Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,070
17,436


An antitrust hearing held by the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee where Apple chief Tim Cook was set to join other big tech CEOs is likely to be postponed, according to a report on Thursday.

tim-cook-interview-with-cbs-6-20.jpg

The hearing involving Cook, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was supposed to happen next Monday, but two sources told CNBC that it was now unlikely to take place due to a conflict with the memorial service for the late representative John Lewis.

The hearing is meant to be the culmination of a more than year-long investigation into the four tech giants. After the hearing, lawmakers plan to publish a report based on their findings and propose legislation to bring antitrust laws up to date to deal with issues unique to digital marketplaces.

A recent report by The Information underlined Cook's initial reluctance to take part in the hearing, and how under the pressure of a potential subpoena, Cook ultimately agreed to participate.

Cook is said to have spent the better part of a month preparing for the hearing, which may touch on a wide range of subjects from App Store policies to Apple's disputes with the FBI over providing methods for law enforcement to access locked devices to Apple's relationships with China.

Update: The antitrust hearing with Apple CEO Tim Cook and other tech CEOs has been officially postponed. A new date has not been announced.

Article Link: Antitrust Hearing Involving Apple Chief Tim Cook and Other Big Tech CEOs Reportedly Postponed [Update: Delay Confirmed]
 
Last edited:

Crowbot

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2018
692
2,508
NYC
Why would a hearing on supposed anti-trust activities by Apple have anything to do with their inability to unlock their products for the FBI? Especially given that these people know nothing about the technical details.
 

michaelsviews

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2007
1,345
327
New England
Imagine if you will , the people having hearings on "our elected officials". The people having the same access that's abused I mean used by the federal government every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Websnapx2

LV426

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2013
1,313
1,177
I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!
 

Crowbot

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2018
692
2,508
NYC
I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!

Active Noise Cancellation is one of my favorite features of the AirPod Pros. Just nod your head and they think you're listening to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acctman

arvinsim

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2018
638
917
I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!

Is this issue really prevalent? Thinking of buying an 16" MBP.
 

4look4rd

macrumors regular
Dec 16, 2009
169
132
So much CEO time wasted for nothing.

Apple has no monopoly whatsoever, it only has a fraction of the markets in which it competes.

They should rather thank Apple every morning for the huge marketplace they created, to the benefit of millions.

If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.
 

Crowbot

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2018
692
2,508
NYC
If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.

I disagree. I think the monopoly question is the only question the government can answer. I don't think the government really has anything to say about Apple's business model of the "walled garden" since there are alternatives that are a much larger proportion of the market. If Netflix, et al, want to play in Apple's garden they have to play by Apple's rules. Otherwise they'll have to be satisfied with the Android world.
 

PickUrPoison

macrumors G3
Sep 12, 2017
8,131
10,721
Sunnyvale, CA
Is this issue really prevalent? Thinking of buying an 16" MBP.
I’ve seen at least two people parrot that there is some type of issue, but neither even bothered to say what version of MacOS they’re running. That’s the first thing you would want to mention if you were actually trying to solve the problem. So I just assumed they weren’t really having the issue at all. Hard to know nowadays.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,635
15,882
Gotta be in it to win it
If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.
Also Apple is acting anti-competitively by having guidelines and restrictions on what is allowable as far as api usage and another whole set of guidelines.

My opinion is that this tight control ultimately is better of for consumers. Where this goes and whether Apple prevails, no one knows at this point.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jonblatho

xWhiplash

Contributor
Oct 21, 2009
4,783
3,396
I disagree. I think the monopoly question is the only question the government can answer. I don't think the government really has anything to say about Apple's business model of the "walled garden" since there are alternatives that are a much larger proportion of the market. If Netflix, et al, want to play in Apple's garden they have to play by Apple's rules. Otherwise they'll have to be satisfied with the Android world.
I agree. This will be like the government telling what businesses can or cannot do. Obviously they can’t do illegal things. But this will set a precedent that no business can create a closed system. No business can directly compete with Netflix, Spotify etc. it just won’t be good if this results in change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crowbot

Crowbot

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2018
692
2,508
NYC
They should delay it until it can happen in person.

Congress may just be looking for air time. Hearing like these never lead to any meaningful outcome.And listening to some old politician go on about subjects they had to be coached about can be entertaining when they're up against the likes of Coo, et al. Lots of eye rolling.
 

calzon65

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2008
942
3,559
Regardless if Apple is anti-competitive or not (a complicated debate) the greater their success, the greater the "target" on their back. Creative companies like Apple are "wealth/value creators", government bureaucrats are "wealth/value takers".
 

boss.king

macrumors 601
Apr 8, 2009
4,608
2,895
So much CEO time wasted for nothing.

Apple has no monopoly whatsoever, it only has a fraction of the markets in which it competes.

They should rather thank Apple every morning for the huge marketplace they created, to the benefit of millions.
Antitrust laws are meant to promote competition that benefits the customer. This isn't about whether or not Apple is a monopoly, it's about Apple stifling competition on their platform.
 

Crowbot

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2018
692
2,508
NYC
Regardless if Apple is anti-competitive or not (a complicated debate) the greater their success, the greater the "target" on their back. Creative companies like Apple are "wealth/value creators", government bureaucrats are "wealth/value takers".
Agreed but the Government does have a duty to see that these mega-companies play by the rules. The problem is that they don't know how tech works.
 

xWhiplash

Contributor
Oct 21, 2009
4,783
3,396
Agreed but the Government does have a duty to see that these mega-companies play by the rules. The problem is that they don't know how tech works.
Yes. And what’s the issue? Apple can’t offer Apple Music? Can’t offer Apple TV +?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ

boss.king

macrumors 601
Apr 8, 2009
4,608
2,895
I didn't say they were, I was just explaining why this has nothing to do with a whether they're a monopoly or not.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.