Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Apple

US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple (nytimes.com) 119

Posted by BeauHD from the cutting-into-the-pie dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company's strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter. The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company's devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke anonymously because the investigation was active. Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple's payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said.

The Justice Department is closing in on what would be the most consequential federal antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple, which is the most valuable tech company in the world. If the lawsuit is filed, American regulators will have sued four of the biggest tech companies for monopolistic business practices in less than five years. The Justice Department is currently facing off against Google in two antitrust cases, focused on its search and ad tech businesses, while the Federal Trade Commission has sued Amazon and Meta for stifling competition. The Apple suit would likely be even more expansive than previous challenges to the company, attacking its powerful business model that draws together the iPhone with devices like the Apple Watch and services like Apple Pay to attract and keep consumers loyal to its products. Rivals have said that they have been denied access to key Apple features, like the Siri virtual assistant, prompting them to argue the practices are anticompetitive.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple More

US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple

Comments Filter:
  • Apple is the underdog! The plucky 3 Trillion dollar underdog!

    • It is indeed interesting how building your own product ecosystem is deemed more anticompetitive than literally buying up all the competition and restricting access to things that used to have more wide access.

      For example, why should Apple be forced to make their watch connect to other companies' computers?

      Siri is hosted on Apple's computers and runs on their dime, why shouldn't it be restricted?

      About the only competition argument that makes sense is the one about payment processors. I can definitely see Ap

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        It is all about how deep the pockets of other companies that COULD be making more money are. Microsoft didn't really piss off anyone who mattered, but there are a bunch of big companies who can get the ear of regulators and upset at Apple standing between them and the money they deserve.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        i'm an apple hater and agree with this. the app-store can be argued about, the rest ... not really. but apple is big and has a lot of money and a lot to lose, so they are a good target. i guess that's why they need yet 6 months to ... produce evidence?

      • Re: Buh buh buh Microsoft isn't getting sued!! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Friday January 05, 2024 @06:27PM (#64135299) Homepage

        So let's take those questions at face value.

        Why *should* Apple's smartwatch work with Android?

        To answer that, consider why all other smartwatches support both Android and iPhones. It's because in order to compete, they must support whatever hardware you are likely to have. So why doesn't Apple? Because their goal is *not* to compete, but to lock you in to their ecosystem. And that is the definition of anticompetitive, which is what antitrust law is all about. If your a little guy, you can be as anticompetitive as you want, good luck to you. But when you're Goliath, the Feds are going to be watching.

        You can apply the same pattern to messaging services and payment services as well. Other vendors support whatever hardware you are using because they want to compete. Apple does not, because they aren't interested in competition, they are interested in lock-in.

        • But Google or Samsung could make an ecosystem that is competitive with Apple's offerings. But they don't.

          • But Google or Samsung could make an ecosystem that is competitive with Apple's offerings. But they don't.

            No, Google or Samsung could not. Apple will not provide the necessary APIs or hooks.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

              But Google or Samsung could make an ecosystem that is competitive with Apple's offerings. But they don't.

              No, Google or Samsung could not. Apple will not provide the necessary APIs or hooks.

              No, OP wanted to know why Google's smartwatch offerings suck even with Android. Or Samsung, who can easily do same.

              Why can't there be a Pixel Watch that works great with Android? It doesn't need to work with iPhone at all, no one cares. Likewise, why can't Samsung release a Galaxy Watch that works with their phones? They'

            • Apple would have no part in them building their own ecosystem. They would be completely irrelevant to the scenario described other than being a competing ecosystem.

        • You are confused about the competition.

          The competition is the ecosystem.

          Plenty of people don't want a mishmash of shit from different vendors cobbled together. They just want shit that works.

          • The competition is the ecosystem.

            No, that's not the case.

            In my home, I have a Pioneer amplifier, paired with an Amazon Fire TV, with a Roku, PlayStation, and Wii connected to it, and Sony speakers. In your "ecosystem" world, I'd be forced to use Pioneer for everything, because it's a "Pioneer ecosystem." That's rubbish.

            • Yes. You are not one of the people who want a sole-source ecosystem. Congratulations!

              • And with my entertainment center, I have the freedom to do that. If you're in the Apple ecosystem, you don't have that freedom.

                For those of you who WANT sole-source, that's fine, nobody will take that from you. But for those who don't, antitrust law is there to help ensure that they aren't trapped.

