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

[profdraper]

If the cap fits, wear it ...
"Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone," and has consolidated its monopoly "not by making its own products better, but by making other products worse," Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a press conference.

• "Apple has gone from revolutionizing the smartphone market to smothering it," said deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco.
• "Today's lawsuit seeks to hold Apple accountable and ensure it cannot deploy the same, unlawful playbook in other vital markets," said assistant attorney general Jonathan Kanter in a release.
• "Each step in Apple's course of conduct built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly," the complaint reads. "The cumulative effect of this course of conduct has been to maintain and entrench Apple's smartphone monopoly at the expense of the users, developers, and other third parties who helped make the iPhone what it is today."

What's inside: The expansive lawsuit accuses Apple of illegal behavior covering everything from news subscriptions to automotive services, preventing third-party apps from offering things like tap-to-pay and blocking the creation of third-party digital wallets.

• Officials also accuse Apple of degrading the market of cross-platform messaging and blocking the growth of apps with "broad functionality" that would make it easier to switch smartphones.
• The suit also says Apple has suppressed mobile cloud streaming services in markets like gaming and "diminished" the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches.

Apple lawsuit: US accuses tech giant of monopolising smartphone market

In a landmark lawsuit, the justice department alleges the company uses its power to limit competition.

www.bbc.com

Apple becomes the latest tech giant under siege

With a loyal fanbase, Apple is in a unique position which is now under fire, writes Zoe Kleinman.

www.bbc.com

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/apple-lawsuit-doj-antitrust-iphone-monopoly

 

[wbeasley]

Having seen the DoJ press conference this morning, I was fairly unimpressed with the legal reps.
They played tag team and looked like small town lawyers not used to the spotlight.
Not you usual suave tv lawyers with pithy arguments and presence.

EU already couldnt use monopoly. DoJ is going to look foolish when pressed on explaining why they used that term.

I can buy any phone or tablet I want.
But when it comes down to it, Apple hardware is usually a degree better and worth the spend.
It also lasts longer in my experience. So when time comes to upgrade, someone else benefits.

Their devices do largely work well together.
That's what happens when you build the hardware and write the software.
It was a smart move Jobs did.

This is going to take years to progress.
And cost a lot of money to contest.
Money that could have been better spent of development work.

Interesting to watch the reaction scores on posts.
An early post had 30% supporting the DoJ from 200 reactions.
I would have expected disgruntled devs and tech fans would be much higher on the negative response buttons.

There will always be things we would like Apple to change.
But 70% of people seem happy enough with the way things are currently.

 

[wbeasley]

Got something to back up this claim? I mean, you or someone must have surveyed every single developer to arrive at that conclusion, otherwise you're just pulling it out of your rear.

many come on here and state (in other posts) how they are very happy with 15-30% because the old physical store sales model often took 90% of the ticket price.

 

[KPOM]

Akshually...

From a developer point of view, they are very similar.

In fact, that's why macOS and iOS apps can share a nearly identical codebase.

They share a foundation, but iOS was deliberately designed to be a “closed” ecosystem, in large part to make it more secure. Contrary to popular opinion, macOS is far from immune to malware.

 

[whsbuss]

I already have the choice to buy an android if I want malware ridden crap.

Well like the EV (I do own a Tesla BTW) government will tell you what you need and must have.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

Probably most of the people on this board supporting Apple have never gone through the process of actually producing a mobile app.

Here's a hint from someone in the trenches - we don't really like the current situation. There's A LOT of problems that Apple has simply refused to address over the last 14 years. The current situation prevents developers from delivering their best and taking care of users, and users get corralled into overpriced subscription options with less choice.

There's nothing wrong with the App Store as-is, but it shouldn't be the only way to install software on an iPhone or iPad. Especially given the notorization scheme we now have on MacOS.

Unless you have gone through the process of delivering an app through the App Store, you need to keep your "Walmart and target" comments to yourself. You have little clue what's actually going on here.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

Akshually...

From a developer point of view, they are very similar.

In fact, that's why macOS and iOS apps can share a nearly identical codebase.

Great Scott! Someone who actually knows what they're talking about on here!

Seems like there's a lot of users who desire to be daddied harder by Apple on here.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Wouldn’t iOS vs Android be “sub” market places? You have the *choice* of hundreds of phones to purchase before you even get to apps.

And how does John Deere not have a monopoly on John Deere accessories?

It's important to note, apple is not being sued for being a monopoly. Apple is being sued for employing monopolistic practices.

i don't know anything about john deere, but if john deer is purposefully doing things that prevents *active* competition on one of their accessories than yea they are employing monopolistic practices.

