>> 9to5Mac’s Take... It’s not Apple’s fault that there’s no Apple Watch equivalent on Android. Google bought Fitbit and still hasn’t created something that is good enough to entice Apple Watch users to switch.
The DOJ is going to argue about the Apple Watch being a lock-in? Isn't that like telling Toyota, you need to make engines for Ford cause theirs suck... Hey Tesla you need to make batteries For ford cause theirs suck.
I dont think there is a real case here. I think this is going to be a big fat L for the DOJ. I think at that point in time the US will have the ability to say other countries actions around apple are anti free market/trade.
The Apple Watch has it's own CPU, RAM, display, potentially even cell signal. Why should it need an iPhone to work? Should your Honda motorcycle stop working if you get rid of your Civic?
This is a fair point. It should not need an iPhone. I think it did in the first several generations but not today.
I suspect forcing Apple to allow this device to operate without an iPhone (even lacking features that might reasonably require an iPhone) could come out of this.
Apple Watch doesn’t stop working if you get rid of your iPhone either, they sell models with an internal cell connection for exactly this reason, so what exactly is the problem?
again, seems like half these threads are ideologue android fanboys who think there’s not a file browser or think you can’t sideload an app but are hellbent on banning the thing they don’t understand anyway.
Actually Sony does have a monopoly on the Playstation market. A monopoly is not in itself illegal. The first question is whether Sony has used that monopoly illegally or defended the monopoly illegally. Second, even if it has, the question is if the harm caused by it is worth even pursuing Sony.
Most likely neither are true for Sony but even if it is, it should be self apparent that distorting the smartphone market, or even the iPhone market, devices which are almost essential parts of modern day living can cause orders of magnitude greater harm than anything Sony could do in the game console market, which is much smaller, much narrower, and far less important.
And all this ignores that the DoJ's filing is about antitrust issues beyond just monopoly issues.
Best shot yourself in the foot argument so far. Sony Entertainment is actually bringing the controller and the games to pc. The controller's unique features are also actually usable
I get the point, but it's watered down by your example which isn't true. I'm happily using a PlayStation controller on everything _except_ a PlayStation.
> Apple’s smartwatch—Apple Watch—is only compatible with the iPhone.
So, if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone
> Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual
control of critical APIs, to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches
Fossil got fucked over and left. Google did nothing with Fitbit (dead). Samsung as a product excites no one (I own a Samsung phone, I dont want a Samsung watch).
The argument has nothing to do with what Apple's competitors are doing. The DoJ claim you're responding to applies even if a non Apple smartwatch maker didn't exist. The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
>>> The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.
Printer ink? Cpu sockets? Are we going to compel apple to support intel chips again? Should Intel and AMD be forced to support old ram standards cause you happen to want to use that particular combination.
I dont think the DOJ has good enough lawyers to win this very tenuous argument. Im not even sure if they should. There are much better arguments to make both on merit and cause.
Garmin smartwatches are functional. Some of them include functionality that isn't even available in Apple watches. But in other areas they are deficient. It really depends on what you're looking for.
Google did not do "nothing with Fitbit (dead)." You can buy new Fitbit's right now. They also incorporated a lot of Fitbit tech into the Pixel Watch, which is also a very functional smart watch.
It's not too far-fetched, I think. Apple could have collaborated with Google and car OEMs to standardize an open interface for smartphone-car communication. Instead, we have two APIs that essentially do the same thing in every car OS.
> Can anyone who uses or has tried to use recent "watch" style products from Google/Fitbit provide anecdotes on this claim?
I was a Fitbit user from the day the initial fitbit went on sale for preorder. I used pretty much every 'flagship' fitbit since then until Google bought them. Ever since Google took over the Fitbit product got worse and worse. I decided a year ago I needed out when they got rid of the communities favorite feature, challenges. I'm pretty sure when I finally packed my fitbit away I had logged more days of usage then anyone else.
I started exploring what the other options were but was not able to even consider the apple watch because I do prefer android to ios. If it had supported android I'd have potentially gotten one though. Anyway as apple placed themselves out of the running I explored other options and decided Garmin had the best offerings. The biggest issue there though was they had way too many models and way too many versions of each model and little help to figure out which one is the best for you beyond super high level titles like "runner". That said I ended up settling on the Fenix series and after a year of use I can say I'm quite happy with it!
When I upgraded my phone this past fall to the latest Pixel Google actually was giving away free Pixel watch 2's with every purchase so I did wear a pixel watch for a couple of weeks to test it out. It was.. not great... especially the battery which was supposedly improved from the pixel watch 1.
