The lawsuit seeks to upend a major part of Apple’s business.

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

  • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
    292·
    8 months ago

    It’s probably safe to assume that’s not the basis for the monopoly claim

    • PlainSimpleGarakEnglish
      413·
      8 months ago

      I should hope not. They have about 61% market share in the US. A large chunk to be sure, but hardly a monopoly. With plenty of Android OS manufacturers, there are plenty to choose from.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
        131·
        8 months ago

        Did you read the article? Their concerns are a number of anticompetiive behaviours from Apple,. Not the lack of competition. But that said, “Android” is not a competitor, Android is an OS. Samsung is a competitor and they’re nowhere near Apples size in the US

        • PlainSimpleGarakEnglish
          13·
          8 months ago

          The Android OS is a competitor to iOS. Yes, Android is produced by several different manufacturers.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            It’s not a competitor in the sense of a being a company that can monopolise, which is the context of the discsussion

      • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
        115·
        8 months ago

        According to the article, the main points are:

        Disrupting “super apps” that encompass many different programs and could degrade “iOS stickiness” by making it easier for iPhone users to switch to competing devices

        Blocking cloud-streaming apps for things like video games that would lower the need for more expensive hardware

        Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android

        Limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches with its iPhones and making it harder for Apple Watch users to switch from the iPhone due to compatibility issues

        Blocking third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets with tap-to-pay functionality for the iPhone

        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,”

        I’m somewhat conflicted. As much as I despise Apple, they have complete rights on their operating systems and thus can tell what they want or don’t want there, kinda like how videogame consoles work. Far from ideal for both consumers and developers, obviously, especially with how Apple hates both.

        As a court case, this sounds dumb and likely to go nowhere. If it was a law proposal that would force them and any future wannabes to open up like PCs, however, I’d be fully behind it.

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          14·
          8 months ago

          I seldom argue against capitalism, but this is a good example of runaway capitalism. Apple has been causing a lot of problems and grief. If this isn’t the solution, what is? People are too stupid en mass to make the change we need here.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
            11·
            8 months ago

            As I said in my comment, a better solution would be a law instead of a court case. Even if it sets a precedent, it still leaves all the legal wiggle room needed for Apple, or anyone else, to fuck around in a different manner and get back in the same spot again.

        • PlainSimpleGarakEnglish
          69·
          8 months ago

          Agreed. I have no love for the company, but this is government overreach. If Apple users/developers have a problem with any of these items, they have the option to choose another platform.

          Now, if Apple was literally the only game in town, I would probably feel differently.