7 ms·

>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 o

>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. I'm not sure if current U.S. antitrust law condemns this behavior from Apple. In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It can be anticompetitive to worsen access for competitors from a prior baseline without a procompetitive justification, but it's generally not anticompetitive to never offer access at parity with your own products (self preferencing) in the first place. While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Still, this article is helpful in that is tells us what areas are the focus of the government's case (notably: nothing about the App Store).

oh_sigh 3y ago
I think it is kind of funny that one arm of the government is saying Apple can't sell its watches, while another arm is saying the watches are furthering their monopoly position.
- neogodless 3y ago
  And I don't think these two things contradict each other. Apple can't sell its watches because of intellectual property theft. So not only did they take features from a smaller potential competitor, but they lock their Watch buyers into the iPhone ecosystem.
zug_zug 3y ago
What? I remember microsoft getting into huge shit over mandating preinstalling internet explorer on their OS. This feels 100x worse because you can't install any alternative sms application afaik. I think the only mismatch is that lawmakers always 20 years behind the times, so it's taken them this long to realize that sms/imessage/whatever is just as fundamental as a browser for modern interconnectivity.
- granzymes 3y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors. Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration. Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
    - mckn1ght 3y ago
      They did address it by explaining why it's not only not worse, but different. Microsoft to OEMs: you can only put our OS on the devices you sell if you make IE the default. Without Windows, PC makers knew they had no market to sell to because there was no viable alternative OS being demanded by consumers (hence the asserted monopoly position of Microsoft). They were restraining other business from engaging alternatives from competing browser makers. Apple: we build our messaging product, in our OS, on our devices There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Statutory antitrust law in the US is extremely broad, to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it to not prohibit anyone from so much as entering into a 30 day purchasing contract because it would restrain the buyer from patronizing a competitor for 30 days. By its terms that would nominally be a violation. As a result most of what you have to look at is case law. But antitrust cases are rare to begin with and ones dealing with this kind of "huge conglomerate that ties its products and services together with computer code" -- try to name one dealing with a company of that nature other than Microsoft. Maybe AT&T? It's not a lot of precedent until you're looking at cases of much smaller companies doing much narrower things, which leaves plenty of room for the judge to "distinguish" them (i.e. do whatever they want in this case). > In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It seems like a major difference here isn't just that they won't deal with competitors, it's that they don't allow their customers to deal with competitors. This is quite stark when you're looking at their products -- someone who owns an iPhone can't reasonably modify or replace the system software to integrate a competing payments system (or, for that matter, app store) because Apple doesn't allow it even on a piece of hardware they sold and is now owned by someone else. You could make that argument for services, i.e. iMessage, but there are at least two other ways to get at that. First, iMessage is tied to their other offerings and so then you get them for the tying. Second, maybe routing something with a network effect through a centralized service is a different kind of thing than refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you don't have a monopoly on delivery service. Maybe it's more like refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you do have a monopoly on delivery service. > I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Congress pretty much authorized the courts to do whatever they want on this. The real question is what they want to do. You have to go back to Congress if they do something dumb.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 3y ago
> While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. I would not be surprised if they are trying to push the envelope of the current law is fine and I think that's fine. If you're unwilling to try to enforce unless you're 100% sure no judge would ever disagree with you, you're going to let people get away with a LOT of stuff by default that could very well be found to be covered by existing statute. And the failures could galvanize additional legislation more than doing nothing.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The big issue is Apple air tags. They work so well because people own lots of iPhones, and there is nothing really equivalent that uses all Android phones to do the same. Air tags pretty much lock you into the Apple ecosystem given how useful they are, and the lack of an alternative from the competition.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Why is this Apple's fault that they've built their devices from the ground up to work seamlessly together and other companies haven't? A competitor is free to make their own version of air tags that work with Android phones.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    The only reason AirTags work is because every iPhone runs code that tracks them. There are thousands of different models of Android phones, 99% of them have software that will never see another update again. How exactly do you add code that detects "their own version of air tags that work with Android phones"? The answer is you don't. AirTags took off because Apple had the ability to retroactively make every existing iPhone start to track them. No other company can pull that off.
    - pas 3y ago
      hm, they are BLE devices right? google can push out google play services updates to a lot of those phones anytime. it doesn't seem inconceivable. (recent nothing os update has some feature related to this, I have no idea if it's from stock android or not though.)
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        I don't think it would be totally impossible for Google to try this, but even the percentage of phones that have functioning GMS (i.e. on a recent enough Android version, receiving updates, and even having GMS installed in the first place) is far lower than the percentage of iPhones that are still receiving updates. Sure, most phones you can buy in the US will have GMS, but part of the benefit of AirTags is being able to track things through, say, China, and you could be somewhat hard-pressed to find a chinese Android with GMS. Meanwhile, all sorts of people all around the world want the latest iPhone, and every single latest iPhone in the world gets the latest updates.
ClassyJacket 3y ago
>investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands This is such a misleading way to phrase it. The Apple Watch only works with the iPhone (unfortunately. I would buy one if it worked on Android. Android watches are universally hopeless) If you don't have it paired to an iPhone, an Apple Watch won't even tell you the time.

oh_sigh 3y ago

I think it is kind of funny that one arm of the government is saying Apple can't sell its watches, while another arm is saying the watches are furthering their monopoly position.

neogodless 3y ago
And I don't think these two things contradict each other. Apple can't sell its watches because of intellectual property theft. So not only did they take features from a smaller potential competitor, but they lock their Watch buyers into the iPhone ecosystem.

