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 Revokes Monster's 'Made for iPhone' License Following Beats Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Antitrust laws are complex and it's really not in my purview to say whether or not Apple is violating them in this case. At the very least, I would say that Apple is placing a barrier to a large accessory market that is not based at all on quality or price.
I'm going to avoid the personal example because again, corporations are held to a higher standard than individuals. That said, no one is requiring Apple to do business with Monster. Apple is denying Monster access to 50% of smartphone customers based on a legal dispute.
Uh, no, that's not anti-trust. It's like saying why doesn't Microsoft certify/approve 3rd party keyboards for their Surface tablets. Why don't they certify/approve 3rd party controllers for Xbox. Why do they get to control everything for their products. Why doesn't Tesla have certification program for 3rd party batteries for their cars?
Or have you heard of exclusive partnerships? That's so anti-trust according to you.
Thanks for that explanation and apologies for coming at you strongly. My wife (corporate lawyer) explained to me that things are a bit different here in Europe.
I fully expect retaliation from Apple. Apple has great lawyers and is fully entitled to defend itself in court and even countersue.
This isn't about certification. This is about Apple making their products incompatible with products made by other manufacturers for no good reason. Microsoft certifying third party controllers is irrelevant; the controller works if it's made properly, regardless of whether or not Microsoft signs off on it.
Similarly, no one is forcing Monster to do business with Apple. There are numerous other market segments that Monster was active (and successful) in before they started doing business with Apple. Monster's success as a company is not dependent on their sales of lightning cables. It is much more dependent on their higher margin businesses such as gold-plated ultra shielded HDMI cables and the like.
I have never owned any Monster products nor have any opinion on them.
But this move by Apple smells like sour grapes, and there is a murky history between Monster and Beats, which is partly why I was surprised and dismayed by Cook's purchase of Beats. I say Cook and not Apple deliberately, because I'm sure he was the driving force behind this awful purchase of Beats.
I didn't like it when Apple decided to remove Bose from their stores, either. I think they changed that decision, but it is showing a strange vulnerability on Apple's part towards third parties. I get the feeling that they feel threatened on several fronts, both in hardware and software, which is why they are resorting to such petty measures.
I think the Beats purchase was political as much as anything else, like so much of Cook's manipulation of Apple these days. All things being equal, they would have simply scooped up Spotify and started with a well-known name and a reasonable user base. Instead, they went with an unknown streaming service, purely because of Iovine's name.
Bad move, Tim.
But this move by Apple smells like sour grapes, and there is a murky history between Monster and Beats, which is partly why I was surprised and dismayed by Cook's purchase of Beats. I say Cook and not Apple deliberately, because I'm sure he was the driving force behind this awful purchase of Beats.
I didn't like it when Apple decided to remove Bose from their stores, either. I think they changed that decision, but it is showing a strange vulnerability on Apple's part towards third parties. I get the feeling that they feel threatened on several fronts, both in hardware and software, which is why they are resorting to such petty measures.
I think the Beats purchase was political as much as anything else, like so much of Cook's manipulation of Apple these days. All things being equal, they would have simply scooped up Spotify and started with a well-known name and a reasonable user base. Instead, they went with an unknown streaming service, purely because of Iovine's name.
Bad move, Tim.
That's true, but if Monster wants to make accessories for a popular product like hundreds of other companies, should that be disallowed because they have a legal dispute with the parent company?
Regardless of hypotheticals, Monster is in the Apple accessory business now. Even if that amounts to 5% of their revenue, Apple should be responding to a legal dispute legally, rather than trying to pressure Monster by throwing them out of that market for no good reason. There's no logical reason why Monster products were MFI-certified last week but won't be MFI-certified next week.
But who says that quality and price are the only allowable reasons? (Hint: they're not)
And offering an opinion while at the same time resorting to "antitrust laws are complex" to avoid explaining the basis for the opinion is extremely intellectually dishonest.
