Re: Apple inflated the cost of its products through anticompetitive conduct

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:30:10 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

An app store isn't unique - it's a commodity.

 No.  It's a support venue for a product.

That's fine. I'm not going to decide the case. All I was saying was that
the argument everything on an iPhone is unique because Apple gives it a
unique name doesn't make it unique just because Apple trademarked it.
This is the DOJ's description of their case against Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
"Apple's Broad-Based, Exclusionary Conduct Makes It Harder for Americans
to Switch Smartphones, Undermines Innovation for Apps, Products, and Services, and Imposes Extraordinary Costs on Developers, Businesses,
and Consumers."

A messaging app isn't unique - it's a commodity.

 iOS messaging supports "commodity" messaging (SMS/MMS) - indeed it does it so nicely I can send SMS/MMS from my Mac to someone (clever trick: the Mac sends the message to my phone to send it over the phone system).

That's fine. Android has the same thing, and the DOJ isn't going after
Android so I don't think that's what this particular DOJ case is all about
(although there was a Google App Store case in the past that Google lost).
But I don't remember what the reason was Google lost their App Store case.
Here are some explanations by the DOJ on their new case against Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-lawsuit-against-apple-monopolizing
"Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply
by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law.
Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break
the law.
We allege that Apple has employed a strategy that relies on exclusionary,
anticompetitive conduct that hurts both consumers and developers.
For consumers, that has meant fewer choices; higher prices and fees; lower quality smartphones, apps, and accessories; and less innovation from Apple and its competitors.
For developers, that has meant being forced to play by rules that insulate Apple from competition.
And as outlined in our complaint, we allege that Apple has consolidated its monopoly power not by making its own products better - but by making other products worse."

That doesn't mean the "higher" power of Apple's Message app (iMessage) system should be freely available to all.  Why?

Since any messaging app that wants to set up an account can send messages
from your Mac or Linux or PC to someone, that's not what the DOJ case is
all about (although the DOJ did write most of their case on messaging).
The DOJ's explanation of their lawsuit continues from what is quoted above
"Apple carries out its exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct in two principal ways: First, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit the features and functionality that developers can offer iPhone users.
Second, Apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection
between third-party apps and the iPhone's operating system, degrading the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories."

It is paid for by Apple product purchasers.  Why should an Android user get the benefit of what an Apple iPhone buyer paid for?  Why should a vendor of a product or service get free access to that market?

So are the many Android messaging apps "paid for by product purchasers" but that's not what the DOJ case is alleging.
The DOJ case alleges that Apple isn't telling the truth about why they do
what they do - where it's not up to me or you to decide - but to the judge.
The DOJ's explanation of their lawsuit goes on further to state the harm.
"It does this by diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app and by diminishing the functionality of third-party messaging apps.
By doing so, Apple knowingly and deliberately degrades quality, privacy,
and security for its users."

If it was sarcasm, then the person who made that statement agrees with me
that Apple does not make those products unique simply by preventing
integration and competition as a messaging app and an app store are
commodities, which the DOJ argues Apple lies about why they control it.

 It isn't a commodity.  You want to play in the country club pool, buy the membership (buy the phone).

Tim Cook famously said the same thing when someone in the audience asked
him why there isn't any interoperability between an iPhone and Android.
The DOJ even brought that up when they wrote about their case above
"Apple is the one responsible for breaking cross-platform messaging. And it does so intentionally. For example, in 2013, a senior executive at Apple explained that supporting
cross-platform messaging in Apple Messages, 'would simply serve to remove
[an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.'
In 2022, Apple's CEO was asked whether Apple would fix iPhone-to-Android
messaging. The questioner added: 'not to make it personal but I can't send
my mom certain videos.'
Apple's CEO responded, 'Buy your mom an iPhone.'"

It's up to the judge to decide if the DOJ is correct that Apple is lying
about why Apple severely controls these commodities versus if Apple is
telling the truth that they prevent integration to "protect" the consumer.

 Where did this commodity word come in?  Apple's products and services are for Apple clients who buy their products.
 They are not for anyone else, and companies that want access must abide by Apple's rules.
 Otherwise they can go make their living off of Android...

The DOJ's suit alleges Apple is lying about why Apple restricts integration
into the iPhone, where Apple says that the lack of innovation is a good
thing while the DOJ says Apple's restrictions are to stifle competition.
"In addition to selectively controlling app distribution and creation, we
allege that Apple is violating the law by conditionally restricting
developers' access to the interface needed to make an app functional on the
Apple operating system."
There's nothing in the DOJ suit that says Apple doesn't make good products.
I suspect Apple will win this case because the DOJ has to prove Apple lied.