Democrat David Cicilline wants to ban Apple from preinstalling apps on iPhones

Apple would be prohibited from preinstalling its own apps on Apple devices under “antitrust reform” legislation introduced last week, said Democrat congressman David Cicilline, who is leading a push to pass new regulations for U.S. technology companies.

Democrat David Cicilline wants to ban Apple from preinstalling apps on iPhones
The United States Capitol Building

Rebecca Kern for Bloomberg News:

Cicilline told reporters Wednesday that a proposal prohibiting tech platforms from giving an advantage to their own products over those of competitors would mean Apple can’t ship devices with pre-installed apps on its iOS operating platform.

“It would be equally easy to download the other five apps as the Apple one so they’re not using their market dominance to favor their own products and services,” the Rhode Island Democrat said.

The House Judiciary Committee will mark up the five bills in a hearing next week, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee’s chairman, said.

MacDailyNews Take: Having the brain power of a room temperature potato seems to be a prerequisite for U.S. federal officeholders of late. Even more than usual, Washington D.C. is awash with abject morons.

41 Comments

  1. Some absolute Morons and Ignoramus legislators, etc ( we dont have a shortage of them now a days) are trully set to destroy this, once truly great country!
    Super disturbing to think of what we have as a legislative body and whats going on!

    1. HAHA.. exactly!!!! and instruments clusters and info sys etc.
      Hey i want my Ford with a Ferrari Engine…and a Porsche PCM ….its so anticompetitive of Ford to not allow for that!

  2. I am from RI, and have known Cicilline since before he was Mayor of Providence. And I can tell you, he is a smart guy, but just an absolute, left-wing phony. Of course I might be biased, as I had to meet him at a big event at the skating rink in Providence one afternoon at 2:00PM… and he showed up at 10:00PM

  3. HOW IS IT GOING TIM?
    As much as i respect your accomplishments at Apple ……I also remember your hypocritical rhetoric and party affiliated virtue signaling …
    I also remember the other side Fully engaging with you throughout the whole term…. trying to receive input/insight and consider ramifications!

    Interesting.. Have not seen one singular picture or report of anyone in the new administration engaging with you! Including the planted, ummm, well you know !

    Ahh the irony!

  4. There are plenty of situations where government has done the right thing and benefited everyone. This would NOT be one of those times. Fortunately, this is just one idiot in a crowd who should be ignored.

      1. World War II comes to mind. Winning the Cold War. Building roads and bridges. Providing courts so that we can resolve disputes without the use of force. Fire departments that put out fires for everybody, not just subscribers. The abolition of slavery. Maybe even the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability.

        1. All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

  5. There are some legitimate issues regarding monopoly powers held by large companies in the tech industry. But if Congress is going to broach this topic, please get some people who understand tech . . . Let’s be honest, half the people in Congress, who were born circa World War II, would have a hard time getting a senior door greeter job at Walmart ( “84 years old — you’re hired!” ). Yet we trust that these people will reform big tech companies. Get real.

  6. As a pro gun activist, I know for a fact that politicians making gun laws know nothing about guns. What would make anyone think they are knowledgeable on any subject?

    1. Yes that’s why most democrats are pro choice.
      Most democrats don’t get involved in consensual bedroom matters.
      Most democrats don’t abdicate their rights to corporate shills.

      1. Most Republicans I have EVER known are pro-choice.

        Personally they would probably not have an abortion but are OK with an abortion in the first trimester. Beyond that it is murder, and everyone knows it. Sugarcoating it by calling it ‘pro-choice’ doesn’t lessen this reality. These are the laws they want seen changed plus any federal funding of abortions.

        Most Republicans I have EVER known are OK with gays.

        What you are intentionally misconstruing is changing the meaning of marriage rather than using the term domestic partner (and having with it every legal rights just as marriage does) by claiming it is hateful not to alter thousands of years of tradition from most parts of the world just to placate über liberals. Did you notice, gays are STILL not happy? Of course not. No amount of laws and culture being changed will ever make them happy.

