It's not illegal to just be a monopoly but it can be illegal for a company with a dominant position (Apple's iOS has over 60% share of the mobile OS market in the U.S.) to engage in anticompetitive behavior such as restricting choice and competition in areas like app access, payment systems, browser engines, etc. A "remedy" could end up being similar to what happened in the EU.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Imminent U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not illegal to just be a monopoly but it can be illegal for a company with a dominant position (Apple's iOS has over 60% share of the mobile OS market in the U.S.) to engage in anticompetitive behavior such as restricting choice and competition in areas like app access, payment systems, browser engines, etc. A "remedy" could end up being similar to what happened in the EU.
Short of Congress implementing their own version of the DMA, I'm not convinced there's a coherent legal argument to force Apple to open up, much as I am certain there are many people here who would be absolutely trilled for Apple to. I suspect the lawsuit will end up running into the same problem that Epic did, which is that while there are people who may dislike and have issues with some things Apple does, what they are doing under current US law doesn't come off as being illegal.
First, it's not illegal to be a walled garden (the Epic trial established that).
Second, Apple is entitled to charge licensing fees for their platform, and if you say that 30% is abusive, then I say - abusive compared to what? It's been there since day 1, the fees aren't there simply to cover payment processing, and other companies like Nintendo and Steam do it as well.
Third, I don't see anything about anti-steering provisions, which was ironically the one part that Apple did lose on.
The thing about US antitrust law is that you have to prove harm to consumers (to my knowledge at least). And a lot of what Apple does can be argued as benefiting the end user in one way or another.
For example, Apple Pay means that merchants never get my payment information, yet people here would rather that NFC be opened up to banks who might then favour their own payment apps and opt not to support Apple Pay at all, in addition to monitoring what I do and selling my data for marketing?
Or would you rather favour Facebook being able to tracking what you do on your phone?
Or maybe you would prefer not making each game on a streaming game platform be an individual app so the Parental Controls on iPhone don't work as they have advertised for a decade?
Likewise, why should iMessage be forced to support RCS when SMS technically works? It's not like WhatsApp or telegram support SMS fallback either, so I find that an odd argument to make.
It just feels like the DOJ is hurling every single accusation that they can think of at Apple, regardless of merit, in the hopes that at least one sticks. At least that's just the way it seems to me.
The DOJ allegations are broader and arguably more consumer oriented than what was involved in the Epic case. It's not about preventing Apple from offering products/services, charging any fees, etc.; it's about issues related to Apple using its dominance in the U.S. mobile market to "unfairly" favor its products, restrict choice and competition, etc.
Fair point. But there is a school of thought that our laws are sufficient, but that they just were less and less enforced over the last three or four decades. That trend has clearly changed and anti-trust laws are being enforced again. There are some judges that will eventually need to be guided out of following past precedent that was basically based on bend over for corporations because they have our best interest at heart.
Sure, monopolies aren't good. But, I wonder how Apple products will fare if the company is forced to comply with regulations or if Apple is forced to split into different companies.
Sorry, you must use Apple Pay to vote with your wallet.
I don't think Apple will be made to split up. Any solutions will probably come in the form of concessions that Apple has already made in the EU under the DMA. That said, many of the accusations seem to be without merit, and a resolution will likely be many years away.
They have gone through this before several times...they make a little concession to the feds or whoever is badgering them and then back to business. Usually, the other computer companies get the investigations next. It will go away..
While the “outright” is debatable, monopolies don’t mean there are no alternatives whatsoever, from a legal point of view.
It just means a degree of significant and durable market power - that Microsoft had.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
Sure, but the way Microsoft sold Windows to OEMs in the 1990s, you were still paying for Windows even if you didn't intend to use it.
Microsoft had a habit of charging for DOS/Windows based on the total number of PCs sold by the OEM, so if Dell or Compaq or whoever wanted to ship a PC with OS/2 or Linux or BeOS or whatever, they were still paying Microsoft for a Windows licence and then paying IBM or Be on top of that. There was a small window of time in 1994-95ish when it looked like OS/2 Warp 3 (with its excellent DOS/Win3.1 compatibility) might actually have a shot in the absence of the much-delayed Chicago/Windows 95, and I think those kinds of tricks were a big reason it fizzled out.
Well said. It’s just a dog and pony to look tough in a year everyone knows what’s going to happen. There is nothing in the lawsuit with any real teeth.
I compare it to Disney World. Is that a walled garden? Should Disney be forced to have non Disney content in their parks or support experiences at other theme parks? Makes no sense. Every company tries to vertically integrate as much as possible.
Microsoft was waaaayyy more of a Monopoly than Apple (Apple has like 20% iPhone share worldwide) and in the end barely changed anything significant.
This is a waste of time and money for everyone but it’s being done for other reasons.
