The US Department of Justice against Apple in March 2024, the monopoly case is based on the company’s claim that the company carries out competition preventive practices in the smartphone market. The ministry claims that the iPhone has prevented users from switching to competing services and makes third -party developers disadvantaged. In this context, how Apple manages the integration of software and hardware, especially, stands out as one of the focal points of the case. The official response submitted by Apple to the court takes a clear position against these claims and takes the case process to a new stage.
In a statement made by Apple, it is emphasized that the charges in the case are based on the wrong foundations and how the government should not play a guiding role on how to design technology products. The company states that the iPhone’s confidentiality, security and user experience -oriented architecture constitutes the reason for most of the restrictions on the lawsuit. Especially the accusations collected under five headings have been responded separately: super applications, cloud game services, messaging applications, smart watch support and digital wallet functions.
Apple made his defense with technical details
Apple says that the software called super application and collecting many services on a single platform is already available in the App Store and that they are not prevented. The company states that multi -purpose applications such as WeChat work successfully in the iOS ecosystem, so the claim that the competition in this area is restricted. Likewise, it is stated that cloud game services can be used in the format of the Safari browser or in the app store, and there is no technical blocking.
It is noted that third -party messaging applications are widely preferred among iOS users. According to Apple, applications such as WhatsApp and Telegram can be accessed both in the App Store and work integrated into the iOS system. The company said that the devices of different manufacturers such as Garmin and Fitbit, not only Apple Watch, but also that data transfer and matching processes are technically possible.
On the digital wallet side, Apple argues that the restriction of access to NFC hardware on the iPhone is aimed at protecting user security. The company argues that the payment infrastructure in iOS is protected against malicious software and that there are required APIs to work on the platform of alternative wallet solutions.
With this response of Apple, the case goes to the discovery stage. At this stage, the parties will deepen the case with processes such as document sharing, technical review and witness statements. The process points to a period that can be an example not only for Apple, but also for the general functioning of major technology companies.