
Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf] - feross
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG-116-JU05-20190716-SD036.pdf
======
rgovostes
Apple's answers repeatedly suggest that the reason they require third-party
browsers to use WebKit and JavaScriptCore is for privacy and security:

> It is not our experience that competing web browsers have typically offered
> enhanced privacy or security that would protect users as adequately as our
> WebKit protections.

Google pioneered the out-of-process architecture that Safari now uses,
developed the Safe Browsing program that Safari also uses, drove the adoption
of HTTPS, put pressure on misbehaving certificate authorities and shepherded
certificate pinning and then Certificate Transparency, and found many
vulnerabilities in WebKit through security research that Apple was not itself
doing.

Moreover, on the desktop, Chrome and Firefox both have automatic update
channels that allow them to push out security fixes much more rapidly than
Apple's heavy OS updates. (On iOS, they would be limited by Apple's App Store
approval process.)

All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome
for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections."

One thing to note: JavaScriptCore has special powers on iOS in that it can
allocate new blocks of executable memory during just-in-time compilation,
greatly improving its performance. A third-party JavaScript engine would be
much slower without this ability, but granting the capability to third-party
engines would jeopardize the security architecture of iOS.

~~~
Despegar
Apple is plainly saying that they are best positioned to protect iOS users
privacy and security. One way they do that is by not allowing any app to use
anything other than WebKit. If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that
iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do
anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an
update.

>All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome
for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections."

Maybe Google is excellent at updating their browser to address security
issues, but Apple's concern isn't purely security. It's also privacy. And
Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than
everyone.

Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating
systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good that
incorporates all of those things and more. They take end to end responsibility
for their products and it would be frankly uncharacteristic of Apple to have
any other position than extreme self-reliance.

~~~
farisjarrah
> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than
> everyone

Uhh... Mozilla Firefox anybody? If Apple cares about privacy so much then why
don't they allow ad blockers on safari? I mean, even the Brave browser on iOS
is better then Safari at blocking trackers and advertisements. Firefox also
tells me how many trackers they have blocked and also give me the option to
completely opt out of any telemetry data collection.

~~~
briandear
> why don't they allow ad blockers on safari?

They do. I am running Crystal right now on mobile Safari. I also have ad
blockers on desktop Safari as well.

~~~
diffeomorphism
Safari has its problems: [https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-
Safari/issues/158](https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158)

Though you can get some ad blockers which do less.

------
wyldfire
> Why did Apple decide to build its own maps application rather than continue
> to use Google Maps to power the maps applications on iPhones?

I don't get it: why hassle them over their underdog competitor? Laud them for
daring to compete against the market leader. Focus the argument about the
walled garden and right-to-repair instead.

Apple and Google should license the ability to create third-party app stores,
or be compelled to do so. Perhaps that could come with terms on auditing apps
and a process for resolving differences of opinion on whether an app is
legitimate/safe/acceptable (with a standard like "poses a risk to device or
owner's privacy/data").

~~~
izacus
> I don't get it: why hassle them over their underdog competitor? Laud them
> for daring to compete against the market leader. Focus the argument about
> the walled garden and right-to-repair instead.

Because they gave themselves an edge when competing against Google by not
allowing Maps all of the same capabilities from start. And to do that, they
abused their OS and store to block GMaps from having same capabilities as
AMaps. Even today, GMaps isn't allowed to be the default maps provider.

No customer wishing for a healthy free market should approve of this.

