Apple vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know

[Timo_Existencia]

Are you serious? Read up on what lead that decision being made. The US isn't the only country to ban the sale of Huawei cellular products.

I'm not disputing the reasons for banning Huawei; but a short 3 years after the ban, saying that Apple has monopoly power which includes a bump in sales due in part to the direct loss of a competitor in the marketplace is disingenuous.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

And...IF Apple's only reason for having the market share they do is based on anti-trust violations (the case the DOJ is trying to make)...then WHY is Apple only at 20% marketshare globally? Apple has essentially been operating the same way, with the same features and policies, on the global scale. So, if those policies are what gave it power in the US market, as opposed to the features and services it sells, then WHY isn't Apple dominant in ALL markets?

The truth is that the smartphone marketplace is highly competitive.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

What would be idiotic of the DOJ would be to try to take a narrow view of Apple in the US market, trying to hobble it here, without recognizing that Apple is a preeminent US Company competing in a global world. Hobble Apple here and you hobble it globally. Does the US really want to cede power in the digital market to a foreign country? The EU is paying the price, now, for not being able to compete in the digial market; they completely lost the battle. And now the EU is trying to hobble Apple because of their own failure.

Does the US really want to aid the EU in diminishing the power of Apple to compete globally? That would be a seriously stupid move on the part of the DOJ.

"Hey! We want to benefit Samsung in the global market for Smartphones!" ...way to go DOJ. You take the idiot prize.

Can you imagine China going after Huawei so that Apple can gain marketshare in China?

 

[developer13245]

Huh?! Plenty of apps have upgraded by changing the version number. I have Star Walk and Star Walk 2. etc.

Also, afaik, you don't have to enable family share as a developer. They advocate that you do so, but you don't have to. Has that changed?

You are incorrect. Those apps have NOT changed their version number, they are entirely NEW Apps with a new name that includes a '2'. The old app is removed from sale when the new App goes on sale. This may seem like it's an upgrade but it's not because owners of the old app (sans "...2") are NOT able to receive special pricing on the replacement app, they must pay full price again. Apple actually prohibited this when the iOS app store opened via their App guidelines.

Family Share is forced on iOS Paid Apps and has always been.

 

[developer13245]

Good examples. Your annoyance with Apple in your examples is valid. However, why don’t you leave the Apple app store and develop for Android? There must be something in it for you as a developer to stick around.

I would agree there is a monopoly within the Apple ecosystem, but it is still a free market. However, the market has developed into a two party market. Whether this is good or bad is a good question. Maybe it is an inevitable development? I expect a similar development in AI systems. There will be two or three big ones with a huge stronghold on the market. Now, there’s something to worry about.

As I explained Apple forced a new monetization method on my existing paid apps that were in the store for years. Apple could not simply remove the paid apps from the store so they implemented hostile polices to destroy them.
I also develop for other platforms but am sticking around in the Apple ecosystem because I've become a thorn in Apple's side. Some of my apps have been in the store since the beginning and offer "good enough" solutions that customer pick just because they don't want to pay more for similar apps with more features. I've seen well funded competitor apps come and go. I made some money off my apps long ago, but they don't make me much anymore. So as long as my apps prevent others from profiting in Apple's store I'll keep them around.

 

[duffman9000]

As I explained Apple forced a new monetization method on my existing paid apps that were in the store for years. Apple could not simply remove the paid apps from the store so they implemented hostile polices to destroy them.
I also develop for other platforms but am sticking around in the Apple ecosystem because I've become a thorn in Apple's side. Some of my apps have been in the store since the beginning and offer "good enough" solutions that customer pick just because they don't want to pay more for similar apps with more features. I've seen well funded competitor apps come and go. I made some money off my apps long ago, but they don't make me much anymore. So as long as my apps prevent others from profiting in Apple's store I'll keep them around.

What are your apps?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As you've said over and over and over and over again while discussing the EU, the US ideas of markets, monopolies and anti-trust are not based on the same underlying principles.

I’m well aware of that, still the material the DOJ have presented and the talking points seems very similar to the 2018 case.

First The term Brussels effect was coined in 2012 by Professor Anu Bradford of Columbia Law Schoo the process of unilateral regulatory globalisation caused by the European Union de facto (but not necessarily de jure) externalising its laws outside its borders through market mechanisms.

