I think DoJ felt compelled to sue, because they are suing all the other big tech companies. Can't be seen to be "soft" on Apple now, right?Reading through this, it seems mostly that the DOJ et al. are filing suit because Apple doesn't do things the way they want Apple to. Eg. Apple charges too much for an iPhone. How is that an anti-trust issue? Are BMWs? Teslas? McLaren's? too expensive. Most of this seems like a reach.
This is so much revisionist nonsense. The guy tasked with creating the first IBM PC was given 9 months to come up with something, or else IBM was going to scrap the project. There was no way they could have created everything, which is why IBM went externally for their CPU, and other components, and in fact, took the design of the hardware from the Intel 8088 CPU manual for the PC - which was why when IBM sued Compaq for copyright infringement, they lost - they did not own the hardware copyright, and could only settle on the copyright for the BIOS. This was also why IBM tried to create the MCA slots, but that died a quick death, and PCI took over.IBM knew they were a hardware company AND, YES, YES, YES!!! they didn't want to get anywhere near an ANTI-TRUST situation. This is a historical FACT! IBM understood if they created their own software division for the IBM PC it would have a natural advantage over any and every other software company that might write apps for the platform. This would dissuade other companies from writing for the platform and create an anti-trust issue.
Your historical anecdote fails to appreciate how Apple revolutionized and democratized software distribution with the iTunes Store and its derivative, the App Store. Unlike traditional software distribution at physical retail stores or even website software downloads, the App Store provides users with a secure and simple way to locate, install, purchase, and update applications. This greatly increases the commerce for consumer third-party apps. Additionally, it provides small developers with a secure and cost-effective method for distributing their apps, with almost no sales lost due to counterfeiting or piracy.
I believe that some people who are unhappy with the App Store model, including other small developers, might not fully realize that going back to "the way things were" could actually make it even harder for small developers to succeed while entrenching large developers. The old model would have increased the barrier of entry for new, smaller developers to enter the most lucrative platform in the world.
I want to make it clear that I don't believe Apple's development of the App Store was driven by altruistic motives. As you pointed out, software for the Macintosh platform was scarce, and I think Apple's institutional fear of relying too heavily on large developers for the success of their platform is why the App Store was designed to promote the distribution of free and low-cost apps by small developers.
just my 2¢! 🤓
Non-iPhone users experience "social stigma, exclusion, and blame" for "breaking" chats with where other participants own iPhones.
This is a reason to sue? Help us all…
And let’s not forget the huge DROP in prices for software due to the app store. Before that, the simplest bit of software would cost $49. That was (partly) due to low sales volumes and the huge markup for packaging, distribution, marketing etc. All those barriers were annihilated by the app store infrastructure.Your historical anecdote fails to appreciate how Apple revolutionized and democratized software distribution with the iTunes Store and its derivative, the App Store. Unlike traditional software distribution at physical retail stores or even website software downloads, the App Store provides users with a secure and simple way to locate, install, purchase, and update applications. This greatly increases the commerce for consumer third-party apps. Additionally, it provides small developers with a secure and cost-effective method for distributing their apps, with almost no sales lost due to counterfeiting or piracy.
I believe that some people who are unhappy with the App Store model, including other small developers, might not fully realize that going back to "the way things were" could actually make it even harder for small developers to succeed while entrenching large developers. The old model would have increased the barrier of entry for new, smaller developers to enter the most lucrative platform in the world.
I want to make it clear that I don't believe Apple's development of the App Store was driven by altruistic motives. As you pointed out, software for the Macintosh platform was scarce, and I think Apple's institutional fear of relying too heavily on large developers for the success of their platform is why the App Store was designed to promote the distribution of free and low-cost apps by small developers.
just my 2¢! 🤓
I don't understand how so many people come up with these types of nonsense. Apple Computers, Inc. licensed it from Apple the Beatles apparel company. They had an agreement - one of the main points was Apple Computers, Inc. would never be in the apparel business. Now, when they went from Apple Computers, Inc. to Apple, Inc, I don't know what happened then, but I'd assume they had an updated agreement with the apparel company.Fyi, apple stole the name from a record company.(Remember The Beatles)
Why? You think DOJ and AGs of 16 states/Districts will bring an antitrust case to lose?I once got charged at work (Police Officer) for giving "false evidence in court" (I didn't do it). But I got charged nonetheless. When I approached the Officer in Charge of our Internal Investigation Branch who charged me, I got told "sometimes we have to run through these things to appear as we are doing the right thing. We don't necessarily expect to win".
Naturally, it was thrown out of court at trial.
Sometimes they go through a process and accept a loss because it helps keep the wolves at bay.
But iMessage being restricted to Apple products is a lock-in technique and that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of Apple themselves as we saw in their internal emails as part of the EPIC v Apple case, they specifically chose not to bring iMessage to Android because they were afraid parents would buy their children cheap Android phones that they could use iMessage on and that would create Android consumers from a young age who may stick with that platform throughout their lives. Apple executives said this amongst each other, it's damning and the DoJ will point it out.
