Despite Apple's efforts to maintain a friendly public image, it's evident that the company is proactive. Just look at the suppliers suddenly abandoned by Apple or the app developers expelled from the market to see this.
Apple is also not a company that welcomes openness or competition. It has long resisted bringing its iMessage app to the Android platform until facing increasing pressure, reluctantly agreeing to adopt the cross-platform RCS (Rich Communication Services) system. Apple forces developers to use its in-app purchase system, avoids cloud gaming services, and has consistently refused to open its "contactless payment chip" to external apps, all to protect its closed ecosystem from disruption by competitors.
All of this provides ample material for the antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Apple last week. However, the lawsuit mainly focuses on some outdated arguments or issues that Apple has already addressed. Even more questionable is the assertion that Apple is making its products worse to harm competitors. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice attributes Apple's success to the antitrust settlement reached with Microsoft in 2001.
However, the biggest flaw in this case may be that the U.S. Department of Justice has almost no concrete evidence to prove that Apple has actually harmed consumers' interests.
The lawsuit claims that people continue to choose the iPhone mainly because Apple sets up barriers that make it difficult for people to switch services, rather than because people genuinely like the iPhone. The U.S. Department of Justice even claims that Apple is trying to harm car manufacturers by introducing a new version of CarPlay simply because it occupies more dashboard space. However, this service is entirely optional for consumers and car brands, and there has been no trend of its widespread adoption in the short term.
More surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice also makes some absurd claims, stating that Apple's strict control over the iPhone has led to the dismal failure of Amazon and Microsoft in the smartphone field. The lawsuit further points out that banning cloud gaming apps is aimed at driving sales of more expensive iPhone hardware, and Apple should also be responsible for the learning curve that makes it harder for users to switch to the Android platform.
In reality, some of Apple's practices have indeed raised concerns, but unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice has spent relatively little time on these truly critical issues, instead focusing on charges that seem to lack understanding of modern technology and maturity.
The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Apple covers five key allegations:
Firstly, Apple is accused of hindering the development of "super apps," which integrate multiple small apps into one comprehensive platform.
Secondly, Apple does not support cloud streaming gaming services, which run through data centers and can be directly transmitted to iPhones for user experience.
Thirdly, Apple prohibits the use of third-party messaging apps to send messages on iPhones, and its own iMessage software cannot be used on the Android system.
Fourthly, Apple has deficiencies in supporting third-party smartwatches, especially in functions such as receiving notifications.
Lastly, Apple prohibits third-party apps from using its Near Field Communication (NFC) technology for in-person payments.
Regarding these allegations, let's quickly review the first three. These allegations have either been resolved by Apple through updates or policy adjustments or are misleading:
Regarding the allegation of "super apps," Apple actually expanded the functionality of super apps in January of this year, allowing developers to more easily embed small apps into their own apps. It should be noted that many super apps have always received support from Apple. The reason why they have not been widely successful in the U.S. market is not solely due to Apple's restrictions but also because they have not been widely accepted culturally, with few exceptions like Facebook. Ironically, it's usually only large companies that have the ability to develop super apps, and these apps often pose a threat to small developers. So how should the U.S. Department of Justice deal with this? As for the allegations regarding streaming gaming services, Apple made strides in January this year by opening up support for developers to create apps accessing gaming libraries. While Apple has long allowed cloud-based gaming services, it previously imposed restrictions on companies like Microsoft and NVIDIA, preventing them from launching apps with access to the full cloud resource library. This has been a notable issue, although it's worth noting that this controversy sparked widespread discussion four years ago.
Regarding the accusations concerning messaging apps, Apple announced a significant update in 2023: with the update to iOS 18, Rich Communication Services (RCS) is expected to debut on iPhones by the end of 2024, marking the onset of a new era of interoperability. However, it's important to acknowledge that Apple has not granted third-party developers permission to send messages on their devices, and the prospect of iMessage migrating to the Android platform is nearly hopeless.
Fairly speaking, without this lawsuit and global regulatory pressure, Apple might not have made these changes so swiftly. Additionally, it seems unlikely that anything will stop the U.S. government from scrutinizing Apple's past actions, akin to the measures taken by the EU regarding streaming music services. As the case progresses, we have reason to believe that the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers will retain more information and evidence.
As for the last two accusations, they seem more reasonable:
Regarding the support for smartwatches, the synergy between the iPhone's operating system and the Apple Watch is indeed the best in the market. This clearly reflects Apple's strategic intent to promote sales of its own smartwatches and to tightly bind consumers to its ecosystem. While Apple has mentioned considerations for privacy and security, it's undeniable that there are shortcomings in its support for third-party devices, especially smartwatches. Technically, this is not an insurmountable issue.
Furthermore, Apple has cited security and privacy reasons to prevent external companies from using its Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to develop payment systems competing with Apple Pay. However, a more reasonable speculation is that Apple's move aims to protect the hefty commissions it receives from every Apple Pay transaction. It's worth mentioning that Apple has opened up NFC access in Europe and claims that related technical work is actively ongoing in the United States.
At this crucial juncture, it remains unclear what expectations the U.S. has of Apple—whether to demand hefty fines, change its existing practices, or both. But regardless of the outcome, it's foreseeable that Apple will likely undergo comprehensive reforms of its software and gradually adopt measures forced upon it in Europe.
It is anticipated that Apple will not only open NFC technology to third parties in the U.S. but also further expand support for external smartwatches, app stores, in-app payment services, physical trackers, browser engines, and voice assistants. Undoubtedly, Apple will also need to make the data transfer process on iPhones more convenient. However, one thing is certain: the possibility of introducing iMessage to the Android system, given Apple's staunch opposition, seems unlikely to ever materialize.
What's quite perplexing is that this lawsuit doesn't focus more on the Apple App Store—a domain that clearly requires thorough reform, whether in fee structures, app review processes, or developer guidelines. As a system with a twenty-year history since the era of Steve Jobs, the App Store evidently bears the marks of its time and urgently needs a comprehensive update.
However, the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit doesn't seem to be the best way to drive these necessary changes. Lawsuits have their inherent logic, which may divert attention from more pressing issues due to some unfounded accusations. Given Apple's almost limitless budget for lawyers and lobbyists, and its CEO's negative stance on settlements, this strategy undoubtedly carries risks. Apple has clearly stated that this lawsuit "contains inaccuracies both in fact and law" and plans to "vigorously defend" itself.
Nevertheless, one thing seems quite clear: regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, Apple's future operations will undergo significant changes.
