Which the FTC mostly lost. And it was a silly market definition then as well as now. Traditional grocery stores were in the process of expanding their offerings in organic foods. It was a vast stretch of the FTC to try to define that market. Silly.
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
Which the FTC mostly lost. And it was a silly market definition then as well as now. Traditional grocery stores were in the process of expanding their offerings in organic foods. It was a vast stretch of the FTC to try to define that market. Silly.
You used the word “alleged”. Is that a finding? I can allege anything. I can allege WebKit is the biggest scofflaw on earth.
Thank you. What’s the expression by yogi Berra? “It ain’t over till it’s over”.
They are all unproven options/allegations. Yes it’s serious.
Again, if there is a finding of “anticompetitive” behavior. This isn’t guilty until proven innocent.
Like I said, word games. Both "no competition" and "lack of competition" can mean the exact same thing. For example, the Blue Jays have no competition in the AL East. They are far and away the best team.
You'd rather argue over the a slight perceived difference than acknowledge the fact that neither actually apply to the market we are discussing. As Apple claimed, there is a great deal of competition in the US smartphone market.
No one is arguing that iOS isn't a feature of the iPhone. Exactly the opposite. Again, the DOJ lawsuit is crystal clear about the market where it is claiming that Apple has monopoly power.
Next thing you know, they will declare that Apple has an illegal monopoly on phones running iOS.
They'll file suit to force Apple to open source or license iOS, all in the name of "fair competition" and "consumer choice."
These lawsuits are not about cheaper or better phones, services, or apps. It's about companies who want a piece of Apple's pie without having to truly compete. They've bought politicians and bureaucrats who act under the guise of consumer protection. It is a story as old as time. Human nature does not change.
I'm not saying they weren't, just that Apple's grounds for those terms was under heavy scrutiny even back then and that move certainly fueled the fire
It is similar as both the DOJ, dominance, anticompetitive behavior, etc. MS may have had a larger market share but Apple is being more restrictive in some ways with iOS than MS was being with Windows.
Antitrust cases brought again a one "member" of a duopoly and not the other (e.g., Pepsi instead of Coke or vice versa) have happened. Again, a company being part of a duopoly is not itself illegal but that company engaging in anticompetitive behavior can be.
I wouldn’t say mostly lost, and time will tell how the Apple situation plays out. Some cases (or elements of cases) don't actually end up in court as settlements, concessions, etc. are reached beforehand.
I used the word alleged because this nothing has been decided yet as this is still early in the process.
Should be obvious.
Unproven so far, yes. Obviously.
Wow, you really seem to like repeating the obvious.
You go from stating, "lack of competition and no competition are the exact same thing" to "can mean...."
As I had correctly stated, "It negates the argument that there is no competition, not necessarily that there is a lack of competition."
Enough with your word games.
Yes, and as I stated iPhone and iOS are tied together. The DOJ argument is, at least in part, about iPhones competing in a specific segment of the smartphone market.
Last edited:
Just to further illustrate how silly the DOJ's case against Apple is, Apple had a US Marketshare of 62% in Q4 of 23, and then dropped down to 52% marketshare in Q1 of 24. A 10% drop in marketshare in one quarter. That is nothing close to monopoly power.
Another point? Apple should simply play these two videos for the Judge in the case. It shows that there is a LOT of competition in the Smartphone space:
Are those percentages based on unit sales or revenue? The DOJ appears to be basing their figures on revenue. Also, the DOJ is at least in part more narrowly defining the market to "performance" smartphones which would eliminate revenue from the lower end of the market and can push Apple's market share higher since Apple doesn't offer as much at the lower end as Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, etc. do.
It doesn't necessarily matter how many smartphone brands are sold in the U.S. (Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Google, etc.) if Apple's market share is notably greater than the others. The fact that there were several desktop operting systems offered in the U.S. in the 1990s (Windows, Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, AmigaOS, etc.) didn't really matter in the DOJ Microsoft case either.
Yeah, good luck with that DOJ. Even with their manufactured and meaningless "performance" market, they haven't come close to the numbers that courts have previously expected to find a monopoly.
It ONLY matters if Apple is found to be a monopoly. You have seemed keen on deeming apple part of a Duopoly; but the DOJ has made this case about smartphones, not about the OS. Those videos show there is a plethora of options available from several big and small manufacturers.
Right, as we've tried to explain to you, MS had 90-95% markets share, both in the US and globally. But you don't seem to be able to understand that monopoly power requires a certain level of market dominance.
And around and around we go.
And as I've tried to explain to you, the fact that there are smartphone alternatives doesn't necessarily matter as there were several desktop OS alternatives in the 1990s yet here you were bringing up the fact that alternative smartphones exist. Additionally, 90%-95% does not have to be met nor is the DOJ even trying to claim Apple's iPhone share is at that level.
The DOJ's degree of success or failure here will depend on things like how the relevant markets are defined, the competitive dynamics of those markets, and the types of alleged anticompetitive behavior. It's not simply about percentages or the (obvious) existence of competitors/alternatives.
Nope. They have to deliver a suite of new actual products year after year. Have it reviewed by finicky reviewers and consumers. If their new products bomb, they're done. Microsoft, Amazon, Google just have to not screw up their monopolies. Monopolies of such massive scale, that are virtually impossible to break into.
When it comes to Apple, if their new products fail, we have a lot of options to turn to. Just as when Apple first got into the phone market.
Okay tell me. Without any alternatives or hacking, how can I run a lot of the Windows apps? Like creative cloud. Adobe doesn’t support Linux. So I’m locked to Windows or Mac.
Don't know. It might. That is the problem. Its not an out of box experience. And Adobe will not support it if you run into an issue.
Apple should have patented it. Apple doesn't have to bring iMessage to android but they shouldn't be stopping apps like Bluebird from working.
How quickly they forget NeXTStep.
The issue with Microsoft was a bit different. Not only did it have 95% of the desktop market. It had virtually 100% of the intel market paying it license fees for Windows. Even if you wanted to run a different operating system, if you bought your machine from a major manufacturer (like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.), then you were paying for a Windows license regardless of the OS you ran. That eliminated the incentive for manufacturers to offer cheaper alternatives, since any alternative offered was more expensive to the manufacturer.
The OS Wars were a tad more complicated than just that one detail, though. It is important to remember that Microsoft won those not only because of shrewd business, but also because its competitors fumbled every chance they had to field a worthy challenger. This is one of the very good reasons anti-trust cases should be approached very carefully and slowly. The market has to be given time to evolve and develop competitors. If the market fails to do that one must look at the reasons -- in the case of OSes, it mostly wasn't Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
Apple should just let others infringe on their intellectual property?
“Rolex doesn’t have to make $500 watches, but they shouldn’t be stopping counterfeiters from selling $500 knock-offs”.