Apple's iPhone business is not a monopoly. It's not even close to one, and it's almost comical that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is trying to build a shaky case about how Apple manages its software and third-party product integration.
First, there's the obvious argument: the iPhone has only 57% of the US market share (although I've also seen numbers closer to 70%) and globally it has about 20%. You don't have to be a math major to know that, by any measure, those aren't “monopoly” numbers.
There's no doubt that Apple is far from perfect on the inclusion front. It was delayed in working with the Google-backed RCS messaging standard that would force it to support full-capable messaging from Android devices; your Apple Watch doesn't work with Android phones; and similarly, major smartwatches from Samsung and Google don't work on the iPhone.
Of course, RCS support is now coming to iPhones. Of course, it won't be full integration or cross-platform compatibility. You'll be able to message (with undo, edits, and full-resolution photos and videos) with all your Android friends, but only from a separate iPhone RCS messaging app. RCS messages will apparently not appear within iMessage. In other words, it may feel a bit like sending messages on WhatsApp on an iPhone. Still, Apple does not block the idea.
It's also worth noting that previous Samsung Galaxy watches ran iOS, but that was before Samsung switched from its Tizen operating system to WearOS. Is Apple taking its time adding WearOS support to the iPhone? Yes, and one wonders if he ever will.
Others agree
Posted by @lanceulanoff
See in topics
There are also fair questions about why the Apple Watch still doesn't work with any of its best Android phones. I agree, this is a problem. On the other hand, I don't think companies should be forced to make their products work with their competitors unless there is a good business/market reason, existing standards, or significant consumer demand.
If there is consumer demand, I certainly haven't seen it, and Apple also has no commercial incentive to offer that level of compatibility. Those who want the best Apple Watch but own a Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra could upgrade to an iPhone 15 Pro Max to get that watch, but if they've invested in that great Android phone, I highly doubt they'll make that switch. More importantly, this is not the reason anyone would switch from Android to iPhone.
Similarly, I don't think lack of compatibility is what's going to stop people from switching from iPhone to Android.
It seems to me that the Department of Justice is confusing “monopoly” with “ecosystem.” Apple's complete control, from silicon to components, platform to consumer hardware, is nearly unmatched in the industry. Apple's ecosystem and the considerable benefits it offers to the consumer arise directly from that control.
I spent almost two decades using a combination of Windows PCs and Apple mobile devices, including Apple Watches, the best iPads, and the best phones. Everything worked well and I never felt like, for example, my iPhone was trying to push me to switch to a Mac, or that my Apple Watch harbored a secret disdain for the Windows platform.
However, when I made the decision to switch to a MacBook in 2023, my life changed. There has never been a collection of hardware and software that works as well together as Apple's. This is not coercion; It is coherence and perfect integration.
The process was facilitated, in part, by the ability of macOS, iPadOS, and iOS to work seamlessly with third-party systems such as Microsoft Word, OneDrive, Google Drive, Google Docs, Gmail, and Chrome. For me, this is the best of both worlds, and there is no single worldview that tries to force me to see things Apple's way.
The Justice Department needs to catch up with reality
There are other parts of this case that cause a headache, such as the Justice Department's accusation that Apple is “suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services.” Obviously, the Department of Justice can't be talking about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and many other streaming platforms, all of which run on my iPhone, iPad, and my best MacBook.
It is not always a perfect relationship. Netflix does not want to work within Apple TV because the company is not interested in paying the 30% 'Apple Tax'.
Apple's App Store policies are probably the closest Apple has come to becoming a monopolistic player. There's only one way to get iOS apps, and developers have had to pay up to 30% of their customers' revenue to Apple for that privilege. Apple has waived some of these fees, and many smaller developers pay half that amount. Elsewhere, the EU has undermined Apple's exclusionary tactics and forced the company to accept third-party app stories (with a host of caveats).
I've never cared for the one-stop shop system and appreciate the promise of privacy and security it offers. Apple, however, could still do a better job vetting chatty apps like the current explosion of fake 'OpenAI Sora Apps' (OpenAI has yet to publicly release a Sora app to consumers). Still, problems like that will only get worse if Apple is forced to open its US iOS app market to third-party companies.
Apple isn't perfect, but the iPhone is pretty close
I'm not saying Apple is an innocent operator. Your application research process is a black box that makes many arbitrary decisions. It has an “Apple way or the highway” attitude when it comes to disputes between apps and developers (see Apple vs. Epic Games). Apple will almost always decide in favor of itself and its own businesses, and it is never the first to offer cross-platform interoperability.
Apple's approach can seem imperial at times; but it is also effective, and not only by itself. Most people I talk to choose the iPhone voluntarily and not because they feel they have no other choice. Similarly, people choose Samsung and Google phones for their own idiosyncratic reasons. No one is trapped, stuck, or most importantly, without a choice.
I agree with Apple that the Department of Justice does not understand technology and should not be in a position to make technology decisions for technology companies or their customers. Suppose the US government wins and starts making those decisions. It would be solving a problem that doesn't exist and that no consumer asked you to solve, while potentially ruining the relationships with companies and their products that most consumers currently enjoy.
