8 ms·

> The Justice Department, which began its investigation into Apple in 2019, chose to build a broader and more ambitious case than any other regulator has brough

• ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty conclusively proving... it's all about collecting the rent.
  • mjhagen 3y ago
    > it's all about collecting the rent Which is not illegal.
    • trothamel 3y ago
      Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?
    • immibis 3y ago
      It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.
  • bink 3y ago
    Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing. It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.
    • skeptrune 3y ago
      But sideloading is viable for everything else... I think that's the core argument that makes what Apple does criminal
    • arrosenberg 3y ago
      > it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors FWIW - this is further evidence of anticompetitive behavior. In a competitive market, entrants would be trying to drive distribution costs to 0. The fact that Apple makes its entire App Store revenue off those distribution revenues is highly telling. It would only be considered predatory if they charging a rate below their own costs of distribution. I.E. If it costs Apple $0.10 to cover the costs of app distribution per download, then it would be completely legal for them to charge $0.11, but illegal and predatory to charge $0.09.
      • ribosometronome 3y ago
        It's the standard used by almost all app stores, save for new entrants trying to buy their way into the market. Steam is 30% and there's nothing stopping you from installing alternatives. Nintendo's eStore is 30% and they control 100% of the mobile console market.
• flutas 3y ago
  I'm (legitimately) curious could the fact that (almost) all of that is now open in the EU due to their laws but not the US. Would that hurt their argument since they blocked off the change from the US. Or would that all be solved by a statement along the lines of "Well, EU iPhones are now less secure."
  • wtallis 3y ago
    The arguments about performance and security aren't about whether Apple could open up, but about whether they should. The changes in the EU will answer the latter, but slowly.
    • BlackFly 3y ago
      The EU laws allow exceptions for security, but most of the Apple shenanigans related to the DMA were walked back the minute the EU said they would launch an investigation into the matter. So no, I would say it is absolutely about whether they can open up and still be secure. It seems that they lack confidence that the arguments they had put forward would survive scrutiny asking just that question. Heck, there are even exceptions in the law that would allow them extended time periods in order to comply with the requirements in order to ensure security. So if it is just a question of needing more time, they can get it, and if it is a question of not being possible for users to be secure when interoperable with third parties, they can get exceptions for that.
• causi 3y ago
  The US government has let its definition for monopolistic behavior slip so much over the last few decades I don't think you could successfully prosecute for anything short of sending thugs to break your competitors' kneecaps. The days when the DOJ would prosecute a company for including a web browser with an OS are long gone.
  • nradov 3y ago
    The facts were different in the Microsoft case. If they had built in Internet Explorer as a "free" feature in a Windows upgrade it would have been tough to prove anticompetitive behavior. But they originally sold IE as a separate product, like as boxes in retail stores. They only bundled it with Windows later and there was clear evidence during the trial that they made the change specifically to kill Netscape.
  • rpdillon 3y ago
    A bit of hyperbole, but otherwise a fair assessment based on my readings. HBR has a piece from 2017 on this. https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s-antitrust-movement https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s... The golden era of anti-trust was 1940s-1970s, but faded with the rise of the Chicago School of Economics. It does indeed seem to be coming back more now.
• nradov 3y ago
  Sometimes these lawsuits are filed not strictly for legal reasons but to put pressure on companies, or as political payback to certain special interest groups (election year). Even if the case is eventually thrown out of court it may succeed in shifting Apple's behavior.
• oatmeal1 3y ago
  It seems easy to prove to me; anti-trust law is intentionally vague and broad to allow the government to prosecute all kinds of monopoly tactics. Apple had the option to give a warning to users that using an alternative app store may risk security. It doesn't have to block it all-together. Same with Apple Wallet.
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    Yes, there is a lot of discretion in what cases are brought, and if a new administration comes in next year this may be dismissed/deprioritized. Still, I doubt Tim or other Apple employees will be making many donations to Biden's challenger! (Shareholders might be a different story.) Even if the case continues, it will be a challenge to win. Apple has asymmetric information and knows what they can use to defend the various allegations.
