DoJ's Apple App Store probe is 'firing on all cylinders'

Posted:
in iOS

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

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 941member
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    leehericksrob53jeffharrisdope_ahmineteejay2012Kierkegaardenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 29
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,271member
    Developers are saying the Apple App Store is anti-competitive, not actual competitors like Microsoft or Google/Android. As way too many Apple users have said, we're purchasing Apple products because we want to, not because someone is forcing us. As for app developers, you have access to other platforms so if you don't like Apple's rules, go somewhere else. We all know that the DOJ is just a front for US government access to every Apple device. Once Apple is forced to allow other app stores, the US government will require the use of a government app to access any government website, e.g., Social Security, IRS, all tax submissions. Anyone that frequents AppleInsider knows what this means. The special government app would include hidden tracking features and a backdoor, allowing government officials (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA) to track everything a user is accessing. This is obvious to all of us and is something they've been trying to do for years. Government users of Apple products already have this capability installed (I know this because I managed this) because all government computers of any type are owned and operated by the government so users have no privacy. This is how it should be for government and corporate users but not for private citizens.
    williamlondonroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    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. 

    edited January 2 9secondkox2
  • Reply 4 of 29
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    jeffharrisdope_ahminewilliamlondonronn9secondkox2watto_cobratmay
  • Reply 5 of 29
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    @"avon b7" 
    These were the dumbest comments I’ve read on this matter for a loong time. I can't even begin to comment on all the craziness. But luckily I don’t have to, cos it’s all been said so many times elsewhere. Where have you been the last few years in this debate?
    edited January 2 williamlondonthtronnwatto_cobratmay
  • Reply 6 of 29
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    williamlondonpaisleydiscomrstepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    Remind me how many investigations Apple is dealing with right now on anti-competitive behavior?

    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. 
  • Reply 8 of 29
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,101member
    rob53 said:
    Developers are saying the Apple App Store is anti-competitive, not actual competitors like Microsoft or Google/Android. As way too many Apple users have said, we're purchasing Apple products because we want to, not because someone is forcing us. As for app developers, you have access to other platforms so if you don't like Apple's rules, go somewhere else. We all know that the DOJ is just a front for US government access to every Apple device. Once Apple is forced to allow other app stores, the US government will require the use of a government app to access any government website, e.g., Social Security, IRS, all tax submissions. Anyone that frequents AppleInsider knows what this means. The special government app would include hidden tracking features and a backdoor, allowing government officials (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA) to track everything a user is accessing. This is obvious to all of us and is something they've been trying to do for years. Government users of Apple products already have this capability installed (I know this because I managed this) because all government computers of any type are owned and operated by the government so users have no privacy. This is how it should be for government and corporate users but not for private citizens.
    The service oriented government agencies federal/state/local could build a app anytime however sheer incompetence on their part has held them up not Apple, Google or Microsoft.

    PS. the quasi government Phone companies also have no excuse for their incompetence over the years is even greater. 
    edited January 2 watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 29
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,416member
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    Teejay’s post is certainly a more rational explanation than the one proffered by the Blake’s 7 fan*.

    *Blake’s 7 is a great example of low-budget UK SF that usually sports smarter fans than that guy.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    chasm said:
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    Teejay’s post is certainly a more rational explanation than the one proffered by the Blake’s 7 fan*.

    *Blake’s 7 is a great example of low-budget UK SF that usually sports smarter fans than that guy.
    When I said Apple had had  'a good run' it was in direct reference to its size so, on that point Teejay and I share the same opinion. 

    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.


    edited January 2
  • Reply 11 of 29
    The main point to remember: the DOJ would be bringing court-based charges if they decided to proceed. This isn't like the EU where a legislative body is saying "let's change the laws BUT only for companies that exceed a certain market cap". What the EU is doing is basically admitting that they couldn't find much of anything that qualified as "anticompetitive" under the existing EU laws AND that they didn't want to apply the new "anticompetitive" definition to the entire market. So the DOJ has a much higher bar to clear than the EU legislative body. Plus, Apple already defeated Epic in U.S. federal court regarding Epic's primary antitrust claims AND you already have a prior U.S. federal court decision in Nintendo's favor that said 1st party hardware makers that controlled access to their OS by 3rd party software developers did not meet the standard of an antitrust violation. 
    edited January 2 thtronndanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 29
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 516member
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    Tim just needs to bring Hunter on as a board member to make this all go away.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 29
    mrstep said:
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    Tim just needs to bring Hunter on as a board member to make this all go away.