Anyway, yes, I do agree with the statement that Google hasn't created something good enough, but I don't think they've actually tried. Like other hardware they've bought (nest) they just let it die. Garmin needs some major marketing help, but I do feel like they got a great thing going over there.
It is important that you might have considered Apple Watch if it were available for Android. This gatekeeping seems the crux of the lawsuit.
However, given your deep experience with Fitbit / Google's offerings and careful consideration of Garmin's as well, I'm curious: What do you think of the merit of suing Apple for antitrust for Apple Watch not supporting at least some set of Android devices?
I've had a Pixel 2XL, Pixel 6Pro or XL (worst phone I've ever owned), and now a Pixel 8 Pro. I strongly considered moving to iPhone after my Pixel 6 experience, but decided to give it one last chance since I really prefer Android over iOS.
When I bought the 8 I got a "free" Pixel Watch 2 with the purchase. I have not owned an Apple Watch, but my wife has an older model.
They do have Fitbit integration and it works pretty well for tracking walks, jogs, and cycling. I don't use it religiously and I'm not an exercise maniac.
The watch is nice and very functional. My biggest complaint is the battery life is really bad. I have to charge it daily -- I usually only wear it during the day and charge overnight. It'll charge pretty quickly 1-2hr but I don't care enough to do it.
It looks decent and works well enough to manage notifications and take calls when I can't grab my phone. The normal functions are on par with my wife's (older model) Apple watch.
I think if I was a serious fitness and outdoor activity kind of person I would buy a Garmin. I didn't do an in-depth comparison of the watches because I only use the base functionality of fitness tracking watches (my previous smart watch was a Withings) so it's entirely possible a new Apple watch offers some great feature I'm not aware of or wouldn't personally use.
That's my personal experience with the Pixel Watch 2. It's fine for my use case, but the battery life truly is bad.
If you disable "always on" display you can get 2 to 3 days of battery life from it. I love always on display, but I have it disabled currently because of that
Ink is ink and paper is paper. How hard could it be?
I accidentally bought a large inventory of toner during a sale, and it's really cost prohibitive for me to buy a new printer as a result.
My comments might be a joke, but they're about as rigorous as the claims in the DoJ complaint. They invent a "performance smartphone market" and then claim Google is a distant third to Samsung and Apple because of iMessage lock-in.
Unlike smart watches where integrating the watch and phone probably has lots of opportunity for innovation left, I agree there isn't much value in proprietary printer inks and standardization probably has more consumer benefit.
This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said.
Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch:
> Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone.
So, ifApple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new , Android -compatible smartwatch
> By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence
on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth.
> Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual
control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly
I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.
Agreed. Government doesn't get to force a company to make their product compatible with another platform. Unless I am missing it, did the DOJ plead that Apple actively prevented Google from making Android work with Apple Watch? If so, then it would be a different story.
Couldn't Apple also make a 1st amendment argument that the government can't force them to "speak" something (make iPhone work with Android)?
The government argued that Apple does not support Apple Watch on Android, which makes it cost prohibitive for Apple Watch users to switch to Android, since they'd have to buy a new smart watch. I wish this was made up, but it's 20% of their arguments for Apple violating anti-trust law.
Some would argue that Apple is obligated to provide all the API necessary to let Google implement support for Apple Watch on Android phones because anything short of that would be an abuse of its monopoly position in the "Apple Watch host device" market.
I don't think DOJ is arguing that. Their argument seems to be that Apple isn't supporting Android. Providing an api is different from actively supporting another platform. API would usually be agnostic.
Also, couldn't Apple make a first amendment argument?
Yes, but I'm saying some would respond to your claim that it's Google's responsibility to bring Watch support to Android with the fact that Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to bring Watch support to any platform. It's like saying it's Google's responsibility to support iMessage on Android: sure, but it's not technically possible anyhow without Apple doing work.
I agree that government forcing interoperability in this way is pretty concerning. Maybe Apple is an exception (arguable, I don't believe it, but not preposterous).
Government literally forced Microsoft to make their products interoperable in a previous antitrust case from 2001. The defendant didn't attempt a 1st Amendment argument.
The DOJ is going to argue about the Apple Watch being a lock-in? Isn't that like telling Toyota, you need to make engines for Ford cause theirs suck... Hey Tesla you need to make batteries For ford cause theirs suck.
I dont think there is a real case here. I think this is going to be a big fat L for the DOJ. I think at that point in time the US will have the ability to say other countries actions around apple are anti free market/trade.
This is political theater at its finest.