    • kccqzy 3y ago
      Biden's challenger was in office at the time when the Justice Department started the investigation.
      • gnicholas 3y ago
        Good point, although the decision to move forward with the case was made under the current administration.
        • ysavir 3y ago
          Well damn, if ending Apple's monopoly is the key to uniting the country politically, sign me up.
        • throw0101c 3y ago
          > Good point, although the decision to move forward with the case was made under the current administration. The President/Administration telling the AG what to move forward on (and what not to) is generally not a thing, and when it does happen, there are often headlines: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/18/william-barr-has-considered-resigning-over-trumps-involvement/4802249002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/18/will...
• amelius 3y ago
  > Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet Then why, for the sake of the argument, do they allow third party browsers, messaging and payments on MacOS ?!? Apple makes it sound like MacOS is horribly insecure.
  • basisword 3y ago
    Legacy decision? Would they do the same starting a new desktop OS today? Much more high risk personal data on an iPhone (e.g. health data, biometrics) requiring stricter security? Many more sensors which could be abused by nefarious actors on iOS (GPS, lots of mics, lidar, cameras, etc) and these are always with us?
    • amelius 3y ago
      They could easily ban these third party applications on MacOS too. So it is more likely that it's simply anti-competitive reasons.
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    Performance is less of an issue on computers because battery life isn’t as much of a concern. Also, they allow other messaging and payments on iOS just like they do on MacOS. They just don’t offer the unique payment chip access on iOS to third parties.
  • audunw 3y ago
    If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. Especially since the phone itself is considered a two factor authentication device by several services and my employer. And the attack vectors are more numerous. I have ten times as many apps on my phones, it’s always on, always connected, and may frequently connect to wifi networks I don’t fully trust. The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer. I’m on the side of wanting Apple to open up a bit more. But I it’s absolutely valid to want the iPhone to be more secure than a laptop. And I seriously hope Apple isn’t forced to let people install apps that aren’t signed and reviewed. I can guarantee you that critical services in your life will force you to install insecure and straight up dangerous apps. The banking sector in some countries is a prime example of that, especially back in the ActiveX era.
• andrewmutz 3y ago
  How do you think they would spin Messages interoperability as security or performance?
  • macintux 3y ago
    End to end encryption can only be guaranteed if you control both ends.
    • tomrod 3y ago
      How does PGP solve this?
      • danaris 3y ago
        PGP isn't an end-to-end encryption service; it's a public-key encryption package. To clarify macintux's statement, you can only guarantee end-to-end encryption will both remain secure and allow your messages to be read if you control both ends. If you do not control the other end, but you give it the ability to decrypt your messages (and thus let them be read), then whoever does control the other end can save the plaintext, post it elsewhere, and generally do whatever they want with it. To be "end-to-end encrypted", something has to actually be a service you are using, not merely a method of encryption. An end-to-end encrypted service could use PGP if it wanted (AFAIK), but PGP, in itself, is just a way for you to encrypt your messages, and then, optionally, share your public key to allow them to be decrypted by those you give it to, while also guaranteeing that those messages came from you (as long as you have kept your private key safe). So I'm afraid your question, as it stands, doesn't really make sense, but I hope this has helped to answer the underlying questions for you.
        • Drew_ 3y ago
          No, his question makes perfect sense and your response doesn't really make any. End-to-end encryption doesn't imply encryption from one end of the universe to the other. It is what it says on the tin: encryption from one end to another. Your message is insecure beyond the the other end. That is true both for PGP encrypted messages as well as iMessage messages. There's nothing on iPhones or Macs actually protecting your decrypted messages. Most of the on device security is optional and your messages, photos and files can be copied and shared anywhere in plain text.
