Apple Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'

[NT1440]

You are kidding right? If I buy a Garmin watch, I would want my Garmin watch to access my healthdata. Why else would I buy a garmin watch and connect to my phone? In any case, before connecting, the phone will ask for each part of the health data if access can be given. And Access is given only when the user agrees.

The issue is that Apple reserves some APIs that are exposed only to AW and hidden from 3rd party watches such as Garmin watches. This reduces the functionality of Garmin watch. The DOJ contends that AW should compete by offering better functionality rather than by crippling functionality of 3rd party watches by hiding some APIs. What exactly is wrong with this?

Can you cite what API’s are blocked? Specifically?

And by health data I literally mean the data stored in the app Health. You can already call upon it with the supplied API’s, so what specific API’s does Garmin need access to that it currently doesn’t get?

 

[GrayFlannel]

Can someone explain how this is a monopoly when I am free to buy an android ?

Not that you need to agree with the DOJ, but why not start by reading their suit.

Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets

The Justice Department, joined by 16 other state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

www.justice.gov

 

[Iconoclysm]

Should Microsoft have taken 30% of all revenue from the iTunes Store on windows?

Microsoft takes 30% of all revenue from the Microsoft Store on Windows. The Operating System is more akin to the landlord than the business owner.

By the way, my comment is directed at someone saying software always worked that way when it obviously did not. Music files were not considered software.

 

[jgdeschamps]

I really don't understand the so-called "Apple monopoly" premise.

Me neither. Their products are not a commodity, are patent protected, and they own several platforms for software distribution models that have different contracts and agreements to use their tech by third parties. Their house, their rules...
By the DOJ logic, Nintendo and Microsoft should be next for hindering my ability to play Forza or Mario games on my daughter's Playstation 5, or my old Game Gear; then Target for not letting me buy their exclusive products at Walmart; then McDonald's for hindering my ability to buy a Whopper on their restaurants... and I can go on, and on... really dangerous precedent for the USA economy.

 

[RoadWarrior56]

I am backing Apple on this one. I hope they drag this out for years. If anybody needs to be sued by the DOJ for monopolistic practices, it should be Google, based on how they manipulate Search.

 

[bcortens]

Microsoft takes 30% of all revenue from the Microsoft Store on Windows. The Operating System is more akin to the landlord than the business owner.

By the way, my comment is directed at someone saying software always worked that way when it obviously did not. Music files were not considered software.

So in your opinion Apple should not be entitled to any percentage of revenue that does not occur in their store, say for example, IAP facilitated via the companies own payment processing instead of via Apple's payment processing?

 

[Iconoclysm]

Not that you need to agree with the DOJ, but why not start by reading their suit.

Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets

The Justice Department, joined by 16 other state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

www.justice.gov

Reading their suit isn't going to help there. It actually makes them seem like they don't understand the concepts.

 

[Iconoclysm]

So in your opinion Apple should not be entitled to any percentage of revenue that does not occur in their store, say, IAP facilitated via the companies own payment processing instead of via Apple's payment processing?

Nope, my opinion had nothing to do with anything that was said in any way whatsoever. Simply pointing out how wrong the statement that software distribution has been direct and free historically is.

 

[Beautyspin]

this is likely going to be one of the most-commented-on threads of all time, so I doubt my word is going to have any weight here, but I’ll throw my hat in the ring.

points 3 and 4 are absolutely ****ing absurd. the Apple Watch is an accessory to the iPhone—period. it’s been clear as day from day one and I cannot imagine how in the hell that is anticompetitive.
additionally, Apple is already implementing RCS in iOS 18. forcing them to open up iMessage is a slippery slope that shows (yet again) the U.S. government’s lack of a basic grasp on technology, security, and the intersection of the two.

…oh yeah, and consumer choice. I literally just think iMessage is better than regular texting because it is. I (along with a seeming majority of iPhone users) don’t want it opened up—is that really such an issue?

1. Literally nobody is saying that AW should not work properly with iPhones. However, the superior performance of AW with iPhone is due to the use of APIs that they do not let 3rd party watches access. They object to this as this will degrade the performance of 3rd party watches and make them unattractive, even though they are better. So, Apple is not competing based on merit but by hampering the functionality of 3rd party watches. That is a strict no no.

