Microsoft had a number of competitors too, and competing products like Netscape Navigator were allowed on Windows. Apple, however, has been blocking alternative browser engines, app stores, etc. on iOS not just for iPhone retailers like carriers, Best Buy, etc. but even end users.
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 Files Motion to Dismiss Department of Justice Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft had a number of competitors too, and competing products like Netscape Navigator were allowed on Windows. Apple, however, has been blocking alternative browser engines, app stores, etc. on iOS not just for iPhone retailers like carriers, Best Buy, etc. but even end users.
As I've observed before, antitrust suits rarely have a measurable benefit for the consumers. This will drag on for years and then there will be a settlement that appeases no one except the lawyers. The settlement will include promises to change behavior in the years to come. And if the behavior doesn't suit the DOJ, Apple will just pay the fines. <shrug>
Motion to dismiss is standard procedure. It would be malpractice not to file it.
Perhaps but Apple's argument here seems to be about the fact that there are alternatives and my point is that the existence of alternatives does not negate antitrust laws. There were several alternatives to Microsoft products too.
Yeah... not how our market works. Apple stays rich. We consumers get poorer. The price of every lawyer, as well all the development into alternative app stores and such, is something funded by rising prices. Apple isn't losing any profit margin because of this.
It’s more like 70% (Android) / 30% (iOS) worldwide and 40% (Android) / 60% (iOS) in the US.
Which of course is not per se illegal. Apple doesn't have the market power to push out competitors in the smartphone market; unlike MS who could tie products and keep competitors out while they enjoyed some 90+% of teh OS market.
No, of course not. But no US Court has ever found a company to be a Monopoly with lower than 75-80% marketshare. A number Apple does not rise to. The Microsoft case went forward because MS had 90-95% marketshare globally.
There is no fire. The DOJ would need to prove wrongdoing first. Our justice system gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. And there's very little chance the DOJ prevails in this case. For very basic reasons. For example, Apple is not a monopoly by any definition that the courts have previous held to designate a company a monopoly. The DOJ will lose badly.
There is nothing about this which would benefit the consumers. If a user doesn't like iOS, they can pick a similar Android device. Many anti-Apple people do choose this. I think one of the aspects of this was iMessage, in that Andriod has RCS support and when an iPhone user texts an Android device, it defaults to SMS. However Apple was already adding RCS support and it is available in the new Beta. So this item isn't really an item anyway. Problem is the government stifles innovation and people who pick iOS devices pick them because they like how they work. They don't want an Android. Just like with the App Store stuff. People like iOS because there is only one App Store available, it is secure, and you don't need to install all of these third party stores from random gaming companies just to install a game. That is a FEATURE which people like. Having to install Epic Store for Epic Games, Sony store for Sony Games, Microsoft Store for Office, Blizzard store for their games, Activision store, Steam Store, etc. will make iOS like a PC which is it is such a pain to play games on as there are so many stores. Then you have all these stores running in the back ground which have to start up and update on every boot. People don't like that nor do they want that. That doesn't benefit the consumer, it benefits the greedy companies who don't want to pay the commission which all stores charge anywhere.
More recently the DoJ does not give the benefit of doubt, that is part of the problem.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No surprise what will fill this thread (same in every one in topics along these lines), so let me proactively offer the common remedy usually slung against anyone else who dares take any stance against maximizing Apples wealth/hold/etc:
There... that will show 'em. How dare anyone take or even think of an action that may inhibit Apple's business practices/policies/dominance! All matters should revolve around whatever Apple wants. Patents should only work FOR Apple. Blah, blah, blah!
That one is sometimes accompanied by another classic...
Seems the way this general line of issues is going, if Apple would take such brilliant armchair advice, the fast track to no more issues at all like these is stop selling everywhere. Fire up the ship and fly off to Mars or similar. I hear the Martians will tolerate any business practices at all.
Perhaps Apple should just pull out of selling in America?
There... that will show 'em. How dare anyone take or even think of an action that may inhibit Apple's business practices/policies/dominance! All matters should revolve around whatever Apple wants. Patents should only work FOR Apple. Blah, blah, blah!
That one is sometimes accompanied by another classic...
Perhaps Apple should just buy America?
Seems the way this general line of issues is going, if Apple would take such brilliant armchair advice, the fast track to no more issues at all like these is stop selling everywhere. Fire up the ship and fly off to Mars or similar. I hear the Martians will tolerate any business practices at all.
Last edited:
A motion to dismiss (MTD) is not a "standard step in the litigation process." Every motion costs money and requires the judge's time. An MTD does not always make sense. Sometimes defendants file a partial MTD or none at all.
The DOJ isn't the institution that determines this. The courts are.
I get the desire to be cleverNo surprise what will fill this thread (same in every one in topics along these lines), so let me proactively offer the common remedy usually slung against anyone else who dares take any stance against maximizing Apples wealth/hold/etc:
Perhaps Apple should just pull out of selling in America?
There... that will show 'em. How dare anyone take or even think of an action that may inhibit Apple's business practices/policies/dominance! All matters should revolve around whatever Apple wants. Patents should only work FOR Apple. Blah, blah, blah!