                • If I wanted that freedom, I would just go buy products that offer that freedom. I wouldn't demand someone modify their product strategy to suit my needs.

                  • That's fine, if you're starting from scratch, and if there are lots of companies in the market. But when you already have all kinds of devices in the Apple ecosystem, you are not quite so free to make the switch, because it gets really expensive to purchase new EVERYTHING. That is the definition of lock-in, and that's what the Feds are interested in curbing.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by r0nc0 ( 566295 )
                  I think you are really confused about how antitrust works and what actually constitutes a monopoly.
                • So no HiFi maker should be allowed to offer one remote control for all of their devices, because that lock you in forever. Do you notice just how rabid you sound?

                  • You are not in any way representing correctly what I said.

                    In your analogy, your remote control for all your Pioneer devices will only control your Pioneer devices. Nothing wrong there. Your "universal" Pioneer remote control in no way prevents you from connecting your Sony TV or your Sony cables or your Sony speakers to your Pioneer system. Each device comes with its remote control.

                  • Oh, and guess what! You can buy a third-party universal remote control that will control all your Pioneer devices too. Does that work with Apple? No way, Apple doesn't permit it.

            • So what? Competitors offering cross compatibility as their strategy is how they compete for people that want that. You not wanting all your devices from the same vendor with seamless integration is your choice meanwhile others choose Apple for that experience.

              • That's great, but no manufactuer should be required to ensure their shit works with their competitor's shit.

                • That's only true if you don't control a significant portion of a market. Once you become a controlling force in a market, antitrust law starts to apply, and you are indeed legally and ethically required to ensure that your stuff allows competitors to interface with your systems.

                  • As of 2023, Android has a 70.29% global market share.

                    • The context of this article is the US, where Apple has a 57% market share. https://explodingtopics.com/bl... [explodingtopics.com]

                    • So what is Apple "controlling" in the US exactly? Your feeble mind? Nope, that's completely out of control.

                    • Apple controls enough of the smartphone app market that they can dictate terms, and app developers have no choice but to accept those terms, even though the terms are abusive.

                      Google is no better.

                      The two companies effectively hold a duopoly in the app market, and neither is inclined to compete with the other, allowing both to keep their abusive terms in place.

                    • Now all you have to prove abuse. So far you failed miserably.

                    • Luckily for both of us, I don't have to prove anything. The Feds will do that, in court.

                      There is a principle that applies here. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This principle is as true for companies as for tyrants. When one company (or two companies) possess so much market power, there will be plenty of corruption to be found. IMO a 30% (or 15%) commission is just one example.

              • Seamless integration isn't the problem. Preventing others from integrating, is.

                • So how exactly are they doing this?

                  • Exhibit A is Apple (and Google) not allowing third-party app stores (in the name of "user protection"). I think that's the subject of the article that started this whole conversation.

                    Buh buh buh Microsoft...*allows* third-party app stores on Windows.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          Because their goal is *not* to compete, but to lock you in to their ecosystem

          oh, they do compete. it's just that their product is the whole ecosystem. competition is perfectly able to build their own.

          but competition doesn't, and it's not because apple doesn't allow it, but because it's a huge and risky endeavor. how they tie everything together is actually one of their selling points, but that comes at a price: i (and a lot of people) wouldn't touch their product with a 3 meter pole precisely for that reason, but another lot of people love it. i would find it laughable and simply un

          • Yes, Apple has worked very hard to lock people into its "ecosystem." The fact is, Google and Samsung and others have also built parallel ecosystems. The difference is, if I've bought a FitBit, and I decide to switch from Apple to Android, I can do that. I shouldn't have to buy new everything, just because I decide to switch from Apple to Android. There is no reason to lock people into an "ecosystem" except to prevent competition. In the US and the EU, that's not legal, nor (in my opinion) should it be legal

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by znrt ( 2424692 )

              There is no reason to lock people into an "ecosystem" except to prevent competition

              i think that not having to implement and maintain yet another protocol/interface is a good enough reason, and i don't think you can compel them unless there exists a suitable standard and the product in question is really socially relevant or a necessity. i wouldn't say a fitbit qualifies.

              this is not black and white at all, so it depends much on the narrative. will see. but even it that were their intention (which is possibly the case) i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed, furthermore they have plenty

