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

[gnipgnop]

It is.

Particularly when a monopolist like Apple is doing it.

Nope. Here's a link explaining Section 2 which is what the DOJ is using in this lawsuit. Monopoly by itself isn't enough.

Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of The Sherman Act : Chapter 1

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

 

[Samplasion]

The fact you disagree is equally laughable

You laughing at my mere existence is really something. But alas, none so deaf as those who won't hear

 

[Iconoclysm]

It is.

Particularly when a monopolist like Apple is doing it.

It literally is not, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all operate them.

Even the DOJ will not be able to prove monopoly here before a judge so I shouldn't even acknowledge you claim it.

 

[bsolar]

Oh, and you say this based on what? The DOJ's technical expertise?

No, I am actually not saying it and sorry if it was not clear in my response: the DoJ alleges that in their complaint.

Like all other allegations they are making, the burden of proof is theirs.

 

[Beautyspin]

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.

I did not paraphrase, I just copied and pasted what was in the news. We know that Apple briefly thought about bringing messages to Android and abandoned it for exclusivity. Maybe there was more.

 

[Iconoclysm]

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.

From what I recall, this was about iMessage being on Android. Honestly, Google and partners should have responded to iMessage with an equivalent service by 2013 if not earlier...certainly not waiting until 2020+ to try and shoehorn in something else.

 

[gnipgnop]

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..

DOJ needs to prove harm to the competitive process. Harm to competitors is considered a natural part of competition.

 

[bruinsrme]

The antitrust probe started in 2019.

wonder if the case referenced here was different https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...trust-suit-over-apps/?slreturn=20240221150224

 

[snak-atak]

Could this be the beginning of an eventual breakup of Apple, similar to what they did with AT&T in the 1980's?

Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gnipgnop]

I did not paraphrase, I just copied and pasted what was in the news. We know that Apple briefly thought about bringing messages to Android and abandoned it for exclusivity. Maybe there was more.

Android is a competitor to iOS. So harm to the competitor per messaging isn't really good enough under Section 2.

 

[mcnallym]

Can you provide me what the general consensus is from those discussions?

there is no consensus

you have people that bought iPhone because they like the iPhone as it is and want it to stay that way.
you have people that bought an iPhone despite what it is and want to turn it into android.

people that bought an iPhone wanting the same openess as android don’t understand or if they do then they won’t accept that for those of that bought an iPhone because of what it is will LOSE the choice of a closed mobile system if iOS is opened up.

iOS once you add side loading and alt app stores etc even if you do not personally use them then it becomes an open mobile ecosystem.
those of us that bought iPhones because of that closed status don’t have an alternative

currently you have a choice

android - open
iphone - closed

will become

android - open
iphone - open

leaves no CHOICE for those of us that choose the currently a closed system as there is no other closed system for people that want it and chose it.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Because iOS is not windows or Mac and it was not designed as such.

That's a cute bit of fiction.

iOS is essentially macOS. Same Darwin core, same basic frameworks, same APFS filesystem. Replace Springboard with Finder, allow normal software installation, and it's a Mac.

You don't seriously believe that Apple REALLY develops five different operating systems, do you? (And yes, that DOES mean that your watch is essentially running macOS too.)

 

[BaldiMac]

I did not paraphrase, I just copied and pasted what was in the news. We know that Apple briefly thought about bringing messages to Android and abandoned it for exclusivity. Maybe there was more.

So? That doesn't change the fact that you uncritically posted a clear lie.

The full quote (conveniently trimmed in your article) was "iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”

 

[SactoGuy18]

I wonder does this mean Apple may end up canceling iOS 18.0 in its rumored current form but release a new iOS 18.0 that is essentially iOS 17.x but with ability to use alternate app stores, side load apps, have third party access to the NFC chip, and so on?

 

[webkit]

A walled garden isn't illegal.

The issue here is with the alleged anticompetitive behavior that can come from a dominant company having a "walled garden." In the case of Apple, they have over 60% share of the mobile OS market in the U.S. and restricting competition in things like app access, payment systems, browser engines, etc. in that market which they have a dominant position can be illegal.

