Apple Facing Imminent U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[VivienM]

Well seems to have worked considering chrome today dominates.

Yes and no. One thing that didn't change is the idea that browsers need to be free to end users. Google can afford to develop Chrome through ad revenue, Firefox is funded from (Google) ad revenue, IE/Edge was (and to a lesser still is, though I assume the R&D expenditures went way down when they switched to using the Chromium engine) funded through MS Windows OEM licences, and Safari is funded from Apple hardware revenue.

I am not aware of anybody who has succeeded at selling a browser the way lots of other software is sold, and the way Netscrape intended before Microsoft started bundling IE.

 

[VivienM]

There was no monopoly. There was no problem of choice. In fact, the time to argue that Microsoft was engaged in some kind of anti-competitive behavior was 8 years earlier, when they had beaten back Netscape to have over 90% market share. That didn't last long, though, because by the end of 2008, IE had already dropped below 50% market share, primarily due to competition from Firefox.

And because Microsoft made a huge strategic error and basically abandoned IE development. They decided that going forward, new IE features would be tied to new Windows versions. And of course, the next version of Windows (Longhorn) was massively delayed.

Meanwhile, the Mozilla folks had managed to clean up the disastrous codebase inherited from Netscrape 6.x and turn it into the aptly-named Phoenix. Which was later renamed Firefox due to trademark issues.

Also at that time, the end of the ~1998 Microsoft/Apple OS X IE exclusivity agreement caused Steve Jobs to create its own browser Safari.

Microsoft's initial response, IE7 for Windows, shipped in late 2006 basically with Vista, after Firefox (counting betas) had been grabbing market share for about 4 years.

And that left a giant opening for Google to come along two years later - lots of business stuff still tied to IE6, Vista getting a tepid reception, Firefox not having a marketing budget, etc... all creates an opportunity for Google. Helps too that Google figured out how to cheat Windows' UAC to be installed by non-admins...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes and no. One thing that didn't change is the idea that browsers need to be free to end users. Google can afford to develop Chrome through ad revenue, Firefox is funded from (Google) ad revenue, IE/Edge was (and to a lesser still is, though I assume the R&D expenditures went way down when they switched to using the Chromium engine) funded through MS Windows OEM licences, and Safari is funded from Apple hardware revenue.

I am not aware of anybody who has succeeded at selling a browser the way lots of other software is sold, and the way Netscrape intended before Microsoft started bundling IE.

Could as well have been opera, or safari that became dominant, but Apple kind abandoned safari and crippled it untill they stopped development on the windows version.

And Google chrome started dominating the browser market after android smartphones exploded and with it users started using chrome on their computers as well.

While apple threw in the towel and Microsoft abandoning the Windows phone market.

During the time I used safari on windows as it was great having the same browser on my iPhone and pc. But now I rather use Firefox or Edge with chromium instead of google chrome

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes and no. One thing that didn't change is the idea that browsers need to be free to end users. Google can afford to develop Chrome through ad revenue, Firefox is funded from (Google) ad revenue, IE/Edge was (and to a lesser still is, though I assume the R&D expenditures went way down when they switched to using the Chromium engine) funded through MS Windows OEM licences, and Safari is funded from Apple hardware revenue.

I am not aware of anybody who has succeeded at selling a browser the way lots of other software is sold, and the way Netscrape intended before Microsoft started bundling IE.

Plus I would say it likely helps a lot with exposure to push the adoption rate even higher for free essentially. At least in Europe, can’t say for the rest of the world who didn’t do anything

 

[russell_314]

So many of y’all are thinking this is the caring government going after big bad Apple when in reality it’s just a government trying to put pressure into giving them a back door into their devices.


Obviously, the statement above is just my opinion because if I really had proof of this, my existence would be very short-lived 🤣

 

[Abazigal]

It's increasingly clear that US antitrust law is ill-equipped to tackle tech giants. Short of coming up with their own version of the DMA, I see little chance of this lawsuit making much headway, much less having any noticeable impact on Apple.

 

[VivienM]

It's increasingly clear that US antitrust law is ill-equipped to tackle tech giants. Short of coming up with their own version of the DMA, I see little chance of this lawsuit making much headway, much less having any noticeable impact on Apple.

It's not really 'tech giants' per se as much as the network effects involved in technology that lead the winning company to become giant.

As one example, one giant social media platform with 90% of people on it will attract more people/money/everything than if you had four social media platforms each serving 25% of the population.

And same thing with software - if 90% of people use, say, MS Word, then your life becomes easier if you also use MS Word.

And same thing with operating systems. If 80% of people use operating system X, well, that's what third party developers will write software for, which then means there is more/better software for X, which then means X becomes more dominant.

