Yah he failed the last go aroundDonald Trump will save Apple, America and Europe
He’s so dumb he called our highness Tim Apple.
He doesn’t get when people laugh at him.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He’s so dumb he called our highness Tim Apple.
He doesn’t get when people laugh at him.
Nobody cares about your text being green except android users who made up this narrative.
My friend and I joked that I would hate for iMessage to go to android because how will I know if I’m talking to an android user.
She joked back “just look at their Snapchat pic quality” 😂
But it was a joke.
Samsung watch worked with iOS until the new model & then Samsung we are no longer supporting iOS as it doesn’t work correctly
This what I got out of all the that. The DoJ claims Apple makes it hard for customers to switch to Android.
It's not hard. Maybe inconvenient. But that's always the case when one chooses to change platforms.
Perhaps the DoJ should read this article: Android vs iOS. Android is apparently more popular than they think.
It's not hard. Maybe inconvenient. But that's always the case when one chooses to change platforms.
Perhaps the DoJ should read this article: Android vs iOS. Android is apparently more popular than they think.
How is this information (talking to an android user) important in any way?
[edit] Regarding encryption: We encryption freaks in Europe use Signal for that!
Last edited:
The case is weak and like what was posted, unless they have some extensive surprising evidence, I'm not sure if all or some of will get past pre-trial.
And that is Google's job just like Apple created a process to move from Android to iPhone.
Move from Android to iPhone or iPad - Apple Support
Use the Move to iOS app to make switching easy.
China mostly used WeChat, so not buying it one bit.Looks like Apple is making the iOS 18 the biggest update because of China.
Has China Lost Its Taste for the iPhone?
Apple has deep ties in the country, its second-largest market. But there are signs that Chinese consumers are becoming a harder sell.www.nytimes.com
"
Instead, Mr. Li went to the Huawei flagship store directly across the street, where he contemplated the Mate 60 Pro.
“I don’t want to use iOS anymore,” he said, referring to the iPhone’s operating system. “It’s a bit stale.”"
‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ’s sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise
An uphill battle lies ahead, but the Justice Department has opened with a strong, strategically sound attack.
You posted this like 10 times now we get it; you have based all your claims on opinions just like the rest of us.‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ’s sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise
An uphill battle lies ahead, but the Justice Department has opened with a strong, strategically sound attack.www.theverge.com
United States v. Apple is pure nerd rage
The DOJ’s surprisingly readable 88-page complaint makes me feel seen.
"The DOJ knows. The DOJ cares. I feel seen." 🤣🤣🤣
It’s not the EU
RCS is because of regulations in china is why Apple have to adopt it
We joked that we judge a person based on the text color lol. But we aren’t serious. I don’t care about encryption. Nothing I text Is that serious
I do appreciate texting iPhone users though.
I thought the whole basis of competition was to make something better if you're losing sales and relevance to the market. The likes of Google, Samsung and Dell have the choice to invest and make better products. In my recent decision-making to buy a new laptop and phone I looked at everything else and despite any negative feelings I may have about Apple the quality of the new Air M3 and iPhone 15 were far above anything else I handled. I also feel far safer and more secure within the walled garden.
The DOJ should suggest to Apple's competitors that they should maybe try harder and stop whinging.
The DOJ should suggest to Apple's competitors that they should maybe try harder and stop whinging.
So, besides spamming the forum with the same link over and over and over...did you even read that article, besides the headline and opening sentence? Because the article outlines that this is a difficult case for the DOJ, hinging, as I said earlier, on the hurdle of proving a monopoly at 65-70% marketshare. The article makes the point that the DOJ filed the case in New Jersey hoping to ride the coattails of a prior monopoly case that was won there with a company that had 80% marketshare.‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ’s sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise
An uphill battle lies ahead, but the Justice Department has opened with a strong, strategically sound attack.
This case never gets past the initial phase. Apple is not a monopoly. But again, even if they do, good luck with the green bubbles argument. That will seriously be comedy gold when the DOJ tries to argue it.
Thanks for reading it. If guys keep posting the same thing, I will have to keep posting the same link as an answer. If the question does not change, the answer cannot change too.
Exactly, you keep saying the same thing so I keep answering the same thing.
I read what you posted several times, and as others pointed out, I struggled to see how it truly supported what you are trying to sell.Exactly, you keep saying the same thing so I keep answering the same thing.
They always “claim” it is the biggest OS update ever. Then when it gets here . . . . not so much!
But your link doesn't answer anything really. It's a couple of people who think it's a well-written argument, buried in a bunch of reasons that it will be a difficult case for the DOJ. So maybe it's you who needs to read the article deeper than just the headline.Thanks for reading it. If guys keep posting the same thing, I will have to keep posting the same link as an answer. If the question does not change, the answer cannot change too.
This is a civil case. I didn’t say an MTD was a certainty, just a possibility given that Apple has successfully used it before in at least one antitrust case on the basis of failure to establish a monopoly in a market. See Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple (Ninth Circuit 2023).