Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Apple

Four More States Join US Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple (yahoo.com) 150

Four more U.S. states on Tuesday joined the Justice Department's lawsuit against Apple alleging the iPhone maker is monopolizing smartphone markets, the department said in a statement. From a report: The four states are Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, the Justice Department said. The original lawsuit was filed in March, and 15 states and the District of Columbia joined the lawsuit at the time. The lawsuit alleges that Apple uses its market power to get more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses and merchants. The civil lawsuit accuses Apple of an illegal monopoly on smartphones, maintained by imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access from, developers. The Justice Department has previously said Apple charges as much as $1,599 for an iPhone and makes a larger profit than any rival. Officials also said Apple imposes hidden charges on various business partners - from software developers to credit card companies and even rivals such as Alphabet's, Google, in ways that ultimately raise prices for consumers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Four More States Join US Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple

Comments Filter:
  • If they can't afford an iPhone.

    Just like people can buy a Chrysler if they can't afford a Mercedes Benz.

    • by unrtst ( 777550 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @03:09PM (#64541487)

      It's not about your ability to buy alternative phones. It's about abuse of market position in a variety of ways. It's akin to Ma Bell (pre-breakup) forcing customers to rent phone handsets from them in order to access their phone network. You want to sell an app for their phone - gotta pay the developer fees. You want access to iMessage - gotta have an iPhone.

      I'm not arguing for or against the lawsuit, but it's not about whether or not an ordinary person can buy a phone from someone else.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @03:21PM (#64541511) Homepage Journal

        It's not about your ability to buy alternative phones. It's about abuse of market position in a variety of ways. It's akin to Ma Bell (pre-breakup) forcing customers to rent phone handsets from them in order to access their phone network.

        It is exactly about alternatives.

        In your example above...there was NO alternative to Ma Bell...they were the ONLY game in town when it come to telephones and the telephone system.

        There wasn't Android or Samsung phone companies you could choose if you didn't like Ma Bell.

        But today...there are those alternatives...and all can be used on the same underlying phone network....

        I don't see the monopoly....

        • by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @03:37PM (#64541541)

          There wasn't Android or Samsung phone companies you could choose if you didn't like Ma Bell.
          But today...there are those alternatives...and all can be used on the same underlying phone network....
          I don't see the monopoly....

          Let's try a different explanation. Maybe it helps? There were two separate changes in the phone network.

          1) Bell was broken up into baby Bells - that addressed the monopoly on phone services.

          separately

          2) The baby Bells were all forced to allow any manufacturer's phone equipment that matched the standard of the network on their network.

          This is change 2 instead of change 1. Change 1 would be about there being a monopoly on handsets, but since there isn't one it isn't happening.

          • 2) The baby Bells were all forced to allow any manufacturer's phone equipment that matched the standard of the network on their network.

            There are a number of other phones today that can connect to the network....in addition to Apple, there are all the various Android phones.

            Apple doesn't own the network or keep people off it...they are just one of many phone makers that use the cell phone networks....

            Again, where is the monopoly?

            They only have about 30% of the market...that is now considered a monopoly?

            • You are talking about part 1 of my answer. Part 2 is the market for app stores on already distributed phones.

              • You are talking about part 1 of my answer. Part 2 is the market for app stores on already distributed phones.

                Who gives a fuck about app stores?

                Pretty much anything you want to do or buy on an iPhone you can on Android.....except generally better vetted and tested against malware.

                FFS, not everything that runs on Sony Playstation, bought through their store works on or is available on Xbox.....

                Different platforms have different venues to install software.

                People that don't like Apple's terms are FREE to d

          • The Bells were a government monopoly. The government created and exploited the system to basically fund all government and military telecom as well as a bunch of R&D into space and other projects without having it on the books as a tax or expense, just raise the cost on the customer and use an extremely efficient commercial operation to hide the waste.

          • by unrtst ( 777550 )

            Thank you! Seems a lot of people can't or won't read.

            Ma Bell had a monopoly on the network, but ALSO abused that position to ensure only their handsets were allowed, and charged per phone in the house. Apple participates in a duopoly of sorts and is accused of abusing that market position in similar ways.

            • Thank you! Seems a lot of people can't or won't read.

