Apple Could Soon Face 'Sweeping' U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

[I7guy]

Dont like the country you live in MOVE. Based completely on your argument you should leave the EU, Japan and the United States.

Wow. That is really aggressive but I expect nothing less sometimes.

That is the level of that entire argument. Never mind everything else.

Since you made this hyperbole, yes we can turn any criticism or dislike for actions of a government into leave the country, leave the earth, leave the solar system and leave the universe.

That argument sounds pretty dumb when you put it like that because I am just pointing out the level of that entire argument. There are better ways to debat things but doing that one is straight up a bull **** argument in bad faith.

The face of a bad faith post is this one. Buy the product you like. It’s really, really simple. Anything else is tilting at windmills.

 

[makitango]

We CHOOSE to be locked into the system. No one is forcing me to buy Apple products, least of all Apple.

We chose the product, only the one which comes closest to what we want.
Apple chooses to enter a foreign country to get their $$$, it has to abide to their rules obviously.

 

[Analog Kid]

Dont like the country you live in MOVE. Based completely on your argument you should leave the EU, Japan and the United States.
That is the level of that entire argument. Never mind everything else.

That argument sounds pretty dumb when you put it like that because I am just pointing out the level of that entire argument. There are better ways to debat things but doing that one is straight up a bull **** argument in bad faith.

You've repeated this enough times that it appears you think you've found a clever analogy, so I'll add my opinion on this.

You should leave a place you don't like before you advocate for a foreign invasion. Write letters to your elected officials seeking change, just as you can write to apple.com/feedback. Express your opinion in the town square, just as you can here in the forums. Vote with ballots just as you can with money. But requesting an outside power to come in and forcibly overthrow a regime at the expense of many who support it? I'd strongly consider moving first-- whether it means leaving a region with a democratically elected government I happen to disagree with, or a market driven product with features I'd prefer an alternative approach to-- before asking a foreign nation to invade my home or asking government to invade the free market.

 

[1129846]

You've repeated this enough times that it appears you think you've found a clever analogy, so I'll add my opinion on this.

You should leave a place you don't like before you advocate for a foreign invasion. Write letters to your elected officials seeking change, just as you can write to apple.com/feedback. Express your opinion in the town square, just as you can here in the forums. Vote with ballots just as you can with money. But requesting an outside power to come in and forcibly overthrow a regime at the expense of many who support it? I'd strongly consider moving first-- whether it means leaving a region with a democratically elected government I happen to disagree with, or a market driven product with features I'd prefer an alternative approach to-- before asking a foreign nation to invade my home or asking government to invade the free market.

Then we go with you better thank your lucky stars that the government came down hard on MS back in the day other wise Apple would be a foot note in history.

There is no getting around the fact that Apple has been for years abusing it position and squeezing out others from getting a foot hold. The build a better mouse trap argument people like to make is honestly not good. A better mouse trap is not going to win. It has to be better enough that the cost to switch can be paid and the cost of switching is cost very high.

Apple is using its verticle integrations to squeeze out others. Spotify makes a good case as they do not have to pay the app tax. or we can go with Tile struggled agaisnt air tags as Airtags does not have to play by the same rules to get updated location data and build the network. Lets not forget to add in the Apple tax on in app service purchases as well on that.
It all ads up.

This is like going back in time and making the same argument MS was doing the same things squeezing out competitions to not give them any air to breath. People look at the browser side but that was only one small part of MS abuse they got in trouble on. They got intruble for the thing they did to hurt competing spread sheet programs and word processing software.

Right now the OS market is a douloply and that is only a hairs breath better than a a monopoly. Android is only one of the other choices and in these days of age that is not good.

Of the FAANG level compnay Microsoft is the only one left not betting look at for federal anti trust and that should be shocking. Apple joining hte list.

Google is being looked at right now for their abuse in ads market. This is to build a healthier free market that one mega power can not abuse.

In history we had the Standard oil break up and that was a good thing. They had control of multiple markets outside of oil and used that to keep anyone from breaking in. The Bell break up was a good thing. Sadly they did not step in in time to prevent it all from reforming but it needed to happen. With out that break up the internet would be a shadow of what it is today. Cell phones would be a shadow of what it is today.

Apple is long over due to be looked it.

 

[lartola]

Nonsense. I own my phone. I CHOSE the Apple iPhone because, IMHO, it is a better product. There are alternatives. If you don’t like Apple, pick one.

Nonsense. You don’t own your phone. Apple does, they have more control over it than you do, heck they could disable your iphone remotely at any time if they wanted to. And there aren’t alternatives, there’s just one alternative: Android. But anyone who, like me, dislikes both Android and Apple has to live without a cell phone since there is literally no other alternative.

