DOJ escalates antitrust probe into Apple's alleged anticompetitive practices

AppleInsider

The US Department of Justice continues to ramp up its antitrust investigation against Apple as it seeks to determine if App Store rules are disadvantageous to competitors.

Image by fabrikasimf

In 2020, the DOJ state attorneys general launched an antitrust investigation into Apple's App Store after developers raised concerns over anticompetitive behavior.

Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, the justice department is drafting a potential antitrust complaint against Apple.

The department is looking to involve its top antitrust official, Jonathan Kanter. Initially, they'd planned on keeping Kanter on the sideline as he'd previously represented clients who had accused Apple of anticompetitive behavior.

In August, the Department of Justice was reportedly constructing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The suit was primarily focused on complaints from Tile, a direct competitor of Apple's AirTag.

This is far from the only antitrust battle Apple is fighting. For example, the European Union's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act is a proposal intended to place additional restrictions and mandate new frameworks for digital service "gatekeepers."

In July, Russia's federal antimonopoly service (FAS) intended to fine Apple for allegedly violating the country's antitrust laws, claiming the App Store is being used to control the iOS app marketplace.

Individual companies, such as Match Group, owner of the popular dating app Tinder, have also filed antitrust cases against Apple. Match Group's case protested the "excessive" 30% fee for publishing in the App Store.

Read on AppleInsider

AppleZulu

This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.

The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.

rob53

Apple doesn’t make the most phones so how can it be anticompetitive when there’s other choices? 

bloggerblog

DOJ: What!... there's something that's not broken?  Let's fix it

lkrupp

rob53 said:

Apple doesn’t make the most phones so how can it be anticompetitive when there’s other choices? 

Yeah, they’re always being accused of being a monopoly as if people have no choice but to buy Apple products. The argument that Apple operates a monopoly on its own platform is about as screwball as it gets. If you don’t like Apple’s business practices buy a PC and an Android phone, right? Apple neither dominates nor controls ANY market that I can see. The old AT&T was a real monopoly. If you wanted telephone service you got it from Ma Bell, period, no other choice.

rob53

lkrupp said:

rob53 said:

Apple doesn’t make the most phones so how can it be anticompetitive when there’s other choices? 

Yeah, they’re always being accused of being a monopoly as if people have no choice but to buy Apple products. The argument that Apple operates a monopoly on its own platform is about as screwball as it gets. If you don’t like Apple’s business practices buy a PC and an Android phone, right? Apple neither dominates nor controls ANY market that I can see. The old AT&T was a real monopoly. If you wanted telephone service you got it from Ma Bell, period, no other choice.

Exactly! Of course we just need to follow the money to see who's buying off politicians to understand what's going on. Microsoft got a hand slap years ago and they're still operating as a monopoly but because the US government can only seem to use Windows PCs they're not going to go after Microsoft. 

Yes, I know some Macs along with iPhones are used by government officials and employees but Microsoft still gets tons of money from client licenses.

gatorguy

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

avon b7

AppleZulu said:

This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.

The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.

There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone? 

It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't. 

rob53

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Then why aren't Walmart and Big Oil actually being regulated? Could easily add big farming corporations, house builders and just about everything else. Forgot to mention corrupt military contractors as well.

Madbum

This government needs to be burned down 

avon b7

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Then why aren't Walmart and Big Oil actually being regulated? Could easily add big farming corporations, house builders and just about everything else. Forgot to mention corrupt military contractors as well.

Big Tech = Big Data. 

The focus of legislation is moving to Big Tech because its potential influence, reach and abuse requires new ways to protect consumers who are often completely unaware of the algorithms feeding off them and how damaging they can.

For as bad as they might be, Walmart, big oil and other corporations are nowhere near as harmful as Big Tech could be if left to its own devices and unchecked.

Ironically, Big Data can be used for incredibly positive applications too but that does not negate the need for close control and regulation. 

ericthehalfbee

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Nice false equivalency you got there.

Google is facing trouble on multiple fronts and are far more likely to face serious repercussions than Apple. Not only are they dominant in advertising, they are also dominant in browser, search engine, maps, mobile OS and YouTube. And like Microsoft of old, Google is using similar anti-competitive tactics (like bundling Apps/services with Android or restricting what Android OEMs can do).

And this doesn’t even touch on their massive data mining of users without consent. Google & Facebook are in serious jeopardy if governments start restricting the ability of companies to mine your data. With Google getting 80% of their revenue from ads (made possible by our data) any regulation in this area could be devastating.

The worst thing that could happen to Apple is 3rd party App stores or alternate payment systems. Apple will still generate massive revenues from their hardware sales and The App Store will still remain the largest market (consumer trust will see to this).

