May I recommend you search around your inquiry.
The site is already STUFFED FULL of discussion points that address your question.
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
May I recommend you search around your inquiry.
The site is already STUFFED FULL of discussion points that address your question.
That's not true though. At this point the App Store may as well be it's own closed off version of the internet it has that many users, applications and developers and brings in that much money. If you want access to all that, there is no open market to pop up your store in; you have to play by Apple's rules and theirs alone. This makes them a platform gatekeeper.
We're not talking about a small upstart computing firm with a few hundred thousand users. Apple are the sole point of entry to gain access to over a billion devices. They have totalitarian control over everything within.
The internet was not designed to be a closed platform and neither should mobile computing platforms. Apple built their empire on top of open source software and the open exchange of knowledge, ideas and services the internet used to stand for.
They won and we lost.
It would be better if webOS and Windows Phone had both taken a decent chunk of the market also.
Costs to switching.
You didn't shell out hundreds of dollars for merely accessing your hardware store, did you?
What are you talking about?
You're literally referring to companies entering each other's local market - that's called competition, not a monopoly.
And those people seem to disagree. Klasma seemed like they knew what they were talking about, so I engaged in a discussion, on a forum for discussing.
Don’t plenty of tools only work with their own disposable items?
I’d understand if there was a change in the price of a disposable item after purchase, or if there was a subscription that got jacked up. I’m just not seeing how the limitations, which are known at time of purchase, makes it an illegal monopoly?
I didn’t for the Apple Store either. Or the Canon store. My canon lenses only work with a canon body, making the cost to switch to a different ecosystem more expensive than switching watches. But I knew what I was doing when I entered both ecosystems. Maybe the issue is that people feel tricked?
I side with Apple. I agree that many of its products are very successful in the United States, but none of them, not even the iPhone, is a monopoly in that country by any stretch of the imagination.
Even though a judge may understand there’s little merit, it doesn’t hurt them at all to let it through and let the process show there’s no merit rather than they take the heat for a logical, but unpopular to a loud few, call.
You bought a phone.
Which will install and run only iOS apps.
You can't simply (or for free) switch to the Google Play Store or any other store tomorrow.
There are multiple lens manufacturers whose lenses will work with (your base product) the Canon camera.
Also, there are more relevant camera "platforms" than mobile operating systems.
Walk into store, buy new Android phone. Sell iPhone.
You’ve simply switched to the Google Play store, and depending on how old your iPhone is and what Android phone you bought, have actually made money.
That costs money (loss of value) and considerable time and effort to setup and migrate.
We're talking about switching to a somewhat comparable phone.
Few customers switch from Porsche to Dacia either.
Well maybe do research on how the phone has worked for the past 17 years next time.
Demand, need for and reliance on smartphone apps has massively increased over the last 17 years.
Which makes the issue all the more pressing. We're not living in 2008 anymore.
PS: ...and so have Apple's profits from such app-related "services".
And Android has existed the entire 17 years.
Again, you’re taking away choice from those who want a closed ecosystem because you think your preferences are more important than theirs - and compromising their safety and security because you think you know better.
So Apple has less than 60% of the market share. Your graphic is deceiving as 60% appears to look like it’s 100%. Calling Apple a monopoly is factually incorrect. 🤔
We've been there before
Nobody is taking away your choice to make all app downloads/installation and transactions through Apple.
👉 Are you saying Apple should force DoorDash and Uber (exclusively) use your Apple Account for payment services, because you want a closed ecosystem? See, maybe it isn't so closed after all.
Just because you continue to say that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not true.We've been there before
Nobody is taking away your choice to make all app downloads/installation and transactions through Apple.
But you’re right, no need to go around again.
People keep getting hung up on the word monopoly. Being a monopoly is legal. The issue is the anticompetitive behaviors that led to them dominating the market.
A business can behave in monopolistic practices while not being an absolute monopoly. The Sherman Antitrust Act has applied to companies that are not pure monopolies.
Except that it is close to 60% in the U.S.
I wonder if all the people outraged over this lawsuit against Apple expressed an equivalent level of outrage when Microsoft was sued or for the ongoing case against Google.
how can Apple have a monopoly on this smartphone market when there are more android phones on the market then there are Apple phones?
Apple failed in its attempt to get the antitrust lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Justice filed against it dismissed, reports Reuters. U.S. District Judge Julien Neals, who is overseeing the case, today denied Apple's motion for dismissal.
Apple asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in August of last year, arguing that the DOJ's complaint failed to demonstrate anticompetitive conduct, harm to consumers, or that Apple has a monopoly over the U.S. smartphone market.
The government's antitrust case against Apple will take years to play out, but it will now move forward. It is not unusual for a case to fail to be dismissed, because when filing for a dismissal, there are limits on the information that can be provided and cases often go in favor of the plaintiff.
The DOJ accused Apple of a smartphone monopoly in the United States, citing Apple's restriction of third-party access to Apple services and features and claiming that consumers are "locked" into Apple's ecosystem. Apple argues that the DOJ is attempting to force it to spend money on enriching its competitors, and that it is not a monopolist because it faces competition from companies like Samsung and Google.
Apple will now file an answer to the DOJ's initial complaint, and a discovery period will begin where Apple and the DOJ provide documents, expert testimony, and depositions. After that, there will be a summary judgment with additional arguments, and finally, a trial. The case is unlikely to make it to trial until 2028 or even later.
For a reminder about the DOJ's antitrust claims against Apple, we have a dedicated guide that explains the details in the U.S. vs. Apple legal fight.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward
That's a superficial (and Apple marketing inspired) take. OSX had the ability to download from anywhere for decades. Do you remember how prolific viruses and malware was on OSX? It was still a drop in the ocean against Windows, so perhaps question your perspective and consider that free software markets have worked safely and very well for many, many years before Apple locked it all down to make more money.