This Week's Sponsor:

Washing Machine X9

Spring Clean Your Mac Effortlessly

Posts tagged with "lawsuit"

Pebble’s Inherent Disadvantages on the iPhone→

It’s been just shy of one year since the U.S. Department of Justice and 15 states sued Apple for antitrust violations. It’s not clear what will become of that lawsuit given the change of administrations, but as it stands today, it’s still an active case.

One of the things that is hard about a case like the one filed against Apple is cutting through the legal arguments and economic jargon to understand the real-world issues underlying it. Earlier this week Eric Migicovsky one of the Pebble smartwatch founders who resuscitated the device this week, wrote an excellent post on his blog that explains the real world issues facing third-party smartwatch makers like Pebble.

Among other things:

It’s impossible for a 3rd party smartwatch to send text messages, or perform actions on notifications (like dismissing, muting, replying)….

It’s worth reading the post in its entirety for the other things third-party smartwatch makers can’t do on iOS, and as Migicovsky explains, things have gotten worse with time, not better. Since the Pebble’s time, the complaint against Apple adds that:

  • You must set notifications to display full content previews on your lockscreen for them to also be sent to a 3rd party watch (new restriction added in iOS 13).
  • Apple closed off the ability of smartwatches after Pebble to negotiate with carriers to provide messaging services, and now requires users to turn off iMessage (disabling iOS’s core messaging platform) if they want to take advantage of such contracts between a third-party smartwatch maker and cellular carriers.

The Apple Watch is great. There isn’t another smartwatch that I’ve even been tempted to try in recent years, but is that because no one has been able to make a good alternative or hasn’t because the disadvantages third-party wearables face are too great?

I’d like to see Apple focus on finding ways to better integrate other devices with the iPhone. There are undoubtedly security and privacy issues that need to be carefully considered, but figuring those things out should be a priority because choice and competition are better for Apple’s customers in the long run.

Permalink

Understanding the DOJ’s Antitrust Complaint Against Apple

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice, 15 states, and the District of Columbia sued Apple for alleged federal and state antitrust violations. Apple issued an immediate response, and before anyone had time to read the DOJ’s 88-page complaint, the Internet was overrun with hot takes.

However, the thing about lawsuits – and especially big, sprawling, high-stakes ones like the DOJ’s – is that they’re the proverbial tortoise to the Internet’s hare. Barring a settlement among the parties, the case against Apple isn’t likely to go to trial anytime soon. Add to that appeals, and this process is going to take years, not months.

So, since we have plenty of time, I thought I’d kick off our coverage at MacStories with a look at the DOJ’s complaint and its legal underpinnings, along with some observations on what’s going on and what you can expect to happen next.

Read more

US Department of Justice and States Sue Apple Under Federal and State Antitrust Laws

The US Department of Justice and 16 states have sued Apple for antitrust violations in an 88-page complaint filed in New Jersey federal court. At the time of publication, the DOJ’s press release, which has been shared with some media outlets, has not been published on the DOJ website, although I expect it will be before long. In response, Apple says:

At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.

We’ll have a more detailed breakdown of the plaintiffs’ allegations against Apple soon, but the allegations are broad, claiming that:

  • Apple has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the smartphone market under the federal Sherman Act;
  • Apple has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the performance smartphone market under the federal Sherman Act and Wisconsin and New Jersey antitrust laws

(emphasis added).

The DOJ and states argue that Apple’s alleged anticompetitive behavior extends beyond its effect on users and developers to touch a wide swath of the economy:

Critically, Apple’s anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries that are affected by these restrictions, including financial services, fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more. Unless Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped, it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other markets and parts of the economy. For example, Apple is rapidly expanding its influence and growing its power in the automotive, content creation and entertainment, and financial services industries–and often by doing so in exclusionary ways that further reinforce and deepen the competitive moat around the iPhone.

The DOJ and states seek a number of different remedies, including:

a. preventing Apple from using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps, among others;

b. preventing Apple from using private APIs to undermine cross- platform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among others; and

c. preventing Apple from using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly.

There’s a lot to digest in the complaint, which you can read for yourself here. I highly recommend reading at least the introduction to get a better sense of what Apple is being accused of. Keep in mind that this is just one side of the story, but Apple will tell its side in more detail soon enough. And, of course, I will be back soon with a more detailed look at what this lawsuit is all about and what’s at stake.