Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IOS United States Apple

'The DOJ's Assault On Apple Will Harm Consumers' (reason.com) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the apple-a-day-can't-keep-the-DOJ-away dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader SonicSpike shares an op-ed from Reason, written by Sen. Rand Paul: In America, we do not punish businesses for their success. We certainly do not punish businesses because their competitors are struggling to keep pace. Sadly, that is exactly what the Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to do in its recent lawsuit against Apple. In March, the DOJ, joined by 15 states and the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit aimed at penalizing Apple for successfully competing in the market for smartphones. However, like much of the Biden administration's approach to antitrust enforcement, the DOJ's lawsuit is focused on punishing Apple for its success rather than addressing any real harm to consumers. Instead of fostering innovation and competition, this approach threatens to stifle the very progress that benefits Americans.

In its lawsuit, the DOJ makes the unsubstantiated claim that Apple has "willfully monopolized" the smartphone market through "exclusionary" and "anticompetitive" conduct. In particular, it accuses Apple of exercising unwarranted control over the creation, distribution, and functioning of apps within the iPhone operating system. What the complaint ignores, however, is that this control is not simply a lawful business practice by a privately held company; it is an indispensable part of Apple's business model. Far from being an "anticompetitive" practice that harms consumers, Apple's careful approach to app integration is a pro-competitive way in which it meets its users' demands.

Privacy, security, and seamless integration have been the core of Apple's operational strategy for years. Back in 2010, Steve Jobs explained that "when selling to people who want their devices to just work, we think integrated wins every time." That "open systems don't always work," and Apple was "committed to the integrated approach." What makes Apple products so unique is their ease of use and consistency over time. While no product will ever be perfect, Apple's goal is to deliver a seamless, integrated experience that users can rely on time after time without giving it a second thought. How does Apple do this? By carefully exercising the very control that the DOJ is trying to punish. As economist Alex Tabarrok explains in Marginal Revolution: "Apple's promise to iPhone users is that it will be a gatekeeper. Gatekeeping is what allows Apple to promise greater security, privacy, usability and reliability. Gatekeeping is Apple's brand promise. Gatekeeping is what the consumer's are buying." [...] "Digital markets do not need more government regulation; they need more companies willing to innovate and compete," concludes Sen. Paul. "The DOJ should not waste taxpayer-provided resources targeting a company that has earned its success through excellence in the marketplace. An Apple a day may keep the doctor away, but it seems that all of the pro-competitive justifications in the world cannot keep a politically motivated antitrust enforcer at bay."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'The DOJ's Assault On Apple Will Harm Consumers' More

'The DOJ's Assault On Apple Will Harm Consumers'

Comments Filter:

  • In its lawsuit, the DOJ makes the unsubstantiated claim that Apple has "willfully monopolized" the smartphone market through "exclusionary" and "anticompetitive" conduct.

    That's why we have courts.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      That's why we have courts.

      But the govt shouldn't be taking people/companies to court, unless there is a REAL transgression of the law.

      There are plenty of cell phone choices on the market, Apple is not a monopoly.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suutar ( 1860506 )

        That's what the court is for, to determine if Apple has actually transgressed the law.

      • That's why we have courts.

        But the govt shouldn't be taking people/companies to court, unless there is a REAL transgression of the law.

        As I said, that's why we have courts. We can't just take your opinion for everything.

      • But the govt shouldn't be taking people/companies to court, unless there is a REAL transgression of the law.

        Whether there was a transgression of the law is up to the courts to decide. That's their job. You don't get to decide what laws are real and fake.

        There are plenty of cell phone choices on the market, Apple is not a monopoly.

        Congrats on not knowing how anti-trust law works, despite plenty of people explaining it to you already. Apple isn't being taken to court for being a monopoly, and being a monopoly is not illegal. Try again. Hint: The claim is in quotes in TFS and it concerns a verb not a noun.

      • Sorry "but but apple" is not a defense.

      • Stop giving media sound bites Rand, and get back to the job of legislating and governing. Tired of the Capitol building being a two ring circus. We don't conduct judicial business by going on gut instincts from celebrity politicians.

    • In its lawsuit, the DOJ makes the unsubstantiated claim that Apple has "willfully monopolized" the smartphone market through "exclusionary" and "anticompetitive" conduct.

      That's why we have courts.

