[pembrook]

I’m a huge fan of Apple but this kind of thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Regardless of whether OpenAI poached some of their talent or is the one in the wrong, Apple has such a massively dominant hardware business (some might say monopoly level in some areas) that for them to be publicly acknowledging how scared they are of OpenAI…it’s just…pathetic.

They’re a $5T company and can’t muster up the motivation to get in the game and compete in the next computing frontier.

Apple fanboys will invent some narrative about them swooping in with the best product as a laggard and claim it’s always their strategy, but I see zero evidence they have the capacity to do that anymore.

The Siri situation is just absolutely pathetic and no amount of bad press about OpenAI is going to change the fact that Apple neglecting Siri for a decade now has been a big F-U to their customers.

[NBJack]

You may want to read the related articles first. I'm personally quite anti-Apple on several fronts, but the evidence so far seems damning if it holds up in court.

[jmull]

You can’t poach talent, because companies don’t own their employees.

You can steal trade secrets, which is what this case is about.

(If you’re going to suggest a full rewrite of IP and anti-trust law, you should at least have an understanding of the current situation.)

[thewebguyd]

> You can steal trade secrets

Which goes beyond a civil lawsuit as well, if true, these employees are going to face real, serious criminal charges and possibly jail time. Up to 10 years in federal prison, and Apple has a history of pressing criminal charges.

If Liu actually did exploit a vulnerability to bypass Apple's network security, they may also see federal charges for CFAA as well.

[presbyterian]

This isn't just them being scared of a competitor because they're able to outperform Apple, according to Apple they have proof of an active plan not just to poach talent, but to get that talent to syphon out information as they leave, as well as former employees keeping Apple hardware and using it to access confidential information. If what Apple claims is true, this is straightforwardly illegal. Could Apple be lying? Maybe, but that's a very risky move.

[pembrook]

It totally could be illegal, and I don’t care. Those laws exist to entrench dominant incumbents, and make our economy less dynamic.

The history of Silicon Valley and most of its innovation come from this kind of thing, and we eliminated non-competes in California for exactly this reason.

Apple having a serious competitor in hardware would be a good thing for consumers all over the world.

Apple’s overzealous secrecy culture starts to become insidious once you become such a dominant force in the marketplace.

At what point do we allow their innovations to bleed into the rest of humanity and lower their margins so humanity doesn’t pay out a 60% tax to them anymore. I think they’ve made enough profits for investors at this point. Id be happy if my Apple stock went nowhere if it meant 20 other companies could grow and innovate new products off the back of it.

[jamespo]

So we should "make our economy more dynamic" by encouraging IP theft which will simultaneously discourage genuine research & development?

[homarp]

it worked for China, no?

(and to develop 5G modem too)

[nomorewords]

In china's case it wasn't internal but external

[homarp]

https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2009/tech-trend-shanzai/ was internal though

[lowmagnet]

In what case is apple a monopoly?

[trollbridge]

Some people think that being the exclusive supplier of iOS based devices is a “monopoly”.

[twoodfin]

Also, I’ve observed a rhetorical trend among the “anti-bigness” crowd towards defining “monopoly” down:

“You may think a monopoly is an overwhelmingly dominant position as a supplier of a good or service, but that’s just naive popular economics! Acshually, according to the latest economic theories (by economists who share our politics), a monopoly is any firm that is big enough to have market power—like pricing power—to do things that can harm a competitor unfairly.”

Us dummies will keep calling that competition.

[foolswisdom]

While the misuse of the term monopoly is annoying, that's quite the misleading comment. You're allowed to disagree with what policy is a good idea, but laws like the linked do exist, and they were seen as pro-competitive in their time.

Today you can consider that "just business", and therefore "part of competing", but the were laws with the intention of allowing/disallowing types of tactics. E.g., you can't compete by leveraging your volume (see attached link), so you have to focus on making your service good.

The assumption made by a these people is that if there are so majy companies getting that big, there must be general disrespect of these laws. And correlating with the undisputed fact that antitrust enforcement did change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act?wp...

[twoodfin]

What does Robinson-Patman enforcement have to do with the economic definition of a monopoly?

Robinson-Patman applies to every supplier and every retailer, not just monopolies, which is what makes it so difficult to equitably enforce. So it hasn’t been.

[vel0city]

McDonald's is the exclusive supplier of Big Macs and McNuggets. They're a monopoly.

[steve1977]

One sells Big Macs... the other Mac minis... there must be a connection.

[vel0city]

Clearly Apple and McDonalds has had a deep level of market collusion on Macs, the FTC should really get involved here and break up this Mac cartel.

[covercash]

And they’re the exclusive fast food partner of Monopoly… so they have a Monopoly monopoly?

[vel0city]

How deep does this rabbit hole go?

[Danox]

In and Out Burger is an even bigger monopoly, the way they organize themselves is unfair to the rest of their competition.

[vel0city]

They control the In and the Out? What other options does the competition have?

[tolien]

Shaking it All About... no wait, that's probably taken by Shack Shack.

[8note]

app store