It is no secret that Apple dominates the technology market. You’d have to walk the halls of DGN with a blindfold to not see a student holding an iPhone. In fact, Apple has a market capitalization of almost $4 trillion, which is dramatically higher than its competitors, with Samsung only having a market cap of $447 billion. However, while this difference might reflect business success, when taking a closer look at Apple, it is apparent that consumers are trapped in Apple’s carefully crafted ecosystem, designed to prevent them from buying from their competitors.
In March 2024, the US Justice Department accused Apple of violating antitrust laws due to their monopoly-like behavior and ‘walled garden’ tendencies of intentionally creating a network that intentionally limits users to content provided in order to de-incentivize them from buying from their competitors. Netizens argue that Apple does not meet monopoly criteria because there are so many other technology companies to buy from. However, Apple has engineered dependence that makes switching to other brands painful. The fact that products such as AirPods, Apple Watches, and apps like iMessage and Apple Music are only available with Apple products might make consumers feel like they have too much at stake to switch to another manufacturer, because they will lose the ability to use these features. To qualify as a monopoly, a company doesn’t necessarily have to ban competitors, it simply has to make consumers feel like they cannot leave. The Justice Department’s lawsuit calls this “strategic lock-in” where users can technically leave, but rarely do.
Apple consumers argue that Apple’s high prices reflect premium quality and designs. However this is completely false when looking into the price versus component cost. According to Techwalls, the iPhone 16 Pro Max (256 GB) retails for $1,199, while the production cost is only $485, leaving Apple with a 60% profit margin. Meanwhile, other brands such as OnePlus and Google Pixel offer similar performance quality and features, but for hundreds less. Their latest phones, the OnePlus 13 and Pixel 10, have the same amount of storage as the iPhone 16 Pro Max and currently retail for only $899. Apple users are not paying for superior parts; they’re paying for the privilege of staying inside the iOS ecosystem and Apple logo.
Looking past cost and quality, Apple’s most formidable force is social influence. Among teens, the iPhone seems to have become a sort of status symbol. At DGN, “green bubble” text messages immediately alienate android users from apple users. A frequent problem is that Apple has turned their products into a reflection of one’s identity, even changing how people are perceived. Not only does Apple control how others are perceived, but also how others perceive the company image. In a Vanity Fair interview from February 2020, “Knives Out” director Rian Johnson claimed that Apple only allows its products to appear on screen in movies and TV shows if they are shown being used by the heroes, never the villains. This idea of image manipulation illustrates how Apple aims to influence viewers to buy their products by only showing them in a positive light.
Apple’s success is not only built on their innovation, but loyalty and image. Its devices may connect us, but also confine us while alienating others. Until we start questioning if the logo is worth our independence, we’ll keep paying to stay locked in the iTrap.
