Apple Could Soon Face 'Sweeping' U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[Shirasaki]

To anyone who supports walled garden and hails the triumph of Apple, wait until you see the consequences, and by then it is way too late to revert the course.

No matter how outlandish those antitrust investigation is, I’m in full support that Apple must be investigated for almost every aspect of their business practices. Send a message to megacorps: just because you can rack up billions or trillions, doesn’t mean you have immunity to everything, including criminal charges should issue go that far.

 

[seek3r]

What's the point of capitalism and the free market then? A company makes (in my opinion) the best product in the world, while other companies make second-rate products (in my opinion). 58% of US consumers who use iPhone would agree. 80%+ of teenagers would agree. If the free market and capitalism "just works" then why try to stop it?

Regulation is a key facet of a free market and capitalism, and always has been

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

All they had to do is loosen up some of their policies up, they wouldn’t be in this mess.

This is the most utterly insane part of it all.

Executives at Apple were so short sighted and greedy that they decided they wanted to just see how long they could get away with these monopolies rather than show the slightest bit of self restraint and keep government out of it. Whenever they got some pushback, instead of softening their rules, they decided to act like the Mafia and actually tighten the screws on everyone. OR they decided to have special carve-outs for companies like Google and Amazon - companies that they decided were too big and valuable to fight. I'm sure that'll look really great in court.

I used to proudly make Mac and iOS apps. I switched 100% away from that to strictly web apps a decade ago just so I'd never have to deal with Apple's nonsense rules and fees in the app store. This crap has gone on for way, way too long.

 

[einsteinbqat]

The only thing that they are doing is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is simply the real government using its power, "by the people and for the people," to get mega-corporations to do better things.

The biggest problem is that, while there are a LOT of people that may have a problem with one feature or another, a massively greater number of folks are ok with it. I mean, if they weren’t, they wouldn’t use the service (look at all of Google’s messaging platforms) and it, and potentially the company, would no longer exist.

So, at any one time “the people” at large seem to prefer the current situation OR they don’t care because they’re using other products. That’s not a happy time for the few million that don’t like it, but, if a company isn’t actively using illegal means to extend their monopoly, it’s better to just let the company live or die based on how well they satisfy their customers.

 

[JPack]

Well do you need to chose a region if you’re using smuggled goods? Or if Kim is the only user xD

You can smuggle an iPhone into DPRK, but to get a phone subscription, you'd need to register your real name. So the carrier would know you're using an iPhone and you'd be caught. As a result, nobody in DPRK is smuggling in an iPhone.

The people using iPhones in DPRK don't need to smuggle it in because they're approved users. So I guarantee you iOS market share is not 99.49%. LOL. Simple logic.

The average DPRK citizen uses something like this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1247329752093995008

 

[jarman92]

They want to offer their customers the option to make nfc contactless payments either using the iphone with their own apps or with apple pay, not only with apple pay. They already do it on Android, Apple doesn’t let them do it on iphones.

But what benefit does that provide to say, Bank of America or Amex? They already know how much you’re spending and at which merchants, so what data could they expect that would make the effort of convincing users to open a separate app worth it?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But Apple ripped it off anyway...

After Spotify ripped it off of Pandora (not as well because Pandora/Sirius XM Holdings is profitable). And again, there’s Tidal, Deezer not to mention a fairly long list of companies that have also tried and failed at it. And, to add to the above, there’s only so many times Spotify can cut staff to make their financials look better.

And, as Pandora was bought by SiriusXM, I guess there’s something to be said for how good of a business a Music/Podcasts ONLY company like Spotify would be by itself if it doesn’t have a gimmick, like Tidal’s audiophile focus (though they’re having difficulty turning a profit, too). Guess I should check… yup Deezer is also not profitable, but they’re promising to turn a profit in 2025, but it remains to be seen if that’s a sustainable profit. Yeah, streaming music just isn’t a smart business move.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I don’t think anything has changed since then. Thousands of startups are launched every year for the single purpose of being bought by a bigger company. With the right deals in place and better technology, Spotify could exist as a platform on its own but poor timing and bad execution kept them from running away with the market. The music industry is too small to support the amount of players out there so they will die or be acquired in the next 3 years.

As I was looking into this, you’re right! All of the streaming companies I mentioned have been purchased and are now part of a larger lump of money. Spotify is the odd man out and we’ll see how their play for podcasts worked out (though early indications are many of these contracts aren’t going to be renewed).