 

[Analog Kid]

Then we go with you better thank your lucky stars that the government came down hard on MS back in the day other wise Apple would be a foot note in history.

When did this happen?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple is using its vertical integrations to squeeze out others. Spotify makes a good case as they do not have to pay the app tax. or we can go with Tile struggled agaisnt air tags as Airtags does not have to play by the same rules to get updated location data and build the network.

Spotify is the largest and most popular music streaming service in the world. It's much bigger that the "vertically integrated" Apple Music. And now that Spotify doesn't have to pay the "Apple Tax" they should be even happier. Basically I don't see how Spotify is "squeezed out"

Tile had first-mover advantage. I knew lots of people who used Tile trackers long ago. But it must not have been a good experience because they stopped using them when the batteries died and they never bought another one. That's Tile's fault.

Are you saying that Apple isn't allowed to make trackers because Tile existed before? Even if Tile's product wasn't that great?

Yes... AirTags are much more useful since they use the entire iPhone network rather than Tile just using the smaller network of other Tile users.

But is that unfair to Tile? Of course the iPhone installed-base is larger than the Tile installed-base.

Apple created the FindMy network a decade ago. And they have opened it up to 3rd-parties.

Chipolo is using FindMy... but Tile isn't. That sounds like a Tile problem... not an Apple problem.

 

[NervousFish2]

When has it NOT been used to punish companies illegally using their monopoly to create monopolies in other markets? I like to focus on reality because if we’re talking about fantasy, I’ll concede immediately!

Huh? I think my point was pretty clear. If you prefer, let’s express it this way. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. If you do it and you are caught, there are consequences. But anti-trust law is more about effects. Are you using your monopoly to distort the market? Cartel behavior (price setting among competitors) is illegal in anti-trust. But apple isn’t accused of that. What it is accused of is very much to do with scale of impact. A small player here running an App Store could theoretically do the exact same thing as apple and not encumber consequences. The “illegal” metric here is thus a moving target and relatively subjective. And I am fine with that.

 

[NervousFish2]

You sound like a sports fan explaining the narrow sequence of events that could allow your team to still get a wildcard spot in the playoffs. All furthering my point: saying that we'll need to go against long established tradition of building on precedent in rulings to reinterpret existing law and find differently than a well litigated case only a few months old is a far cry from "for sure a monopolistic practice".

I don’t understand your sports fan point (but I hate sports, so the analogy is lost on me). But it’s more complex than you’re making out. It’s about scale of impact. A small company could do the same thing as apple and not be found guilty of anything. The “monopoly“ question here is subjective/political in the sense of how regulators established the size of effected population needing to be effective before law is triggered. It’s messy and subjective, but necessary. Apple and all of these companies are effectively parallel forms of government. Unelected. It’s right for them to be brought to heel.

 

[NervousFish2]

Anti-trust violations are a matter for the courts, not some extra-judicial board of subjective experts. I think you're confusing it with how we declare recessions?

So, I have actually studied this stuff a little bit. You’d be surprised. The courts do not have black and white categories to work with here. A lot of it IS economists making arguments about effects. The threshold/metric is to no small degree about the effects, not the practices themselves.

 

[1129846]

When did this happen?

in the 90's. Part of the reason MS made the investment in Apple and put massive public perception that Apple was in good health was from that government oversight. Remember at one point in time Apple was on its death bed and was close to being just a footnote in history.
That was roughly the same time Apple started turning around but it was also when the government was coming down very hard in Microsoft.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don’t understand your sports fan point (but I hate sports, so the analogy is lost on me). But it’s more complex than you’re making out. It’s about scale of impact. A small company could do the same thing as apple and not be found guilty of anything. The “monopoly“ question here is subjective/political in the sense of how regulators established the size of effected population needing to be effective before law is triggered. It’s messy and subjective, but necessary. Apple and all of these companies are effectively parallel forms of government. Unelected. It’s right for them to be brought to heel.

Parallel forms of government? I must have misplaced my Apple Army draft card...

Again, my point is that if you think it's more complex than I'm making it out then it is far more complex than your blanket statement that it is "for sure a monopolistic practice".

And your insistence that anti trust regulation is "opinion", "subjective" and "political" undermines the credibility of the entire process. It is none of those things. There are guidelines and tests that a business is subjected to, in the courts, not in front of some board of economists. Within those tests there is some margin for subjective reading, but that subjectivity will essentially always tilt in favor of the firm because the US government is loathe to interfere in private business unless the harm is clear and substantial.