    I vote he brings on Ivanka.  She is way better to look at🤫🥳
    mrstepmrstepwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 29
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 516member
    mrstep said:
    Apple has grown too big and does not provide enough payola to Washington.
    'That's a nice tech company you have there Tim.. would be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it... '

    Tim just needs to bring Hunter on as a board member to make this all go away.


    I vote he brings on Ivanka.  She is way better to look at🤫🥳
     :D
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    The main point to remember: the DOJ would be bringing court-based charges if they decided to proceed. This isn't like the EU where a legislative body is saying "let's change the laws BUT only for companies that exceed a certain market cap". What the EU is doing is basically admitting that they couldn't find much of anything that qualified as "anticompetitive" under the existing EU laws AND that they didn't want to apply the new "anticompetitive" definition to the entire market. So the DOJ has a much higher bar to clear than the EU legislative body. Plus, Apple already defeated Epic in U.S. federal court regarding Epic's primary antitrust claims AND you already have a prior U.S. federal court decision in Nintendo's favor that said 1st party hardware makers that controlled access to their OS by 3rd party software developers did not meet the standard of an antitrust violation. 
    Have all the current EU investigations on anti-competitive behavior concluded?

    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? 


  • Reply 16 of 29
    Exactly! And it’s their phone, their appliance. No one is forcing Nintendo to allow other stores on the Switch. The argument that the business model is different because consoles as a product don’t make as much profit without the games is bogus, the law should be applied equally to all electronics. 

    It’s so simple, if you don’t want to use an iPhone or develop for an iPhone, or if you don’t feel it’s economically feasible for you to develop on an iPhone, go use a different phone/platform.

    And as for Beeper…since when does any company have to open up their private platform/service for someone to hack in and charge customers to use it? Did the government intervene and force Twitter and Reddit to reopen their APIs at a personal cost to the company?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 29
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    Remind me how many investigations Apple is dealing with right now on anti-competitive behavior?

    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. 

    you're still typing a lot of sentences and none of them can prove that the iPhone is a 'monopoly'

    ouch!
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 29
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    Remind me how many investigations Apple is dealing with right now on anti-competitive behavior?

    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. 
    Sweeny is that you?  How is yourself imposed ban working out for your shareholders? 🤣😂

    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.  

    Even in the EU, Apple operated legally.  They had to change the law to force Apple to change,  it an anticompetitive order.  

    Please learn something before making statements that clearly show you have done zero research into a matter you are wanting us to believe you know so much about.  


    williamlondondanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    Remind me how many investigations Apple is dealing with right now on anti-competitive behavior?

    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. 
    Sweeny is that you?  How is yourself imposed ban working out for your shareholders? ߤ㰟肦lt;br>
    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.  

    Even in the EU, Apple operated legally.  They had to change the law to force Apple to change,  it an anticompetitive order.  

    Please learn something before making statements that clearly show you have done zero research into a matter you are wanting us to believe you know so much about.  


    Do you know the answer to my opening question?

    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. 

    edited January 2
  • Reply 20 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,891member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    charlesn said:
    I will never understand this. Apple has built the company around a walled garden strategy--it is a major reason that people CHOOSE to buy into the Apple ecosystem. And if you don't like the idea of that, whether you're an app user or developer, that's fine--there's a whole wide world of computing and devices other than Apple for you to CHOOSE. It is, in fact, a much bigger world than Apple's. So where is there a monopoly here? Where is there lack of choice? No one buying into the Apple ecosystem wants to see it broken open by government luddites. This isn't opening up the market to choice, this is destroying the choice that exists in the market. 
    The 'monopoly' is on competition (or lack of it). 

    No third party app stores are allowed to exist.

    A walled garden might be fine if its ecosystem were encapsulated and all third 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. 

    LOLOL tell us you don't understand without using the words "I don't understand" 
    Remind me how many investigations Apple is dealing with right now on anti-competitive behavior?

    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. 

    you're still typing a lot of sentences and none of them can prove that the iPhone is a 'monopoly'

    ouch!
    You do realise why I said 'monopoly' as opposed to monopoly? 
Sign In or Register to comment.