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

[Unregistered 4U]

You're oversimplifying it by ignoring the very real network effects of the iPhone

What “network effects” of the iPhone existed to drive its first month of sales? Folks that like Apple products? How many applications that existed for other capable phones also existed for the iPhone upon its release? By the end of 2007, how many BBM users were there compared to iMessage users? The answer here is “far more than Apple’s slightly more than 1 million users”. Network effects for a thing can only exist after that thing exists. And, if that thing doesn’t sell well, the network effects may never come to be.

Unlike iPhone and Android, mobile phones weren't software platforms back in 2007. There were very few barriers for consumers to switch brands, because there was no app ecosystem you had invested in, no cloud storage you were paying for, no photo libraries to port over, no missing app for your new phone by your favorite app developer.

Phones were more or less standalone devices.

“more or less” ignores the millions of dollars of sales of applications for phones that were capable of running them. And “very few barriers” ignores the money spent on ringtones and tunes and other media like videos and photos that were also inexorably tied to those devices (including featurephones) that, in many cases one had to pay the carrier per file to even transfer that data to a PC (again, only IF the carrier allowed it).

Most people simply won't abandon that for a slightly better experience.

Right, and they didn’t abandon it for a slightly better experience, they abandoned it for a markedly better experience. It’s amazing to me that so many feel that the iPhone experience as it exists is so great that nothing will ever be better than the iPhone experience. So, they would like VERY much if the iPhone could simply expand from their current percentage to be 100% of all phones sold.

That, and no other action, will bring about “competition”. /s

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But anti-trust law is more about effects. Are you using your monopoly to distort the market? Cartel behavior (price setting among competitors) is illegal in anti-trust.

There is no doubt that antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms. If there’s nothing unlawful going on, then there’s no case. There has been no company accused of antitrust that has NOT been found to be acting unlawfully or illegally. If there HAD been, then one could say it’s ONLY about market effects. It’s actually about market effects that come about from the unlawful or illegal acts performed by a company.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Broken up into iPhone inc and App Store Inc its the only way i think we can all agree

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

Unlike iPhone and Android, mobile phones weren't software platforms back in 2007. There were very few barriers for consumers to switch brands, because there was no app ecosystem you had invested in, no cloud storage you were paying for, no photo libraries to port over, no missing app for your new phone by your favorite app developer.

Phones were more or less standalone devices.

This is all different today, and it's all to do with the network effects that come with software platforms.

It's 100x harder for a new phone or OS to break into the market place now, because we've all spent year and years spending money and buying apps and building out our ecosystem.

Most people simply won't abandon that for a slightly better experience.

No. There were various PDA phone (what they were initially referred to) OS's before Apple came along. Two of the more common ones were PDA Phones with Palm or Windows Mobile. It was a pain switching between them. App costs and the very important contacts. Flip phones were still around so if you were moving from one of those, contact moves were a pain. I'd argue the barriers were higher back then. There are many solutions to move back and forth from iOS and Droid.

Apple broke in to a market they had no experience with. Their OS was new. Their idea of what a handset and service provider was pushed conventional thinking. Anyone can do the same thing they did. Didn't say it would be easy. Just possible. All you need is a compelling change and fairly easy way of moving key data from other OSs to yours. And who knows, maybe it's not as a "handset" at all.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

Broken up into iPhone inc and App Store Inc its the only way i think we can all agree

Sorry, but nope - no way I'd agree to that. If you don't like the way Apple does things, there's an alternative.

 

[wanha]

No. There were various PDA phone (what they were initially referred to) OS's before Apple came along. Two of the more common ones were PDA Phones with Palm or Windows Mobile. It was a pain switching between them. App costs and the very important contacts. Flip phones were still around so if you were moving from one of those, contact moves were a pain. I'd argue the barriers were higher back then. There are many solutions to move back and forth from iOS and Droid.

Apple broke in to a market they had no experience with. Their OS was new. Their idea of what a handset and service provider was pushed conventional thinking. Anyone can do the same thing they did. Didn't say it would be easy. Just possible. All you need is a compelling change and fairly easy way of moving key data from other OSs to yours. And who knows, maybe it's not as a "handset" at all.

I respectfully disagree, and here is why:

You seem to be assuming the transition is just about "moving your data". That is only a fraction of it.

Moving contacts was a pain, but that pain was often there even when I moved from one Nokia to the next.

A much bigger part of the barrier is the ecosystem each of us have built around it:

- apps that you've paid for and rely on that don't exist on other platforms
- devices and accessories you've accumulated over the past 10 years, including HomePods, AppleTVs and Apple Watches
- accounts and services I've signed up for (e.g. all the playlists I've created in Apple Music, ScreenTime to control and monitor my kids' phone usage, etc)

Back in 2007, there was a fraction of this to consider.