So, I have actually studied this stuff a little bit. You’d be surprised. The courts do not have black and white categories to work with here. A lot of it IS economists making arguments about effects. The threshold/metric is to no small degree about the effects, not the practices themselves.

See how choice of words completely makes the difference between right and wrong? Yes, both sides will likely call on economists to argue as expert witnesses in court. Courts can make change, not a board of economists. And yes, the impact on consumers is the metric in many cases, not the behavior itself-- except most anti trust investigations are focused on mergers where there is no impact as of yet and the decisions are being made based on potential impact as there has not yet been an opportunity for wrong doing.

If you've studied these things, use your knowledge to enlighten through precision of language-- don't lazily draw conclusions to support your desired outcome and expect people to trust you because you've studied. It is way too early to draw conclusions against Apple given their minority market share and existing judgements.

 

[1129846]

Spotify is the largest and most popular music streaming service in the world. It's much bigger that the "vertically integrated" Apple Music. And now that Spotify doesn't have to pay the "Apple Tax" they should be even happier. Basically I don't see how Spotify is "squeezed out"

Spotify should be allow to collect their own subscription in the app with out paying the apple tax. Allowed to use another payment processor and not be required to use Apple's. Instead Spotify is required to go outside the app to sign up and they are not even allowed ot directly link to an outside web browser to sign up for it.

That is just the example. It expands out side of just that item. Spotify is the example. netflix got a special exceptions but even they are limited.

If you want to expand it to another forced Apple produce is Sign in with Apple. Developers as a whole dont like it because it is by far the biggest pain to get to work, test and keep it running. Apple makes it overly complicated to do it. We are not talking about the privacy limitatoin of it. It is just getting the damn thing to work in an App. It was forced on developers but it is hard to use. Henice why you often times don't see it outside of Apple products. Even if they have a web interface or Android App version. They dont bother turning on Sign in with Apple because it sucks to set up.

Facebook is garbage for other reasons and the next one on the list of ones I hate doing. Facebook as the same pricacy restrictions Apple does in what it may not return to the user along with a useless email address but still easier to setup, manage and test.

Those are just 2 examples of force verticle integration and even a better service. Sign in with Apple for all the good it brings the users it sucks for the developer side.

Tile had first-mover advantage. I knew lots of people who used Tile trackers long ago. But it must not have been a good experience because they stopped using them when the batteries died and they never bought another one. That's Tile's fault.

Are you saying that Apple isn't allowed to make trackers because Tile existed before? Even if Tile's product wasn't that great?

Yes... AirTags are much more useful since they use the entire iPhone network rather than Tile just using the smaller network of other Tile users.
But is that unfair to Tile? Of course the iPhone installed-base is larger than the Tile installed-base.

No I am not saying Apple shouldn't make one because of Tile. I am saying Apple find my Airtags have the same limitation tile has. Shortly before or shortly after Airtags came out Apple clamped down HARD on location usage. These mean the default setting for Apps updating location data is ONLY win the app was running and even then limitation of background usage.

Air tags does not have that limitation. It gets to play by a very different set of rules.

A

pple created the FindMy network a decade ago. And they have opened it up to 3rd-parties.

Chipolo is using FindMy... but Tile isn't. That sounds like a Tile problem... not an Apple problem.

It is still heavy limited in the 3rd party opening up. It means it is limited to the find my stuff but Tile could not port that data over their own database their for heavily limiting Tiles item.

Basically the rules Airtags should play under is the exact same rules Tile has to play under. No more no less. Instead Apple gets to by pass privacy settings and use location data no matter what. It has full access to bluetooth full access to location data with out the same permission set up.
Hence why they are playing by different rules.

Tile has its issues but another huge issue is Apple is using it vertical integration to squeeze tile out and tile can not compete at the same level. It needs to get more access to even the directional antenna in bluetooth and so on like fine my network gets.
Just same rules.

 

[NervousFish2]

Parallel forms of government? I must have misplaced my Apple Army draft card...

Again, my point is that if you think it's more complex than I'm making it out then it is far more complex than your blanket statement that it is "for sure a monopolistic practice".

And your insistence that anti trust regulation is "opinion", "subjective" and "political" undermines the credibility of the entire process. It is none of those things. There are guidelines and tests that a business is subjected to, in the courts, not in front of some board of economists. Within those tests there is some margin for subjective reading, but that subjectivity will essentially always tilt in favor of the firm because the US government is loathe to interfere in private business unless the harm is clear and substantial.



