> The Justice Department, which began its investigation into Apple in 2019, chose to build a broader and more ambitious case than any other regulator has brought against the company.
As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet. FWIW, I am a former lawyer and spent a little time doing antitrust law for the CA DOJ, a long time ago. Just my two cents.
> Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice
That's true, but odds are they have a lot of e-mails and a lot of employees who can testify to the browser choice decision being driven by lock-in. The iMessage emails were pretty unambiguous with regards to how it is used in an anti-consumer way. (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...) Similar stuff will exist for everything they do, because they cannot distort the reality that in 2024 their software kind of sucks, and that their customers only use it because they don't have alternatives and Apple prevents those alternatives from being viable.
There’s nothing wrong with having “words not to use.” Companies have to think ahead to some possible lawsuit in ten years where a jury might have a damning interpretation of some minor word choice.
I don’t think those emails are so damning. A company should not be required to write software for its main competitor platform, just to make it easier for people to adopt its main competitor platform.
"the reality that in 2024 their software kind of sucks, and that their customers only use it because they don't have alternative"
That's an extremely hot take. When devices are mostly just slabs of glass and the interface and what is done, is entirely the software, customers are choosing the device based on the Apple software, not in spite of it.
I don't know if I'm the exception, but I also think Apple's software absolutely sucks.
UX is complete and utter trash.
But the M1 and onwards hardware is so good, I put up with it.
Just off the top of my head:
- Never had a $2000+ laptop that couldn't connect with more than 2 monitors without an expensive DisplayLink dock and drivers. And even then, it's janky AF
- Rendering on non-Apple external monitors sucks; night and day difference when I connect a Windows laptop to my Dell monitors
- Terrible with system font scaling
- Inconsistent usage of button sizes in their native dialogs
This drives me absolutely NUTS and I thought it was a me problem. Where the hell do things go when they're minimized on macos!!? There's all these questions asking about cmd+tabbing to minimized windows and the answer is to hold option while you hold cmd after selecting the minimized window and then let go of cmd.. but if there's 2 Chrome windows and one is minimized this doesn't work at all.
I agree. I've had people tell me "That's not the Mac way; use another desktop". Oh, OK; but it sure would be handy if I could somehow access my minimized windows easily with my keyboard can we have that, too?
> Never had a $2000+ laptop that couldn't connect with more than 2 monitors without an expensive DisplayLink dock and drivers
Hardware limitations that were told at launch.
> Rendering on non-Apple external monitors sucks;
It works fine with my old Dell FHD and my current 4k LG.
> Terrible with system font scaling
Apple does not do system font scaling, it applies scaling to the whole UI, not separate elements.
> Can't tab cycle through minimized windows
Different windows management model. You tab cycle through applications, and you backquote cycle through open windows. Minimized windows go to the dock.
> Windowing system sucks compared to Windows
Again above. Windows sizing is a specific concept in Mac OS interface model and there's rules that you can apply to it. I understand the OS not wanting to interfere much with that.
> I ship a PWA for one of my apps and by far Safari is the one that has the most issues with updating
I've not seen your code so I can't say much. But most people who complain about Safari really want Chrome's non-standard API to exists in Safari too.
Sure, but still silly that even an 8 year old Dell can drive 3 monitors without issue. And clearly, the hardware CAN do it since attaching it to a DisplayLink dock and adding a driver works. Fundamentally, the GPU is capable of doing it.
> It works fine with my old Dell FHD and my current 4k LG.
Oh it definitely works, but using Chrome on Windows, everything is super crisp on the same exact monitor whereas there is a noticeable softness on macOS
> Different windows management model. You tab cycle through applications, and you backquote cycle through open windows. Minimized windows go to the dock.
Yeah, an inferior one. The minimized windows go to the dock and are inaccessible by keyboard. This is clearly a flaw.
> I understand the OS not wanting to interfere much with that.
I'd argue that, you know, the purpose of the graphical user interface system in an OS in the context of UX at a very fundamental level is managing windowing.
> I've not seen your code so I can't say much. But most people who complain about Safari really want Chrome's non-standard API to exists in Safari too.
Works fine in Firefox and it's just using Vite PWA; really basic, standard PWA templates. Nothing special.
