US Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple

[Eric]

Can't say I'm with the DOJ on this one, I like the fact that Apple is its own brand that utilizes their own store and ecosystem. It's ridiculous to force them to dumb themselves down to be compatible with lesser products.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/22/apple-doj-antitrust-suit-company-faces-years-of-distraction.html

Apple faces years of distractions after DOJ antitrust suit​

• The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple on Thursday, accusing it of using the iPhone’s market power to cut off rivals.
• It kicks off a multi-year process that will involve hundreds of lawyers and threatens Apple’s “walled garden” business model.
• If the DOJ wins, it could seek a range of changes to Apple’s business, and U.S. officials didn’t rule out the possibility that Apple could face “structural remedies” or be broken up.

 

[Cmaier]

They say if not for the Microsoft lawsuit, iPod wouldn’t have been a success.

They say CarPlay is an illegal monopoly.

The whole thing is hilarious reading, and the DoJ is going to be embarrassed badly, just like every other action they’ve brought in the last 3 years or so.

 

[Citysnaps]

They say if not for the Microsoft lawsuit, iPod wouldn’t have been a success.

They say CarPlay is an illegal monopoly.

The whole thing is hilarious reading, and the DoJ is going to be embarrassed badly, just like every other action they’ve brought in the last 3 years or so.

How do you see this playing out, and over what period of time?

 

[Cmaier]

How do you see this playing out, and over what period of time?

It’ll take years. Then come the appeals. A lot of it will get thrown out when they do motions for summary judgment in a year or so. Apple may even get some of it thrown out pretty quick if they move to dismiss instead of answering the complaint. I predict that by the time it’s all resolved it will be moot, because apple will slowly allow some of what is going on in Europe to happen in the U.S. Of course, if Trump wins, then he may throw the whole thing out in exchange for a mac pro.

 

[Roller]

They say if not for the Microsoft lawsuit, iPod wouldn’t have been a success.

They say CarPlay is an illegal monopoly.

The whole thing is hilarious reading, and the DoJ is going to be embarrassed badly, just like every other action they’ve brought in the last 3 years or so.

I agree with you on this case. But do you think every other one the DoJ has brought over the last three years was equally bad? That would include both of Jack Smith’s cases, not to mention the hundreds against the January 6 insurrectionists, wouldn’t it?

 

[Cmaier]

I agree with you on this case. But do you think every other one the DoJ has brought over the last three years was equally bad? That would include both of Jack Smith’s cases, not to mention the hundreds against the January 6 insurrectionists, wouldn’t it?

I meant antitrust cases.

 

[Roller]

I meant antitrust cases.

Ah, OK. Agree with that too. Thanks for confirming!

 

[Joelist]

This has the same defect as Epic's lawsuit - ludicrous definition of a market. The courts already said you cannot define as market like "iOS" or "Apple smartphones". Thus Apple is not a monopoly thus no case.

 

[thenewperson]

The courts already said you cannot define as market like "iOS" or "Apple smartphones".

While true, have you considered… performance smartphones? It’s the hot new thing!

 

[cbum]

I guess the real question becomes:
At what point is it appropriate to declare an ecosystem a company has created and therefore controls the equivalent of a utility that you can regulate to the detriment of the creator?

 

[Jimmyjames]

I’ve been trying to gather my thoughts on this topic and was struggling to get to a short, coherent sentence or two. I recently saw this post by Walt Mossberg on Threads which I feel summarises my thought fairly well.

"2/ First and most importantly, the case essentially attacks Apple for being a vertically integrated smartphone manufacturer, melding every hardware component as well as native and permitted software and services. Yet this has been Apple’s core differentiator since the 1970’s. It attracts people who want more of a digital appliance than a platform for tinkering. And it’s no different than the difference between Macs and Windows computers going back to the 1980s.'

This is it exactly for me: both the DoJ and the EU seem to believe the PC Master Race of computing in terms of what is good or more importantly, what should be allowed or liked by people. Every component of hardware and software must be interchangeable and interoperable.

There’s a saying. “fast, cheap, good” pick any two. I’ve probably butchered that but it communicates the sentiment. I feel Apple has always valued “good” and lately “fast” over “cheap”. As part of this, integration and quality of life touches are big parts of the experience I gain from using Apple’s devices. These governmental interventions seem to eschew these quality of life touches altogether. It seems at a glance that its just “cheap” that matters to them.

I don’t know what Apple has to do to communicate their philosophy of device making to these bodies, but it feels like they are losing the argument to many people, despite (in my opinion) being largely correct.

 

[exoticspice1]

I’ve been trying to gather my thoughts on this topic and was struggling to get to a short, coherent sentence or two. I recently saw this post by Walt Mossberg on Threads which I feel summarises my thought fairly well.

"2/ First and most importantly, the case essentially attacks Apple for being a vertically integrated smartphone manufacturer, melding every hardware component as well as native and permitted software and services. Yet this has been Apple’s core differentiator since the 1970’s. It attracts people who want more of a digital appliance than a platform for tinkering. And it’s no different than the difference between Macs and Windows computers going back to the 1980s.'