See how choice of words completely makes the difference between right and wrong? Yes, both sides will likely call on economists to argue as expert witnesses in court. Courts can make change, not a board of economists. And yes, the impact on consumers is the metric in many cases, not the behavior itself-- except most anti trust investigations are focused on mergers where there is no impact as of yet and the decisions are being made based on potential impact as there has not yet been an opportunity for wrong doing.

If you've studied these things, use your knowledge to enlighten through precision of language-- don't lazily draw conclusions to support your desired outcome and expect people to trust you because you've studied. It is way too early to draw conclusions against Apple given their minority market share and existing judgements.

Dude, I am just a guy on the internet. I am not on the court, or involved in the process. I have studied this stuff a little bit. It is my considered opinion here that Apple are “for sure” guilty, based on how this kind of thing has worked in the past. However, politics matters. The EU ruled hard against Microsoft in the past for example where the US did not. Right and wrong highly subjective in this sense. Not sure what I am saying here that is provoking you to scold me.

 

[BaldiMac]

Spotify should be allow to collect their own subscription in the app with out paying the apple tax. Allowed to use another payment processor and not be required to use Apple's. Instead Spotify is required to go outside the app to sign up and they are not even allowed ot directly link to an outside web browser to sign up for it.

Should? Based on what? Why should they be entitled to profit off of someone else's property without permission or compensation?

Spotify has a real argument around leveling the playing field with Apple Music as far as integration with the OS. But the idea that they are entitled to that access for free is ridiculous. They are currently benefiting from Apple's massive investment in iOS with permission for nothing more than a few hundred dollars a year. Seems like a good deal.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

And since Spotify is the largest music streaming service in the world... with more paying subscribers than any other service... it's kinda hard to feel sorry for Spotify.

Yeah, when you have that many paying customers and can’t make a profit, there’s something SERIOUSLY wrong with your business plan.

 

[Analog Kid]

in the 90's. Part of the reason MS made the investment in Apple and put massive public perception that Apple was in good health was from that government oversight. Remember at one point in time Apple was on its death bed and was close to being just a footnote in history.
That was roughly the same time Apple started turning around but it was also when the government was coming down very hard in Microsoft.

When you say "came down hard", what do you think happened?

MS made a meager $150m investment in Apple in 1997. The anti-trust case opened in 1998. Windows had over 90% market share in desktop operating systems in 1998. They had over 90% market share in desktop operating systems when oversight of the company concluded in 2007. Over that time their market share in web browsers grew from 35% to over 90% and Netscape, the company largely seen as being the reason anti-trust action was warranted, went out of business.

I think you're over stating what happened to Microsoft-- their business wasn't affected, they weren't barred from bundling. They were told they weren't able to extract a license fee for every PC on the blanket assumption that it would run Windows anymore, which did nothing to help Apple which doesn't use that hardware. At most they took a PR hit, and the government shouldn't be in the business of maligning private enterprise if they can't back it up with action.

Standard Oil was another of your examples, took place 120 years ago. They had over 90% market share in oil production. They had structured their company specifically to hold that monopoly and avoid state based anti-trust regulations.

AT&T, which you mention, was a government sanctioned monopoly that was later unsanctioned and then essentially reconstituted itself outside government sanction. Not a triumph of anti-trust.

These others you're pointing to are from a different cast of characters and the results of government action were nebulous at best.

 

[d686546s]

Should? Based on what? Why should they be entitled to profit off of someone else's property without permission or compensation?

Spotify has a real argument around leveling the playing field with Apple Music as far as integration with the OS. But the idea that they are entitled to that access for free is ridiculous. They are currently benefiting from Apple's massive investment in iOS with permission for nothing more than a few hundred dollars a year. Seems like a good deal.

Why is the idea that Spotify should be able to sell customers their own products to their own customers "for free," ie without compensating Apple, ridiculous?

If they choose Apple products and services to do so, then of course Apple deserves compensation. But no one other than maybe a very small minority really complains about the developer fees. That's not really what this is about.

But if there is no way to do business on these massive platforms -- on which people increasingly do all of their stuff -- without compensating Apple (or Google), aren't you just making the argument for regulation?

 

[BaldiMac]

Why is the idea that Spotify should be able to sell customers their own products to their own customers "for free," ie without compensating Apple, ridiculous?

Because they are using Apple’s IP and services to do it. This isn’t complicated.

 

[d686546s]

Because they are using Apple’s IP and services to do it. This isn’t complicated.

Right, and that's fair, as long as there is a way to offer products and services on those platforms without being forced to use Apple's services.