      Damn right! We have a justice system here in the United States, not some kind of corrupt legal systeBAHAHAHAHAHAHA. FUCK, couldn’t even get it all out.

      Seriously though. I hope your comment was a joke, because the US legal system clearly is.

  • RAND PAUL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Thursday July 18, 2024 @06:45PM (#64636119)
    "Freedom for giant monopolies, RAND PAUL" - Rand Paul
  • but a bit reason the Windows phone cratered as much as it did is that Apple gave kickbacks to sales reps at cell phone carrier stores and Microsoft didn't.

    And Apple is so famous for stealing app ideas and running the original company out of business that it has a name, "Sherlocking". Named after one of the 1st apps they did it to (Watson).

    So yeah, Apple does a bunch of anti-competitive stuff. They're as bad as Microsoft we just notice it less because MS took out Linux w/o apple having to lift a fing
    • Not at all. Developers were tied up with Android and iOS development. Microsoft could not attract any resources toward developing its platform. Microsoft phones were pretty cheap, but nobody wanted a phone whose app selection was limited to office and facebook.

      • I will tell you the thing that killed it that at least five of the old Windows Phone owners indicated. Google continually killing YouTube on the devices [theguardian.com]. Lots of Google services would go dark on the devices randomly because of some sort of spat. Google killed WP more than anyone else.

        As for the device kickbacks. Apple didn't need 3rd party kickbacks, vendors were begging for iPhones at any rate that Apple would drip the devices to them. That said, Apple was absolutely ensuring that Lumia 950 [allaboutwindowsphone.com] was the la

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by teg ( 97890 )

        Not at all. Developers were tied up with Android and iOS development. Microsoft could not attract any resources toward developing its platform. Microsoft phones were pretty cheap, but nobody wanted a phone whose app selection was limited to office and facebook.

        Also, Windows Phone was pretty bad at backwards compatibility... They messed up transitions from Windows CE to Windows Phone 7 to Windows Phone 8. Phones couldn't be upgraded, applications weren't compatible across generations etc.

      • nobody wanted a phone whose app selection was limited to office and facebook

        Nobody? I had 3 of them. They were great and they had the other apps I needed. The people who wanted a ton of apps were a niche of phone reviewers. Even now, phone reviewers are destroying the Z Flip line from Samsung by insisting it needed a big f-ing screen on the outside. One of the whole points of a folding phone is you can drop it and it doesn't break. The reviewers fixed that. I've owned all of the Z Flip phones minus the 6. I spent 5 weeks in the hospital with the 1, where nurses caused it to fall ov

    • So yeah, Apple does a bunch of anti-competitive stuff. They're as bad as Microsoft we just notice it less because MS took out Linux w/o apple having to lift a finger.

      If Microsoft “took out” Linux, I’m assuming it was on a date with 90% of Fortune 500 companies that still call. And text.

    • Re:I'm not a fan of Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday July 18, 2024 @07:14PM (#64636197) Homepage

      but a bit reason the Windows phone cratered as much as it did is that Apple gave kickbacks to sales reps at cell phone carrier stores and Microsoft didn't.

      I think you're misremembering history a bit here. Windows Phone sucked because it had fuck all for 3rd party app support, and then Microsoft tried spinning that as a positive thing by running ads about how it's the perfect phone for people who want to experience life rather than always have their noses glued to their phones. You know, just like how restaurants advertise that their terrible food helps you stick to a diet, and how car companies advertise that their SUVs' terrible gas mileage will reduce the amount of time you'll spend sitting in traffic. /s

      It turned out most people buy a smartphone because they do actually want to use it. Imagine what a shock that must've been for Microsoft, when they realized "our product is so bad you won't want to use it" might not have been the best sales tactic.

    • ...but a bi[g] reason the Windows phone cratered as much as it did is that Apple gave kickbacks to sales reps at cell phone carrier stores and Microsoft didn't.

      I always like to think that people learned their lesson about dealing with Microsoft when you don't have to. Sleep with dogs, get fleas; and a host of other wise idioms.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bjwest ( 14070 )

      So yeah, Apple does a bunch of anti-competitive stuff. They're as bad as Microsoft we just notice it less because MS took out Linux w/o apple having to lift a finger.

