I don't know if it's mentioned in the lawsuit, but Apple has a "You need to upgrade your storage..." box that annoyingly pops up once you have reached the iCloud storage limit.
There are a number of issues with how Apple implemented and markets iCloud:
1. Apple offers no options to help manage what you would like to remove to free up space, but rather presents a plan upgrade as the only option.
2. Apple also encourages the syncing of as many devices as possible and unnecessarily offloads unused items into iCloud to fill the storage space. Again, Apple does not explain to users how they can reduce the use of storage.
3. I recently helped a friend's child use Quicktime. It was not possible to start new recordings in the app until the annoying "Upgrade your storage" pop-up was closed.
To summarize, Apple's iCloud storage feels very shady and gimmicky relative to their old ethos of focusing on the customer. It is especially designed to help the shareholder, not the user.
> Yes, the free tier comes with advertisements. That’s a very common pricing model.
But like, built into your OS? That's a new low that was reserved only for Microsoft for a while. I agree with the parent comment - this sort of first-party advertisement was one of the things that soured me on MacOS.
Actually I don’t really see the problem as long as there is a free competitor (Android). Just boycott Ford/Ikea in these cases and don’t buy their products. It only becomes a problem if everyone does this, the question is if you want to stop it at the start and prevent anyone from doing this, or if you want to allow it until it becomes a problem
Yes, someone would have to pay for that engineering resource to make the support. I don’t want to pay for it because I prefer iCloud backup already.
The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.
Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition. If you want a more open platform, just get an Android phone.
> The core issue here is whether governments should control how iOS is designed and which part of iOS.
That's Apple's core issue, maybe.
Now, look at it from the perspective of a sovereign market. Their core issue (a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.) is how much they are willing to allow while admitting market access. In Microsoft's case, their manipulation of technical capabilities was considered illegal monopoly action. Apple is treading on the exact same ground with Safari and going even further in the case of the App Store - corrective litigation was an inevitability.
Apple ultimately doesn't have to abide by the EU's decisions if they don't intend to intend to access their markets. Governments[0] already[1] control[2] so much[3] of iOS[4] though[5] that it's kinda a moot point =)
> Furthermore, it can be argued that forcing iOS to be more like Android decreases competition.
It can be argued that competition with Android is not what iCloud, Safari and App Store regulation is about. It's certainly not mentioned anywhere in the DMA or Japan's equivalent legislation.
> No offence, but, I mean, you do not have the authority to decide how another company/person gets to spend their focus
I'm sorry but it's difficult to take this perspective seriously.
It ought to be very obvious that in the context of a Hacker News comment I am not claiming authority to decide what Apple does. I am merely stating that if Apple decided to support third party backup solutions they have more than enough spare money to increase resources rather than, as the OP suggested would be necessary, divert resources away from something else. The OP's "with a given number of resources" qualifier is incorrect because that number isn't actually constant.
The lengths some folks go to on Hacker News to defend Apple absolutely astounds me. They're a multinational corporate, they don't care about any of us here. Stating the simple fact that Apple has the ability to increase their resources is not somehow offensive.
Statements such as "Stating the simple fact that Apple has the ability to increase their resources is not somehow offensive." is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Plenty of people (and their companies) die trying to "increase their resources". Apple is no different or special from any of the other companies participating in the economy. I'm not an Apple fanboy but even I do see the point that statements such as "enough spare money" generally do not get anywhere simply because they patronise their targets and imply that somehow someone being rich makes it morally correct to grift them or break them.
It is agreeable that Apple doesn't care about any of us here. It's simply due to the fact that our relationship with any company is purely transactional. No one shouldn't be burdened with the responsibility of something they can't control, thus, no one should hold other in responsibility of something they have don't have authority over.
> Statements such as "Stating the simple fact [...]" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
That statement is just a fact. Normal people are not being offended by calls to regulate Apple, most of them don't even realize until they update their iPhone to Apple's conformant implementation and scare-ware modals.
