Apple Loses Bid To Dismiss US Smartphone Monopoly Case (reuters.com) 61
Apple must face the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit accusing the iPhone maker of unlawfully dominating the U.S. smartphone market, a judge ruled on Monday. From a report: U.S. District Judge Julien Neals in Newark, New Jersey, denied Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit accusing the company of using restrictions on third-party app and device developers to keep users from switching to competitors and unlawfully dominate the market.
The decision would allow the case to go forward in what could be a years-long fight for Apple against enforcers' attempt to lower what they say are barriers to competition with Apple's iPhone.
The decision would allow the case to go forward in what could be a years-long fight for Apple against enforcers' attempt to lower what they say are barriers to competition with Apple's iPhone.
Except they don't (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it's a judge doesn't mean they understand basic math.
No, but they do understand the law, which considers an attempt to monopolize a crime even if unsuccessful.
They also understand that in the context of U.S. antitrust law, Apple's ~58% market share, at roughly twice the size of their next largest competitor (Samsung), is absolutely large enough to make Apple a successful monopolist, and they also understand that Apple is a twice-convicted monopolist — once involving Epic, and once involving the iBooks store — which makes their ongoing behavior wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are considerably more iOS phones in the U.S. market. Their market share hovers around 60% +/- 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Glass houses (Score:2)
Just because it's a judge doesn't mean they understand basic math.
A judge is likely to understand that antitrust laws are not about numbers, but behaviour.... you should be careful about throwing stones in glass houses there.
You can have monopolistic behaviour without a side having the majority of the market share. The EU ruled against Apple's anti-competitive behaviour and they only have 1/3 of the smartphone market in the EU because Apple's actions and policies were anti-competitive, which was a detriment to EU citizens with Apple products even though they had the ch
Re: (Score:2)
And that brings me to the problem I have with the actions being taken against Apple. In a competitive marketplace, anti-competitive behavior is competitive. It's only a monopoly that can act to prevent potential competitors from competing.
Consider the Fortnight issue.
Android is dominant globally, not in the USA (Score:3)
Android is the dominant phone platform in the US.
Android is dominant globally, not in the USA. Around 59% Apple, 41% Android\. Globally Apple is around 27% and Android 72%.
Re: (Score:2)
The title of this thread is incorrect. This isn't about apple having the most "dominant" market capture, but about the anti-competitive actions apple took to exclude competition.
The opening of the court filing references Steve Jobs being upset that you can use a Kindle on both the iOS platform AND the Android platform. He then order apple devs to make it so that you couldn't do this (locking you into one platform).
A direct quote from the court filing's opening statement:
Re: (Score:3)
From the summary:
accusing the company of using restrictions on third-party app and device developers to keep users from switching to competitors
Apple's monopoly is not related to what phone YOU can buy, but related to *developer* choices. If you are an app developer, you don't get to say no to Apple, you can't host your app on an alternative app store to save money or whatever other reason you have for not wanting to sell through Apple.
Antitrust law is hard, especially when you don't understand who is being allegedly harmed.
Re: (Score:3)
So when do we get lawsuits against MS for XBox and Sony for Playstation developer fees?
Re: (Score:2)
Game consoles aren't quite the walled garden that phones are. People generally have exactly one phone, and they rarely switch between iOS and Android. The cost of switching is high, and it's not easy to bring all your stuff with you. Because of this, a developer that wants to reach people with their app, they are forced to build both an Android and an iOS version, and publish on the Apple and Google app stores.
Game consoles, on the other hand, aren't so "sticky." It's common for gamers to have one of each (
Re: (Score:2)
Game consoles aren't quite the walled garden that phones are. People generally have exactly one phone, and they rarely switch between iOS and Android. The cost of switching is high, and it's not easy to bring all your stuff with you. Because of this, a developer that wants to reach people with their app, they are forced to build both an Android and an iOS version, and publish on the Apple and Google app stores.
Game consoles, on the other hand, aren't so "sticky." It's common for gamers to have one of each (PS, XBox, and Switch). If a game developer wants to reach a market, they can generally develop for just one platform, and if their game is good enough, gamers will buy the appropriate console in order to play it. So while there's a sort of walled garden, it's not a fortress like phone app developers are up against.
With that said, I do think the Feds should sue over the game developer fees.
If your only choice as a User is to buy a whole different Console to play certain Games, I'd say their Fortresses are Impenetrable!
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you say that? What makes the fortress impenetrable, in your view?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you say that? What makes the fortress impenetrable, in your view?