I plan on buying a lot Apple stock if they get forced to allow App stores. It will dip due to fear, but when the dust settles Apple will still be the worlds largest tech company with a stable base of revenue. And with government regulation having been concluded Apple will no longer have anything hanging over their heads.

AppleZulu

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.

The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.

There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone? 

It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't. 

We've been through this on a different thread. I understand that you want Apple (but apparently no one else) to make its customers sign off on its software user agreement before they can purchase the device. 

Interestingly, when setting up a Samsung Galaxy phone, the first step is to select your language, and the second step is clicking toggles to agree to an end user license agreement and a privacy policy. You can read these agreements right then if you wish, or you can just agree to them and move to the next screen without reading them. Most people agree without reading. You know that's true. Just like Apple's user agreements and privacy policies, Samsung/Android's agreements are no doubt available online if you want to read them before you purchase your device, but you're only asked to agree to them when you're setting up the device, not prior to purchasing it.

Just like Apple, returning a Samsung device for a refund is your recourse if you don't like their privacy policy or user agreement.

The truth is, most people click or sign off on software or device user agreements without ever reading them. If anything, moving that interaction to the time of purchase rather than during setup would likely lower the number of people who read before agreeing.

It's also true that in many cases, the purchaser of a device is not the same person as who will be using it, so the corporate lawyers would likely have to further complicate the process by working out if/then flowcharts for all the different potential scenarios where purchaser and end user are different and have different responsibilities with regard to user agreements and privacy policies. What are the implications of purchasing a phone as a gift? The purchaser really isn't in a position to agree to or waive such an agreement on behalf of a gift recipient. The seller probably can't legally deputize the gift giver and obligate them to make the recipient agree to the terms before opening the box. Such complications.

Or, now hear me out, keeping the agreements to those terms on the front end of device setup makes it most likely that the person doing the setup will actually be the right person to make such an agreement.

Setting all that ridiculousness aside, any customer buying a complex device makes their selection of that device for a complex mix of reasons. Apple's very long track record is one of high quality and comparative simplicity of use. They have also clearly staked a claim to user privacy and security. Many Apple customers only give it a passing thought at most as to how that privacy and security is achieved. Others have a better idea. The sum total is that they're choosing a device that has a set of characteristics, including a single App Store than provides greater stability and security for the use of third-party apps on the device.

The flip-side to that is that many Android users only give a passing thought to how their device's features, including targeted marketing, are achieved. Your beef is that Apple should explain, prior to purchase, what consumers are "giving up" in the way of choice to side-load apps, and you've said elsewhere that you think many would choose not to buy an iPhone at all if they knew that. This of course ignores the fact that few bow-up on this issue when clicking on the user agreement during device setup. They could refuse and return it, but few ever do. They could grudgingly agree, but would then be disgruntled customers, a fact that is not borne out by Apple's perpetually high customer satisfaction ratings.

You also ignore the fact that Android users aren't briefed on the lower device security inherent in an open OS, nor are they told before purchase just exactly how much their shiny new phone is going to be used by others to track and monitor their every behavior in order to sell that data to advertisers. How many would decline to purchase if that was explicitly spelled out before Samsung, Google, or whoever would sell them a phone?

The truth is, people buy iPhones because they just work, and that reputation is built on the stability and security of the device, which is in no small part achieved by using the App Store as a barrier between iPhone users and developers of third party software that won't meet requirements for quality, stability security and consistency of user interface. Forcing Apple to be more like Google, Samsung, et. al., takes that consumer choice away.

gatorguy

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Nice false equivalency you got there.

You mean of course the DoJ (FOHEngineer?). 'Cause they are the ones who apparently believe Apple needs to be restained right along with other Big Tech. 

freeassociate2

Match Group, which essentially scams its customers, and raises subscription prices after acquiring competitors (and should be looked into for its acquisitions alone) has no moral standing here.

Why is it that the only companies that complain are the ones with long reputations for engaging in questionable business practices themselves?

freeassociate2

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Then why aren't Walmart and Big Oil actually being regulated? Could easily add big farming corporations, house builders and just about everything else. Forgot to mention corrupt military contractors as well.

Because collusion is better managed in those markets and competitors don’t tattle on each other. 

Re: the idea that Walmart and Big Oil are lesser devils = facepalm (over and over). Anyone who’s passingly familiar with the history of those companies or industries could tell you otherwise.

This shit is because big tech got caught in the political cross-hairs, pure and simple. Not saying that regulation isn’t overdue — it is. But for all the wrong reasons, using all the wrong methods — unless your intent is to target political rivals.

ericthehalfbee

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Nice false equivalency you got there.

You mean of course the DoJ (FOHEngineer?). 'Cause they are the ones who apparently believe Apple needs to be restained right along with other Big Tech. 

Not according to all the quotes I’ve seen. Most of what they’re concerned about is privacy and data collection.

