Apple only has itself to blame
25/3/2024
Translation: Patrik Stainbrook
The lawsuit against Apple isn’t a surprise. In addition to carrots, the Californian company uses sticks to bind customers to their own ecosystem. But it’s all so unnecessary.
«Buy your mom an iPhone» – Apple CEO Tim Cook is probably regretting this joke from a tech conference in 2022. It was his response to a viewer’s request that Apple should finally support the RCS messaging standard. He couldn’t send videos to his mother via iMessage because she had an Android smartphone.
Last week, the US Judiciary filed a lawsuit against Apple. In essence, it’s a question of whether the attitude behind Cook’s arrogant remark is illegal. Can a company with Apple’s market power deliberately ensure its products don’t harmonise with the competition – even if it worsens the experience for its own customers along the way?
No, says the US Department of Justice (DOJ). It claims that Apple violated antitrust laws. In his speech, Attorney General Merrick Garland also made explicit reference to Tim Cook’s joke, which he probably didn’t find funny at all. In addition to iMessage, the lawsuit concerns other parts of the Apple ecosystem where the Californians are making access more difficult for the competition.
Artificial barriers
I’m up to my neck in Apple myself – iPhone, iPad, MacBook, AirPods, AppleTV, HomePods and an iCloud subscription. I’m happy with them all. Together, they’re worth more than the sum of their parts, they combine seamlessly.
However, perfect vertical integration of your own hardware, software and services doesn’t have to be at odds with compatibility with other providers. Why can’t I pay with Twint by double tapping? Why did it take Apple so long to support RCS? Why can’t I download software from alternative app stores in Switzerland? Some restrictions might be down to safety concerns, others are obviously only a result of maximising profits.
Such artificial barriers are annoying for me as a customer, but could mean life or death for app developers. The worst thing? Apple doesn’t even need to do this. Its products offer enough added value that I’d still buy them regardless. They’re well thought out, meet my needs and I like the design.
Source: Shutterstock
The logical end result
Looks like Apple itself is to blame for this lawsuit. The walls around the company’s ecosystem are unnecessarily high. Out of greed, fear of losses and an obsession for control, the Californians are constantly asking themselves one question: How many restrictions on third-party services will customers accept before switching ecosystems?
It's the old carrot and the stick concept. Economically, this profit maximisation model has been highly successful. But now Apple reaps the legal ramifications of what it has sown. It isn’t surprising that such strategies attract the attention of regulatory agencies who are looking to make a name for themselves as consumer protectors. Both the USA and EU have had enough of the unbridled reign of Big Tech. And not only from Apple.
The courts will now decide whether the walls around Apple’s ecosystem are actually illegal. State prosecutors must prove that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market and that the negatives of lock-in strategies outweigh the positives. For some points, such as RCS support, this seems plausible. For others, such as wallet access, it’ll likely prove harder.
Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, I hope Tim Cook rethinks his position. Apple could easily focus solely on the quality of its products and services, breaking down artificial barriers. Just carrot, no stick. I’m sure that people will still buy their moms iPhones anyway.
Header image: Screenshot YouTube / ReCode
Samuel Buchmann
Senior Editor
Samuel.Buchmann@digitecgalaxus.chMy fingerprint often changes so drastically that my MacBook doesn't recognise it anymore. The reason? If I'm not clinging to a monitor or camera, I'm probably clinging to a rockface by the tips of my fingers.
