US Department of Justice files broad antitrust suit against Apple

[Daniel Sims]

What just happened? In a case that has likely been brewing for years, the US Department of Justice is suing Apple over policies that have long drawn the ire of developers and other groups. Following the European Union's recent example, US regulators are targeting the Cupertino giant over software distribution, cloud services, web browsing, third-party services, and many other issues.

The US Department of Justice, and 16 state and district attorneys general, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple this week, alleging its practices in the smartphone market constitute an illegal attempt at monopolization. The suit addresses numerous policies that the DOJ claims harm developers and reduce interoperability with other platforms.

For instance, the 88-page suit highlights Apple's ban on apps for cloud gaming services like GeForce NOW or Xbox Cloud Gaming, which could only be circumvented using web portals. Regulators have previously suggested that this rule gives an unfair advantage to Apple Arcade. Apple recently relaxed this and other rules to comply with Europe's recent Digital Markets Act.

Messaging apps are another area of contention. Cupertino refuses to allow its iMessage service on Android devices and has blocked multiple third-party attempts to bridge the divide, drawing sharp criticism from Google, Meta, and several telecom companies.

Despite this, iMessage has evaded regulation in Europe due to its relatively low popularity there. Currently, text messages from Android phones to iPhones revert to SMS, which lacks features like high-resolution media and end-to-end encryption, but Apple plans to enable RCS soon, which will partially alleviate the problem.

The DOJ also mentions the company's rule against third-party web browser engines, which prevents companies from offering services through mobile websites instead of apps. Apple rescinded the policy in the EU, but competing web browser providers like Mozilla complained that restricting alternate browser engines to Europe would force them to maintain two iOS builds, thus perpetuating the status quo.

According to the lawsuit, blocking super apps or limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches and digital wallets makes leaving Apple's ecosystem unreasonably difficult. Other issues cited include news subscriptions, automotive services, advertising, video conferencing, and more.

In response, Cupertino promised to defend against the lawsuit, claiming it misrepresents the facts and the law. "This lawsuit threatens who we are," said spokesperson Fred Sainz.

The Justice Department initially opened its antitrust probe against Apple and other tech giants in 2019 before launching a significant lawsuit against Google the following year. It remains unclear how long the case against Apple will take.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102351-us-department-justice-files-broad-antitrust-suit-against.html

 

[m4a4]

Good.

 

[Achaios]

Apple is a monopoly and NVDIA isn't one.

I rest my case.

 

[human7]

"This lawsuit threatens who we are," said spokesperson Fred Sainz.

Yep, that's the idea.

 

[human7]

Apple is a monopoly and NVDIA isn't one.

I rest my case.

Apple is more of a duopoly. Honestly not sure if existing antitrust law will work against Apple and other platforms. There needs to be legislation in the U.S. similar to the DMA.

 

[RudyBob]

An election year ploy...See we are doing something!

 

[Endymio]

Apple is more of a duopology. Honestly not sure if existing antitrust law will work against Apple and other platforms. There needs to be legislation in the U.S. similar to the DMA.

Someone who understands basic US antitrust law I see. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and consumers who don't wish to purchase Apple products -- such as myself -- have a wide variety of (better, cheaper) options to choose from. And Apple doesn't have a 90%+ user retention rate because its customers dislike their tight control over the user experience on the iPhone -- it's what most of them like the most.

But when the mob is out with torches and pitchforks, common sense is out the window.

 

[human7]

Someone who understands basic US antitrust law I see. Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and consumers who don't wish to purchase Apple products -- such as myself -- have a wide variety of (better, cheaper) options to choose from. And Apple doesn't have a 90%+ user retention rate because its customers dislike their tight control over the user experience on the iPhone -- it's what most of them like the most.

But when the mob is out with torches and pitchforks, common sense is out the window.