2. They have to make iMessages interoperable with other messaging clients. WhatsApp and Messenger, which depend on messaging as their primary business, have put in place a process of interoperability. Not sure why Apple cannot do this.

Making messaging interoperability with third parties safe for users in Europe

To comply with a new EU law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which comes into force on March 7th, we’ve made major changes to WhatsApp and Messenger to enable interoperability with third-party messa…

engineering.fb.com

They're working to ensure that the resultant solution is safe. Apple, instead of doing something similar, is whining at every opportunity.

 

[mcnallym]

Apple keeps growing with increasing assets in entertainment and sports and the ecosystem is a walled garden. Apple is at the point where size matters. The garden wall has to come down.

So you are saying that it was not Consumers choice to buy these Apple products.

if consumers want the open system then why on earth are they buying a closed system in increasing numbers.

Apple has grown because more and more consumers have CHOSEN to buy Apple products.

if they wanted the openness then why have consumers made a purchae of a closed system product.

 

[Samplasion]

Apple protecting USER’S data is anticompetitive? How the **** is company X or Y entitled to access to that data?

And yes, regulation is desperately needed.

You completely missed the point. They were saying that Apple has no right to censor apps under the guise of "protecting health data", something new regulation should address.

 

[Iconoclysm]

1. Literally nobody is saying that AW should not work properly with iPhones. However, the superior performance of AW with iPhone is due to the use of APIs that they do not let 3rd party watches access. They object to this as this will degrade the performance of 3rd party watches and make them unattractive, even though they are better. So, Apple is not competing based on merit but by hampering the functionality of 3rd party watches. That is a strict no no.

2. They have to make iMessages interoperable with other messaging clients. WhatsApp and Messenger, which depend on messaging as their primary business, have put in place a process of interoperability. Not sure why Apple cannot do this.

Making messaging interoperability with third parties safe for users in Europe

To comply with a new EU law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which comes into force on March 7th, we’ve made major changes to WhatsApp and Messenger to enable interoperability with third-party messa…

engineering.fb.com

They're working to ensure that the resultant solution is safe. Apple, instead of doing something similar, is whining at every opportunity.

Where is that a "strict no-no"? I don't see Nintendo allowing Xbox to access its APIs to sell controllers?

I think I need to make this clear before more accusations and straw men start. I am not saying it's OK...just pointing out that this isn't just an Apple thing and requires blinding yourself to the rest of technology to claim it's illegal.

 

[2540497]

Imagine your own country betraying you! If it wasn’t for Apple, the United States would not be a tech leader, and Nokia will still reign supreme

 

[GrayFlannel]

Reading their suit isn't going to help there. It actually makes them seem like they don't understand the concepts.

The information is available to understand the complaint, not to convince anyone.

 

[bsolar]

Can you cite what API’s are blocked? Specifically?

The complaint cites a few examples in regards of smartwatch access to APIs and functionality:

Apple prevents third-party smartwatches from accessing APIs related to more advanced Actionable Notifications, so iPhone users cannot respond to notifications using a third-party smartwatch. Instead, Apple provides third-party smartwatches access to more limited APIs that do not allow users to respond to a message, accept a calendar invite, or take other actions available on Apple Watch.

Apple prohibits third-party smartwatch developers from maintaining a connection even if a user accidentally turns off Bluetooth in the iPhone’s control center. Apple gives its own Apple Watch that functionality, however, because Apple recognizes that users frequently disable Bluetooth on their iPhone without realizing that doing so disconnects their watch.

Apple Watch users can use the same phone number for their smartphone and smartwatch when connected to the cellular network. As a result, messages are delivered to both the user’s smartphone and smartwatch, providing an integrated messaging experience. Although it is technologically feasible for Apple to allow an iPhone user with a third-party smartwatch to do the same, Apple instead requires these users to disable Apple’s iMessage service on the iPhone in order to use the same phone number for both devices. This is a non-starter for most iPhone users. In practice, iPhone users with a third-party smartwatch must maintain separate phone numbers for the two devices, worsening their user experience, and may miss out on receiving messages sent to their primary iPhone number.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Me neither. Their products are not a commodity, are patent protected, and they own several platforms for software distribution models that have different contracts and agreements to use their tech by third parties. Their house, their rules...
By the DOJ logic, Nintendo and Microsoft should be next for hindering my ability to play Forza or Mario games on my daughter's Playstation 5, or my old Game Gear; then Target for not letting me buy their exclusive products at Walmart; then McDonald's for hindering my ability to buy a Whopper on their restaurants... and I can go on, and on... really dangerous precedent for the USA economy.