~~~
scarface74
That’s not what happened. Google didn’t allow Apple to use turn by turn
directions without Apple giving Google more telemetry from its users.

~~~
thu2111
That's also not what happened. I was on the Google Maps team at the time and
the issues were far deeper and more problematic than "not getting telemetry"
which was at any rate, not an issue - what sort of "telemetry" do you think a
Maps app could report that isn't search queries or tile requests? Maps apps
are just rendering frontends for giant server farms after all. Claiming it's
about telemetry is just Apple propaganda.

The real problem was that Apple wrote the Google Maps app, and wasn't willing
to cooperate with Google on it at all. Literally, they demanded some basic
protocol specs and then wrote the app themselves. This led to several
problems:

1\. They refused to tell Google what changes they were making to their app,
which led to:

2\. Repeatedly screwing up their implementation in ways that very seriously
threatened the stability of the entire Google Maps services (think: slamming
the servers with way more traffic than any reasonable implementation should).

Apple love to claim the best results arise from integrating hardware, software
and services. Well, guess what, that logic works in both directions: by
preventing even basic cooperation between the Apple team writing the GMaps
app, and the rest of the GMaps team, they created massive problems. Especially
because at this time Apple engineering had no serious experience with large
online services ... MobileMe was a disaster ... and so they kept making basic
mistakes no Google team would ever make. They also refused Google's help to
stop making them.

3\. The GMaps team was much larger and better funded than the iOS team, so iOS
rapidly fell behind the featureset available on Android and the web. Google
attempted to fix this by writing their own GMaps app, which Apple then
_blocked_ on the grounds it was competitive with their own (this was back when
they had this policy).

Basically the relationship was antagonistic from the start from Apple's side,
and rapidly spiralled downhill as Google's own services accelerated away from
what Apple was capable of.

The whole Apple schtick that Google was desperate to violate privacy or get
telemetry is just an advertising attack angle: it shouldn't work on the sort
of people who read Hacker News. Apple Maps is architecturally identical to
Google Maps, after all.

~~~
throwaway938693
I happen to know the other side of this. I get the impression from your post
that we were probably looking at the same thing, just from very different
angles. I think there were aspects to it that you either weren’t privy to or
just couldn’t see from where you sat.

I don’t think anyone involved in this from Apple still works there anymore,
and it’s been 10-11 years now so probably not even Apple itself really knows
all the details at this point. From what I’ve heard the same may be true at
Google; these stories are basically folklore to the current crop of the Maps
team there.

In any case, as I recall it, advertising data and location tracking absolutely
were sticking points. It’s possible you weren’t part of those aspects or you
just saw it differently than Apple did.

On the other hand, this was all before Apple had a public marketing campaign
around user privacy. The antagonism in the relationship around Maps also
predated any discussion with Google of location data or ads and it arose from
Android. Jobs saw Android as an attempt to copy the iPhone, and this lead to
mistrust of Google in all things.

With that perspective, maybe you can start to see the other side of it. Apple
didn’t want to let slip any detail of upcoming iPhone features because the
concern was about them being copied in Android. While the G Maps folks gave
lip service initially to being separate from Android and the idea that
features wouldn’t be held back from Apple to benefit Android (and this was
true initially, eg with Street View), Apple folks didn’t believe that would
last.

