The case against Apple was related to Microsoft in the 90s
Apple, Spotify, and the Competition: A High-Tax European Court Action Against Judgmentary App Store Practices in the App Store
The enforcers are asking the court to stop Apple from “using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps,” prevent it from “using private APIs to undermine crossplatform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets,” and keep it from “using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly.”
The case was filed in the US District Court in New Jersey. Attorneys general from New Jersey, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia joined the complaint.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland acknowledged the resource imbalance the government is up against, facing a company worth trillions of dollars. It is important for us to allocate our resources to protect the American people when there is an institution with a lot of resources. “And that is certainly the case where individual Americans have no ability to protect themselves.”
App developers for Apple’s iOS have complained for years about the platform’s closed and often opaque marketplace. Among the most vocal have been companies like Spotify which run paid subscription services that Apple requires a 15 to 30 percent cut of to be offered on its platform. Apple has its own apps that compete with those on its app store, which has raised even more suspicions about whether they are getting a fair shot in the marketplace.
Europe has become better at reining in tech than the US. It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple. Earlier this month, the European Commission fined Apple €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) in connection to a complaint from Spotify about its restrictive app store practices. The EU said its investigation found that “Apple bans music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app.”
The Department of Justice went to trial against Google parent Alphabet last fall over allegations that it stomped out competing search engines. The FTC is planning on filing a huge suit against Amazon.
The DoJ’s Apple iPhone Case: Why Big Tech Platforms should be Available on the App Store, Internet Explorer, and App Stores
One of the most valuable companies in the world is Apple. And its iPhone is one of the most popular phones on earth, dominating the global market, according to market analyst firm IDC. Apple is accused of being able to ensure that it was at the top.
The DOJ invokes the M-word when it describes “super apps,” which it calls “a kind of middleware that can host apps, services, and experiences without requiring developers to use the iPhone’s APIs or code.” They really haven’t taken off in the US; the closest thing we have might be the Uber app, where you can request a ride, order dinner, and reserve an e-bike all in one place. It is not a thing that true super apps are available here, it is also due to the fact that Apple does not allow them on its operating system. The DOJ argues that this is because Apple sees them as a threat to its platform — and that Apple blocking them is a major impediment to innovation.
The DOJ has brought suits against both Amazon and Google for antitrust in the tech industry, as part of the agenda of the Biden administration. The case demonstrates why we must have clear rules of the road for Big Tech platforms, according to a senator.
When asked about the threat the new antitrust lawsuit might pose to Apple’s business, a DOJ official noted that “there are actually examples where companies, after having been charged and had to change business practices because they violated the antitrust laws in the long run, end up being more valuable than they were before.” Microsoft, thanks to its success in cloud services and more recently AI, is now the most valuable company in the world.
Microsoft was accused in an antitrust case of forcing PC manufacturers and others to use Internet Explorer. It is believed that it led to the company’s being slow to embrace the web, falling behind a wave of startup companies that helped to make web services valuable and lucrative.
Apple has long argued that keeping its mobile operating system, app store, and other services closed offers greater security and safety for customers. If the goal of protecting users was to be accomplished, Newman says it makes sense that Apple wouldn’t enforce these policies consistently.
Inside the US Department of Justice’s 88-page antitrust complaint against Apple, there’s a cool reminder to the company: you’re here because we paved the way.
In today’s case, the Department of Justice doesn’t merely imply that Apple benefited from the results of United States v. Microsoft; it comes right out and says it. Take section 26 of the complaint.
The widespread adoption of the iPod was hindered by Apple introducing a cross platform version of the music player and its companion program, iTunes, for Microsoft Windows operating system. In the absence of the consent decree in United States v. Microsoft, it would have been more difficult for Apple to achieve this success and ultimately launch the iPhone.
The case versus Microsoft also echoes throughout DOJ v. Apple with one adorably weird word: middleware. Microsoft’s control over middleware — software that allows other software to run on the operating system, like web browsers or media players — was at the heart of US v. Microsoft. The DOJ concluded that Microsoft used a variety of different tactics to keep other companies from developing middleware that would compete with or draw developer attention away from its own platform, threatening to stop cooperating with Intel while it tried developing platform-level software and undermining Java development, and alienating its allies from working with There are real bad-guy things.
Microsoft feared that disrupting PCs would be what Apple was worried about. Microsoft was absolutely right to be afraid — and it seems Apple is, too.
