Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have a monopoly on API access on their own platform making it difficult for other companies to compete at an even level. And if Microsoft couldn't make a 3rd platform work then what chance does a random startup in Reno? It's impossible to build a competing platform to the Apple/Google duopoly. That's the point of the antitrust cases.
Good. Apple has far more control than Microsoft ever had, back when the DoJ sued them.
The same way that Microsoft could have a monopoly when Netscape Navigator existed.
Europe can be dumb sometimes. Americans are like hold my beer. This DoJ case is lame & dumb from top to bottom.
It’s ironic that Microsoft invested in Apple so they could still use that as an argument. Look how far we have come.
I think Apple is happy with all these cases. This way they can 'delay' all their features across all its markets, so that they are actually ready when they launch.
That ignores market share. Microsoft Windows had a 90+% market share of the computer business. Now, some of the arguments were around anti-competitive and monopolistic actions Microsoft used within the Windows world (IE took over from Netscape because of Microsoft's bundling of it with the OS), but the fact of the matter is that while iOS is a 'monopoly' on iPhones, iOS is still only about a 55% market share in the United States. That makes this more of a difficult case for the DOJ to win.
Apple's closed ecosystem is actually one of the reasons I started buying only iPhones and various other Apple devices.
The closed ecosystem is one of the reasons I'm thinking about leaving.
I'm really getting tired of companies inserting theirselves as middlemen.
None of that is true. The market in question for this case is the smartphone market, not "API Access". There are already multiple platforms controlled by independent companies, as each manufacturer forks android. Google dominates services on top of the android platforms through anticompetive agreements for Google Play Services.
The point of this case is whether Apple has "significant and durable" market power in the smartphone market. If so then, the courts will examine whether they engage in exclusionary conduct without business justification.
I think Apple is squarely in the gray zone based on their share, but recent history shows us that a federal judge rejected the antitrust argument in the Epic case. Of course, with the current administration, the most like outcome is that the case will just be leveraged to force Apple to support an unrelated policy goal.
They can’t and, just like every case that tries to claim a monopoly, when the definition of monopoly comes out to play, they’re challenged to find a non-absurd market definition where monopoly actually works.
non-absurd: Petroleum market. Operating System market. Smartphone market.
absurd: McDonald’s Big Mac market. Wal-Mart toy aisle market. Nintendo Digital App Store market.
(Broadly, any market that uses a company’s trademarked product name in the definition of that market. A market definition that includes a company’s trademarked product name is “a product they sell/provide”)
That’s why the EU made up a term “gatekeeper” that simply means, “We want an excuse to exert remedies usually used for those companies that hold monopolistic control over a member of a market that, by no reasonable measure, has a monopoly in the market.”
This will likely fail and, as we’ve seen in other recent legal attacks, they’ll adopt the EU’s “gatekeeper” type definition that allows them to only punish specific successful companies. The problem, though is that the EU has no really successful tech companies, so drafting out a law that only punished non-EU companies was easy. It’s likely to be harder for folks to do the same in the US without bringing unintended harm to other successful US companies.
Last edited:
So Europe is dumb, America is dumb..
When do we point the finger at the company constantly on the other end?
The definition is muddy for sure, but given the extent to which Pro owners wouldn’t be willing to downgrade to a non-Pro or e, or Pixel/S owners to the A/FE, it has some validity.
They are allowed to have a monopoly. They aren’t allowed to use anticompetitive measures in order to obtain it.
It's definitely arguable, which is why I'm not surprised the judge didn't throw out the case. I just have a very hard time seeing a universe where the current Supreme Court (which I am sure is where the case will end up) will ultimately rule that Apple has a monopoly based on that definition. They're not exactly anti-big business.
In any case, this isn't going to be decided until like 2029 at the earliest, and then the appeals will come. Buckle up! It's going to be a long ride.
It seems that only the people that like to use Apple products and services as they are, and folks that like to use Android products and services as the are, are capable of doing research before buying devices, weighing the pros and cons and then buying a device that does what they intend it to. Perhaps they need some targeted training to help them make decisions? Maybe set up an AI to ask them a set of questions which would help the AI assist them in a purchase. And, if there’s nothing on the market that meets their criteria, just tell them not to buy anything.
If they then make a decision to buy one or the other, they’re at least doing so understanding that the device they’re buying will NOT meet their needs.
If they then make a decision to buy one or the other, they’re at least doing so understanding that the device they’re buying will NOT meet their needs.
Yeah, right. Monopoly power cannot exist in a free market. It is conferred by the only true monopoly, the state. Every famous example of a supposed monopoly was actually beneficial to consumers of the goods provided. Dow Chemical, for example, engaged in so-called predatory pricing of bromine to compete with a German firm who were attempting to sell bromine in the US. The end result was a downward price war that benefitted consumers of bromine in both the US and Germany. If government had stepped in and said "hey, you can't sell bromine for that little" they would benefit only the firms involved and hurt everyone else who needs bromine.
Is an illegal practice.
We don't want that as part of the "toolkit" ... it's how you get things like Amazon dominating everything, everywhere.
Anticompetitive measures are:
Restricting retailers from selling any phone other than the iPhone.
Setting up exclusive deals with retailers where they can’t carry smartphones other than the iPhone.
Entering into exclusive deals with developers such that they cannot develop an app for any other phone if they release it on the iPhone.
Apple hasn’t done any of those. If they HAD, they’d likely see more success than their…. what is it now, 30% marketshare (it may actually be less). In the EU, it’s clear that not adopting the Android model has put them at a distinct market disadvantage in the region.
When we lose our minds and think unaccountable power based on the threat of force is more likely correct than power contingent on continually pleasing customers.
Maybe take a look at the lawsuit, it’s actually quite readable: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
How dare this darn EU go after those poor US companies!!!!!!11!!1one!!!
... oh wait xD
... oh wait xD
Can you explain this further? How am I locked into Apple any more than I’m locked into the nearest hardware store? How are developers locked in any more than DeWalt is to that hardware store?
Sure, if DeWalt wants to sell to me they should probably be in my local store, as they are unlikely to make a measuring tape so much better that I’ll go out of my way for it. Is that locked in?