 

[jarman92]

Apple Pay prevents financial providers from getting any information about purchases other than the amount. Apple could in principle take advantage of having access to the additional information (what was purchased where, etc), though alledgedly they don’t.

The card issuer always gets the amount and the identity of the merchant, at a bare minimum. That’s obviously true because you can see that info on your statements. But Apple Pay or not, there’s no way for a merchant such as Target, for example, to communicate the actual items that were purchased to the card issuer absent some sort of data-sharing agreement. And even then, they could presumably link the purchases even if you used Apple Pay.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This all looks like DOJ trying to scratch their heads to determine if anything is wrong with this investigation. Also sensationalizing the headline topic for the NY Times.

Agreed, they know it’s closely watched so, even though they likely know how they’ll rule, they’re looking for any edge cases that might show some semblance of something other than, “Wow, they just made things folks want to buy.”

 

[bumblebritches5]

If the operating system is such a burden for the DoJ or any country, licence it out to other companies. And take 30% of the price of the sale. No reason to make it open source, but the operating system is the biggest influence on the device.

Honestly that would be cool, putting iOS on other phones.

 

[Analog Kid]

Does it?

In a legal system based on precedence, yes it does.

 

[zach-coleman]

In my opinion…

Fair:

• Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
• How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do. *(This one I find extremely ridiculous from Apple, like the Apple Watch is essentially the only option because nothing else can get access that lets it be truly useful.)
• How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store. *(But I also prefer non cloud solutions for games…)
• How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
• In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.

Unfair:

• How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage. *(Only because Apple will finally be adding RCS to Apple devices, if they were still refusing this would be fair)
• How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
• How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone. *(Unless they charge a fee for this service I’m unaware of, fragmentation will just make it worse)

Apple has had this kind of hammer coming for a while, and they deserve it, but I think Amazon and Google would have been more wise targets for the first to get it. Their dominance of key aspects of the web both allow them an extremely unfair influence.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

One commenter wrote “The competition ought to be between ecosystems/platforms (in Apple‘s case: Mac vs. Windows/Linux, iOS vs. Android etc.).” Several comments with more than 30 likes expressed the same sentiment. Would we accept it if, for example, GM made their own tires, batteries, lights, etc. and designed their cars such that third party tires, batteries … cannot be installed?

If they made cars I wanted, sure. I mean, I’d HAVE to accept it because, if I want the car, I’d have to accept everything that comes with owning that car. If they didn’t make cars I wanted, then I still wouldn’t care, I’d just get another car. I would imagine a large group of folks would buy the GM car, not knowing the limitations, and then be upset at themselves that they didn’t pay better att… nah, they’d just blame GM.

 

[amartinez1660]

Whatever they do, I just hope they don’t mess the whole convenience we got going on…

On Apple:
I want to continue to nicely and seamlessly receive phone calls on my Mac, the AirPods connecting automatically to that, while checkmarking a reminder task on the Watch while taking pencil annotation on the iPad from a screenshot taken on the Mac… without hassles, without setup, without installing random drivers (that work properly with every other tons of drivers that need to be installed on other systems by hand).

On Amazon:
I would like to continue to cheaply and easily buy items at the best price delivered at record speeds with hassle free warranty and returns if they don’t perform as advertised. Heck, time and time again a lot of the best Mac related discounts come from there too.
Please, don’t make them have to increase and pass costs to everybody else.

Thank you very much political pundits.

—————
These people attacking “the Apple ecosystem” et al: have they ever asked consumers if they would rather have these conveniences turned upside down to the detriment of everybody invested in it or just let it be to continue getting better. It’s fine to keep an eye out, but it’s another to start a tornado of crap.

 

[LogicalApex]

This is the most important part. Immediately after filing, they’d have to start work against Sony and every other company that makes proprietary products. Which is why I don’t think it’s coming. They’re working, to be sure, but it’s a fine line to file anything that doesn’t put a target on the back of almost every other company that makes anything proprietary (including Tile).

The main reason why nothing has come forward in the US up to this point is that the adults eventually enter the room, realize how far reaching such a filing would be, and kill the effort.

The anti-trust investigation, which is necessary, is looking into what actions Apple has taken, either public or clandestinely, to force Apple’s hardware to have the sales it does. For example, illegal deals for software to be available exclusively on Apple platforms, purchasing competing handset makers then shuttering them, cutting deals with carriers so that they only carry the iPhone, etc.

