Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

Messaging apps - The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation, and Apple's delayed support for RCS.

This continues to be a ridiculous issue. Blue bubbles indicate messages in iMessage format, with all the specific bits that entails (read receipts, typing indicators, end-to-end encryption, large attachments, and being sent over data rather than using the carrier's SMS system - which when released was a huge deal, when people were getting hundreds of dollars of overcharges for "sending too many texts"), while green bubbles indicate SMS messages that don't support that list of features and are under external control.

An argument could be made that RCS messages should get their own color (purple? pink? yellow?), to indicate they're sort of a halfway point, supporting some features and not others and not being under Apple's control. But the text entry window indicates whether the chat is RCS or SMS.

Smartwatches - Apple is accused of restricting key functions from third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from watches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ has also complained about the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android devices

Tell me that competitors are writing this complaint for you without telling me that competitors are writing this complaint for you.

As far as the digital wallets go, I do not want my bank taking control over the NFC facilities, I want my bank cards in my Apple Wallet (as they are now). The only conceivable reason I can see for them wanting that access is for access to more information about me. And the first two points, Super Apps and Cloud Streaming, sound like they've already been handled.

Apples platform Apples rules.

This. I don't understand why anyone would buy a product just to complain about the issues with the product and try and change it into another product, that is already available (Android). If the iPhone ecosystem with its walled garden is not your thing, choose another.

You don't need freedom to break an ecosystem that works, you have freedom to choose a different ecosystem.

('https://www.macrumors.com/2025/07/29/apple-doj-lawsuit-response/')

Apple today filed a response to the antitrust lawsuit it is facing from the United States Department of Justice, sharing rebuttals to the DoJ's claims ('https://www.macrumors.com/guide/apple-vs-doj/') and pointing out perceived flaws in the accusations outlined in the complaint.



According to Apple, the DoJ's lawsuit has the potential to "set a dangerous precedent" that would allow the government to dictate the design and function of technology, plus it threatens "the very principles that set the iPhone apart" from competing devices.

As a recap, the DoJ filed an antitrust lawsuit ('https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/21/apple-sued-by-us-department-of-justice/') against Apple in March 2024, accusing Apple of an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. To back up its accusation, the DOJ provided five examples of instances where Apple's decisions stifled competition and locked consumers into the iPhone ecosystem.

* Super apps - The DoJ claims that Apple blocks apps that offer "broad functionality," like WeChat or apps that offer mini games and other multi-app features.

* Cloud streaming - Apple has been accused of suppressing cloud streaming games by preventing them from being available on the App Store.

* Messaging apps - The DoJ took issue with the lack of an iMessage app for Android, the green bubble vs. blue bubble separation, and Apple's delayed support for RCS. The DoJ also believes that third-party apps should be able to send and receive SMS messages in lieu of the Messages app.

* Smartwatches - Apple is accused of restricting key functions from third-party smartwatches, preventing iPhone users from getting Apple Watch-like functionality from watches with "better user interfaces and services." The DoJ has also complained about the Apple Watch not being compatible with Android devices.

* Digital Wallets - The DoJ took issue with Apple's refusal to allow banking apps and other digital payment providers to access the NFC chip in the iPhone for payment purposes.

Many of the DoJ's claims have been weakened or are no longer relevant, because Apple has addressed them. With iOS 17.4, for example, Apple eliminated restrictions on cloud streaming apps and apps offering mini games on iOS, and super apps are and have been supported.

Apple adopted RCS since the DoJ's filing, improving messaging interoperability between Android and iPhone devices, though messaging apps cannot receive SMS or RCS messages instead of the Messages app. Apple opened up access to NFC ('https://www.macrumors.com/guide/apple-nfc-chip-ios-18-1') in iOS 18.1, adding support for contactless NFC payments through third-party payment apps.

Apple does not believe that the DoJ fairly portrayed Apple's market position. The DoJ uses revenue as its metric for calculating market share instead of unit sales, which Apple says is "unreasonable." The DoJ also suggested that "performance smartphones" are a separate category from standard smartphones, even though that is not a recognized device category. Apple also argues that the U.S. numbers are not an accurate reflection of the global competition that it faces.

Apple points out that the complaints that led to the Department of Justice's lawsuit did not come from iPhone customers, but rather from a small number of developers that happen to include "some of Apple's largest and best-funded competitors." Apple claims that meeting the DoJ's demands would degrade the iPhone experience for consumers.

Much of Apple's response features Apple denying the DoJ's claims, one by one, which is standard for this type of filing. The legal dispute will now enter the discovery phase, with Apple aiming to prove that the DoJ's allegations are inaccurate. From there, a summary judgment will be handed down, which could lead to a trial and appeals. The entire process will span years.

The App Store ecosystem is changing rapidly enough that the DoJ's claims may not be applicable at all in the future. In the last year, Apple changed multiple App Store rules, both voluntarily and involuntarily. Apple's legal dispute with Epic Games, for example, resulted in Apple permitting developers to direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web with in-app links and no associated fees. Similar changes could further nullify the DoJ's allegations, so it should be interesting to see how the dispute plays out.

Article Link: Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design ('https://www.macrumors.com/2025/07/29/apple-doj-lawsuit-response/')

So in other words, Apple can’t offer superior functionality between its own hardware, software, and services in order to convince people to buy their products?

So, eliminate competition? Seriously?

So in other words, Apple can’t offer superior functionality between its own hardware, software, and services in order to convince people to buy their products?

So, eliminate competition? Seriously?

It's like your neighbors having a discussion about how to most equitably share your backyard pool.

And when you confront them with that, they say, essentially, "but your pool has become very important to our interests, so we have to all share access equally".

But none of them are talking about having the government pay Apple, say, several trillions of dollars to compensate them for essentially nationalizing Apple's ecosystem "for the good of the country". The iOS ecosystem is not some naturally occurring resource no matter how much the people who want to grab it try to pretend that it was "just sitting there, growing up out of the ground, when they arrived".

The wallets comments are worrying. The whole notion of carrying a physical wallet is organizing several items into 1 location. Having multiple wallets that hold 1 item would defeat the purpose of a wallet.

Arguments about walled garden aside, using revenue to determine market share is, IMHO, is a bad idea. It penalizes Apple for being able to charge a premium instead of looking at how many users are impacted and thus a company’s ability to limit other entrants into the market. If Apple charged 1/3 less would it be OK, but had 1.3 the units? The DOJ position seems to say yes it would.