• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Apple Sued by DOJ for Illegal Monopoly over Smartphones

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday announced a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the tech giant of engineering an illegal monopoly in smartphones that boxes out competitors and stifles innovation.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, alleges that Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone market and uses its control over the iPhone to “engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct.”


The lawsuit — which was also filed with 16 state attorneys general — is the latest example of the Justice Department’s approach to aggressive enforcement of federal antitrust law that officials say is aimed at ensuring a fair and competitive market, even as it has lost some significant anticompetition cases.

Apple called the lawsuit “wrong on the facts and the law” and said it “will vigorously defend against it.”

President Joe Biden has called for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to vigorously enforce antitrust statutes. The increased policing of corporate mergers and business deals has been met with resistance from some business leaders who have said the Democratic administration is overreaching, but it’s been lauded by others as long overdue.

The case is taking direct aim at the digital fortress that Apple Inc., based in Cupertino, California, has assiduously built around the iPhone and other popular products such as the iPad, Mac and Apple Watch to create what is often referred to as a “walled garden” so its meticulously designed hardware and software can seamlessly flourish together while requiring consumers to do little more than turn the devices on.

The strategy has helped make Apple the world’s most prosperous company, with annual revenue of nearly $400 billion and, until recently, a market value of more than $3 trillion. But Apple’s shares have fallen by 7% this year even as most of the stock market has climbed to new highs, resulting in long-time rival Microsoft — a target of a major Justice Department antitrust case a quarter-century ago — to seize the mantle as the world’s most valuable company.

Apple said the lawsuit, if successful, would “hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services intersect” and would “set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.”

“At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love — designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users,” the company said in a statement. “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.

Apple has defended the walled garden as an indispensable feature prized by consumers who want the best protection available for their personal information. It has described the barrier as a way for the iPhone to distinguish itself from devices running on Google’s Android software, which isn’t as restrictive and is licensed to a wide range of manufacturers.

Fears about an antitrust crackdown on Apple’s business model have contributed to the drop in the company’s stock price, along with concerns that it is lagging Microsoft and Google in the push to develop products powered by artificial intelligence technology.

But antitrust regulators made it clear in their complaint that they see Apple’s walled garden most as a weapon to ward off competition, creating market conditions that enable it to charge higher prices that have propelled its lofty profit margins while stifling innovation.

“Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “We allege that Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market, not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law. If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly.”


With the attempt to rein in Apple’s dominance, the Biden administration is escalating an antitrust siege that has already triggered lawsuits against Google and Amazon accusing them in engaging in illegal tactics to thwart competition, as well as unsuccessful attempts to block acquisitions by Microsoft and Facebook parent Meta Platforms.

Apple’s business interests are also entangled in the Justice Department’s case against Google, which went to trial last fall and is headed toward final arguments scheduled to begin May 1 in Washington, D.C. In that case, regulators are alleging Google has stymied competition by paying for the rights for its already dominant online search engine to be the automatic place to handle queries on the iPhone and a variety of web browsers in an arrangement that generates an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion annually.

Now that the Justice Department is mounting a direct attack across its business, Apple stands to lose even more.

The Justice Department is following up an other recent attempts to force Apple to change the way it runs the iPhone and other parts of its business.

Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in 2020 in an effort break down the barriers protecting the iPhone App Store and a lucrative payment system operating within it. Apple has long collected commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on digital transactions completed within apps, a setup that Epic alleged was enabled by an illegal monopoly that drives up prices for consumers.

After a monthlong trial in 2021, a federal judge ruled mostly in favor of Apple with the exception of deciding that links to competing payment options should be permitted inside of iPhone apps. Apple unsuccessfully resisted that portion of the ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in January, forcing the company to relent. But the concessions that Apple made to comply with the ruling are still facing a “bad faith” challenge from Epic, which is seeking an April 30 hearing to ask U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to order more changes.

Apple also had to open up the iPhone to allow apps to be downloaded and installed from competing stores in Europe to comply with a new set of regulators called the Digital Markets Act, or DMA, earlier this month but its approach is being pilloried by critics as little more than an end-around the rules that will enable it to continue to muscle out real competition. European Union regulators already have vowed to crack down on Apple if it finds the company’s tactics continue to thwart true consumer choice.