This isn’t accurate.

The DOJ pursuing Apple doesn’t impede on other companies making proprietary products. The DOJ would be taking actions against Apple using their size to stifle competition and would attempt to take actions that improve market competitiveness. As monopolies are inherently bad for everyone except the monopolist.

If you need clarity on this. The DOJ breaking up AT&T didn’t mean landline phone companies couldn’t exist. Nor did their actions against Microsoft mean Operating Systems or bundling features with them couldn’t exist.

Apple has so far evaded DOJ scrutiny by not being the market leader. Arguing they can’t be stifling competition enough to harm consumers because they aren’t large enough to control the market. This is based on the way the DOJ has measured monopolies since the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. The DOJ is revisiting their model as they feel it is insufficient in the modern era against large technology companies.

The DOJ has a value point given that Apple has created the App Store. It puts them in a position to stifle competition in a way they haven’t been capable of prior to its creation. While also making them much larger than they previously were.

Apple is unlikely to escape antitrust scrutiny this time around. Indeed they are facing it in many countries. It is also why they are opening up iMessage somewhat with RCS this year. In an attempt to soften the anticompetitive cases against them.

 

[ohthehorror]

No, they aren’t. I bought an iPhone, actually 2 of them recently, I own them, however what I can do with the product I own is extremely limited and controlled by Apple. Like why the **** does Apple care if I do simple thing like remove the home bar, or put icons where I want them, or fully customize how my Lock Screen and home screen look? None of my jailbroken phones over the years ever hurt Apple, in fact it made them more money since I kept buying them knowing that eventually a jailbreak would come out. Apple needs to loosen up.

I disagree. That’s like saying you want to buy an AR-15 and modify to be a fully automatic machine gun.

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Nice! About time someone investigate Apple's shenanigans, in spite of their paying off and/or being chummy with most of the establishment.

 

[subjonas]

The issue is having to choose an “ecosystem” in the first place, for such an ubiquitous and critical technical device. It’s like if each car brand had their own roads, gas stations, etc., and you’d have to choose your “car ecosystem”.

Are we forced to choose an ecosystem? People seem to operate fine picking and choosing devices from various manufacturers including Apple. Sure, they don’t get all the convenient niceties that comes from staying within an ecosystem, particularly Apple’s ecosystem since Apple has created by far the best ecosystem, but why are niceties/conveniences an entitlement? As long as people are free to choose any device to accomplish their critical functions, which I believe they are, then why does the government need to step in? I have a problem with a company being punished for creating too good of an ecosystem, which seems to be the case here.

 

[Dionte]

They can add to the list,
How you lock strangers out of your house.
Because they don’t allow android to sell phones in the Apple Stores.

 

[subjonas]

It’s also about letting the users decide what we want on our computers and phones

Do you say the same about software in cars or TVs or refrigerators? It’s not a basic human right, it’s a preference that should be decided by market forces, not legislation.
Also one is free to try to jailbreak their purchased device and install whatever software they can/want. It’s not any company’s obligation to pave the way.

 

[Shirasaki]

What's the point of capitalism and the free market then?

Free market was, is, and will always be a propaganda claim. Rules exist for a reason, and it’s going to get tougher for big players.

 

[one more]

I prefer a walled garden approach. If I didn’t like a walled garden approach, I would switch to Android.

I think the whole topic is exaggerated. Do you use a Mac? You can install any app on it without sacrificing your security. Safari will be protecting us just as well, etc.

We will not be giving anything up, only gaining from the DMA, IMO. With DMA tweaks you will still be able to remain in your walled garden, if you like, so nothing will actually change for you.

As for “I would switch to Android” argument, the DMA changes will also benefit developers and third party service providers (payments). Also, it so happens that I just do not like Android’s UI. 😋

So do not worry, folks, we should be fine.

 

[one more]

Do you say the same about software in cars or TVs or refrigerators? It’s not a basic human right, it’s a preference that should be decided by market forces, not legislation.
Also one is free to try to jailbreak their purchased device and install whatever software they can/want. It’s not any company’s obligation to pave the way.

There is a big difference between “trying to jailbreak one’s purchased device”, which poses a real security risk and voids the warranty as an added bonus, and just installing a small app, just as we can do with macOS.