Biden at the SOTU:

“Pass bipartisan legislation to strengthen antitrust enforcement and prevent big online platforms from giving their own products an unfair advantage,” Biden said. “It’s time to pass bipartisan legislation to stop Big Tech from collecting personal data on kids and teenagers online, ban targeted advertising to children, and impose stricter limits on the personal data these companies collect on all of us.”

None of this applies to Apple. Both of them apply to Google.

Yes I’m FOHEng. I bet you think you’re clever pointing out something that’s been known for some time. Sorry.

Madbum

Biden DOJ working for the Chinese communist owned Epic games against a great American company protecting user privacy by limiting junk software from the Europeans ,Russians and Chinese…..

what is not to love about this anti American Shit show?

danox

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

In the end, all this in fighting from within, will mean China is all but guaranteed too win the top spot in time just a question of when.  

davidw

lkrupp said:

rob53 said:

Apple doesn’t make the most phones so how can it be anticompetitive when there’s other choices? 

Yeah, they’re always being accused of being a monopoly as if people have no choice but to buy Apple products. The argument that Apple operates a monopoly on its own platform is about as screwball as it gets. If you don’t like Apple’s business practices buy a PC and an Android phone, right? Apple neither dominates nor controls ANY market that I can see. The old AT&T was a real monopoly. If you wanted telephone service you got it from Ma Bell, period, no other choice.

But ATT was granted their "monopoly" by the government. The government wanted to ensure that every one had a telephone that could not only be used be to call anyone else in the US, but was also affordable for everyone and easy to use. Plus municipalities did not want a dozen phone companies telephone lines and poles all over their cities. There had to be only one standard and ATT was the standard the government chose. The best telecommunication service the consumers ever had (before wireless) was when ATT was a "monopoly". ATT was government regulated and served the government goal.

It wasn't until big companies like MCI and Sprint complaining about ATT "monopoly", that the government and ATT agreed to break up ATT into 7 Baby Bells. Which ironically, were each granted a government "monopoly" for local telephone services in the region they served. That's why local telephone services were still government regulated. Your local phone service still had to get approval by some government agency, in order to raise prices. Telephone service was still considered a public utility, like electricity, gas and water.  And ATT still had their "monopoly" with long distance calls.

By the time ATT was broken up, consumers were already allowed to install telephones that were not made by Western Electriic (part of ATT monopoly). The average consumers weren't complaining about ATT "monopoly". And who gained the most from the break-up were big businesses that made a lot of long distance calls. MCI and Sprint (along with ATT) were able to compete for their telephone service needs and this brought the cost down. Because the government still let ATT keep all their long distance infrastructure, which they had to let competitors like MCI and Sprint have access to, (but were allow to charge for that access). ATT was still had a "monopoly" with the very profitable long distance services.  And after shedding their not so profitable local services, the cost of long distance calls got lower, while locals calls got more expensive. This was because ATT  "monopoly" was subsidizing the cost of local calls with the profits from long distance calls. The local Baby Bells had no such advantage, so they had to raise prices. 

ATT "monopoly" was no where near like the "real" monopoly Standard Oil was or Microsoft still is, at the time of their anti-trust cases. And the reason why consumers didn't have a choice of telephone services, except for MaBell, was because the government granted ATT a "monopoly". 

Here's a good summation of the history of ATT and its eventual break-up.

https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~eecsba1/sp97/reports/eecsba1e/final_proj/case1.html

davidw

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.

The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.

There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone? 

It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't. 

It even simpler if one were to just google it.

https://www.beyondidentity.com/blog/battle-of-the-brands

https://pocketnow.com/apple-explains-why-sideloading-and-third-party-app-stores-are-bad/

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/why-apple-allowing-third-party-iphone-app-stores-is-bad/

https://www.xda-developers.com/app-sideloading-ios-editorial/

And it's not only Apple that thinks third party app stores and side loading are not good from a security and privacy standpoint, Google knows that it is. Are you also going to question Google's finding, on their own Android platform?

https://www.pindrop.com/blog/google-data-shows-dangers-of-third-paty-app-stores

Here's what I want to know ..... Why isn't the EU more informative about what harms their new DMA laws might cause consumers? Why aren't you bitching about that? Just like how you always seem to accuse Apple of not being more informative to their users about what they are doing. Why isn't the EU telling consumer that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and side loading, Apple iOS platform will most likely be less secure, not only from malware but from a privacy standpoint. And that searching for an app on iOS might be made  more complicated. And how is this going to increase consumers choice, when it comes to selecting a mobile platform? There will still be only two main platforms, only they will be made more similar. Reducing the difference between two choices, from two different competitors, will end up like the one choice consumers have when there's a monopoly.  Even if this might lead to choices for the developers, shouldn't the EU inform the consumers what they might be giving up?