The U.S. Department of Justice believes Apple dominates the smartphone market with the iPhone and is using its position to the detriment of competitors and consumers.In an 86-page legal filing, the government spells out the reasons for its antitrust lawsuit against Apple.

The crux of the government's case is this: Apple has used its App Store to prevent rival handset makers from competing for better sales. The result has been a poor experience for iPhone owners who have had to pay the price of a less competitive market.

"Rather than responding to competitive threats by offering consumers lower smartphone prices or better monetization for developers, Apple has extracted higher fees, stifled innovation, provided a less secure or degraded user experience, and competitively It will respond to the competitive threat by imposing a series of transformative rules and restrictions on App Store guidelines and developer agreements that allow it to throttle alternatives," DOJ attorneys stated in their complaint against Apple.

Apple denies any wrongdoing and says it will "vigorously" defend itself. This lawsuit threatens ourselves and the principles that make Apple products stand out in a competitive marketplace," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement provided to Tom's Guide. 'If successful, this lawsuit will hinder our ability to create the technology that people expect from Apple at the intersection of hardware, software, and services. It would also set a dangerous precedent of giving the government greater power to design people's technology."

The DOJ, along with 16 state attorney generals, wants judges to find that Apple is a monopoly and prevent the company from engaging in what it calls anticompetitive practices. It is unclear what punishment would entail, but options in such a case include everything from fines to forcing Apple to open its iPhones to software outside of the App Store.

We have had the opportunity to review the antitrust allegations filed against Apple. These are the most significant allegations in the antitrust case against Apple.

Middleware is software used to access other apps and services that are not tied to a particular platform, at least in the context of this litigation. And the government argues that it did not want Apple to use middleware on the iPhone because it was concerned that middleware would reduce user confidence in Apple's mobile platform.

The lawsuit specifically mentions two types of middleware. So-called "super apps," which act as a gateway to a small set of programs that run in web browsers and other devices, and cloud-based gaming apps. In both cases, Apple has reportedly set restrictions to prevent that type of app from appearing in the App Store.

"Apple created, strategically expanded, and aggressively enforced its App Store guidelines to effectively block apps that host miniprograms. Apple's actions have discouraged investment in mini-program development and caused U.S. companies to abandon or limit technical support in the U.S."

With respect to cloud gaming, the complaint alleges that Apple feared that cloud-based games would persuade some iPhone owners to switch to less expensive devices that could run such games as well as more sophisticated hardware shipped from Cupertino The complaint alleges that Apple's internal communications and The complaint cites what appears to be an internal Apple communication that states, "I purchased a 25BX [expletive] Android at a garage sale and ...... Have a solid cloud computing device and ...... He is concerned that it might "work fine".

The lawsuit also points to a certain irony about Apple facing middleware issues. The DOJ has no choice but to let Microsoft provide developer tools to help them develop a Windows-compatible version of iTunes, which set the stage for the iPod's success 20 years ago.

If you don't like the way Apple handles cross-platform chat, there is nothing the DOJ can do about it. The most important parts of the complaint against Apple are that text balloons from non-iPhone users appear in green instead of blue, and that users on other platforms cannot encrypt, see poor video quality, typing indicators, messages They cite general criticisms such as the inability to edit, etc., and other reduced functionality.

The government argues that by limiting these features, Apple is hurting other devices: "It sends a signal to users that rival smartphones are of lower quality because the messaging experience with friends and family who do not own an iPhone is worse would be - even though Apple, not rival smartphones, is the cause of that degraded user experience.

Apple has stated that it plans to add support for the RCS messaging standard at some point this year. However, the government is unimpressed with this policy change, as it only applies to messaging apps and does not help third-party chat apps.

At the heart of the government's complaint against Apple is the claim that Apple's move is locking customers into their iPhones. They cite two areas where this is particularly true: smartwatches and mobile wallets.

Specifically, the DOJ claims that the Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone and that this exists to protect iPhone sales. According to the complaint, Apple Watch owners are unlikely to switch to an Android phone.

Third-party smartwatches also work with the iPhone, but the experience is far from satisfactory, the government claims. First, Apple is depriving iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications. Second, Apple is preventing third-party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection to the iPhone. And third, Apple impairs the ability of third-party smartwatches to connect directly to cellular networks," the complaint alleges.

"In so doing, Apple narrows user choice and squelches innovation that could help fill the moat of Apple's smartphone monopoly.

With respect to digital wallets (apps that can store payment information among other personal data), the complaint alleges that Apple has used its control of the iPhone platform to effectively prevent third-party app makers from building their own digital wallets with tap-to-pay capabilities. The lawsuit claims that Apple has effectively prevented third-party app makers from building their own digital wallets with tap-to-pay capabilities. This means that any and all mobile payments are processed almost exclusively through the Apple Wallet app.

In an assertion that is sure to anger Apple management, the DOJ claims that one of the effects of Apple's restrictive policies is to block innovative apps from third parties. Using a digital wallet as an example, the argument is that app makers know that whatever they create will not be approved by the App Store, so they do not bother to develop that type of software. Also, given the reach of the iPhone in the US, there is little incentive to develop that app for other platforms as well.

However, Apple may be stifling its own innovation, the DOJ argues. The complaint contains a quote from an executive, reportedly the vice president of iPhone marketing, about the scaling back of new features: going forward, I think we need to put a stake in the ground for features that we think are "good enough" for the consumer. I would argue that (we) are doing more than what would have been enough already."

"Anything new, especially something expensive, needs to be rigorously checked before it is put into a consumer phone," this executive is quoted as saying.

Apple has claimed that it tightly controls its App Store to prevent malware from entering the iPhone and to reduce fraud. However, the DOJ disagrees with that assertion.

First, the complaint points out that developers have other ways to sell macOS-compatible software without going through the Apple-controlled App Store, and that the Mac still offers a "safe and secure experience." In addition, the government claims that many of Apple's restrictions, such as the family-friendly third-party app store, encrypted text messages between Android devices and iPhones, and digital wallets that do not involve a middleman like Apple, increase the security of the iPhone Claims.

"Ultimately, Apple chooses to make the iPhone private and secure when doing so benefits Apple, and Apple chooses alternatives when those alternatives help protect Apple's monopoly power," the complaint alleges.

It is too early to say what the antitrust case involving Apple will be, and the company will undoubtedly respond independently to the government's allegations. Still, reading Apple's complaint against its practices, it certainly does not appear that the case will be resolved quickly and easily.