"UX is complete and utter trash" is a bit hyperbolic — you listed a handful of nits that don't affect 99.9% of their users. On the other hand, iOS is undoubtedly more efficient, smoother, and more stable than Android. I have a Pixel phone where the Google camera app crashes about 10% of the time when I tap the shutter button. The cellular connection often gets stuck in a disconnected state, without telling me. The "Always on Display" stopped working entirely. Along the core dimensions where Apple invests their energy, their software can be pretty good.
Just my opinion -- I'm a daily MacBook Pro user; I really struggle to find one thing that Apple is doing better than Microsoft from a UX perspective. Less options for customization; tiny buttons all over the place (very abundant in the system dialogs); the notch causing some apps to disappear from top bar on the right; the spatial distance between the window and the top bar as opposed to Microsoft where the app bar is attached to the window; the poor window snapping options for organizing desktops; the childish default animations; lots of issues with Finder versus Explorer; the seemingly random organization, sizing, and placement of windows in Mission Control; the weird behavior when you CLOSE all of your windows like Chrome and then CTRL+N creates a new Chrome window -- no, you need to quit the app, too.
I don't think there's anything macOS is doing better than Windows in so far as UX goes. Put it another way: I use macOS every day and I never think "Wow, I wish Windows had this feature, too" but every day I wish I had some UX element from Windows -- just basic window management feels so clunky on macOS unless you fullscreen everything.
It's just different. Like KDE/Gnome/i3/Windows is different from each other. MacOS applications are more like services, while windows let you perform the current task you have. As an example Preview.app allows you to open PDFs and picture files. But you need to open a file to do anything to it, and when you do so, it creates a window allowing you to interact with the file. When you're done, you close the file by closing the window (which is why it duplicates the window when you chose "Save As"). The window has a 1:1 relationship with the files. The menu bar is part of the application, but the currently focused window can interact with it.
When you're close all Chrome windows, that just means you're done with the webpages, not that you're done with Chrome. Chrome dev team can set Chrome to terminate when all windows close, but they've not chosen to do so. It's there when you want to create a new window when you want to interact with a new webpage. And again it's up to the developer to choose to tie the application lifecyle to its windows.
That's all well and good, but when I've closed the interfaces with which I'm interacting with the Chrome "service", isn't it pretty clear that the intent is that "I'm done with the service"? "Chrome team chose to build it like that" -- I guess the question here is "why is this even an option at the OS level?" and "shouldn't we expect window and application behavior to be consistent?". Davinci Resolve on macOS, for example, exits when I close its window while Chrome does not. Do you not think that even having this option to create an inconsistent application interaction seems like bad design? Sometimes the app exits when I close all windows, sometimes it doesn't.
My issue with the menu bar is purely from an ergonomics and usability perspective, especially with high resolution monitors. If I have a window at the bottom right corner of the monitor, I need to move my mouse all the ways to the top left of the monitor to interact with the menu bar. If you always full screen everything, it makes total sense. But I would make the case that macOS has done a very poor job of adapting to changes in monitor resolutions. Consider ultra-wide screen monitors where I have apps side-by-side or I have 4 windows tiled. The accessibility of the menu bar becomes quite low for three out of the 4 windows.
The key stroke to access the menu bar is (do you know it?) CTRL+F2. Try that stroke yourself and see how it feels. It's not at all obvious that this allows you to access the menu bar with the keyboard.
By attaching the menu bar to the application window, the spatial locality increases usability, especially for modern ultra-wide monitors don't you agree?
I do agree that you have a point. But it’s an interaction model that works for many people and there are customization options to alleviate some of the pain points from keyboard shortcut (administrated at OS level) to 3rd parties software. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a complete reworking of the interface.
I use Windows all day and it’s garbage as well. Perhaps they are both garbage? I’m talking the latest release of Windows 10. Or maybe it’s 11. Whatever it is it sucks too
Yeah this stuff usually ends up "I don't like the interface" when you press people. Which is fine. However my macbooks have been perfectly serviceable and still ticking while my former asus and dell laptops died after a few years right before I switched over to mac laptops and one is 7 years old and still ticking with not too bad battery life. That said I find apple has probably overstepped their social contract as a corporation and it's likely time for a little audit
>Yeah this stuff usually ends up "I don't like the interface" when you press people.