So say, cup holders are like a HUGE market, there are tons of competition and innovation in this space and john deere's like, nope we won't allow 3P cupholders to be installed on our tractors. we installed something where the tractor won't turn on if there's 3P cupholders.

then yes they will be sued.

the problem with these random examples is that you realize someone has to be hurt. there is no active cupholder industry that has standing to sue.

there are thousands and thousands of actual business being hurt *allegedly* by apple's practices. that's a major major difference.

 

[NT1440]

It's important to note, apple is not being sued for being a monopoly. Apple is being sued for employing monopolistic practices.

i don't know anything about john deere, but if john deer is purposefully doing things that prevents *active* competition on one of their accessories than yea they are employing monopolistic practices.

So say, cup holders are like a HUGE market, there are tons of competition and innovation in this space and john deere's like, nope we won't allow 3P cupholders to be installed on our tractors. we installed something where the tractor won't turn on if there's 3P cupholders.

then yes they will be sued.

the problem with these random examples is that you realize someone has to be hurt. there is no active cupholder industry that has standing to sue.

there are thousands and thousands of actual business being hurt *allegedly* by apple's practices. that's a major major difference.

It would seem that devs that aren’t part of massive companies seem pretty happy with Apple’s services to them.

You’ll note that anticompetitive claims in America only get acted upon when it’s a battle between giants. None of this is behalf of the “little guy” and it would be a mistake to view this entire thing as in that light, that’s just not how this country works. I won’t cry for Amazon or Google or Meta for not getting their cut.

Frankly, I’d rather the government go after Apple’s (and the rest) tax avoidance schemes. That hurts actual people (I won’t refer to them as “consumers”) more than a Garmin watch not having constant contact with an iPhone….

 

[Sharewaredemon]

I don't (like you) expect many to jump and use 3rd party stores on iOS. The issue Apple has (most likely) is the work required to make this happen. As safely and non destructively as possible.

It’s also the fragmentation that will occur when Google, Microsoft and others won’t have their stuff on Apple’s App Store.

 

[ethanwa79]

Apple Pay and the Apple Wallet are perfect examples of the monopoly. Apple gets preferential treatment without allowing 3rd parties in to have the same access.

 

[GrayFlannel]

I wish this were the only example...

Like the Bells and Standard Oil?

 

[Admiralbison]

SUCK IT TO ALL THE APPLE SHAREHOLDER$$$



This day was inevitable.


Once consumers get an actual taste of FREEDOM from the digital prison they were in there is no going back and they will more clearly see the REAL reason

iOS was wall gardened and App store MONOPOLIZED.


Eventually:
CONSUMERS get to choose where to buy their apps. NOT Apple
CONSUMERS get to choose where to download from. NOT Apple
CONSUMERS get to install what THEY want. NOT Apple.
CONSUMERS get more control over how to use THEIR device. NOT apple

Apple will finally have to COMPETE.
No FEAR MONGERING of 'safety and security' is going to work anymore....while Apple hilariously throws its own MacOS under the bus.

 

[developer13245]

Oh I understand the point of all of this. To even suggest that I don't is absolutely absurd. And your assumption/suggestion that I would be particularly incensed by IBM obliterating Apple shows a bias here, you're not listening because you confuse the motivation of the discussion.

If you think Microsoft wouldn't have survived because they had to give up 30% of revenue to IBM you're crazy. They might not have been able to buy every competitor they ever had though, because they too could have survived better in that environment.

Yes, the App Store and its relationship with developers must change. Claiming Apple is a monopoly and everything Apple ever does including its success is due to them being bad is not the way to fix that. It's hamfisted, it's objectively incorrect, and it makes the DOJ look like it doesn't really understand where the actual problem lies.

Microsoft wouldn't have survived in the IBM "App Store" (alternate universe) because IBM never would have allowed Microsoft to ship their own version of MS-DOS that installed over IBM DOS. You don't know the history of the software industry. Microsoft was "contracted" to deliver the first version of DOS and limited updates (which they bought from another company and ported to the IBM PC architecture [short version]). That first version of DOS was IBM DOS, but IBM allowed Microsoft to keep the rights to DOS and continue developing it on their own. They also allowed Microsoft DOS to be installed over IBM DOS, and eventually they discontinued IBM DOS (jointly terminated the original contract) and just paid Microsoft for each copy of Microsoft DOS that shipped with an IBM PC.