And I think it didn’t last. As time went on, the Apple perspective was that
Google was asking for things that were anathema, just so Google could point to
them and say this is why you aren’t getting vector data or nav, but only as a
pretext in the larger war of being able to use Maps as a competitive advantage
for Android.

~~~
thu2111
Yes, that's all probably true. I didn't delve into the wider politics of the
iPhone vs Android wars but that was certainly a part of the reason for Apple
not working closer with the Maps team.

It's unfortunate that Android became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy
in this regard. It was created largely because of the experience of Maps
trying to make mobile clients in a fragmented space with poor APIs (J2ME,
Symbian, etc). Then Apple effectively took over the frontends of Google's most
important services and in many ways did it much worse than the Maps team
themselves did, but the popularity of the iPhone rendered much of their work
useless. Google didn't at that time care about phones with the same burning
passion Jobs did: Android was first and foremost a strategic play. Many
Googlers, even senior Googlers, were happy to be seen using and praising their
iPhones. But the inverse was also true: Jobs didn't care about Maps with the
same passion that Brin & Page did. It should have been possible to forge a
genuine collaboration, there were certainly no technical barriers.

Unfortunately Jobs' bizarre and self-destructive belief that the iPhone should
effectively never have serious competition put both companies on the path to
ultimate divorce. Users are still feeling the effects of that today. His
paranoia about other companies copying them was also misplaced: as far as Maps
were concerned the problem was rather the opposite; Google wasn't copying
Apple's features, Apple was copying Google's features, but only after much
pressure and negotiation!

Apple also had a schizophrenic attitude to advertising: their total refusal to
integrate ads into iOS Maps meant that Google was destined to bleed vast sums
of money on mobile maps forever, and the more popular the iPhone became, the
more money they'd bleed. This was no strong principle as Apple tried to launch
its own ad network which sucked and was quickly forgotten about, so it looked
a lot like some sort of psycho "revenge" for Android - a project which had
been initiated before the iPhone project itself had. Jobs seemed to believe
that the moment he announced the iPhone Android should have been cancelled and
anyone not willing to pay his steep prices abandoned to J2ME feature phones
for good.

Very, very few companies would be willing to tolerate another company totally
controlling the entire user interface of their online service, blocking their
only revenue stream and in an environment with almost no cooperation (i.e.
Google would find out about what features Apple had added at about the same
time everyone else did). Although it was understandable in the very first
versions of their Maps app were written in house whilst the APIs and product
were still baking, it became less and less tenable with time. Separate apps
was the obvious way to resolve that problem, but Apple forbade that too.

If I recall correctly the straw that broke the camel's back was actually
social. Google at the time was desperately concerned about Facebook. They
worried that Facebook was an existential threat to the popularity of their
services because Facebook had social features and Google didn't. So it tried
to add social stuff to everything. This wasn't about Apple at all, it was all
about Facebook, but Apple point-blank refused to add any social features to
their app. I don't know why not, probably they felt it was a poor use of
resources (which it would have been), but that was what triggered Google to
write their own frontend app which then got banned.

Up until that point Android had been seen to a large extent as a way to drag
the rest of the phone industry into the post-iPhone age, rather than something
specifically designed to go after Apple. There was no shame in senior Googler
executives using iPhones. But Google saw the fate of Maps as a sign of the
dystopian future awaiting them, in a world where Jobs controlled access to
users with an iron fist. After that Android was ramped up significantly. It
was in my view a huge strategic error by Jobs. Very few companies were able to
make software competitive with theirs: Google was basically the only one. If
Apple hadn't blocked Google from upgrading its services, it's very plausible
Android would have pivoted more strongly into the budget/low end space Apple
didn't care about anyway. Social-in-maps put paid to that idea and resulted in
Android becoming an OS that is a match for iOS in every respect.

~~~
scarface74
_their total refusal to integrate ads into iOS Maps meant that Google was
destined to bleed vast sums of money on mobile maps forever, and the more
popular the iPhone became, the more money they 'd bleed._

Google wasn’t giving Apple access to the Maps data for free. They were paying
for it.

 _If Apple hadn 't blocked Google from upgrading its services, it's very
plausible Android would have pivoted more strongly into the budget/low end
space Apple didn't care about anyway. _

Android is in the budget/low end space. The average selling price of an
Android phone is about 1/3 of an iPhone and Apple makes about 80% of the
profit in mobile.

 _but that was what triggered Google to write their own frontend app which
then got banned._

Google’s app was never “banned”. There were plenty of third party map apps
when iOS 6 was introduced. iOS 6 was introduced in September 2012. Google Maps
for iOS was released in December of 2012. Are you saying that Google wanted to
release a separate maps app when Apple was still using Google maps before iOS
6?

~~~
thu2111
_Android is in the budget /low end space._

Yes, and it's also in the high end iPhone competing space. We're not talking
about prices here, we're talking about whether the devices have competitive
specs and functionality.

Android dominates globally, even in the USA and on the top-end devices where
Apple is strongest.

 _Are you saying that Google wanted to release a separate maps app when Apple
was still using Google maps before iOS 6?_

Yes, long before. We're going way back here.

~~~
scarface74
_We 're not talking about prices here, we're talking about whether the devices
have competitive specs and functionality._

Not really, the majority of Android phones are slower than iPhones. In fact,
it wasn’t until 2018 that high end Samsung phones were faster in single core
performance than the 2015 6S.

Android definitely doesn’t “dominate” on the top end by any definition - sales
or profits.

Isn’t it a Pyrrhic victory to sell millions of devices and make no money from
them? Of course we have no way of knowing how the Chinese brands are doing.