 

[Analog Kid]

Dude, I am just a guy on the internet. I am not on the court, or involved in the process. I have studied this stuff a little bit. It is my considered opinion here that Apple are “for sure” guilty, based on how this kind of thing has worked in the past. However, politics matters. The EU ruled hard against Microsoft in the past for example where the US did not. Right and wrong highly subjective in this sense. Not sure what I am saying here that is provoking you to scold me.

Wishful thinking aside, Apple is far from "for sure guilty"-- particularly given how things have worked in the past. Particularly particularly the very recent past where they were found legit for sure not guilty. Again, I point you to Epic v Apple-- it's literally the one part of this whole situation that has been examined in depth by the courts in the last 12 months and Apple was found for a second time to not hold a monopoly in the App Store. So while you may have studied this a bit, have you studied it more than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? What are you seeing that they missed?

The US DOJ is a US entity, so the EU isn't relevant to this discussion. Right and wrong can be subjective, but a century and a quarter of case law makes legality (as distinct from righteousness) much less subjective. There is no board of economic experts making change when presented to by the DOJ, and companies aren't behaving like governments in any way you've tried to demonstrate. Gods help us if government intervention in private businesses can be as fickle as the election cycle-- fortunately it's in the hands of career civil servants.

Your opinion rests on the belief that subjective political opinion will shift and change how we view anti-trust but while the political leaders can focus attention, and push for passage of new laws, they can't change the historic interpretation of existing laws.

Breaking with historical precedent, all of which has been carefully considered by multiple courts and gone through multiple levels of appeal and reconfirmation, is for sure going to lead to an appeal and it is a very rare case where a century of precedent is found flawed.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I vehemently disagree with it... If your studies can yield a reference that gives weight to your opinions, then I'd be interested to read it, but so far you've only given a long list of assertions that don't align with the reality of the situation in any way you've made apparent.

 

[BaldiMac]

Right, and that's fair, as long as there is a way to offer products and services on those platforms without being forced to use Apple's services.

There is. Through the web.

 

[1129846]

There is. Through the web.

A horribly subpart experience and design on the phone hugely limited. The argument given for the Apple Tax is insane. Apple is demanding 15-30% cut over being a payment processor. Nothing more nothing less. A PAYMENT PROCESSOR.

Spotify is required to using the Apple App store so you can not use the argument it is to pay for the review process. That is APPLE's choice to require everyone to go threw the App store so saying that is should be paid for by others to be a PAYMENT PROCESSOR. Apple provides very little support for spotify in this case. Next to none yet they demand a huge cut to be a payment processor.

 

[I7guy]

Then we go with you better thank your lucky stars that the government came down hard on MS back in the day other wise Apple would be a foot note in history.

There is no getting around the fact that Apple has been for years abusing it position and squeezing out others from getting a foot hold. The build a better mouse trap argument people like to make is honestly not good. A better mouse trap is not going to win. It has to be better enough that the cost to switch can be paid and the cost of switching is cost very high.

Apple is using its verticle integrations to squeeze out others. Spotify makes a good case as they do not have to pay the app tax. or we can go with Tile struggled agaisnt air tags as Airtags does not have to play by the same rules to get updated location data and build the network. Lets not forget to add in the Apple tax on in app service purchases as well on that.
It all ads up.

This is like going back in time and making the same argument MS was doing the same things squeezing out competitions to not give them any air to breath. People look at the browser side but that was only one small part of MS abuse they got in trouble on. They got intruble for the thing they did to hurt competing spread sheet programs and word processing software.

Right now the OS market is a douloply and that is only a hairs breath better than a a monopoly. Android is only one of the other choices and in these days of age that is not good.

Of the FAANG level compnay Microsoft is the only one left not betting look at for federal anti trust and that should be shocking. Apple joining hte list.

Google is being looked at right now for their abuse in ads market. This is to build a healthier free market that one mega power can not abuse.

In history we had the Standard oil break up and that was a good thing. They had control of multiple markets outside of oil and used that to keep anyone from breaking in. The Bell break up was a good thing. Sadly they did not step in in time to prevent it all from reforming but it needed to happen. With out that break up the internet would be a shadow of what it is today. Cell phones would be a shadow of what it is today.

Apple is long over due to be looked it.

The bell breakup was a bad, not very well thought out thing.

 

[d686546s]

There is. Through the web.

If that really is supposed to be the only way, then breaking up Apple might become a necessity at some point.

In any case this particular argument Apple seems to have lost in the EU and potentially elsewhere, so it's increasingly becoming moot.