For me, switch from Apple's ecosystem now to any other would be a gargantuan undertaking that makes what I went through in 2007 a short walk in the park.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

I respectfully disagree, and here is why:

You seem to be assuming the transition is just about "moving your data". That is only a fraction of it.

Moving contacts was a pain, but that pain was often there even when I moved from one Nokia to the next.

A much bigger part of the barrier is the ecosystem each of us have built around it:

- apps that you've paid for and rely on that don't exist on other platforms
- devices and accessories you've accumulated over the past 10 years, including HomePods, AppleTVs and Apple Watches
- accounts and services I've signed up for (e.g. all the playlists I've created in Apple Music, ScreenTime to control and monitor my kids' phone usage, etc)

Back in 2007, there was a fraction of this to consider.

For me, switch from Apple's ecosystem now to any other would be a gargantuan undertaking that makes what I went through in 2007 a short walk in the park.

I definitely see where you are coming from. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

- The apps we pay for and rely on that aren't on other platforms are not Apple's fault. The devs can port their programs over if they want to. For Apple to be at fault, they would have to have in their T&C's that they cannot offer their apps on any other platform. They don't. There are many apps you can get on either. And we had that issue back before 2007 too.

- devices and accessories - we have that issue no matter what you do anyway. Apple going to USB-C does help with that. But technology changes. Those things go out of date. I have an iHome clock who's apps on iOS no longer work as they chose not to keep up with it. All I can do is connect my phone for the time to adjust.

- accounts and services - that is again up to those who provide them. One of the apps I use is Radarscope. It works on any iOS device I want, but on my MacBook, I had to buy another license. Developers could choose to allow people to carry their login/service to other platforms if they so choose. Apple doesn't limit them from doing that.

What Apple has gotten in trouble for is limiting in-app purchases to the app, not a web site you can subscribe to. I do see that as a potential issue for them.

Lastly - if you were to move from Android to Apple, you would be faced with much of the same issues. Shouldn't the Justice Dept charge Google as well since they created Android?

 

[1129846]

I definitely see where you are coming from. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

- The apps we pay for and rely on that aren't on other platforms are not Apple's fault. The devs can port their programs over if they want to. For Apple to be at fault, they would have to have in their T&C's that they cannot offer their apps on any other platform. They don't. There are many apps you can get on either. And we had that issue back before 2007 too.

- devices and accessories - we have that issue no matter what you do anyway. Apple going to USB-C does help with that. But technology changes. Those things go out of date. I have an iHome clock who's apps on iOS no longer work as they chose not to keep up with it. All I can do is connect my phone for the time to adjust.

- accounts and services - that is again up to those who provide them. One of the apps I use is Radarscope. It works on any iOS device I want, but on my MacBook, I had to buy another license. Developers could choose to allow people to carry their login/service to other platforms if they so choose. Apple doesn't limit them from doing that.

What Apple has gotten in trouble for is limiting in-app purchases to the app, not a web site you can subscribe to. I do see that as a potential issue for them.

Lastly - if you were to move from Android to Apple, you would be faced with much of the same issues. Shouldn't the Justice Dept charge Google as well since they created Android?

Tell you the truth going from Android to Apple is no where close as painful as the other direction. Namely as Google's hardware and services play pretty nice with Apple.

Chromecast works the same ans you don't lose a service. Going from Apple to Google, airplay from your phone is broken. Anything airplay is broke as only an apple device can do airplay. This means things like your Apple TV quality drops a lot.

Things like your Apple speakers loose a lot of value as again need an Apple device to use them. Apple computers do not play as nice with each other. Access to thinngs like Apple maps no longer work. Apple photos do not work. Accessing iCloud is badly hurt and again syncing there is fine. Google no issue at all. Google photos easy to set up to sync with your phone no matter the platform.

Apple mail again much worse experience on a non apple device. Gmail no problem. The list goes on.

Apple has a much harsher and tighter lock in vertically that Google.

I think Google needs to be looked at for it's own list of reasons but there is no getting around the fact that Apple is by far worse in the anti trust department. Google needs to be looked at as well and there are more arguments that Google doesn't need to be looked at than Apple and I think Google needs to be hammered.

Now the worse I would argue is Amazon and people don't understand how big and powerful Amazon is on the web.