1) so what? Does Apple have to permit samsung apps into the app store? Of course not. Does Apple have to make Yahoo the default search engine on iPhone? Why not? Aren't they placing a barrier to a large search engine if they don't?
2) Apple has far less than 50% of the market, but even if they had 50% it's still not in a monopoly position. Moreover, LOTS of companies sell accessories with MFi certification. The purpose of MFi is to reassure consumers that Apple believes that the product in question is fully compatible with the Apple device, won't damage it, etc. In other words, by using the MFi label, the manufacturer/seller is saying "Apple blesses this." Well, guess what. Apple no longer does. Apple isn't "denying access." Apple is saying "sell what you want, but don't expect us to use our good name to convince consumers that your products are quality products."
Monster should still be perfectly able to sell cables and accessories for Apple products, they just won't be formally certified to work with them. And if they incorporate technologies owned by Apple (and granted a license for use by the program) they will be required to remove that content, but they can replace it with something not owned by Apple.
It seems to vary. The connector cable in my Hyundai sometimes whines it is not an authorized accessory, but reconnecting it fixes it. So iOS may not be actively preventing use (via reconnect), just generating an initial warning that the product is not certified under MFI.
What? I just used a random headphone(non MFI) with my iPhone and it worked perfectly! You need to use a different argument. It seems like it worked fine even though Apple didn't sign off on it.
I'm not sure how this works legally (can't ask my wife, she is sleeping), but the lightning cable market is a tiny portion of the global smartphone cable market. Apple created an ecosystem and part of that ecosystem are cables that can be produced in license for B2C markets. I don't see a reason why Apple is not within their right to determine who they provide licenses to.
I will give you an analogy. My company produces diabetes test strip technology that is licensed to third parties. That is globally a 10 billion dollar business (per year - so much more than the Lightning cable market). We don't need to provide licenses to any company that comes knocking on our door. It is our technology and ours to determine who we license it to.
Huh? There are literally thousands of products that work with Apple's products without certification. Lightning cables, batteries, adapters, cases, game controllers, etc.
I'm reading that MFI certification reduces the functionality of non-MFI certified headphones and sometimes disallows non-MFI certified charging cables. Non-MFI certified charging cables not working with iOS devices is actually extremely common and there's a built in prompt in iOS explaining why the cord won't connect.
Seems like the Mfi cert is Apple's guarantee of quality (abiding by Apple's standards). Now why would a legal dispute change the fact that Monster's cable were certified and did pass Apple's standard. Apple's move stinks to high heaven. Wondering why some people on here can't smell it.
I agree to some extent but then there is the whole don't bite the hand that feeds you. Apple is abusing the standard. However, I don't know all of the details.
But Tim said inclusiveness, and diversity, and love, and.....
What Apple did is 100% what freedom means. Freedom should apply to everyone, but alas today, everyone wants to control everyone else with the mantra "I want to be free, but you should follow my wants, desires, and wishes because I know better than you". Freedom should mean that you can buy from whomever you want to and baring discrimination the manufacturer should be able to license and enter into business agreements with anyone they want to. If one is concerned with freedom, then that should be the end of the story whether it involves sneezes or not.
What are you even talking about? No company has unlimited freedom to do whatever they want, including Apple. We have these things called laws that regulate companies. So we shouldn't have laws regulating companies? Because freedom? Is Comcast raping you because of no competition freedom? What about Att or Verizon, thats freedom too?
Seems anti-competitive to me. Doesn't just need to tie to price - it can be for other kinds of behavior. In this case they are removing access of a widely shared service to an incumbent, where it is readily provided to others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine
Is freedom equal access to platforms to you? See, some folks on this forum overextend people behavior and relationship metaphors to company behavior and relationships. It's not about whether Apple "likes" them, and has the freedom to not like them, but rather if the company through it's power and control (not freedom man!) is engaging in unfair business practices.
Apple buys from Samsung and Samsung sue Apple. So, this case is clearly not ethical
No sympathy for Monster, but what Apple did was bush league. Without just cause, Apple could find itself facing another lawsuit.