If IBM followed the current Apple App Store model, IBM NEVER would have allowed Microsoft to continue developing their own version of DOS for the IBM PC. This would have eliminated Microsoft's cash flow from selling every copy of DOS. Yes, Microsoft would have continued to provide updates for IBM DOS and maintained some cash flow as a sub contractor, but that would have been minuscule compared to a per unit payment.

Of course if IBM set out on this (alternate universe) IBM PC "App Store" path they probably would have just bought and ported DOS themselves. But IBM knew they were a hardware company AND, YES, YES, YES!!! they didn't want to get anywhere near an ANTI-TRUST situation. This is a historical FACT! IBM understood if they created their own software division for the IBM PC it would have a natural advantage over any and every other software company that might write apps for the platform. This would dissuade other companies from writing for the platform and/or create an anti-trust issue.

IBM and everyone else had just seen the anti-trust nightmare AT&T went through and didn't want to take the same path. This is the first post that even mentions the AT&T anti-trust case. Proves you are all ignorant.

Edit: Please see my previous posts for the discussion of my Apple style IBM "App Store" alternate universe which are proof Apple App Stores violate anti-trust law.

 

[transpo1]

Smartphones and their manufacturing are irrelevant.

It’s about their operating system, interoperability and sale/distribution of apps. Having a dozen other manufacturers sell iPhone clones licensed by Apple wouldn’t change a thing (as long as the OS, Store and their rules are the same).

Hardly irrelevant. It’s not a monopoly if consumers can choose another operating system.

 

[Admiralbison]

I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

I think Apple should be able to run their App Store how they want, but I also believe Apple shouldn’t have any ability to prevent me from installing applications from outside the App Store.

That's the whole point of the EU and this lawsuit is about.


Apple has MONOPOLIZED iOS and digital marketplace by restricting both consumers and third party devs choices and can only go through Apple's App store.


Monopolize are:
anti-consumer
anti-competitive
anti-innovative


Apple will have to actually compete for the first time in nearly 20 years with their App store.

Personally, I've stayed away from Apple's App store on MacOS, because I had way better options available to me
- Steam


When it comes to gaming - Steam, GOG, Epic would absolutely trounce Apple's App store.


It would not be a contest as to what most gaming consumers would rather go to get their gaming Apps.



Once consumers get even a taste of freedom to choose, there simply will be no turning back, doesn't matter all the 'Safety and security' fear mongering BS Apple tries.


All the greedy Apple shareholders here can stop there non-sense act, because people will no longer be buying that as well.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I wonder, but Apple is being shaken down for by the Biden administration.

Nonsense. The three largest governments on earth - US, EU, and China - plus numerous smaller national governments, plus dozens of US state governments, plus dang near every tech company, has all said Apple is operating numerous monopolies.

The most shocking thing to me (who started saying this, stopped developing apps for their platforms, and stopped buying their products new) is how dang long it took for this to crash down on Apple.

Even now, I assume it’ll take a year or two or more for this to work its way through the US court system. I wonder if we’ll find Apple was bribing/lobbying to keep anyone from looking into their monopolies.

 

[Someyoungguy]

HAHAHAHA!

Like I am going to give two SOMETHINGS about the executives at Apple who voted (and would gladly vote again at the end of this year, because derangement / cognitive dissonance / blind party diehard loyalty / never learning anything / don't care about the prosperity of their children despite using that as a moral argument ad nauseam / or in most likelihood some combo) for this DOJ as an extension of Biden admin, to start poking the iPhone bear.

These same people who say 'ignore the border crisis', and 'grocery prices and commodities aren't going up', or *if* they are the Biden admin doesn't control prices and we still gotta blame those 1 time stimmy checks from 4 years ago now lol, and 'we must continue an endless war on behalf of Ukraine a country people couldn't identify on a map prior to recently, and re-releasing violent criminals right back into the streets due to Soros funded 'criminal justice' DAs spread across the country, etc.

.. and to that end, I say game on!

Hold Apple accountable!
Democracy is at stake!
Eat the rich!
My truths will live on!
Justice will prevail!

Blah blah blah.. blah blah.

“Best border legislation we could ever hope to get” - red team, but later shut down at the command of Mr. Pseudowealth Insurrectionist. This should tell you all you need to know about the whether it’s a real crisis and who you’re placing your faith in.

 

[jonnyb098]

Pretty sure companies that produce vape products do more to lock in consumers than a smart phone maker …

 

[Realityck]

Is Mr. Garland saying that Apple is obligated to write software for the Android OS? That's going to be a tough argument to make. Requiring Apple to write and maintain a specific piece of software for a competitors platform? Can't wait to watch these arguments play out.