              Ma Bell had a monopoly on the network, but ALSO abused that position to ensure only their handsets were allowed, and charged per phone in the house. Apple participates in a duopoly of sorts and is accused of abusing that market position in similar ways.

              There was one phone network, while iOS and Android each have their own app stores, so this analogy just doesn't work. There is no "the smartphone App Store"

              • by unrtst ( 777550 )

                Thank you! Seems a lot of people can't or won't read.

                Ma Bell had a monopoly on the network, but ALSO abused that position to ensure only their handsets were allowed, and charged per phone in the house. Apple participates in a duopoly of sorts and is accused of abusing that market position in similar ways.

                There was one phone network, while iOS and Android each have their own app stores, so this analogy just doesn't work. There is no "the smartphone App Store"

                Please note, I did not reference the app store as being the sole issue. Read the lawsuit. That said...
                On iPhones, there IS a "the smartphone app store". There is only one store you can use, and all involved, developers, companies, distributors, and users, must abide by its terms.

                Say what you will about whether or not that is an abuse of market position. That's the sort of thing this case is about, so that is still being decided in a court of law. My point was simply that those crying about it not being a m

        • If someone is committing a crime you don't wait until they've committed all the possible crime they can before you start enforcing the law.

          Like I mentioned to the other guy the cops don't wait to arrest you for bank robbery until you've robbed every bank in the country. One Bank will do.
          • Your analogy assumes a crime has been committed. That has yet to be proven and based on what is being alleged, it doesn't fit. Apple has just under 60% of smartphone market share in the USA and Android has 40% split among many different manufacturers. That's hard to sell as a Monopoly and there a slew of other tech companies well above 60% share in their respective markets.
            • by fj3k ( 993224 )
              "You can't arrest me! You have to prove there was a crime first! I didn't rob the bank; I just made a withdrawal! That's not a crime! It's the bank employee's fault if they got scared and gave me other people's money!"
        • by oshkrozz ( 1051896 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @04:55PM (#64541777)
          The issue is the size of the market and how Apple abuses its position in that market.
          If you sell a screwdriver and 100 other companies sell a screwdriver but you have 99% of the market there is no issue with that.
          However, if you sell a screwdriver, and you have 40% of the market, however, your screwdriver will only work with authorized screws, and any screw vendor must pay you to make a screw for that screwdriver that is using your monopoly (ie customer base) to control a market that is not your market (screws).
          In the case of Apple, it is not that someone can go and buy a different phone, it is that if I buy an apple phone they abuse the market share so that I can only buy apps from them, even though they do not develop those apps. Or that I can only use their repair centers and parts, even though Apple is not a repair company.
          • You mean like Torx? Making a better screwdriver and patenting or licensing it isnâ(TM)t a crime, there are still slightly worse screwdrivers to solve the problem.

            • As I said it is the size of the market, so yes torx would have an issue if they had the market size, however, they did not and the patent has long since expired. Although the name torx is trade marked anyone can make a star screw today.
          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Walmart decides what products to put on its shelves, even though it doesn't make most of those products. It doesn't matter, because people don't have to shop at Walmart. This is that, except that Walmart may actually have local monopoly power because there are no other grocers in town and in the US it's often impractical to buy all your groceries online, while Apple doesn't have similar power, because you can buy phones online.

          • by mjwx ( 966435 )

            The issue is the size of the market and how Apple abuses its position in that market.

            This. It's not being a monopoly that's the problem... It's using your dominant market position to put your competitors at a disadvantage. Being a monopoly is legal, abusing your monopoly is not.

        • It is exactly about alternatives.

          No, it's about pressure to restrict alternatives.

          I don't see the monopoly....

          No one is being sued because they are a monopoly. In fact being a monopoly is not in any way illegal. The suit is about monopolising (the verb) and you don't need to be a monopoly to do so, nor does a consumer or partner need to be cut off from alternatives.

        • by unrtst ( 777550 )

          It's not about your ability to buy alternative phones. It's about abuse of market position in a variety of ways. It's akin to Ma Bell (pre-breakup) forcing customers to rent phone handsets from them in order to access their phone network.

          It is exactly about alternatives.

          WRONG! Go RTFA. I have.