Not sure how DoJ is supposed to be independent now becomes Biden told DoJ to go sue Apple. Your case is as weak as DoJ's case against AppleWe can thank the Biden Department of Injustice for this excellent use of our tax dollars.
I wouldn't be shocked if things didn't go well for the DOJ and 16 states. While it might seem like the right thing to do for some its really a question of the DOJ and those states actually doing something right for the industry instead of doing it for politicians that benefit with some industries that back them.Why? You think DOJ and AGs of 16 states/Districts will bring an antitrust case to lose?
I think they may not intend to go ahead with, or win all areas. It’s quite often they will use extra counts that can be used as bargaining chips.Why? You think DOJ and AGs of 16 states/Districts will bring an antitrust case to lose?
The federal government need money.
On March 21, the United States Justice Department sued Apple for antitrust violations, concluding a multi-year investigation into Apple's business practices. The U.S. government is also pursuing antitrust cases against Google, Amazon, and Meta, as part of an expansive look into the practices of major tech companies.
Apple plans to "vigorously defend" against the DoJ's lawsuit, which seeks to fundamentally change the way that Apple operates. This will be a legal battle that spans multiple years, and we'll keep this guide updated with the latest news as the case progresses.
DoJ's Claims
The lawsuit that the DoJ filed against Apple is broad ranging, and rather than focusing on one or two issues, it aims to establish a long-running history of anti-competitive behavior. The DoJ tries to establish a pattern of business decisions that have suppressed competition, with the DoJ arguing that Apple has time and time again opted to "make its products worse for consumers to prevent competition from emerging."
It is the opinion of the DoJ that Apple has gotten consumers "hooked" on its platform through these choices, making it unreasonably difficult for customers to switch to another smartphone brand. There is no allowance made for customer preference and the idea that people simply like their iPhones - the DoJ positions Apple as a monopolist that has manipulated people into sticking with its ecosystem by blocking competing apps, services, and products.
Suppressing Technologies
While the full lawsuit details a long list of ways Apple has allegedly harmed consumers, the DoJ cites five specific examples of Apple blocking technologies that it claims would decrease barriers to switching and give consumers a "higher-quality user experience on any smartphone."
The DoJ is of the opinion that if Apple did not historically limit cloud gaming, digital wallets, and non-Apple Watch smartwatches, that people would freely choose to purchase less expensive alternative smartphones over the iPhone. The DoJ believes that Apple is not facing pressure from "innovative, cross-platform technologies" because Apple "makes other products worse" rather than making its own products better.
- Super apps - The DoJ defines super apps as those that provide a user with "broad functionality" in a single app and have the benefit of providing a consistent user experience across devices. An example of a super app is WeChat, which is widely used in China for communicating, making payments, and more. The DoJ says that Apple has "denied users access to super apps" in the U.S., but it is worth noting that there is a cultural aspect to these apps, and they just haven't caught on in the U.S. the way they have in China. Mini apps are often frequently referenced too, as Apple did have restrictions on apps offering mini games and other multi-app features (these restrictions were eliminated in iOS 17.4).
- Cloud streaming - The DoJ suggests that Apple is suppressing cloud streaming games by preventing them from being available on the App Store. Cloud streaming apps have been usable on Safari, and as of iOS 17.4, Apple changed its rules to allow streaming game apps like Xbox Cloud Gaming to offer streaming games through a single App Store app. This argument is no longer entirely relevant, but the DoJ believes that by not allowing cloud gaming apps, Apple prevented consumers from buying cheaper phones. The idea here is that customers had to opt in to expensive iPhones to play "high-compute" games because they weren't available to play using cloud services.
- Messaging apps - The DoJ thinks that third-party apps should be able to send and receive SMS messages, rather than these messages being routed to the Messages app. This would let users switch phones without changing the way they communicate. The filing takes issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, Apple's efforts to block the Beeper Mini app, green bubbles, and the adoption of RCS.
- Smartwatches - Apple suppresses key functions of third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from smartwatches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ says that Apple locks customers in to the iPhone with the Apple Watch, because the Apple Watch can't be used on other smartphones. A user who wants to switch from the iPhone must also purchase an Android-compatible smartwatch.
- Digital Wallets - Apple does not let banking apps access NFC and provide digital payments services, and customers are not able to choose their "trusted banking apps" as their digital wallet. Apple also prevents developers from creating cross-platform wallets that would make it easier to switch from iPhone to Android, and alternative wallets could also be used for in-app purchases. The DoJ claims that the payments that banks make to Apple for using Apple Pay would otherwise be used for features and benefits for smartphone users.
Privacy and Security
The DoJ suggests that Apple justifies its anticompetitive conduct with privacy and security concerns.