This is where I'm coming from as well. The precedent here has so many broad implications that it doesn't take much to come back and realize how ridiculous these claims are - many of them at least, and at least with this scorched earth approach.

 

[hooptyuber]

This is what happens when you aren't obedient and cooperative and loading up your large tech company with ex-CIA officers like Google and Meta. “Nice company ya got there...It'd be a shame if something happened to it....”

 

[Beautyspin]

Can you cite what API’s are blocked? Specifically?

And by health data I literally mean the data stored in the app Health. You can already call upon it with the supplied API’s, so what specific API’s does Garmin need access to that it currently doesn’t get?

Regarding health data, I would want my health data to be accessed by my smart watch if I have bought one and am connecting to the phone.

About degrading the 3rd party watch functionality.

From the DOJ suit.

"Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its “app review” process, as well as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone’s operating system (called Application Programming Interfaces or “APIs”). Apple can enforce these restrictions due to its position as an intermediary between product creators such as developers on the one hand and users on the other."

The suit gives five examples, but I am giving the ones related to the watch.

Smartwatches are an expensive accessory that typically must be paired to a smartphone. Smartwatches that can be paired with different smartphones allow users to retain their investment in a smartwatch when switching phones thereby decreasing the literal cost associated with switching from one smartphone to another, among other things. By suppressing key functions of third-party smartwatches—including the ability to respond to notifications and messages and to maintain consistent connections with the iPhone—Apple has denied users access to high performing smartwatches with preferred styling, better user interfaces and services, or better batteries, and it has harmed smartwatch developers by decreasing their ability to innovate and sell products.

 

[webkit]

Yes, Apple has the exclusive control of iPhones and iOS, but that is not much different than McDonald’s having exclusive control over Big Macs.

Except that McDonald's doesn’t have near the dominance in its business that Apple has in mobile OS. There are only two major players in mobile OS: iOS (with over 60% share in the U.S.) and Android. It's Apple's dominance combined with anticompetitive behavior that are at issue here.

 

[bcortens]

Nope, my opinion had nothing to do with anything that was said in any way whatsoever. Simply pointing out how wrong the statement that software distribution has been direct and free historically is.

So? Traditional distribution is so far removed from the cost structure of the way apps are distributed today that it is almost irrelevant. The pre-digital world is different to the post-digital world and trying to apply non-digital world rules to the digital-world makes very little sense IMO.

 

[Powerbooky]

Meanwhile, many developers are fine with 15%/30% cut and most customers are fine with a single App Store to find all of their apps.

As usual, gov trying to control someone else's success for no reason. Huge overstep.

They've got the idea from the dicators in EU Brussels.

 

[StrongArmmed]

If forcing apps to follow good UX and privacy guidelines was the primary way Apple used it's power you might have a point, given that Apple mostly seems to use its power to extract maximum monetization out of its platform I don't really think your point has as much merit.

As Apple should, since they bear the expense of providing the infrastructure on which many of these apps rely to be as functional as they are (everything from the data layer in many cases, to notifications functionality, security infrastructure, and free access to all the dev tools and APIs needed to build the apps) not to mention distribution access to nearly a billion potential buyers through a consistent App Store experience available in nearly every developed country on earth. Oh, and the guarantee that the app will work on any almost every device running a currently available version of the OS released in the last 5 years.

Yes, Apple should definitely monetize for all of that.

 

[bruinsrme]

This started before Biden was president.

When did it start?

 

[Samplasion]

I don't see Nintendo allowing Xbox to access its APIs to sell controllers?

Is there a market for Nintendo-supported Xbox controller that is being hindered here? If there isn't (and there isn't one) then your analogy makes no sense.

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

Yep this is true. Makes it confusing and potentially more dangerous.

Except it doesn't 🙄