Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

They're right about gaming. The games people would be playing don't compete with Apple Arcade.

Third party digital wallets should work, but opening up NFC to everyone must happen eventually.

I don't see where they have hindered cross-platform messaging apps. I haven't really used one on Mac or Windows since the iPhone has been available. Mostly, they're in Social Media form now.

What are these Super Apps?
 
I7guy said:
Different than the eu. The eu said: “apple shall not gatekeep”. The US has to win a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Looks like it is possible

Former DOJ antitrust chief: Apple suit is "damning"​

From CNN's Brian Fung

The Apple lawsuit contains "damning" internal communications, a former top antitrust official with the Justice Department told CNN.
The lawsuit "seems thorough, well written and focused," said Bill Baer, who was Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust during the Obama administration. "Damning for Apple are the internal communications suggesting anticompetitive intent by limiting interoperability with messaging in order to lock folks into Apple products — for themselves and their families."
Click to expand...
During Thursday's press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland referenced a 2013 internal communication in which a senior Apple executive acknowledged that improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
He also referenced a 2022 event at which Apple CEO Tim Cook was confronted about Android-to-iPhone messaging compatibility. Cook responded with the recommendation to "buy your mom an iPhone" to resolve the issue.
On a call with reporters Thursday, Apple representatives dismissed those internal messages as old and taken out of context, vowing to provide full context in litigation.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: LighteningMcqueen, GrayFlannel and d0sed0se
Beautyspin said:
DOJ is smart. It is gunning for Apple because it is a monopoly. It is gunning for it because it is preserving the monopoly using anticompetitive tactics. That is how they are going to get Apple.


Attorney General Merrick Garland cited a key principle of US antitrust law in today's news conference — one that is little-known but is a critical part of today's suit.

It is not illegal to hold a monopoly, Garland said.

That may sound counterintuitive in a case intended to fight monopolies. But under US antitrust law, it is only illegal when a monopolist resorts to anticompetitive tactics, or harms competition, in an effort to maintain that monopoly.

That is what the US Justice Department alleges Apple has done.

Among other things, the DOJ says Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restrict how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hinder rival payment solutions.
Click to expand...
Yeo. Doj has to win, or apple has to cave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beautyspin
twocents said:
Ah American politics, the epitome of smoke and mirrors to convince the public that their government is working in their best interest and accountable to their hard-earned tax dollars 😂
Click to expand...
No need to bring America in to it. All politicians/leadership fall in to the group you described. You think Trudeau, Xi, Charles, Mustafal, Vlad, Volod, or any other leader out there is working in your best interests?
 
Beautyspin said:
Looks like it is possible

Former DOJ antitrust chief: Apple suit is "damning"​

From CNN's Brian Fung

The Apple lawsuit contains "damning" internal communications, a former top antitrust official with the Justice Department told CNN.

During Thursday's press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland referenced a 2013 internal communication in which a senior Apple executive acknowledged that improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
He also referenced a 2022 event at which Apple CEO Tim Cook was confronted about Android-to-iPhone messaging compatibility. Cook responded with the recommendation to "buy your mom an iPhone" to resolve the issue.
On a call with reporters Thursday, Apple representatives dismissed those internal messages as old and taken out of context, vowing to provide full context in litigation.
Click to expand...
In 2013, there was SMS and there was iMessage. What's the third party messaging platform that was denied? I ask this because it is misdirecting the actual context of the statement, the context being "Should iMessage be on Android?".
 
  • Like
Reactions: LighteningMcqueen
Does anyone remember buying “shrink wrap” software off the shelf in retail stores? Those stores had rows and rows of shelves with software applications for the IBM PC. Some even might have had a small dusty shelf at the back with a few applications for that Apple platform.

If IBM had the same control over the software industry that Apple has today ALL those stores would have been IBM “App Stores”, and we all would still be shopping there. IBM had the money to try this at the time so it's not as far fetched as you might think...

Of course those IBM stores would not have had that dusty shelf in the back with applications for the Apple platform so Apple would have had to open their own stores to compete. They never would have survived.