          It's not about whether or not one can buy a phone from another company - that would never even make it to a lawyer, let alone court, cause it's so obvious people can at least buy an Android based phone. If that was what I was arguing, it'd be so dumb I don't see why anyone would even reply!

        • I don't see the monopoly....

          A monopoly is not per se illegal, and a monopoly is not required to violate US antitrust laws.

          I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] pretends to be one: "two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have be

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Apple sabotages alternatives. iMessage is a great example of that. Until they support RCS, anyone not on iMessage will only be able to send and receive low quality photos and videos to iPhone users, and their message bubbles will be blue instead of green. Even with Apple's RCS support in iOS 18, it won't support end-to-end encryption so will still be inferior to their proprietary iMessage system.

          If your friends have iMessage and you want to be part of the group, your choice is a sub-par experience, or buy a

          • Even with Apple's RCS support in iOS 18, it won't support end-to-end encryption so will still be inferior to their proprietary iMessage system.

            The RCS universal profile (as in, the one that is defined in the standard and not an add-on by Google) does not support end-to-end encryption.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        It's not about your ability to buy alternative phones. It's about abuse of market position in a variety of ways. It's akin to Ma Bell (pre-breakup) forcing customers to rent phone handsets from them in order to access their phone network. You want to sell an app for their phone - gotta pay the developer fees. You want access to iMessage - gotta have an iPhone.

        I'm not arguing for or against the lawsuit, but it's not about whether or not an ordinary person can buy a phone from someone else.

        Why do you hate the free market? Back in the Ma Bell days they were the phone company as in the only game in town. Not like you could choose another one. Don't like Apple's developer terms? Great, you aren't forced to participate. Apple phones are a minority stake in the market to begin with.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Why do you hate the free market? Back in the Ma Bell days they were the phone company as in the only game in town. Not like you could choose another one. Don't like Apple's developer terms? Great, you aren't forced to participate. Apple phones are a minority stake in the market to begin with.

          iOS is *the* operating system used by 55% of mobile phone users in the United States. If you want to make your product available to all mobile phone users and not limit yourself to the 45% of them who use Android, you actually are forced to participate. Most companies don't have the luxury of throwing away more than half of their potential customer base and an even larger percentage of their potential revenue merely because they don't like Apple's terms.

          • Nobody is putting a gun to your head to support Apple devices. If you installed a phone line back in the day without government/Bell Labs approval, men with guns did come to your house.

            There are aspects of the old Bell Labs that were superior to their eventual competitors, but that didnâ(TM)t keep most of the Bells in business; here too, the reason they have a slightly larger market share is not because they had a historical unique product, they keep innovating and bringing value, when they stop doing

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Nobody is putting a gun to your head to support Apple devices. If you installed a phone line back in the day without government/Bell Labs approval, men with guns did come to your house.

              Even back then, nobody prevented you from building your own phone network (provided that you paid the city/town for access to the rights of way). You just were not allowed to attach things to someone else's network, much as you're not allowed to install arbitrary software on Apple's phone. Remember that if you don't have the right to control what software you install on it, it isn't really yours.

              • much as you're not allowed to install arbitrary software on Apple's phone. Remember that if you don't have the right to control what software you install on it, it isn't really yours.

                And if that bothers you then buy an Android instead. Hell I can buy them at Dollar General.

                • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  much as you're not allowed to install arbitrary software on Apple's phone. Remember that if you don't have the right to control what software you install on it, it isn't really yours.

                  And if that bothers you then buy an Android instead. Hell I can buy them at Dollar General.

                  You're kind of missing the point. Apple, through their policies, has put their thumb on the scales of the free market. The fact that individual consumers can spend a few hundred dollars to get an Android device doesn't change anything.

                  As a developer, you don't get to base your marketing strategy on a hypothetical universe in which if your app isn't available on iOS, people will ditch their thousand-dollar devices and switch platforms, because that's not a realistic universe. There are very few apps that

                  • by shilly ( 142940 )

                    Not really, no. Take your example of in-app purchases. At the WWDC Keynote, Apple announced a bunch of new APIs for developers to use along with a new app that enables devs to market their apps more effectively by pushing key moments (App Store Connect). Doing those things costs Apple time and money, as does running a payments platform etc. Why shouldn't it be able to charge fees that creates a margin for it to do all this work? Maybe you as a dev don't think that these APIs and special marketing apps and a

                    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                      Not really, no. Take your example of in-app purchases. At the WWDC Keynote, Apple announced a bunch of new APIs for developers to use along with a new app that enables devs to market their apps more effectively by pushing key moments (App Store Connect).