The Brussels effect exists, there’s nothing known as the U.S. effect because U.S. laws and regulations rarely if ever impact any company working outside their border.

And secondly the difference that the DOJ only have the authority to bring a lawsuit where they must argue their case in an adversarial system. There’s a benefit of using persuasive laws in their lawsuit facing a neutral court.

The Eu commission there’s no purpose using persuasive laws as they have the legal authority to both investigate and enforce the rules.


European Commission’s Administrative Procedure:

• Inquisitorial Philosophy: Rooted in civil law traditions, the European Commission’s procedure is guided by an inquisitorial philosophy. This approach is characterized by a search for truth conducted by the Commission, which acts as both investigator and decision-maker. The process is designed to be systematic, thorough, and focused on the application of legal rules and principles to ensure regulatory compliance
• Legalistic Focus: The procedure emphasizes the correct application of law and adherence to procedural safeguards. The role of the judiciary, particularly in the General Court, is to review the Commission’s decisions for legal correctness rather than to engage in fact-finding

U.S. Adversarial System:

• Adversarial Philosophy: The U.S. system, based on common law, operates on an adversarial philosophy. It relies on the contention between opposing parties to present evidence and arguments, with the belief that the truth will emerge through this competitive process. The judge or jury serves as an impartial arbiter to determine the facts and apply the law
• Fact-Finding Emphasis: The adversarial system places significant importance on the discovery of facts through evidence presented by both sides. Expert testimony is often crucial in elucidating complex issues, and the process is designed to be dynamic, with active participation from all parties involved

 

[TracerAnalog]

As I explained Apple forced a new monetization method on my existing paid apps that were in the store for years. Apple could not simply remove the paid apps from the store so they implemented hostile polices to destroy them.
I also develop for other platforms but am sticking around in the Apple ecosystem because I've become a thorn in Apple's side. Some of my apps have been in the store since the beginning and offer "good enough" solutions that customer pick just because they don't want to pay more for similar apps with more features. I've seen well funded competitor apps come and go. I made some money off my apps long ago, but they don't make me much anymore. So as long as my apps prevent others from profiting in Apple's store I'll keep them around.

Fair enough!😊👍🏼

 

[webkit]

Show me 2 or 3 examples in US Anti-trust history where a company with 65% market share was deemed a monopoly.

And btw, it's not very helpful to quote the FTC on what THEY think monopoly power is; they're an agency that has to prove monopoly power before the court. Them quoting lower numbers in their own documents is simply an attempt to move the number lower. But in the end, the FTC doesn't decide on this, the courts do.

Not sure what you mean by "helpful" as I was simply pointing out that there is no clear legal definition of a monopoly and used the DOJ statement regarding how courts may determine a monopoly or monopoly power as an example of that.

Multiple factors can potentially be involved with market share being one of them but it's not a clear cut 50%, 60%, 70% or whatever nor is it always consistent how a particular market is defined.

A U.S. jury declared Google’s Play Store and payment system a monopoly last year even though Apple has greater app store revenue, alternative app stores and sideloading exist on Android, etc.

 

[Shirasaki]

Certainly a factor and he needs a lot of help at the moment, let’s be serious. If he can tout being “tough on those mean corporations making all that money, it could win votes.

Again, people should realize government is far bigger and more powerful than any US company.

Yet, such a powerful entity has to fight nail and tooth and with deep deep pocket (DOJ doesn’t have trillions line up for just this case) to even hope to drag the case with Apple for decades, I would say US government isn’t as big as people may choose to believe. Apple may not have comparable market value and/or cash to US GDP, but they can hire potentially better lawyers with big cheque to fight this case. Last time I heard, private companies of the scale of Apple can very much find the best lawyers money can buy to work for said company.

 

[rp2011]

just because he's such a popular guy here, Gurman's PowerOn newsletter from yesterday:

Justice Department Risks Picking the Wrong Fight With Apple

With its lawsuit against Apple, the Justice Department focuses on outdated issues and irrelevant points, missing an opportunity to address more pressing concerns. Also: Why the company is talking to generative AI partners; Sonos readies a fresh Roam speaker; and Apple prepares a wide rollout of...

www.bloomberg.com

Gurman is spot on. This is a preposterous lawsuit and it does show the DOI's lack of knowledge of consumer technology, .. not to mention antitrust law itself.