All of this comes on top of a $2 billion (1.8 billion euro) fine that European regulators slapped on Apple earlier this month after concluding that the company had undermined competition in the music streaming through the iPhone, despite Spotify being the leader in that market.
 
Last edited:

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.
 

Fbh

Member
If only people were allowed to buy phones from other brands

Aaron Paul He Cant Keep Getting Away With This GIF by Breaking Bad
 

poodaddy

Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.

If only people were allowed to buy phones from other brands

Aaron Paul He Cant Keep Getting Away With This GIF by Breaking Bad
It takes less than thirty seconds of searching to find a veritable cornucopia of corruption, dishonesty, aggression, and general anti competitive behavior from Apple that goes back more than thirty years. They are a personification of everything wrong in the tech space; if you don't see this, you're actively trying to avoid the knowledge.
 

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
It takes less than thirty seconds of searching to find a veritable cornucopia of corruption, dishonesty, aggression, and general anti competitive behavior from Apple that goes back more than thirty years. They are a personification of everything wrong in the tech space; if you don't see this, you're actively trying to avoid the knowledge.
Well don’t leave us hanging. At least give us a link or something. I don’t usually pay attention to this kind of stuff.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.
I believe the argument that the government is making is that Apple is creating a monopoly by ensuring that only their products work seamlessly with each other while basically crippling any third party. eg: blue text and Tim Cook's response, being forced by the EU to put USB C in their devices, and some instances of basic malicious compliance on their part.

Not sure if I agree with the case that the government is making, but I think people can agree that Apple is notorious for this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:

LordCBH

Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.

They’ve never exactly hidden the fact that iPhones are very locked down devices. In fact they’ve sold them by advertising them that way.
 

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
I believe the argument that the government is making is that Apple is creating a monopoly by ensuring that only their products work seamlessly with each other while basically crippling any third party. eg: blue text and Tim Cook's response, being forced by the EU to put USB C in their devices, and some instances of basically malicious compliance on their part.

Not sure if I agree with the case that the government is making, but I think people can agree that Apple is notorious for this sort of thing.
Ah okay that does make sense. They’ve historically been extremely uncooperative in playing nice with other companies, and iMessage is probably one of the biggest and most obvious offenses.
 
I hear about how Apple has the money in CASH set aside to just reserve months of fab time.
Is that a form of abusing power? not sure.
 

Dacvak

No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
They’ve never exactly hidden the fact that iPhones are very locked down devices. In fact they’ve sold them by advertising them that way.
Right, I just didn’t think that was illegal in any way. The same way that I can’t play Game Pass on my Switch because Nintendo wants to keep their platform closed. I guess it’s a matter of degree then?

This just seems like a more ham-fisted version of EU’s open standards law or something. (Which I’m all for, fwiw.)
 

reinking

Gold Member
If they would just sue apple to reduce their memory and storage upgrade prices I will be fine. :)

I do not care about the "walled garden" for Apple any more than I do for Sony or any other company with a closed eco system. I feel like customers and producers of content have enough power to either use, or not use, the market upfront. I see more outcry about Apple from people that will never use their product than I do Apple consumers. Apple consumers have already spoken with their wallets about what they want.
 

JackMcGunns

Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.


The Devil is in the details. If for instance Apple strong-arms the market and blocks certain apps or features from coming to other phones, then that could change things from fair competition to manipulating the market.
 

LordCBH

Member
Right, I just didn’t think that was illegal in any way. The same way that I can’t play Game Pass on my Switch because Nintendo wants to keep their platform closed. I guess it’s a matter of degree then?

This just seems like a more ham-fisted version of EU’s open standards law or something. (Which I’m all for, fwiw.)

I’d have issues if there wasn’t an alternative device people could buy. (Or if they started open and then closed it off after they got popular).
 

MarkMe2525

Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.
If I were to guess (which I could be wrong about), it is that they actively disenfranchise and block competing stores on their mobile platforms. Also, things like not supporting RCS and purposely gimping text communications between Apple and Android phones. I think they are going to try to "prove" a pattern of behavior that is analogous to traditional monopolies. Time will tell what the real arguments are and if they will hold up on court.
 

Blood Borne

Member
you’ll always be hated for being too successful.
If you invent the cure for cancer, you’ll be attacked for becoming too rich and not sharing the formula with everyone.

