Have you ever dealt with a big government? Then you can imagine, Apple doesn't have as much weight as typical governments but it is close.
First, look at purchasing power of various governments. See https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purcha....
> Real GDP (purchasing power parity): GDP (purchasing power parity) compares the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States.
Second, look at COGS for Apple: "Apple annual cost of goods sold for 2021 was $212.981B" according to https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/cost-go.... COGS is arguably "close enough" to a nation-state's GDP to make for a useful comparison.
Given the above two, if Apple were a country with a GDP matching its COGS, it would rank about 66th, using a mix of 2022/2021 numbers from the sources above:
1 China $24,861B
2 United States $21,132B
3 India $9,279B
4 Japan $5,126B
5 Germany $4,523B
6 Russia $4,027B
7 Indonesia $3,246B
8 United Kingdom $3,136B
9 Brazil $3,128B
10 France $3,048B
11 Turkey $2,817B
12 Italy $2,478B
13 Mexico $2,418B
14 South Korea $2,289B
15 Canada $1,832B
...
36 Switzerland $618B
37 Belgium $600B
38 Sweden $580B
39 Singapore $578B
40 Ireland $516B
...
63 Kenya $251B
64 New Zealand $220B
65 Burma $217B
66 Dominican Republic $207B
67 Angola $204B
68 Kuwait $192B
69 Ecuador $190B
70 Belarus $184B
...
150 Namibia $23.1B
151 Kosovo $21.2B
152 South Sudan $20.0B
153 Iceland $20.0B
154 Somalia $19.4B
...
220 Palau $248M
221 Falkland Islands $206M
222 Anguilla $175M
223 Montserrat $167M
224 Nauru $149M
225 Wallis and Futuna $60M
226 Tuvalu $55.2M
227 Saint Helena... $31.1M
228 Niue $18.7M
229 Tokelau $7.7M
Unless you're the people I've worked for, you would drop everything for the chance to impress Apple.
But my comment did have the false assumption that the contract size would be large.
The reality is (IMHO) running a small contract and running a big one requires different skills sets, procedures in place, etc. Doing well at one will not guarantee doing well at another, and I think they know it.
For millions of people, it's their main/sole computing and internet access device so should be a neutral platform - with clear evidence as cited that Apple has not maintained its neutrality. As a neutral platform, customers should have the freedom to use their devices without undue interference or restrictions from Apple.
These are similar arguments made in the Microsoft vs. Netscape case. The lone example of being unable to install non-App Store apps is enough to justify the DOJ's case. Question is what would the verdict be? Similar to the EU's DMA rules would be a likely starting point.
Extremely authoritarian / communist take.
A $1000 luxury phone is not a "public good" just because many have FOMO and feel like they need one. There are many cheap alternative Androids that are just as good with virtually identical features. Nor is it a device that is absolutely necessary to function in society, like say other real public goods like running water or electricity.
Like it or not, there are different rules for the biggest players who wield market power. If you want an iPhone, then Android is not an alternative option. DOJ's argument is that Apple has added artificial disincentives to enable switching to a non-iPhone and also favor its own apps/services.
This is verbatim the argument against Microsoft and how it was wielding its Windows monopoly to stifle competition like Netscape. Easy to forget that Microsoft had closed APIs for 3rd parties and dictated how OEMs installed its OS before the US government judgement. You could've made the same counterpoint at the time that there's theoretical alternative OSes like Linux and Unix.
that's how you know he's right
What's authoritarian is Apple's lockdown of the iPhone. I should be able to run whatever application I want on my own device. Not the governement telling Apple, "Hey, people should be able to run what they want on their own device".
“Authoritarianism is a _political_ system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality.” - Wikipedia
When a company _sells_ you a device (that you choose to buy or not), it is _not_ about political freedom.
There are countries that are actually authoritarian. Let’s not blur the lines between that and a corporation. I can appreciate the free software movement as well as the right to repair and so on, but let’s keep things in perspective here. There are governments that jail people for dissent.
Not simply that a company is dominant; it is more about how and why they are dominant.
Update 2:40 pm ET: After some research, the practices below may capture much (though not necessarily all) of what the Department of Justice views unfavorably:
* horizontal agreements between competitors such as price fixing and market allocation
* vertical agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain such as resale price maintenance and exclusive dealing
* unilateral exclusionary conduct such as predatory pricing, refusal to deal with competitors, and limiting interoperability
* conditional sales practices such as tying and bundling
* monopoly leveraging where a firm uses its dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another
Any of these behaviors undermines the conditions necessary for a competitive market. I'd be happy to have the list above expanded, contracted, or modified. Let me know.