Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My word this case is a wind up right??
Some of the arguments you could sort of agree with
Some of the arguments you could sort of agree with
- Powerful, expensive hardware is unnecessary if consumers can play games through cloud streaming apps.
I see some folks copied their comments from last week's story and pasted them in this thread. I guess they didn't get enough likes the first time around.
Having a pinned item like this on MR actually makes sense. As they mention, this case will likely be going on for years, and it's great to have a place that will have updates.
In the interest of transparency, I hope that when MR goes back and adds new information to the post when warranted, they also tell us what's been changed rather than making invisible changes.
Having a pinned item like this on MR actually makes sense. As they mention, this case will likely be going on for years, and it's great to have a place that will have updates.
In the interest of transparency, I hope that when MR goes back and adds new information to the post when warranted, they also tell us what's been changed rather than making invisible changes.
Government overreach is already too much. They can’t even behave and control
Themselves let alone trying to control others, like Apple. We all know this is really about them being upset that Apple doesn’t bend over to give them full access to everything like Google, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
Themselves let alone trying to control others, like Apple. We all know this is really about them being upset that Apple doesn’t bend over to give them full access to everything like Google, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.
I think DoJ felt compelled to sue, because they are suing all the other big tech companies. Can't be seen to be "soft" on Apple now, right?
This is so much revisionist nonsense. The guy tasked with creating the first IBM PC was given 9 months to come up with something, or else IBM was going to scrap the project. There was no way they could have created everything, which is why IBM went externally for their CPU, and other components, and in fact, took the design of the hardware from the Intel 8088 CPU manual for the PC - which was why when IBM sued Compaq for copyright infringement, they lost - they did not own the hardware copyright, and could only settle on the copyright for the BIOS. This was also why IBM tried to create the MCA slots, but that died a quick death, and PCI took over.
If IBM could have owned everything, they absolutely would have.
You are confusing the technological progress that has occurred over time with control of the industry. They are separate aspects of an industry, but anti-trust laws generally hold that overbearing industry control will stile innovation.
You fail to understand that if IBM controlled the software industry to the same degree that Apple now controls it, technological progress would have occurred ONLY at IBMs pleasure. Without proper competition further progress ONLY occurs at Apple's pleasure.
Apple now exerts stifling control over the software industry which stifles innovation:
Example 1: I can't sell paid version upgrades for any of my paid apps because of the single reason that Apple does not allow it. Admittedly, paid upgrades were never an App Store feature, but that might be a feature a competing App Store could offer or I could implement via my own distribution methods (Both of which exist for Mac).
Example 2: Apple forces me to give away 5 copies of my paid iOS apps for one purchase price via the family share program. I developed some of my apps before family share existed but was forced by Apple into it when they started family share. Those apps were developed with a revenue model that relied on a sale price for ONE device, NOT five. By forcing Family Share on those apps Apple exerted intrusive interference into my business. Also, Apple ALLOWS developers to opt out of family share for subscription based apps, but NOT paid apps. This demonstrates Apple does not like paid apps and would rather they don't exist. They could just kick paid apps off the store but that would look bad, so instead they just force monetization methods that make paid apps unprofitable. If I didn't agree to Family Share my only choice was to exit the iOS developer and App Store, that's basically just a cloaked way to kick apps of the store Apple doesn't want there. The ability to "Just leave" Apple's App Store after they force new and damaging monetization policy on existing apps is not "competition", it is direct harm.
Trouble is that might seem mundane, but, we do not know what evidence the governments multi year investigation has found causing such a mundane thing. The meat behind it may be quite extraordinary.
They must have some very valid evidence to sue like this otherwise it would be a waste of everyone's time.
One thing for sure is we will get to learn some very juicy details about Apple and maybe its upcoming products. Looking at the Microsoft Activision Blizzard merger case, a lot of details came out from that one and it was just an investigation into their merger!