It's not clear how you are supposed to solve that with law/policy unless, I guess, you basically mandate 'standard' everything. No more MS Word file format, now every word processor must read/write the standard file format (which also means no more innovation in word processing). No more writing software for native APIs, you need something like Java that can be implemented on multiple OSes that everybody writes for and you need that middleware to be some kind of open neutral standard otherwise whoever controls the middleware is the new monopolist.

 

[VivienM]

It's not about what I think, it’s how the justice system has worked. The relevant market to the DOJ is the U.S. and the DOJ is stating that Apple's U.S. share of the "performance smartphone market" exceeds 70% and its U.S. share of the overall smartphone market exceeds 65%. That's not "very far from a monopoly" as you put it.

And, frankly, if you defined the market as 'smartphones owned by people who are willing to hand over their credit cards for apps', I would guess Apple's market share is... well, well above 70%.

I don't think it's that controversial that Android users tend to spend much less on apps.

 

[vantelimus]

The question wasn’t about monopolies, as for EU it’s just a question of anti trust behavior. And their mandate was implemented in only EU, not globally or worldwide and was mainly for the European market.

It’s al about preventing harm to the internal free market. To allow the free movement of goods and to defend the founding charters of EU. It doesn’t matter if it’s an American company, European one or Asian one. Eau doesn’t tolerate any threats to the founding principles of EU and the healthy option to compete on the market.

None of the European products that the EU was trying to slant the playing field toward exists today. The market rejected them and the companies that were producing them found better, more profitable, uses for their investment dollars than trying to peel off small dollars through coercive governmental regulations. The simple truth is, the EU doesn't give a damn about competition. They care about unfairly slanting markets to Europe's favor and insuring tax dollars flow into their countries.

Being a dominant player isn’t illegal, just how EU in forcing google again to allow users to choose their preferred browser. If they still choose chrome then it will be completely fine.

They were choosing Chrome and Firefox BEFORE the choice website went up. Microsoft had gone from 92% down to 35% before the you are saying people had choice.

A choice between 2 or 3 adequate products? That is what we have in some instances but not in others.

We have 1 option for a browser on iOS.

Wrong. Go to the App Store you can download Chrome, Firefox, Opera, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Aloha, Edge, Yandex, and others. Lots of others. What you can't do is go to an alternative store and download trojaed and compromised versions of software trying to trick you into revealing your personal information.

We have 1 option for a store on iOS.

And that has made iPhone a much more secure and safe environment than the sewer that is Android. If you want to choose the sewer, then jump in. Don't pollute the freshwater pond.

 

[vantelimus]

And because Microsoft made a huge strategic error and basically abandoned IE development. They decided that going forward, new IE features would be tied to new Windows versions. And of course, the next version of Windows (Longhorn) was massively delayed.

Meanwhile, the Mozilla folks had managed to clean up the disastrous codebase inherited from Netscrape 6.x and turn it into the aptly-named Phoenix. Which was later renamed Firefox due to trademark issues.

Also at that time, the end of the ~1998 Microsoft/Apple OS X IE exclusivity agreement caused Steve Jobs to create its own browser Safari.

Microsoft's initial response, IE7 for Windows, shipped in late 2006 basically with Vista, after Firefox (counting betas) had been grabbing market share for about 4 years.

And that left a giant opening for Google to come along two years later - lots of business stuff still tied to IE6, Vista getting a tepid reception, Firefox not having a marketing budget, etc... all creates an opportunity for Google. Helps too that Google figured out how to cheat Windows' UAC to be installed by non-admins...

Let me summarize that for you:
No intervention in the market was necessary.

 

[VivienM]

Let me summarize that for you:
No intervention in the market was necessary.

Maybe, maybe not. 2008 Microsoft was not 1998 Microsoft; it is certainly possible that a Microsoft not beat up by a decade of legal troubles might have managed to resist/destroy Firefox/Chrome/etc.

 

[vantelimus]

Maybe, maybe not. 2008 Microsoft was not 1998 Microsoft; it is certainly possible that a Microsoft not beat up by a decade of legal troubles might have managed to resist/destroy Firefox/Chrome/etc.

But it didn’t. And they were not the dominant browser by the time the EU forced Microsoft to hawk EU based products that died.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

None of the European products that the EU was trying to slant the playing field toward exists today. The market rejected them and the companies that were producing them found better, more profitable, uses for their investment dollars than trying to peel off small dollars through coercive governmental regulations. The simple truth is, the EU doesn't give a damn about competition. They care about unfairly slanting markets to Europe's favor and insuring tax dollars flow into their countries.