      I'm sorry, WHAT? MicroSloft absolutely did not take out Linux. Linux runs the most popular phone on the planet, not to mention has a large foothold on the backbone of the internet. It may not be used as much as Windows on the desktop, but it is nowhere near dead [truelist.co].

    • hmmmm. well, just as a counterpoint, when I was a consultant for Apple back in 1998, I would show up to Best Buy or Circuit City and help people with their Macintosh purchase, the Windows consultants would (mostly) help people with their Windows computer purchases... One day I was confused as all the salespeople were HAPPY to sell people a windows box and were virtually ignoring the Macintosh purchasers. So, I asked their management what was up? They explained that the Windows purchases earned the salespeop
  • Just trying to live up to his namesake Ayn. Oh please big bad DOJ, don't hurt this poor little old company (they pay my salary).

    • Wont somebody think of those more fortunate than us!

    • Just trying to live up to his namesake Ayn.

      That's not how surnames work.

      Handles are chosen, though, "gkelley," you Slashdotter suspiciously named like R. Kelly.

      • Tahahaha because people who think long and hard about their internet handles deserve our respect.

        • Tahahaha because people who think long and hard about their internet handles deserve our respect.

          A bile-filled comment that's only tangentially related yet somehow also vaguely accusatory? Or maybe self-congratulatory while also describing yourself in fantasy cock terms. I can't tell.

          What is this, Slashdot?

  • He's right, but for the wrong reasons (Score:3)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday July 18, 2024 @07:03PM (#64636169) Homepage

    The main reason Apple is able to get away with all their vendor lock-in and other anticompetitive practices is because they only have one real competitor in the smartphone OS market: Google. It certainly seems weird to kick the underdog for being a bad sport, when it's Google's dominance that has created the duopoly (and let's be honest, if you look at the global marketshare of smartphone OSes, you may as well call a spade a spade and just admit that Google has a monopoly) situation in the first place.

    Now, this isn't to say that Apple should be allowed to continue abusing its customers and third party developers, but that there's a bigger elephant in the room that should probably be addressed before laying the blame for competition failing solely upon Apple.

    • If their idiot customers keep buying products fromt his teribel company, maybe the customers deserve theior abuse. I mean damn, their really are alternatives that are pretty good out there. You don't HAVE to buy an Apple over priced product.

      • If their idiot customers keep buying products fromt his teribel company, maybe the customers deserve theior abuse. I mean damn, their really are alternatives that are pretty good out there. You don't HAVE to buy an Apple over priced product.

        There is Glock.

        And then there’s every pathetic competitor who trashed talk the very tactical Tupperware design they all eventually copied.

        Companies don’t HAVE to copy Apple. But you should maybe ask yourself why most of them try to. Right down to the Notch.

        • Because when you're copying a fashion accessory, it's important to have the same look. Companies don't HAVE to copy Apple customer lock-in, and they don't.

    • . . . it's Google's dominance that has created the duopoly (and let's be honest, if you look at the global marketshare of smartphone OSes . . .

      I don't think US antitrust ever sought to break up monopolies outside the US.

    • Android phones let customers load app stores other than Google's. If Apple phones did that, there wouldn't be this litigation. Of course, Apple has fine support for their argument that "Our customers are too stupid not to get into trouble if they have other app stores available," on account of their customers keep buying their products. You can argue against me on the stupidity of Apple customers, but when you do, you're destroying Apple's argument versus the DOJ.

    • Which other phone vendors have access to the iOS codebase...?

      You might be comparing something to something else that is not in the same category here. So to speak.

    • I don't see an issue here. People who buy Apple stuff know what they are getting and want it that way. They are willing to pay a premium to get it.

      People who want Google/Android also know what they are getting. Part of that deal is that everything you do and all your data go to Google to feed their advertising business.

      If you don't like either one then I suppose there is Doro, a phone too stupid to do anything other than make phone calls and plain-text text messages.

      If you want to complain that both Apple a

  • Remember handango and the other companies?

  • Reason magazine calls itself that mainly because its pages are fully devoid of reason and full of ideological gobbledygook. The real question is whether Apple's claims that safety and privacy are impossible to assure with any other business model prove defensible in court. Apple will, of course, further argue that it is not a monopoly by virtue of its smaller market share versus Android. DOJ will lose if it focuses on Apple's motivation rather than on debunking Apple's arguments for this much control over i

    • Apple will, of course, further argue that it is not a monopoly

      They won't have any success with that, because it's about antitrust not anti-monopoly.

