The legal showdown between the U.S. Department of Justice and Apple that began Thursday morning is shining a spotlight on a conundrum as old as the tech industry itself: How much control should companies have over their products? Is it?
From the early days of personal computers, to open source vs. proprietary software, to later debates over walled social networks vs. open platforms, to the recent push for so-called right-to-repair laws, this issue has played out in one form or another. This is an issue that has come up. Or something else, over and over again.
The Justice Department said Apple exercises excessive control over the iPhone, limiting consumer choice and protecting its interests. “This lawsuit frees the smartphone market from Apple's anti-competitive and exclusionary practices and frees up competition to lower smartphone prices for consumers, reduce fees for developers, and sustain innovation for the future. “It is about recovery,” reads the preamble to the 88-page complaint filed with the court. Department of Justice.
Of course, Apple sees things differently. A spokesperson for the tech giant told The Verge that this set a “dangerous precedent that gives governments strict control over the design of people's technology.”
In fact, the idea that Apple's products “just work” has long been a central pillar of the company's branding. In order for a consumer to use his Apple product, he doesn't need to know what the drivers are or spend hours on the phone with tech support. ; Just connect and enjoy. A tightly scripted experience is a selling point.
Additionally, Apple's strict controls over the platform, including the third-party apps it allows in the App Store and the ability of third-party apps to access some of the iPhone's key features, are important for user security and security. It means improved privacy. In that castle.
In Apple's last fiscal year, this approach earned the company $383 billion in revenue and led Wall Street investors to value Apple's stock market at $2.65 trillion. The iPhone, which will celebrate its 17th anniversary in June, brought in $200 billion in revenue last year.
Dipanjan Chatterjee, an analyst at industry research firm Forrester, said: “Apple is obsessed with the customer experience, so they tightly manage the experience, make decisions on behalf of the customer, and consistently deliver the experience the brand promises.'' It's maintaining the ecosystem.” luck. Chatterjee said the debate is essentially whether choice or curation is better for users.
In a sign that the market is hungry for more choice rather than Apple's heavily monitored model, the Justice Department and the 15 U.S. states and District of Columbia that joined the lawsuit are seeking to ensure that consumers are not harmed. You will need to prove that you have received it.
It's not easy. It's not just because there is a less tightly controlled alternative smartphone ecosystem based on Google's Android software.
“This is not a timid lawsuit,” said Harry Furst, a New York University law professor and antitrust expert, adding that he believes the government “is trying to get to the core of Apple's ecosystem and how it maintains control.” We're tracking what they're doing,” he said.
Does product design come from DC?
Cloud-based gaming apps, messaging apps and digital wallets are among the elements of the iPhone that the government claims Apple is stifling consumer choice.
said Josh Kaul, Attorney General of Wisconsin, one of the states involved in the lawsuit. luck In an interview, Apple said that Apple Wallet is a prime example of limited options. “If consumers prefer it over other digital payment systems, that's fine, but Apple shouldn't prevent consumers from using alternatives they want to use but don't have access to.”
Still, the idea that governments have a better understanding of what consumers want than companies like Apple is inherently tricky. And there are no shortage of examples of government tyranny resulting in inferior products.
Steve Sinfosky, a former senior Microsoft executive, pointed to the constraints placed on the PC software giant after the Justice Department filed antitrust lawsuits against it in the late 1990s and early 2000s. .
Sinosky tweeted Thursday that the biggest impact of the antitrust lawsuit is to make Windows “worse for consumers.”
Search for “definitive memo”
It may be easy to prove that Apple's dominance has harmed other companies. But antitrust experts like Mark McEearns, a professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, argue that the government believes Apple's actions were exclusionary, meaning they were done without legitimate business. The company said it would need to provide information such as internal communications between Apple executives that show that it is. Purposes such as improving customer experience.
“It will be important to see what documents and emails are unearthed in discovery by the Justice Department,” said McEans, who teaches courses on antitrust and competition.
Sinofsky, a former Microsoft executive, echoed that sentiment in his own tweet thread Thursday. “If this case went to trial, this case would be narrowed down to a single-digit number of emails (MS had 3 that he remembers)” (IMO). Or even worse internal chat posts and messages. ”
So far, the internal emails highlighted in the complaint are revealing, but not significant, according to many people familiar with the matter. But as the lawsuit progresses and the government gains greater access to Apple documents, it's hard to know what will emerge.
Of course, “smoking gun” documents would be a huge boon to the government's case, but in the opinion of some observers, the Justice Department could have exposed a bunch of even less damning documents. It is said that there is a possibility of making a profit.
“They must know that this case will be difficult to win. Perhaps they believe that the best path to victory is to create a strong public atmosphere that Apple is not a noble consumer advocacy organization. “Maybe they feel that way,” said Jeffrey Mann, founder and president of the Center for International Law and Economics, a nonprofit research center based in Portland. .
“Many of these lawsuits are about changing the public perception of these companies, which in turn deters their actions.”