Microsoft also would have never survived, but that’s the silver lining in this dark alternate reality :)

The software industry has been staunchly independent from the very beginning. Apple is hardware company and has never made money from developing software so it should NOT be allowed to exert such control over the software industry. This is the main anti-trust issue.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: sofakng and Jumpthesnark
aibloop said:
It is however a crisis. I had a feeling something like this was on the way... Not sure what Apple can do, I suspect it might be the end of Tim Cook as ceo... Orelse the board will sacrifice Tim Cook to save Apple..
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same, but wondering what will happen to Apple if they lose this case and then "sacrifice" Cook. Because firing him would only be the PR part of it. Would Apple also have to split itself up, perhaps separating services away from hardware, then also opening parts of its hardware up to non-Apple financial apps, changing iMessage, etc.?

Or could they start making these changes now, knowing that this lawsuit will take years and they can minimize their harm by throwing some crumbs at the DOJ in the meantime?

At the very least, it's a full-employment guarantee for Cupertino's legal team for a while. And lawyers almost always benefit from suits like this more than consumers do.
 
Beautyspin said:
Nice try. Apple is the last Big Tech company the DOJ is suing. Meta and Google have already been sued.
Click to expand...
And Google and Meta obediently surrendered. Apple has more privacy protections and has even refused to unlock phones for police and the FBI. Google, on the other hand, is loaded with ex-CIA and will tell the government anything and everything about your personal business.

mronline.org

National Security search engine: Google’s ranks are filled with CIA agents | MR Online

Google–one of the largest and most influential organizations in the modern world–is filled with ex-CIA agents.
mronline.org mronline.org

www.dailymail.co.uk

Facebook employs many ex-CIA agents as ex-FBI agents work at Twitter

Former CIA agents made up some of the top ranks in almost every politically sensitive department at Meta, as former FBI agents migrated over to Twitter in droves before the 2020 election.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
cawgijoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does that mean a (smart)watch from one of Apple's current competitors, or does that also include items from established watchmakers that predate Apple (i.e. Rolex)?

The watch market in particular is fascinating.
 
This should have been settled and could still be. It will be a huge fine and then they're going to have to open the phone to competition and interoperability. The suit is likely a result of failed settlement talks where Apple felt the offer on the table was too steep of a price to pay.

Taking 15-30% percentage of subscription sales from Apps downloaded in the app store will have to come down, as will interoperability with messaging services. I know RCS is supposed to be coming.
 
Beautyspin said:
Looks like it is possible

Former DOJ antitrust chief: Apple suit is "damning"​

From CNN's Brian Fung

The Apple lawsuit contains "damning" internal communications, a former top antitrust official with the Justice Department told CNN.

During Thursday's press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland referenced a 2013 internal communication in which a senior Apple executive acknowledged that improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
Click to expand...
Section 2 requires proving damage to the competitive process NOT to competitors. So it isn't really enough to just have an Apple executive saying that they didn't want to help Android messaging work better.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: Jumpthesnark, spazzcat and Victor Mortimer
Jumpthesnark said:
I was thinking the same, but wondering what will happen to Apple if they lose this case and then "sacrifice" Cook. Because firing him would only be the PR part of it. Would Apple also have to split itself up, perhaps separating services away from hardware, then also opening parts of its hardware up to non-Apple financial apps, changing iMessage, etc.?

Or could they start making these changes now, knowing that this lawsuit will take years and they can minimize their harm by throwing some crumbs at the DOJ in the meantime?

At the very least, it's a full-employment guarantee for Cupertino's legal team for a while. And lawyers almost always benefit from suits like this more than consumers do.
Click to expand...
This isn't the kind of suit that has a payout to a lawyer. The payoff here is political influence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LighteningMcqueen
developer13245 said:
Does anyone remember buying “shrink wrap” software off the shelf in retail stores? Those stores had rows and rows of shelves with software applications for the IBM PC. Some even might have had a small dusty shelf at the back with a few applications for that Apple platform.

If IBM had the same control over the software industry that Apple has today ALL those stores would have been IBM “App Stores”, and we all would still be shopping there. IBM had the money to try this at the time so it's not as far fetched as you might think...

Of course those IBM stores would not have had that dusty shelf in the back with applications for the Apple platform so Apple would have had to open their own stores to compete. They never would have survived.