In Apple Books, you can't decide which books you want to keep on your device. In iOS Storage, you cannot see the largest pictures/videos (you used to be able to do that, they removed it to make people subscribe to iCloud). The iOS keyboard/autocorrect is so terrible it's almost unusable. You can't even set a vibrating alarm on iPhone without enabling vibration everywhere, come on.
Did it occur to you that Apple deliberately designed iMessages in such a way as to take advantage of the inevitable tribalism to further increase adoption of their own products?
Peer pressure is one of the strongest forces in sales.
Yes, but how much software does something similar? if you are going to penalize Apple for this you will have to penalize a huge amount of companies, it's a very slippery slope, as what do you define as being anti-competitive and what do you define also being a genuine need to highlight the difference?
What are you saying Apple should have done/be made to do? Make all the messages the same colour? This causes issues for the user not being able to tell what features are available in messaging that person and then it can be even more confusing to them, you are going to have to mark it some way which is turn is going to have somewhat of the same affect. A lot of these measures from governments don't actually end up helping users, they end up just making the end user experience worse.
For Apple, this was likely a win-win, they need to show the difference and it has such knock on affect, but I think this is the problem, Apple has a way of looking at things and way of doing certain things, a lot of the things that people are upset about in this lawsuit and beyond area consequence of that, but isn't nessecery the sole purpose of why Apple is doing things this way in the first place, those people that get angry at Apple seem to miss those points or disagree with that way of doing it.
It really depends. With MacBooks, for example, many people who buy them these days do so because of things like battery life and quality of the trackpad, while quietly hating on macOS.
Windows is horrible, it's messy, overly cluttered and bloated. MacOS is so much cleaner and nicer, that with nice hardware is why people buy Apple devices, at least that is the same with everyone I know.
I'm in this camp. I find some of the UX to be really, really questionable. The default animations and sounds feel so unbefitting for a machine in a professional context. The stupid notch; when I use a screen recording app, it uses a slot on the right to stop recording once I start using the app but if there are just enough icons, that icon disappears under the notch......
If it weren't for the battery life and speed, I would not use it.
It seems easy to prove to me; anti-trust law is intentionally vague and broad to allow the government to prosecute all kinds of monopoly tactics. Apple had the option to give a warning to users that using an alternative app store may risk security. It doesn't have to block it all-together. Same with Apple Wallet.
it's quite often shot down by judges as well too because of the vagueries in laws, it's a two edge sword and you're commonly at the whim of the trial jurisdiction. Just look at recent 5th circuit vs most other circuits.
Yes, there is a lot of discretion in what cases are brought, and if a new administration comes in next year this may be dismissed/deprioritized. Still, I doubt Tim or other Apple employees will be making many donations to Biden's challenger! (Shareholders might be a different story.)
Even if the case continues, it will be a challenge to win. Apple has asymmetric information and knows what they can use to defend the various allegations.
> Good point, although the decision to move forward with the case was made under the current administration.
The President/Administration telling the AG what to move forward on (and what not to) is generally not a thing, and when it does happen, there are often headlines:
The President selects the AG. He doesn't then have to direct every single decision. It's well known in legal circles that changes in administration affect DOJ behavior. Wall Street knows this too — it's why certain stocks pop after election surprises.
I'm guessing the plan is to cast a wide net, then hope that you can dredge up some incriminating or morally ambiguous quotes during discovery. When you have a company of 100,000+ people, there's probably some "haha we're killing the competition" in there, which you can then use to prop up the case.
And then either use that to win the trial, or force Apple into settling.
I'm (legitimately) curious could the fact that (almost) all of that is now open in the EU due to their laws but not the US. Would that hurt their argument since they blocked off the change from the US. Or would that all be solved by a statement along the lines of "Well, EU iPhones are now less secure."
The arguments about performance and security aren't about whether Apple could open up, but about whether they should. The changes in the EU will answer the latter, but slowly.
The EU laws allow exceptions for security, but most of the Apple shenanigans related to the DMA were walked back the minute the EU said they would launch an investigation into the matter.
