It's about having an open market that more freely allows competition for app access and markets (app stores, sideloading), payment systems, browsers, browser engines, etc.
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.
U.S. Department of Justice in 'Early Stages' of Drafting Possible Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's about having an open market that more freely allows competition for app access and markets (app stores, sideloading), payment systems, browsers, browser engines, etc.
Apple paid 60 billion dollars to app developers in 2021. Yeah, that’s a market that’s absolutely ill, virtually on life support. Something HAS to be done about all these developers making so much of the monies with Apple’s hardware and Apple’s App Store!
Maybe the problem is how little business is done on the App Store versus, say, Android? Well, in 2021 Google’s Play Store revenue was 47.9 billion dollars. Apple paid out more than Google Play’s entire revenue. If the Apple Store is preventing a healthy market, then Google Play is strangling a healthy market that’s struggling on life support with _only_ 47.9 billion dollars revenue.
It’s my assumption that the government will do something to Apple about how they run Apple’s App Store right after doing something to McDonald’s about how they choose what goes into the McDonald’s Happy Meal (because, you see, McDonald’s has a monopoly on McDonald’s Happy Meals) and right after fixing that nagging problem that WalMart has with selling their store brands ONLY in their own store! I mean, if there’s not a WalMart near a person, then they simply cannot purchase “Sam’s Choice” products! That cannot be allowed.”
The thing is, sideloading exists, multiple payment systems exist, different browser engines exist on a platform that’s far more popular than Apple’s iOS. Millions of folks choose Android over iOS every day. iOS is just not made for those kind of features (and, those features are accordingly of zero importance to the millions of folks that will buy iPhones this year). IF there’s someone that wants those features, yet they buy an Apple device anyway, they are doing themselves a disservice as that money going to Apple is proof that those features aren’t important enough to that person to stop them from buying an iPhone.
It all comes back to…if those features were important for the folks buying the phones, those features would be on the phone. The ONLY issue is that there are people that want features that aren’t offered, they SAY they want competition, but, no, they don’t want competition. The competition is there, customers have decided and the number of customers that want sideloading on iOS is so small, it makes no sense for Apple to throw those dollars away trying to implement and support it.
No, it hasn’t- since it was never up for vote.
Your reference to sales numbers is misguided, since no one in the world „votes“ for their smartphone or OS solely on the basis of its application distribution model.
Fortunately for me, there is enough people concerned about it that legislative efforts in the EU and the US are on its way to force Apple to change.
Game consoles that serve limited (entertainment) purposes aren’t personal computers that serve all kinds of different purposes.
People don’t do their business, online shopping/ banking on their XBox and they don’t use it as communication devices.
Legislators and antitrust regulators understand that.
Their ventures into music and video streaming, the killing of Adobe Flash (arguably good from a technical perspective) and their refusal to support messaging standards are indicative of the contrary.
I want competition to be at least enabled in the distribution of apps for the dominant mobile OS platforms (currently Android and iOS).
If many people choose not to use it (sideloading or alternative stores), I‘m all fine with it. It‘ll still be a useful „check and balance“ against Apple’s App Store monopoly (in the distribution of iOS apps) and may enable developers to publish apps that Apple doesn’t allow.
You said it.
That’ll hopefully lay to to rest the claims that Apple just has such small a market share (esp. in Europe) that they don’t operate a dominant OS/App Store.
iOS is - technically - made for sideloading. Today. The technology is there and its security ramifications. And payment options? There’s tons of apps (say… Uber) that have their own payment option integrated.
Apple has just chosen to restrict their practical usability for public distribution of apps - for their own monetary gain. Yes, some people are happy with that and find thal alright and justified, as recurring threads on this forum show.
With only two viable mobile operating systems in the marketplace, developers and consumers alike have to make compromises on their choice of platform and may be forced to choose one that doesn’t offer all that is (would be) important to them.
Sideloading is important to me - but for various reasons I don’t/can‘t use like Android.
So I compromised in buying iOS devices.
Last edited:
There isn't a healthy competition for everyone. Healthy competition means same rules for all, no exceptions no deals and propping up your own offering on the expense of others.
There is zero competition between app stores such as iOS App Store and Android play store. And there never will be because of technological barriers.
Completely irrelevant when it comes to anticompetitive rules and actions such as banning some apps who emulate your apps or suppression of competition
payout has nothing to do with the competitiveness of the market, and the amount of business has nothing to do with competition.