I believe the global share of iPhone/iOS is closer to 30% but this is a U.S. case and therefore would only apply to the U.S. market. The iPhone (and iOS) has over 60% share in the U.S. and iOS is one of only two major players in the mobile OS market.
In various ways, iOS is more restrictive than Windows was. The DOJ is looking to address how Apple uses its dominance in the U.S. mobile market to "unfairly" favor its products, restrict choice and competition, etc. The overall DOJ goal is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible and help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in the market.
No, it’s closer to 20% so not even close to a monopoly. Regarding the US, 40% using other stuff makes it not even close there either. If you think Apple is close to a monopoly, Android isn’t far behind. Consolidation is normal in business. Visa, Mastercard, Fast Food, consumer products, etc. Only a few companies own most of the business.
The DOJ is completely partisan and just wants to look tough. All of them use iPhones. ALL good companies try to keep customers and push out competitors. Ultimately, you can switch. It’s not easy to switch away from Google services either. Anything with your data inherently makes it a pain but it’s ultimately your choice.
Windows was FAR more dominant than Apple is in their space.
I wouldn't bet against the DOJ here
They win most of their cases and I doubt they would brought this case if they didn't feel very good about it
They win most of their cases and I doubt they would brought this case if they didn't feel very good about it
Windows didn't have the DMCA and the ability to use various code signing/cryptographic techniques (combined with ubiquitous Internet-based connectivity back to the mothership) to force third parties to only interact with it on Microsoft's terms...
Most of the wrongs alleged against Microsoft were plain business tactics, e.g. how they strongly discouraged OEMs from preinstalling non-Windows OSes, bundling browsers (and media players and other things) when other people who have friends in politics thought they were going to make money selling those things, etc.
The one that I always thought was the most interesting, especially when you consider how Google created a platform worse than Windows by doing the opposite, was all the stuff against OEMs customizing Windows in the 95 and later days. In the 3.1 days many of the big PC OEMs had their own custom shells instead of Program Manager, starting with 95, Microsoft started to require a very generic experience that applied to all OEMs. Now, given the extent to which OEMs wanted to push bloatware, I can certainly understand Microsoft's position... but... that's what is very similar to this new case against Apple.
Depends on your definition of what “winning” looks like. Apple will end up changing a few lines of code and maybe a couple fees. In the end, consumers will be harmed because the impact will be paid in other ways and people will still not switch because of the decision. People buy iPhones because they are good products.
All these fake consumer advocacy lawsuits are more for other gains and appearances. Consumers are far more harmed by needless regulations imposed by the same people.
Boeing and Airbus make 95% of the planes. There are 2 railroads. The airlines are essentially monopolies because you can’t choose many key routes with other carriers. The list is endless but Apple gets targeted because they are the richest company and very well known. Any kind of dramatic change would set an awful precedent.
Apple will fight with endless cash to pay lawyers or just settle if they can admit some fake wrongdoing and barely change anything. Waste of time.
Or Apple gets targeted because they don't play the political game and their rivals do.
It's worth noting - in the mid-late 1990s, Microsoft didn't have a DC office, a bunch of lobbyists on retainer, and their senior execs didn't make political donations. Meanwhile, RealNotworks (a typical company that was building a buggy bloated product that Microsoft then duplicated in Windows) was hiring a temporarily-out-of-work former congresswoman who subsequently became a US senator.
If the politicians are only hearing one side of the story, it's no surprise that they take action based on that side...
If someone is bored, it would be very interesting to run every senior Apple exec through something like https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup .
According to Statcounter, iOS's mobile OS market share is closer to 30% globally. It's over 60% in the U.S. which is the market relevant to the DOJ case. Apple (iOS) and Google (Android) are the only two major players in the mobile OS market. Apple has a dominant position and deserves antitrust scrutiny.
Yes, Microsoft did things like discourage (although not outright prevent) computer OEMs from offering/pre-installing products the competed with MS products. The one that got the most attention/publicity was Netscape Navigator. MS also destroyed Netscape's (Spyglass's too) main revenue source by giving away IE for "free" as Netscape had been largely charging for Navigator in the early years.
Apple has even more control of iOS including bundling several Apple apps and preventing retailers of iPhones (AT&T, Best Buy, etc.) from pre-installing alternative apps or uninstalling apps like Safari. Apple also doesn't even allow iPhone users to do things access apps outside the App Store, use alternative browser engines, uninstall Safari, etc. While certainly not perfect (hence the 1990s DOJ antitrust investigation and lawsuit), Windows offered more flexibly to companies (computer OEMs, retailers, etc.) and users than iOS does.
One of the DOJ goals here is to try to help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in a market. Another is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible and because Apple is the dominant player, they have the most control, influence, etc. and therefore are a focus here.