A look at the US DOJ's lawsuit against Apple, comparisons to Microsoft suit in the 1990s, basic factual errors, why it is clearly a political case, and more

March 21, 2024 the United States filed an antitrust complaint against Apple. The filing is a new approach to antitrust and hinges …

Hardcore Software 2024-03-24 Steven Sinofsky

Context & Ripple Effects

The filing followed reports that the DOJ was preparing a case focused on conduct supporting the iPhone’s position. Early coverage immediately framed the dispute around whether Apple’s platform control can be evaluated through the same lens as the 1990s Microsoft antitrust case.

The related reporting also exposes the central litigation fault line: the DOJ characterizes Apple’s privacy and security rationale as selectively applied, while analysts pointed to a prior Epic-related ruling as potentially helpful to Apple’s defense.

First-order effects

Apple must defend its iPhone ecosystem practices in a federal antitrust case, while the DOJ must substantiate a theory of market power and exclusion that is contested even in contemporaneous coverage.
Privacy and security claims become a direct evidentiary issue, following the DOJ’s allegation that they can operate as an elastic justification for Apple’s choices.

Second-order effects

The case gives app, device, and service partners a new venue to challenge restrictions they view as limiting interoperability or distribution, while Apple’s defense will seek to distinguish its conduct from Microsoft-era precedent.
A favorable reading of the prior Epic-related findings could narrow the DOJ’s path; as noted in analyst reaction to the suit, that litigation history may aid Apple rather than establish liability.

Third-order effects

If courts accept the DOJ’s theory, antitrust review of digital platforms could more directly weigh design and interoperability choices against claimed security benefits; if they reject it, platform owners gain a stronger litigation reference point for those defenses.
The Microsoft comparison underscores a durable question for technology regulation: whether legacy monopoly doctrine can be cleanly applied to integrated hardware, software, and services ecosystems.

The trend: This is part of a broader effort to test whether antitrust law can curb ecosystem control in modern consumer technology platforms without treating product integration itself as unlawful.