Anticompetitive rules aren't dependent on monopolies, and the fact you think McDonald's and Walmart are relevant shows your ignorance.
McDonald's is a restaurant. And restaurants sells only their own food.
Walmart makes its own product and can sell it anywhere they please. And competitors can sell the same goods anywhere.
Apple has an App Store where they compete with other 3d party developers who can't sell their goods anywhere but the App Store and are disadvantaged against apple first party options when it comes to fair rules being imposed.
P.S the FDA does tell Mcdonalds what they can put in their happy meals tho
So you get all your research from search engines. That explains everything. I own an investment company and understand the workings of the economy, The Fed, and capitalism in America. As well as all of the regulations that have been set in the past as precedents for how when a company gets too powerful it can be regulated out of power.No, I just use search engines for things that I’m not sure about. To ensure I don’t go posting things like “The government needs to get involved in the smartphone markets because that’s what free markets are all about!” Can you define in what way Apple has acted in a monopolistic fashion? Have they attempted to curtail development of applications for other OS’s? Have they forced any handset makers out of business? Or, do they just make a thing that people want and people who want it buy it?
Apple doesn’t have vast powers. What are these vast powers you think they have? PC’s are unaffected by Apple. Android is unaffected by Apple. In fact, Apple’s biggest weakness, some would say, is their platform is too restricted and that’s what provides Android with an opening.
Loosen those restrictions (which are the reasons folks choose Android) and folks like you may see Apple going from around half marketshare in the US to 70 or 80%. I mean, it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other because I’m in favor of the free market (letting the market decide). If the market doesn’t want what I want, then I’m fine with that. But I WILL have a hearty chortle if one of the outcomes is that Apple’s products become more and more popular, not only in the US but worldwide due to the decreased restrictions.
A small example. Apple makes so much money with MFi that even though tech faithful and even Apple sheep have wanted USB C implemented along as it makes more sense to all consumers. The problem is that it will stifle innovation. If Apple had kept innovating, regulators wouldn’t say Apple you cannot use this newest technology. The problem is Lightning has been inferior since 2015 to USB C. Apple did what it could to not benefit consumers but what it could to maximize its power in Lightning and made for MFi proprietary licensing to many manufacturers that made Apple billions of extra $$$$$$$$$$$. When Apple stops innovating, regulators should step in.
And in some markets iPhone does dominate. Like Japan, United Kingdom and sort of United States. The problem is Apple and Google seem to collude to ensure they keep App Store and Google Play store prices the same. This is where developers lose out and people lose out. Apple stifles competition in many fronts and out right steals developers technologies. Most of the time Apple will not pay a fair price for the tech they just plain copy it and build it into the system. This doesn’t benefit the developer who invented the technology. Sure without Apple it couldn’t have been done but without those developers the iPhone wouldn’t be as far along as it is. Apple uses the developers rather than creating a symbiotic relationship with the developers. Same thing with the 30%. Apple could have made it 15% years ago and everyone would be happy and people would lay off the heat on Apple. It’s greed at the top.
We can go on and on but there’s really no point. I am mostly for capitalism. But I will say Apple has abused its position to the detriment of so many stakeholders. It’s time for regulators to get involved all over the world and ensure everyone gets a fair shake.
Of course this will not benefit Apple executives. Nor will it benefit AAPL shareholders. But it will benefit developers and end users. And sometimes they need to be helped via regulation due to excessive greed.
We’re probably in for another round of
„Government shouldn’t force McDonald‘s to sell Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola“.
(though that would, again, be an Apples-to-Oranges comparison)
I wouldn’t say it’s strictly inferior, since at least mechanically it isn’t (quite the contrary, among mini-USB, micro-USB and USB-C, Lightning is arguably the best connector for such devices).
That said, with the widespread adoption of USB-C devices, ports and cables (ironically partly thanks to Apple being an early adopter) and the camera recording capabilities of recent iPhones, we may have passed a point where the benefits of Lightning are outweighed by the benefits of USB-C.
Transferring a 4K video recording to a computer over a Lightning cable is no fun.
As I said, there could easily be competition between app stores if Google wasn't allowed to enter into agreements with their horizontal competitors to eliminate competition.
I’m of the opinion it won’t benefit developers or end user. Greedy corporations like Enron is a better analogy. People throw money at apple, for a reason.
They shouldn't have to compete with anyone else on their own platforms. You want to compete? Make your own phone OS and app store.
