Comment by thayne

Comment by thayne a day ago

13 replies

This seems like a pretty significant anti-trust issue. One of the two mobile OS makers is using a product from the other for its AI assistance. And that means that basically all mobile devices will be using the same AI technology.

I don't expect the current US government to do anything about it though.

qnpnpmqppnp a day ago

What antitrust rule do you think would be breached?

I admit I don't see the issue here. Companies are free to select their service providers, and free to dominate a market (as long as they don't abuse such dominant position).

  • benoau a day ago

    Gatekeeping - nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg OpenAI? The reason this is important is their DOJ antitrust case, about to start trial, has made this kind of conduct a cornerstone of their allegations that Apple is a monopoly.

    It also lends credence to the DOJ's allegation that Apple is insulated from competition - the result of failing to produce their own winning AI service is an exclusive deal to use Google while all competing services are disadvantaged, which is probably not the outcome a healthy and competitive playing field would produce.

    • its_ethan a day ago

      So because Apple chose not to spend money to develop it's own AI, it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model? And the reason that this is an issue is because both companies are large?

      This feels a little squishy... At what size of each company does this stop being an antitrust issue? It always just feels like a vibe check, people cite market cap or marketshare numbers but there's no hard criteria (at least that I've seen) that actually defines it (legally, not just someones opinion).

      The result of that is that it's sort of just up to whoever happens to be in charge of the governing body overseeing the case, and that's just a bad system for anyone (or any company) to be subjected to. It's bad when actual monopolistic abuse is happening and the governing body decides to let it slide, and it's bad when the governing body has a vendetta or directive to just hinder certain companies/industries regardless of actual monopolistic abuse.

      • benoau a day ago

        > So because Apple chose not to spend money to develop it's own AI, it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model? And the reason that this is an issue is because both companies are large?

        No they were already being sued for antitrust violations, it just mirrors what they are accused of doing to exploit their platform.

        https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.544...

      • thayne a day ago

        > it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model

        The problem isn't that they used another company's model. It's that they are using a model made by the only company competing with them in the market of mobile OS.

    • KerrAvon 20 hours ago

      IANAL, but I don't believe either of these things is a recognized concept in US antitrust law.

    • qnpnpmqppnp 20 hours ago

      > Gatekeeping - nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg OpenAI?

      Sorry if I'm missing the point but if Apple had picked OpenAI, couldn't you have made the same comment? "nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg Gemini/Claude?".

  • thayne a day ago

    Apple and Google have a duopoly on Mobile OS. If Apple uses Google's model for Siri, that means Apple and Google are using their duopoly in one market (mobile OS) to enforce a monopoly for Google in another (model for mobile personal assistant AI).

    • qnpnpmqppnp 21 hours ago

      They are in a duopoly on the Mobile OS market, with no other significant player available. Google would be the sole integrated mobile AI, though there are competitors available if customers wanted to switch (customers for such products being the OS companies buying the AI services, not the end-users).

      However I don't see the link, how they are "using their duopoly", and why "they" would be using it but only one of them benefits from it. Being a duopoly, or even a monopoly, is not against anti-trust law by itself.