[ad_1]
- The Justice Department has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, but some analysts believe the case is weak.
- Iconic technology journalist Walt Mossberg said the Justice Department’s claims about Apple’s monopoly are “laughable.”
- He wrote that the lawsuit punishes Apple for “not having a business model like its competitors.”
The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple this week, accusing the company of abusing its monopoly power to stifle competition among smartphone makers.
Tech industry insiders and analysts have speculated that the U.S. will eventually settle the case, as it did in a similar antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s, but the case could be a big deal for the Justice Department. Not everyone is convinced it’s a complete loss.
“Calling Apple a cell phone ‘monopoly’ is ridiculous,” wrote iconic technology journalist Walt Mossberg in a series of posts on Threads. “Every independent analyst estimates iPhone market share at just over 50% in the US and just under 25% worldwide. This is not a monopoly.”
Mr. Mossberg, who has covered technology for nearly 30 years, including for the Wall Street Journal, and is known for his deep sourcing capabilities within Apple, said the company is “more focused on creating digital appliances for people who want digital consumer electronics than a tinkering platform.” “Smartphone manufacturer.” ”, which has been his differentiator from companies like Microsoft since the 1980s.
He said the Justice Department’s claims that Apple engages in anti-competitive conduct by ensuring that Apple cell phone features work optimally when interacting with other products in the Apple ecosystem are the government’s It was pointed out that no intervention should be required. Because “Gmail only works fully and properly with a special Gmail app.”
Mossberg pointed out that in order to support Apple’s case, the Justice Department needed to narrowly define the market in which Apple claims to have a monopoly, including “‘high performance’ mobile phones. , which means expensive cell phones,” he wrote.
“And it claims that the iPhone has 70% of that market in the US. It dominates the best-selling and expensive wines, even though its overall market share is actually not that high. “It’s the same as calling it,” Mossberg wrote. “The Department of Justice is acting as if its competitors have the right to use Apple’s proprietary iMessage technology. But since when did a company have to do something like that? Do you want it?”
Mossberg, who is not a lawyer, said that while it may ultimately be proven that Apple violated the law on certain matters, “the core of the case is that Apple is building products and services. It seems to be based on the philosophy of It’s about punishing companies that don’t have business models like their competitors. ”
Mossberg, who noted in a thread “for conspiracy theorists” that he is retired and not paid for his posts, did not immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment.
Although Mossberg’s analysis of events in the technology world is widely trusted by industry experts, he is not alone in criticizing the incident.
“At the end of the day, this is clearly a political case. The Department of Justice set out to ‘go after Big Tech’ in 2019 (!) and even before that,” said Microsoft’s software engineer and former Windows unit. President Stephen Sinofsky said. , writes in his newsletter “Hardcore Software.”
He added, “The Department of Justice started filing lawsuits against ‘Big Tech,’ so that’s what we got. Here we are filing a lawsuit against Apple. The case is weak and ill-framed.” Enough is enough, it seems to me that they did not understand anything,” he added. This involves an apparent duopoly, with a market dominated by two very different approaches, many happy customers, and a few companies that once lost in court but still complain loudly about their incredibly good service. Is receiving. ”
Sinofsky declined to add additional comment on the incident when contacted by BI.
Representatives from Apple and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment from BI.
[ad_2]
Source link