That comparison doesn't really apply here. McDonald's and Walmart aren't monopolies or part of duopolies in their respective businesses (restaurants, retail stores). They don't conduct business in areas where they control significant portions of the U.S. market like Apple does in mobile OS.
Your argument might make more sense here if regulators were going after Apple’s Apple Stores but they aren’t. A reason why is because Apple doesn't have a monopoly and isn't part of a duopoly in the retail store business, and doesn't control a significant portion of that space. Therefore, Apple is free to sell only Apple products at Apple Stores if they want to. It could be a different story if the environment was more like it is in mobile OS where two players (Apple with iOS and Google with Android) dominate.
The thing is, we're talking about the U.S. DOJ and therefore the U.S. market. Here, Apple iOS has a larger share of mobile OS than Android. Regardless, since it's a duopoly, both would be subject to the same antitrust regulations anyway. The DOJ feels that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restricting app stores, sideloading, browser engines, payment systems, etc., hence the investigation and potential lawsuit.
The government is trying to make the mobile OS market as open and competitive as possible, just as they would and have done in other monopoly, duopoly or oligopoly markets. If consumers still end up deciding they want to use one app store, one browser engine, etc. fine, at least the open market decided that and not a restrictive walled garden.
The government should be trying to make the mobile phone market as open and competitive as possible. Of course we will see where this goes. If apple caves or loses in the US it will be like a dominoe effect. If they prevail….
This is stupid. I don't want a third party App Store, I manage 40 iPhones in a Corporate environment and the specter of an unregulated Third Party store gives me PTSD from the nightmare of managing corporate Android phones before we went iPhone only.
It didn't matter how locked down we made the Android phones, employees found loopholes and ways around it and got Third Party App Stores on their devices and then those Third Party App stores brought malware into our corporate network and then we had a data breach of over 1500 customer accounts.
So, I guess the US government understands what it is to be a monopoly (because they are one), but that doesn't mean Apple has violated any Sherman Anti-Trust. You can choose another phone maker. You don't have to buy an iPhone. And I prefer the completely locked down approach in both my private and professional lives.
Maybe I am in the minority on this, but the prospect that my kids could get around my adult content blocks, etc by side loading a third part App Store makes my blood pressure spike.
It didn't matter how locked down we made the Android phones, employees found loopholes and ways around it and got Third Party App Stores on their devices and then those Third Party App stores brought malware into our corporate network and then we had a data breach of over 1500 customer accounts.
So, I guess the US government understands what it is to be a monopoly (because they are one), but that doesn't mean Apple has violated any Sherman Anti-Trust. You can choose another phone maker. You don't have to buy an iPhone. And I prefer the completely locked down approach in both my private and professional lives.
Maybe I am in the minority on this, but the prospect that my kids could get around my adult content blocks, etc by side loading a third part App Store makes my blood pressure spike.
That’s right, because no one cares! Or, at least not enough for any of the current vendors to change how they operate based on it. Again, if the application distribution model was of CENTRAL importance such that folks wouldn’t buy an iPhone, they would vote with their wallets and buy something else. Instead of hypotheticals, in the real world it’s “Do you want this phone or don’t you?” Those that do want it not only vote for it, they spend their hard earned cash buying it. Those that don’t, don’t.
And then, there’s a group of people left that REALLY want people to care about the feature they care about. That’s not going to happen, so their only choice left is to try to upend the core foundation of every business… which is hard to make happen because one has to create fake new definitions (Like the EU’s gateway) or twist oneself in knots to try to legally why a feature’s implementation ONLY affects “Apple” without saying “Apple”. That’s why multiple states and even the Senate that has looked into this hasn’t gone anywhere with it. The effort to fundamentally alter how business is done would, at most, affect a very tiny minority of users. Do they burn the political capital for a voting bloc so small that it could be dwarfed by even a small number of the users that don’t like the change?
Well, the legislatures ARE literally small groups as well. I’ve seen nothing proposed in the US and the EU pushed their “implantation” back a year, so we’ll see what’s up a year from now. If Apple’s sales increase as a result, giving them more real power over more folks, you good with that?
Of course you are, you don’t want competition, you just want Apple to change.The Switch has a calculator. Is that for entertainment purposes? And, the Xbox allows direct communication to other users. So, either you remove the communication features from Xbox OR remove that from the definition of “how it’s different”? I can shop on both Xbox and Switch, but they severely limit my ability to shop… I can only shop for products for their respective systems. That’s quite restricting.