Discussion

@mwi.invest @mwi.invest on threads
People either see the case against Apple as “trivial” and “confused about how the technology works” or “substantive, focused, and hard hitting.” This makes me excited to read the complaint 🤓
@hi.im.vijay Vijay Pemmaraju on threads
Crap, if Apple loses this case, I'm not gonna know who the bad guys in movies and tv shows are anymore.
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on threads
This is excellent. One of the best things about getting to read Walt's opinions is knowing that over the years he's seen technology companies from every angle. He's been critical of Apple. He's applauded Apple. He's been accused of being biased both for and against Apple at v…
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on threads
The puzzle I have about the Apple ‘monopoly’ issue is not market definition or whether it has 50% or 75% US share. it's about choice. In 1998 it was not realistic to tell someone 'if you don't like Windows, buy something else.' Buy what? But it's absolutely realistic to say tha…
@itslaurlyn @itslaurlyn on threads
The government is out here after Apple for monopoly and like, I get it. But their claims are honestly kind of weak. (Hear me now, I don't give one iota about Apple, I just don't see the case here) Get tf after Ticketmaster though. NOW THAT is a monopoly case.
@robin.winters.93 Robin Winters on threads
If you want iPhone features, buy an iPhone! It's like the government trying to force Taco Bell to carry Coke products because soooo many people eat there that it's anticompetitive if they only serve Pepsi products. This reeks of grievance politics.
@ianbetteridge Ian Betteridge on threads
Hmm, I don't know who I should trust when trying to work out how strong the DOJ's case is - tech pundits or actual professors of antitrust law? It's so hard to decide. https://www.theverge.com/...
@agraham999 Alan Graham on threads
Blocked. The cult nonsense is lazy. It's a terrible case that doesn't understand the core product Apple sells is not the device but the experience. Let's lose the cult bs.
@christopherkeelty Christopher Keelty on threads
BTW let's be clear: As Apple's market share has grown, their products have become worse. Anyone arguing that the government is “stifling innovation” by going after Apple's anticompetitive trade practices is either drinking the iAid or not serious about the conversation. …
@agraham999 Alan Graham on threads
BREAKING: DOJ claims Apple unfairly used Apple products inside of Apple TV+ Shows. Claims bad guys use of Android devices in shows makes competing products look mean. Probably.
@jolness Jacob Peter Olness on threads
1/ I've noticed 3 things since the apple antitrust suit was fired 1) people don't understand what antitrust is. It doesn't require an absolute monopoly so “Apple doesn't sell every phone in the US” isn't a good argument. …
@agraham999 Alan Graham on threads
BREAKING: Merrick Garland claims Apple Newton's market dominance responsible for the poor market reception of the Palm Pilot phone.
@elimatthewjohnson Eli Johnson on threads
I'm a big fan of the iPhone, Apple and CarPlay and even I can see that this might be the best point the DOJ makes in the entire lawsuit. Car companies should be able to use the current CarPlay setup, not be forced to choose between next-gen CarPlay or nothing at all.
@ysamjo @ysamjo on threads
I agree, it's absolutely wild what a institution like the DOJ considers good research (for a legal case!). That they went public with this shows us that the gut feeling about Apple's practices has reached a tipping point.
@schykle Alan Diggs on threads
There are a lot of opinions flying around on the whole US vs Apple thing but the very moment the US decides to impose some kind of restriction or interop that results in the experience being degraded in any way... then they've invalidated themselves ENTIRELY. …
@agraham999 Alan Graham on threads
BREAKING: DOJ files complaint against Apple for developing its own Silicon processors, thus depriving Intel of revenue.
@dalast1woke B Floyd on threads
The US DOJ isn't responsible for the world. Its responsible for thr US. But to say Apple markershare in the us is 50% when it's more like 65-70% ur Mischaracterizing the issue.
@alexhcranz Alex Cranz on threads
reading many reactions to the Apple antitrust case I'm struck by how consistently Americans specifically balk at the core conceit of the case (and really antitrust law in general): that the government has an obligation to protect consumers. in the US we pride ourselves on individ…
@georgescriban @georgescriban on threads
I'm old enough to remember when we called “super apps” a “walled garden.” Think of AOL's or, more recently, Facebook's, efforts to be The One App Where You Did Everything—talk with friends, follow the news, do your shopping, watch movies, play games, book travel, pay your bills,…
@christopherkeelty Christopher Keelty on threads
I think what people miss here is that AOL, Facebook, etc are making software—or not even software. Ultimately a web site like Facebook is literally just files. Apple is making hardware, and that hardware locks you into software that you can only buy from their store. These are…
@alexhcranz Alex Cranz on threads
I've seen this point brought up a few times, and I think there's a clear stance the government has in vertical integration: it's fine until it causes real harm to consumers. Apple's business model was fine, from the DOJ's pov, until it started making texting Android users a func…
@mherf Michael Herf on threads
Disagree. Say you're a developer who's spent 3 years making a new kind of game with a digital currency that gets it banned from the app store. You're not going to start over on a “competing” platform with 5% share - porting is hard, and losing 70% of your market sucks - there i…
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on threads
I think the problem with that hypothesis is that you probably shouldn't have spent three years building something that you knew at the outset was against Apple rules if you were relying on that. Plus, epic built a really great business with a game that used virtual currency on t…
@mossbergwalt Walt Mossberg on threads
3/ Calling Apple a “monopoly” in phones is laughable. Every independent analyst estimates iPhone market share at a little over 50% in the US and a little under 25% globally. That's not a monopoly. The DOJ has had to invent a new way of measuring a market, “performance” phones,…