 

[danwells]

But most Apple users know about all of that - you enter the Apple ecosystem knowing that the tradeoff is extra security, privacy and usability in return for less choice. Many of us in the Apple ecosystem want fewer ads, less malware, better privacy and things that work very well together - and we're willing to accept some lock-in to get it.

The example I always return to is Facebook/Meta. The INSTANT Apple allows sideloading, all Meta apps will become sideload-only to escape Apple's Ad Tracking Transparency, which Zuck hates with a passion (it probably DID cost him a ton of money). The lack of an alternative to the App Store FORCES Facebook and Instagram to play by the rules on iOS. While there are apps Apple users can't get (and, if they care about this at all, they know about App Store restrictions), they CAN get an Instagram app with many of the most unpopular "features" not enabled. If sideloading is allowed, that Instagram app (which many people value) goes away, replaced by the Android version with the tracking on full-strength. Similarly, malware-adjacent apps that can't get into the App Store will immediately crop up via sideload, with some of them replacing "friendlier" versions that had to comply with App Store rules.

Many of us choose Apple in part BECAUSE of some of the restrictions. I'm a non-gamer, and I buy Macs in part because I know that operating system hooks used by games and exploited by malware don't exist. I know that I'm reducing my choice of games in order to reduce my chance of crashes - but I don't play games, so I take the reduced crashes with a drawback that doesn't matter to me.

Similarly, AppleTV requires homogeneous hardware, but it works better than Chromecast, and it's less advertiser-friendly. If you want that, buy an AppleTV. If you don't like the walled garden, buy a Chromecast. There is no market in which Apple is so dominant that there isn't an equally viable alternative (an important distinction from Windows in the '90s).

 

[lartola]

There is no market in which Apple is so dominant that there isn't an equally viable alternative (an important distinction from Windows in the '90s).

There is one: the smartphone market in the US. Apple now dominates it with a share of over 50%. That makes Android, the only real alternative, less of a viable alternative for those who don’t want or can’t afford apple (many people who choose android do so for budget reasons) because of the difficulty to communicate between platforms.

 

[1129846]

The example I always return to is Facebook/Meta. The INSTANT Apple allows sideloading, all Meta apps will become sideload-only to escape Apple's Ad Tracking Transparency, which Zuck hates with a passion (it probably DID cost him a ton of money). The lack of an alternative to the App Store FORCES Facebook and Instagram to play by the rules on iOS. While there are apps Apple users can't get (and, if they care about this at all, they know about App Store restrictions), they CAN get an Instagram app with many of the most unpopular "features" not enabled. If sideloading is allowed, that Instagram app (which many people value) goes away, replaced by the Android version with the tracking on full-strength. Similarly, malware-adjacent apps that can't get into the App Store will immediately crop up via sideload, with some of them replacing "friendlier" versions that had to comply with App Store rules.

The problem with that ENTIRE argument is Google allows side loading and has the same ad tracking transparency and they still are in the play store. So no facebook would not leave the App store any time soon. It hurts them way to much. So no that not going to happen. Problem 2 is everything facebook hates with Ad tracking transparency level would affect side loading just as much. Those changes are at the API level not at the store level.

Also the ad tracking transparency is no where close as good as you think it is. If someone has an account they have it locked in. Yeah slightly harder with out the tracking id but if you sign in with facebook on any SSO boom facebook has something to link you together. Facebook supplies those SDK and believe me they will try to grab that id when you sign in but at hte very least they know what apps are you sign in with and put that data together.

Facebook level of gathering data is creepy scary and how hard they fight to bye pass things. Facebooks reason for hating it is harder to get accross app data when users dont sign in with facebook. To facebook itself and the apps there no affect on the privacy.

Also everything apple is blocking with the App store going into them they block on ALL apps side loaded or not so yet again side loading will not affect it

 

[BaldiMac]

There is one: the smartphone market in the US. Apple now dominates it with a share of over 50%. That makes Android, the only real alternative, less of a viable alternative for those who don’t want or can’t afford apple (many people who choose android do so for budget reasons) because of the difficulty to communicate between platforms.

You're, of course, overstating things here. 55% doesn't make them dominant. Android is a viable alternative. And there is no difficulty in communicating between platforms.

 

[lartola]

You're, of course, overstating things here. 55% doesn't make them dominant. Android is a viable alternative. And there is no difficulty in communicating between platforms.

Sorry but no. 55% means most of your contacts will be iphone users. If you have an Android and you’re limited to SMS to message more than half of your contacts because they use iphones (because american iphone users simply don’t ever use whatsapp or similar to message non-apple users, they just use sms) then Android is no longer a very viable alternative in the US.

