should try implementing customer acquisition and go-to market strategies which is what the store gives you for free.

[tonyedgecombe]

If you think putting an app in the store is all you need to do to market your software then you are in for a shock. You would be better off taking your investment to the local casino.

[gkbrk]

> you should try implementing customer acquisition and go-to market strategies

I'd try but Apple doesn't let its customers willingly install my app from me or any other open-source repository they might choose.

If the only option is the App Store, it's not very surprising that the App Store is good for customer acquisition. You literally cannot acquire them any other way, you are artificially prevented by Apple's anti-competitive measures.

[threeseed]

Apple doesn't stop you from installing open source iOS applications.

I do it all the time without having to go through the App Store.

[zepto]

And their policies around communications apps clearly aren’t abusive.

[supernova87a]

That's a little bit of an exaggerated / intentionally misconstrue-able way to say the truth, isn't it?

They approve apps to be sold/distributed on their platform based on rules about what those apps do or are allowed to do, and whether they comply with local laws.

You're leaning towards making it sound like they decide what messaging apps you're allowed to use based on what you plan to say (content wise) on them.

[rosndo]

> This means we will soon enough have a situation where a corporation controls the primary medium of communication of the citizens.

Wow. Crazy! This has literally never happened before.

[throwawaygh]

The Bell System comes to mind, which had a monopoly on telephone service for nearly a century & tightly controlled which devices could run on their network (so they were kind of more analogous to something like "Apple+{Verizon+ATT+TMobile}"). Toward the end of that telephones were definitely the primary medium of communication.

[dijit]

I might describe as an Apple product enjoyer; certainly not a hater and everyone seems so polarised.

But objectively: monopoly is a bad thing. We’re still recovering from Microsoft’s dominance of desktop computing.

Once you have a near monopoly it’s practically impregnable to disintegrate. As you have a wealthy company which is actively harming those efforts.

[zepto]

Objectivity, monopoly is not a bad thing. Even the law doesn’t consider monopoly a problem in itself,

Abuse of monopoly is a problem.

[cassianoleal]

> Under §2 of the Sherman Act 1890 every "person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States" commits an offence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Mo...

IANAL, and I'm assuming USA since that's where Apple has 90% market share on the young, but this seems to imply that monopoly in and on itself is illegal.

[zepto]

Why didn’t you include the next paragraph?

You seem to be ignoring 130 years of law that happened since what you are quoting.

Courts quickly began struggling with the Sherman Act's broad and vague language, recognizing that interpreting it literally might make even simple business entities like partnerships illegal.[9] Federal judges began trying to develop legal principles for distinguishing between "naked" trade restraints between rivals that suppressed competition and other restraints that were only "ancillary" to other cooperation agreements that promoted competition.[9]

[cassianoleal]

Because, again, IANAL, and I don't really understand what that means. If the law is vague, so is this paragraph, at least to my unknowlegeable self. I am also not from the USA and have very little experience or awareness of their laws.

I assure you there was no malice.

[dijit]

Monopoly can be unintentionally abused, simple things like not providing a compiler in the box or trying to add security can be seen to crush competition (like in secureboot, and the current apple App Store distribution issues)

It also goes without saying that the law trails ethics and morality; not the inverse.

[zepto]

> simple things like not providing a compiler in the box or trying to add security can be seen to crush competition

Neither of these things crush competition in any way.

Security is not illegal, nor is anyone compelled by law to write compilers.

[dijit]

I could not possibly disagree more.

Being unable to use any other operating system on your PC was definitely seen as harming the user, and after lots of battles secureboot is optional on x86 windows PCs (but not arm)- in the same vain we managed to successfully argue that people other than Microsoft should have secureboot keys too, and thus redhat also have secureboot keys.

Not having a compiler though? That’s what put back computer science and education 10 years in the Microsoft era, the barrier to programming was a lot higher than it was prior to the late 90s and only recovered in the late 00s where we saw a resurgence of young people learning programming with the availability of WAMP and later django and rails.

You can thank Microsoft that less and less people each year understood native programming.

Microsoft hid their compiler suites behind complex systems, if they had been included or easy to access this would not be the case. But it was a choice on the side of Microsoft that only determined people really need a compiler anyway.

Apple is doing the same thing. But Apple at least ships with some interpreters of some languages like python or ruby. Windows didn’t even have those. Only vbscript (which is not a general purpose language)