You know what people want? They want all their messaging apps to go away so their carriers can finally figure out what "SMS" actually means. They want mobile sites to stop saying "This resource is not compatible with Safari", and they want developers to offer them better experiences at lower prices. Apple has the largest margins of any hardware manufacturer in their league, and software margins just as large as the industry leaders. It's not just that Apple has money; it's that they have no excuse to neglect the development of their platform. They are replete with capital, and spend those financial resources blocking out their competitors.
“Other companies have failed in the past so we shouldn’t assert anything about a public company’s finances” is just silly. I’m not making a legally binding statement in a court filing or something. We might as well just shut down Hacker News entirely if we aren’t able to talk freely.
> imply that somehow someone being rich makes it morally correct to grift them or break them.
I can’t help but feel like you’re injecting an unrelated personal view into the discussion here. Apple is not a person, personifying a company muddies the waters, not clear them.
> “Other companies have failed in the past so we shouldn’t assert anything about a public company’s finances”
Please don't put words in my mouth. My original statement was only to the effect of "people (who are not associated to a respective company) shouldn't take calls on how the respective company should spends their budgets" and not to discourage the discussion of the finances of a company.
I assure that it definitely is a personal view... and all of us are projecting our own personal view(s) in this discussion _because_ this discussion is largely about the many ways to interpret this.
Anyway, not to take anything away from your point, even in the eyes of American/European law, a corporation is sometimes actually treated as a person, depending on circumstances. So, I think it is useful to look from that perspective as well.
It’s a bucket for bits. The iPhone does the diffing for the backup and encryption and then sends the data to the server. How many resources are needed to implement an if-statement for picking which address to upload to?
This is very much “You are holding it wrong” territory.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the same ease of use and integration that iCloud affords, but extended to other clouds. Requiring additional steps (back up to machine, then upload to cloud) are, technically, nonsense, and is simply Apple flexing its’ anti-competitive muscle.
It even supports WiFi, so you can have automatic backups every night while the phone is charging. Also the protocol has been reverse engineered, it’s possible to use a Linux server instead of having to use iTunes on windows or buying a Mac..
People seem to have lost all understandings of boundaries.
Bunch of people suing Apple because they don't like how their iPhones back up to iCloud is an equivalent of a child throwing tantrums because their favourite toy won't accept other batteries it wasn't designed for.
It's not like Apple put a gun to anyone's head to force them to buy iPhones and Apple has been clear about how their devices work from the get-go. If people are salty about how iPhones work, they should choose to buy other devices or pound sand. Because, some people actually like how their iDevices work with the closed-loop integrations it offers.
Apple has lost all understanding of boundaries. Just because they make a pretty phone with a good camera, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate literally every other aspect of one's digital life.
Your car doesn't limit which brand of tires you buy or which streets you take. Your TV doesn't limit what channels you watch. Why should your phone be any different?
Your cheese spray doesn't allow backups either? Cars starting to copy Apples anticonsumer practices is a legit problem but the argument op made was clear.
The other response is right; Apple is the one who lost sight of boundaries. They thought they were smart fighting Dutch regulators and French tax authorities right up until their regulators played hardball with the market. Now Tim Cook is in full-throttle damage control mode, and the iPhone is skating on ice thin enough to threaten market access.
The good news is, Apple has a clear-cut path to compliance that really only interferes with their business ambitions. If they can set aside some of their arbitrary limitations, even optionally, then the iPhone can continue to be sold alongside other smartphones. But nobody owes Apple access to a market they intend to abuse; you've lost all understandings of boundaries if you believe that kind of Ayn Rand nonsense.
> is an equivalent of a child throwing tantrums because their favourite toy won't accept other batteries it wasn't designed for.
You either misunderstand why people are angry, or you're deliberately leaving out the details that make this important.
These are grown adults who are rightfully angry that their smartphone limits it's software compatibility to exploit them. In your backwards analogy, it's more like a child being confused that they can't use their favorite toy because the proprietary AAA batteries cost 30-50x more than a normal battery. That is called market manipulation, and it can be illegal if sufficient damages are proven.
I simply think that you have poor understandings of boundaries.
Setting aside the remarks about Apple vs EU regulators, which, by the way I think are in bad taste, but I won't get into it here because then we might get distracted, I think that the people who are angry because "it's more like a child ... a normal battery" are wrong because Apple has been transparent from the start about how their ecosystem works and before people invest in this ecosystem.