                      Yay. After 17 years of Apple doing approximately nothing to help developers market their apps, they finally threw them some crumbs. *After* the EU concluded that they were doing nothing to earn that 30% commission. Now that they're being forced to compete with other app stores in the EU, they're trying to up their game to lock developers in before they flee. I'm not particularly impressed by that.

                      Doing those things costs Apple time and money, as does running a payments platform etc. Why shouldn't it be able to charge fees that creates a margin for it to do all this work?

                      They do charge fees. They charge several hundred dollars for every iPhone sold, and most users replace thos

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            This beautifully encapsulates the big issue here: this action is in the interests of *developers* who want a free ride on Apple's investments in its mobile ecosystem and free rein to build apps however they want, including in ways that harm consumers -- that's that "companies... don't like Apple's terms" that you mention. This is not an action in the interests of *consumers*, who want Apple to invest in its ecosystem and make sure that apps are safe and effective (eg don't sneak off with their data). The pr

      • It's akin to Ma Bell (pre-breakup)

        No, it isn't. AT&T controlled 99% of the market. Apple has 37%.

        You want to sell an app for their phone - gotta pay the developer fees.

        That has nothing to do with "monopoly power". It's because Apple owns the app store. You'd have to pay the same fee even if they had 1% of the market.

        There's a small mom & pop grocery store in my neighborhood. They control 0.00001% of the nation's groceries. But they still don't let me sell my stuff in their shop for free.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @04:30PM (#64541693) Homepage Journal

          No, it isn't. AT&T controlled 99% of the market. Apple has 37%.

          55% in the U.S., and about 69% of revenue [fierce-network.com], but sure.

          You want to sell an app for their phone - gotta pay the developer fees.

          That has nothing to do with "monopoly power". It's because Apple owns the app store. You'd have to pay the same fee even if they had 1% of the market.

          There's a small mom & pop grocery store in my neighborhood. They control 0.00001% of the nation's groceries. But they still don't let me sell my stuff in their shop for free.

          Your local grocery store also doesn't actively use technical measures to prevent their customers from shopping in other stores. Apple does. The two situations are not equivalent.

          • Most people go to more than one grocery store. For the most part, there is a very low barrier to buying things from another grocery store. You just need to drive there or get there by some other means.
          • Most people own a single phone. There is a very high barrier to buying things for another platform (Android vs. iOS). You need to buy a second device for hundreds of dollars, keep it charged, keep its software up-to-date, pay for a cellular subscription every month, carry it around with you all the time, and so on. Having multiple cell phones requires a significant up-front cost and a significant ongoing cost.

          When an iOS user in the United States can run Android apps, or even apps sold through third-party stores without paying Apple a penny, then and only then will your point will be valid. It isn't the size of the market that matters. It is the fact that the very nature of the way Apple competes, coupled with the fact that most people only have one phone, actively limits businesses' access to such a large percentage of the overall mobile app market.

          • The market shares depend on how you measure and what you think the definition of mobile device is. When you go purely on systems sold, Android is an order of magnitude larger, however most of them are fractured and donâ(TM)t have a significant enough market share. But most vehicles have a mobile Android device, most TV sets, most tablets/low end computers and there are many more of those than there are handheld smartphones, itâ(TM)s also that some of those platforms people often donâ(TM)t use

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              The market shares depend on how you measure and what you think the definition of mobile device is. When you go purely on systems sold, Android is an order of magnitude larger, however most of them are fractured and donâ(TM)t have a significant enough market share.

