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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/technology/antitrust-apple-lawsuit-us.html
“Apple does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business,” Mr. Cook said at the time. “That is not just true for iPhone; it is true for any product category.”
Is anyone here familiar enough with antitrust law to clarify what the bar is for consideration?
Can someone explain why Apple would be required to do either of these things?
Specifically, why would Apple be required to make the Apple Watch work with other phones? And why would Apple be required allow competitors access to iMessage?
Note I am not asking if Apple should do these things.
Thanks.
IMO, it’s not likely that Apple would be required to do either. But Apple is the most popular smartphone in the US and they do use iMessage as one way to lock in customers. Are they using their majority position to restrain other smartphone makers? I don’t know. But they definitely have a monopoly on iOS/iPadOS software sales.
My guess is Apple will probably be required to make some changes similar to those it is facing in the EU.
I think this is just an example of a “big company bad” mentality. The argument for antitrust is usually that consumers are harmed by not having choices for cheaper alternatives. But there are far many Android phones that are cheaper than the iPhone. Same with smart watches, lots of cheaper alternatives.
People choose to pay more for Apple products because they are better integrated with each other. But if you want cheaper options there are plenty.
This may be true from a manufacturer perspective? I understand that globally Android outsells iPhones massively, but what is the split of Mobile OSs in the US these days?
We’ve also got to bear in mind that a majority does not equal a monopoly
Do they though? This isn’t an issue in the UK and EU where WhatsApp is in far greater use than iMessage.
Consumers choose which messaging apps they use and have many options. Because they choose to use iMessage and do not choose other alternatives, is that Apple’s fault? I’m playing devil’s advocate to a certain extent.
True and at least in the US a monopoly isn’t illegal, as long as you don’t abuse your power.
In July the iPhone had a 54% marketshare in the US
Yes. “Apple knows that iMessage’s blue bubbles are a big barrier to people switching to Android, which is why the service has never appeared on Google’s mobile operating system”
That’s fine, but Apple is not actually restricting people from communicating with Android users by using the Messages app, nor blocking 3rd party apps from being installed on iPhones.
This is why the EU’s “requirement” that all messaging apps should be able to interoperate is a nonsense. I could understand if there was no competition, but there is plenty.
Why is this bad? That is, why is making a quality product/service which is provided to customers as part of purchasing an Apple product a bad thing?
I’ll leave that to the DOJ to decide.
Personally I’d be satisfied if I could choose my default SMS messaging app. I’ve been in places where iMessage couldn’t operate correctly and I had to borrow an android phone to send a message. And there are times I need a non-webkit browser on my iPad Pro.
You imply that it is bad, and then you punt? Lame.
There are many things I’d like, that doesn’t make them legally actionable.
And you can, by choosing to purchase an Android phone.
Not every product meets every need. And it is not Apple’s responsibility, as much as we might like it to, to meet every use case.
As another example, is Apple abusing their position in making computers with integrated GPUs and thus locking out Nvidia and others? And thus depriving customers choice in the GPU market?
As I noted in the Hey thread, when Apple (or any company for that matter) abuses their position, it should be dealt with. But just because someone wants something doesn’t make it the responsibility of a company to provide it.
If messaging is always, forever, strictly to be and to remain an individual expressing themselves solely to another individual for nothing other than luxury or entertainment, yes. At what point though does the inability to text message to anyone else regardless of that other person not having shared hardware put a barrier to the prevention of physical harm or damage, perhaps even to the point of saying it causes additional harm or damage?
Take the example of police, medical personal, and firemen (firepeople???) all together at an emergency site. At least once, I’ve heard of the physical harm or disasters that would have been prevented had they each not been locked into their own communication channel and/or operation mode.
Perhaps closer to individual’s home, imagine your loved one not being able to text you an urgent message about a potential danger to you simply because you are on a different hardware system.
I am old enough to appreciate … just pick up the phone and call. But I am not so clueless as to not see that text messaging is the defacto approach to almost everything now (as our attempts to plan the recent holiday period with the children and the grandkids has proven nicely).
–
JJW
After four paragraphs of argument, I don’t see that anyone is being forced to do anything or being prevented from communicating with others.
I didn’t mean to imply anything. I said that Apple uses iMessage to lock in customers. “That’s according to depositions and emails from Apple employees, including some high-ranking executives, revealed in a court filing from Epic Games as part of its legal dispute with the iPhone manufacturer.”
As for iMessage and wanting another browser, that’s my wish list. I prefer Apple hardware but everything else I use is cross platform. I’ve never relied on a single vendor because no one is the best at everything. That’s why the next time I travel to the region where I had the problem I plan to take a Garmin inReach as backup.
And right there in the Messages app, you send an SMS message to an Android phone. You don’t even have to do anything special, the iPhone just figures out it needs to send the text over SMS.
Which demands that I use cellular for a text message.
Frankly, to summarize my longer post, I see no reason to cry foul about governments setting a requirement for a standard in interoperability in text messaging because, in my clear view, doing so will eliminate a barrier in what is becoming a standard in communication, regardless how seemingly small the barrier currently appears to be and regardless how many the seeming multitude of ways currently exist to get around the barrier.
I’ve been to one too many parties in my life where the lack of a standard in how to communicate something is the culprit leading to miscommunication.
Finally, to invert it, with a standard, I don’t see any message app developer being forced to do something that cannot be done or being prevented from developing apps to allow anyone to communicate by text message with others. To the contrary, I don’t see anyone continuing to be forced to use SMS for text messages.
—
JJW
+1 for a standard in text messaging.
When covid hit and we all retreated to our homes it was Zoom, not Teams, Google Meet, or FaceTime, etc. that became the standard. Because it was simple and anyone could use it. That’s the same reason we are seeing so many electron apps. Cross platform means more potential customers and that’s a good thing.
Now if someone could come up with a replacement for electron. 
Having moved from iPhone getting your number deregistered from Apple wasn’t a pleasant process. On my iPhone I also found sending a normal SMS hardly ever worked and my Apple watch needed tech support to get SMS messages to work when I turned off iMessages. All in all I didn’t feel Apple made it easy just to use simple SMS on my iPhone.