Learn to Read.
Re: (Score:2)
You never explained your point, so there is nothing to read.
Heh. This will hold as much water as Titanic did. (Score:2)
This will hold as much water as Titanic did. Android makers are whining when they already own the biggest slice of the pie?
'pal carajo con esa mierda.
Wrong Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple absolutely has a monopoly on app stores for iOS. Europe has already started breaking that down but United States has not.
The accusation is that Apple has used their Monopoly of app stores and app loading illegally.
One of the reasons we can't get any decent antitrust law enforcement in this damn country is that unless you have something that is so fucking obviously a complete total Monopoly of a critical resource people just don't believe it is a antitrust issue.
Antitrust law is highly nuanced and if it's one thing America hates its nuance. We desperately want things to be simple, clear and above all black and white. And that's just not how it is. Which is what gets us into messes like this...
Consent decree, not side loading, is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
If you even read the summary you would realize this isn't about their market dominance. This is about them having a walled garden for an app store.
I expect that is the misunderstanding of some journalist. I would suggest looking at the DOJ filings to get at the real argument(s). I expect it is more about being able to apply pressure to a developer, which is broader than a walled garden. Plus side loading does not eliminate the ability of Apple or Google to pressure developers. Being on the official store is still important. Big scary side loading warnings about potential harm to your phone still works to a degree. The ease of side loading varying with the technical sophistication of the user. And there is the simple belief that if its on the official store its unlikely to be malware, factual or not.
Here's an article that discusses the relevance of US vs Microsoft to a potential US vs Apple:
"In today’s case, the Department of Justice doesn’t merely imply that Apple benefited from the results of United States v. Microsoft; it comes right out and says it. Take section 26 of the complaint: For example, the iPod did not achieve widespread adoption until Apple developed a crossplatform version of the iPod and iTunes for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, at the time the dominant operating system for personal computers. In the absence of the consent decree in United States v. Microsoft, it would have been more difficult for Apple to achieve this success and ultimately launch the iPhone. It goes on to detail how iTunes initially only worked on Mac computers; after the consent decree, Apple developed a version for Windows, and the iPod started going gangbusters. The rest is... history? I’m not really sure Apple owes the DOJ a thank-you card for making the iPhone possible, but not having to deal with Microsoft’s bullying along the way didn’t hurt."
https://www.theverge.com/2024/... [theverge.com]
Apple has been accused of harming developers by offering a competing free app.
Also accused for harming apps by changing permissions, for example making it harder for apps to get at your contact list or other personal info they want to monetize or utilize.
The simple truth is that Apple can f*ck with a developer that has pissed them off, side loading or not. The only thing that would stop that would be something like the US vs Microsoft consent decree that places limitations on behavior. Which is what the citation above is getting at. Microsoft was not allowed to bring out its old abusive playbook to promote its Zune MP3 player over the iPod MP3 player.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2010, a top Apple executive emailed Apple’s then-CEO about an ad for the new Kindle e-reader. The ad began with a woman who was using her iPhone to buy and read books on the Kindle app. She then switches to an Android smartphone and continues to read her books using the same Kindle app. The executive wrote to Jobs: one “message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch.” Jobs was clear in his response: Apple would “force” developers to use its payment system to lock in both developers and users on its platform. Over many years, Apple has repeatedly responded to competitive threats like this one by making it harder or more expensive for its users and developers to leave than by making it more attractive for them to stay. This case is about freeing smartphone markets from Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and restoring competition
https://www.justice.gov/archiv... [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Heh. This will hold as much water as Titanic (Score:2)
"Android makers are whining when they already own the biggest slice of the pie?"
They do not in the US, which is what this story is about.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not in the US, which is what this story is about.
I know, and that's the crux of my sarcastic reply. Oh woe is they who don't own 100% of the world smartphone market, that they can't get the US, too.
The World Is Not Enough. See, any reasonable person would indeed say "fuck that shit, they got plenty already."
Expect no sympathy here for Android. They already own the majority of the market worldwide. So what if they don't have all of it?
just allow side loading like mac os and alot of is (Score:2)
just allow side loading like mac os and alot of issues go away.
Apple/Google have power even with side loading (Score:2)
just allow side loading like mac os and alot of issues go away.
Not really. If you aren't on the App Store your sales will take a hit. The big scary warning about unknown software harming your phone works, even on Android (see 2016 election workers for example). Not being on Google Play will also hit you in the wallet. Apple and Google still have influence. The US vs Microsoft case was more about influence, pressure, not so much market share.