There are aspects that they list that seem questionable. You talking about this one in particular.

• Excluding Cross-Platform Messaging Apps. Apple has made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones.

How can Apple make the "quality" of cross platform messaging worse? Most of the time it's just text files we get from businesses or other smartphone users via SMS or MMS. Perhaps the other content not shared is used in a more fun way, but not really necessary as you can readily send emails with a lot more embedded then using a texting app universally. I don't think any user out there rely's on single apps for everything, they will use whatever works. This sounds a lot like the earlier story of politicians getting upset about the beeper dev that was trying to fake credentials so his messaging app would work with 15 different messaging system on multiple platforms including iMessenger that uses encryption.

 

[bgillander]

Eventually:
CONSUMERS get to choose where to buy their apps. NOT Apple
CONSUMERS get to choose where to download from. NOT Apple
CONSUMERS get to install what THEY want. NOT Apple.
CONSUMERS get more control over how to use THEIR device. NOT apple

Apple will finally have to COMPETE.
No FEAR MONGERING of 'safety and security' is going to work anymore....while Apple hilariously throws its own MacOS under the bus.

So how exactly will we be able to choose where to buy any apps that take Epic up on their "no commission for the first 6 months if offered exclusively on the Epic store"?

I fully expect there will be similar exclusivity offers from all of the competing stores, which would require the consumer to either use each of those stores or not buy those specific exclusive apps.

Not life or death, but not exactly the huge win for the consumer that you are proclaiming.

I actually tend to bargain hunt across various stores for PC software and have been doing this long enough to have done it in physical stores before it was as simple as a Google search, but I didn't miss that on the App Store because I didn't find myself worrying that I might be missing a better price somewhere else. As a consumer, I personally found it convenient and an improvement, but that was partly due to the app prices much being lower than the old PC application $300-$500 range. You obviously disagree, but I just thought you should be aware that consumers are a rather large group with many varying opinions, so it is hard to speak for all of them.

 

[motorazr]

All Apple needs to do is allow iOS devices to be computers. Like the Mac, let me install software I want, even if Apple doesn’t like the content.

I feel like this is the heart of the issue.

You buy the iPhone, but who owns it? I can not use the hardware any way that Apple hasn’t authorized; no alternative OS, no tinkering, etc.

I get Apple’s security standpoint, but bugs will happen and hackers will find holes. realistically, the people who’d install an alternative system is so small…

I’ve been an Apple user forever. I’ve always embraced their walled garden for improved experience; but the last 5ish years it’s felt less like a zen garden and more like a hobby garden with barbed wire pointed inwards.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Cook and Schiller are likely holed up in the war bunker in the wake of this news, figuring out how much to charge devs everytime xcode crashes.

No surrender!

 

[acader]

How's this monopoly? Android is there right next to Apple.

It seems like GM should allow Dodge parts to be used in a Cadillac!!!!

 

[visualseed]

Having seen the DoJ press conference this morning, I was fairly unimpressed with the legal reps.
They played tag team and looked like small town lawyers not used to the spotlight.
Not you usual suave tv lawyers with pithy arguments and presence.

EU already couldnt use monopoly. DoJ is going to look foolish when pressed on explaining why they used that term.

I can buy any phone or tablet I want.
But when it comes down to it, Apple hardware is usually a degree better and worth the spend.
It also lasts longer in my experience. So when time comes to upgrade, someone else benefits.

Their devices do largely work well together.
That's what happens when you build the hardware and write the software.
It was a smart move Jobs did.

This is going to take years to progress.
And cost a lot of money to contest.
Money that could have been better spent of development work.

Interesting to watch the reaction scores on posts.
An early post had 30% supporting the DoJ from 200 reactions.
I would have expected disgruntled devs and tech fans would be much higher on the negative response buttons.

There will always be things we would like Apple to change.
But 70% of people seem happy enough with the way things are currently.

There is a long list of things I want Apple to change. Many of those things they are being sued or regulated over, but I want Apple to be in charge of making those decision and suffer the market consequences if they choose poorly.

The idea that the natural correlation by regulators is that Apple's success is due to anti-cooperative behavior ignores the fact that Apple's market is largely happy and financially capable of overcoming the burdens that would traditionally keep customers trapped. What they look at as anti-competitive are the very things that makes the company's products appealing to customers and drives most of its success. To insist that a company cannot please its customers without giving its competitors a veto, is, frankly, the most anti-competitive idea imaginable.