      The would have to argue they do not occupy a dominant market position, not that they are the only player. Given they have the largest market share in the US (56%) , and a somewhat larger proportion of the app store revenue, that's going to be a tough argument.

  • What, has that moron forgotten, or never read about the Oil Company and Telco monopoly break ups? Or yeah, that Microsoft was penalized a while back for the whole IE dominance thing? *rolls eyes*

  • The Sherman Act (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Thursday July 18, 2024 @07:24PM (#64636213)
    The Sherman Act makes it illegal to monopolize, conspire to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize a market for products or services. Monopolies use their power to destroy competition and harm consumers. This was accepted in 1890 and it's still true today. https://www.archives.gov/miles... [archives.gov] Rand Paul dreams of an America like a Dickensonian nightmare where a few owners live like kings and are free to pollute, ravage the natural world, have unregulated work environments where workers are maimed or killed then cast aside and replaced with someone else who lives in squalor. Because, you know, job killing regulations and all....
    Corporations are making record profits, then using them to buy our electeds to pass laws that harm the workers. don't buy into Rand Paul's BS.
    • Damn right and how sad is it when 1890 anywhere on this planet made more sense that what people think today

    • The Sherman Act makes it illegal to monopolize, conspire to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize a market for products or services.

      That's only partially true. The Sherman Act makes unfair monopolies, or the attempt to maintain a monopoly through certain anti-competitive conduct, illegal.

    • Your argument violates Hume's law. That's the most basic fallacy. Typical for socialists.

  • even the quickest and laziest web search shows that Standard Oil and AT&T would beg to differ with mr paul. i wasn’t around when SO was broken up, but i do know that long distance per-minute rates (yes, measured back then) plummeted and the choice of handset equipment widened after AT&T was broken into the baby bells.

    i wish the rep wouldn’t treat his constituents like a bunch of idiots. they might be, but he shouldn’t treat them that way.

    stop lying, rand.

  • The case is currently in the courts. Rand Paul has already passed judgement without being presented any of the evidence. Whether he is right or wrong he doesn't have the information to back that claim at present. He ads nothing to the discussion other than to show once again why we have separation of powers and why senators should keep their legal opinions to themselves.

    • It's useful to know which politicians are in the tank for Apple. Some readers might not yet know what Rand Paul is made of. Maybe some readers don't know Apple closely works with that type of politician. After reading this article they might.

  • From the internet shockinglyâ¦Among the most notable monopolies in American history are Standard Oil, American Tobacco, U.S. Steel, and AT&T. The Sherman Antitrust Act banned trusts and monopolistic combinations that placed âoeunreasonableâ restrictions on interstate and international markets.

  • First time I've agreed with Rand Paul (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday July 18, 2024 @10:18PM (#64636467)
    In basically forever. The guy epitomizes the "I do what I wantz" brand of libertarianism. An absolute hypocrite about it.. They hate the man and want the gubbermint to stay out of their life and leave them alone. Right up to the point where they need a cop to help them, or sue the bejeezuz out of somebody that pissed them off. Then, suddenly, they're whining about "where's my duueeee proooCCCeeessss?"

    But he got this one right. People hate Apple mostly because they're so damn successful. We didn't take aim at the Microsoft monopoly until they had locked up about 98% of the OS and browser market. We didn't break up the train companies until they were outright gouging customers because they had zero other options.

    Apple's market share? For smartphones, it's about 20%. For computers and laptops, their market share is precisely "HAHAHAHA what market share?". Tablets? 32%. Those are simply NOT monopoly numbers, no matter how you look at it. Customers have plenty of alternatives.

    People are mad that Apple is raking in the profits. That's basically being mad that a company is really successful.

    • Customers have plenty of alternatives.

      For hardware, yes, but for mobile operating systems it's essentially either Apple's or Google's. Since Google's stance is basically "We let our users install alternate app stores and sideload apps, if they can figure it out and manage not to infect their device with malware in the process, so we're technically allowing competition!", people then point the finger at Apple's locked-down ecosystem and shout "monopoly!"

      The reality is, it's all just a symptom of too little competition in the mobile OS sphere.

    • Re:First time I've agreed with Rand Paul (Score:4, Informative)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Friday July 19, 2024 @07:47AM (#64637181) Journal

      But he got this one right.

