US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple - Slashdot - JOYK Joy of Geek, Geek News, Link all geek

US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple

Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! OR check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your areaDo you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 30 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Justice Department is in the late stages of an investigation into Apple and could file a sweeping antitrust case taking aim at the company's strategies to protect the dominance of the iPhone as soon as the first half of this year, said three people with knowledge of the matter. The agency is focused on how Apple has used its control over its hardware and software to make it more difficult for consumers to ditch the company's devices, as well as for rivals to compete, said the people, who spoke anonymously because the investigation was active. Specifically, investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands, as well as how Apple locks competitors out of its iMessage service. They have also scrutinized Apple's payments system for the iPhone, which blocks other financial firms from offering similar services, these people said. The Justice Department is closing in on what would be the most consequential federal antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple, which is the most valuable tech company in the world. If the lawsuit is filed, American regulators will have sued four of the biggest tech companies for monopolistic business practices in less than five years. The Justice Department is currently facing off against Google in two antitrust cases, focused on its search and ad tech businesses, while the Federal Trade Commission has sued Amazon and Meta for stifling competition. The Apple suit would likely be even more expansive than previous challenges to the company, attacking its powerful business model that draws together the iPhone with devices like the Apple Watch and services like Apple Pay to attract and keep consumers loyal to its products. Rivals have said that they have been denied access to key Apple features, like the Siri virtual assistant, prompting them to argue the practices are anticompetitive.

›

Apple is the underdog! The plucky 3 Trillion dollar underdog!

Re:

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

i'm an apple hater and agree with this. the app-store can be argued about, the rest... not really. but apple is big and has a lot of money and a lot to lose, so they are a good target. i guess that's why they need yet 6 months to... produce evidence?
So let's take those questions at face value.
Why *should* Apple's smartwatch work with Android?
To answer that, consider why all other smartwatches support both Android and iPhones. It's because in order to compete, they must support whatever hardware you are likely to have. So why doesn't Apple? Because their goal is *not* to compete, but to lock you in to their ecosystem. And that is the definition of anticompetitive, which is what antitrust law is all about. If your a little guy, you can be as anticompetitive as you want, good luck to you. But when you're Goliath, the Feds are going to be watching.
You can apply the same pattern to messaging services and payment services as well. Other vendors support whatever hardware you are using because they want to compete. Apple does not, because they aren't interested in competition, they are interested in lock-in.
- Re:
  
  But Google or Samsung could make an ecosystem that is competitive with Apple's offerings. But they don't.
  - Re:
    
    No, Google or Samsung could not. Apple will not provide the necessary APIs or hooks.
    - Re:
      
      But Google or Samsung could make an ecosystem that is competitive with Apple's offerings. But they don't.
      No, Google or Samsung could not. Apple will not provide the necessary APIs or hooks.
      No, OP wanted to know why Google's smartwatch offerings suck even with Android. Or Samsung, who can easily do same.
      Why can't there be a Pixel Watch that works great with Android? It doesn't need to work with iPhone at all, no one cares. Likewise, why can't Samsung release a Galaxy Watch that works with their phones? They'
      - Re:
        
        Sorry, I somehow misread "competitive" as "compatible". My mistake.
    - Re:
      
      Apple would have no part in them building their own ecosystem. They would be completely irrelevant to the scenario described other than being a competing ecosystem.
- Re:
  
  You are confused about the competition.
  The competition is the ecosystem.
  Plenty of people don't want a mishmash of shit from different vendors cobbled together. They just want shit that works.
  - Re:
    
    No, that's not the case.
    In my home, I have a Pioneer amplifier, paired with an Amazon Fire TV, with a Roku, PlayStation, and Wii connected to it, and Sony speakers. In your "ecosystem" world, I'd be forced to use Pioneer for everything, because it's a "Pioneer ecosystem." That's rubbish.
    - Re:
      
      Yes. You are not one of the people who want a sole-source ecosystem. Congratulations!
      - Re:
        
        And with my entertainment center, I have the freedom to do that. If you're in the Apple ecosystem, you don't have that freedom.
        For those of you who WANT sole-source, that's fine, nobody will take that from you. But for those who don't, antitrust law is there to help ensure that they aren't trapped.
        
        Re:
        
        If I wanted that freedom, I would just go buy products that offer that freedom. I wouldn't demand someone modify their product strategy to suit my needs.
        
        Re:
        
        That's fine, if you're starting from scratch, and if there are lots of companies in the market. But when you already have all kinds of devices in the Apple ecosystem, you are not quite so free to make the switch, because it gets really expensive to purchase new EVERYTHING. That is the definition of lock-in, and that's what the Feds are interested in curbing.
        
        Re:
        
        You are free. It just costs you more. Too fucking bad.
        