• quatrefoil 3y ago
  I'm guessing the plan is to cast a wide net, then hope that you can dredge up some incriminating or morally ambiguous quotes during discovery. When you have a company of 100,000+ people, there's probably some "haha we're killing the competition" in there, which you can then use to prop up the case. And then either use that to win the trial, or force Apple into settling.
• bevekspldnw 3y ago
  They may or may not prevail, but in the meantime they will likely have to slam the brakes on any closed feature developments. That alone is good for consumers.
• 1oooqooq 3y ago
  [flagged]
• devsda 3y ago
  > As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. If this case is thrown off how long can it take for them to make another antitrust case with a different set of stronger arguments ? Given that they started in 2019 for this one, if lost there is real risk of waiting another 5 years for any meaningful change.
• anonymouse008 3y ago
  The article leaves out a ton over the actual compliant // filed in Eastern NJ for a reason. They must be going for Verizon or Samsung witnesses? If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple. If Apple can redefine things like 'Super Apps' and 'Mini Apps,' then this thing is a wet paper bag. Personally I see avenues for both outcomes.
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    > If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple. This is a very low bar. It is of course the case that if you assume one party's definitions are accepted then they will win. The battlefield will be the definitions (just like in patent law the battlefield is the claim construction).
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• doctorpangloss 3y ago
  > Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice That's true, but odds are they have a lot of e-mails and a lot of employees who can testify to the browser choice decision being driven by lock-in. The iMessage emails were pretty unambiguous with regards to how it is used in an anti-consumer way. (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-android-ecosystem-lock-in-epic-games-filings-app-store-dispute https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...) Similar stuff will exist for everything they do, because they cannot distort the reality that in 2024 their software kind of sucks, and that their customers only use it because they don't have alternatives and Apple prevents those alternatives from being viable.
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    Yeah it'll be interesting to see (via discovery) whether Apple has policies like Google's regarding "words not to use".
    • snotrockets 3y ago
      If a company doesn’t, I’d suspect the competence of their legal dept.
      • sanderjd 3y ago
        Yes, but I'd also be surprised by a company's employees doing a universally good job abiding by such guidelines.
    • VHRanger 3y ago
      Do such policies trigger adverse inference or some similar concept?
    • khazhoux 3y ago
      There’s nothing wrong with having “words not to use.” Companies have to think ahead to some possible lawsuit in ten years where a jury might have a damning interpretation of some minor word choice.
• gcheong 3y ago
  Perhaps, but I'm glad they're at least trying.
• RNAlfons 3y ago
  People waved the EU case away with the same argument. Actually it is a kind of iArgument. However nobody buys it besides their most loyal customers.
  • katbyte 3y ago
    The eu case seemed to make more sense and was pro consumer: open up messaging / App Store and switch to usb c. This one seems different at first glance,
  • sneak 3y ago
    Nah, users really are dumb and really will follow steps that will result in malware getting on their devices. This happens all of the time in Android-land. Burying the setting won’t change this, people will follow tutorials to disable the security protections if they think it will get them the content they want (and, in some cases, it will, wrt pirate apps etc). There’s no real way to square the circle: either Apple (and the state) has realtime app censorship control (nominally for malware, as well as any other thing the state or Apple’s business model feels existentially threatened by), or the user can install any app they want, with all of the associated risks. Even with notarization and self-distribution you’re still in the first category because the state can compel Apple to treat protest apps or non-backdoored e2ee messaging apps the exact same as they do malware, and prevent them from launching. Users mostly want the former, because most users aren’t worried about government censorship or oppression. Tech people and cypherpunks and pirates and protesters usually want the latter. Tech people usually want the former for their parents/grandparents for whom they serve as device sysadmin.
• emodendroket 3y ago
  I agree and I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits, seems to be to make a grinding, years- (or even decades-) long push to shift the understanding of what antitrust is and make major changes to the landscape; kind of an inverse of what the conservatives have been able to do with various issues, where their positions were initially laughed out of the room but now have the weight of Supreme Court decisions behind them decades later.