 

[wbeasley]

The point is other smartwatches are clearly limited on iOS and can't even get close to an Apple watch no matter what. You can literally built the most incredible smartwach hardware possible today and it functionality will still pe limited on iOS.

So knowing that, dont buy an iOS device if you want your watch to do everything it can...

I wouldnt be buying Samsung Buds or Watch and expect them to work as well as with Samsung phones.
If I dont like my TV remote, I cant just swap it. Or the Smart TV operation system.
Don't like it, dont buy it. Problem solved.

 

[1129846]

So knowing that, dont buy an iOS device if you want your watch to do everything it can...

I wouldnt be buying Samsung Buds or Watch and expect them to work as well as with Samsung phones.
If I dont like my TV remote, I cant just swap it. Or the Smart TV operation system.
Don't like it, dont buy it. Problem solved.

Tell you the truth you can swap out your remote to a different one. In terms of the iWatch playing well with only iOS is not the biggest issue there. It is more no one else can even make a watch that can do remotely close to same level of working with iOS due to the many private API access.

 

[avkills]

There is one: the smartphone market in the US. Apple now dominates it with a share of over 50%. That makes Android, the only real alternative, less of a viable alternative for those who don’t want or can’t afford apple (many people who choose android do so for budget reasons) because of the difficulty to communicate between platforms.

Just over 50% share is not what I would consider dominant. Come see me when it is at or around 80-90%. Because that is the number Apple has been clawing against Microsoft Windows in the desktop OS space. I just checked and currently windows is still right about 70%. So no 50% in my eyes is not dominant.

 

[dkh587]

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

Agreed

 

[1129846]

Just over 50% share is not what I would consider dominant. Come see me when it is at or around 80-90%. Because that is the number Apple has been clawing against Microsoft Windows in the desktop OS space. I just checked and currently windows is still right about 70%. So no 50% in my eyes is not dominant.

It is when it is part duopoly. Remember Google is being looked at for Anti trust as well. The duopoly controls well over 90% of the market so it’s not just Apple in the firing line. Google is as well and already has things in motion. The only one of the big tech companies not being looked hard at right now is Microsoft.

 

[danwells]

The problem with that ENTIRE argument is Google allows side loading and has the same ad tracking transparency and they still are in the play store. So no facebook would not leave the App store any time soon. It hurts them way to much. So no that not going to happen. Problem 2 is everything facebook hates with Ad tracking transparency level would affect side loading just as much. Those changes are at the API level not at the store level.

Also the ad tracking transparency is no where close as good as you think it is. If someone has an account they have it locked in. Yeah slightly harder with out the tracking id but if you sign in with facebook on any SSO boom facebook has something to link you together. Facebook supplies those SDK and believe me they will try to grab that id when you sign in but at hte very least they know what apps are you sign in with and put that data together.

Facebook level of gathering data is creepy scary and how hard they fight to bye pass things. Facebooks reason for hating it is harder to get accross app data when users dont sign in with facebook. To facebook itself and the apps there no affect on the privacy.

Also everything apple is blocking with the App store going into them they block on ALL apps side loaded or not so yet again side loading will not affect it

Google does not protect you from personalized ads anywhere NEAR as well as Apple does, since Google makes 90% of their profits from personalized ads. I use only Apple products, and I run adblockers on top of Cookie, in order to keep them all out as best as I can. It's not 100% effective, but it's not bad. When I briefly turn the blocklers off, the ads I see are pretty darned random.

I completely agree with you that Facebook will try anything to grab your data (I dislike that enough that I will not maintain an account on any Meta product). Ad Tracking Transparency DOES do a pretty good job against their backup approaches to spy on people who don't log in or use their apps (and are mainly vulnerable to their pixels on other websites and the like). For those who DO maintain accounts, Apple also sandboxes the apps - not completely effectively, but Zuck wouldn't be complaining as loudly as he is if it didn't work.

 

[1129846]

Google does not protect you from personalized ads anywhere NEAR as well as Apple does, since Google makes 90% of their profits from personalized ads. I use only Apple products, and I run adblockers on top of Cookie, in order to keep them all out as best as I can. It's not 100% effective, but it's not bad. When I briefly turn the blocklers off, the ads I see are pretty darned random.

I completely agree with you that Facebook will try anything to grab your data (I dislike that enough that I will not maintain an account on any Meta product). Ad Tracking Transparency DOES do a pretty good job against their backup approaches to spy on people who don't log in or use their apps (and are mainly vulnerable to their pixels on other websites and the like). For those who DO maintain accounts, Apple also sandboxes the apps - not completely effectively, but Zuck wouldn't be complaining as loudly as he is if it didn't work.

