According to the US government, Apple is like a disease: spreading and killing any competition in its path. The problem has affected most parts of the world—even affecting Apple’s own products, making the iPhone worse.
According to a new lawsuit, the technology giant’s anticompetitive practices are affecting industries as diverse as finance, fitness, gaming, social media, news, entertainment, and others.
‘Unless Apple’s actions, which unfairly restrict competition and prevent others from participating fairly in the market, are stopped, its monopoly with iPhones in other markets and sectors of the economy is not stopped. can spread.’
Last week, the US Department of Justice formally sued Apple, accusing the company of illegally using its monopoly power to maintain its position in the smartphone market.
A few days later the European Union announced that it would investigate Apple, Meta and Google over claims that they were not properly complying with its new Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Apple now faces regulatory scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic. The company, which was once a scrappy startup and still, often, sees itself that way, has now become one of the biggest businesses on the planet.
Lately, governments seem to be seeing it as a threat – as something that might harm their citizens.
Actions in both Europe and the US are based on a simple premise: that Apple’s control over its platforms might eliminate competition and thereby harm consumers, and that its power should be limited by regulation.
For example, the US lawsuit suggests that Apple can use its control over the iPhone and its platform to benefit the Apple Watch, meaning other potentially better smartwatches don’t get such features. can While this is one of many complaints, they’re all largely versions of the same problem: features and benefits are being hidden from consumers so Apple can maintain its power and money.
Apple sees various pieces of regulation as a threat—or at least, it wants people to think so. In his statement in response to the US action, he suggested that it might be forced to change fundamentally.
It added that ‘the lawsuit threatens Apple’s identity and the unique features that make Apple products stand out in highly competitive markets. If it succeeds, it might limit our ability to innovate and deliver the cutting-edge technology that people have come to expect from Apple, which integrates hardware, software and services. Moreover, it might set a dangerous precedent, giving the government significant control over how people develop technology.’
Apple is right that the consequences of action can be dramatic. For example, the DMA allows authorities to impose substantial fines, with companies potentially paying up to 10% of their annual revenue.
The demands in the US lawsuit were not further elaborated. It only asks for ‘relief’ that would prevent Apple from breaking the law. However, this can still – but still – lead to dramatic penalties.
But it’s also unusual for a company to publicly respond to these regulations. For example, it appears that they contacted the DMA to come up with a way to follow the rules, test it, and then make changes as needed.
During recent hearings in the EU case, Apple warned a developer affected by the case that some of the legislation might be potentially worrisome and that they should monitor the response.’
Similarly, Apple appears to have gotten ahead of the Justice Department by changing its rules for streaming games services, a key part of the complaint, just weeks before the action became public.
This is a problem in trying to control companies through the courts. This EU law took years to develop and includes a comprehensive set of rules and penalties for non-compliance.
It also requires Apple to allow its users to download apps from other third-party app stores — Apple has complained regarding the changes for years, and it may just be the most resistant way. They may have complied, but he accepted that it was necessary to do so.
The US government, likely due to political issues, has made it difficult to pass new laws and has instead chosen to use existing laws to crack down on Apple.
This section contains related reference points (Related Nodes field).
In fact, his action once morest Apple is based on the surprisingly old law of 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act, which dates back to the early days of America rather than the present day.
It was intended to limit the power of growing trusts that were in the process of taking over tobacco, steel, oil and other major industries, and was signed at a time when the biggest concern was not broadband connections. Rather, it was the railway.
Still, it has been useful to lawmakers trying to rein in companies. Its core principle — that a monopoly can be legitimate, but the use of that monopoly position to control the market cannot be — has been applied to technology companies in a way Senator John Sherman, who authored the law, never envisioned. what was
For example, it was used in 2001, when the United States sued Microsoft, arguing that it had illegally monopolized the browser market with its Windows products.
The government initially tried to liquidate the company but later agreed to new rules limiting Microsoft and Windows, some of which were later overturned on appeal.
At the time, the case was hailed as a major breakthrough in the regulation of personal computing – although Microsoft continued to dominate the market, and it was the mobile revolution, not the government, that partially overthrew it.
Today the Apple case is like a modernized version of the old cases, but instead of targeting computers in the home, it’s focusing on the smartphones that people carry in their pockets.
It includes new state-of-the-art attorneys, but the basic principles they defend remain the same.
The result might be the same: a quiet compromise that changes little, followed by big statements from both sides, and possibly a change in the technology landscape.
#fight #governments #change #iPhone
2024-07-14 07:20:46
