\n<\/p>\n
Apple\u2019s antitrust scrutiny<\/span> has reached a fever pitch. The U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday<\/a> that it filed a lawsuit accusing the company of behaving like a monopoly in locking in iPhone customers and limiting competitors building hardware and software. The lawsuit, which comes on the heels of significant antitrust cases against Apple outside the U.S.<\/a>, is a wide-ranging and complicated affair, but we\u2019re covering the ins and outs of the DOJ\u2019s case, the industry\u2019s response and all the ongoing implications for companies and customers.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll be updating this page as the Apple antitrust case evolves, but keep in mind that there will be little settled in the short term. Experts estimate a three-to-five-year timeline for any resolution for the case<\/a>.<\/p>\n If you want to dive into legal docs immediately, you can read the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit right here<\/a>. But for the rest of us, there are five categories that the complaint identifies as areas in which Apple actively suppressed competition.<\/p>\n \u201cSuper\u201d apps:<\/strong> These are applications that contain numerous functions within a single app. This should ring a bell for anyone following Elon Musk\u2019s \u201ceverything app\u201d aspirations for X<\/a>, and the DOJ claims Apple is inhibiting their success to increase dependence on the iPhone.<\/p>\n Messaging apps:<\/strong> The blue bubble, green bubble effect is specifically cited by the DOJ as a factor<\/a> discouraging iPhone users from adopting a competitor device. \u201cThis effect is particularly powerful for certain demographics, like teenagers \u2014 where the iPhone\u2019s share is 85 percent, according to one survey,\u201d the DOJ said in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n Cloud streaming gaming apps:<\/strong> The DOJ lawsuit highlights Apple\u2019s alleged opposition to cloud-based gaming, claiming its actions are to prevent consumers from playing games \u201cwithout the need for users to purchase powerful, expensive hardware.\u201d (Page 33 for reference.)<\/p>\n Digital wallets:<\/strong> Though the 0.15% fee Apple takes for all transactions made through Apple Pay is a fraction of the company\u2019s total revenue, the DOJ alleges that the ubiquity of Apple Pay within its mobile ecosystem<\/a> means it has \u201ccomplete control\u201d over users\u2019 NFC payments and that it hinders competitors.<\/p>\n Smartwatch cross-platform compatibility:<\/strong> This DOJ claim is straightforward. By limiting the functionality of Apple Watches with non-iPhone devices<\/a>, the lawsuit claims \u201cit becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone.\u201d<\/p>\n Apple issued an extensive series of rebuttals to the DOJ\u2019s claims Thursday, which you can check out in full detail right here<\/a>. The core of Apple\u2019s argument is that regulators are selectively picking metrics that make Apple\u2019s strength in the smartphone market seem more dominant than it actually is, in their view. And in regulating the behaviors that the DOJ claims are monopolistic, Apple\u2019s competitive advantage in the market would be diminished and iPhone customers negatively impacted in the process.<\/p>\n \u201cThis lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple \u2014 where hardware, software, and services intersect,\u201d Apple said in a statement provided to TechCrunch<\/p>\n App makers are less critical of the DOJ\u2019s case, with the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) voicing strong support for the DOJ\u2019s regulatory action<\/a>, which comes as no surprise given several of its members, like Epic Games and Spotify, have already had public disputes with Apple on its App Store practices.<\/p>\n \u201cThe DOJ complaint details Apple\u2019s long history of illegal conduct \u2014 abusing their App Store guidelines and developer agreements to increase prices, extract exorbitant fees, degrade user experiences, and choke off competition,\u201d CAF Executive Director Rick VanMeter said in a statement Thursday<\/a>. \u201cThe DOJ joins regulators around the world, who have recognized the many harms of Apple\u2019s abusive behavior and are working to address it.\u201d<\/p>\n In the immediate term, not much. The release of the lawsuit, and the ensuing back-and-forth between Apple and the DOJ, was a flurry of activity that will take years to settle<\/a>. The DOJ\u2019s antitrust case against Google<\/a>, which was filed back in 2020, went to trial last year and could still take a couple more years to reach a conclusion.<\/p>\n What you shouldn\u2019t expect is for the present to play out like the past. Though the DOJ cites the successful antitrust prosecution against Microsoft in the 1990s, there are many distinctions between the two cases<\/a>, mostly notably a gap between how easily defined Microsoft\u2019s market dominance was compared to Apple\u2019s current status quo.<\/p>\nThe DOJ\u2019s claims against Apple<\/h2>\n
Apple, and the wider industry\u2019s, response<\/h2>\n
What\u2019s next for Apple antitrust<\/h2>\n