Topics
up-to-the-minute
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:Getty Images
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Image Credits:Getty Images
Cloud Computing
Commerce Department
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
Fundraising
appliance
back
Government & Policy
Hardware
layoff
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
certificate
societal
blank space
Startups
TikTok
transport
Venture
More from TechCrunch
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
newssheet
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
The U.S. Department of Justice plus attorneys cosmopolitan from 16 nation and the District of Columbiasued Apple for antitrustthis forenoon in federal royal court . The suit alleges that the company has a monopoly in the premium smartphone market and use a motley of illegal tactics to perpetuate that monopoly .
Leaving aside the details of those tactics and their legality ( if you ’re interested , you could read the entire lawsuit here)the font has a circumstances of analog to the DOJ ’s antimonopoly suit against Microsoft in the nineties , which I shroud atDirections on Microsoftfrom 2000 through 2010 . Even Attorney General Merrick Garland noted those parallels , say , “ The watershed Microsoft cause held a monopolist liable under the antitrust natural law for leveraging its marketplace position to undermine technologies that would have made it easier for users to prefer dissimilar computer operating systems . Today ’s complaint allege that Apple has absorb in many of the same manoeuvre that Microsoft used . ”
But there ’s one critical deviation between the cases : Microsoft had a cleared monopoly over the relevant market of operating systems for personal computers . Apple ’s monopoly attitude is not intimately as clear - cut .
It ’s not illegal to have a monopoly , as Garland also noted in his press conference . It is , however , illegal to employ sealed tactics to perpetuate or keep that monopoly — but to prove that , you have to prove the defendant has sufficient market index to foreclose competitors .
Microsoft Windows had well over 90 % grocery plowshare in the relevant market of operating system for personal information processing system . It was so dominant in the pre - smartphone age , in fact , that oneGoldman Sachs estimatereportedly had Microsoft operating systems on 97 % of all calculate devices in 2000 .
Although the factual outcome of the Microsoft antitrust case could be described as a motley victory for the DOJ , with a lot of the penalty — including the dissolution of Microsoft into two company — thrown out on appeal , the findings of fact in that display case clearly lay down Microsoft had monopoly mogul . That pave the style for a number of private follow - on lawsuits which Microsoft mostly settled .
On a utter numbers basis , Apple ’s market share is much low-down .
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
In its suit , the DOJ fence that Apple has more than 70 % market place ploughshare of smartphones in the U.S. if you measure by receipts . That ’s different than measuring by units shipped — there , Apple ’s share is closer to 64 % as of the last quarter of 2023 , allot to stats fromCounterpoint Research , well in the lead of No . 2 Samsung at 18 % . The DOJ argues , however , that there are other metrics that prove the iPhone ’s dominance , such as the fact that most untested users choose iPhones over phone from Samsung running Google ’s Android operations organisation , for instance . Higher - demographic house also tend to prefer the iPhone .
The government also debate that the U.S. is a relevant market because most consumers buy smartphones through carriers and because potential new entrants have to abide by with U.S. telecommunications laws , among other things . This argument is important because Apple ’s market portion is much humbled globally ( only 23 % , with No . 2 Samsung at 16 % ) . The No . 1 spot is list as “ Others , ” mostly consisting of lowly - toll Android phones . This is clearly still a disunited global market , which does exchange the competitive dynamic — developers have significant inducement to build apps for Android , for example . Contrast this with Microsoft ’s market control , which was globose — there was almost no viable option at the clock time .
The fundamental part in the DOJ ’s case commence on page 66 , title , “ Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone and performance smartphone food market . ” The argument get along down to barriers to entry .
First , the DOJ aver that most people already have a smartphone and are upgrading when they grease one’s palms a new one — and because most of those users already have an iPhone , they ’re more potential to pick out another iPhone . The DOJ claims Apple has put a mint of artificial barriers in billet that make it intemperate to switch , such as the difference between risque and green bubble for messaging iPhone and Android headphone user , and allegedly restricting the functionality of third - party cross - platform video apps , alternatively manoeuver the great unwashed to FaceTime , which work out only on Apple products . If users do switch , they face cost and frictions such as get word a new interface , grease one’s palms new apps , transfer data point and so on .
Second , the DOJ cites a laundry list of technical roadblock to accounting entry , such as procure expensive components , designing sophisticated hardware and software , securing distribution agreements , etc . There ’s also a host of circumstantial proof , such as Apple ’s massive and durable profit security deposit on iPhone sales .
These contention may prove compelling to a evaluator in the display case . But in term of roadblock to entry , Apple could argue that intersection differentiation and consolidation is not the same as preclude challenger . A fully incorporate platform with built - in apps for particular features like web browsing and videoconferencing is easy and convenient and customer opt it , and continue to choose it , because they favor it , not because they ’d wish to tack to Android and are blocked by artificial barrier .
In the 2d case , Apple could show to the massive investments it has made over the last 15 years progress these supply mountain chain and relationships with carriers and developer and justifiedly ask why it should be punished now for doing the necessary employment to build a lead .
That ’s often the case with antitrust cases in the tech world . An innovator rise to the top through a combining of operose employment , luck and hardball business manoeuvre . They construct an bulletproof wind in large part through internet effects . Competitors complain . Governments interfere . The dominant player is stall out for long enough that new competitors obtain a way of life to hit entry — much as Apple and Google did against Microsoft in the 2000s , as their smartphone operating systems rendered desktop PCs and Windows much less relevant .
And then the cycle set out all over again .