      He does not.

      We didn't take aim at the Microsoft monopoly until they had locked up about 98% of the OS and browser market.

      So we let them REALLY entrench their position and profiteer from it before doing anything. It's really important that we let other megacorps do that, in the interests of fairness.

      Apple's market share? For smartphones, it's about 20%.

      It's 55% in America. Which is where this lawsuit is based. Having 6% share in India is irrelevant to whether they abusing a dominant market position in the US.

      • 55 percent is still nowhere close to monopoly. Monopoly means that choice has been shut down. Thats clearly not the case in the US.

      • Apple's competitive practices in other countries are not substantially different than in the USA, Americans just like them more and are more affluent and can afford the phones.

        Apple should be restrained legally, but this lawsuit is pretty bad. They're accused of being a monopoly in the "performance smartphone" market, a nonsense category made up purely for the purposes of this legal challenge.

        I understand that getting the American government to pass laws that protect consumers and constrain corporate power

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          > a nonsense category made up purely for the purposes of this legal challenge.

          my antitrust professor had worked for the FTC as an economist before turning to law.

          He was baffled at some of the ways they were categorized.

          In one, one corrugated cardboard manufacturer was dominant (I forget the fraction) in 1/8" thick (iirc). When compared to the other sizes that could be produced on the same machines, however, such as 3/16", the share was small--but they insisted on calling these separate markets.

          In anothe

  • > Apple's careful approach to app integration is a pro competitive way in which it meets its users' demands

    Ridiculous. The App Store is a wasteland. You can hardly find an app that doesn't pester you with ads and locked features. Games are mostly pay to win. Giving a tablet to a child is extremely dangerous. Ads appear and keep of blocking the device for minutes. I recently bought the "No Ads" pack of a game and it still continued to show ads. Apple is fully aware their apps are shit. That is why the

  • Exactly what we'd expect him to say.

  • Rand Paul reasonable? Just like everything else on that trash site.

    Also on "Reason":
    Getting mad about masks in 2024.
    Rachel Maddow is stupid
    Philosophizing about "cancel culture"

    Fortunately, they print the magazine, making a ready source of kindling.

  • Regulation needs to be sensible as does government intervention.

    Google tells me (through it's nearly complete market dominance in search and 70% of the smartphone market) that Apple is just about 30% of the smart phone market. Consumers not only have choice, but they're choosing the 'underdog' when they buy Apple based on market share. They are also paying a premium price for it because Apple's cheapest phone is about 5x the price of the cheapest Android phones.

    My stance on this is based on that market sh

  • "Punish success"... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )
    What a fucking ridiculous super right wingnut trope

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Gorbag ( 176668 )

      What a fucking ridiculous super right wingnut trope

      Yes, the left wing should realize that those who are successful are contributing *more* to society, than those who are not. We should punish the latter for slacking!

  • Google and Apple need competition. I don't believe anything the DOJ is doing will create competition for mobile phone platforms; if anything the DOJ is further entrenching Apple+Google as the only option.

    Who would enter the mobile platform market with two giants and governments are currently dropping law bombs into the market.

    The only alternative mobile platform with a real backing is HarmonyOS(by the Chinese government). Tizen and WebOS could be created into contending mobile platforms relatively qui
  • AppleTV boxes ship a modified version iOS. I'd love to see game consoles monopoly busted up... so I hope Apple tries to hide from the laws in the console market and make game-consoles subject to these monopoly-busting measures.

  • Someone got a "gratuity ".

  • What the complaint ignores, however, is that this control is not simply a lawful business practice by a privately held company; it is an indispensable part of Apple's business model.

    Uh-uh. Restriction of access to Apple's own gated app store is 100% dispensable. If the customers the person quoted in TFS is wittering about want to use Apple's gated app store, it would still be there given a government-forced opening of the iOS ecosystem. People who are interested in other sources would be able to use them.

    In

  • All buyer beware, and eliminate laws against fraud and bribery.

  • Apple is one of the most predatory monopolies out there! They deserve to be punished and broken up. APPLY THE ANTITRUST LAWS!!

  • Editing at Slashdot is lazier than fact checking at the RNC. A final apostrophe is a possessive and requires a noun that is possessed.

Slashdot Top Deals

E Pluribus Unix

Close