              • unless there exists a suitable standard

                Yes, there kind of does exist a double standard. For most businesses, anticompetitive behavior isn't illegal or unethical. It's only when you control a significant portion of a market, that anticompetitive behavior becomes a problem. For the small guys, such behavior just tends to make them less relevant or desirable. For the big guys, it becomes crushing. That's why antitrust laws exist, despite it being something of a double standard.

                and the product in question is really socially relevant or a necessity

                And who is the judge of that, and how can that be used as a standard? On

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by znrt ( 2424692 )

                  well, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. i'll wait for the evidence (with popcorn!), and i'm not at all an apple expert but from what i have read the most striking example of anticompetitive behavior (besides de app store) would be imessage and its green balls, and i see how apple could weasel out of that one.

                  then again the app-store seems not only anticompetitive because it is the *only* way to get apps to run on iphone, but the fact that apps can't bill anything outside of the store and are forced to

            • Locked them in? I had no problem ditching my Apple devices when I made that choice.

              • Maybe you have the money to do that, and maybe it wasn't a problem for you to spend the money necessary to buy all new devices. Not everyone has that kind of money, or even if they do, not everyone wishes to buy a new smartwatch just because they decided to switch to Android.

                For you, a wholesale switch was practical. For others, not so much.

            • That would be like requiring people to buy replacement software if they switched platforms from windows to macOS or Linux or to switch fuel types if they moved from an ICE vehicle to a diesel one. Why would anyone put up with abuse like that? Seems like governments should prevent such tragic things from happening.

              • No, it's not like that at all.

                What it's actually like, is being unable to switch from Windows to Mac OS unless you ALSO switch your phone and your smartwatch and so on.
                Or like being able to refuel only at Ford gas stations if you own a Ford truck.

                Let's be clear about what antitrust law is about. Of course, Ford will make their trucks out of Ford parts. But you can by off-brand parts from anywhere that will fit and work just fine. And if you switch to Chevy, you don't have to buy a new phone to go with that.

        • So let's take those questions at face value.

          Let's not. The people in charge are just fine with monopolies. This is merely how the people in charge extort more money. There is nothing going on here to reduce the power of Apple. This is purely a money grab.

          • Do you have a source? Or are you just spouting conspiracy theories?

            Yes, money does buy power, to a degree. But as soon as you start talking about shadowy figures that are *really* in control through some vast conspiracy, you've lost me. Conspiracies cannot be both vast and hidden, those are mutually exclusive.

        • So the Apple Watch needs to work with Android, because who would want to even use an Apple Watch if they could. Certainly not because it's better, why else would somebody lock themselves in to using one. Make up your mind. Oh you already did.

          • You are precisely restating my point.

            No one would want an Apple watch, if they aren't already locked into the Apple ecosystem. That's because the Apple watch doesn't compete with with other smartwatches on its merits as a smartwatch. Apple isn't interested in competing with other smartwatches, they are interested in ecosystem lock-in.

            The underlying point is that Apple's smartwatch isn't attempting to really compete in the marketplace of smartwatches. If they were, they would support whatever ecosystem you h

      • For example, why should Apple be forced to make their watch connect to other companies' computers?

        Legally speaking, this is called tying [wikipedia.org], and it can be illegal.

        Practically speaking, closed ecosystems suck and Apple went out of their way to prevent interoperability of their phones/watches.

      • building your own product ecosystem is deemed more anticompetitive

        It's not that interesting, you're hinting at the difference between a vertical monopoly and a horizontal one. Both things are bad for the market, and so both are prosecuted (in principle).

    • Microsoft does not lock you into there app store or payment system

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DMJC ( 682799 )
      Microsoft should still get broken up. They're trying to muscle into VoIP and other industries purely through embrace/extend/extinguish tactics. Horrible company.

    • Yes, how tragic, an underdog at $3T. Let's not forget to defend other plucky underdogs like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. Whey does everybody keep picking on them? They should mess with companies their own size!

    • I'm sure as soon as Apple agrees to weaken the end-2-end encryption in some hidden way then the legal problem will go away.

    • It is the power they have. MS is such a stronghold which cannot be easily replaced, business rely on it to heavily. From the OS to Office, Azure, AD etc. As a business or consumer you can easily replace apple, the impact will be minimal. Replacing MS in your organisation, you will be in a lot of trouble and costs, if possible at all. That Apple makes a lot of money and has a big mobile market share is the only thing that keeps them in the game. Screw them, and you screw all consumers.
  • They're not adding anything new, just coasting on control.

    Break 'em.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What monopoly? Customers who don't like iPhones can buy an Android device. How could "breaking" Apple possibly benefit consumers?

