Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

[MacRumors]

Apple today filed a response to the antitrust lawsuit it is facing from the United States Department of Justice, sharing rebuttals to the DoJ's claims and pointing out perceived flaws in the accusations outlined in the complaint.

According to Apple, the DoJ's lawsuit has the potential to "set a dangerous precedent" that would allow the government to dictate the design and function of technology, plus it threatens "the very principles that set the iPhone apart" from competing devices.

As a recap, the DoJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, accusing Apple of an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. To back up its accusation, the DOJ provided five examples of instances where Apple's decisions stifled competition and locked consumers into the iPhone ecosystem.

• Super apps - The DoJ claims that Apple blocks apps that offer "broad functionality," like WeChat or apps that offer mini games and other multi-app features.
• Cloud streaming - Apple has been accused of suppressing cloud streaming games by preventing them from being available on the App Store.
• Messaging apps - The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation, and Apple's delayed support for RCS. The DoJ also believes that third-party apps should be able to send and receive SMS messages in lieu of the Messages app.
• Smartwatches - Apple is accused of restricting key functions from third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from watches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ has also complained about the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android devices.
• Digital Wallets - The DoJ took issue with Apple's refusal to allow banking apps and other digital payment providers to access the NFC chip in the iPhone for payment purposes.

Many of the DoJ's claims have been weakened or are no longer relevant, because Apple has addressed them. With iOS 17.4, for example, Apple eliminated restrictions on cloud streaming apps and apps offering mini games on iOS, and super apps are and have been supported.

Apple adopted RCS since the DoJ's filing, improving messaging interoperability between Android and iPhone devices, though messaging apps cannot receive SMS or RCS messages instead of the Messages app. Apple opened up access to NFC in iOS 18.1, adding support for contactless NFC payments through third-party payment apps.

Apple does not believe that the DoJ fairly portrayed Apple's market position. The DoJ uses revenue as its metric for calculating market share instead of unit sales, which Apple says is "unreasonable." The DoJ also suggested that "performance smartphones" are a separate category from standard smartphones, even though that is not a recognized device category. Apple also argues that the U.S. numbers are not an accurate reflection of the global competition that it faces.

Apple points out that the complaints that led to the Department of Justice's lawsuit did not come from iPhone customers, but rather from a small number of developers that happen to include "some of Apple's largest and best-funded competitors." Apple claims that meeting the DoJ's demands would degrade the iPhone experience for consumers.

The antitrust laws do not impose upon Apple a duty to design its own product in a way that would better suit its rivals at the expense of consumers whose devices might be less secure, less private, and less intuitive as a result.

Ultimately this case is not about the millions of satisfied iPhone users or even the hundreds of thousands of iOS developers that enjoy economic success, it's predominantly about a few large companies free-riding on Apple's technology and innovation. The complaint is a misguided plea for a judicial redesign of one of the most popular and innovative consumer products of all time, under the guise of an antitrust case.

Much of Apple's response features Apple denying the DoJ's claims, one by one, which is standard for this type of filing. The legal dispute will now enter the discovery phase, with Apple aiming to prove that the DoJ's allegations are inaccurate. From there, a summary judgment will be handed down, which could lead to a trial and appeals. The entire process will span years.

The App Store ecosystem is changing rapidly enough that the DoJ's claims may not be applicable at all in the future. In the last year, Apple changed multiple App Store rules, both voluntarily and involuntarily. Apple's legal dispute with Epic Games, for example, resulted in Apple permitting developers to direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web with in-app links and no associated fees. Similar changes could further nullify the DoJ's allegations, so it should be interesting to see how the dispute plays out.

Article Link: Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

 

[michaelsviews]

Apples platform Apples rules.

 

[frownface]

the superapps topic is interesting. Doesn't wechat already exist on the app store? how have they blocked it?

 

[samh004]

Apples platform Apples rules.

This. I don't understand why anyone would buy a product just to complain about the issues with the product and try and change it into another product, that is already available (Android). If the iPhone ecosystem with its walled garden is not your thing, choose another.

You don't need freedom to break an ecosystem that works, you have freedom to choose a different ecosystem.

 

[CarlJ]

Messaging apps - The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation, and Apple's delayed support for RCS.

This continues to be a ridiculous issue. Blue bubbles indicate messages in iMessage format, with all the specific bits that entails (read receipts, typing indicators, end-to-end encryption, large attachments, and being sent over data rather than using the carrier's SMS system - which when released was a huge deal, when people were getting hundreds of dollars of overcharges for "sending too many texts"), while green bubbles indicate SMS messages that don't support that list of features and are under external control.

An argument could be made that RCS messages should get their own color (purple? pink? yellow?), to indicate they're sort of a halfway point, supporting some features and not others and not being under Apple's control. But the text entry window indicates whether the chat is RCS or SMS.

