Those who look forward to Apple (yet again) redefining the technological horizon, like it did with the iPhone, may need to temper their expectations. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken an ill-conceived step with an antitrust lawsuit that, if successful, threatens to transform Apple from an industry maverick into just another phone maker.

The DOJ wants Apple to turn its iPhone system into a generic tech platform so that rivals can use it without being bothered by Apple’s insistence that the iPhone have a specific look and feel. This is in effect an attack on Steve Jobs’ convictions that true innovation comes from defying, not following, industry norms; taking end-to-end responsibility for user experience; leapfrogging rivals; and bending reality. The most valuable innovations are not incremental improvements within an existing system, but new and unique digital ecosystems that overhaul user experiences.

Such innovation involves gambles. Apple has had its share of failures, like the Newton and the Pippin. But for an innovator, each failure is a learning experience, a mere steppingstone, that leads to game changers. Thomas Edison said of his missteps, “I have not failed 10,000 times—I’ve successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work.” Apple’s missteps made the Mac, the iPhone, and other products possible.

The DOJ, however, sees things differently. By labeling the iPhone an ill-gotten monopoly, it misses the point: the iPhone’s majority share in the US reflects consumer choice for an integrated experience, not a lack of choice. If the Apple experience was not preferred by many Americans, Android’s more open system would lead the US market, as it does by 2.5 to 1 on a worldwide scale.

The agency appears oblivious to the competition Apple faces; it holds only a minor slice of the global PC market, is in a dead heat with Cash App and PayPal in mobile payments, and faces a vibrant ecosystem of diverse Android devices. Users choose smartphones based on their preferences, and Apple’s integrated system is not an imposition but a consumer choice.

The DOJ complaint that Apple’s business strategy hinders integration with rivals’ systems and restricts app developers misses the essence of Apple’s ethos. Apple does not simply compete within an established system—it competes with that system itself, challenging the status quo. This strategy could appear anticompetitive on those that embrace normality, but it is necessary to foster an alternative digital ecosystem.

The regulator’s desire for Apple to conform—to dilute its distinctiveness and integrate it with the broader tech industry—is a desire to stifle the maverick approach that has defined Apple. We need only look to 1997, when Steve Jobs returned to the company, to see why. Apple was near collapse under CEO John Sculley, having cast aside its product focus and given away its distinctiveness. When Jobs returned, one of his first acts was to dump what had become a “random array of computers and peripherals.” He focused the company on making a small number of unmistakable products.

The DOJ’s complaint against Apple seeks to thwart that business strategy. Egged on by companies that would profit if the government forced the platform to align itself with the broader industry, leaders at the DOJ are only too happy to take on yet another Big Tech company. Prosecutors and their counterparts at the Federal Trade Commission believe that large platforms like the iPhone should not be allowed to set themselves apart and direct their own fates. 

Instead of a pathway to consumer freedom and innovation, the DOJ’s pursuit is a potential shackling of ingenuity. In an industry that thrives on innovation, we must be cautious of holding successful companies back in the name of competition. We must defend the right of companies to imagine and try, whether they fail or revolutionize. But more importantly, we must defend the rights of consumers to determine who wins and who loses in the competition for the future.

The post In Attacking Apple, the Department of Justice Fails to Grasp the Essence of Progress appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.