The blocking issue at the center of the Justice Department's case against Apple

It's no secret that Apple products work better if you stick with an iPhone. Turns out, that's one of the main reasons Apple got into trouble today with the US Department of Justice, which alleges the company went too far by blocking messages, smartwatches and digital wallets to intentionally hinder users. their rivals.

This will not be a surprise to most consumers. We've all known for years about green bubbles and that you can't bring your Apple Watch to an Android phone. What the Justice Department is saying is that, taken together, this series of protective policies makes it extremely difficult for an iPhone user to leave their walled garden, limiting competition so much that it violates the law.

Green bubbles make a key appearance in the lawsuit. It's well known that texting between iOS and Android users is a bad experience: you can't send large files or photos, edit messages, or send funny reactions like a heart or a thumbs up. That friction creates social pressure to stay on the iPhone, with the Justice Department noting that these exclusions become “obstacles to iPhone families giving Android phones to their children.” This is especially true among American teenagers, 85 percent of whom use an iPhone. The lawsuit notes that Apple is well aware of the problem, quoting Apple executives as saying that “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us.” (The Justice Department didn't like that Tim Cook told a customer to “buy your mom an iPhone” to improve his texting.)

According to the Department of Justice, this misleads consumers into believing that Android phones are worse, even though Apple imposes all the restrictions.

The Justice Department also notes that Apple limits third-party messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Facebook Messenger compared to iMessage. For example, you need to drill down into permissions to allow these apps to run in the background or access the iPhone's camera to make video calls. They also can't incorporate SMS, which means you have to convince your friends to download the same apps if you want to use them. iMessage, however, does all of this natively.

And while Apple recently agreed to support RCS to improve cross-platform messaging, the Department of Justice isn't buying it. He notes that not only has Apple not adopted it yet, but third-party apps would still be “prohibited from incorporating RCS in the same way they are prohibited from incorporating SMS.” The Justice Department also takes issue with the fact that Apple only agreed to adopt a 2019 version of RCS. Unless Apple agrees to support future versions, he argues that “RCS could soon break on iPhones anyway.”

The Department of Justice is not happy with the way Apple uses the Apple Watch as a cudgel to continue with the iPhones. As it is, you has to have an iPhone to use an Apple Watch, and Apple limits third-party smartwatches from doing everything an Apple Watch can do.

The Apple Watch isn't cheap, and the Justice Department notes that Apple is well aware that people are less likely to change phones if they buy one. But beyond that, he cites the fact that a third-party smartwatch misses out on features like quick replies to text messages, accepting calendar invites, and interacting with app alerts in the same way as with an Apple Watch.

Another problem is Bluetooth connectivity. While the Apple Watch can maintain a connection if a user accidentally turns off Bluetooth on the iPhone, third-party watches cannot. As with third-party messaging apps, users must access separate permissions to turn on background app refreshing and turn off low power mode if they want the most stable and consistent Bluetooth connection. This affects passive updates, such as weather or exercise tracking.

Cellular connectivity is another way Apple limits third-party watches. There are no barriers to using the same number on your Apple Watch and iPhone. However, if you wanted to do that with a third-party cellular watch, you would have to disable iMessage on the iPhone. Since most iPhone users aren't willing to do this, it effectively means that choosing a third-party watch means you'll have to use two separate numbers for your watch and your iPhone.

With digital wallets, the Justice Department's problem with Apple is that the company prevents financial institutions from accessing the NFC hardware inside the iPhone. (However, Apple will begin allowing access in much of Europe due to new regulations in the EU.) That, in turn, limits their ability to offer one-touch payment capabilities and, again, funnels iPhone users toward Apple Pay and Apple Wallet.

Doing so means banks also have to pay 0.15 percent for each credit card transaction made through Apple Pay. On the contrary, it is free for banks that use Samsung or Google payment apps. The result is that Apple made almost $200 billion in US transactions in 2022, according to a report from the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The same agency estimates that digital wallet payment transactions will increase by more than 150 percent by 2028.

Once again, the Department of Justice says that it is possible for Apple to enable tap to pay, but that it will not do so because it would be “a way to trivially disable (A)pple (P)ay” and encourage other types of applications payment. . He also notes that Apple already allows merchants to use NFC to accept Apple Pay payments.

Apple says it disagrees with the Justice Department's lawsuit and frames all of these decisions as decisions it made to protect consumers, particularly when it comes to privacy and security. In a statement, Apple spokesman Fred Sainz said the lawsuit “threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.”

The Justice Department does not see those principles as improving the iPhone, but rather as intentionally limiting competitors in an attempt to make the iPhone more resilient. And while it will probably be a while before there's a concrete resolution, there's a chance that at the end of this, Apple's walled garden approach won't be as effective as it has been.