Microsoft also would have never survived, but that’s the silver lining in this dark alternate reality :)

The software industry has been staunchly independent from the very beginning. Apple is hardware company and has never made money from developing software so it should NOT be allowed to exert such control over the software industry. This is the main anti-trust issue.
Click to expand...
The *iOS* platform software industry?

Unless we’re going to have a talk about making mobile OS’s Public Utilities, this argument holds no ground. No one is forced to develop for iOS, but they do want access to the pool of proven users who will actually PAY for software. Why are devs entitled to free access to the user base Apple has built?
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: djphat2000, spazzcat, Iconoclysm and 1 other person
Iconoclysm said:
In 2013, there was SMS and there was iMessage. What's the third party messaging platform that was denied? I ask this because it is misdirecting the actual context of the statement, the context being "Should iMessage be on Android?".
Click to expand...
I think they were talking about general interoperability with any messaging client available at that time. Not "one" specific 3rd party messaging client.

There might be more information in the actual suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
bsolar said:
Amazon was selling the eBooks wholesale, so they could decide the final price, including selling at loss if they wanted, e.g. for promotional reasons. The publishers were uncomfortable with low eBook prices since in their eyes it would lead to consumer "devaluing" books in general.

Apple colluded with multiple publisher to push the "Agency model", where the publisher controls the final price and the "retailer" collects a fee. This lead to the ability of publishers to fix the price of eBooks at a higher level in an attempt to stop the devaluation of books.

Apple did that because they also did not want eBooks to be cheap and did not want to compete against Amazon on price. The Agency model had a clause that required minimum price across all retailers, so Amazon could not undercut Apple.



The price fixing deal was considered a violation "per se", so the reasoning behind it was irrelevant. A "per se" violation cannot be justified by circumstances, as opposed to a violation under the rule of reason.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that information.
 
Beautyspin said:
Looks like it is possible

Former DOJ antitrust chief: Apple suit is "damning"​

From CNN's Brian Fung

The Apple lawsuit contains "damning" internal communications, a former top antitrust official with the Justice Department told CNN.

During Thursday's press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland referenced a 2013 internal communication in which a senior Apple executive acknowledged that improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
He also referenced a 2022 event at which Apple CEO Tim Cook was confronted about Android-to-iPhone messaging compatibility. Cook responded with the recommendation to "buy your mom an iPhone" to resolve the issue.
On a call with reporters Thursday, Apple representatives dismissed those internal messages as old and taken out of context, vowing to provide full context in litigation.
Click to expand...
The DOJ historically does very poorly on antitrust litigation so I'd take their self-analysis with a grain of salt.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer and spazzcat
Beautyspin said:
Looks like it is possible

Former DOJ antitrust chief: Apple suit is "damning"​

From CNN's Brian Fung

The Apple lawsuit contains "damning" internal communications, a former top antitrust official with the Justice Department told CNN.

During Thursday's press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland referenced a 2013 internal communication in which a senior Apple executive acknowledged that improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms would "simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones."
He also referenced a 2022 event at which Apple CEO Tim Cook was confronted about Android-to-iPhone messaging compatibility. Cook responded with the recommendation to "buy your mom an iPhone" to resolve the issue.
On a call with reporters Thursday, Apple representatives dismissed those internal messages as old and taken out of context, vowing to provide full context in litigation.
Click to expand...
Come on. That's a straight up lie. The quote wasn't about "improving how Apple works with third-party messaging platforms". It was about bringing iMessage to Android.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Victor Mortimer
chadamorrill said:
If there was only one cellular provider and in order to have a mobile phone, I was forced to use that one provider and pay whatever it was I had to pay, then yes: it’s a monopoly.
Click to expand...

The DoJ is not accusing Apple to be a "single supplier" monopoly, where there is literally no other supplier: they are accusing Apple to have "monopoly power". From the complaint:

Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone and performance smartphone markets because it has the power to control prices or exclude competition in each of them.
Click to expand...

So the question is whether Apple has the power to control prices or exclude competition in those markets, regardless of how many other suppliers operate in them.

Of course the more competition actually present the more difficult would be for the DoJ to prove the allegation, but they don't need to prove zero competing suppliers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: LighteningMcqueen, chadamorrill, PortoMavericks and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back