Smartwatches - Apple is accused of restricting key functions from third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from watches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ has also complained about the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android devices

Tell me that competitors are writing this complaint for you without telling me that competitors are writing this complaint for you.

As far as the digital wallets go, I do not want my bank taking control over the NFC facilities, I want my bank cards in my Apple Wallet (as they are now). The only conceivable reason I can see for them wanting that access is for access to more information about me. And the first two points, Super Apps and Cloud Streaming, sound like they've already been handled.

 

[CarlJ]

the superapps topic is interesting. Doesn't wechat already exist on the app store? how have they blocked it?

The article says:

With iOS 17.4, for example, Apple eliminated restrictions on cloud streaming apps and apps offering mini games on iOS, and super apps are and have been supported.

 

[BuffaloTF]

The wallets comments are worrying. The whole notion of carrying a physical wallet is organizing several items into 1 location. Having multiple wallets that hold 1 item would defeat the purpose of a wallet.

 

[jlc1978]

Arguments about walled garden aside, using revenue to determine market share is, IMHO, is a bad idea. It penalizes Apple for being able to charge a premium instead of looking at how many users are impacted and thus a company’s ability to limit other entrants into the market. If Apple charged 1/3 less would it be OK, but had 1.3 the units? The DOJ position seems to say yes it would.

 

[CarlJ]

The wallets comments are worrying. The whole notion of carrying a physical wallet is organizing several items into 1 location. Having multiple wallets that hold 1 item would defeat the purpose of a wallet.

Yep, you wouldn't put up with carrying 8 physical wallets that each held one card. Why put up with that digitally? It only benefits the corporation, by making the experience worse for the customer.

 

[IceCool]

Apple today filed a response to the antitrust lawsuit it is facing from the United States Department of Justice, sharing rebuttals to the DoJ's claims and pointing out perceived flaws in the accusations outlined in the complaint.

According to Apple, the DoJ's lawsuit has the potential to "set a dangerous precedent" that would allow the government to dictate the design and function of technology, plus it threatens "the very principles that set the iPhone apart" from competing devices.

As a recap, the DoJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, accusing Apple of an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. To back up its accusation, the DOJ provided five examples of instances where Apple's decisions stifled competition and locked consumers into the iPhone ecosystem.

• Super apps - The DoJ claims that Apple blocks apps that offer "broad functionality," like WeChat or apps that offer mini games and other multi-app features.
  
• Cloud streaming - Apple has been accused of suppressing cloud streaming games by preventing them from being available on the App Store.
  
• Messaging apps - The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation, and Apple's delayed support for RCS. The DoJ also believes that third-party apps should be able to send and receive SMS messages in lieu of the Messages app.
  
• Smartwatches - Apple is accused of restricting key functions from third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from watches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ has also complained about the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android devices.
  
• Digital Wallets - The DoJ took issue with Apple's refusal to allow banking apps and other digital payment providers to access the NFC chip in the iPhone for payment purposes.

Many of the DoJ's claims have been weakened or are no longer relevant, because Apple has addressed them. With iOS 17.4, for example, Apple eliminated restrictions on cloud streaming apps and apps offering mini games on iOS, and super apps are and have been supported.

Apple adopted RCS since the DoJ's filing, improving messaging interoperability between Android and iPhone devices, though messaging apps cannot receive SMS or RCS messages instead of the Messages app. Apple opened up access to NFC in iOS 18.1, adding support for contactless NFC payments through third-party payment apps.

Apple does not believe that the DoJ fairly portrayed Apple's market position. The DoJ uses revenue as its metric for calculating market share instead of unit sales, which Apple says is "unreasonable." The DoJ also suggested that "performance smartphones" are a separate category from standard smartphones, even though that is not a recognized device category. Apple also argues that the U.S. numbers are not an accurate reflection of the global competition that it faces.

Apple points out that the complaints that led to the Department of Justice's lawsuit did not come from iPhone customers, but rather from a small number of developers that happen to include "some of Apple's largest and best-funded competitors." Apple claims that meeting the DoJ's demands would degrade the iPhone experience for consumers.

Much of Apple's response features Apple denying the DoJ's claims, one by one, which is standard for this type of filing. The legal dispute will now enter the discovery phase, with Apple aiming to prove that the DoJ's allegations are inaccurate. From there, a summary judgment will be handed down, which could lead to a trial and appeals. The entire process will span years.

The App Store ecosystem is changing rapidly enough that the DoJ's claims may not be applicable at all in the future. In the last year, Apple changed multiple App Store rules, both voluntarily and involuntarily. Apple's legal dispute with Epic Games, for example, resulted in Apple permitting developers to direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web with in-app links and no associated fees. Similar changes could further nullify the DoJ's allegations, so it should be interesting to see how the dispute plays out.

