Apple iPhone is not a monopoly – and you really don’t want the US government to win its antitrust case
Apple’s iPhone business is not a monopoly. It’s not even close, and it’s almost comical that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is trying to build a shaky case about how Apple manages its third-party software and product integration.
First, there’s the obvious argument: iPhone has just 57% of the US market share (although I’ve also seen numbers closer to 70%), and globally it’s about 20%. You don’t have to be a math teacher to know that these aren’t “monopoly” numbers anyway.
There’s no argument that Apple is far from perfect when it comes to inclusivity. The company continued to work on the Google-supported RCS messaging standard, which would force it to support full-capacity messaging from Android devices; the Apple Watch does not work with Android phones; and similarly, leading smartwatches from Samsung and Google don’t work on the iPhone.
Of course, RCS support will now appear on iPhones. Of course, it won’t be full integration or cross-platform compatibility. You can message all your Android friends (with undo, edits, and full-resolution photos and videos), but only from a separate iPhone RCS messaging app. RCS messages apparently don’t appear in iMessage. In other words, it might feel a bit like messaging in WhatsApp on an iPhone. Still, Apple isn’t blocking the idea.
It’s also worth noting that previous Samsung Galaxy Watches did work with iOS, but that was before Samsung switched from its Tizen OS to WearOS. Is Apple taking the time to add WearOS support to the iPhone? Yes, and you wonder if that will ever happen.
Others agree
Posted by @lanceulanoff
View on Discussions
There are also legitimate questions about why the Apple Watch still doesn’t work with your top Android phones. I agree, this is a problem. On the other hand, I don’t believe that companies should be forced to interoperate their products with competitors’ products unless there is a good market/business reason, existing standards, or significant consumer demand.
If there is consumer demand, I certainly haven’t seen it, and Apple has no business incentive to offer that level of compatibility. Those who long for the best Apple Watch, but own a Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra power move up to an iPhone 15 Pro Max to own that watch, but if they invested in that excellent Android phone, I highly doubt they would make that switch. More importantly, this isn’t the reason why anyone would switch from Android to iPhone.
Likewise, I don’t think the lack of compatibility will stop people from switching from iPhone to Android.
It seems to me that the DOJ is confusing “monopoly” with “ecosystem.” Apple’s complete control, from silicon to components, from platform to consumer hardware, is virtually unmatched in the industry. The Apple ecosystem and the significant consumer benefits it provides flow directly from that control.
I’ve used a mix of Windows PCs and Apple mobile devices for almost two decades, including Apple Watches, the best iPads, and the best phones. Everything worked fine, and I never felt like my iPhone was trying to nudge me to switch to a Mac, for example, or that my Apple Watch harbored a secret disdain for the Windows platform.
When I made the choice to switch to a MacBook in 2023, my life changed. There has never been a collection of hardware and software that works together as well as Apple’s. This is not coercion; it’s consistency and seamless integration.
The process was made easier in part by allowing 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 no worldview tries to force me to see things the Apple way.
The DOJ needs to be aware of the reality
There are other troubling parts of this case, such as the DOJ’s accusation that Apple is “suppressing cloud-based mobile streaming services.” Clearly the DOJ can’t talk about Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and countless other streaming platforms, all of which work on my iPhone, iPad, and top of the line MacBook.
It’s 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 policy is probably the closest Apple has come to being a monopolistic player. There’s only one way to get iOS apps, and developers have had to pay as much as 30% of their customer revenue to Apple for the privilege. Apple has clawed back some of these fees, and many smaller developers are paying half that amount. Elsewhere, the EU has undermined Apple’s exclusionary tactics and forced the company to accept third-party app stories (with a bunch of caveats).
I’ve never minded the single-store system, and I appreciate the promise of privacy and security it offers. However, Apple could still do a better job of vetting charlatan apps, such as the current explosion of fake ‘OpenAI Sora Apps’ (OpenAI has yet to publicly release a Sora app to consumers). Still, these kinds of problems will only get worse if Apple is forced to open its US market for iOS apps to outside companies.
Apple isn’t perfect, but the iPhone comes pretty close
I’m not claiming that Apple is an impeccable operator. The app control process is a black box that makes a lot of arbitrary decisions. It has an “Apple’s way or the highway” attitude when it comes to app and developer disputes (see Apple vs. Epic Games). Apple will almost always decide in favor of itself and its own companies, and is never the first to offer cross-platform interoperability.
Apple’s approach can sometimes seem imperial; but it is also effective, and not just for itself. Most people I talk to happily choose the iPhone, and not because they feel like they have no other choice. Likewise, people choose Samsung and Google Phones for their own idiosyncratic reasons. No one is trapped, stuck or, more importantly, without a choice.
I agree with Apple that the DOJ does not understand the technology, nor should it be in a position to make technology choices for technology companies or their customers. Suppose the US government wins, and it starts making these choices. It would solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and that no consumer asked to solve, while potentially ruining the relationships with companies and their products that most consumers currently enjoy.