Re: Apple/Google have power even with side loading (Score:2)
"just allow side loading like mac os and alot of issues go away."
"Not really. If you aren't on the App Store your sales will take a hit."
Uh, you think the sales of apps which most users cannot now load on their devices will go down?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you think the sales of apps which most users cannot now load on their devices will go down?
I think a developer wanting a large audience, or to make money, will not frivolously pass on the official App Store, Apple or Google. That there better be some damn special reason not to be on the store.
FYI. FOSS won't be an argument. Apple's development tools are free and a paid developer account is not necessary to build and run software on your own device. You could put your FOSS app on the App Store and make the source code available on your website to be FOSS compliant.
Did Apple offer amicus brief during US v Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Did Apple offer amicus brief during US v Micro (Score:2)
I don't think so, but they were called by the government to testify to Microsoft forcing them to make Internet Explorer the default browser or they'd pull Office for Mac. IDK what the analog of that would be, is Apple making Google do anything with Android, or influencing the hardware manufacturers?
If Apple had done what you suggested I'm sure we'd have heard of it with 20-something years of bundling Safari on Macs because that would be more on point.
Yes Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
So when Microsoft continually abused their monopolistic control of 90% of the PC market, they were let off the hook. But Apple which doesn't even have a majority of the smart phone market, is now a monopoly. This is more butt hurt users who would never even buy an iPhone complaining that it is a closed market. BUY A FUCKING ANDROID. You are not missing any functionality when you do that. As a matter of fact, you get the fiddly control you demand. Stop trying to force iPhone users play in the same play ground. We're quite happy. How about this, do a survey of how many iPhone users demand opening the app market. No? Because NO iPHONE USERS ARE ASKING FOR THIS. If they wanted this, they'd buy an Android. It is sheerest idiocy to claim Apple is a monopoly when Microsoft still controls almost the entire office computer market, but nary a peep is heard.
Re: Yes Microsoft (Score:2)
Re: Yes Microsoft (Score:2)
"So when Microsoft continually abused their monopolistic control of 90% of the PC market, they were let off the hook"
Apple has not actually been punished yet. They still have the opportunity to pay a bribe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this, do a survey of how many iPhone users demand opening the app market.
Now repeat the survey for iPhone app developers, including Tim Sweeney. The results are probably quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
So when Microsoft continually abused their monopolistic control of 90% of the PC market, they were let off the hook. But Apple which doesn't even have a majority of the smart phone market, is now a monopoly. This is more butt hurt users who would never even buy an iPhone complaining that it is a closed market. BUY A FUCKING ANDROID. You are not missing any functionality when you do that. As a matter of fact, you get the fiddly control you demand. Stop trying to force iPhone users play in the same play ground. We're quite happy. How about this, do a survey of how many iPhone users demand opening the app market. No? Because NO iPHONE USERS ARE ASKING FOR THIS. If they wanted this, they'd buy an Android. It is sheerest idiocy to claim Apple is a monopoly when Microsoft still controls almost the entire office computer market, but nary a peep is heard.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
I'm an Android user and it's easy to go to Iphone, Google makes it easy. Coming back the other way isn't so easy because Apple makes it hard. So it's not as easy as just [sic] buy a fucking Android, in all caps. If a developer wants to create something for Iphone users then they are limited in what they can do by Apple, forced to use Apple's store, forced to use Apple's payment processor, forced to pay Apple's fee. The Users may be ignorant of this... but the d
Yeah, uh huh (Score:1)
It could not be possible that so few people switch because they would rather take a red hot poker to the eye than use Android. No, that couldn't possibly be the reason.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that using an iPhone is like taking a red hot poker to the eye?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Um, I think you got that backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird DOJ argument (Score:2)
In the suit the DOJ makes the interesting argument that Apple is a monopolist because Apple and Samsung combined have a large share of US smartphone revenue. Um, whut? Put me in there too -- combined, the three of us dominate! I'm also a monopolist!
For the record, I think Apple has some anti-competitive policies, but that's just a weird argument.
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't say anything about Samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't, but the DOJ court filing does.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see your source.
But whatever, let's suppose you're right. It is relevant because, if you're an app developer, you must do business with the two companies. Or at least, with Apple and Google. Duopolies are covered under antitrust law.
Tinfoil hat theory (Score:2)
What if this whole "monopoly" thing is really just a false flag? What if the goal of every government pushing this is to enable them to hack into iPhones which is pitifully easy on Android phones?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)