 

[rukia]

I read everything you said in full and in my own opinion the DoJ is doing the right thing here. I do feel that their market share in the US is artificially held high by lock-ins and abuse of their market position.

And yes I do see the 88% teenage ownership metric as a concerning trend because we know from all markets (whether it's shoes, vehicles or phones) that when you get someone hooked on a particular brand young they are more likely to continue buying that brand their entire lives. So 88% of teens today could translate to 86% of adults in another 10 years from now.

And that isn't a problem in itself if Apple is playing fair and the friction to switch platforms isn't high, I just don't personally believe they are playing fair. My personal belief based on my own interpretation of the facts is that they've abused their market position and I largely agree with the DoJ's assertions in their legal brief as I have also done with the EU's legal cases against Apple.

Now I'm not saying the DoJ is going to win every part of their case. There are parts I disagree with that I outlined in my initial post (Amazon's phone failure for example) but there are I feel some strong cases to be made for Apple not allowing sideloading, not allowing third-party app stores on the iPhone, not allowing 3rd party browser rendering engines, not allowing full integration for other messaging platforms, not supporting RCS, not allowing other smart watches to integrate properly with the iPhone by denying apps that would attempt to bridge that functionality gap etc

I think I fully understand your position here, I do comprehend what you're saying. I just have a difference of opinion about the same facts that we both agree to be true.

no worries about having a different opinion. I appreciate the thoughtful exchange of ideas.

 

[Carlanga]

Nice. We might get to have a choice of installing outside store / apps like in the eu

 

[MacFarmer]

so they threw all the **** and now waiting to see what sticks? Well, there is so much of it, that some of it might..

 

[I7guy]

A-inc created this mess all by themselves

What mess? You understand the suit has to be won?

 

[dk001]

The most expensive phones (by far) are Android phones. iPhone users represent middle class. Same goes for Mac users.

Play like to like.

 

[dk001]

Apple is already working to implement RCS. Most likely because of the EU saying the same things, and this imminent lawsuit. It's not like it was a secret.

RCS implementation was likely due to pressure from Chinese law. Not the EU.

”Apple Likely Adopting RCS Messaging Standard to Comply With Chinese Law. Apple's surprise decision to bring RCS support to its Messages app for iPhone later this year was not a result of impending EU legislation, but an about-face caused by Chinese political pressure, claimed a report over the weekend.”

 

[dk001]

Everything cited in the case is NOT true, that has to be proven in a court of law.


To help you to understand the DOJ cannot just make up things that they think makes Apple a Monopoly, those things have to be proven! Just because you feel Apple is a monopoly does not mean they actually are one! Here are some examples...

• Apple slowed down innovation on ‌iPhone‌ to extract revenue from customers using subscriptions and cloud services. [Contradicts the accusation below]
• Powerful, expensive hardware is unnecessary if consumers can play games through cloud streaming apps. [Contradicts the accusation above and also iPhones are not just used for games.]
• Apple uses its "rapidly expanding" role as a TV and movie producer to control content and affect the "flow of speech." [ This could be true for almost any media company! This is a feelings argument! Also, AppleTV+ is extremely small almost minuscule compared to Netflix. ]
• Non-iPhone users experience "social stigma, exclusion, and blame" for "breaking" chats with where other participants own iPhones. This is "particularly powerful" for teenagers, and "social pressure" causes teens to switch to ‌iPhone‌. [This is a feelings argument! This can apply to almost any luxury or high end brand! Are companies going to just all make the same product as mandated by the Government? ]
• The DoJ blames Apple's market dominance for failed smartphones that include the Amazon Fire Phone and the Microsoft Windows Phone. [ This is a feelings argument. Every product is not a guaranteed winner and every product does not deserve a participation trophy. Consumers make choices, some products win and others lose based on their own merits! ]

The DOJ is filing suit and accusing Apple. The outcome of the suit will determine proof or not.
You are making claims based on “proof” before the trial occurs.
Now discussing about your opinion, that is cool.

 

[dk001]

I’m am definitely not for hampering success. And I too are also skeptical of the judicial system to not go on a witch hunt.

The DOJ and others have done this far too often.