Yep, there are other choices. Even so, the same can be said of Amazon (you can shop elsewhere), Google Search (you can search elsewhere), Android (you can use Apple), etc., but when those platforms act as both platform providers and distributors/publishers/resellers, they can violate anti-trust laws in terms of price fixing and steering (prioritizing their own products over competitors). It's a much harder case to make, but it can be done. If we had legislation that required products that users purchase and own to give the user full control over that device (root access, app sideloading, open source requirements, etc.), that would put the power back in the hands of consumers and help to ensure healthy intra-platform competition. Likely won't happen in the U.S. though.

 

[trparky]

If we had legislation that required products that users purchase and own to give the user full control over that device (root access, app sideloading, open source requirements, etc.), that would put the power back in the hands of consumers and help to ensure healthy intra-platform competition. Likely won't happen in the U.S. though.

Most people who've bought into the iOS ecosystem see that as a bad thing. OK, sure... giving the user the keys to the device might sound like a good thing but it also gives the keys to the device to the people who we don't want to have, namely hackers.

If I had to choose between having a locked down device and having an open device where hackers can ultimately hack my device, steal my data, and otherwise make my life a living hell, I'm probably going to choose the former.

I chose iOS because I want that safety. I want a phone that just plain works, and that's iOS. I don't want to have to think about security constantly like I have to on Windows.

 

[human7]

Most people who've bought into the iOS ecosystem see that as a bad thing. OK, sure... giving the user the keys to the device might sound like a good thing but it also gives the keys to the device to the people who we don't want to have, namely hackers.

If I had to choose between having a locked down device and having an open device where hackers can ultimately hack my device, steal my data, and otherwise make my life a living hell, I'm probably going to choose the former.

I chose iOS because I want that safety. I want a phone that just plain works, and that's iOS. I don't want to have to think about security constantly like I have to on Windows.

The ability to sideload or get root does not automatically mean you have a whole host of security problems to contend with. Apple could still have their walled garden that is vetted as it is today and if you stay within that garden you should have nothing to worry about. But if you leave, that's your choice, and you know the potential risks that come with it. But you should have that choice available to you. And developers should have the ability to develop for these platforms which have audiences in the millions without needing to adhere every rule in the book that the platform maker wants to have.

 

[trparky]

The ability to sideload or get root does not automatically mean you have a whole host of security problems to contend with.

Incorrect. Once you have root, you have the keys to the kingdom and all bets are off. Its why privilege escalation vulnerabilities are so often fixed quickly.

The root user can do anything and everything. Learn something about UNIX/Linux before you reply.

 

[human7]

Incorrect. Once you have root, you have the keys to the kingdom and all bets are off. Its why privilege escalation vulnerabilities are so often fixed quickly.

The root user can do anything and everything. Learn something about UNIX/Linux before you reply.

The ability to get root is not the same thing as running as root. It can be held back just like any other permission until the user requests it from the OS, and that request process can be managed very carefully just as all other application permissions are protected.

So no, there's no real vulnerability to give the users the option to run as root. That's how Linux and Windows typically work: you run under standard permissions until you request for elevation/sudo.

 

[trparky]

The ability to get root is not the same thing as running as root. It can be held back just like any other permission until the user requests it from the OS, and that request process can be managed very carefully just as all other application permissions are protected.

So no, there's no real vulnerability to give the users the option to run as root. That's how Linux and Windows typically work: you run under standard permissions until you request for elevation/sudo.

I ran as root on Android at some point in the past and whenever I executed the command "whoami' it always returned "root" just as if I were to execute "sudo whoami' on Ubuntu. At that point, root is root.

With that being said, it's the exploit that allows you to get root is the dangerous thing.

 

[GoldenGoat]

For some reason people think antitrust means "having a monopoly." That is not what it means.

 

[trparky]

For some reason people think antitrust means "having a monopoly." That is not what it means.

Then inform us, oh enlightened one.

 

[BabaYaga]

Then inform us, oh enlightened one.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp

 

[BabaYaga]

The ability to sideload or get root does not automatically mean you have a whole host of security problems to contend with. Apple could still have their walled garden that is vetted as it is today and if you stay within that garden you should have nothing to worry about. But if you leave, that's your choice, and you know the potential risks that come with it. But you should have that choice available to you. And developers should have the ability to develop for these platforms which have audiences in the millions without needing to adhere every rule in the book that the platform maker wants to have.