So no, I would say it is absolutely about whether they can open up and still be secure. It seems that they lack confidence that the arguments they had put forward would survive scrutiny asking just that question. Heck, there are even exceptions in the law that would allow them extended time periods in order to comply with the requirements in order to ensure security. So if it is just a question of needing more time, they can get it, and if it is a question of not being possible for users to be secure when interoperable with third parties, they can get exceptions for that.
Every employee that joins Apple goes through a course that teaches a few case studies about Apple's culture. One of those is how Steve Jobs made the decision to kill Flash. IMHO it was a no brainer and if this sort of thing needs to be litigated in court, it's a travesty.
Nah, users really are dumb and really will follow steps that will result in malware getting on their devices. This happens all of the time in Android-land. Burying the setting won’t change this, people will follow tutorials to disable the security protections if they think it will get them the content they want (and, in some cases, it will, wrt pirate apps etc).
There’s no real way to square the circle: either Apple (and the state) has realtime app censorship control (nominally for malware, as well as any other thing the state or Apple’s business model feels existentially threatened by), or the user can install any app they want, with all of the associated risks. Even with notarization and self-distribution you’re still in the first category because the state can compel Apple to treat protest apps or non-backdoored e2ee messaging apps the exact same as they do malware, and prevent them from launching.
Users mostly want the former, because most users aren’t worried about government censorship or oppression. Tech people and cypherpunks and pirates and protesters usually want the latter. Tech people usually want the former for their parents/grandparents for whom they serve as device sysadmin.
Legacy decision? Would they do the same starting a new desktop OS today? Much more high risk personal data on an iPhone (e.g. health data, biometrics) requiring stricter security? Many more sensors which could be abused by nefarious actors on iOS (GPS, lots of mics, lidar, cameras, etc) and these are always with us?
If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. Especially since the phone itself is considered a two factor authentication device by several services and my employer.
And the attack vectors are more numerous. I have ten times as many apps on my phones, it’s always on, always connected, and may frequently connect to wifi networks I don’t fully trust.
The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.
I’m on the side of wanting Apple to open up a bit more. But I it’s absolutely valid to want the iPhone to be more secure than a laptop. And I seriously hope Apple isn’t forced to let people install apps that aren’t signed and reviewed. I can guarantee you that critical services in your life will force you to install insecure and straight up dangerous apps. The banking sector in some countries is a prime example of that, especially back in the ActiveX era.
> If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. (...) The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.
I don't buy that argument. I have more important files on my laptop than on my phone.
Performance is less of an issue on computers because battery life isn’t as much of a concern. Also, they allow other messaging and payments on iOS just like they do on MacOS. They just don’t offer the unique payment chip access on iOS to third parties.
They may or may not prevail, but in the meantime they will likely have to slam the brakes on any closed feature developments. That alone is good for consumers.
The messaging claim seemed to be about carrier based messaging; SMS and MMS, and I guess in theory RCS (but is that really carrier based if Google has taken it upon themselves to enroll most Android users on a Google server)
Apps that read inbound SMS may be malicious and use that ability to steal verification codes. Or they may not be actively malicious, and meerly handle the data in an insecure way that makes messages available to others.
Performance, I dunno. Maybe they could argue something about how time between user requesting an SMS be sent and it actually getting sent is very important, and similar for display, and that they're more likely to do that right. I've certainly seen some Android manufacturer provided SMS clients that do much better than others on that, although I have no recent performance notes since I no longer get massive floods of SMS from too simple monitoring systems.
In the Epic lawsuit it was shown that Apple really actually more cared about this than "security":
> “The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in,” was how one unnamed former Apple employee put it in an email in 2016, prompting Schiller to respond that, “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us, this email illustrates why.”
> “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” was Federighi’s concern
> Apps that read inbound SMS may be malicious and use that ability to steal verification codes. Or they may not be actively malicious, and meerly handle the data in an insecure way that makes messages available to others.
Apple can't make that argument since they allow apps that scan SMS messages for spam.
PGP isn't an end-to-end encryption service; it's a public-key encryption package.
To clarify macintux's statement, you can only guarantee end-to-end encryption will both remain secure and allow your messages to be read if you control both ends. If you do not control the other end, but you give it the ability to decrypt your messages (and thus let them be read), then whoever does control the other end can save the plaintext, post it elsewhere, and generally do whatever they want with it.
