In its legal battle against tech giant Apple, the Justice Department appears to be honing in on obsolete matters and inconsequential details, bypassing the chance to tackle more urgent issues.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice Building on March 21, 2024 in Washington, DC. During the news conference Garland and DOJ officials announced the department would be taking action against Apple, claiming that the tech company has an illegal monopoly on smartphones, violating antitrust laws. (Photo : Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Focusing on Outdated Concerns
Despite Apple Inc.'s outwardly amiable persona, behind the scenes, it operates as a formidable force. Numerous suppliers can attest to Apple's swift termination of partnerships, while app developers have faced closures due to the company's actions.
Apple has consistently demonstrated reluctance towards openness and competition. Its refusal to extend the iMessage app to Android devices and its delayed adoption of the cross-platform RCS messaging system illustrates this stance, which has only shifted under mounting external pressure.
As per Bloomberg's report, Apple mandates developers to utilize its in-app purchase system, refrains from embracing cloud-gaming services, and exhibits hesitancy in opening its tap-to-pay chip to third-party apps, all as part of a strategy to safeguard its dominance in the market.
These practices have become prime material for the US Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit, filed on Thursday. However, the lawsuit primarily relies on outdated contentions and highlights issues that Apple is actively addressing.
Questionable Assertions, Glaring Deficiencies
This puts forth the questionable assertion that Apple intentionally diminishes the quality of its products to undermine competitors. Additionally, the DOJ claims credit for Apple's success, attributing it, in part, to a 2001 antitrust settlement involving Microsoft Corp.
However, the most glaring deficiency in the lawsuit lies in its failure to substantiate allegations of consumer harm by Apple. The lawsuit contends that individuals retain their iPhones primarily due to Apple's deliberate tactics to impede switching, rather than genuine satisfaction with the product.
It even suggests that Apple's introduction of a new CarPlay version, which occupies more of the instrument panel, aims to undermine automakers. However, this service remains entirely optional for consumers and auto manufacturers alike and is unlikely to become ubiquitous in the near future.
Furthermore, the government makes an unsubstantiated claim that Apple's control over the iPhone directly contributed to the high-profile failures of Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft in the smartphone market.
It argues that the exclusion of cloud-gaming apps is a strategy to promote the sale of pricier iPhone hardware and asserts that Apple's ecosystem complexity is intentionally designed to deter users from switching to Android.
While acknowledging legitimate concerns regarding certain Apple practices, the Justice Department appears to prioritize lesser issues, diverting attention away from more substantial matters.
Instead of addressing pressing issues, the department dedicates considerable effort to pursuing underdeveloped claims that betray a lack of understanding of contemporary technology.
