No respite for Apple as four more states join lawsuit over alleged smartphone monopoly

zohaibahd

Posts: 152   +1
Staff
What just happened? Apple is facing escalating legal challenges as four more U.S. states have thrown their weight behind the federal government's antitrust lawsuit alleging monopolistic practices in the smartphone market. Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington officially joined the Justice Department's civil case against Apple this week, according to a statement from the agency.

The original complaint filed in March was by 15 states and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit had accused the iPhone maker of wielding its dominance to extract higher profits from consumers, developers, content creators, and businesses across its ecosystem. Specifically, it claimed iPhones sell for as much as $1,599 and that Apple's profit margins dwarf those of rivals. The goal is to break Apple's grip and "restore competition" that it argues would lower prices and spur innovation.

The department also cited five examples where Apple imposes restrictive contracts and blocks critical access in ways that illegally suppress competition and innovation. These example areas included super apps, cloud stream games, messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets. Prosecutors say these monopolistic tactics allow Apple to charge exorbitant prices for iPhones while gouging partners with hidden fees.

Even an email from late founder Steve Jobs surfaced in the lawsuit, stating he aimed to "force" developers to use Apple's payment systems to lock them and users into its ecosystem.

For its part, Apple has forcefully rejected the monopoly allegations, claiming it "faces fierce competition from well-established rivals." The company also claimed that the DOJ relies on a new "theory of antitrust liability that no court has recognized."

This antitrust battle represents a dramatic escalation of the tech industry's conflicts with regulators and competitors over alleged anticompetitive behavior. While Apple has already faced probes and orders in places like Europe over issues such as App Store policies, this US lawsuit strikes at the core of its business model.

Apple isn't the only company facing antitrust cases; US authorities have turned up the heat on Big Tech after leaving it largely to itself for over a decade. Google and Amazon are also facing increased scrutiny.

The last time Washington acted with such ferocity was in the early 90s with the infamous United States v. Microsoft Corp. case, which was settled in the early 2000s.

Meanwhile, Apple finds itself squarely in the crosshairs partly due to the longheld concerns over its "walled garden" approach of tightly controlling its devices and platforms.

Permalink to story:

 
So the first primary reason cited for a monopoly charge is that Apple has too high of margins?

Not in that order: "The lawsuit had accused the iPhone maker of wielding its dominance to extract higher profits."

The question is, "How did it achieve said dominance?" By "[imposing] restrictive contracts and [blocking] critical access in ways that illegally suppress competition and innovation."
 
So the first primary reason cited for a monopoly charge is that Apple has too high of margins? Are we still pretending that America is a capitalist society?
I just think it's a poorly written article and summed things up in a manner that doesn't fit the story well.

Right now the article kind of does read that people are just upset that Apple is making too much money, but that's not what the suit is about, it's more about the anti-competitiveness of Apple's position in the market with their walled off garden ecosystem.

Perhaps a link to the case file for people to read for themselves would have been a nice addition to the story:
 
The question is, "How did it achieve said dominance?" By "[imposing] restrictive contracts and [blocking] critical access in ways that illegally suppress competition and innovation."
Except that's utter hogwash, of course. Walk into any AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile store -- or visit Amazon and any other online retailer -- and what do you see? Cell phones from dozens of different makers. And, according to Apple's detractors at least, nearly all these competitors have phones that are more innovative than Apple's.

it's more about the anti-competitiveness of Apple's position in the market with their walled off garden ecosystem.
If you don't like that "walled off garden", buy a different phone? I don't have the ability to install unapproved apps on my Mercedes sedan, my LG smart TV, or my Samsung smart refrigerator. It's APPLE'S ecosystem. They created it: they set the rules.

What's incredibly ironic is that most of Apple's user base (which I am *not* part of, btw) actually supports these restrictions. Most of this hate is coming from the anti-Apple crowd, who aren't even affected by Apple's policies.
 
Except that's utter hogwash, of course. Walk into any AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile store -- or visit Amazon and any other online retailer -- and what do you see? Cell phones from dozens of different makers. And, according to Apple's detractors at least, nearly all these competitors have phones that are more innovative than Apple's.

If you don't like that "walled off garden", buy a different phone? I don't have the ability to install unapproved apps on my Mercedes sedan, my LG smart TV, or my Samsung smart refrigerator. It's APPLE'S ecosystem. They created it: they set the rules.

What's incredibly ironic is that most of Apple's user base (which I am *not* part of, btw) actually supports these restrictions. Most of this hate is coming from the anti-Apple crowd, who aren't even affected by Apple's policies.
I am split on this, because while we all have the option to choose not to use apple, it's also true that apple's restrictions on payments and store options do lock down their devices something fierce, which is unheard of on any other platform, be it windows, android, or even macOS. And as I'm all for consumers having more control over their devices, the potential benefit here is palpable.
 
Except that's utter hogwash, of course. Walk into any AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile store -- or visit Amazon and any other online retailer -- and what do you see? Cell phones from dozens of different makers. And, according to Apple's detractors at least, nearly all these competitors have phones that are more innovative than Apple's.

If you don't like that "walled off garden", buy a different phone? I don't have the ability to install unapproved apps on my Mercedes sedan, my LG smart TV, or my Samsung smart refrigerator. It's APPLE'S ecosystem. They created it: they set the rules.

What's incredibly ironic is that most of Apple's user base (which I am *not* part of, btw) actually supports these restrictions. Most of this hate is coming from the anti-Apple crowd, who aren't even affected by Apple's policies.

I wasn't qualifying the case. I was merely clarifying the article's text. Have you read the case file? I haven't, so I won't comment on its merits.

But I am 100% sure that Apple, like all its big-money rivals, has engaged and will continue to engage in illegal anticompetitive practices because, in the long run, it pays off to do so—unfortunately.
 
There isn't any "competition" in the USA smartphone market. It's pretty much a duopoly between Apple & Samsung. Unfortunately, American consumers for the most part, think you have to get a smartphone from a carrier because if they "lock in" with a contract they think they are saving money, or not having to spend 500-1000 dollars or more for a phone. Walk into a carrier store, Best Buy, etc and what do you see? A LOT of banners that have Apple and Samsung. And, the clerks will push people to those devices.
I'm sure there is a lot of money from Samsung & Apple going to carrier stores to promote & push their products.
Oh, they might have a couple other manufacturer phones, but they don't push them.
Then, there is the FCC. For a phone to be sold in the USA, it has to be cleared by the FCC. Wanna bet there is a "little" lobbyist money going under the table to keep out some of the competition?
Then there are the carriers. For your phone to work on THEIR network, it has to be supported by the carrier, and the IMEI number has to be in their system. If it isn't, even if it has the proper bands, it won't work. Oh, you can call them and MAYBE they'll add it, but most likely won't.
 
So the first primary reason cited for a monopoly charge is that Apple has too high of margins? Are we still pretending that America is a capitalist society?
Back in about 2015 a report showed that Apple with only 15% of the total world smartphone market had 85% of the profits. They now have a bigger share of the global market. And what has this got to do with just America, they sell phones globally.
 
Back