Apple and DOJ Hold Early Settlement Talks in iPhone Antitrust Case

[Analog Kid]

I thought another word for “super app” was “bundling”, and bundling is anticompetitive.

 

[webkit]

The DoJ’s case is woefully weak. They even struggle to define a rational market of “market control” (something akin to McDonald’s having 100% of the BigMac market is NOT rational). And, even in their best efforts (flagship smartphones over $1000) the numbers still come out to Apple not controlling the market

What "numbers" still come out to Apple not controlling the market? 70%+ share (their number) is strong but in the end it's about the share PLUS the strength of the anticompetitive behavior piece.

AND not having done anything to prevent or restrict the creation/existence of competition.

Not having done anything? The DOJ anticompetitive claims are about things like Apple making it harder for users to switch away from iPhones by limiting interoperability and degrading certain cross-platform experiences, restricting "super apps" with broad capabilities, limiting cloud gaming, preferencing its own Messages app over third-party apps, and limiting the function of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, etc.

Apple is negotiating and making some concessions (which could be considered wins for the DOJ), not unlike what Microsoft did leading up to its DOJ case in the late 1990s, but whether or not it's enough to avoid going to trial remains to be seen.

 

[RealE]

Reread the title. The Department of Justice, that is the United States Department of Justice. SMH
View attachment 2646323

I'm pretty sure they were joking.

 

[fzJNotIBOxgnbqejSeVCvJScL]

All "super apps" are categorically cancer. We already had the horror of these things on Windows PCs, and people buy Apple SPECIFICALLY to get away from them.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

What "numbers" still come out to Apple not controlling the market? 70%+ share (their number) is strong but in the end it's about the share PLUS the strength of the anticompetitive behavior piece.

ALL of the numbers come out to Apple not controlling any rational market. And, taking no steps to restrict anyone else from entering the market. And taking no steps to force a non-smartphone owner to only choose an iPhone. And taking no action to force sellers of smartphones to only sell iPhones. Those are historically the criteria for antitrust action. Not “They made a thing people liked enough to buy.”

Not having done anything? The DOJ anticompetitive claims are about things like Apple making it harder for users to switch away from iPhones by limiting interoperability and degrading certain cross-platform experiences, restricting "super apps" with broad capabilities, limiting cloud gaming, preferencing its own Messages app over third-party apps, and limiting the function of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, etc.

They haven’t done anything that matches the actions of antitrust actions that came previously. Everything you’ve mentioned are actually reasons for users to switch in large numbers to a competing device if those are features that people actually want. The fact that large numbers of folks don’t care about those things enough to choose a different product isn’t Apple’s problem. It’s not Apple’s fault that their smartphone market share (a rational market designation) is made up of people that don’t care much about those things. And, the folks that DO want those things, well, they can simply buy those things completely unimpeded by Apple.

 

[MrSnirf]

I'm pretty sure they were joking.

Yes it was a joke.

Although i have had someone argue that the US and other countries are only following what the EU is doing and not independently investigating Apple.

 

[mansplains]

If the policies and practices were “anti-competitive” and limiting to customers, wouldn’t it, therefore, be less “hooking” than they claim?

Have you met Nintendo fans lol

 

[webkit]

ALL of the numbers come out to Apple not controlling any rational market. And, taking no steps to restrict anyone else from entering the market. And taking no steps to force a non-smartphone owner to only choose an iPhone. And taking no action to force sellers of smartphones to only sell iPhones. Those are historically the criteria for antitrust action. Not “They made a thing people liked enough to buy.”

They haven’t done anything that matches the actions of antitrust actions that came previously. Everything you’ve mentioned are actually reasons for users to switch in large numbers to a competing device if those are features that people actually want. The fact that large numbers of folks don’t care about those things enough to choose a different product isn’t Apple’s problem. It’s not Apple’s fault that their smartphone market share (a rational market designation) is made up of people that don’t care much about those things. And, the folks that DO want those things, well, they can simply buy those things completely unimpeded by Apple.

A company with 70%+ share of a particular market can absolutely be "controlling" that market and you can’t definitively say Apple has done nothing wrong. The DOJ is alleging that Apple has monopoly power in the performance smartphone market and has unlawfully maintained or increased its dominance through anticompetitive behavior that impede current or potential future competitors, increase related costs and difficulty of competing and raise switching costs for consumers. All of which does/can stifle competition and innovation.

The DOJ's goal is to show that Apple's control over its ecosystem is being used in ways that unfairly disadvantage current and potential competitors and/or raise consumer switching costs. Negotiations between DOJ and Apple are ongoing. Time will tell whether this will end up going to trial. It will largely come down to DOJ's confidence in their case and how meaningful Apple's concessions are/will be.