Apple is facing a monumental antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice, and much of the agency’s arguments have focused on Apple’s alleged attempts to suppress cloud gaming services and so-called “super” apps. In fact, the DOJ claims that Apple stifled the development of both types of services in order to maintain its monopoly on the mobile market.
As cloud streaming services began to gain popularity in 2020, Apple introduced new rules that appear designed to give services like Xbox Cloud Gaming, Facebook Gaming, and GeForce Now a place in the App Store. But in reality, the opposite happened. The rules severely limited the presence of cloud gaming services on the App Store, as Apple required developers to submit their games to the App Store for approval individually – rather than existing in a single game hub.
This has led to cloud streaming services moving their game hubs to iPhone web browsers instead, making them far less convenient for users to find and access. Apple only recently reversed this rule by allowing cloud streaming services to submit a single app “with the ability to stream all games offered in their catalog.” Despite this, the DOJ claims that Apple “used its power over app distribution to effectively prevent” developers from offering cloud streaming services on the iPhone, adding that “even today, none are currently available on the iPhone.”
Apple didn’t want cloud streaming to exist on the iPhone in the first place, according to the DOJ. Since cloud streaming services allow users to play games hosted on a remote server, it eliminates the need for powerful hardware to run demanding games. In other words, users could buy a cheaper Android device or even an older, used iPhone to stream mobile games instead of shelling out $799 for a brand new iPhone 15.
“For years, Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps that would have allowed users to access the apps and content they wanted without having to pay for expensive Apple hardware because it would have threatened its monopoly power,” the lawsuit says. “In Apple’s own words, it feared a world where ‘all that matters is who has the cheapest hardware’ and consumers can ‘buy[] And [expletive] Android for 25 bux at a garage sale and… have a solid cloud computing device’ that ‘works well’.”
In addition, the DOJ is also monitoring Apple’s restrictions on super apps, which offer access to a range of different services from a single app and are particularly popular in Asia. For example, WeChat, which is huge in China, functions as a short form messaging, payment and video sharing service. It also allows users to install “mini” programs that exist within WeChat.
This setting is convenient for users and developers, the DOJ argues, because users don’t have to download a bunch of separate apps to access different features. Meanwhile, developers also don’t need to update Android and iOS apps separately, since those programs run inside the app instead of on the phone itself.
However, the DOJ’s lawsuit claims that Apple does not want US users or businesses to benefit from super apps. He notes that during a board presentation, Apple cited super apps as a “major obstacle” to increasing iPhone sales in countries where they are popular because of “[l]stickiness” and “[l]low switching costs.” If someone benefits from using a super app, they don’t necessarily have to be tied to any ecosystem — like Apple’s.
“Allowing super apps to become the ‘main gateway’ … would ‘let the barbarians in the door’.”
The iPhone maker sees super apps as “‘fundamentally disruptive’ to the ‘existing paradigms of app distribution and development’ and ultimately to Apple’s monopoly power,” the lawsuit says. That’s why it allegedly blocks developers from putting them on the App Store by requiring super apps to display mini-programs in a “flat text-only list” rather than as individual icons or tiles. The company also doesn’t allow super apps to categorize mini-programs in their apps, preventing them from showing recently played games or a list of titles from the same developer.
“Apple understands that super apps with mini programs would threaten its monopoly,” the lawsuit says. “As one Apple executive put it, allowing super apps to become ‘the main gateway where people play games, book a car, make payments, etc.’ would ‘let the barbarians in the door’.”
Although the lawsuit mentions that Apple blocks mini-apps from using the API they need to use Apple’s in-app purchase system, the company said it will begin allowing mini-apps and games to use its system in January. It’s unclear whether the change applies to the formatting arguments the DOJ makes in its lawsuits, since the App Store Guidelines only mention that mini-apps should comply with privacy rules, among other unrelated requirements.
Apple denies the allegations in the lawsuit, as company spokesman Fred Sainz says it “threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.” At the same time, Apple is also grappling with new antitrust rules in the European Union, which have forced the tech giant to open up iOS to third-party markets, sideloading and new defaults. But some prominent developers argue that Apple’s changes still aren’t enough.