What I don't get is that you can side load all day on a macbook but not on an iphone. Did they ever share their reasoning on that?

"third-party web browser engines" - that's the biggest issue for me. All the browsers are just Safari with a different skin. I can't browse without firefox with uBlock and NoScript. Websites will just take over your screen with ads you can't stop or redirects.

 

[Endymio]

For some reason people think antitrust means "having a monopoly." That is not what it means.

For Sherman Act Sec II actions, it does indeed mean "monopoly". Sec I is broader in scope, but this DOJ suit was filed under Sec II, and specifically alleges Apple is unfairly exercising its "monopoly power".

 

[dangh]

Apple is more of a duopoly. Honestly not sure if existing antitrust law will work against Apple and other platforms. There needs to be legislation in the U.S. similar to the DMA.

Ask any mobile developer - if your product isn't available on iphone, does not exist. This is the real monopoly, there is more than what phone people are using. While there is more android phones on market, apple phones generates 90+ pct of income, so they are in a monopolistic position.

 

[themastergoose]

Who cares though? It's not like as a consumer I don't have choices if people stop and actually engage a few braincells to think rationally.

If I don't want an iPhone, I can very easily pick 50+ different android phones across multiple price points - Apple metaphorically speaking don't have a gun to my head forcing the purchase or use.

 

[GoldenGoat]

For Sherman Act Sec II actions, it does indeed mean "monopoly". Sec I is broader in scope, but this DOJ suit was filed under Sec II, and specifically alleges Apple is unfairly exercising its "monopoly power".

Having a monopoly in the US is not illegal. Obtaining a monopoly can be illegal depending how it's done. But antitrust refers to a whole collection of laws that deal with more than just monopoly. They aim to prevent collusion and price fixing and are supposed to prevent the abuse of monopolies and forming monopolies through anti-competitive agreements or unilateral conduct. They aren't going after Apple for "having a monopoly" but instead are investigating Apple for specific policies and actions that are all highlighted in this article. Because you can avoid Apple does not necessarily make their behavior ok and that is what the DOJ is going to investigate. People's gut feeling about Apple is irrelevant. There are laws and Apple should follow them or face the consequences, just like everyone else. I'm not saying if Apple is guilty or not, but I'm just saying the issue here is not whether or not Apple has a monopoly.

 

[human7]

What I don't get is that you can side load all day on a macbook but not on an iphone. Did they ever share their reasoning on that?

They controlled the iPhone software ecosystem through the App store from the beginning, because the infrastructure (internet) was available to do so. The same cannot be said for the traditional macOS ecosystem.

Ultimately, the reasoning for keeping the iPhone ecosystem locked down is their bottom line.

 

[human7]

Ask any mobile developer - if your product isn't available on iphone, does not exist. This is the real monopoly, there is more than what phone people are using. While there is more android phones on market, apple phones generates 90+ pct of income, so they are in a monopolistic position.

I guess there are two ways to look at it, but I agree that they at least have a monopoly over their market. I don't know if U.S. legislation is enough to tackle that, but as others have pointed out, antitrust is not the same thing as a monopoly, and I hope very much that the DOJ is able to win.

 

[human7]

Who cares though? It's not like as a consumer I don't have choices if people stop and actually engage a few braincells to think rationally.

If I don't want an iPhone, I can very easily pick 50+ different android phones across multiple price points - Apple metaphorically speaking don't have a gun to my head forcing the purchase or use.

Sure, but antitrust provisions extend beyond horizontal monopolies, they include vertical ones as well to a different degree. Remains to be seen how the courts treat this one.

 

[trparky]

Ultimately, the reasoning for keeping the iPhone ecosystem locked down is their bottom line.

There's another reason. There are those of us who want the platform to remain as secure as it possibly can be.