This is it exactly for me: both the DoJ and the EU seem to believe the PC Master Race of computing in terms of what is good or more importantly, what should be allowed or liked by people. Every component of hardware and software must be interchangeable and interoperable.

There’s a saying. “fast, cheap, good” pick any two. I’ve probably butchered that but it communicates the sentiment. I feel Apple has always valued “good” and lately “fast” over “cheap”. As part of this, integration and quality of life touches are big parts of the experience I gain from using Apple’s devices. These governmental interventions seem to eschew these quality of life touches altogether. It seems at a glance that its just “cheap” that matters to them.

I don’t know what Apple has to do to communicate their philosophy of device making to these bodies, but it feels like they are losing the argument to many people, despite (in my opinion) being largely correct.

Can you imagine if networks were vertically integrated, meaning that each company's computer had its own network that could only talk with their own proprietary system. The Internet would not exist.
It was like this in the early days of networks but eventually it became interoperable and standards were set.

Apple today embrances proprietary tech very much from their OS, APIs, hardware and to even messaging. There is nothing wrong with that but Apple has abused its power as monopoly within its vertical intregrated structure to benefit it and only it at cost of its competition.

We see this in Apple Watch being the only smartwatch being able to access Apple's iPhone properly, Apple's egotistical policies regarding the App Store etc.

As part of this, integration and quality of life touches are big parts of the experience I gain from using Apple’s devices.

If this one part of this is AirDrop/AirPlay which I believe is an integration feature and QoL feature. Apple could support Airplay/AirDrop in Winodws/Android and vice versa they could support QuickShare in iOS/macOS but they choose not too because they want you to experience that QoL in Apple's ecosystem only.
This type of QoL feature is done on purpose to give an illsuion that what offers is seamless but in reality they restrict features to make it harder for anyone outside their system. This is just one example, they do many more.

 

[jbailey]

Can you imagine if networks were vertically integrated, meaning that each company's computer had its own network that could only talk with their own proprietary system. The Internet would not exist.
It was like this in the early days of networks but eventually it became interoperable and standards were set.

Apple today embrances proprietary tech very much from their OS, APIs, hardware and to even messaging. There is nothing wrong with that but Apple has abused its power as monopoly within its vertical intregrated structure to benefit it and only it at cost of its competition.

We see this in Apple Watch being the only smartwatch being able to access Apple's iPhone properly, Apple's egotistical policies regarding the App Store etc.



If this one part of this is AirDrop/AirPlay which I believe is an integration feature and QoL feature. Apple could support Airplay/AirDrop in Winodws/Android and vice versa they could support QuickShare in iOS/macOS but they choose not too because they want you to experience that QoL in Apple's ecosystem only.
This type of QoL feature is done on purpose to give an illsuion that what offers is seamless but in reality they restrict features to make it harder for anyone outside their system. This is just one example, they do many more.

And why should any of that be grounds for a lawsuit for a company that has 55% market share in the US and 20% worldwide?

 

[quarkysg]

There is nothing wrong with that but Apple has abused its power as monopoly within its vertical intregrated structure to benefit it and only it at cost of its competition.

So I gather you are of the opinion that I should be allowed to operate my own rides in Disneyland without ever paying a dime to Disney? After all Disney has abused its monopoly power of vertical integrated structure of their theme parks worldwide to benefit it and only it at cost of its competition?

And when has iOS ever been declared a market on its own?

 

[Jimmyjames]

Can you imagine if networks were vertically integrated, meaning that each company's computer had its own network that could only talk with their own proprietary system. The Internet would not exist.
It was like this in the early days of networks but eventually it became interoperable and standards were set.

Apple today embrances proprietary tech very much from their OS, APIs, hardware and to even messaging. There is nothing wrong with that but Apple has abused its power as monopoly within its vertical intregrated structure to benefit it and only it at cost of its competition.

We see this in Apple Watch being the only smartwatch being able to access Apple's iPhone properly, Apple's egotistical policies regarding the App Store etc.



If this one part of this is AirDrop/AirPlay which I believe is an integration feature and QoL feature. Apple could support Airplay/AirDrop in Winodws/Android and vice versa they could support QuickShare in iOS/macOS but they choose not too because they want you to experience that QoL in Apple's ecosystem only.
This type of QoL feature is done on purpose to give an illsuion that what offers is seamless but in reality they restrict features to make it harder for anyone outside their system. This is just one example, they do many more.

I usually find it’s better to understand a post before responding.

 

[throAU]

This has the same defect as Epic's lawsuit - ludicrous definition of a market. The courts already said you cannot define as market like "iOS" or "Apple smartphones". Thus Apple is not a monopoly thus no case.

Agreed. It's like saying that Mercedes have the monopoly on genuine Mercedes parts, or that Tesla has the monopoly on Tesla firmware.