 

[Beautyspin]

That's the thing, there's SOMETHING to investigate here. Something worthy of changing something...but they're just throwing stuff at the wall to justify a high profile antitrust case. These things aren't meant to be media worthy, just like politics isn't meant to be exciting.

Not so sure. They have come with a plan that they think will give them a chance to succeed. They are not going after Apple for being a monopoly, but for maintaining the monopoly in an anticompetitive manner. If you see the examples they have given, they are easy to prove technical stuff. What are the APIs available for AW and APIs available for 3rd party watches is clearly known. Same case with the others. They must have collected tons of data and sifted through them. The former AG says that the case against Apple looks damning because of the amount of data they have collected.

 

[maxoakland]

Apple was baiting all regulators with their childish malicious compliance and now they reaped what they sowed

 

[Iconoclysm]

No, I am actually not saying it and sorry if it was not clear in my response: the DoJ alleges that in their complaint.

Like all other allegations they are making, the burden of proof is theirs.

Understood. Sorry, I have been trying to figure out in my head how Apple blocked this functionality without Apple having developed solutions specifically for others to take advantage of them from the outset. It would be a nice gesture but not really an incentive for a single company...although they have done so in the past in many cases.

 

[spazzcat]

Could this be the beginning of an eventual breakup of Apple, similar to what they did with AT&T in the 1980's?

Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you mean the newly fully recombined ATT ... Or when they tried to break up MS, and it got reversed in court ...

 

[cawgijoe]

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.

smart, of course...though I do own everal non-smart watches....sitting in a drawer....thanks for the correction.

 

[webkit]

Can someone help explain this to me?

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.

Apple is one of a hundred cell phone manufacturers that I get to choose from. iOS is the OS on that phone, which makes sense to create a particular experience. If I don’t like the browser on the iPhone, I have the choice to go get a different phone with a different browser. This is not a monopoly. I have a choice here.

To me it’s like… I don’t love the seats in a Chevy, so I don’t buy Chevy’s. I can buy a Ford or Volvo or whatever with other seats that I like better, right? But the DOJ is not investigating Chevy for monopolistic tendencies. It’s a preference, right?

This literally doesn’t make sense to me, unless I’m severely missing something.

This is about the mobile OS market of which there are only two major players (iOS and Android). Apple has a dominant position in that market with over 60% share in the U.S. and is restricting choice and competition in areas like app access, payment systems, browser engines, etc.

 

[IIGS User]

Only merit I see here is in the cross-platform messaging app portion of it. Even that is weak.

 

[bsolar]

wonder if the case referenced here was different https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...trust-suit-over-apps/?slreturn=20240221150224

Yes, it was about a completely different case, Apple vs. Pepper.

 

[developer13245]

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?

Apple hasn't build their user base alone. If that were the case the only Apps available for their platforms would be written by Apple.

And software developers are not entitled free access to any platform. Developers have been buying developer tools and licenses for general computing platforms since the beginning of the industry. But those costs were for access, and the general purpose platform owners didn't dictate unreasonable terms via a captive App Store.

 

[Samplasion]

there is no consensus

you have people that bought iPhone because they like the iPhone as it is and want it to stay that way.
you have people that bought an iPhone despite what it is and want to turn it into android.

people that bought an iPhone wanting the same openess as android don’t understand or if they do then they won’t accept that for those of that bought an iPhone because of what it is will LOSE the choice of a closed mobile system if iOS is opened up.

iOS once you add side loading and alt app stores etc even if you do not personally use them then it becomes an open mobile ecosystem.
those of us that bought iPhones because of that closed status don’t have an alternative

currently you have a choice

android - open
iphone - closed

will become

android - open
iphone - open

leaves no CHOICE for those of us that choose the currently a closed system as there is no other closed system for people that want it and chose it.

Since you keep saying that, do you buy iPhones solely because they are closed. That is, would you be as happy if you used an Android phone that was closed?