Another Monopolist That Isn’t: The Apple Affair With the DOJ

In recent years, the tech industry has faced increased scrutiny over antitrust concerns due to its growing influence and impact on society. 

Cases involving tech giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon attract particular attention due to their pervasive presence in daily life.

SmartPhone Kingpins

Out of the recent parade of antitrust claims against big tech, especially interesting is the government’s legal assault on Apple for leveraging its dominance in smartphones to stifle competition.

As consumers we are fascinated with antitrust claims because of the massive impact they can have on our choices, the prices we pay for them and how our favorite brands are treated. 

Antitrust claims involving allegations of anti-competitive behavior by dominant companies makes progress through cooperation more difficult.  

Interoperability Is A Mirage 

Take the Metaverse. To deliver a seamless experience between providers, platforms and channels, the tech industry would need to embrace a level of collaboration that has never been possible due to conflicting competitive interests. 

Antitrust cases often revolve around issues of a few large players stifling innovation and market competition. The outcomes of these cases can shape the environment for new technologies, business models, and entrepreneurial activities. 

But it's not going to be easy for antitrust prosecutors to prove that Apple is abusing its market power and behaving like a monopolist in smartphones when, well, it isn't one. 

The Sordid Narrative Against Beloved Apple

The lawsuit, announced by the Justice Department, accuses Apple of engineering an illegal monopoly in smartphones that stifles innovation, boxes out competitors, and keeps prices artificially high. 

It claims that Apple holds monopoly power in the smartphone market and leverages control over the iPhone to engage in anticompetitive conduct.

But these claims don’t hold water. The numbers simply don’t add up. Android commands a dominant share of the global smartphone market at 70.69% as of 2024. 

This dominance positions Android as the leading mobile operating system worldwide, surpassing its closest rival, Apple's iOS, by a considerable margin.

Consumers Are In Charge

When consumers have the freedom to switch between different smartphone brands and operating systems based on their preferences, this undermines the assertion that Apple holds a monopoly over smartphones, as consumers can easily opt for Android devices or other competitors. 

The DOJ accuses Apple of using its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services, degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones, restrict how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones, and hinder rival payment solutions. 

Anecdotal Evidence Of Tech Glitches

That’s a lot of allegations based on sweeping generalizations that are unlikely to stick en masse. It is one thing to point out that there are flaws in its technology and quite another to prove via a preponderance of the evidence that it intends to hurt another company by not fixing them. Or that it broke it on purpose. 

Intent plays a crucial role in antitrust analysis, especially in cases where establishing anticompetitive behavior is essential like as it is in this one. The presence or absence of intent can make or break the case. 

The role of subjective intent in antitrust analysis remains a controversial topic, with debates on the value of intent evidence and its impact on proving harm to competition. 

Some of the brightest legal minds argue that intent evidence is crucial in overcoming ambiguous situations or inconclusive evidence of harm. 

Intent Is A Gray Zone

Some recommend using a "qualified intent" test, requiring proof of immediate, substantial, and foreseeable anticompetitive effects arising from the conduct to consider a defendant's subjective state of mind.

In conclusion, while intent is a significant factor in antitrust analysis, there are ongoing discussions about its role and how it should be considered in determining anticompetitive behavior. 

The need to prove intent can vary based on the specific legal standards applied and the nature of the alleged antitrust violations. 

Much like nailing jello to a tree, explaining what the leaders at the world's most valuable company are thinking every time they elbow a competitor is an exercise in futility.   

The lawsuit highlights how Apple allegedly uses a complex web of contractual terms to maintain its monopoly, including imposing restrictions on developers and withholding critical ways of interoperability.

The DOJ seeks three specific remedies from Apple, including barring Apple from using its app store to block innovative new apps, lifting restrictions preventing integration with other messaging apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets, and preventing Apple from using contractual terms to maintain its alleged monopoly. 

But to what end? Apple is going to keep on being Apple and control as much of its walled garden as possible until it can figure out a way to extract a hefty toll from rivals. 

It will wrap itself in the flag of product purity and relentless pursuit of perfection and respond with righteous indignation until the market changes again and the tides shift against the government’s case. 

SWOT Report is now Business Intelligence Weekly. The creator and journalist behind the digital publication, Andrew Ellenberg, is President & Managing Partner of Rise Integrated, an innovative studio that creates, produces, and distributes original multimedia content across digital touchpoints. To submit story ideas or ask about custom multimedia publishing, call 816-506-1257, email andrew@riseintegrated.com, or read more of his work in Forbes. To learn about his company check out this profile story.