It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people to the effect of "one can use standard AAA batteries in this toy" to close a sale and then told them something to the effect of "sorry, it only accepts proprietary batteries".
Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.
I'm sincerely sorry if I offended any Apple employees in the process. Otherwise I'm not really sure what "bad taste" you could be referring to. Maybe I scared off a few $AAPL shareholders by suggesting the obvious? Help me at least understand my mistake before we ignore it.
> It's not like Apple mislead a bunch of people
Nor did Microsoft when they sold Windows with Netscape-inhibiting features. Nor did Ma Bell when they modified telephones to work on their network. Both of those ended with the courts recommending a company breakup, Apple is going to need a stronger defense if it's purely based on non-deception.
Apple's arbitrary limitation of basic capabilities cannot persist in a competitive market. The USB-C regulation was proof that Apple can acquiesce, the world did not crumble because Lightning or MFi is now depreciated. Similarly, holding Apple to minimum standards shouldn't threaten their bottom line if they truly offer superior first-party services. Their kicking and screaming more or less confirms that Apple's profitability hinges on total control, not premium differentiation.
> Therefore, I think that you have poor understandings of the boundaries of these relationships.
It's based on my understanding of the history and precedent of US and European antitrust rulings. If that doesn't apply to your jurisdiction then maybe you're right. In the majority of Apple's meaningful markets, their service revenue is seriously threatened.
My main issue with the EU regulators dictating how companies should handle their products is due to the fact that there is plenty of evidence to show that their regulation activities have equal chance of not working and actually working. The best example I can recall at this moment is the whole GDPR saga. Far too many people are tired of the pop-ups than the number of people GDPR has served.
I completely accept the history associated with Microsoft and Bell. But I also do not discount the possibilities that, sometimes, the regulators are wrong. There is plenty of criticisms of those verdicts in the pages of history already which don't need to paraphrased here again.
If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die. No harm no foul. It is actually great for people because it opens opportunity to disrupt the market. Therefore, I think that ultimately, letting Apple do its own thing is actually the best thing to do. Let them decide how they want to handle their company.
> But I also do not discount the possibilities that, sometimes, the regulators are wrong.
On which grounds? Wrong as-in, you disagree with their interpretation of the law, or as-in disagree with their punishment? Or do you have evidence the regulators lacked?
The greatest lawyers in the world were payed yacht-club money to figure this out, and the furthest they got was saving Microsoft from a breakup. I don't agree with every law or court decision either, but in hindsight it almost feels like the US hasn't done enough antitrust regulation. Google and Apple are both well overdue for a reckoning.
> If Apple's limitations are uncompetitive, then Apple will simply die.
Well, not exactly. Pretty much every single modern antitrust lawsuit has arisen because the company in question won't die. Anticompetitive behavior often benefits users to entice them into defending a broken system, like offering ActiveX or free long-distance service. Again, neither of those things necessarily "killed" their parent company (nor effectively functioned as a defense in court).
> Let them decide how they want to handle their company.
That's a good note to leave things off on. Likewise, let Europe's constituent states decide how to handle their markets and neither of us will end up disappointed.
GDPR is about far more than some browser pop-ups - it severely limits the extent to which companies can harvest and share your information, even if you blindly click through those consent boxes. It confers a bunch of rights to citizens for discovering and controlling who has their data. Most importantly, it creates a disincentive for companies to be lax in securing the data they do have.
There are a number of issues with how Apple implemented and markets iCloud:
1. Apple offers no options to help manage what you would like to remove to free up space, but rather presents a plan upgrade as the only option.
2. Apple also encourages the syncing of as many devices as possible and unnecessarily offloads unused items into iCloud to fill the storage space. Again, Apple does not explain to users how they can reduce the use of storage.
3. I recently helped a friend's child use Quicktime. It was not possible to start new recordings in the app until the annoying "Upgrade your storage" pop-up was closed.
To summarize, Apple's iCloud storage feels very shady and gimmicky relative to their old ethos of focusing on the customer. It is especially designed to help the shareholder, not the user.