@jdeamattson Jordan Dea-Mattson on threads
Years ago, when I was at Apple, and Apple was honestly on the ropes, we were told by the world that we needed to adopt a business model that mirrored the rest of the world's. First thing SJ did when he returned was to cancel Amelio's wrongly initiated licensing program and go ev…
@ianbetteridge Ian Betteridge on threads
First up, if you do not respect Walt's opinions, you're a fool. Walt is one of my tech journalism heroes. That said, I think he's missing a couple of points here. Long thread incoming.
@mossbergwalt Walt Mossberg on threads
Thread.1/ Having covered tech for 27 years, and having just skimmed the actual text of the DOJ case against Apple, I have three big takeaways.
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on threads
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…
@mossbergwalt Walt Mossberg on threads
2/ First and most importantly, the case essentially attacks Apple for being a vertically integrated smartphone manufacturer, melding every hardware component as well as native and permitted software and services. Yet this has been Apple's core differentiator since the 1970's. …
@dennieedwards.bsky.social Dennie Edwards on bluesky
Apple is a nothing sandwich in comparison to the damage Google has wrought on the media and the internet. The DOJ needs to focus on the real, far-reaching threat. [embedded post]
@jimscard Jim Scardelis on x
Would love to hear @stevesi 's take on this. I was at Microsoft then, and I don't recall the DOJ settlement changing anything significant. Microsoft was already open about APIs and better than the detractors about providing SDKs and tools to developers for free/very low cost.
@benslivka Benjamin W. Slivka on x
A completely BIGUS claim: “Apple itself was a significant beneficiary of that case,” Jonathan Kanter, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for antitrust, said this past week in announcing the new lawsuit. “The remedy paved the way for Apple to launch iTunes, the...
@bradsilverberg Brad Silverberg on x
@BenSlivka Completely factually incorrect. Msft begged Apple to do iTunes for Windows. It was totally an Apple decision to do or not do. Not something enabled by the antitrust suit. There is so much asserted about the results of the suit against msft that are just completely wron…
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
@jimscard Patrick of course knows what I think and he knows the history. The deal with Apple was a patent exchange because it was clear Apple was about to begin to use its portfolio as it had run out of options. As far as patent deals go the 350M was a great deal, especially give…
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
What is not being widely recognized is just how poorly put together (intentionally or not) the US v Apple complaint is. It is vague and lacks foundation, which might be a tactic but also sloppy which I doubt was a tactic. Much has been said about the false narratives on iTunes...…
@jdalrymple Jim Dalrymple on x
It is staggering how badly the DOJ doesn't understand tech.
@zenwave Johnny Mañana on x
@jdalrymple Next up for AG Garland: busting up Burger King's monopoly on the Whopper.
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
One way you know it's wrong is because @stevesi misunderstands something I know a fair amount about - the antitrust bar. Most antitrust lawyers are *furious* at enforcers for expanding the bounds of the law. [image]
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
@matthewstoller By definition what I said was true because there are some people (or even most as you claim) that are apparently upset at what is actually happening. [image]
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Silicon Valley monopolies exist today because the enforcement choices of the last 20 years. The antitrust bar, gov't enforcers, and tech execs have been partners for decades. It's why Sheryl Sandberg went from Treasury to Google to Facebook. Partners!
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
@stevesi There's a religious belief among the management consulting/tech exec world that law just doesn't matter, it can't matter, that government and lawyers are irrelevant. These antitrust suits are a direct assault on that premise, on the Sorkin-esque view these men have of th…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
My favorite part of this error-filled essay by @stevesi is the self-pitying exhortation to Apple execs about how they should know they did nothing wrong, followed by a reminder not to put their crimes in email. Lotta emotion happening here! [image]
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
This excerpt from the DOJ's filing against Apple shows how Apple regularly uses privacy and security to justify anticompetitive moves but is quite happy to ignore them if it weakens their dominance. No encrypted chat between Android & iOS users in iMessage is an example. [image]
@patrickmoorhead Patrick Moorhead on x
Imagine if the USG hadn't intervened with Microsoft: -Apple wouldn't exist. They'd be bankrupt. Likely purchased by Oracle and Larry. Or Dell or HP. iTunes would never have scaled which led to iPhone. (no cash lifeline from MSFT, no more Office on Mac which would end commercial..…
@teroterotero Tero Kuittinen on x
So these Yankees have rewritten the mobile phone industry history to be 100% North America focused - pretending Nokia simply did not exist & Microsoft would have dominated phone industry if iPhone hadn't debuted.
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
216. United States v. Apple (Complaint) - What does this case mean, putting it in some context, and looking at the big picture (plus includes the Twitter thread) by me in Hardcore Software https://open.substack.com/...
@richontech Rich DeMuro on x
I read all 88 pages of the Apple lawsuit so you don't have to, by @richontech https://open.substack.com/...
@counternotions Kontra on x
DOJ's antitrust suit against Apple may read infuriatingly ignorant, inaccurate and ahistorical, but, above all, it's an ideological frontal attack on the notion of integrated product/platform design...a death march to commodification and interchangeability. The rest is much noise…
r/apple r on reddit
216. United States v. Apple (Complaint) : Steve Sinofsky of Microsoft points out DOJ lawsuit faults

Chronicles