Apple Very Likely to Face DOJ Antitrust Suit (theinformation.com) 36
Apple so far has avoided the worst outcome in its U.S. legal battle with Epic Games, but its antitrust woes remain. The Information: In the last several months the U.S. Department of Justice has accelerated its two-year-old antitrust probe of the iPhone maker, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation, increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit. Since summer, there has been a flurry of activity on the investigation as DOJ lawyers have asked Apple and its customers and competitors questions about how the company maintains its strict control over the iPhone, the people said. That includes a new round of subpoenas sent to Apple's business partners over the summer, according to people familiar with the matter.
The investigation is very likely to lead to a lawsuit, though the specifics are still in flux, one of the people said. The DOJ has also assigned more staff to the probe, that person said. In late July two insurance companies abandoned their merger following a DOJ lawsuit, and some of the lawyers on that case moved to the Apple probe, the person said. DOJ lawyers are uncovering what they believe are serious issues and the investigation remains ongoing, the person said.
The investigation is very likely to lead to a lawsuit, though the specifics are still in flux, one of the people said. The DOJ has also assigned more staff to the probe, that person said. In late July two insurance companies abandoned their merger following a DOJ lawsuit, and some of the lawyers on that case moved to the Apple probe, the person said. DOJ lawyers are uncovering what they believe are serious issues and the investigation remains ongoing, the person said.
Not going to work. (Score:1)
Too many embedded.
Nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
It will "work" fine. Just get the correct definition of "work." This is another shakedown; Apple is stupid wealthy and the politicos want to dip their beaks.
Re:Not going to work. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm on the record repeatedly defending many of Apple's practices (e.g. I'm fine with them not supporting competing app stores), but there's plenty they do do that deserves regulatory scrutiny. If nothing else, their requirement that apps use their payments system for in-app purchases smacks of illegal bundling (requiring it for the initial purchase is fine, but you don't get to dictate the content of others' products in a way that stifles competition and favors your own service). Likewise, while I actually like Apple's rules in this area, regulators are rightly attacking Apple for prohibiting developers from contacting end users using email addresses or other contact info that the users are voluntarily providing.
The fact that I enjoy using Apple's products doesn't magically mean that they are capable of no wrong. They absolutely are, and it's becoming evident from the numerous rulings, agreements, and regulators speaking out that there are a few key areas that are of especial concern. The Internet peanut gallery will tell you there are 100x more areas deserving of scrutiny, but you really only need a handful of changes in these areas to see some profound changes in the landscape.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fine with them not supporting competing app stores
Thing is, the automotive industry already tried this back in the day. They didn't have fancy trusted computing technology to brick your car if you installed an aftermarket part, but they did invalidate your warranty. The courts found this to be an anti-competitive practice.
Ironically, Apple likely wouldn't be having battles over their commission rate and acceptable app policies if third party stores were allowed. It would be easy to make the argument that if you don't agree with Apple's app store policie
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with them not supporting competing app stores
Thing is, the automotive industry already tried this back in the day. They didn't have fancy trusted computing technology to brick your car if you installed an aftermarket part, but they did invalidate your warranty. The courts found this to be an anti-competitive practice.
The automotive industry crossed a line that Apple hasn't (yet) crossed. There's an important distinction between passively "not supporting", which is what I was talking about with Apple, and actively "disallowing", which is what you're talking about with the carmakers. To put it in more concrete terms, Apple has the right to not provide hooks that would make Cydia's (or whoever's) job easy, but Cydia has the competing right to provide an app store on the iPhone...provided they can figure out how to do so. A
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with them not supporting competing app stores
you don't get to dictate the content of others' products in a way that stifles competition and favors your own service
What if the content is an alternative means of downloading apps?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the content is an alternative means of downloading apps?
It depends what you really mean by that.
On the one hand, I don't think that Apple should be able to say "you can't make an app that sells apps", which would seemingly permit competing app stores. On the other hand, I think that Apple should be able to say "due to technical and security concerns, you can't make an app that runs arbitrary code", or else can refuse to provide the hooks necessary to download apps such that they can live as first-class citizens on the iOS springboard.
The end result may be simila
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent news for shareholders (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of all the innovation and profits freed when other corporations were trust busted!
So, will this be followed by Facebook, Google, and Microsoft?
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook
This is kind of a stretch. Yeah, they've gobbled up a few companies, but you'd have to go after Altria and Disney too, if that's the yardstick you're using.
Google
Maybe. They're one of the companies that are really difficult to avoid it you're really hell-bent on not letting them build a data profile on you. You basically have to not use the internet to completely avoid Google.
Microsoft
Nah. Wintel ain't what it used to be.
Feature (Score:1)
Huh. I thought their walled garden was a good thing, according to all the fanbois and gurls...
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. I thought their walled garden was a good thing, according to all the fanbois and gurls...
Apple has done a lot to get their phones into people's hands, especially offering deals to carriers so they can offer deals to subscribers. Apple wants the devices in hands and being used so as to induce app sales, and follow-on purchases, since they get a cut of all of them. However, this has also resulted in non-iFanboys owning iDevices because of deals "too good to pass up", and those people sometimes have some things to say about the way they're allowed to operate the device by their corporate masters a
Hang um high (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much.
