MacDirectory magazine is the premiere creative lifestyle magazine for Apple enthusiasts featuring interviews, in-depth tech reviews, Apple news, insights, latest Apple patents, apps, market analysis, entertainment and more.
Issue link: https://digital.macdirectory.com/i/1518973
Consider Apple’s influence on the mundane and technical, such as USB-C technology. Or surprising cultural shifts, such as Airpods. And even how iPhone technology effectively launched Instagram culture. The DOJ’s core argument is that Apple’s business model has now shifted from leading innovation to gatekeeping its cultural-technical infrastructures. Such shifts are not necessarily planned evils. Infrastructure can lead to further infrastructure with novel benefits: it is no accident internet fibre cables follow old rail lines on land and telegraph cables undersea. Over time, though, a combination of cultural-technical infrastructures built up by a powerful company can monopolise a market. To know that story’s end game, think Boeing. Defining Apple’s monopoly Another problem for the DOJ is it will be hard to define the market that Apple allegedly monopolises or attempts to. Use of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act on firms requires such a definition. It makes sense the department is using this act against Google, which controls more than 90% of the search market. But Apple’s market share is far lower – not even a majority of mobile phone sales worldwide. To get around this, the department argues the market that Apple does have is unique. Apple is famously good at creating its own markets – rehashing familiar things (hard drives and MP3 files) to make novel products (iPods) that “just work” for consumers and suppliers. Apple’s competitive edge is creating the exclusive platforms it’s now being pursued for. As many will remember, before the iPhone, browsing the internet on a phone wasn’t a thing. Before iTunes, digital music was a pain or illegal. For millions of Apple fans across the US, the DOJ’s logic is a hard sell. A highly trusted middleman Notably repeated in this lawsuit is the need for “disintermediation”, which means removing the “middlemen” who take a cut between customers and suppliers. The DOJ alleges Apple acts as such a middleman by imposing on consumer choice – whether by restricting Apple’s interoperability with other products, or charging a 30% fee (the so-called Apple Tax) to do business on Apple’s platforms. The challenge is that in a world of bad actors on the internet (evil or incompetent), people actually seem to love Apple’s capacity to intermediate. The company’s strict control of its apps, products and services enables growth across its platforms and has given it a reputation for being an exceptional “middleman” for privacy, usability and other consumer concerns. For example, Apple’s wallet launched to not transmit credit card numbers to merchants, who regularly suffer data breaches and leaks. It offered an intermediary solution where evil (and incompetent) actors abound. The department’s claim this practice creates an “additional point of failure for privacy and security” is incoherent. An extensive history of cybercrime incidents around the world shows that for consumers, credit card companies and merchants, holding customer data becomes a liability, as well as an asset. During the pandemic, Apple’s trusted ability to