That’s completely wrong, EU haven’t slanted the playing field towards a single EU company. It’s illegal to do that and the other members would never allow it.

any law must apply equally.

Wrong. Go to the App Store you can download Chrome, Firefox, Opera, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Aloha, Edge, Yandex, and others. Lots of others. What you can't do is go to an alternative store and download trojaed and compromised versions of software trying to trick you into revealing your personal information.

100% of the options you mentioned are just reskinned versions of safari. They all use WebKit and can’t use something else.
Firefox can’t use their Gecko engine but uses safaris WebKit.
Chrome can’t use their blink engine and uses the safari WebKit.
Opera, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Aloha, Edge, Yandex, and others can’t use their chromium browser with the blink engine. But uses the safari WebKit engine.

That’s the issue.

And that has made iPhone a much more secure and safe environment than the sewer that is Android. If you want to choose the sewer, then jump in. Don't pollute the freshwater pond.

The sewer that is android? How about the macOS? The AppStore is extremely polluted already.
I would rather use the Steam app and delete the AppStore

all that is needed is iOS apps to be published in steam and it’s perfect

 

[Sophisticatednut]

But it didn’t. And they were not the dominant browser by the time the EU forced Microsoft to hawk EU based products that died.

Microsoft was a dominant player, and they implemented anti competitive tactics and behaviors. And they had to change those irrespective of their browser market share.

 

[webkit]

You make a good case if you ignore the data and the reason for the law.

In March 2010, when the EU order went into effect (ostensibly to break the "IE monopoly" and give people choice), worldwide market share for browsers was approximately

46% Firefox
35% IE
12% Chrome
4% Safari
2% Opera

I think the 2010 to 2014 EU browser choice requirement was more about Windows' dominance and wanting to increase user awareness of alternative browser options they had as well as make it easier to switch. It was similar to what happened in the 1990s and wanting to give Windows users greater/easier access to Navigator.

According to Statcounter, the approximate desktop browser share in Europe was as follows in March 2010:
IE = 45%
Firefox = 38%
Chrome = 7%
Opera = 4%
Safari = 4%

By December 2014, it was as follows:
Chrome = 47%
Firefox = 26%
IE = 17%
Safari = 4%
Opera = 3%

Keep in mind that Safari was only available/supported on Windows until 2012.

 

[webkit]

I am not aware of anybody who has succeeded at selling a browser the way lots of other software is sold, and the way Netscrape intended before Microsoft started bundling IE.

Opera largely charged for its browser until 2008. They had also offered a free ad-supported version.

 

[vantelimus]

That’s completely wrong, EU haven’t slanted the playing field towards a single EU company. It’s illegal to do that and the other members would never allow it.

any law must apply equally.

100% of the options you mentioned are just reskinned versions of safari. They all use WebKit and can’t use something else.
Firefox can’t use their Gecko engine but uses safaris WebKit.
Chrome can’t use their blink engine and uses the safari WebKit.
Opera, DuckDuckGo, Brave, Aloha, Edge, Yandex, and others can’t use their chromium browser with the blink engine. But uses the safari WebKit engine.

That’s the issue.

The EU will solve that problem for you. Soon you will have a browser on the iPhone with an alternative HTML rendering engine that provides you with zero differential value. But, it will come with all the tracking and spyware that Google uses to make money off of selling your profile.

The sewer that is android?

The tracking and spyware integrated into all Google products is the sewer.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The EU will solve that problem for you. Soon you will have a browser on the iPhone with an alternative HTML rendering engine that provides you with zero differential value. But, it will come with all the tracking and spyware that Google uses to make money off of selling your profile.

I’m good I’m use Firefox that provides superior features in regards to privacy protection, blocking advertisements and tracking etc.

Finally I’ll be able to use the uBlock Origin extension On my iPhone just like my computer

Other browsers provide a lot of differential value

The tracking and spyware integrated into all Google products is the sewer.

Ah perfect so if we turn iOS more like MacOS it should be all fine and not the sewers?

 

[AAPLbuyback]

Then effectively a monopoly doesn’t exist, a choice and option always exist. And it’s not a term used by any government or person dealing with economic policy.

Even if Apple had 99.9-100% market share in the USA, but 30% market share in the world it wouldn’t make a difference.

Android Is not only a choice but is actually even more dominant. This doesn’t even pass the logic test, shocker.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

Pretty sure the government is not taking 30% your salary. I know I make in the top 10% and just completed my taxes and I don’t pay 30% in taxes.

Now I will admit that around 40-45% my paycheck goes away in deductions and taxes but I can promise you less than 30% goes to the government in taxes.