Microsoft: Bundles a crappy web browser with their operating system and gets hit with an antitrust suit.
Apple: Literally prevents you from installing an alternate web browser (all 3rd party browsers are just different skins over WebKit, the same engine which powers Safari), and somehow that's totally cool.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much.
Microsoft: Bundles a crappy web browser with their operating system and gets hit with an antitrust suit.
Apple: Literally prevents you from installing an alternate web browser (all 3rd party browsers are just different skins over WebKit, the same engine which powers Safari), and somehow that's totally cool.
Not true on macOS.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true on macOS.
Great. Now remind me how do I install that on my iPhone again?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
Microsoft: Bundles a crappy web browser with their operating system and gets hit with an antitrust suit.
Apple: Literally prevents you from installing an alternate web browser (all 3rd party browsers are just different skins over WebKit, the same engine which powers Safari), and somehow that's totally cool.
Not true on macOS.
Great point, also not true on Pippin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be suggesting that you think a monopoly is required for anti-trust laws to apply, that is incorrect. But at least you do seem to be agreeing that Apple is engaging in even worse anti-comptitive behavior than Microsoft was.
In the US Apple controls > 50% of the smartphone market, more than all of the other vendors combined. Surely you don't disagree that this constitutes significant market power?
Re: (Score:2)
As software company that also makes hardware, Apple should have been in this position long long ago. The only reason they weren't is that all of the whistle blowers that are usually on top of this stuff are also loyal Apple users. Hypocrisy at its finest.
So, nobody should be allowed to offer a top to bottom solution?
Yeah, your version of "freedom" sucks.
DOJ Pushing for Backdoors (Score:1)
Apple is no monopoly (Score:1)
If you don't like iphone's you can buy an android. If you don't like the way Apple runs things, you can go elsewhere.
Every time someone forks out dollars for an iphone they are voting for Apple. By way of comparison how often and how effective is your vote in a democracy?
Epic should just pass on Apple's charges to their customers who use iphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's imagine for a second we live in a world where there are two choices for food. One option is that "bowl of snot" they ate in the movie The Matrix, the other option is something that tastes significantly better, but it's slightly carcinogenic.
When someone comes along and suggests that perhaps it should be illegal to include carcinogenic ingredients in food, it's not exactly helpful to say "just eat the bowl of snot instead."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The idea is that a choice between Google (which some folks may find unpalatable) and Apple (whom very likely is engaging in anti-competitive practices), isn't much of a choice at all. Furthermore, even if you consider Google to be the only acceptable option, isn't that essentially granting them a monopoly? With Android's worldwide marketshare hovering around 72.44%, that's not as far fetched as you might imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like iphone's you can buy an android.
iPhone's what? And where do I get an android? That sounds cool! I already have an Android Phone but it can't blow me
I think that Apple has a way out of this hell... (Score:3)
Because honestly, I don't think it's ever going to stop until Apple loosens up a bit about what it allows on its devices.
To that extent, I think that Apple could enable side-loading in an unjailbroken iOS device if and only if a user expressly wants to do so. A person who has made such a decision could then install an iOS app from any source, much like an android phone.
BUT....
One, Apple can require that developers which issue apps which are available on the app store may not make their apps available via other avenues, or else their apps will be discontinued on the App Store. If you want to distribute your app outside of the app store, Apple should not have to owe you the right to any additional exposure you might otherwise receive by having a presence there.
Two, the default state of the iOS device can be to not allow side loaded apps. The user must expressly go into settings and turn this feature on, and there should be absolutely no api call that enables any application to do this automatically. Apple should not supply any method to turn the state back to default without resetting the device completely.
Three, enabling side loading temporarily voids any warranty on the usability of the product until the device has been fully reset to factory settings. Enabling side loading also disables icloud backups of your device's content. Users should be suitably warned that this is case via prompts and dialogs right up until they actually turn on allowing side loading.
There are iPhone users that would still do this, despite the risks, and there are iPhone users that would not do it because of those risks. I think that most developers would probably want to keep the exposure that the App store offer, and I think anything that they do lose out on would be well worth ending this otherwise interiminable hell they are currently in.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can require that developers which issue apps which are available on the app store may not make their apps available via other avenues, or else their apps will be discontinued on the App Store.
You mean enforcing tying? That's anticompetitive.
Two, the default state of the iOS device can be to not allow side loaded apps. The user must expressly go into settings and turn this feature on, and there should be absolutely no api call that enables any application to do this automatically.
Yes, that's how Android does it, and always has done it. Copying others is what Apple does, so sure.
Three, enabling side loading temporarily voids any warranty on the usability of the product until the device has been fully reset to factory settings.
Also illegal per Magnusson-Moss act.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean how it's anticompetitive when a brick and mortar store refuses to carry a competitor's product? Oh, wait...
Apple can't stop you from finding other means to distribute your app, but why would they be under any obligation to provide any exposure that app store presence would provide when you have decided to compete with them?
Re: (Score:2)
Not dissimilar to how Android devices work, except that there is no restriction on Google Play apps being in other app stores or side-loaded, and cloud backup continues to work normally.
If your phone has a fault the first thing they want you to do before any warranty claim is reset it, to prove that it's not a software issue. Side-loading is off by default.