The lawsuit caps years of regulatory scrutiny of Apple’s wildly popular suite of devices and services, which have fueled its growth into a nearly $3 trillion public company.
I think it will never going to happen.
They are not alone in the market, and they are certainly not monopolists.
I’m an Apple user, and for me, there is nothing better than an iPhone or Mac. and I’ve used other gadgets. In general, I think that Apple Inc. is one of the best companies now, and it will not change any time soon. Last week, I was given the task of writing a paper on one of the companies for my business course, and of course, I chose Apple. It is easy to find a lot of useful info, and I also found this page https://papersowl.com/examples/apple-inc/, which provides some interesting and informative essay examples about Apple Inc, which will definitely help me with my writing. It’s the first time that I’m using the help of such examples, but it’s for sure a good idea!
I’m still fuzzy on this - how can they be sued for having a monopoly ON THEIR PRODUCT?
It’s a step in the right direction. But I don’t see anything of substance coming from this. The U.S. has become a Corporate Oligarchy. Apple has enough money and desire to fight this through appeals and lobbying. Pay attention to who they lobby and make sure they are voted out of office. It’s going to take a long time to correct what has happened over the last 20 or so years. It will require slow gradual change.
Not gonna happen. There is enough competition on the market for Apple to prove that they are not a monopoly. Most of the smartphones sold in US are not iPhones. It is like accusing BMW, that they sell their cars only with their part and their software.
Most of the smartphones sold in US are not iPhones.
This is just a demonstrably false statement that’s very easily fact checked. I’m not saying that to defend Apple. I’m a Google Pixel guy myself.
I stand corrected, while android dominates the world, in US iPhone share is indeed just above the half (55%). It is still not enough to call it monopoly, but it might have chance.
The document published by the DOJ make the point that Apple has closer to 65% market share of you to by revenue, and also have a high market share amoung the teens. But I don’t get this focus on whether or not Apple is a monopoly. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has a significant market share is using anticompetitive practices to stay there.
If you read the article, the lawsuit is more about vendor lock-in rather than lack of competition.
For one to use anti monopoly law, being monopoly is kind of important. If you are trying to lock in vendor while NOT being a (near) monopoly - it is not illegal per that law. There might be other regulations, that makes it illegal though, I am not a layer to know this fully. I am just conveying somebody else’s analysis who is a lawyer.
As a former Apple fanboy and current iPhone user, even I think it’s about time that the US joined the rest of the world in reining in abusive tech monopolies. (Financial and commercial monopolies, too, but that’s a different post.)
My breaking point came when I tried to buy an Apple Watch a couple of years ago. It couldn’t even be activated without a Mac or an iPhone that was less than a year old. That’s when I gave up.
What? I use a three gen old iPhone and the Apple Watch I bought this year works just fine.
Nothing has really changed unless you just didn’t run the latest software on your phone. The series 8 was the first watch in a long time that needed a newer phone. But they’ve always required the latest iOS.
They need to be reigned in, but this isn’t gonna do it. The DOJ is arguing stupid shit and shit that isn’t accurate. What we need is regulation, not shitty attempts at weak lawsuits. DOJ even refers to Apple’s plan to allow alternative stores in Europe as though that was won through a lawsuit. No, dummies. It was legislation.
I don’t disagree that legislation might be preferable, although even that would still have to be filtered through the courts for interpretation. But we all know that getting this — indeed any — legislation out of Washington isn’t possible. So suits based on existing law is the next best thing.