        Your third post is so goddam ridiculous I now realize the above two are a waste of time to convince someone so bloated with deception as you to shed some bullshit calories…

        1. TowerTone, once again we see your historical revisionism in play.

          It is simply untrue that gay people demanded marriage after straight folks offered them domestic partnerships with all the same legal rights. Sodomy (usually defined to include any male or female same-sex contact) was a felony carrying a prison sentence in every state until 1962. Sexual contact between two consenting adults of the same sex still carried a potential life sentence in two states as late as 2003, although 33 other states had decriminalized it. It is worth noting that 17 of the repealing states did so by a ruling of the state courts under their state constitution. That leaves only 16 out of 50 states where the law was changed by the legislature. Compromise was hardly in the air.

          The last 17 states fought to preserve criminal penalties against adult consensual same-sex contact until the Supreme Court made them stop in Lawrence v. Texas. Fifteen of them still have unenforcible criminal statutes on the books because their legislatures have refused to repeal them; a 16th (Maryland) only repealed its sodomy law in 2020.

          After Lawrence, a majority of states fought a series of rear-guard actions to deny gay couples not just all, but any of the same rights as married heterosexual couples. As the courts and popular opinion knocked down each of those barriers, the resistance continued.

          Progressives, particularly Christian progressives, were the ones who argued that the only way to preserve traditional marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman was to provide an alternative. “Marriage” could be one thing, consistent with its religious definition, while “domestic unions” were something else carrying all the same rights. Only by defining marriage, legally, as a subset of domestic partnership could the historical meaning of marriage be preserved. Most gay folks were willing to accept that compromise, but conservatives fought it tooth and nail.

          By the time Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage in 2015, no more than 17 states recognized any form of domestic partnership or domestic union other than marriage. The other 33 had flatly rejected your suggested compromise of “using the term domestic partner (and having with it every legal right just as marriage does).”

          It was conservatives like you that forced the Obergefell Court to choose between letting gay couples marry, or allowing the states to completely deny them any partnership rights. They could not craft a compromise because they are a court, not a legislature. They could deny gay couples any enforceable rights at all or recognize their rights in the only way that the conservative resistance had allowed them to do. Even after Obergefell, Texas and some other states argued that the parties to gay marriages could be granted fewer rights than other married couples.

          1. As usual, you take the ball and run with it, right into the goalpost.
            Too bad it was a baseball….

            “It is simply untrue that gay people demanded marriage after straight folks offered them domestic partnerships with all the same legal rights.”
            Never said that, but you just kept running….from the truth of what I meant.

            Fuck off. Until you learn to read, you’re not worth the time to deal with.

            1. Actually, that is what you said. You claimed that conservatives are overwhelmingly OK with gays, and only object to the demand that gays be allowed to marry rather than enter into domestic partnerships with all the same rights. That may be true of you, but it is absolutely untrue of most conservatives historically. Gay marriage would never have become an issue if conservatives had been willing to compromise on equal domestic partnership rights for everyone. As I said, Texas wasn’t even willing to accept equal rights for married gay couples after Obergefell.

            2. TxUseless posted in response to TT, “with all the same rights. That may be true of you, but it is absolutely untrue of most conservatives historically.”

              So, now the woke preacher is prosecuting up to date posts with ancient attitudes, for what constructive purpose? Answer NONE!

              Please tell us 100% of Leftists support the same attitudes back then and now. Whenever you are ready.

              BOTTOM LINE: More Leftist condescension of red state Texas to score cheap political points. Keep it up TxUseless, it only adds fuel to the burning fire of the bloodbath coming in the 2022 congressional elections…

            3. Response to TxUseless on June 19 at 9:28 am:

              “You may think that regarding “gay marriages or unions” as a legally different concept than “traditional marriage” is “accurate and eliminates confusion,” but that is just the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessey v. Ferguson in another form.

              Yes, they are SEPARATE and EQUAL!!! Damnit!

              EQUAL, in terms of respect and human rights and each carries tradition.

              Only Leftist A-HOLES like you tedious misrepresent what is really going on in the real world constantly DRIVING WEDGES between parties obligated to solve problems.

              You are a POS, so f*ck off!…

          2. Gay fixation much PREACHER of Leftist woke religion?

            Bottom Line: Across the spectrum overwhelmingly gay
            marriages or unions have all the same benefits as traditional marriage between a man and a woman. So citing sideshow court cases that once did not agree you are injecting nothing constructive, only your special brand of browbeating partisan POISON politics.

