Some experts say the DOJ's Apple lawsuit makes a strong case for harm to consumers and developers, but proving Apple's market power could be challenging
They now meet a second group of legally trained minds that took the time to read the document: … Dan Moren / @dmoren@zeppelin.flights : Despite my critiques of the DoJ suit, I think there are valid points in there. The cloud gaming section is one bit where it seems clear that Apple blocked a technology that it felt was a threat with an arbitrary ruling—clear because they subsequently backtracked that decision with no real technological change. X: Michael Buckelew / @michaelbuckelew : @stevesi That whole story interviewed I think three people with ties to the FTC and nobody who has software expertise. This whole thing comes across as people who wouldn't see a problem with square wheels suing Goodyear. Arvind Narayanan / @random_walker : A striking statistic from @matthewstoller's post about the DoJ lawsuit against Apple. Just one of a long list of anticompetitive practices. Apple becoming the Boeing of computing sounds unthinkable, but without intervention maybe that's what will happen. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ ... [image] Steven Sinofsky / @stevesi : ‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ's sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise ""They told a very coherent story about how Apple is making its product, the iPhone and the products on it - the apps — less useful for consumers in the name of maintaining their dominance. " No. The complaint tells a story without saying how the product is more useful for consumers than the equal, highly competitive, vibrant, thriving, and globally dominant Android platform.
The VergeLauren Feiner
Context & Ripple Effects
The DOJ’s complaint alleges that Apple restricted competitors’ access to iPhone features and raised the cost of leaving its ecosystem, while this assessment focuses on whether those allegations can satisfy the harder legal test of market power. The case therefore turns less on whether particular App Store decisions look restrictive than on how the court defines Apple’s position in the relevant market.
Commentary across the coverage is split: some analyses see meaningful weaknesses in the government’s theory, including the comparison with Microsoft’s clearer monopoly position in the 1990s, while the underlying DOJ allegations over access to iPhone features give developers and consumers a concrete conduct-based case to examine.
First-order effects
Apple must defend both the rationale for App Store restrictions and the proposition that it lacks legally sufficient market power; developers’ accounts of denied or constrained distribution become central evidence rather than background criticism.
The cloud-gaming reversal gives the DOJ a specific example to test: experts can argue that a restriction was not technically necessary, while Apple can contest whether that episode demonstrates market-wide harm.
Second-order effects
Competing mobile platforms and app-distribution businesses gain a clearer litigation benchmark: the outcome will hinge on proof of market definition and power, not simply on objections to a platform rule.
Developers seeking access to device capabilities or alternative distribution channels may have stronger incentives to document restrictions and switching barriers, especially where policies later change.
Third-order effects
The suit is part of a broader test of whether antitrust enforcement can treat control of a device ecosystem as durable gatekeeper power; a failure to prove that power would limit how far conduct-based claims can reach.
If the DOJ establishes market power, platform policy reversals and restrictions on emerging services could receive more sustained legal scrutiny, even when a platform frames them as product-design decisions.
The trend: Mobile-platform antitrust is shifting from general complaints about closed ecosystems toward case-by-case proof that access restrictions create consumer and developer harm within a legally defined market.
Yesterday we saw the first wave of tech journalists, VCs and bloggers without any legal expertise but a very strong bias that likely haven't read the paper but believe that they “get it”. — They now meet a second group of legally trained minds that took the time to read the doc…
@stevesi That whole story interviewed I think three people with ties to the FTC and nobody who has software expertise. This whole thing comes across as people who wouldn't see a problem with square wheels suing Goodyear.
A striking statistic from @matthewstoller's post about the DoJ lawsuit against Apple. Just one of a long list of anticompetitive practices. Apple becoming the Boeing of computing sounds unthinkable, but without intervention maybe that's what will happen. https://www.thebignewslet…
‘Even stronger’ than imagined: DOJ's sweeping Apple lawsuit draws expert praise ""They told a very coherent story about how Apple is making its product, the iPhone and the products on it - the apps — less useful for consumers in the name of maintaining their dominance. " No. The…
After reading up on some of the stuff, not as much as I would like, I do not think Apple is a Monopoly. I would say a duopoly with Android. However, I do think they use anti-competitive techniques. However, Google does too, and so does Microsoft. And all of them should be ash…
It still amazes me how sloppy this DoJ filing is. It's Apple's fault that LG and HTC could not compete with Xiaomi, Oppo and Samsung? Google Android phones are outsold by Samsung Android phones... because of iMessage? WTF? Ther's stuff like this on every page. How did this g…
CNBC's Jim Cramer says Biden Antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter is only bringing the Apple suit because Trump is going to win and Kanter won't be at the Antitrust Division for much longer. Congrats Kanter, Cramer finally hates you. Achievement unlocked. [video]
The key point that no one else has made on Apple's monopolization case is that where it doesn't monopolize - in China - it has to compete. It just cut iPhone prices in China by $180 last month response to fierce competition. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ ... [image]
There are many reasons to support the antitrust suit against Apple, but the most orthodox one is that Apple overcharges people for iPhones by thwarting competition. Where it can't do that, in China, prices are lower. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/ ...
Those “analysts” don't understand that the district court and the appeals court said Epic lost due to a FAILURE OF PROOF (the appeals court was only concerned with market definition and, in that regard, lock-in). The next one may deliver proof, learn from first one's mistakes.
Can we stop arguing about Apple CarPlay in Rivians and other cars now? Apple is pretty absurd to expect this. I love our Tesla and Rivian UI 100x more than CarPlay
@EamonJavers @jyarow This was incredibly frustrating to watch. There was more focus on “would you break up Apple” than basic questions like why is the gov. defining relevant market as “performance smartphones.” @JoeSquawk was headed in the right direction with the questioning but…
Fellow antitrust reporters, here's a transcript of our interview with Kanter today, if it helps... First on CNBC: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Speaks with CNBC's “Squawk Box” Today https://www.cnbc.com/...