To be "end-to-end encrypted", something has to actually be a service you are using, not merely a method of encryption. An end-to-end encrypted service could use PGP if it wanted (AFAIK), but PGP, in itself, is just a way for you to encrypt your messages, and then, optionally, share your public key to allow them to be decrypted by those you give it to, while also guaranteeing that those messages came from you (as long as you have kept your private key safe).
So I'm afraid your question, as it stands, doesn't really make sense, but I hope this has helped to answer the underlying questions for you.
No, his question makes perfect sense and your response doesn't really make any. End-to-end encryption doesn't imply encryption from one end of the universe to the other. It is what it says on the tin: encryption from one end to another. Your message is insecure beyond the the other end.
That is true both for PGP encrypted messages as well as iMessage messages. There's nothing on iPhones or Macs actually protecting your decrypted messages. Most of the on device security is optional and your messages, photos and files can be copied and shared anywhere in plain text.
PGP makes no claims of being an "end-to-end encrypted service", because it's not a service. It's an end-user product. It doesn't have to "solve this" problem, because that's not what it's for.
You keep saying "service" when no one asked anything about services.
The question in this thread is whether iMessage can offer secure interop. The answer is yes. They just need to use an open protocol and that protocol can use tools like PGP to encrypt messages end-to-end.
Your claim that both the sending and receiving application need to be "controlled" by some entity for it to have "real" end-to-end security is non-sense.
The statement, from macintux, was "End to end encryption can only be guaranteed if you control both ends.".
The question, from tomrod, was "How does PGP solve this?"
Nothing to do with iMessage. I was answering a specific question on a tangent thread. If you want to argue with me about iMessage, go to one of the posts I've made about that on this article. This thread is about PGP.
Well you sure know how to dodge being wrong I'll give you that. Even ignoring the thread context, your comments on end to end encryption and PGP are woefully misinformed so we can just leave it there.
I think they'll claim security for Messages. I don't have nearly enough information to know if they can win that particular issue, and it sounds like there are reasonable arguments on both sides. But they don't have a monopoly on messaging — WhatsApp is huge, Signal and others exist. I don't think Apple lets you use Siri to send messages via other services, or at least they didn't used to let you. But other than that they are granted near parity on iOS.
Siri does let you send messages with other services these days. (I think it got added in the last year or two, and those apps need to be updated to support it, but it's there!)
Security: there’s no cross platform E2E messaging standard they could have adopted. Given that the DoJ is already breathing down their neck for working with Google on search, using Google’s RCS extensions and servers might also be problematic.
I don’t think the government could force them to adopt RCS without new legislation or bring iMessage to other platforms.
> there’s no cross platform E2E messaging standard they could have adopted.
Could they not have made their own? I don't think they'd be required to use open standards for the argument to be made, they just need to release an iMessage app for Android.
But they already do support Android to some extent. Apple Music (don't know if you can subscribe via the Android app), Shazam, and an AirTag detector are all already available.
There are many industries in the world regulated to be interoperable. I suspect the primary reason you find the notion weird is simply because you're not used to it.
It seems weird to degrade their own users' experience (when receiving texts from friends with Android phones), but Apple does it deliberately as a nudge to get people to use Apple products.
There's no valid technical or security reason to do this. It's a tactical decision on Apple's part.
If iMessages have benefits (they do) then there is a technical reason to show you the bubble colors - so you know the benefits apply. If sending video to a blue contact is better than sending it to green, there's a reason to know.
Does it ACTUALLY matter? Maybe not? But people really do complain about a non-iPhone "degrading" a group chat, so it is indicating something.
At the time they made iMessage at first? It was likely a real advance and only because they could control both ends. But now? They may be large enough that it's unfair use of their monopoly in one area to affect another, and get slapped or forced to interoperate.
Since when does “the US” consist exclusively of “the Justice Department” and not, e.g., the FTC (which writes antitrust regulations within existing law) and Congress (which writes laws).
To the extent that is correct [0], that doesn't justify reinterpreting “the US should adopt regulations like X” to mean “the Justice Department and not any other part of the US government should adopt regulations like X”.
[0] Its essentially those actions where the DoJ is the agency representing the government interest, including all federal criminal cases and some federal civil cases. Civil cases by other agencies have the agency name; so the antitrust complaint by the DoJ, 15 state governments, and the District of Columbia is United States of America, et al. v. Apple, but the SEC action against Coinbase was Securities and Exchange Commission v. Coinbase, Inc., and Coinbase Global, Inc.
