DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward

[surferfb]

PS: I'd love to peek - or throw you guys - into an alternate universe where (Finnish/European) Nokia and (Korean) Samsung are making and selling all the smartphones. Controlling the dominant mobile OS platforms/ecosystems and demanding 30% commission from all of the American internet/tech/media companies - and on all sales "acquired" through their platforms.

Speaking for myself, opinions don’t change. I don’t care if the company is American/Korean/German/Whatever. It’s a philosophical thing for me. I don’t think the government should be getting involved.

Case in point, you don’t see me arguing artists or record labels should be able to bypass Spotify’s cut or plug directly into the user experience. I’m not saying Airbus is a monopolist despite controlling 60% of the commercial airplane market, and that we should require Airbus to support third-party avionic systems.

To be fair, I doubt someone like @surferfb would defend the benefits of (and supposed customer preference for) a "closed" ecosystem as much as he does - were it not for Apple operating it. A company he obviously seems to trust very much.

What if Meta, Google, some Chinese company, or even the U.S. government was operating it?

I wouldn’t personally use Meta’s closed ecosystem, but I would defend their right to offer one. However, given their history of questionable business practices, I wouldn’t be arguing strongly for the “consumer benefit” angle. More “there are open alternatives” so we shouldn’t have the government interfering.

I don't know how much his stance is influenced by his own personal preference for Apple as a company (rather than the general concept and benefits of a platform being "closed"), but I suspect it it is substantial.

In a universe with no Apple, closed Meta and open Google, I definitely go with Google and customize to limit tracking as much as possible. I certainly wouldn’t be defending Meta as much as I defend Apple, but still think a closed option should be allowed to exist. I guess you could make the argument that Meta’s history of harming users might warrant stricter scrutiny.

Really interesting question! I don’t think my opinion changes, but certainly something to think about.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

A phone and an iPad are more personal, private and sensitive devices than a computer, because they go everywhere you go. Malware could cause a disaster, eavesdropping, capturing your voice, using your phone to send spam and fraudulent messages, etc.
You need to look at the big picture. As a user, I only buy my apps from trusted sources. As a developer, I love the App Store because it gives me exposure, and they take care of all the hosting, eCommerce transactions, etc. Those things I can't afford to waste time managing.

As a developer too, I'm also aware of the advantages from both sides of the fence.

 

[Ethosik]

We are reaching end stage capitalism and this is one of those signs. And it’s not good. Combine this with all the layoffs we have seen in tech lately and now Xbox. These companies including Apple continue to achieve record profits. However you absolutely MUST……MUST have always infinite growth. So you look years ahead. We have population decline around the world, anyone that wants an iPhone has one now for the most part.

So Apple must do EVERYTHING they can to protect ALL sources of revenue. Including App Store. One of their biggest source. Until they legally cannot, they will continue to fight because they must maintain infinite growth.

I hate where we are. All big tech companies are nickel and diming and laying off people to maintain their growth and it’s absolutely frustrating. Driving so hard towards AI as well makes an impact.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

As a developer too, I'm also aware of the advantages from both sides of the fence.

Same here. So I know which side is the most convenient.

 

[Arsenikdote]

That's still a monopoly power though. Just because it's limited to iOS distribution doesn't make it less so. Think of it this way; if what you suggest were true, Standard Oil could have claimed they didn't have a monopoly power because people could choose to use horses instead of automobiles!

Analogies are always tough, so maybe not the best way to help in this case. Monopoly power would indicate that the company is using their power to control the market. The old Microsoft example with Internet Explorer makes sense. They wanted IE to be the browser everyone used and took actions against the industry to ensure that. I could not have argues that because Linux existed or other operating systems that Microsoft wasn't using monopoly power because they controlled the vast majority, probably back then close to 85-90%, of the personal computer market. That is simply not true for Apple.

I would say that Apple AND Google together might be trying to control the market, but one of them on their own can't because people can freely move between the two platforms.

 

[Arsenikdote]

More than half of it.

„In the "broader smartphone market" in the U.S., Apple has a 65 percent share.“

https://www.macrumors.com/guide/apple-vs-doj/

Again, enjoying monopoly power in the legal sense does not necessarily require an actual 100% or 90% market share.

We could cite articles and also those would be invalid in another buying cycle. They are up they are down, so I guess I would amend my original statement to be "roughly half" instead. Maybe stating it that way detracted from the question, because Apple is certainly not a Microsoft with Internet Explorer situation. I also understand that monopoly power has little to nothing to do with ACTUAL market share and more about your sway in the industry and how you might abuse it.
With people easily being able to move to Android and have the whole same suite of products, what makes Apple a monopoly?

Apple AND Google might together be abusing their power in the industry, but I don't see how one of them is a monopoly. We need to update the Sherman Act and put in Duopolies in it! lol

 

[webkit]

How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.

The existence of alternatives does not mean a monopoly can't exist.

A lot also depends on how the courts/legal system defines the market in question. In this situation, the DOJ is more narrowly defining the market as the "performance smartphone" market.

 

[webkit]

Ridiculous lawsuit. Apple isn’t even more than 50% of smartphone market. Waste of taxpayer time and money. Won’t go anywhere. Next….

It is more than 50% in the U.S. and this is a U.S. (DOJ) case.

 

[webkit]

Even if they are...so what? They aren't allowed to be successful? That's what this has looked like through the entire E.U. nonsense. Punishment for success.

They aren't (or shouldn't) be allowed to be "successful" IF that success comes from violating federal and/or state antitrust laws, and that would be something the courts need to determine.

 

[webkit]

The same way that Microsoft could have a monopoly when Netscape Navigator existed.

The MS "monopoly" had to do with the operating system. The browser factor was related to how MS used its dominance in OS to try to control or take over the browser/internet access market.

 

[Marx55]

Apple sued for antitrust/monopoly due to non standalone smartwatch. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, in part, due to the non-standalone nature of the Apple Watch and its alleged role in locking consumers into the iPhone ecosystem.

The DOJ’s Monopolization Case Against Apple
Smartwatches. The DOJ also alleges that Apple has suppressed the development of cross-platform smartwatches, steering consumers to Apple's smartwatch and thereby locking them into the iPhone ecosystem. The complaint contends that Apple degrades the functionality of third-party smartwatches by preventing them from responding to iPhone notifications, inhibiting them from maintaining reliable connections with iPhones, and undermining the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network. In doing so, the DOJ says, Apple bolsters its own smartwatch—Apple Watch—which does not face these disadvantages. Because Apple Watch is not compatible with other smartphones, purchases of Apple Watch raise the costs of switching from an iPhone to another smartphone. Thus, by favoring Apple Watch and degrading rival smartwatches, the DOJ claims, Apple helps solidify its smartphone monopoly.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11154