I do think though some might be genuinely shocked at what they may learn about Meta from its investigation if it's a deep one.
Last edited:
And let’s not forget the huge DROP in prices for software due to the app store. Before that, the simplest bit of software would cost $49. That was (partly) due to low sales volumes and the huge markup for packaging, distribution, marketing etc. All those barriers were annihilated by the app store infrastructure.
I don't understand how so many people come up with these types of nonsense. Apple Computers, Inc. licensed it from Apple the Beatles apparel company. They had an agreement - one of the main points was Apple Computers, Inc. would never be in the apparel business. Now, when they went from Apple Computers, Inc. to Apple, Inc, I don't know what happened then, but I'd assume they had an updated agreement with the apparel company.
Why? You think DOJ and AGs of 16 states/Districts will bring an antitrust case to lose?
So you're saying it's illegal for Apple to invest money to develop apps to help sell the products they make ? iMessage has a minority market share compared to WhatsApp and iPhone users are free to install WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, FB Messenger, or whatever messenger app floats their boat. If you're going to follow the ridiculous DOJ logic then what's your opinion on the every airline, hotel, and retail business offering a loyalty program with the sole purpose for locking in customers ? Last I checked my JetBlue points are not transferrable to United.
Not sure how DoJ is supposed to be independent now becomes Biden told DoJ to go sue Apple. Your case is as weak as DoJ's case against Apple
Fantastic news. Apple and Google and Facebook and the other big tech corporations have had this coming for some time. This should result in an outcome that promotes competition, and benefits consumers.
I wouldn't be shocked if things didn't go well for the DOJ and 16 states. While it might seem like the right thing to do for some its really a question of the DOJ and those states actually doing something right for the industry instead of doing it for politicians that benefit with some industries that back them.
I think they may not intend to go ahead with, or win all areas. It’s quite often they will use extra counts that can be used as bargaining chips.
And my point was that not all cases are designed to go 'full term'.
Last edited:
The federal government need money.
On March 21, the United States Justice Department sued Apple for antitrust violations, concluding a multi-year investigation into Apple's business practices. The U.S. government is also pursuing antitrust cases against Google, Amazon, and Meta, as part of an expansive look into the practices of major tech companies.
Apple plans to "vigorously defend" against the DoJ's lawsuit, which seeks to fundamentally change the way that Apple operates. This will be a legal battle that spans multiple years, and we'll keep this guide updated with the latest news as the case progresses.
DoJ's Claims
The lawsuit that the DoJ filed against Apple is broad ranging, and rather than focusing on one or two issues, it aims to establish a long-running history of anti-competitive behavior. The DoJ tries to establish a pattern of business decisions that have suppressed competition, with the DoJ arguing that Apple has time and time again opted to "make its products worse for consumers to prevent competition from emerging."
It is the opinion of the DoJ that Apple has gotten consumers "hooked" on its platform through these choices, making it unreasonably difficult for customers to switch to another smartphone brand. There is no allowance made for customer preference and the idea that people simply like their iPhones - the DoJ positions Apple as a monopolist that has manipulated people into sticking with its ecosystem by blocking competing apps, services, and products.
Suppressing Technologies
While the full lawsuit details a long list of ways Apple has allegedly harmed consumers, the DoJ cites five specific examples of Apple blocking technologies that it claims would decrease barriers to switching and give consumers a "higher-quality user experience on any smartphone."
The DoJ is of the opinion that if Apple did not historically limit cloud gaming, digital wallets, and non-Apple Watch smartwatches, that people would freely choose to purchase less expensive alternative smartphones over the iPhone. The DoJ believes that Apple is not facing pressure from "innovative, cross-platform technologies" because Apple "makes other products worse" rather than making its own products better.
