While there is no law that prevents a US President from influencing the DOJ, the DOJ has traditionally projected itself as being independent from the executive branch and not easily manipulatable. Even so, it is clear the current US President has no interest in preventing the DOJ from committing this horrific legal act to an American success story like Apple. Based on what occurred at the DOJ under the previous President's leadership, it's unclear how a switch in Presidents this November would alter the status quo. Even so, it would be nice to see this case go vaporize because it will cost all consumers more in the end, either through taxes used to fund this case via the DOJ, or through higher prices to Apple fans in the long haul, or more likely, both.
Yes, my friends, you and I will be the people who will pay dearly for all this. Not the DOJ. Not Apple. It's really quite sickening when you ponder it, especially so when I read people say crazy and uneducated things like "About time" regarding the DOJ doing this to Apple. Total and utter insanity.
Are you suggesting that the President should have carte blanche to hold sway over the DOJ and what lawsuits they bring? What about separation of powers? Not your thing?
Back to school, kat. Separation of powers is about the Executive vs. Legislature vs. Judicial. DOJ is part of the Executive branch. The Executive branch (led by the president) has to enforce the law (in principle at least), but has a great deal of discretion in how it does that. So of course a change in president would and should have an impact on something with such major policy implications. Or should a non-elected Attorney General have more discretion and authority than his elected boss?
About time. Apple has been illegally monopolizing app distribution on iDevices for well over a decade now. It's time for the nonsense to stop.
I should be able to install any software of MY choosing on MY iPhone, without interference from Apple.
I really hope DoJ doesn't cave and settle. Apple needs to allow normal software installation, without an app store.
You can’t have an illegal monopoly over your own store when there are plenty of competitors. Do Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo have monopolies? Why can’t you install whatever wherever? Or McDonald’s or BurgerKing when they force you to buy what they provide?
In reference to the points in this CNN article, i.e. AirTags and similar claim. If Android owners want parity, then Android developers should write the apps, but they don't b/c they don't care.
About time. Apple has been illegally monopolizing app distribution on iDevices for well over a decade now. It's time for the nonsense to stop.
I should be able to install any software of MY choosing on MY iPhone, without interference from Apple.
I really hope DoJ doesn't cave and settle. Apple needs to allow normal software installation, without an app store.
Just stop and buy a different phone. Apple is selling the whole package. Hardware, software and the concept of an App store. If you don't like the package, shop elsewhere.
About time. Apple has been illegally monopolizing app distribution on iDevices for well over a decade now. It's time for the nonsense to stop.
I should be able to install any software of MY choosing on MY iPhone, without interference from Apple.
I really hope DoJ doesn't cave and settle. Apple needs to allow normal software installation, without an app store.
You don't even know what the legal meaning of 'monopoly' is. There is no law that makes it illegal for a company to have a monopoly on its OWN product. BMW has a monopoly on BMW cars. GE has a monopoly on GE appliances.
What antitrust laws address are monopolies over industries or product categories. Apple does not have a monopoly in the smart phone market. In fact if you want to be allowed to install any software on your phone, get an Android. No one's stopping you. That's always how it's been to encourage competition (and product improvement) in non-monopolized industries. If you don't like the features of one product, go to the competitor, not sue them to offer what you want.
If Apple is forced to allow your ridiculous demand, even though it's not a monopoly, then all the game consoles will be subject to the same ruling. In fact not just game consoles but any device that allows some form of software installation by the customer.
Congress has to pass a law first that says own-brand monopolies are now illegal before this litigation succeeds. And that would be one of the stupidest laws Congress would have tried to pass. Every company in the land will oppose it.
About time. Apple has been illegally monopolizing app distribution on iDevices for well over a decade now. It's time for the nonsense to stop.
I should be able to install any software of MY choosing on MY iPhone, without interference from Apple.
I really hope DoJ doesn't cave and settle. Apple needs to allow normal software installation, without an app store.
Go to Android if you want that...The majority of iPhone users do not want this and it's a HUGE security risk to do that. You cannot treat a phone the same way you treat a Mac. They're two totally separate devices used for different things.
I would love to hear your reasoning behind your assertion that You can't treat a phone the same way you treat a Mac. You certainly can. It's just a computer in a different form factor.
It's the ONLY reason I'm a Mac/Android user instead of a Mac/iPhone user.
And you've just proven why the DOJ's case is a ludicrous waste of money and why Apple has no monopoly. You don't like iPhone's walled garden, so you chose Android instead and got the open app marketplace you wanted. Why should the countless millions of iPhone users who not only prefer a walled garden ecosystem but chose an iPhone FOR that reason be denied our freedom to choose the ecosystem we want?