zug_zug 3y ago

What? I remember microsoft getting into huge shit over mandating preinstalling internet explorer on their OS. This feels 100x worse because you can't install any alternative sms application afaik. I think the only mismatch is that lawmakers always 20 years behind the times, so it's taken them this long to realize that sms/imessage/whatever is just as fundamental as a browser for modern interconnectivity.

granzymes 3y ago
Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors. Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration. Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  I feel like you really didn't address what I said at all. These are two cases of OS dictating which software comes on their platform. To make it worse, the microsoft case was just about defaults, you could still install whatever the heck you wanted. Whereas in IOS you can't, period. So just imagine if microsoft windows never allowed you to install any other web-browsers without breaking the OS.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    You're talking past the issue. When Microsoft tells OEMs -- someone not Microsoft, "we won't license you Windows unless you include and set as default Internet Explorer" that's anticompetitive. It's the act of using your pull of needing to buy Windows get another business to do something unrelated. MS could absolutely not allow you to have any other browser without it being anticompetitive, to wit this is what happens on Xbox. This is why Apple won and Google lost their case with Epic. Google tried to have an open platform but then used their pull with gapps to force OEMs to privilege the Play store. The mere act of privileging your own products and services on your own platform isn't anticompetitive.
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    They did address it by explaining why it's not only not worse, but different. Microsoft to OEMs: you can only put our OS on the devices you sell if you make IE the default. Without Windows, PC makers knew they had no market to sell to because there was no viable alternative OS being demanded by consumers (hence the asserted monopoly position of Microsoft). They were restraining other business from engaging alternatives from competing browser makers. Apple: we build our messaging product, in our OS, on our devices There are no other businesses involved between Apple and end users, who can use competing device makers, OS makers and contrary to what you stated, messaging services like Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Statutory antitrust law in the US is extremely broad, to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it to not prohibit anyone from so much as entering into a 30 day purchasing contract because it would restrain the buyer from patronizing a competitor for 30 days. By its terms that would nominally be a violation. As a result most of what you have to look at is case law. But antitrust cases are rare to begin with and ones dealing with this kind of "huge conglomerate that ties its products and services together with computer code" -- try to name one dealing with a company of that nature other than Microsoft. Maybe AT&T? It's not a lot of precedent until you're looking at cases of much smaller companies doing much narrower things, which leaves plenty of room for the judge to "distinguish" them (i.e. do whatever they want in this case). > In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It seems like a major difference here isn't just that they won't deal with competitors, it's that they don't allow their customers to deal with competitors. This is quite stark when you're looking at their products -- someone who owns an iPhone can't reasonably modify or replace the system software to integrate a competing payments system (or, for that matter, app store) because Apple doesn't allow it even on a piece of hardware they sold and is now owned by someone else. You could make that argument for services, i.e. iMessage, but there are at least two other ways to get at that. First, iMessage is tied to their other offerings and so then you get them for the tying. Second, maybe routing something with a network effect through a centralized service is a different kind of thing than refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you don't have a monopoly on delivery service. Maybe it's more like refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service when you do have a monopoly on delivery service. > I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. Congress pretty much authorized the courts to do whatever they want on this. The real question is what they want to do. You have to go back to Congress if they do something dumb.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 3y ago

> While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization. I would not be surprised if they are trying to push the envelope of the current law is fine and I think that's fine. If you're unwilling to try to enforce unless you're 100% sure no judge would ever disagree with you, you're going to let people get away with a LOT of stuff by default that could very well be found to be covered by existing statute. And the failures could galvanize additional legislation more than doing nothing.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

The big issue is Apple air tags. They work so well because people own lots of iPhones, and there is nothing really equivalent that uses all Android phones to do the same. Air tags pretty much lock you into the Apple ecosystem given how useful they are, and the lack of an alternative from the competition.

goatlover 3y ago
Why is this Apple's fault that they've built their devices from the ground up to work seamlessly together and other companies haven't? A competitor is free to make their own version of air tags that work with Android phones.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  The only reason AirTags work is because every iPhone runs code that tracks them. There are thousands of different models of Android phones, 99% of them have software that will never see another update again. How exactly do you add code that detects "their own version of air tags that work with Android phones"? The answer is you don't. AirTags took off because Apple had the ability to retroactively make every existing iPhone start to track them. No other company can pull that off.
  - pas 3y ago
    hm, they are BLE devices right? google can push out google play services updates to a lot of those phones anytime. it doesn't seem inconceivable. (recent nothing os update has some feature related to this, I have no idea if it's from stock android or not though.)
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      I don't think it would be totally impossible for Google to try this, but even the percentage of phones that have functioning GMS (i.e. on a recent enough Android version, receiving updates, and even having GMS installed in the first place) is far lower than the percentage of iPhones that are still receiving updates. Sure, most phones you can buy in the US will have GMS, but part of the benefit of AirTags is being able to track things through, say, China, and you could be somewhat hard-pressed to find a chinese Android with GMS. Meanwhile, all sorts of people all around the world want the latest iPhone, and every single latest iPhone in the world gets the latest updates.

ClassyJacket 3y ago

>investigators have examined how the Apple Watch works better with the iPhone than with other brands This is such a misleading way to phrase it. The Apple Watch only works with the iPhone (unfortunately. I would buy one if it worked on Android. Android watches are universally hopeless) If you don't have it paired to an iPhone, an Apple Watch won't even tell you the time.