Apple hits back to the Antimonopoly Antimonopoly after paragraph

As Apple’s antimonopolous case continues forward, the company breathed to each of the 236 paragraphs from the original complaint to defend itself and clearly state that “the impression is bad”.

The Ministry of Justice, together with several states accusing Apple of monopolistic practices over the application with applications, iPhone and other parts of its business. A year later, after an unsuccessful attempt to release the case, Apple was directly to the antitrust court.

Apple’s administration opens up with a claim that the action “threatens the principles that the iPhone separates on a sharp competitive market”. Apple EntSerts that complaints that led to the action come from a small number of rich and powerful third -party developers that are free of innovation introduced iPhone.

It is a heated refutation that hits the core of the action that Appleinsider It was repeatedly moot. Most of the accused either bee never true true has been moved in recent updates.

Apple again shared five main points that the court made.

• It says Apple suppresses the success of “super applications”, despite the fact that Apple’s rules allow and support and support such applications, and there are many “super applications” in the App Store
• It says Apple Blocks Cloud Streaming Games, although Apple allows streaming games both on the web and in the app store where you can stream games for users
• DOES APPLE DOES DEGRADDING APPLICATIONS FOR SERIFICATION OF THERE PARTMENT, although they are widely Apaibles and extremely popular on the iPhone
• It says Apple limits third -party smart watches, although they can look effectively on the iPhone, share data to AZ iPhone through an accompanying application and use some features that Apple is expanding over time
• DOPPE says Apple retains access to hardware for iPhone necessary for third-party digital wallets to use TAP-to-Pay technology, but Apple developed and provides a mechanism that protects users

236 reasons why they are wrong

Apple’s response is a paragraph to analyze the arguments. There are 236 overall paragraphs, including content, preamplifier, headings, sub -steps and footnotes.

Obviously, there is no way to add up every single point he has done. Go read the complete answer built below.

If you are watching, the original administration is available via Scribd. Apple kicks things by admitting that he admitted that Apple was founded in 1976, but denied that he tried to compete with lower Christmas years.

Many centers come around building narratives that Apple des does not want competition and designed the ecosystem around. Apple takes time to refute every detail, only combines what is in documentation or history as accurate, such as the rebirth of the iPhone in 2007.

Many of the paragraphs are what Apple calls legal conclusions that you don’t have responsible. Any accusation against Apple is denied.

The Apple point is repeatedly trying to make it that its platform and ecosystem of applications and hardware are designed to ensure perfect balance between needs, privacy and security. Apple says that the action “is trying to attack the random collection of Apple design, worsening the benefits of the privacy and security of the iPhone that customers appreciate, and evokes Compartitif and the selection of consumer currently existing on the market.”

Apple’s nine defensive hands also take a strong attitude. It claims that Apple has a legitimate commercial reasoning, protected intellectual property rights, the courts have a lack of status, no evidence of injuries, find arguments that the applicants are not entitled to relief, that it has no damage to competition or consumers and cites land doctrine entitled to incomprehensible delay).

Re -evaluation of anti -monoporal complaints of the impression of

Despite what the action suggests, Apple actively competes with multiple marks on multiple fronts. The idea that it has the best -selling smart watch or a popular service service for locking was previously questioned earlier.

Even Apple’s commission was repeatedly considered to be fair and legal, although not his anticipated practices. Once it is able to submit a more detailed set of arguments with examples, it will be easy to understand the objectives of the court proceedings.

The original submission suggested that Apple from forming “super applications”, do not allow games streaming services, do not allow a message to send messages across platforms, deliberately reduced the competitive SmartWatch function and limited digital wallet.

Great app

The “Super App” argument has been heard several times. In principle, it shrinks to Apple, which will not allow them to become their own type of operating system with internal app stores, banking, cat features and other baking into one application.

The company called Proton filed a separate antitrust action against Super Apps. This suggests that Apple, which allows WeChat in China, should mean that it can exist else.

Streaming games

The complaint of streaming games has already been added, although no one has yet been bitten. If Microsoft wanted it, he could present the Xbox iOS streaming service as an application but has.

Message options across platforms

The App APP now supports RCS, a report protocol across platforms that is better than SMS. Users also have the option to select different default messages for sending messages such as Messenger, from iOS 18.2.

Smartwatch compatibility

There were complaints about third -party manufacturers about integration. Pebble has returned and is compatible with the iPhone, but the manufacturer complained about how he cannot compete with the possibilities of Apple Watch offered.

It could try to force Apple to offer more options and APIs. There is no clear way to achieve this without Apple has to invent a new system from scratch because it will not offer its applications in third -party stores.

Apple and NFC wallet

The NFC Apple reader has new features that allows you to use third -party applications. For example, Square can now receive Tap-to-Pay from cards and phones when connected directly to the iPhone.

However, this is unlikely to be sufficient for an antitrust action. It is likely to try to allow Apple to select the default payment applications instead of locking them to Apple Pay, as in the EU.

It will be a long and brutal case that can take years to shake. Apple will push hard against opening its platforms to third parties and potential privacy and safety violations, so expect things to have roughly ASY with the EU digital law law.

Apple Antimonopoly reaction 29. July 2025 from Wesley Hilliard