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

[developer13245]

This was never how the software industry worked, literally ever. Do you remember buying software off of a shelf in a retail store? The store took 50%, creating the media cost another 20% or so.

Do you remember when you bought a video game for a game console, ever? Royalties and license fees are paid to the platform holder.

How about a CD or Blu-ray? Guess who was making money off of every one of those?

You don't even understand the point of all this. Your comment confuses how the software industry evolved with who controlled the industry (which was no one). So your comment actually proves the anti-trust case agains Apple.

Here's why:

IBM created the original IBM PC. If IBM controlled the software for its platform all those stores would have been IBM "App Stores" and we all would still be shopping there. IBM probably had the money to try this at the time so it's not as far fetched as you might think...

And of course (you'll love this one) if Apple opened such physical stores to compete with IBM at the time they never would have survived.

The only silver lining would be Microsoft also would have never survived.

 

[Iconoclysm]

When DOJ sues Nintendo, then we can talk about the disadvantages of Nintendo. This suit is specific to Apple.

From the DOJ suit, the following is clear. Since this is a point about which they are suing Apple, according to DOJ and 17 states, it is a strict no no.

"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."

Which is built on the shakiest of ground. This is a standard first party advantage, you can find examples of it all over the place. A better smartwatch doesn't even require a phone. And the ability to compete here can be done but requires more work than these companies find to be worth it because iPhone is not the dominant platform by a long shot worldwide.

 

[BaldiMac]

Precisely this

It's not a problem for a Mac. It won't be a problem for the iPhone.

This is about nickel and diming their customers.

But it is a problem. Malware is a trillion dollar industry.

 

[Beautyspin]

Percentage royalty licensing is well enshrined in US law and international treaties. The DOJ is well within their rights to argue it's "rent-seeking", but it will be an uphill battle and few courts are going to buy that argument and set off the cascade of unintended consequences across the broad swath of industries that a precedent affirming it would cause.

When developers imagine a new product or service for iPhone consumers, Apple demands up to 30 percent of the price of an app whose content, product, or service it did not create.

From the suit. So they are gunning for the 30% commission.

 

[genovelle]

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.

It’s because of rogue companies like Epic and Spotify strategically making them a target. The suite is reminiscent of the law they were lobbying congress to pass a few years back but got zero support. I find it suspicious that the two primary companies that have been pushing this have significant Chinese ownership, but less than 10% of their revenue comes from Apple. What could their motivations be? What could they gain by unmonitored access to millions of US customers.

 

[Iconoclysm]

None of the examples cited is like that though. From what I read, the DoJ alleges that Apple would have the ability to open those APIs and features to third-parties if they wanted to, thus enabling said third-parties to implement the same functionality the Apple Watch is currently able to offer.

And I don't think that's something they should expect of any first party manufacturer...or if they want to start expecting it, would interfere with any incentive for any platform holder to pursue new connectivity beyond the standards. This aside from technical limitations.

I would not use Apple Watch but Airtags if they wanted to make this argument, it would be a lot stronger. But then, Apple opened that up on their own.

 

[Beautyspin]

Perhaps Apple and its employees need to rethink which political party has it out for them, as was made abundantly clear this morning.

No succor for them as the lawsuit was started during the Trump tenure.

 

[developer13245]

Like Microsoft decoupling Internet Explorer in the US? Oh wait, that didn’t happen.

Yes. Today you can select a default browser and search engine on any platform INCLUDING APPLE PLATFORMS thanks to the anti-trust action against Microsoft. There's even more history that you are ignorant of.

BTW Google pays Apple BILLIONS of dollars per year for Apple just to SET that default search engine to google. This should also be subject of an anti-trust action. Money talks.

 

[sza]

China is laughing its ass off now…

The shameful and stupid democrat government is really hurting the American business.

So, will Tim Cook still be a Biden supporter!?

 

[Realityck]

This case is going to take 5-7 years and the government will lose. It's a waste of time and tax dollars.

Pretty much all of it can be mitigated by discussion and some actions.

 

[Iconoclysm]

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.

How would we ever know? Nintendo has completely stifled any competition here without licensing connectivity. And no controller but their own can wake the console wirelessly. Pretty standard stuff in the tech world.

 

[webkit]

I keep seeing the claim of iOS's share in the US go higher and higher every time it's brought up.

I'm not sure what claims you are referring to but according to at least some sources (like Statconter), iOS share in the U.S, has been around 60% for a while. Perhaps some think they are quoting U.S. share but are actually quoting global or some other country/region?

 

[Iconoclysm]

Precisely this

It's not a problem for a Mac. It won't be a problem for the iPhone.

This is about nickel and diming their customers.

How does it cost their customers more? It's the developers that are hurt by it.