That one is sometimes accompanied by another classic...
Perhaps Apple should just buy America?
Seems the way this general line of issues is going, if Apple would take such brilliant armchair advice, the fast track to no more issues at all like these is stop selling everywhere. Fire up the ship and fly off to Mars or similar. I hear the Martians will tolerate any business practices at all.
but...the US justice system and the EU are very different creatures and the DMA is passed law. The US has passed no laws similar to the DMA. This is a very large reach by the DOJ and they will fail hard.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I get the desire to be clever
The difference between a passed law and an unpassed law is only a court decision (or 3) away. And time is the enemy here for all wanting all of this kind of thing to flip into Apple's favor.
Unlike an Epic Games, GOVs have UNLIMITED money, legal resources, etc and can readily fight for up to centuries if necessary to accomplish whatever they want to accomplish. Even the "richest company in the world" cannot afford that. See Microsoft in 199X (IE), or AT&T in the 1980s (Long Distance), etc.
This stuff ends the same every time. I know of no historical example where for-profit, very rich company that got GOVs after them over these kinds of issues was able to "win" such legal battles in any a way that they got to keep doing the very same things. Not ONE. I keep suggesting in these threads for anyone who feels differently to volunteer one and nobody ever does. I presume there is not one. As such, I significantly doubt Apple will be first. We'll see. As mentioned above, time is the enemy.
The remedy that WILL work:
- learn from history,
- evolve business practices to get away from doing these things that make GOVs feel they have to take action now to reel them in.
Believe whatever anyone wants to believe but this is entirely different than Apple vs. Epic, Apple vs. Spotify, Apple vs. Netflix, Apple vs. Microsoft, etc. Our usual knee-jerk doesn't apply here (except for entertainment purposes). GOV doesn't answer to shareholders, nor needs to make a profit. There is no capitalistic force working against GOV in pursuing this kind of thing. GOV feels no market pain in this kind of fight. History shows how this goes... EVERY time. Evolve business practices or lose that IE/AT&T-type hold on this market... exactly as they did... when GOV got involved in those battles.
The inevitable evolution will arrive as soon as it is judged by Apple to be less profitable to maintain a costly fight than comply. And then, much like it was in being "forced" by "stupid law/GOV" to switch from proprietary Lightning to USB-C, Apple will be just fine, products will be just fine, consumers will be just fine, EU will not be a dead husk, etc. Apple has PLENTY of opportunity to innovate other ways to make up for the change that I'm completely confident will come for all of this. I wish they would get on with it and hope they are taking big strides in that direction behind the scenes.
Last edited:
Vultures sometimes want a piece of your fortune if they see you’re rich. That’s what this is about.
If said company changes their practice, they pay zero. Same as the EU.
They don't want Apple's money, they want them to change their behavior.
I’m shocked that they didn’t put a political restriction on this post. I can comment!!!
But that very likely will cost Apple money. There may be nothing wrong with Apple’s behavior, why should Apple be forced to change their behavior in that case? The government has to prove their case.
The obvious recent example was Microsoft's acquisition of Activision. Obviously, there a large number of examples of the government not getting what they wanted in antitrust actions. If you don't know of any rich companies winning antitrust battles, then you simply haven't done the research.
I think it is funny people still believe Apple didn't plan to go to USB-C on their own. Maybe they should have been doing it faster, but it was going to happen about the same time it did anyways. And the EU was more targeting all the companies still using micro and mini USB, which was/is a much bigger issue.
That's not a small difference. That's a wide gap. And the case has very little chance of succeeding.
In the US, there are standards that have to be met for the DOJ case to proceed. And those standards have not been met by a simple understanding of who and who has not been determined to be a monopoly by the courts. Apple doesn't fit the criteria.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, I'm not among those "people"- just referencing it for all who wrote that wall of security disaster that would befall us all in Lightning to USB-C along with pocket lint magnet, wobbly ports requiring expensive repairs and broken tongues. I feel like I read that 10,000 times in what seemed like a thousand threads... much like I've read what seems like 10,000 posts of absolute confidence about the EU doom from Crime Syndicates, virus, trojans, etc for implementing the more "open" law.
6 months in in 5 more days and I've not read ONE case of any of that in the EU. Those EU crime syndicates must be incredibly patient criminals.
About 18 months in on USB-C ports on iPhones and I think I've read maybe a total of 3 or 4 comments about any port-related issues (wobbly) and not ONE post about a broken tongue. And I still find lint in my pocket, so that lint extinction certainty was completely overblown too.
How will these legal actions pan out? TBD. But I know that if I was Apple, I'd look to history and evolve my ways. They don't have to lose their "richest" crown by evolving this relatively little part of their whole, very lucrative pie. They just need to do what they do- innovate- to replace this part of this cash cow with others. They can certainly do that. Hopefully, they are working on it vs. thinking these kind of actions won't keep spreading around the world with outcomes likely not being they can keep going with "business as usual" for this matter.
Last edited: