Apple Sued by U.S. Department of Justice, Says Lawsuit is 'Wrong'

[webkit]

or perhaps people just like what Apple offer and buy the products...

you cant legislate purchase decisions.
many people who buy their first Apple product keep adding to their collection because they like the look and feel and interface. and reduced virus issues.

The DOJ is trying to remove barriers/restrictions on making those purchase decisions. One of the goals here is to try to help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in a market. Another is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible.

There are people who may like Apple's iOS "walled garden" but that doesn't mean Apple should be able to stifle app access competition, alternative smartphone competition, etc. on a major mobile platform. Even with the law enforced, users will still be able to get apps from the App Store, choose not to sideload, choose to still buy or not buy an AW, etc. This would hopefully also push Apple to make the App Store even more appealing to customers and make iOS even stronger/better for things like sideloading, alternative smartwatches, etc. and thereby make it a better experience for a wider range of people.

 

[I7guy]

The DOJ is trying to remove barriers/restrictions on making those purchase decisions. One of the goals here is to try to help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in a market. Another is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible.

There are people who may like Apple's iOS "walled garden" but that doesn't mean Apple should be able to stifle app access competition, alternative smartphone competition, etc. on a major mobile platform. Even with the law enforced, users will still be able to get apps from the App Store, choose not to sideload, choose to still buy or not buy an AW, etc. This would hopefully also push Apple to make the App Store even more appealing to customers and make iOS even stronger/better for things like sideloading, alternative smartwatches, etc. and thereby make it a better experience for a wider range of people.

All of this will take some time to sort out. What law exactly says any manufacturer of any product can’t prioritize their products? The Dcma was written to stifle competition. The doj wants to attempt to open apple up.

 

[webkit]

All of this will take some time to sort out. What law exactly says any manufacturer of any product can’t prioritize their products? The Dcma was written to stifle competition. The doj wants to attempt to open apple up.

Laws that regulate dominant companies when it comes to how they restrict or stifle competition and choice on a major segment of a market and/or use their dominance in one market to restrict/stifle competition and choice in another market.

 

[I7guy]

Laws that regulate dominant companies when it comes to how they restrict or stifle competition and choice on a major segment of a market and/or use their dominance in one market to restrict/stifle competition and choice in another market.

It depends if apple is viewed as dominant or not. Epic tried and failed. Probably because you can’t punish a company for putting out a popular product that just beats the competition.

 

[BuffyzDead]

The DOJ is trying to remove barriers/restrictions on making those purchase decisions. One of the goals here is to try to help create a more competitive environment instead of having one where a company has too much control, power, influence, etc. in a market. Another is to try to reduce or eliminate as many consumer "switching barriers" as possible.

There are people who may like Apple's iOS "walled garden" but that doesn't mean Apple should be able to stifle app access competition, alternative smartphone competition, etc. on a major mobile platform. Even with the law enforced, users will still be able to get apps from the App Store, choose not to sideload, choose to still buy or not buy an AW, etc. This would hopefully also push Apple to make the App Store even more appealing to customers and make iOS even stronger/better for things like sideloading, alternative smartwatches, etc. and thereby make it a better experience for a wider range of people.

For ***** and giggles, ...lets take your argument to its logical conclusion:

So  opens up its iOS, to allow the things As You Suggest,
And
"make the App Store even more appealing to customers and make iOS even stronger/better for things like sideloading, alternative smartwatches, etc. and thereby make it a better experience for a wider range of people."

Today,  iPhone Hardware is at best, 65% of the US market, clearly NOT a monopoly on their iPhone hardware, but because as You State, the iPhone then becomes
"a better experience for a wider range of people.",
Then WHY would anyone want to even consider an alternative, such as an Android Phone?

Your rosey picture predicts that the iPhone will become even More Dominant in the U.S.

Perhaps one day approaching a real Monopoly market share of ~90%.

What will be your argument then?

Oh,  copied too much of Android, and have grown way too big and are now a Monopoly,
so now  needs to be broken up
OR
Will you then admit, that the market has Spoken?!?!?,

....as it is clearly Shouting Today !!

 

[webkit]

It depends if apple is viewed as dominant or not. Epic tried and failed. Probably because you can’t punish a company for putting out a popular product that just beats the competition.

If a way a company is "beating the competition" involves anticompetitive behavior, the legal system will determine how that needs to be addressed.

 

[webkit]

For ***** and giggles, ...lets take your argument to its logical conclusion:

So  opens up its iOS, to allow the things As You Suggest,
And
"make the App Store even more appealing to customers and make iOS even stronger/better for things like sideloading, alternative smartwatches, etc. and thereby make it a better experience for a wider range of people."

Today,  iPhone Hardware is at best, 65% of the US market, clearly NOT a monopoly on their iPhone hardware, but because as You State, the iPhone then becomes
"a better experience for a wider range of people.",
Then WHY would anyone want to even consider an alternative, such as an Android Phone?

Your rosey picture predicts that the iPhone will become even More Dominant in the U.S.

Perhaps one day approaching a real Monopoly market share of ~90%.

What will be your argument then?

Oh,  copied too much of Android, and have grown way too big and are now a Monopoly,
so now  needs to be broken up
OR
Will you then admit, that the market has Spoken?!?!?,

....as it is clearly Shouting Today !!

How can you say it’'s "clearly not a monopoly" when the definition of a monopoly is not clearly defined, and can involve elements behind just market share, vary by case, etc.

From the FTC website:
Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.


As long as Apple isn’t engaging in anticompetitive behavior, it's ok if they have 65%, 75%, 85% or whatever market share. The issue to be addressed is the potential dominance combined with the anticompetitive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

If a way a company is "beating the competition" involves anticompetitive behavior, the legal system will determine how that needs to be addressed.

Sure the keyword is IF. And none of us are qualified to state that as a fact. There is a line between being anticompetitive and just supporting your own products.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Sure the keyword is IF. And none of us are qualified to state that as a fact. There is a line between being anticompetitive and just supporting your own products.

Already been established in Europe old bean.

 

[BuffyzDead]

How can you say it’'s "clearly not a monopoly" when the definition of a monopoly is not clearly defined, and can involve elements behind just market share, vary by case, etc.

From the FTC website:
Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.


As long as Apple isn’t engaging in anticompetitive behavior, it's ok if they have 65%, 75%, 85% or whatever market share. The issue to be addressed is the potential dominance combined with the anticompetitive behavior.

Typical way to debate.
By cherry picking a quote. Note, that I did Not do that, when I quoted you.

What I wrote is:
" iPhone Hardware is at best, 65% of the US market, clearly NOT a monopoly on their iPhone hardware"

How do I know that? ... Because I took the time to read the 88 page DOJ charge against .
And nowhere in the 88 pages is the DOJ charging that  has an iPhone hardware monopoly. So that is not even on the table.

Now perhaps, answer the question, even in your own mind;

Your rosey picture predicts that the iPhone (hardware) will become even More Dominant in the U.S. Perhaps one day approaching a real Monopoly market share of ~90%.
What will be your argument then?

 

[brofkand]

Been a bad few years to be an Apple apologist, huh

 

[wbeasley]

Power. Giant digital corporations are obviously cutting into it. Remember there was a news article on MR where Tim Cook was saying that he was interested and looking into cryptocurrencies. You know the little things...

every IT company was looking into crypto currency.
banking needed a shake up.

but the North Koreans saying they have broken the encryption recently... another crash coming?

most companies worked out it was a scam.

 

[avz]

every IT company was looking into crypto currency.
banking needed a shake up.

but the North Koreans saying they have broken the encryption recently... another crash coming?

most companies worked out it was a scam.

Everything needed a shake up(including a world order) but this is only re-enforces the point that people who had power within the old paradigm now feel threatened from all directions(hence the attack on Apple etc.).

The crash is coming and not because of the North Korea obviously. The central banks have been bragging about their "transparency" and economists have been warning about the coming of the Great Depression a la 1930s. Why do they do that? Because they are laying a groundwork for when the sh*t hits the fan they will be able to walk into the room all dressed in white and say: "We told you so."

 

[wbeasley]

Everything needed a shake up(including a world order) but this is only re-enforces the point that people who had power within the old paradigm now feel threatened from all directions(hence the attack on Apple etc.).

The crash is coming and not because of the North Korea obviously. The central banks have been bragging about their "transparency" and economists have been warning about the coming of the Great Depression a la 1930s. Why do they do that? Because they are laying a groundwork for when the sh*t hits the fan they will be able to walk into the room all dressed in white and say: "We told you so."

the banks wont walk into a room though...

i recently had to create a new account with one bank and transfer money.
three times they locked the account and each time it took over 90 minutes phone call (on hold mostly) transfered from one person to another who can do nothing .... until finally you get the right person who understand you worked in a bank decades ago and know the system and it requires a flick and send and youre back on the air. all sorted within 60 seconds.

I lost 4 1/2 hours over three days.
Have five complaints lodged they need to address with in a month.
You cant walk into a branch for action. They can do nothing but get you to call... and wait.

The banking system is cutting corners and providing less service than ever.

But at least it isnt gambling

 

[avz]

the banks wont walk into a room though...

i recently had to create a new account with one bank and transfer money.
three times they locked the account and each time it took over 90 minutes phone call (on hold mostly) transfered from one person to another who can do nothing .... until finally you get the right person who understand you worked in a bank decades ago and know the system and it requires a flick and send and youre back on the air. all sorted within 60 seconds.

I lost 4 1/2 hours over three days.
Have five complaints lodged they need to address with in a month.
You cant walk into a branch for action. They can do nothing but get you to call... and wait.

The banking system is cutting corners and providing less service than ever.

But at least it isnt gambling

This is clearly not a good sign. The scary thing is that most banks are private and they have plenty of power to freeze your accounts and "investigate" for "suspicious activity" or under the Know Your Customer program. People will have to re-asses the assumption that they actually "own the money that they have in their bank accounts".

 

[I7guy]

Already been established in Europe old bean.

Old bean - no it hasn’t for the app store.The EU threaded the needle and made a declaration. Here in the US it will have to be proved.

 

[I7guy]

Been a bad few years to be an Apple apologist, huh

Been a bad few years to be an apple critic.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Old bean - no it hasn’t for the app store.The EU threaded the needle and made a declaration. Here in the US it will have to be proved.

A proven abusive gatekeeper i'm afraid.

Press corner

Highlights, press releases and speeches

ec.europa.eu

 

[I7guy]

A proven abusive gatekeeper i'm afraid.

Press corner

Highlights, press releases and speeches

ec.europa.eu

Let’s see them collect. Words are cheap. As I said there was no finding, just a fine. Same as the dma no finding, just a set of rules.

 

[Samplasion]

Let’s see them collect. Words are cheap. As I said there was no finding, just a fine. Same as the dma no finding, just a set of rules.

This post reeks of anti-sovereignty sentiment

 

[webkit]

Typical way to debate.
By cherry picking a quote. Note, that I did Not do that, when I quoted you.

What I wrote is:
" iPhone Hardware is at best, 65% of the US market, clearly NOT a monopoly on their iPhone hardware"

How do I know that? ... Because I took the time to read the 88 page DOJ charge against .
And nowhere in the 88 pages is the DOJ charging that  has an iPhone hardware monopoly. So that is not even on the table.

Once again, you can’t say Apple "clearly” isn't a monopoly as that is something courts would have to decide and market share is only one element that goes into that decision.

As far as the DOJ is concerned, their claims is that "For over a decade, iPhone sales have made up a majority of Apple's annual revenue. Today, Apple's share of the U.S. performance smartphone market exceeds 70%, and its share of the entire U.S. smartphone market exceeds 65%. But as our complaint alleges, Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law." Whether that, combined with other potential factors, is viewed as a monopoly or monopoly power by the courts and/or justifies antitrust actions will be determined through the legal process.

Now perhaps, answer the question, even in your own mind;

Your rosey picture predicts that the iPhone (hardware) will become even More Dominant in the U.S. Perhaps one day approaching a real Monopoly market share of ~90%.
What will be your argument then?

As I already stated... as long as Apple isn’t engaging in anticompetitive behavior, it's ok if they have 65%, 75%, 85% or whatever market share. The issue to be addressed is the potential dominance combined with the anticompetitive behavior.

 

[I7guy]

This post reeks of anti-sovereignty sentiment

Otherwise known as truth?

 

[mrochester]

The question for me is, if Apple are forced to stop making products that consumers love, what company will step in to start making those products?

We need at least one vertically integrated competitor on the market instead of zero.

 

[bcortens]

The question for me is, if Apple are forced to stop making products that consumers love, what company will step in to start making those products?

We need at least one vertically integrated competitor on the market instead of zero.

Apple is still allowed to make vertically integrated products, they just can't continue to take steps to prevent other companies from integrating with Apple products.

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

The question for me is, if Apple are forced to stop making products that consumers love, what company will step in to start making those products?

We need at least one vertically integrated competitor on the market instead of zero.

And why do you think they are going to stop making hardware?