- Apple spends billions on marketing to promote "the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers' privacy and security interests."
- Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when it is in Apple's financial interest. The examples used here include the lack of end-to-end encryption between Android and iPhone messages and the making Google the default browser engine when "more private options" are available.
- The safe, secure experience on Mac is evidence that Apple's control over app distribution and creation is "substantially more restrictive than necessary to protect user privacy and security."
- Apple makes the iPhone less secure if that helps it maintain monopoly power. The DoJ cites unencrypted text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones as an example. "If Apple wanted to," it could let iPhone users send encrypted messages to Android users.
The App Store
The DoJ mentions Apple's App Store policies and fees, but it is not the main focus of the lawsuit. While the DoJ was preparing its case, the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit took place, and Apple was found not to have a mobile gaming monopoly. That undoubtedly influenced the DoJ filing, but there is wording here... Click here to read rest of article
Article Link: Apple vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know
Good examples. Your annoyance with Apple in your examples is valid. However, why don’t you leave the Apple app store and develop for Android? There must be something in it for you as a developer to stick around.You are confusing the technological progress that has occurred over time with control of the industry. They are separate aspects of an industry, but anti-trust laws generally hold that overbearing industry control will stile innovation.
You fail to understand that if IBM controlled the software industry to the same degree that Apple now controls it, technological progress would have occurred ONLY at IBMs pleasure. Without proper competition further progress ONLY occurs at Apple's pleasure.
Apple now exerts stifling control over the software industry which stifles innovation:
Example 1: I can't sell paid version upgrades for any of my paid apps because of the single reason that Apple does not allow it. Admittedly, paid upgrades were never an App Store feature, but that might be a feature a competing App Store could offer or I could implement via my own distribution methods (Both of which exist for Mac).
Example 2: Apple forces me to give away 5 copies of my paid iOS apps for one purchase price via the family share program. I developed some of my apps before family share existed but was forced by Apple into it when they started family share. Those apps were developed with a revenue model that relied on a sale price for ONE device, NOT five. By forcing Family Share on those apps Apple exerted intrusive interference into my business. Also, Apple ALLOWS developers to opt out of family share for subscription based apps, but NOT paid apps. This demonstrates Apple does not like paid apps and would rather they don't exist. They could just kick paid apps off the store but that would look bad, so instead they just force monetization methods that make paid apps unprofitable. If I didn't agree to Family Share my only choice was to exit the iOS developer and App Store, that's basically just a cloaked way to kick apps of the store Apple doesn't want there. The ability to "Just leave" Apple's App Store after they force new and damaging monetization policy on existing apps is not "competition", it is direct harm.
Huh?! Plenty of apps have upgraded by changing the version number. I have Star Walk and Star Walk 2. etc.You are confusing the technological progress that has occurred over time with control of the industry. They are separate aspects of an industry, but anti-trust laws generally hold that overbearing industry control will stile innovation.
You fail to understand that if IBM controlled the software industry to the same degree that Apple now controls it, technological progress would have occurred ONLY at IBMs pleasure. Without proper competition further progress ONLY occurs at Apple's pleasure.
Apple now exerts stifling control over the software industry which stifles innovation:
Example 1: I can't sell paid version upgrades for any of my paid apps because of the single reason that Apple does not allow it. Admittedly, paid upgrades were never an App Store feature, but that might be a feature a competing App Store could offer or I could implement via my own distribution methods (Both of which exist for Mac).
Example 2: Apple forces me to give away 5 copies of my paid iOS apps for one purchase price via the family share program. I developed some of my apps before family share existed but was forced by Apple into it when they started family share. Those apps were developed with a revenue model that relied on a sale price for ONE device, NOT five. By forcing Family Share on those apps Apple exerted intrusive interference into my business. Also, Apple ALLOWS developers to opt out of family share for subscription based apps, but NOT paid apps. This demonstrates Apple does not like paid apps and would rather they don't exist. They could just kick paid apps off the store but that would look bad, so instead they just force monetization methods that make paid apps unprofitable. If I didn't agree to Family Share my only choice was to exit the iOS developer and App Store, that's basically just a cloaked way to kick apps of the store Apple doesn't want there. The ability to "Just leave" Apple's App Store after they force new and damaging monetization policy on existing apps is not "competition", it is direct harm.
Not if you want to manifest your support for Apple.This should be titled “United States vs Apple Inc” instead of the other way around, since it’s not Apple suing, they’re being sued.
The result of the suit can be anything. There's no argument there. To think that DOJ will combine with 16 states/districts just to sue Apple because they think it's just a formality is not so believable.I wouldn't be shocked if things didn't go well for the DOJ and 16 states. While it might seem like the right thing to do for some its really a question of the DOJ and those states actually doing something right for the industry instead of doing it for politicians that benefit with some industries that back them.