Article Link: Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

So in other words, Apple can’t offer superior functionality between its own hardware, software, and services in order to convince people to buy their products?

So, eliminate competition? Seriously?

 

[CarlJ]

So in other words, Apple can’t offer superior functionality between its own hardware, software, and services in order to convince people to buy their products?

So, eliminate competition? Seriously?

It's like your neighbors having a discussion about how to most equitably share your backyard pool.

And when you confront them with that, they say, essentially, "but your pool has become very important to our interests, so we have to all share access equally".

But none of them are talking about having the government pay Apple, say, several trillions of dollars to compensate them for essentially nationalizing Apple's ecosystem "for the good of the country". The iOS ecosystem is not some naturally occurring resource no matter how much the people who want to grab it try to pretend that it was "just sitting there, growing up out of the ground, when they arrived".

 

[swm]

cloud game streaming is the stupidest thing ever.
it requires twice as much resources on the compute/GPU side - one on the phone (which is there anyway) and an equal in some distant server, plus enormous bandwidth to support jitter free, low latency transport with about 2-4Mbps bandwidth for everyone using it. oh yes, the stream has to be encoded in real time and decoded on the other end too. even if the game alone doesn't require a single bit of connectivity.

smartphone CPUs and GPUs are very powerful nowadays. the amount of distributed computing capacity available on the phones people bought and periodically upgrade (for their own money) and use is simply unparalleled. people provide power and cooling at their own expense, whereas any centrally located resource has to be operated/maintained/powered/cooled/replaced by the "cloud gaming platform" operator. all this costs a huge amount of money and it simply can not scale. it's not like Netflix or YouTube, where the same video stream is locally cached - relatively close to the consumer, many times inside CSP access networks. a humble 2RU OCA from Netflix can churn out 400Gbps worth of streaming video - that is serving up to 400000 simultaneous HD streams. but that's "just" reading from flash, encrypting with TLS and sending to the network. relatively easy to scale. if you want to run GPU intensive 3D games from the cloud, the scale will likely be limited to a few 100s, maybe up to 1000 simultaneous sessions for an appliance with similar dimensions.

I've been working with a "cloud gaming" cluster server, and - guess what - it has a bunch of arm based system on module boards - essentially like a logic board of a smartphone, but no display/speaker/touchscreen. one can just skip this extra layers of bull**** and run the damn app locally.

 

[breenmask]

RCS was the worst offender of all. Nobody wants RCS. Get rid of it. Confusing as hell and unreliable.

 

[CarlJ]

If Apple charged 1/3 less would it be OK, but had 1.3 the units? The DOJ position seems to say yes it would.

"The DOJ position" ought to properly look like a car from NASCAR, plastered with sponsorship stickers for all the competitors of Apple who are pushing this.

 

[212rikanmofo]

I hate anything CLOUD. I want everything stored locally. I'm sick and tired of where AI and technology is heading. If it's going to be in the government's hand, it definitely isn't a good thing. They will definitely be using it against us for their benefit.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

This. I don't understand why anyone would buy a product just to complain about the issues with the product and try and change it into another product, that is already available (Android). If the iPhone ecosystem with its walled garden is not your thing, choose another.

You don't need freedom to break an ecosystem that works, you have freedom to choose a different ecosystem.

I'd prefer a non-ecosystem. Let me pick and choose what I want, from who I want. Mix and match without being locked into any company, hardware or software....and two choices, both being giant multi-national corporations, is not much of a choice at all.

It also makes it quite difficult for a mixed-phone household like mine. Two Androids (wife and teenager) and myself with an iPhone.

 

[fatTribble]

The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation

This really did make me laugh out loud

So glad the DoJ is on top of these important issues facing the country
/s

 

[CarlJ]

I'd prefer a non-ecosystem. Let me pick and choose what I want, from who I want. Mix and match without being locked into any company, hardware or software.

...and two choices, both being giant multi-national corporations, is not much of a choice at all.

There are numerous choices out there that make offerings in the field, and you are free to choose between them. And you can mix them to the extent that each manufacturer supports. All this information is known upfront, and it is your job, as a consumer, to make the best choice for you.

What you are not free to do is demand that the manufacturers provide you with a Lamborghini engine in a Ford truck with a Toyota suspension. I mean, you can ask, but they are free to say no. And trying to get the government to strong-arm the companies into producing your magical WarmWinterHat car is an unfair thing to do.

And the reason there aren't more major offerings is because people like you, who are dissatisfied with the two major offerings, won't put your money where your mouth is - vote with your wallet - go support one of the smaller companies and get 20 million other people to do the same - get a company to make exactly what you want by making a market for it (in my case, the iPhone is pretty much exactly what I want). If your answer is "well, yeah, I want it but I don't want to put in the effort so somebody else has to be forced to do it for me"... that's a bad answer.

