Apple vs. DOJ: Analyzing the Claims of Monopoly and Market Domination

Follow us!

[sputukgmail]

So because Apple makes things people prefer to buy in an open market - that’s claimed to be a monopoly now? That aspect is just silly. Does SpaceX have a monopoly on providing a launch platform just because others are trying to compete and failing and the barrier to entry is too high? No - it’s a market, people can compete, it’s just they are doing it better (at the moment). If someone comes along and offers a better alternative, people can switch. So the “they make something so good people can’t compete with it” is just anti-consumer, anti-open market nonsense because to “fix” that would require the products to be deliberately made worse just so other companies can compete which would be worse for the consumer.

The closed eco-system - where Apple might restrict interoperability without good reason, there could be an argument but - things like allowing apps access to the sensitive location and other info that Tile wants, opens up privacy concerns if it were abused. That means an interface has to be designed that protects the users first. Apple can do that I’m sure, and arguably, they should only be releasing solutions that integrate in the way AirTags and the Apple Watch etc do once they have created an open way of doing that which could also be used by 3rd parties, instead of creating something internally with years to develop connections and build an ecosystem, before they look to open that platform to others.

Apple have been open in allowing devs access early in some spheres like the AR APIs, but when it comes to things relating to security and privacy, their culture is to develop a solution just for them first, and only consider how to let others play with it, after…if at all.

That part has allowed Apple to have a head start on developing tight integrations across multiple platforms that others can’t compete with, and is arguably anti-competitive.

Where I differ though is on the solution - I think it’s a culture thing, so Apple should think first of how to build a robust open platform and then also how to use it themselves, rather than build a proprietary solution then how to open access to it.

Solving this retrospectively isn’t really practical, but it should be something Apple are made to do going forward and I don’t see there is benefit from retrospective punitive costs as that doesn’t benefit consumers.