Great article from Ben Thompson today on the Apple antitrust case:

…the Epic case may have shown that Apple’s policies around the App Store were (mostly) legal, but that didn’t mean they were right; now the DOJ, looking for another point of vulnerability, is trying to make the case that Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal.

He ties things together really well, especially: while the case isn’t about the App Store, the frustrations with the App Store contributed to the environment in which legal action against Apple more broadly was necessary.

@manton I’m really starting to think that some high ranking advisors (Schiller) and lieutenants need to go, including Tim Cook.

@manton Terrific piece. It’s really striking to me how technically sophisticated the EU’s approach to Apple has been versus the DOJ, which seems kinda like a mess.

@manton I have to yet read the whole thing, but when he says, Apple’s right approach in delivering an integrated experience is in fact illegal, does it mean that Steve Jobs's adage - if you want to build your own software, you must build your own hardware - is illegal? Would we not sacrifice the user experience over the notion of a level playing field?

@manton I just read Ben's post but still can't get around to thinking what an acceptable solution would be to developers. The DOJ case, I feel increasingly, will do more harm to indie developers and if even the DOJ couldn't make a case for increasing competition in software, I don't know what else will. From Ben's interpretation, "sherlocking" can be considered illegal although it may favor one app over others and in spite of being able to provide a better experience to the user, Apple can be prohibited from doing so. At what point do system services start to differ from other kinds of software?