[ad_1]
Apple seems like that very Worried about a new antitrust lawsuit filed Thursday by the Justice Department with support from 16 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia — and what do we know? It should be. Last month, company representatives met with the Justice Department to try to stop this, according to Bloomberg. But that didn’t work, and now the US government is targeting Apple’s main moneymaker, the iPhone itself.
This is a fascinating case for many reasons, but especially as my colleague Alex Kershner points out, Android owners who have given up on becoming green bubbles in too many iMessage group chats Because it almost sounds like an emotional complaint from someone. But iMessage’s grip on the text messaging ecosystem is only part of the government’s argument, which also targets four other areas: its own internal marketplace outside of App Store fees and surcharges; Multi-service “super apps” that can run programs (e.g. China’s WeChat and Alipay), cloud streaming apps that reduce energy dependence on Apple’s built-in premium hardware, and non-Apple branded smartwatches that are cheaper than the Apple Watch. , a non-Apple-branded digital wallet that may be more secure and more directly tied to banks than Apple Wallet (such as PayPal or Fitbit).
The problem, as federal officials have stated, is that Apple has very tight control over its brand’s features in these areas, allowing consumers to move beyond Apple’s “walled garden” and get cheaper deals. This prevents companies from seeking more interoperable alternatives. And this poses an antitrust problem because it forces consumers to pay extra for all of Apple’s accessories and features, even if they don’t need them. Basically, you need to buy a smartwatch from another brand so that you can sync it with your iPhone if you want. Or you need to be able to connect your iPhone to the electric car’s virtual system, which is not limited to his Apple CarPlay. Alternatively, you should be able to store payment information (like credit cards) in an encrypted wallet that isn’t directly linked to Apple, but Apple doesn’t call itself a champion of privacy.
The US government is not alone in this fight. Opening up Apple products to a broader range of technology sectors has long been a key initiative for lawmakers around the world. Just last year, Apple finally agreed to integrate the USB-C charging port into the iPhone 15, next-generation AirPod Pro, and EarPods, freeing them from dependence on the infamous Lightning charging port. Before the EU finalizes regulations mandating common charger standards for everyday high-tech products, Apple has pushed back against any idea that it should comply, imposing mandatory costs on charging accessories and forcing customers to buy chargers. They wanted to maintain a lucrative customized system that was very inconvenient to use. Switch mobile phone brands.
Its core concept is “switching costs,” or how much leeway consumers have to easily evaluate different products and make the most economical choice. This is also the core of the Justice Department’s case. “The poor experience of sending messages to friends and family who don’t own an iPhone means iPhone users perceive the quality of rival smartphones to be lower,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a press conference. “This is despite the fact that Apple was the one responsible for disrupting the platform’s messaging.” Announcement of lawsuit. “And it does so on purpose. For example, in 2013, a senior Apple executive said that supporting cross-platform messaging in Apple Messages “will help iPhone families give their children Android phones. It will just remove the obstacles.” ”
The rest of the lawsuit is similarly littered with valuable receipts from internal Apple messages. The lawsuit stems from an executive emailing Steve Jobs in 2010 complaining that Amazon ads for the Kindle smartphone app “showed how easy it was to switch from iPhone to Android.” It begins. It’s not interesting to watch. “Mr. Jobs was clear: Apple would ‘force’ developers to use its payment system in order to lock in both developers and users to its platform,” the complaint continued. Ta. All of this interference has other negative effects on consumers, the complaint continues. “Apple itself is isolated from competition, so it has less incentive to innovate,” so “it’s no surprise that Apple spent more than twice as much on share buybacks and dividends.” Same as for research and development. like. ” Another thing: “In a 2019 email, the Apple Watch vice president of product marketing acknowledged that the Apple Watch could help keep iPhone customers from switching. A study reached a similar conclusion. Many users say other devices linked to their iPhone are the reason they don’t switch to Android.”
As some analysts have pointed out, many people really like Apple products. Heck, I’m typing this on his sleek MacBook Air. But the federal government has been persuaded that much of this love, especially within U.S. borders, is forced, that consumers stuck in the box are staying there primarily because they don’t want to deal with barriers to change. Makes a powerful statement. So they have to rely on his iPhone, even if it becomes more exclusive, worse and more expensive.
For example, if app makers are able to create energy-saving cloud computing infrastructure that runs more efficiently, but are blocked from their expensive iPhones, Apple can’t charge huge premiums for iPhones. There’s no reason to. But this kind of gatekeeping is good for Apple’s bottom line at a time when Jobs-style innovation is being stymied. “Since 2012, iPhone sales have accounted for a large portion of Apple’s annual revenue every year,” with “some of the biggest drivers” being the Apple Watch and the app store. In contrast to the broader market for less-luxury entry-level phones, the “performance smartphone” market in particular has limited choice, with more than half of U.S. smartphone users opting for potentially cheaper, more sophisticated phones. No wonder I’m stuck with the iPhone. , a more technically interoperable and more practical option. (Is there a possible reason why Apple only earns a quarter of the global smartphone market compared to its 70% share in the US market? Other countries already have super apps and more flexibility when it comes to banking) ).
“People buy an iPhone, they buy another iPhone, and then they use the Apple Watch to stay within the Apple family,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, co-lead on the case, said in an interview. Ta. “It’s all by design. The exclusionary and anti-competitive behavior that Apple engages in is like a moat surrounding the kingdom, trapping customers inside the kingdom and preventing them from going anywhere. Of course, Apple disagrees, saying in a statement: “This lawsuit threatens our existence and the principles that make Apple products stand out in a fiercely competitive market. If successful, it could impede our ability to develop the kind of technology people expect from Apple. You’ll probably be killed.”
It remains to be seen which theory will prevail, but the litigation will likely take years. However, Apple has faced adversaries such as the Right to Repair Act (a law that allows users to repair their phones at home using readily available parts instead of taking them to a professional) and the requirements for repairs. is already in retreat on a global scale. do not have Charge app makers an unlimited amount of tax on every monetary transaction made on an iPhone app. (They are facing yet another lawsuit in a similar vein from Big Tech rivals like Meta and Microsoft.) Still, the government’s antitrust action is a sign that what makes the iPhone special is that It shows the recognition that it is important rather than special in itself. essentially While it’s a great device, it’s also a cash generator for squeezing profits out of whatever options you have at hand. Perhaps, after years of goodwill and avoiding government oversight, Apple will be in a position it hasn’t been in in a long time: creating a product that can compete on its own. merit.
[ad_2]
Source link