Google protects and hide the ad tracking from everyone else and pretty good about it. Like it or not Google is very protective of the data it gathers on you and does not give it out to 3rd parties like Facebook does. Facebook sells your data to 3rd parties much more freely.

Like you said Google makes its money by selling Ads which it is directly selling. Facebook tends to sell ads through other vendors.

Basically by Google not giving out the advertising Id and hiding it then it gives them a competitive edge as no one else can link things together but them.

Apple does the same thing with hiding the advertising tracking and making foot printing harder. Don’t get me wrong Apple foot print hiding is better than Google not it is not nearly as much better as everyone seems to think. Having limited number of devices makes fingerprinting harder.

Also Facebook as a profile on you because god they are creepy and the god damn node package called Facebook pixel which is all over the place and often times unknownl slipped in to web sites for tracking.

I trust apple and Microsoft the most with my data followed pretty closely Google as like I explained above Google sells the ads with the data it has. Facebook resells your data. Also don’t forget Apple has an ads business as well so Apple sells them as well for first party just no where as big as Google.

 

[danwells]

That's true, that some of the footprinting protection is inherent to the limited number of devices. Excluding things like someone running a vintage iPhone 6 (possible, but not especially common, and probably easier to footprint), I wonder how many reasonably common iOS device SKUs are out there? I bet storage size IS footprintable, but color isn't?

By counting in EveryMac (which conveniently identifies all the band variations), and going back to the iPhone X, I get 102 iPhone models, most of which have three storage variations (a few have two, and a few have four). Going back to the first appearance of the smaller iPad Pro (chosen because it is closely contemporary with the iPhone X), there are 72 iPad models that are probably reasonably common. There's a little more variation in memory capacities per device (more twos, more fours, a small number of fives), but three is still a reasonable average. That suggests a little over 500 common iOS device fingerprints, plus some weird old stuff. With a billion or so iOs devices in use, 500 configurations doesn't help a spy very much.

There are more Mac configurations out there... A thousand or a few more, not counting minor variations on the Mac Pro theme? Excluding the Mac Pro, there have been 117 Mac models released since 2017 - just over half of which (59) are MacBook Pros(!). This is everything EveryMac counts as a model, including processor variations... My guess is that they average ten or so configurations apiece. Some will have only a couple of RAM options and a couple of storage options, but the older iMacs can have half a dozen or more RAM configurations, and at least that many storage choices, plus a couple of graphics options and some possibility for user upgrades. I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to get a hundred configurations out of something like a 2019 or 2020 27" iMac.

The iMac Pro is a separate story, due to the PCIe slots. Any competent hardware fingerprinted can figure out what's in the PCIe slots, and not only has Apple sold quite a few configurations, but there are a huge number of possibilities to add on. There are almost certainly some actually hardware-unique Mac Pros out there, plus hundreds of more common configurations (and since the Mac Pro isn't a huge seller and comes in a lot of configurations, even a "more common" configuration of the 2019 Intel model might be exist on the order of hundreds in the world, while even a slightly weird MacBook Pro will number in the tens of thousands).

The M2 Ultra model has many fewer configurations, since RAM and storage aren't fully configurable the way they are on the 2019. Some configurations with only one relatively common PCIe card (if you have zero, WHY not a Mac Studio) might actually become semi-common.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sorry but no. 55% means most of your contacts will be iPhone users.

Which, again, doesn't make them comparably dominant to Windows with 95% of the market.

If you have an Android and you’re limited to SMS to message more than half of your contacts because they use iphones (because american iphone users simply don’t ever use whatsapp or similar to message non-apple users, they just use sms) then Android is no longer a very viable alternative in the US.

That's neither true nor an indication that communication is difficult between platforms.

 

[BaldiMac]

It is when it is part duopoly. Remember Google is being looked at for Anti trust as well. The duopoly controls well over 90% of the market so it’s not just Apple in the firing line. Google is as well and already has things in motion. The only one of the big tech companies not being looked hard at right now is Microsoft.

if your concern is a duopoly, then end Google's anti-competitive agreements with it's horizontal competitors.. Then by your definition, Apple would not longer be considered dominant.

 

[Philip_S]

Air tags was NEVER and I repeat NEVER advertised for that goal. if you are using airtags to prevent your stuff from being stolen you are using them incorrectly.

No, but it is a reason to use a different system: the person I was replying to said he couldn’t see any reason to use a different tag system.

 

[lartola]

Which, again, doesn't make them comparably dominant to Windows with 95% of the market.

Nonetheless only two companies having more than 90% of the smartphone market, at least softwarewise, can’t be good for consumers. No way it can be good.