      • Well, if I just quote from the summary, "The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company's devices, as well as for rivals to compete"

        Part of the problem is that it's not as easy as you suggest.
    • The app store tax / restrictions are particularly anticompetitive. No idea how much Apple bribed someone in the last court case to evade fair market controls, but it needs to be rectified.
      • I sincerely hope you start a business some day, and the local sheriff marches in one day and declares that you must cut your prices in half.
        • That's not how sarcasm works, bro. Unless you literally "sincerely hope" Apple's critics start a business that becomes a trillion-dollar empire, so wealthy and powerful that elected governments have to politely request it to respect basic free market principles.

  • Firefox. Hear me out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Friday January 05, 2024 @07:01PM (#64135337)

    /. and other tech "communities" have shit on FireFox for the last many years. But I think FF took a big hit by not being allowed to develop Geko for the iPhone. They instead spent a lot of money and time on their own mobile OS. FF has always been technically better than Desktop Sarafi, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't have been superior to Mobile Safari from the start. At the least, it would've brought add-ons to mobile; probably would've pushed the envelope in terms of web-standards support and innovation. Instead, Apple has locked us all into a world where the web sucks on mobile, and universally more limited because of them. A few issues that would've gone away with natural competition:

    - Save MP3s from the web; cannot be done on mobile. Instead, you need to use the bullshit Apple iTunes/Music interface on your desktop, etc. This, as much as anything, cleared the path for music "streaming" subscriptions (Spotify, etc.) (to say nothing of Movie streaming subscriptions, Netflix, etc.) This enforced limitation (making it difficult to manage your data -- defective by design) was a key motive for Apple: enforce DRM and other, built-in, roadblocks

    - Add-ons: Of course, ad blockers. Ones that work the way we want them to. But also: downloaders, translators, etc. And also [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE ADD-ON HERE] and even [INSERT YOUR MOBILE ADD-ON IDEAS HERE].

    - Chrome: Apple would rather "compete" against Google than against Free Software. Google can be "reasoned" with (i.e., sued, or made deals with, or divide monopoly spaces, etc.) Unlike Google, Freely made software doesn't have a bottom-line that can be appealed to or leveraged; we only have "the things we want" and those itches don't go away. In this way, by blocking FF, Apple colluded with Chrome to set up the market conditions we currently have, where competition happens mostly in agreed-on margins.

    - Dev: The Apple Tooling for mobile web-dev is frighteningly bad. You need to have virtual machines or to connect your iPhone to your computer via very lame connections (at first this was a "standard" but it was too unstable for FF to stay in the game, so they left). This was part of Apple/Google/FaceBook's move to pry the web out of the hands of "normal" people and to try to make it a plaything of bullshit proprietary IDEs, or of corporate team-workflows with their bullshit tooling, etc. A lot of the massive number of dev "jobs" that were created (just like the DRM-supported "content"-creators who got paid) were born of this. Apple wants to give money to "creatives" but only under a strictly controlled model. Thus, the entire economy was warped, and no one can even imagine an open-web anymore.

    The openness of the web took a big hit. We're mired in insidious monopolistic bullshit. A lot of people are making money, yes. But a lot of creative culture, entrepreneurship, and freedom in general was stifled on a massive scale.

    • The problem with Firefox is that all they need to do is focus on making a really good browser. Instead, they haven't focused on anything. With the amount of money they've spent, they could have rewritten the entire browser in Rust. (I'm not a huge Rust fan, but that would have been really cool).

      Instead, the foundation has been taken-over by MBAs who want to focus on AI. :/

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Have you tried Firefox on Android? It's a mixed bag at best. Performance is much worse than Chrome, and add-on compatibility is hit and miss.

      Maybe you are right, if they hadn't wasted their time on an OS that nobody wanted, it would be better.

      • Firefox for Android sucks battery like crazy. Yet I've gone myself using it more and more the last couple months. Go figure.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Me too, but I still use Chrome as well. If Firefox can sort out display issues I might make the switch on mobile and desktop.

  • Fuckers ruin everything (Score:3)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Friday January 05, 2024 @08:56PM (#64135499)

    As an actually Apple customer, I don't want any of the shit coming down the pike from the govt.

    If non Apple customers want what Apple provides, they should just become Apple customers.

    You don't hear me bitching about lack of customization all day long. If I wanted that shit, I would just become an Android customer.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Close