I may be wrong, but it seems like so many of these legal issues would be resolved if Apple offered a version of the iPhone hardware for sale without any OS installed, at a higher price that reflected the fact that the in-app purchases customers make help subsidize the hardware. Almost nobody would buy the hardware-only version, but it would help clarify the situation for lawmakers who may otherwise struggle to understand the bigger picture.
This would assume that iOS os the issue, but probably this is not the case. If a iPhone without iOS would become available, some companies might put Android on it, which would be a nice exercise if Apple would disclose the hardware documentation, but I don't believe Apple would like to do that.
I think that issue is much more the monopoly that Apple has on distributing iOS apps via the App Store. And this monopoly does hurt some (but not all) app developers. Being an ap developer myself, I don't mind that Apple is imposing technical requirements for apps, but I do not like the business related rules in the App Store guidelines. E.g. it is quite beneficial for an app developer to integrate with a single, device agnostic, credit card payment system so the customer care becomes much more streamlined (and as a consequence more cost effective)
Whether the end user would experience some benefits if this monopoly would be lifted, remains an open question. Apple claiims not; Spotify, Epic, Meta and Microsoft claim it does.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems to me that the hardware-plus-software model is obfuscating the fact that anything bought on the App Store and running on iOS is essentially an in-app purchase on Apple’s platform, developed and supported at great expense by Apple. Separating out the hardware by making it available separately at a higher price would clarify where the conflict lies, allowing a more direct comparison between iOS and other software platforms in wide use which may or may not allow third-party in-app purchases, like Spotify or Fortnite. Should everyone be required to allow third-party in-app purchases on their widely used platforms in direct competition with their own offerings, on terms stipulated by a government regulator? Probably not. The higher price would make clear the fact that Apple gives away the OS to support hardware sales, but also services, including the App Store, so if they lose some of that income they would want to get it in some other way, because they can’t be expected to give things away at a loss just because somebody would like it to be so.
I may be wrong, but it seems like so many of these legal issues would be resolved if Apple offered a version of the iPhone hardware for sale without any OS installed, at a higher price that reflected the fact that the in-app purchases customers make help subsidize the hardware. Almost nobody would buy the hardware-only version, but it would help clarify the situation for lawmakers who may otherwise struggle to understand the bigger picture.
This would assume that iOS os the issue, but probably this is not the case. If a iPhone without iOS would become available, some companies might put Android on it, which would be a nice exercise if Apple would disclose the hardware documentation, but I don't believe Apple would like to do that.
I think that issue is much more the monopoly that Apple has on distributing iOS apps via the App Store. And this monopoly does hurt some (but not all) app developers. Being an ap developer myself, I don't mind that Apple is imposing technical requirements for apps, but I do not like the business related rules in the App Store guidelines. E.g. it is quite beneficial for an app developer to integrate with a single, device agnostic, credit card payment system so the customer care becomes much more streamlined (and as a consequence more cost effective)
Whether the end user would experience some benefits if this monopoly would be lifted, remains an open question. Apple claiims not; Spotify, Epic, Meta and Microsoft claim it does.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems to me that the hardware-plus-software model is obfuscating the fact that anything bought on the App Store and running on iOS is essentially an in-app purchase on Apple’s platform, developed and supported at great expense by Apple. Separating out the hardware by making it available separately at a higher price would clarify where the conflict lies, allowing a more direct comparison between iOS and other software platforms in wide use which may or may not allow third-party in-app purchases, like Spotify or Fortnite. Should everyone be required to allow third-party in-app purchases on their widely used platforms in direct competition with their own offerings, on terms stipulated by a government regulator? Probably not. The higher price would make clear the fact that Apple gives away the OS to support hardware sales, but also services, including the App Store, so if they lose some of that income they would want to get it in some other way, because they can’t be expected to give things away at a loss just because somebody would like it to be so.
they can’t be expected to give things away at a loss - Is this a joke? You can't be serious with that statement. In which world would selling iPhones make a loss IF Apple ends up making $0 from App store as revenue for all of the iPhones sold? How about the iOS users who use only free apps from the app store? According to you, is Apple selling the iPhones at a loss to them? Seriously? Why would Apple do that?
Who would buy IF apple launched an iPhone without iOS, that too at a higher price? May be, less than 0.0001% of the iPhone users (Just to try and see how it works and return it back within the return window)?? Why would Apple do that? Just to show middle finger to US DOJ and other government agencies all over the world to prove a point that they are wrong?? And you seriously think that it would work, instead of what Apple is currently doing?