I think it’s just human nature to distrust and hate anything or anyone too big/successful.

Garbage lawsuit. They’re literally being attacked for being too good at what they do and having so many dedicated fans.
If/when Microsoft exits from the console market, Sony will be attacked for being successful and a monopoly, and will be forced to have other stores other than PlayStation store on their platform, even though they’ve done nothing wrong, they just offered a better product than their competitors.
 

StueyDuck

Member
I don’t understand where the line between “popular product” and “monopoly” is, apparently. It’s not like Apple is buying out all of their competition, they’re just succeeding in a free market. Right? Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand.
It's more that once you are locked into their system you essentially can't get out without losing something or spending alot of money to reach an equivalent on another platform.

That is essentially how I read what they are doing that is considered monopolistic.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Iirc, Google recently tweaked aspects of their messaging platform to work better with iMessage and a short time afterwards, Apple allegedly made changes to intentionally break the new compatibility. It revolved around "liking" messages.
Someone made a bootleg iMessage client for Android. Apple changed things to break to and prevent its users from using iMessage as punishment.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Someone made a bootleg iMessage client for Android. Apple changed things to break to and prevent its users from using iMessage as punishment.
I am fimiliar to what you speak of, and that is not what I am referring to.

Edit: I am not insinuating that the case you are referring to is not relevant. The situation I am focusing on is a direct measure to break google messages and imessage from playing nice with eachother. In the case of the bootleg imessage client, I imagine that broke some ToS. ManaByte ManaByte
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
It takes less than thirty seconds of searching to find a veritable cornucopia of corruption, dishonesty, aggression, and general anti competitive behavior from Apple that goes back more than thirty years. They are a personification of everything wrong in the tech space; if you don't see this, you're actively trying to avoid the knowledge.


So they’re like every other big company? But I’m supposed to be angry and actively looking for “knowledge”?

Here’s what matters to me; ease of use and feeling that my information is safe. Hell, I trust my payment information with Apple, more than any other company.

I don’t even own any of their other products. When it comes to my phone? I like the walled garden.
 

Reallink

Member
The much bigger monopoly issue with Apple is them being allowed to use their market dominance to buy year long exclusivity rights to leading node fabs and even emerging technologies like the Vision Pro microOLED displays. Corrupt as fuck. They literally buy their way out of competition. What Apple does would be akin to early days Ford buying out all the rubber and steel to ensure their competitors have to use wood and wicker.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
For me, the only reason I own an iPhone is for iMessage and AirDrop. Just makes messaging and photo sharing ridiculously easy. I would prefer if these things were open standards and not a proprietary feature of iPhone so that I can buy whatever phone I want. I would not have one problem if the government enforced standards on transmissions between phones to include messaging and files.

Having said all that, Apple does not have a monopoly here. These seems like a futile effort by the DOJ.
 

JackMcGunns

Member
Iirc, Google recently tweaked aspects of their messaging platform to work better with iMessage and a short time afterwards, Apple allegedly made changes to intentionally break the new compatibility. It revolved around "liking" messages.


Wow, so Apple patched it again so what Google did to make everyone happy doesn't work again? now THAT is grounds for anti-competition.

Here's what I understand. The messaging protocol that Google is using (RCS) is actually newer tech and more versatile than what Apple is using (SMS) but Apple being Apple likes to keep everyone on older tech as long as possible. (See lightning vs USB-C)

Long story short, everyone can be enjoying messaging on RCS, but Apple has created the illusion that Android users are the one's missing out in features, not by adding features, but by creating an illusion, because when in a group text, everyone who's on Android see a reaction from iPhone users, they don't see a Thumbs (y) up or Heart :messenger_heart:, they see "Maria Liked the message [Then the whole message written out]" because that's what Apple's platform auto-replies to anyone on RCS.

So what did Android CLEVER engineers do?

They created a script so that if an Android user receives a message from an iPhone user that has the ridiculous whole paragraph: "Maria Liked the message [Then the whole message written out]" it replaces it with just a heart over the original as an iPhone would do it.

GENIUS!

If Apple changed something again to sabotage that, then it's definitely anti consumer.
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Member
Wow, so Apple patched it again so what Google did to make everyone happy doesn't work again? now THAT is grounds for anti-competition.