              While true, that's only because of a large number of embedded devices that aren't intended to have additional apps installed at all, e.g. 3D printers. That's not really the same thing as general-purpose devices. It doesn't matter how much market share a device has if it lacks an app store or SD card slot or USB port for installing apps. It's still not part of the mobile app market. :-)

              Also, when you go based on the number of devices that are actually still in use, the numbers look much worse for Android,

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Actually, many small towns only have a single large grocery store in easy reach, so your choice is Walmart or nothing, unless you're willing to go on a long drive. That's *more* power than Apple has, because phones can readily be bought online, and consumers who want to switch can do so pretty seamlessly. And an Android device doesn't need to cost hundreds of dollars in up-front costs, you can pick one up for like 50 bucks if you really want to, and you don't need to maintain two phones, you can just switch

    • by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @03:15PM (#64541493)

      I've never owned an Apple phone in my life and kind of agree. Moreover I'd say it's important to defend what little computer manufacturing industry the US still has, even if they actually do most of the production in China.

      However that doesn't seem to be the claim. This is a tying dispute. As if Chrysler only allowed you to buy Chrysler tyres and not better tyres from Michelin or Continental. Maybe, more accurately, as if they insisted you go to a Chrysler dealer to get your tyres fitted and then only gave you a choice of Apple or Pirelli tyres but excluded the others. Worse, if you go to another dealer and get your better tyres fitted, they then take remote control of your car and suddenly, with no warning you can't start it up again.

      Tying in products in certain ways has always been illegal and, although there's some point in the security arguments, if Apple is doing that then I don't see why they should get immunity from the law just because it's a computer.

      • Correction - "always been illegal" should read "been illegal for a long time". Details may vary by jurisdiction of course.

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      Costs aren't the issue anymore really. Flagship Android handsets are in the same market segment as iPhones, and you can buy lower-model or previous years' iPhones for the cost of lower-market Androids. Since Apple's software support runs so long it doesn't matter much in regards to the access to the platform if you buy an older phone. The local Boost Mobile store near me is advertising iPhone 11 for $30 with new service. The iPhone 11 is still going to get iOS 18 when it comes out.

      • The iPhone 11 will get support for 7 years after last sale, this is the he official policy and is better even than FairPhone (currently 7 years after model release, but historically effectively 2-5). This becomes effectively a 10-12 year support for the iPhone 6 era and seemingly 15+ for the iPhone 10 and later.

    • Hasn't stolen all the money in every bank in the world doesn't mean it's not still a crime to rob a bank.

      There are all sorts of illegal anti-competitive and antitrust behaviors. You're not allowed to use them even if you have not successfully used them to eliminate all competition. An unsuccessful crime is still a crime.
    • I agree. A Samsung Galaxy S24+ or S24 Ultra is capable of doing most everything the iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max does.

    • If they can't afford an iPhone.

      The fact you mentioned "people" and "affording" means you're not talking about anything anyone is alleging is affected by the monopoly. In fact I wonder if you bothered to read the summary at all.

      Hint: this is not about your or what phone you can buy.

    • Daimler-Chrysler is a thing now, so the same company builds Chryslers and Mercedes.

      Does Foxconn build Samsung phones? I know they at least used to make Blackberries and iPhones.

      That was your point, right? Different labels, same things?

      • Daimler-Chrysler is a thing now, so the same company builds Chryslers and Mercedes.

        Daimler-Chrysler split up in 2007. You're over a decade and a half out of date. Since then, Chrysler was bought by Fiat and the resulting corporation merged with PSA and became Stellantis. Chrysler has been in two major mergers since the era you think we're in.

        • Daimler-Chrysler is a thing now, so the same company builds Chryslers and Mercedes.

          Daimler-Chrysler split up in 2007. You're over a decade and a half out of date. Since then, Chrysler was bought by Fiat and the resulting corporation merged with PSA and became Stellantis. Chrysler has been in two major mergers since the era you think we're in.

          Fair enough. I don't follow cars at all.

          I was just trying to find the most charitable reading of someone else here. Try it sometime!

          • I was just trying to find the most charitable reading of someone else here. Try it sometime!

            The most charitable reading of a comment which is based on ignorance is that the author is trying to aggrandize themself by looking clever. We do not need more comments on Slashdot written by people who don't know what they're talking about. They are a detriment to productive discussion. Even if your comment had been accurate, which it certainly was not, it would have added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      If GM started making cars where you could only fuel them up by going to a GM-owned gas station, people wouldn't go "you can always buy a Ford instead", they would be demanding GM be banned from doing this.

      Apple is being targeted in various jurisdictions globally because of their monopoly on producing add-on hardware and software for Apple devices, not because they have any kind of control over the phone market in general.