        Re:
        
        I think you are really confused about how antitrust works and what actually constitutes a monopoly.
        
        Re:
        
        OK enlighten me!
        Here's what Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        And by the way, antitrust law doesn't just apply to monopolies, it applies to any company that has sufficient market share to significantly hamper competition.
    - Re:
      
      So what? Competitors offering cross compatibility as their strategy is how they compete for people that want that. You not wanting all your devices from the same vendor with seamless integration is your choice meanwhile others choose Apple for that experience.
      - 1 hidden comment
      - Re:
        
        That's great, but no manufactuer should be required to ensure their shit works with their competitor's shit.
        
        Re:
        
        That's only true if you don't control a significant portion of a market. Once you become a controlling force in a market, antitrust law starts to apply, and you are indeed legally and ethically required to ensure that your stuff allows competitors to interface with your systems.
        
        Re:
        
        As of 2023, Android has a 70.29% global market share.
        
        Re:
        
        The context of this article is the US, where Apple has a 57% market share. https://explodingtopics.com/bl... [explodingtopics.com]
      - Re:
        
        How are the locked in against their will?
      - Re:
        
        Seamless integration isn't the problem. Preventing others from integrating, is.
- Re:
  
  oh, they do compete. it's just that their product is the whole ecosystem. competition is perfectly able to build their own.
  but competition doesn't, and it's not because apple doesn't allow it, but because it's a huge and risky endeavor. how they tie everything together is actually one of their selling points, but that comes at a price: i (and a lot of people) wouldn't touch their product with a 3 meter pole precisely for that reason, but another lot of people love it. i would find it laughable and simply un
  - Re:
    
    Yes, Apple has worked very hard to lock people into its "ecosystem." The fact is, Google and Samsung and others have also built parallel ecosystems. The difference is, if I've bought a FitBit, and I decide to switch from Apple to Android, I can do that. I shouldn't have to buy new everything, just because I decide to switch from Apple to Android. There is no reason to lock people into an "ecosystem" except to prevent competition. In the US and the EU, that's not legal, nor (in my opinion) should it be legal
    - Re:
      
      i think that not having to implement and maintain yet another protocol/interface is a good enough reason, and i don't think you can compel them unless there exists a suitable standard and the product in question is really socially relevant or a necessity. i wouldn't say a fitbit qualifies.
      this is not black and white at all, so it depends much on the narrative. will see. but even it that were their intention (which is possibly the case) i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed, furthermore they have plenty
      - 1 hidden comment
      - Re:
        
        You're the one bitching about appearances.
      - Re:
        
        Yes, there kind of does exist a double standard. For most businesses, anticompetitive behavior isn't illegal or unethical. It's only when you control a significant portion of a market, that anticompetitive behavior becomes a problem. For the small guys, such behavior just tends to make them less relevant or desirable. For the big guys, it becomes crushing. That's why antitrust laws exist, despite it being something of a double standard.
        And who is the judge of that, and how can that be used as a standard? On
        
        Re:
        
        well, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. i'll wait for the evidence (with popcorn!), and i'm not at all an apple expert but from what i have read the most striking example of anticompetitive behavior (besides de app store) would be imessage and its green balls, and i see how apple could weasel out of that one.
        then again the app-store seems not only anticompetitive because it is the *only* way to get apps to run on iphone, but the fact that apps can't bill anything outside of the store and are forced to
    - Re:
      
      Locked them in? I had no problem ditching my Apple devices when I made that choice.
      - Re:
        
        Maybe you have the money to do that, and maybe it wasn't a problem for you to spend the money necessary to buy all new devices. Not everyone has that kind of money, or even if they do, not everyone wishes to buy a new smartwatch just because they decided to switch to Android.
        For you, a wholesale switch was practical. For others, not so much.
    - Re: Buh buh buh Microsoft isn't getting sued!!
      
      That would be like requiring people to buy replacement software if they switched platforms from windows to macOS or Linux or to switch fuel types if they moved from an ICE vehicle to a diesel one. Why would anyone put up with abuse like that? Seems like governments should prevent such tragic things from happening.
      - Re:
        
        No, it's not like that at all.
        What it's actually like, is being unable to switch from Windows to Mac OS unless you ALSO switch your phone and your smartwatch and so on.
        Or like being able to refuel only at Ford gas stations if you own a Ford truck.
        Let's be clear about what antitrust law is about. Of course, Ford will make their trucks out of Ford parts. But you can by off-brand parts from anywhere that will fit and work just fine. And if you switch to Chevy, you don't have to buy a new phone to go with that.
Re:

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

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

US Moves Closer To Filing Sweeping Antitrust Case Against Apple - Slashdot

Recommend

About Joyk