            Classic example. Your response to TowerTone and I quote, “It was conservatives like you that forced the Obergefell Court to choose between letting gay couples marry, or allowing the states to completely deny them any partnership rights.”

            First, you claim to be a conservative, so does that include you? Second, you are a bald faced LIAR projecting a court case has something remotely to do with TowerTone with ZERO EVIDENCE. That is called guilt by association Professor and FAKE prosecutor. Sad you don’t know the difference.

            Nothing new, your modus operandi for years falsely accusing posters as I can personally attest. To a normal human being, not a partisan political animal, I would add you should be ashamed of yourself for FALSE accusations. Just then I woke up and reminded myself you have to be honest and have a conscience, so in your case it’s simply pointless.

            Hey, look over here this red state or this case back in time long ago, blah, blah, blah. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the whole of reality of where we are NOW. I fully support their rights and long overdue.

            Simply using the term “marriage” does not meet the definition of thousands of years of tradition producing offspring between a man and a woman.

            I have relatives, friends, and my boss just tied the knot in France in gay marriage after two years together. Most everyone I know of traditional ordinary folk, use the term gay marriage to distinguish between gay and straight unions.

            It’s accurate, eliminates confusion and celebrates EVERYONE… 👍🏻

            1. Across the spectrum overwhelmingly gay
              marriages or unions have all the same benefits as traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

              That is essentially what TowerTone said. It is not true. Only 12 jurisdictions out of 50 states plus DC and the territories even provide for “gay marriages or unions.” At the high-water mark before Obergefell, only 17 provided for any sort of domestic partnership or union other than traditional marriage. TowerTone’s untrue statement did not become more true when you repeated it.

              You may think that regarding “gay marriages or unions” as a legally different concept than “traditional marriage” is “accurate and eliminates confusion,” but that is just the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessey v. Ferguson in another form. That never worked to reduce racial discrimination and it never worked for gay, lesbian, or transgendered couples, either. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Constitution only recognizes one sort of marriage, and it is available to interracial and intergender couples just like white men and women.

              I know you don’t like it that gay couples get to ride in the front of the bus, rather than being relegated to “gay marriage,” but that’s the way it is.

        1. True Sally: but let some owl be “threatened” and Dems will attempt to shut down the northwest’s timber industry (and they had it all wrong in the first place, the little owls easily adapted to different locales).

          And let a ¼” snail darter not get rained upon for a few years and they’ll deprive the food basket of the US—the California central valley— of water and bankrupt multi-generational family farms with their power-mad skewed water allocations.

          There is no logic in Dem thinking except that of the achievement of ever more absolute power. Emotion and feelings are their modus operandi despite decades, nay, centuries of failure as a result. How’s that “war” on poverty; drugs; crime; etc., etc. going? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

      2. Could not disagree more. You have it exactly the opposite of reality, friend. Take off the rose colored glasses and let’s dance.

        “Most democrats don’t get involved in consensual bedroom matters.”

        Depends. Mention a threat, perceived or real, to abortion as now impending Mississippi case before the Supreme Court, and let’s gauge Democrat involvement.

        But if you’re strictly talking what gays do in the privacy of their own home or straights for that matter, who cares? We all have RIGHTS.

        “Most democrats don’t abdicate their rights to corporate shills.”

        No, DEAD WRONG! Biden spent almost 47 years in the D.C. SWAMP at a yearly salary of $174,000+ and now he is worth almost $10 million. Never held a real job is his life, only the pampered Senator media darling lifestyle with ridiculous benefits. Wonder how he get so fat along with Pelosi and the Clintons ALL millionaires on a government salary.

        Using influence of Senator or Vice President on official foreign government business cuts deals as “the big man” and also helps his son make obscene amounts of money from foreign companies and countries. Not only is he the ultimate corporate SWAMP SHILL besting the Clintons, he is the undisputed king of shill for foreign governments in several mostly Communist or totalitarian countries. I’ll suspend the links to prove the point, simply too many and too much work.

        Guess Biden and his son are either master influence gold star honest investors or better at the INFLUENCE craps tables…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.