  • So what if Apple charges $1M for an iPhone?

    There are MANY other manufacturers from which one can buy a phone. Go fucking buy one of those!

    • So what if you misunderstand the whole argument?

      • So what if you misunderstand the whole argument?

        At a 29.07 percent total market share, explain how Apple is a monopoly.

        Now if you hate Apple because of their profitability - that might be an argument for people that don't believe in profits.

        If you hate Apple because you have a Ford versus Chevy outlook where you have ot pick a favorite, then shit on the other as bad, that might be an argument.

        And if you hate Apple because you don't like their developer fees, well okay sorta - don't develop for them.

        But claiming that they are some sort of monopo

        • At a 29.07 percent total market share, explain how Apple is a monopoly.

          I want you to explain why you think it's relevant. No one here is being sued because they are a monopoly, and being a monopoly is not illegal. The word you're looking for is "monopolising" (look it up). You don't need to be a monopoly to monopolise. You just need to wield market power which Apple unquestioningly does.

          No one cares that you can buy another phone, they care that your decision to buy another phone gets unquestioningly impacted either directly by setting the standard at which the wider industry

          • At a 29.07 percent total market share, explain how Apple is a monopoly.

            I want you to explain why you think it's relevant.

            It's relevant, not as relevant as the 60 percent versus 40 percent US share, but oh yes, it is relevant. More on that below. No one here is being sued because they are a monopoly, and being a monopoly is not illegal. The word you're looking for is "monopolising" (look it up).

            The lawsuit uses both monopoly and monopolizing. You need to tell the Justice department to get the monopoly words out of that lawsuit and put in whatever word you deem proper. Certainly we don't want people thinking there is a monop

        • Thanks for proving my point beyond any doubt.

          You do not understand the argument. You did not read the article. You do not know anything about antitrust. You are not a serious person.

          • Thanks for proving my point beyond any doubt.

            You do not understand the argument. You did not read the article. You do not know anything about antitrust. You are not a serious person.

            I read the article and the Government page.

            Y0oui are good with the insults, joining with some others claiming that the whole thing was because Apple is monopolistiuc, and not a monopoly - yet - You read The government article and see what they say. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr... [justice.gov] If Apple is a monopoly as they quite specifically say, they use the word monopoly, here's an except.

            "Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone and performance smartphones markets, and it uses its control over the iPho

  • There are literally hundreds, thousands of alternatives to an IPhone.

    If people are too stupid to not realize that they are paying as much as or more than 10 times as much as they need to to get the functionality of a $100 android phone then that is on them.

    Sure, Iphones are a superior quality product in many ways, if you're into conforming to an esthetic standard and a walled garden of applications, and the cheaper android phones have some lower quality parts, and may be prone to breaking down more quickly,

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @02:47PM (#64541443)
    I’m old enough to remember back when Microsoft was slammed by the DOJ for monopoly. They had a near-100% monopoly on the OS desktop market. There were legit concerns that MS could lock down the entire OS and browser market if they weren’t reigned in.

    Nowadays, Apple has a 28% market share for mobile devices, and a “hahaha what market share?” for desktops. Look up the definition of “monopoly”. There is basically no way that a sub-30% market share company can fit the definition.

    Whenever I point this out, 2 things happen. First, I get downmodded, and second, someone points out that “Apple is monopolizing the profits”. But THATS NOT THE DEFINITION OF MONOPOLY. If that’s you, you’re not angry that Apple is a monopoly, you’re mad that Apple is winning capitalism. The fact that they’re raking in the dough with only 30% market share makes the company all the more impressive. They’re making monopoly-level profits without ANY of the advantages of a true monopoly. We need more companies like Apple, not less.

    What these people are really advocating for is a socialist/communist approach to the money that Apple is raking in. Fair enough, but don’t wrap yourself in the flag and claim you’re fighting the current incarnation of Lucifer. Apple has concentrated a LOT of money in one place, because they’re better than you at capitalism, and you want a cut of it. Be honest.
    • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      Nowadays, Apple has a 28% market share for mobile devices, and a “hahaha what market share?” for desktops. Look up the definition of “monopoly”. There is basically no way that a sub-30% market share company can fit the definition.