Do you realize that Apple is the reason why US customers can choose a phone separately from a carrier, and are not beholden to the carrier for apps and software updates and ringtones and such? They broke open a carrier duopoly (eh, not the right word - there were like 4 at the time - cartel?), by making a compelling product that the consumer wanted and then refusing to sell it the way the carriers did all their other phones (where the carrier made all the decisions on what phones they would approve and carry, and what software was on them, and even what logos were on them, and you had to buy everything from the carrier).

So, you have Apple to thank (in the US at least) for being able to use basically any phone with basically any carrier, and they didn't lobby the government to force the carriers to change, they got it by making a compelling product, so the carriers had to come negotiate with them. Seems like lots of people don't remember the old days.

 

[GrassShark]

I'd prefer a non-ecosystem. Let me pick and choose what I want, from who I want. Mix and match without being locked into any company, hardware or software....and two choices, both being giant multi-national corporations, is not much of a choice at all.

It also makes it quite difficult for a mixed-phone household like mine. Two Androids (wife and teenager) and myself with an iPhone.

100%. I'm always baffled when people argue for things to be locked into an ecosystem. Even as someone in a household of mostly Apple stuff, opening things up a little would make my experience as an Apple user better.

 

[ksec]

100%. I'm always baffled when people argue for things to be locked into an ecosystem. Even as someone in a household of mostly Apple stuff, opening things up a little would make my experience as an Apple user better.

I dont disagree but;

There is certainly an argument that opening up without certification would lower the quality of experience. An example would be had OSX been opened up to normal PC computer, Steve Jobs tried to get Dell to paid them to install macOS. You would have drivers and OS stability problems a.k.a Windows because of the infinite amount of hardware combinations. With Apple they like to do it all to ensure the quality not just each individual products but also how they worked together.

The problem is somewhere along the line this argument should no longer be used when you have too much power. At what point does it stop? Having an Apple Bank, Apple Card, Apple Insurance, Apple Health Care, Apple Food, Apple TV etc etc. Or even Apple City? With more power comes more responsibility. I am sure if Steve Jobs were alive he would had the wisdom to see this before **** hits the fan. But Tim Cook is still largely, 99% executing on what Steve Jobs have left Apple with him.

I guess that is why Steve told him not to think what he would do. Except that is probably only half the meaning conveyed, always do what is best for Apple.

 

[CarlJ]

100%. I'm always baffled when people argue for things to be locked into an ecosystem. Even as someone in a household of mostly Apple stuff, opening things up a little would make my experience as an Apple user better.

We've decided that your car is a valuable neighborhood resource, so we're going to need you to turn over your keys, so that people in your neighborhood can use it when and how it's most convenient to them, and we're going to start placing some "reasonable" restrictions on when and how you can use "your" car, so that it benefits the neighborhood better. Of course, we're not going to be paying you anything for this, or buying the car from you, just setting rules that we deem reasonable on how this car is used. It will make everyone's experience better.

You don't have any problem with this, do you?

 

[Spock]

Tell me that competitors are writing this complaint for you without telling me that competitors are writing this complaint for you.

I think it’s a valid complaint. Instead of getting a week of battery life on a Garmin, I’m stuck with a one day battery life on Apple Watch so I get all the features.

 

[HDJulie]

100%. I'm always baffled when people argue for things to be locked into an ecosystem. Even as someone in a household of mostly Apple stuff, opening things up a little would make my experience as an Apple user better.

I don't understand why we are considered 'locked' into an ecosystem. As has been stated, everyone is free to choose from the other options out there. No one *has to* use any Apple product. Why isn't anyone complaining that the other options don't offer whatever it is that made them (those anyones) choose Apple. It goes both ways.

 

[512ke]

My feeling is we’re in a patronage system now in the States, and Apple is out of favor with our ruler — and his loyal DOJ. So Apple’s screwed no matter what it does, unless it bends the knee, kisses the ring, and assembles iPhones in the USA.
Small problem: that’s literally impossible.

Meanwhile, never a dull moment. Europe’s busy trying to tear down the walled garden via regulatory assault, and China is pumping who knows how much into its own tech sector. Spoiler: that sector is rocking.

The question is whether Apple — arguably the greatest American success story — can withstand all this, just as it enters a cycle of slow, incremental innovation. Responsible progress. Masterful supply chain management.

Prediction: Apple’s business brilliance won’t alone succeed if its smartest minds look at these headwinds… and defect.

 

[HDJulie]

I think it’s a valid complaint. Instead of getting a week of battery life on a Garmin, I’m stuck with a one day battery life on Apple Watch so I get all the features.

Why are you not complaining to Garmin that they don't offer what an Apple Watch does (unless you were being facetious, then *Emily Litella voice* never mind)