  • zer00eyz 3y ago
    >> I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors). Or lock ins where there is NO alternative (MS and browsers). This doesn't really meet those bars. If Apple wins this one at home, then they can quickly cry about other countries regulations being "anti competitive". I have to wonder if this political on some level.
    • emodendroket 3y ago
      > We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors). Not anymore... look at the failed action to stop MS acquiring Activision for instance. Was that "blatant"? I guess not since enforcement failed. Lina Khan's whole thing is aggressively broadening antitrust enforcement.
  • gcheong 3y ago
    I think you're right: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/whats-coming-in-2024-on-the-monopoly https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/whats-coming-in-2024-on-t...
    • emodendroket 3y ago
      Matt Stoller and Lina Khan run in the same circles so, yes, probably what he writes is a reasonable proxy for what she thinks.
• KKKKkkkk1 3y ago
  Every employee that joins Apple goes through a course that teaches a few case studies about Apple's culture. One of those is how Steve Jobs made the decision to kill Flash. IMHO it was a no brainer and if this sort of thing needs to be litigated in court, it's a travesty.
  • dartos 3y ago
    Everything needs to be litigated.
• danesparza 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I agree. I was alive and working when the US brought it's antitrust case against Microsoft back in the early 2000's. This feels like a vastly different case, and not one that they'll likely be able to win against Apple.
• jwagenet 3y ago
  It seems to me the US would be better off copy-pasting EU regulation than trying to smush apples behavior into old school antitrust violations.
  • t888 3y ago
    The EU legislation wouldn’t fly for a second in the US system of law.
  • Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    Well, The Justice Department at least can't do that, because they can't write laws.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      Since when does “the US” consist exclusively of “the Justice Department” and not, e.g., the FTC (which writes antitrust regulations within existing law) and Congress (which writes laws).
      • Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        I honestly don't know much about this, but isn't it standard for government lawsuits to be "United States vs John Smith"?
        • dragonwriter 3y ago
          To the extent that is correct [0], that doesn't justify reinterpreting “the US should adopt regulations like X” to mean “the Justice Department and not any other part of the US government should adopt regulations like X”. [0] Its essentially those actions where the DoJ is the agency representing the government interest, including all federal criminal cases and some federal civil cases. Civil cases by other agencies have the agency name; so the antitrust complaint by the DoJ, 15 state governments, and the District of Columbia is United States of America, et al. v. Apple, but the SEC action against Coinbase was Securities and Exchange Commission v. Coinbase, Inc., and Coinbase Global, Inc.
• cactusplant7374 3y ago
  > Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice Didn't work in Europe. The alternative browser growth in Europe is massive. Literally, an industry revitalized overnight.
• mariodiana 3y ago
  Perhaps this is essentially more lawfare against a party antagonistic to the political aims of Washington players. We know that our national (as well as state) law enforcement entities have been alleging for more than a decade now that Apple's encryption practices stymie their efforts to catch "bad guys." What better way to put back room pressure on a company.
  • sneak 3y ago
    This is a false narrative. iPhones back up full message history and all photos by default in a non-e2ee fashion that is easily readable by both Apple and the government unless the user and everyone they message with specifically opts into e2ee (which approximately nobody has, even in tech circles). There is no “going dark” issue on iOS platforms. Apple has played ball in full with the USG on that front. In fact, Android backups are e2ee so the government can get more data from Apple on iPhone users than they can get from Google for Android users.
    • dilyevsky 3y ago
      Apple has option to enable e2ee on backups now. It sort of defeats the purpose of backup though because if you lose device you lose the backup (assuming you only have one device and didn’t setup recovery keys off device)
• yieldcrv 3y ago
  yeah its a novel expansion of antitrust law to say that merely maintaining features that the market chose is an antitrust violation if you weren’t anticompetitive to get to that place, thats been good enough?