Here's what I understand. The messaging protocol that Google is using is actually more modern and more secure than what Apple is using and makes better sense from a consumer's standpoint, but Apple being Apple (See lightning vs USB-C) wants to force everyone to use their own proprietary ish.

Long story short, everyone can be enjoying messaging on a newer and more secure platform, but Apple has created the illusion that Android users are the one's missing out because when in a group text, everyone who's on Android see a reaction from iPhone users, they don't see a Thumbs up or Heart, they see "Maria Liked the message [Then the whole message written out]" because that's what Apple platform sends out to anyone not on their ecosystem.

So what did Android CLEVER engineers do?

They created a script so that if an Android user receives a message from an iPhone users that has the ridiculous whole paragraph: "Maria Liked the message [Then the whole message written out]" it replaces it with just a heart over the original as an iPhone would do it.

GENIUS!

If Apple changed something again to sabotage that, then it's definitely anti consumer.
Yes, this is what I'm referring to. I don't remember specifics, but after Google made some QoL changes to their "reactions", Apple changed the manner in which their reactions worked to break it.
 

Comandr

Member
Apple said the lawsuit, if successful, would “hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services intersect” and would “set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.”

He's right. It's not like Google isn't doing the exact same thing. The newest Google Pixel and WearOS smartwatches like newer Samsung Galaxy series cannot pair with an iPhone or any non-Android device because they require certain google services baked into Android 9 and up.

Google is also doing the same out-of-app purchase fees that Apple instated.

They tried this monopoly thing with iMessage and it failed because it turns out, most people don't use iMessage actually. An overwhelming amount of people use Whatsapp or other such services.

I can't feel that this is being done in good faith with the consumer in mind. When you're one of the wealthiest companies in the world, you're going to have every lawyer coming out of the woodwork to sue you for just about anything.

Where are the lawsuits going after Samsung for SmartThings and their interoperability? My Samsung soundbar doesn't communicate in the same way with my Sony TV that it would with a Samsung TV. I'm being punished with missing functionality for having the audacity for buying a different brand. Similarly, I can't use my Sony TV sound features in the same way.

All major companies do this. They all build in some kind of exclusive features for their brands so that they encourage stickiness. So where are those lawsuits? Where's that outrage?
 

MarkMe2525

Member
For me, the only reason I own an iPhone is for iMessage and AirDrop. Just makes messaging and photo sharing ridiculously easy. I would prefer if these things were open standards and not a proprietary feature of iPhone so that I can buy whatever phone I want. I would not have one problem if the government enforced standards on transmissions between phones to include messaging and files.

Having said all that, Apple does not have a monopoly here. These seems like a futile effort by the DOJ.
I would agree that Apple services wouldn't fit the traditional definition of a monopoly. In saying that, I can imagine these definitions changing in a service based economy.
 

reinking

Gold Member
For me, the only reason I own an iPhone is for iMessage and AirDrop. Just makes messaging and photo sharing ridiculously easy. I would prefer if these things were open standards and not a proprietary feature of iPhone so that I can buy whatever phone I want. I would not have one problem if the government enforced standards on transmissions between phones to include messaging and files.

Having said all that, Apple does not have a monopoly here. These seems like a futile effort by the DOJ.
I have always gone back and forth but probably sticking with iPhone from here on out because of messaging, photo and facetime. My family is mostly on iPhones and facetime is the one thing I truly missed when I was on Android.
 

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Apple's response to this is that the lawsuit "if successful, would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple".

Lol. They know they're in deep water this time. Good. About time. I hope Apple lose.

 

Bernoulli

M2 slut
I would be 100% on board for that. Air Drop, especially when I’m at work, is just so good.
Really is. The tech should at least be licensed out at the very least. Apple should get something out of it, but to me this is tech that shouldn't be stuck behind an ecosystem.

air drop has been android devices for years, it's not called air drop but it works the same
it's apple that blocks any sharing between android and ios

 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I would agree that Apple services wouldn't fit the traditional definition of a monopoly. In saying that, I can imagine these definitions changing in a service based economy.

Good point. Evolving tech can dominate even if the traditional standard of a monpoly isn't met. Something lawmakers should look at if they ever get their heads out of their collective asses.

whatsapp.com
snapdrop.net

Yeah, but I'm taking about standards implement on the phone. Not apps.
 
Top Bottom