      Nope. Not in the United States, where this is being adjudicated. It has a 55% market share. And this matters, because U.S. residents have more disposable income than the world average. What that means is that worldwide, about 69% of mobile app revenue comes from iOS, despite having that sub-30% market share.

      What that means is that if you're an app developer, you either play ball and make your software available for iOS or you give up more than two-thirds of your potential revenue. This isn't really a c

      • by printman ( 54032 )

        It's not about the money they're bringing in. It's about the limits they impose. iOS users can't buy apps except through Apple, which means they are effectively gatekeepers for more than half of U.S. cell phone users. And Apple has used those limits to forcing third parties that make apps available through their App Store to take payments through Apple, thus allowing Apple's similar services to unfairly compete (because Apple pays maybe 3% for their credit card transaction fees, while Spotify likely pays 30%).

        OK, so I hear this all the time but let's take a step back for a sec. I used to have a small software company that maintained its own online store which required hosting (back then this flip-flopped between colocation and a local high-speed connection, now I'd just use a $20-$30/month VPS) and my own time maintaining site code/security/PCI conformance testing (let's call that 20 hours/month for a small business) - budget about $1,000/month overhead for running your own e-commerce site and somewhat less if y

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          OK, so I hear this all the time but let's take a step back for a sec. I used to have a small software company that maintained its own online store which required hosting (back then this flip-flopped between colocation and a local high-speed connection, now I'd just use a $20-$30/month VPS) and my own time maintaining site code/security/PCI conformance testing (let's call that 20 hours/month for a small business) - budget about $1,000/month overhead for running your own e-commerce site and somewhat less if you use an off-the-shelf solution. Credit card processing fees for a small business are usually a small per-transaction fee (I've seen up to $1) + 3-4% of the order depending on the card. Advertising/search optimization will add more but you can choose how much to spend and there are "free" organic methods of getting the word out as well.

          Ignoring the advertising, that's an unrealistic number for a single-person business these days. Times have changed considerably since you ran that software company, largely because of those VPSes and cloud computing platforms and other niceties.

          Nowadays, you can get a turnkey e-commerce platform for digital goods for as little as $25 a month, flat rate. You provide the image assets and text, they provide all the maintenance, PCI conformance testing, etc. The first one I saw, Ecwid, allows up to 25 GB per

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          Don't forget that as well as building the e-comm platform, Apple is also building the APIs and platform features that you leverage as a dev, too. It's the actions consumers can take with their phone and apps that keeps them sticky and gives you a willing market in the first place.

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Don't forget that as well as building the e-comm platform, Apple is also building the APIs and platform features that you leverage as a dev, too. It's the actions consumers can take with their phone and apps that keeps them sticky and gives you a willing market in the first place.

            Don't forget that the APIs and platform features are part of the cost of the phone, and Apple originally promised that the App Store was not intended to be a profit center.

    • They had a near-100% monopoly on the OS desktop market. ... snip ... Nowadays, Apple has a 28% market share for mobile devices,

      Market share is not relevant. No one has ever been sued for being a monopoly because (and you can look this up in the text of the law) being a monopoly is not illegal. People get sued for abusing market power. Microsoft didn't get sued because they *could* lock down the entire OS, they didn't get sued because of their size, they got sued for very specific things they *did* with their market power. Apple is getting sued for very specific things they are doing with their market power.

      28% market share means Ap

    • I'm an authoritarian communist, literally the Jack booted Thug that will line up for their rifle when the revolution comes, and I have no problem with the way that Apple runs its business in regards to selling phones and apps. I might have problems with how they have them manufactured, but not how they go about selling the product and tying the idiots that decide to spend that much money on a phone to having to purchase all of their apps through them as well; that's not even 'doing capitalism well' that's j

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Apple's market share is 28% globally, but 52% in the United States. It seems unlikely that global market share would be an adequate defence against monopoly claims in just the US market. That's why you get modded down, your stats are misleading.

      The other reason is that monopoly behaviour isn't just having a big chunk of the market share. It's also doing stuff like forcing app makers to use your payment system, and pay you 30% of their revenue, without any real technical or business justification. It's ignor

      • I demand that you provide me with space on your lawn, so that I can open a small shop. Furthermore, I will pay you nothing. I will, of course, charge my customers, who will be free to stomp all over your lawn while they buy my goods. You will see no cut of the money.