 _Yes, long before. We 're going way back here._

There is an existence proof that this wasn’t true. It wasn’t until the 3GS/iOS
3 that Apple allowed any app to have real time turn by turn directions. There
were plenty of third party Maps apps that had turn by turn directions by iOS 4
in 2010. So Apple explicitly banned Google but allowed other Maps apps?

~~~
thu2111
You are incredibly sure you know more about this than me, despite the fact
that I was there and saw it all unfold from the inside. Yes, Apple blocked
Google's maps app. That's why when Latitude launched, it launched as a web app
on iOS despite having a much inferior user experience to a native app.

As for people making no money off of Android phones, come on, are you serious?
That's completely delusional iOS fandom: Samsung alone makes around $2.5
billion _a quarter_ off of their mobile division. The idea that Apple is the
only one making mobile profits is bizarre and wrong, but also strange for
another reason: why would _customers_ want Apple to make huge profits? That's
good only for Apple shareholders and bad for iPhone users, who have (as far as
I recall) never seen prices fall despite the actual hardware becoming
massively cheaper. Someone is a sucker here, but it isn't anyone buying or
selling Android phones!

------
modeless
> users have many alternative third-party browsers they can download from the
> App Store.

This answer is misleading at best, bordering on lying. I define "browser" as
inclusive of the engine used to render web pages.

~~~
henryfjordan
To Apple's credit, they do talk about Webkit being the only engine a few
questions later.

~~~
modeless
Only when forced in response to some very pointed questions. That doesn't make
the first answer true if you understand that the engine is a vital part of a
web browser and a source of competitive advantage.

~~~
mcphage
> Only when forced to in response to some very pointed questions.

They weren't asked these questions one at a time.

~~~
modeless
They weren't, but they answered as if they were, not considering the obvious
implications of the fourth question when answering the first.

~~~
zepto
No. Your definition of a browser is wrong, and is what leads to your
conclusions.

------
Isamu
Interesting non-answer:

>29\. For each year since 2009, what is the total amount that Apple has
accepted from Google for the right to be the default search engine in Safari
and in any other Apple products or services? Please identify the amount
accepted from Google in total and broken down by each Apple product.

>Apple’s search agreement with Google generates revenue based on referral
traffic through the URL/search box on Apple’s Safari browser. Although Google
search is set as the default, this can be changed in settings on iPhone to
another search engine, such as Yahoo!, Microsoft Bing and DuckDuckGo.
Consumers may also conduct searches on search apps available through the App
Store, searches performed on the web (through the search engine’s web portal),
or through virtual assistants like Siri, Cortana or Alexa that are available
to users on our platform.

~~~
ikeboy
It's possible they gave different answers privately and requested for exact
numbers not to be released publicly. Seems likely based on reading Amazon's
reply to the same committee, which also didn't give specific numbers to some
questions requesting specifics.

~~~
nemothekid
I'd imagine there's some complicated SEC-related reason why they can't provide
specific numbers w.r.t revenue

------
mmastrac
This is incorrect [1] - they block questions on independent repair from Apple
forums.

> Does Apple take any actions to block consumers from seeking out or using
> repair shops that offer a broader range of repairs than those offered by
> authorized technicians? If yes, describe each action that Apple takes and
> the reason for doing so.

Apple does not take any actions to block consumers from seeking out or using
repair shops that offer a broader range of repairs than those offered by
Apple’s authorized technicians. Customers are free to obtain repairs from any
repair shop of their choice.

[1] [https://www.cultofmac.com/620124/apple-support-forum-
jessa-j...](https://www.cultofmac.com/620124/apple-support-forum-jessa-jones/)

~~~
reaperducer
Just a couple of months ago I called Apple to get my 2012 MacBook Air
repaired. Apple wouldn't touch it because of its age, but gave me a list of
independent repair shops in my area that would fix it.

If Apple blocks people from getting independent repairs, when why are there
Apple authorized repair third-party repair shops?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Did you read the link in the comment you're replying to?

------
Isamu
Interesting that it starts off with the advantages Apple gives Safari, as
similar browser issues were a focus of the antitrust proceedings against
Microsoft.

~~~
Jtsummers
In Microsoft's case, the free and privileged position of IE was specifically
chosen to prevent the success of a competitor (Netscape) whose product created
the potential for cross-platform applications (enterprise, early web
applications). IE deliberately implemented some things counter to the
specifications in order to be incompatible with the spec (and thus spec-
conformant browsers) forcing developers to select their target platform. IE's
substantial market position meant that more people supported it (thus all the
sites that were IE-only, and some still are because banks and governments suck
at IT). MS spent hundreds of millions (if not over a billion, it's been a
while since I read the reports on the subject) to give away a product that
would cripple a competitor's position. Netscape, though, wasn't the only
target of MS's action. By doing this, they helped ensure Windows dominance
would continue. Enterprises considering, or using, other operating systems but
wanting to advance the state of their IT systems (that is, adopting web-based
solutions) would find themselves in the same conundrum. Implement to the
standards and use any OS, or implement to IE and support one OS that was
already dominant within the corporation.

