DoJ's Apple App Store probe is 'firing on all cylinders'
The Department of Justice antitrust probe into Apple's App Store rules is still rolling on, with the examination into the digital storefront's dominance apparently in full flow and potentially getting closer to actually bringing a case against the iPhone maker.
The Justice Department has run a probe into Apple's App Store practices since 2020, examining behavior that developers said was anticompetitive. Years later, the probe is still underway, with the DoJ facing a potential time crunch to make something of it all.
Jonathan Kanter, DoJ antitrust unit chief since November 2021, claimed to the Financial Times that the App Store policies probe is now "firing on all cylinders." Though Kanter has previously indicated he wants to bring cases against major US companies like Apple, the DoJ didn't explicitly comment on the probe's findings thus far.
The probe is somewhat at risk of becoming stale for the DoJ, as there is a time pressure on the horizon in the form of a presidential election. With the possibility of a change of occupancy in the White House in January 2025, that gives the DoJ just a year to actually bring action against Apple, if it intends to do so.
In February 2023, the DoJ was drafting a potential antitrust complaint against Apple, though despite the draft attempt, information about the probe's progress largely dried up until January's article.
In December, the DoJ reportedly met with Beeper's CEO amid its iMessage access fight, potentially to try and incorporate the incident as part of its wider antitrust investigation.
While the claims of the DoJ's App Store antitrust probe could eventually lead to some form of case against Apple, it does so while lagging behind other regulators in the world.
The introduction of the European Union's App Store regulations in the form of the Digital Markets Act puts pressure on Apple to allow third-party app marketplaces to exist, among other changes. In November, Apple was preparing to fight the DMA regulations, including the third-party app storefront elements.
Even so, Apple also admitted in financial filings in November that it expected to be forced to allow third-party storefronts in Europe starting in 2024, with the changes thought by the company to be inevitable.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
No third party app stores are allowed to exist.
A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all first party.
That isn't the case and the opposite is true. iPhone absolutely requires third party apps to make the product successful.
Once you touch the world outside your walled garden (third party app stores, payments, wifi, NFC...) things change.
For over a decade Apple has had its cake and eaten it. That's a good run. It's probably coming to an end.
The part where you say 'no one wants...' you miss the point.
For one, you can't possibly know. Secondly, it is irrelevant. This isn't about what consumers want (or don't want).
At the end of the day, whatever happens, you can opt not to use third app stores if they become reality.
Investigations that are looking so gloomy for Apple that it is already preparing for the impact of their conclusions.
And it isn't only Apple that is on the hook. We can say that the tide is turning on certain business practices.
PS. the quasi government Phone companies also have no excuse for their incompetence over the years is even greater.
Previously, Apple and the other now called 'Gatekeepers' had fallen largely under the radar, save for some specific cases. This fact has previously been referenced in opening summaries of the investigations.
The term gatekeeper itself was coined precisely due to the influence of a few companies over all others.
The negative impact of that situation plus complaints has led to the current situation. Some of the ongoing investigations have been years in the making.
The 'payola to Washington' may be tongue in cheek or not, but does not change the underlying of the situation in the slightest.
This from the EU side of basically the same issue:
"Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Mobile applications have fundamentally changed the way we access content. Apple sets the rules for the distribution of apps to users of iPhones and iPads. It appears that Apple obtained a “gatekeeper” role when it comes to the distribution of apps and content to users of Apple's popular devices."
That reference to 'fundamentally changing the way we access content' is the marker here.
If no fundamental change had occurred, Apple and the others very probably wouldn't have found themselves under the microscope and continued sailing under the radar. The EU also makes reference to 'first mover' status (like the situation with Facebook) which allowed just a handful of companies to end up labeled as gatekeepers.
My 'smartness' is actually irrelevant here and BTW, I still hope for a big production release of the long rumoured feature length adaptation of the series. If they can ever put the rights squabbling behind them.
Size matters. That is exactly why Apple has had such a long run with its practices. It wasn't until it was accused of anti-competitive behaviour that things started in earnest. Everything starts somewhere and a complaint is often the first move. It wasn't the first domino though.
Feel free to argue about how the gatekeeper thresholds were calculated but size is key here and there is no getting away from that.
Size was also key in the Irish tax affairs. The supposed deal with the Irish government (in differing guises) wasn't new but when the amounts grew, so did interest.
Apple isn't alone in any of this and the claim of laws existing or not or being drawn up to tackle issues isn't really the point either. At least from my perspective.
Far better to look at its practices and decide if they constitute anti-competitive behavior or not.
Once again size will be key and Apple isn't alone. That is the bigger issue here. Whether or not pre-existing legislation is enough to deal with it or if newer legislation is required is of lesser importance on that point.
Inevitably, laws change to reflect change. That change can be for varying reasons.
What is beyond doubt is that life (digital life) has changed far faster than legislation has been able to keep up, so new legislation has slowly come into force.
In this particular situation we don't know (yet) if existing laws (wherever they be) will work against Apple's App Store or other business practices. There are multiple investigations underway and no guarantees that they will all come to the same conclusions.
What does seem, at least relatively clear, at this point in time is that Apple will have to modify its practices.
Would it be unfair to argue that most, if not all of Apple's changes to anti-competition complaints, have resulted from pressure through the numerous investigations over the years and that without them, Apple would not have changed anything?
you're still typing a lot of sentences and none of them can prove that the iPhone is a 'monopoly'
ouch!
Sorry you don’t understand the concept of an investigation is completely different to Apple is in the wrong. They are under investigation because people don’t like it, not because Apple is operating illegally.
Surely, if Apple were as 'legal' as you propose, why wouldn't it be pushing back against things like this?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-offers-settle-eu-antitrust-charges-apple-pay-sources-say-2023-12-12/
It's only a rumour at this point but I'm posting it as it is a very recent piece of news and is a valid point of consideration in terms of existing legislation.
The upshot is we have to wait and see what these investigations conclude.