        Your, um, ok with this, right?
    • Nowadays, Apple has a 28% market share for mobile devices

      Your perceptions are incorrect. Time for an update sir:

      https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

      I literally put your own words into Google and I get a number about twice as large as yours. You should really try to reverify your beliefs from time to time... especially when making claims that rely on those beliefs.

      Does the rest of your argument have any validity when taking into account this new information and reading the article and realizing it is not about market share anyways?

      • I would argue that my position is still valid at 60 percent. A monopoly occurs when a company out-maneuvers the competition such that there is no alternative, and then they use their market power to crack up the price. Android is a totally viable alternative to Apple.
    • It's not surprising that that happened to you, and it probably wasn't justified in the past.

      It is, however, irrelevant to the point since this isn't about market share.

  • Someone better let Samsung know this because they're selling a phone for $1659! https://www.samsung.com/us/sma... [samsung.com]

  • for holding a monopoly on government.
  • by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @03:44PM (#64541557)

    From the Wall Street Journal: The government's antitrust complaint, filed in a New Jersey federal court, alleges Apple used its control of the iPhone to prevent competitors from offering innovative services such as digital wallets and limited the functionality of hardware products that compete with Apple's own devices. The suit also claims that Apple makes it difficult for users to switch to devices that don't use Apple's operating system, such as Android smartphones.

    These complaints are valid. Apple does stifle competition on their platform in many ways. Also when did slashdot become an Apple Lovefest?

    • Wait, so the complaint is if I want to leave the Iphone market, Apple's making this difficult? How is that in any way different then what Microsoft has been doing for decades?

      The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is the App store that runs on their phone. I can see why this upsets people but since you have alternatives that work just as well as an iphone with their own app stores that have basically the same applications, I'm not seeing the problem at all.

      Also, Microsoft is as guilty as Apple on this kind

    • Sir this is slashdot. If you're going to apply reason and logic let alone read the article I'm going to have to ask you to leave...
    • by khchung ( 462899 )

      The suit also claims that Apple makes it difficult for users to switch to devices that don't use Apple's operating system, such as Android smartphones.

      So, since when did Microsoft made it easy to switch away from Windows to devices that don't use Microsoft's operating systems?
      Since when did Oracle made it easy to switch away from Oracle to other databases?
      Since when did Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, etc, made it easy to switch away to other platforms?

      These have been going on for much longer than iPhones, why aren't those companies (and many more) being investigated?

    • These complaints are valid. Apple does stifle competition on their platform in many ways. Also when did slashdot become an Apple Lovefest?

      Some of what you're seeing is happy Apple users, but the majority, by market share, are happy Android users reading that as what do you mean by stifled competition, Android is not a victim, it's doing fine.

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      How could Apple possibly limit the functionality of hardware it doesn't make?

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      What could possibly go wrong with Apple being forced to allow any dev's digital wallet on its App Store, irrespective of whether that wallet is stealing money or sucking up user data etc. Can't see that harming Apple's reputation in the slightest /s

  • I've never felt the need for an iphone. In fact, I avoid all Apple products as they seem to be more about "fashion" then anything else. At least a few other companies offer Android based phones and I'm happy with my choices.

    I would agree Apple holds a monopoly on access to their application store since they don't allow side-loading (that I'm aware of) but beyond that, they are just another technology company that sales a phone. Yippy do.

    Of course, if Apple has a monopoly on the cellphone market and we're go

  • Weird how a "monopoly" can be so effortlessly defeated by Nancy Reagan's "just say no" advice.

    Sure, it would be great if Apple opened up. It's unacceptable for the videogame console pattern to be happening with our personal computers. It's so unacceptable that .. I just couldn't accept it. Nancy was right, Just Say No to Nintendo phones.

  • Apple should lock the Apple account of everyone associated with bringing the lawsuit, and their spouses and kids. Tell them to move to Android.

    Watch how fast this gets dropped.

    • Apple should lock the Apple account of everyone associated with bringing the lawsuit, and their spouses and kids. Tell them to move to Android.
      Watch how fast this gets dropped.

      Apple should behave in the most anticompetitive way possible in order to fight charges of anticompetitive behavior? Wow, you're a genius. Very stable, also.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...