This worked to effectively reduce the potential market position (in businesses
and for consumers) of alternate OSes to Windows.

Of course, that's not the only thing MS did. The full report of the anti-trust
case was pretty interesting. There were many things MS did beyond _just_ the
browser. They favored OEMs who exclusively sold Windows-based computers with
lower OEM pricing, but if they attempted to use another OS then they were
threatened with increased licensing costs (this was a large part of what
killed BeOS's momentum).

While many people remember and focus on the browser, it was only one piece of
the whole case. To draw a comparison, you'd need to demonstrate that Apple's
Safari-only (or really Safari + limited WebKit-only) policy is taking
advantage of its substantial market share (currently iOS is sitting at
something like 55-57% market share in the US, so it isn't actually that
substantial a lead) to harm its competitors. And you'd have to place that in
the context of other abuses of market share position.

~~~
maxwell
Forcing WebKit-only enables Apple to selectively disable key features in all
browsers on iOS, preventing web apps from competing against FaceTime (WebRTC,
Fullscreen API) or iMessages (Service Workers).

Instead they need to go through the App Store, driving up development costs
(the Swift learning and/or contractors) and decreasing potential competition.

------
favorited
> For each year since 2009, the costs of providing repair services has
> exceeded the revenue generated by repairs.

Huh, that one kinda surprised me.

~~~
benologist
2009 - 2012 would be the period where nVidia had badly-soldered GPUs affecting
everyone's laptops, this was an expensive repair period for many
manufacturers. Air bubbles in the solder would eventually disrupt the
electrical flow, I think it was just the one year of devices but a year or so
passed before anyone was affected.

[https://codingfreak.blogspot.com/2009/04/beware-of-nvidia-
gr...](https://codingfreak.blogspot.com/2009/04/beware-of-nvidia-graphic-
cards-in.html)

Then in 2013 Apple started soldering/joining everything which made all the
repairs more expensive.

Then in 2016 Apple had to start paying for the artificially expensive repairs
themselves because of the butterfly keyboard fiasco, popping speakers, broken
display cables etc.

They probably really have lost money but they don't mention it's their own
fault and at this point it's really just tied to the free keyboard replacement
program which ends in 1 - 2 years for the worst-affected models.

~~~
slantyyz
It wasn't just Nvidia GPUs. The early 2011 MBP failures all had ATI GPUs.

------
aylmao
> WebKit is an open-source web engine that allows Apple to enable improvements
> contributed by third parties. Instead of having to supply an entirely
> separate browser engine (with the significant privacy and security issues
> this creates), third parties can contribute relevant changes to the WebKit
> project for incorporation into the WebKit engine.

All other big browser engines are open-source too, but let's not mention that
bit.

------
shmerl
Apple should be punished for their nasty monopolistic behavior with banning
competing browsers. MS didn't get away with doing even less than that in the
past, so Apple for sure shouldn't either. They were running amok with this
garbage for too long.

By banning competing browsers, Apple also has leverage on broader adoption of
JavaScript features and related technologies which they oppose. For example
they refuse to implement Media Source Extensions, which allows them to
sabotage wider usage of DASH, because they are pushing their own HLS. If
that's not an anti-competitive behavior punishable by anti-trust, what is?

------
PeterStuer
It is interesting to see Apple use the exact same line of defense that
Microsoft did with IE back in the day: the browser is an integral part of the
OS (leading to the infamous 'Ham Sandwich' quote [1]). Note also that
Microsoft did allow full-stack competing browsers, whereas Apple does not.

[1]
[http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...](http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980419&slug=2746018)

------
saagarjha
> iPhone users cannot set another browser as the default browser. Safari is
> one of the apps that Apple believes defines the core user experience on iOS,
> with industry-leading security and privacy features. As noted in response to
> Question 1, Safari is an “operating system app,” like the Phone, Camera and
> iMessage, which are designed to work together.

The third sentence does not follow from the first two, and does not answer the
question.

> For each year since 2009, what is the total amount that Apple has accepted
> from Google for the right to be the default search engine in Safari and in
> any other Apple products or services? Please identify the amount accepted
> from Google in total and broken down by each Apple product.

> Apple’s search agreement with Google generates revenue based on referral
> traffic through the URL/search box on Apple’s Safari browser. Although
> Google search is set as the default, this can be changed in settings on
> iPhone to another search engine, such as Yahoo!, Microsoft Bing and
> DuckDuckGo. Consumers may also conduct searches on search apps available
> through the App Store, searches performed on the web (through the search
> engine’s web portal), or through virtual assistants like Siri, Cortana or
> Alexa that are available to users on our platform.

I like how Apple answered exactly zero parts of this question :/

