Don't expect cheaper iCloud storage as Apple wins another monopoly lawsuit
Another lawsuit alleging that Apple uses its monopoly powers to force users to pay more for iCloud storage has been dismissed.
Apple's iCloud promo -- image credit: Apple
It's now 14 years that Apple has been giving users just 5GB free iCloud storage space each, so it's surely never going to increase that without some outside pressure. The latest of many attempts to apply such pressure, though, has failed.
Following its filing in March 2024, a class action suit over the amount and cost of iCloud storage has been dismissed. According to Reuters, US District Judge Eumi Lee in San Jose, California, threw out the case -- but said the plaintiffs could file an amended version.
The original version of the suit alleged that Apple was violating antitrust laws by coercing users into using iCloud, then effectively making them pay to have adequate storage space on it. This case was a class-action one, whose plaintiffs believed they were representing at least tens of millions of iCloud users.
Judge Lee said, however, that Apple was not violating federal or state antitrust laws. Specifically, she said that users were not required to purchase iCloud storage, and that the case did not demonstrate that Apple is a monopoly.
"[If] anything, Apple's allegedly high prices would incentivize rivals to increase production to take share from Apple," said Judge Lee in her ruling.
The plaintiffs appear to have chiefly concentrated on how iCloud is used for storage, but the service has other key uses. It's behind the syncing of photos, videos, and other user data, for instance, and third-party rivals can't replace that.
Apple defending how it uses iCloud for syncing and for features such as restoring iPhones from backups. The company said that it used iCloud in this way in order to guarantee high levels of security and privacy.
Representatives for the plaintiffs in the case, Julianna Felix Gamboa et al v. Apple Inc., say that they intend to file an amended lawsuit to address the judge's criticisms.
For the moment, then, Apple has won this case, but it may resume in a revised form. Whether it does or not, though, Apple is also facing a similar case in the UK, where a consumer group wants a $4 billion payout for users.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Alteratively does Apple provide an easy way to sync your ios device to a computer if I don't want to pay for iCloud. If I am in proximity to my Mac with my iPhone why can these two devices not sync between easy other automatically?
so there is zero monopoly.
The argument that Apple is a monopoly or has Monopoly in the marketplace anywhere is ridiculous in the world of technology Apple, can’t be a monopoly unless you (make up) define a monopoly as being a monopoly of your own product (basically of yourself), but having the most profitable best product? In the general marketplace doesn’t make you a monopoly i.e. making the best sports car Porsche? or the best traditional watch Rolex? does not mean you have a monopoly in the marketplace no matter how good that product may be over many other existing products in the marketplace.
Sure you can link to these and other cloud services, but if everything you want to do is kludgy you are limited as to how you can use them, then you really don’t have access.
Lawsuit had nothing to do with how much Apple charges for iCloud, and even if plaintiffs had won, Apple would have zero incentive to lower iCloud storage prices.
The fact that you may prefer iCloud because it's better than the alternatives doesn't mean you are forced to buy it.
And you can in fact backup your entire iPhone or iPad to any computer without purchasing iCloud.
I don't fully understand your argument. You are comparing Apple's walled garden to a car manufacturer. Lets instead compare Apple to another more relevant company like Microsoft. They both own operating platforms and have control over them, Windows and IOS for instance. Now if you imagine windows had a windows+ subscription that let you do everything that iCloud does, backup your computer, images, notes etc - and simultaneously blocked third-party alternatives for things like system backups from offering similar functionality regulators would cry foul. Thankfully you can of course install other options on Windows to have this functionality, without paying microsoft anything. However, on Apple devices, they don't let you charge on their apps through ios without letting Apple take a cut of it. Futhermore in these alternative apps you can't point to or link to payment options outside of the appstore. I don't see how this can't be viewed as anti-competitive.
- where is the option to change the “default cloud provider”?
- why is there no option to export or migrate my entire iCloud Photo Library with all metadata intact? Right now Apple exposes no APIs so external providers have to ‘scrape’ my photo library which is slow, loses essential data and is not a true solution to the problem. Basically they make you addicted and keep you addicted.
What Apple does is force me to use iCloud because it’s directly tied in to core operating system level functionality, including the storage of passwords and apps. This is cutting out competition from Box, Dropbox and others.
To me the argument that was brought forward to the judge was weak. They should reconsider their strategy and sue again. At the very least, Europe should act and force Apple to change, similar to allowing for third party stores, which - no surprise! - hasn’t lead to noteworthy security issues. That’s just Apple propaganda.