It’s well over 30% even if you’re not in the highest income tax brackets (which you very well could be, I am). You’re just nothing thinking about all the taxes like state tax, property tax, sales tax, registration fees, gas tax, hotel tax, tourism tax, etc. The taxes we pay are almost endless.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

The question wasn’t about monopolies, as for EU it’s just a question of anti trust behavior. And their mandate was implemented in only EU, not globally or worldwide and was mainly for the European market.

It’s al about preventing harm to the internal free market. To allow the free movement of goods and to defend the founding charters of EU. It doesn’t matter if it’s an American company, European one or Asian one. Eau doesn’t tolerate any threats to the founding principles of EU and the healthy option to compete on the market.

Being a dominant player isn’t illegal, just how EU in forcing google again to allow users to choose their preferred browser. If they still choose chrome then it will be completely fine.

A choice between 2 or 3 adequate products? That is what we have in some instances but not in others.

We have 1 option for a browser on iOS.
We have 1 option for a store on iOS.

If i could chose between iOS AppStore, epic store and steam, then I wouldn’t have a choice between 3 adequate options, but one terrible, one adequate and one excellent choice.

If I could choose between, safari, chrome and Firefox, then I would have one mediocre choice, and two adequate choices. Especially considering that better plugin support for Adblockers.

Having the ability to chose, to have the option of something that’s forbidden isn’t denying science. Today Apple removes choice by curating what can and can’t be presented to users.

Your confusing having a choice voluntarily, and refusing the possibility of choice.

It should not be up to Apple what choices customers get on their device.

It’s not apples job to prevent other companies on the market to try and compete against their services.

Apple must remove their thumb of the scale and let the cards fall where they may.

Apple should be able to control their product just like Disney or anyone else. You don’t see universal content at Disney, right?

It’s laughable you regard this as “preventing harm” to the free market. This is far down the list of harm in markets, most of which is created by governments. If governments cared at all about consumer protection, how about forcing banks to give market interest rates on savings accounts Instead of 2 basis points when the Fed Funds is at 500 basis points? Answer, governments don’t care about consumers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Android Is not only a choice but is actually even more dominant. This doesn’t even pass the logic test, shocker.

That’s not what being “dominant” means. It’s completely detached from market share and determined by other market tests.

Android isn’t a relevant market to iOS. Google already lost their legal case trying to argue that iOS is a competitor to android.
You should perhaps take your time and examine the legal case the DOJ seems to have been inspired from

2022( general court appeals ruling on the 2018 commission case) : Judgment of the General Court in Case T-604/18

Apple should be able to control their product just like Disney or anyone else. You don’t see universal content at Disney, right?

Apple control their services just how Disney controls their services.

Apple doesn’t control the goods customers lawfully purchased and acquired, just how Disney doesn’t control goods that customers lawfully purchased.

If Disney want to send something else on the service “Disney+” then they can do so.

It’s laughable you regard this as “preventing harm” to the free market. This is far down the list of harm in markets, most of which is created by governments. If governments cared at all about consumer protection, how about forcing banks to give market interest rates on savings accounts Instead of 2 basis points when the Fed Funds is at 500 basis points? Answer, governments don’t care about consumers.

I can’t answer why your government doesn’t do something.

Perhaps they are embarrassed that EU does something impactful while they play with their thumbs doing nothing.

What better target but apple.

 

[vantelimus]

Ah perfect so if we turn iOS more like MacOS it should be all fine and not the sewers?

Safari on MacOS has privacy protections. If you download and run MacOS programs from alternate websites and unknown publishers (like the EU is advocating people do on iOS), then you will have your sewer, all nice and stinky as you wish it to be.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Safari on MacOS has privacy protections. If you download and run MacOS programs from alternate websites and unknown publishers (like the EU is advocating people do on iOS), then you will have your sewer, all nice and stinky as you wish it to be.

lol. I will gladly have the MacOS sewer experience

 

[Uofmtiger]

That logic is kind of absurd if you think about it.

If Apple had 90% market share in the U.S., but the global market share was barely 10%. Would you say they aren’t a monopoly?

Or if Apple had a 90% market share globally, but only 10% in the USA, would they suddenly be a monopoly?

They are still competing against the same American company’s OS worldwide and that company has over a 71 ( actually 90 percent in your made up scenario) percent market share worldwide? Seems the DOJ would be putting their thumb on the scale for the company with the much broader appeal worldwide.

They also sued in 11 states. Now NJ is the market? What about Lambertville, does a 90 percent share in one town become a monopoly? This is ridiculous and the fact is it’s not 90 percent in the US market. It’s 60 with a worldwide share of less than 30.