- Super apps - The DoJ defines super apps as those that provide a user with "broad functionality" in a single app and have the benefit of providing a consistent user experience across devices. An example of a super app is WeChat, which is widely used in China for communicating, making payments, and more. The DoJ says that Apple has "denied users access to super apps" in the U.S., but it is worth noting that there is a cultural aspect to these apps, and they just haven't caught on in the U.S. the way they have in China. Mini apps are often frequently referenced too, as Apple did have restrictions on apps offering mini games and other multi-app features (these restrictions were eliminated in iOS 17.4).
- Cloud streaming - The DoJ suggests that Apple is suppressing cloud streaming games by preventing them from being available on the App Store. Cloud streaming apps have been usable on Safari, and as of iOS 17.4, Apple changed its rules to allow streaming game apps like Xbox Cloud Gaming to offer streaming games through a single App Store app. This argument is no longer entirely relevant, but the DoJ believes that by not allowing cloud gaming apps, Apple prevented consumers from buying cheaper phones. The idea here is that customers had to opt in to expensive iPhones to play "high-compute" games because they weren't available to play using cloud services.
- Messaging apps - The DoJ thinks that third-party apps should be able to send and receive SMS messages, rather than these messages being routed to the Messages app. This would let users switch phones without changing the way they communicate. The filing takes issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, Apple's efforts to block the Beeper Mini app, green bubbles, and the adoption of RCS.
- Smartwatches - Apple suppresses key functions of third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from smartwatches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ says that Apple locks customers in to the iPhone with the Apple Watch, because the Apple Watch can't be used on other smartphones. A user who wants to switch from the iPhone must also purchase an Android-compatible smartwatch.
- Digital Wallets - Apple does not let banking apps access NFC and provide digital payments services, and customers are not able to choose their "trusted banking apps" as their digital wallet. Apple also prevents developers from creating cross-platform wallets that would make it easier to switch from iPhone to Android, and alternative wallets could also be used for in-app purchases. The DoJ claims that the payments that banks make to Apple for using Apple Pay would otherwise be used for features and benefits for smartphone users.
Privacy and Security
The DoJ suggests that Apple justifies its anticompetitive conduct with privacy and security concerns.
- Apple spends billions on marketing to promote "the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers' privacy and security interests."
- Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when it is in Apple's financial interest. The examples used here include the lack of end-to-end encryption between Android and iPhone messages and the making Google the default browser engine when "more private options" are available.
- The safe, secure experience on Mac is evidence that Apple's control over app distribution and creation is "substantially more restrictive than necessary to protect user privacy and security."
- Apple makes the iPhone less secure if that helps it maintain monopoly power. The DoJ cites unencrypted text messages sent from iPhones to Android phones as an example. "If Apple wanted to," it could let iPhone users send encrypted messages to Android users.
The App Store
The DoJ mentions Apple's App Store policies and fees, but it is not the main focus of the lawsuit. While the DoJ was preparing its case, the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit took place, and Apple was found not to have a mobile gaming monopoly. That undoubtedly influenced the DoJ filing, but there is wording here... Click here to read rest of article
Article Link: Apple vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know
Good examples. Your annoyance with Apple in your examples is valid. However, why don’t you leave the Apple app store and develop for Android? There must be something in it for you as a developer to stick around.
I would agree there is a monopoly within the Apple ecosystem, but it is still a free market. However, the market has developed into a two party market. Whether this is good or bad is a good question. Maybe it is an inevitable development? I expect a similar development in AI systems. There will be two or three big ones with a huge stronghold on the market. Now, there’s something to worry about.
Huh?! Plenty of apps have upgraded by changing the version number. I have Star Walk and Star Walk 2. etc.
Also, afaik, you don't have to enable family share as a developer. They advocate that you do so, but you don't have to. Has that changed?
Just give them the backdoor that FBI wanted 10 years ago and this will all go away ;-)
en.wikipedia.org
Apple–FBI encryption dispute - Wikipedia
The result of the suit can be anything. There's no argument there. To think that DOJ will combine with 16 states/districts just to sue Apple because they think it's just a formality is not so believable.