~~~
nulbyte
> Safari is one of the apps that Apple believes defines the core user
> experience on iOS...

Is this not the same argument Microsoft made about Internet Explorer?

~~~
alexis_fr
Well, I’d answer so much yes, but if we condemn them to the same penalty as
Microsoft, it’s gonna be 0.00.

Penalties were dropped I think in the wake of September 11, 2001.

------
burtonator
I'm currently dealing with the insanity of thinking about deploying my app on
the app store.

The biggest challenge I have is the fact that I can't put a PWA (progress web
app) in the app store.

Google allows you to do it in the play store. They even have a library
(trusted web application) that you can use to bridge your web app to an
android app and distribute it into the app store.

I DO appreciate that there are technical reasons why Apple and users would
find this less than ideal but this is 90% due to apple being non-competitive.

I could even understand and have sympathy for Apple had a way to side-load 3rd
party apps.

... but you can't even do that. Users have NO control over their phone and
Apple has completely locked down the ecosystem.

They need to be broken up...

~~~
vineyardmike
Don't really wanna bite, but you got me.

How would you even break up apple?

------
TacticalTable
Apple seems to have given non-answers, or entirely avoided, several questions
on here. Is this par for the course on probes, was information redacted, or
are there going to be consequences for Apple here?

~~~
lmkg
To my knowledge, this is Congress asking questions, not sending a subpeona.
Participation at this stage is still voluntary, and mostly consists of
political posturing.

If Congress wishes to pursue it, they have legal tools where cooperation is
non-optional. The current conversation is part of the song-and-dance where
Apple tries to avoid that by offering something resembling cooperation, but on
their own terms. Many of the questions are meant to answer the question "if we
conduct a probe for realsies, who will be the winner?" rather than the
question-as-asked.

------
x2f10
#7 is a little off IMO. Perhaps Apple does not earn revenue from the app
itself, but it still earns revenue from the developer in the form of Dev
License(s).

~~~
rstupek
$99/year is not even a rounding error on their balance sheet though

~~~
mertnesvat
But in the latest WWDC they announced they have 20 million licensed developer,
20.000.000 x 99 = 1.980.000.000 license fee.

ref : [https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-
hits-20m-registe...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-
hits-20m-registered-developers-at-100b-in-revenues-500m-visitors-per-week/)

~~~
xuki
Anyone can register an account on developer.apple.com, for free. I doubt there
are 20 mil paid accounts for the developer portal.

------
thu2111
I have to say I'm quite impressed by the quality and precision of the
questions in this document. Who in Congress wrote this questionnaire?

------
sneak
As someone with a business idea that is DOA on mobile without a browser
extension (or ability to change OS default https handler to an extension-
supporting browser), I really hope something comes of this.

------
lallysingh
No employee non-compete? I'm surprised.

~~~
meepX2
Non-compete is illegal in California.

~~~
saagarjha
Well, non-enforceable.

~~~
lmkg
It's a relevant distinction. You're still allowed to put non-compete clauses
into your contracts, even though they don't do anything. Many companies put
such clauses in their contracts, either because they have a nation-wide
template, or because the threat of litigation is valuable to them.

------
sebsito
Apple's closed and exclusive ecosystem is a product in itself.

As long as users can choose different computers (PCs) and phones (Android)
there is no monopoly problem.

~~~
sneak
You’re right about the first. The argument can be made for the second, but
many reasonable people disagree about bundling/preferential treatment being
_anticompetitive_.

------
aylmao
tldr; Apple does everything it does in the name of Privacy and Security,
because users can only trust Apple and everything that's not Apple is a
potential vector of attack.