 

[bsolar]

And I don't think that's something they should expect of any first party manufacturer...or if they want to start expecting it, would interfere with any incentive for any platform holder to pursue new connectivity beyond the standards. This aside from technical limitations.

In general I would agree, but the specific allegation here is that Apple has monopoly power and this changes the whole discourse.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I'm not sure what claims you are referring to but according to at least some sources (like Statconter), iOS share in the U.S, has been around 60% for a while. Perhaps some think they are quoting U.S. share but are actually quoting global or some other country/region?

I've seen some misquoting the marketshare among demographics, a lot of different misquotes really.

 

[StrongArmmed]

You're misunderstanding what I mean, I think Apple should operate the App Store essentially at cost given how important the iPhone is today. If Apple wasn't one of the largest and most important tech companies in the world, sure, charge whatever they want. However so long as they are that big and important they should be required to operate their gatekeeping services in what amount to FRAND terms.

That's probably one of the government's claims: that the Apple ecosystem have become a technical standard and as such should be open to others on FRAND terms.

But therein lies the problem. Apple is an implementer of others standards and as such should rely on the market to "price" its implementations based on how it differentiates its products in the marketplace.

Users (and Apple's partners) have options in every arena Apple competes in. Not perfect competition because the products are not homogenous and there are barriers to entry due to the technical complexity of the products sold, but the market is fair. As such, Apple should not be required to participate in the market at FRAND terms.

 

[Iconoclysm]

In general I would agree, but the specific allegation here is that Apple has monopoly power and this changes the whole discourse.

I guess...but the decision could either set back the tech industry by many years, as we have seen how tight integration pushed things forward at every step, or could just open the door for someone else to be the next Apple. I get the impression that the DOJ is not looking for unreasonable solutions and that Apple will have to fight back just as unreasonably. Rather than a much softer approach that could have been done by creating new laws in Congress and backed by the Supreme Court. Yes, I'm cracking up on the inside.

 

[mcnallym]

Why dont devs just not develop for iOS/iPadOS if they hate it so much?
If you dont agree with the terms and conditions, dont submit your app or become a registered dev.
Same goes for the end users.... dont agree to the ToS then dont buy the device.

look at the market share of iOS vs Android.

look at the revenue generated from mobile apps on iOS vs mobile apps on Android,

App Revenue Data (2025)

App Revenue Key StatisticsMobile Ad SpendApp and Game RevenuesiOS App and Game RevenueGoogle Play App and Game RevenueGaming App RevenuesiOS Gaming App RevenueGoogle Play Gaming App RevenueApp RevenuesiOS App RevenueGoogle Play App RevenueApp Revenue by RegionSubscription App RevenueiOS...

www.businessofapps.com

ios has roughly 20% worldwide market share but in 2023 was 66% of app revenue and 76% of subscription revenues.

developers develop on the platform where people spend money.

of course does make you wonder how apps and subscriptions hampered by apple if they have a commanding lead with only 20% of users but seem to be users that driving growth here.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Love to see it!

I've got my issues with Biden (mostly about his support for the ongoing Israeli genocide of Palestinians) but this is something that has needed to happen for years.

Apple MUST be held accountable!

 

[KPOM]

It’s not often that I agree with Jon Gruber on anything political, but he’s spot on.

Daring Fireball, by John Gruber

Commentary on Apple, technology, design, politics, and more.

daringfireball.net

 

[Iconoclysm]

You're misunderstanding what I mean, I think Apple should operate the App Store essentially at cost given how important the iPhone is today. If Apple wasn't one of the largest and most important tech companies in the world, sure, charge whatever they want. However so long as they are that big and important they should be required to operate their gatekeeping services in what amount to FRAND terms.

I'm with you, but you're almost asking for app stores to be utility services...and if we want to go there, let's start with wireless providers and ISP's.

 

[webkit]

McDonald's is one of the dividend aristocrats at Wall Street, and no other burger business has achieved that level. Their dominance in the burger market is the equivalent to Apple's in tech, or Coca-Cola for soft drinks world-wide.

No, McDonald's dominance is not equivalent. There are many many more places where you can buy "burgers", from local mom and pop restaurants to national chains, and they account for a much greater share of the market versus McDonald's individual share.

 

[cawgijoe]

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

I would never even think of buying a non-Apple watch if I have an iphone and vice versa, would not buy an Apple watch if I had a Samsung phone. Regardless of "openness", the same compatible brand is likely to work better together. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think.

 

[Irock619]

This admin hates capitalism.

 

[erikkfi]

This ecosystem was chosen for being a walled garden, it kept things simple and provided protections for people who don't know what they're doing.

"People choose us because we illegally abuse our competition, Your Honor!"