See, what you’re experiencing now is precisely what every other entities in the US realizes as they try to implement something like this. It gets messy fast and this isn’t even a legally rigorous dialogue. “Entertainment purposes” meets the need of the device, but, as already has been shown, non entertainment apps CAN be released if the maker of the product allows it. And, if we’re making Apple do a thing, mustn’t we ALSO make Sony do a thing and allow non-entertainment applications to flourish on its hardware? They are being FAR more restrictive than Apple on this point. (Unless one is under the impression that the quite impressive hardware in the devices aren’t able to support calculators…)
No, we mustn’t do that because this isn’t about competition or entertainment purposes, it’s all about “wah, I want to force Apple to appeal to an infinitesimally small group of people!”
Effectively, you’re saying that sideloading isn’t important to you. Which, in the end is what everyone else that spent their money on an iOS device believes, too. I’m sorry there’s not a product out there that meets all your needs, BUT if you keep buying the ones that don’t meet your needs, you’re supporting the structure that robs you of products that meet your need.
Or, maybe, they don’t care because it’s just not important to them. For those folks who feel it’s important yet still buy Apple products, that’s gotta be painful.
Last edited:
I’m not talking about their own platform. I’m talking about their competitors’ platforms.
That's not practical or feasible and you know it.
And if you don't, the continued dominance of Windows operating systems on the desktop is enough evidence of that.
Same thing applies to iOS:
You can sideload applications today - and there's alternative stores today.
Just not trustworthy ones. Cause Apple seems to be unable or unwilling to effectively shut down their certificates.
You keep saying that they are greedy, but you never explain how other than saying that you can't do X and that's unfair. Yet, you bought the products knowing what they can and can't do.
So by Apple dropping support for old/legacy 32-bit software and by developing processors that are outperforming the competition, Apple is being greedy? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand in order to move forward. Is Microsoft being greedy by requiring a computer that supports TPM 2.0? No. They've simply decided that their new security features are worth it and drawn a line in the sand so they can move forward.
People who have run out of legitimate talking points resort to name calling.
Wrong. I'm not an Apple investor, aside from the fact that I own Apple products. I bought them knowing their features, limitations, and what's on offer. That's the reason why I bought them in the first place.
I have no doubt that you did.
I put my money on them bungling the whole issue because...well, look at past regulation.
I'm not in the habit of betting with internet strangers, so I'm going to pass on that.
There is no valid argument why the government would force Apple to "open up" the iPad in the way you'd like. Just because it's capable of doing more than it currently does doesn't mean they have to make that an option. Your microwave has more computing power than a computer from the 80s. That doesn't mean that it needs to be able to play Oregon Trail. It does exactly what it's sold to you to do - heat your food.
Back to the greed that you never explain.
Last edited:
Again, consumers don't have that choice.
It's not practical to now own a smartphone.
And if you have one, you are basically
I want competition in the distribution of apps.
Therefore Apple needs to change.
And governments are doing my bidding by forcing them to (beginning with the EU).
Yes, it's got a calculator. And yes, you can speak to other Xbox users in-game or maybe even skype. These minor features don't make them relevant platforms that to thousands of other businesses across very different kinds of industries and trades (banks, transit companies).
Even children can tell the economic difference between an iPhone / iOS as a platform that's relevant to other businesses and a gaming console.
No, I'm not.
Sideloading is important to me.
I just have decided to make a compromise in my choice of hardware/OS. Sometimes you have to make compromises between several important factors - what's not understandable about that?
It's exactly what Apple did to get to where they are. Quit making excuses for other companies failures. Blackberry was Apple. Did Apple whine their way into taking over? No. They made products that made people forget Blackberry even existed.
Blackberry lacked the ecosystem of a myriad of third-party apps (that Apple and Google/Android now have).
Apple (and Google/Android) aren't in the position they're in because of making great products.
It's because they enabled others - third-party developers - to make great products. And successfully distribute them.
Just as Microsoft did for desktop computing software.
And that makes their respective position basically unassailable.
Spending billions of dollars on making an operating system no one uses today to rival iOS/Android isn't feasible.
And convincing developers to support such OS is impossible.
Last edited:
Or... both factors contribute to their success.
You don't need to spend billions to make an OS. You can just fork android. And you don't need to convince developers to "support such OS" because android apps already exist.