About time. Apple has been illegally monopolizing app distribution on iDevices for well over a decade now. It's time for the nonsense to stop.
I should be able to install any software of MY choosing on MY iPhone, without interference from Apple.
I really hope DoJ doesn't cave and settle. Apple needs to allow normal software installation, without an app store.
Put simply, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Monopolies are not illegal… *Illegal* monopolies are illegal. So far, no one has been able to prove that Apple has a illegal monopoly. They have one on iPhones to be sure. But the iPhone is not a market per se.
The problem with any antitrust case related to the anti-steering provisions is that customers have a choice to buy an Android phone from literally dozens of other manufacturers. The argument you’re making is one that’s been made repeatedly, but it’s not an legal argument. If you want the ability to install anything you want, by Android. or jailbreak your phone.
If Apple had 90% of the market and yet was also the gatekeeper of the App Store, that would be another matter. But they don’t 90%. They don’t even have 50%. Their latest estimated US smartphone market share is 39%.
You’d also do well to understand the history of tech monopolies a little bit. Microsoft unquestionably had an illegal monopoly with Windows. They abused their market position by pushing out other browsers to the exclusivity of Internet explorer. They pressured all PC makers to include only Windows. They were 90% of the market, perhaps more. Even with that, the DOJ ended up essentially folding. Ultimately, this is going nowhere.
Apple's smartphone US market share is roughly 65% according to numerous estimates, give or take a couple percent. That 39% figure was an outlier, IMO likely floated in order to favor Apple's efforts in preventing this filing to begin with.
Just like to point out it is impossible to have a monopoly with around half market share. And globally, about 10%.
people buy into the walled garden because they want to. In fact for many people the decision to purchase an iPhone compared with its many, many competitor products includes consideration of the protection that walled garden offers as a key feature.
Filing the lawsuit is just the beginning. The DOJ will have to make its case, Apple will undoubtedly appeal, and the cycle will repeat for years to come.
Won’t there be a trial and decision before an appeal might be filed?
While there is no law that prevents a US President from influencing the DOJ, the DOJ has traditionally projected itself as being independent from the executive branch and not easily manipulatable. Even so, it is clear the current US President has no interest in preventing the DOJ from committing this horrific legal act to an American success story like Apple. Based on what occurred at the DOJ under the previous President's leadership, it's unclear how a switch in Presidents this November would alter the status quo. Even so, it would be nice to see this case go vaporize because it will cost all consumers more in the end, either through taxes used to fund this case via the DOJ, or through higher prices to Apple fans in the long haul, or more likely, both.
Yes, my friends, you and I will be the people who will pay dearly for all this. Not the DOJ. Not Apple. It's really quite sickening when you ponder it, especially so when I read people say crazy and uneducated things like "About time" regarding the DOJ doing this to Apple. Total and utter insanity.
Are you suggesting that the President should have carte blanche to hold sway over the DOJ and what lawsuits they bring? What about separation of powers? Not your thing?
No matter what I suggest, it seems clear you would take issue with it. So I have nothing further to add.
Comments
In reference to the points in this CNN article, i.e. AirTags and similar claim. If Android owners want parity, then Android developers should write the apps, but they don't b/c they don't care.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/21/tech/apple-sued-antitrust-doj/index.html
Just stop and buy a different phone. Apple is selling the whole package. Hardware, software and the concept of an App store. If you don't like the package, shop elsewhere.
What antitrust laws address are monopolies over industries or product categories. Apple does not have a monopoly in the smart phone market. In fact if you want to be allowed to install any software on your phone, get an Android. No one's stopping you. That's always how it's been to encourage competition (and product improvement) in non-monopolized industries. If you don't like the features of one product, go to the competitor, not sue them to offer what you want.
If Apple is forced to allow your ridiculous demand, even though it's not a monopoly, then all the game consoles will be subject to the same ruling. In fact not just game consoles but any device that allows some form of software installation by the customer.
Congress has to pass a law first that says own-brand monopolies are now illegal before this litigation succeeds. And that would be one of the stupidest laws Congress would have tried to pass. Every company in the land will oppose it.
Who would buy IF apple launched an iPhone without iOS, that too at a higher price? May be, less than 0.0001% of the iPhone users (Just to try and see how it works and return it back within the return window)?? Why would Apple do that? Just to show middle finger to US DOJ and other government agencies all over the world to prove a point that they are wrong?? And you seriously think that it would work, instead of what Apple is currently doing?
people buy into the walled garden because they want to. In fact for many people the decision to purchase an iPhone compared with its many, many competitor products includes consideration of the protection that walled garden offers as a key feature.
Won’t there be a trial and decision before an appeal might be filed?