I agree and I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits, seems to be to make a grinding, years- (or even decades-) long push to shift the understanding of what antitrust is and make major changes to the landscape; kind of an inverse of what the conservatives have been able to do with various issues, where their positions were initially laughed out of the room but now have the weight of Supreme Court decisions behind them decades later.
>> I question the wisdom of it, but the idea of this aggressive antitrust enforcement, which so far has more strikes than hits
We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors). Or lock ins where there is NO alternative (MS and browsers). This doesn't really meet those bars.
If Apple wins this one at home, then they can quickly cry about other countries regulations being "anti competitive".
> We only really take these up when they are blatant (price fixing, apple and books, MS and vendors).
Not anymore... look at the failed action to stop MS acquiring Activision for instance. Was that "blatant"? I guess not since enforcement failed. Lina Khan's whole thing is aggressively broadening antitrust enforcement.
Perhaps this is essentially more lawfare against a party antagonistic to the political aims of Washington players. We know that our national (as well as state) law enforcement entities have been alleging for more than a decade now that Apple's encryption practices stymie their efforts to catch "bad guys." What better way to put back room pressure on a company.
This is a false narrative. iPhones back up full message history and all photos by default in a non-e2ee fashion that is easily readable by both Apple and the government unless the user and everyone they message with specifically opts into e2ee (which approximately nobody has, even in tech circles).
There is no “going dark” issue on iOS platforms. Apple has played ball in full with the USG on that front. In fact, Android backups are e2ee so the government can get more data from Apple on iPhone users than they can get from Google for Android users.
Apple has option to enable e2ee on backups now. It sort of defeats the purpose of backup though because if you lose device you lose the backup (assuming you only have one device and didn’t setup recovery keys off device)
The article leaves out a ton over the actual compliant // filed in Eastern NJ for a reason. They must be going for Verizon or Samsung witnesses? If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple. If Apple can redefine things like 'Super Apps' and 'Mini Apps,' then this thing is a wet paper bag.
> If the definitions set forth by the DOJ are accepted by courts, this is a slam dunk on Apple.
This is a very low bar. It is of course the case that if you assume one party's definitions are accepted then they will win. The battlefield will be the definitions (just like in patent law the battlefield is the claim construction).
Sometimes these lawsuits are filed not strictly for legal reasons but to put pressure on companies, or as political payback to certain special interest groups (election year). Even if the case is eventually thrown out of court it may succeed in shifting Apple's behavior.
They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty conclusively proving... it's all about collecting the rent.
Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing.
It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.
> it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors
FWIW - this is further evidence of anticompetitive behavior. In a competitive market, entrants would be trying to drive distribution costs to 0. The fact that Apple makes its entire App Store revenue off those distribution revenues is highly telling.
It would only be considered predatory if they charging a rate below their own costs of distribution. I.E. If it costs Apple $0.10 to cover the costs of app distribution per download, then it would be completely legal for them to charge $0.11, but illegal and predatory to charge $0.09.
It's the standard used by almost all app stores, save for new entrants trying to buy their way into the market. Steam is 30% and there's nothing stopping you from installing alternatives. Nintendo's eStore is 30% and they control 100% of the mobile console market.
It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.
The US government has let its definition for monopolistic behavior slip so much over the last few decades I don't think you could successfully prosecute for anything short of sending thugs to break your competitors' kneecaps. The days when the DOJ would prosecute a company for including a web browser with an OS are long gone.
The facts were different in the Microsoft case. If they had built in Internet Explorer as a "free" feature in a Windows upgrade it would have been tough to prove anticompetitive behavior. But they originally sold IE as a separate product, like as boxes in retail stores. They only bundled it with Windows later and there was clear evidence during the trial that they made the change specifically to kill Netscape.
As I was reading the specific charges detailed in the article, I was thinking this case seems like a stretch and will be difficult to prove. Apple will argue that security and/or performance reasons drove their decisions related to browser choice, messaging, and Apple wallet. FWIW, I am a former lawyer and spent a little time doing antitrust law for the CA DOJ, a long time ago. Just my two cents.