Battle of the Gatekeepers: There's more to the shadowboxing between Apple and Elon Musk than meets the eye.

Their motives aren't entirely altruistic.

In the dog days of summer, Politico dropped a story that should have gotten much more coverage than it did - that the American Department of Justice (DOJ) was considering filing an antitrust suit against corporate tech giant Apple. 

This story was huge news because, as article notes, Apple is the world's most valuable public company. But it has faced numerous complaints and lawsuits over the years, which have alleged that the company uses its dominance to censor and kill smaller tech rivals and emerging market players. 

A DOJ suit, particularly one filed under a Democratic Presidential administration, would arguably be the first real test of Apple's monopolistic business model. A successful antitrust case - or similar legislation - against the company would have negative financial implications for its shareholders. So lawsuits and legislation regarding the company's business practices are things Apple's investors desperately want to avoid.

In business, timing is everything. So as Apple is facing a potential DOJ suit and another relevant case is currently in front of the court, the timing is good for Twitter owner Elon Musk to go to war with Apple. So this week, he signaled he would do that very thing.

Here's why.

Apple's business model gives it nearly god-like control over what information the billion or so people who own an Apple device see. These billion-plus Apple-clutching earthlings use Apple's App Store to download applications onto their devices. Apple charges application developers hefty commission fees and subjects them to complex compliance rules in exchange for the privilege of having their apps available to Apple device users. 

An application developer must agree with this arrangement to maintain the ability to reach Apple's sizable device user base. Apple can change the rules anytime and has miles of latitude to interpret compliance. Suffice it to say, if they don't want an application or application based-company to succeed on its platform, they have the tools to prevent it from doing so.

So when it comes to censorship, move over national governments. Apple (and rival Google) arguably has more power to choose what you see or don't see than virtually any other entity on the planet. It also has a supersized ability to influence whether many different technologies will thrive or fail.

While legal matters are legal matters, the political climate in which the potential DOJ suit would happen is an important consideration. If the public doesn't have any significant concerns about how Apple is operating, there would be less pressure on the government to intervene, and it would be much easier for the company to maneuver events toward an outcome that favours its position.

And it's this context that provides the real reasons why Elon Musk is taking a more aggressive posture with Apple.

Apple has made moves against Musk, too. The company has allegedly stopped advertising on Twitter, with reports suggesting that this move is due to concerns over Musk's new content moderation policies. But this shot across Twitter's bow might have less to do with Apple being worried about Twitter's user base being subjected to hate speech in the wake of Musk's newly relaxed content moderation policies, and more to do with taking an opening posture in a potential battle with Musk over something else.

As Twitter's new owner, Musk has a vested interest in Apple having less control over his business.

Apple charges a whopping 30% commission on any in-app purchases used on their platform. This obligation to Apple poses a massive problem for Musk if he plans to grow Twitter's business model to include revenue-sharing models for content creators. He stated that Apple has threatened to remove Twitter from its App Store, which would be catastrophic for his company. 

In a public relations battle over the issue, Apple could potentially justify the deplatforming of Twitter from the App Store by citing some rule violations related to lax content moderation policies.

But in a corporate battle for hearts and minds, Musk has a direct line to communicate with everyone who uses Twitter. He has been steadily been using that access to making the case to Twitter's user base that Apple, far from being a paragon of public good, is a bad-faith actor that can squash free speech simply by booting apps that they disagree with off their platform.

Musk's widely-read rhetoric doesn't come at a great time for Apple, who, given that the DOJ is presently considering filing an antitrust suit against them, would likely want to avoid any negative public attention about any of their related business practices. By having direct communications access to Twitter’s sizable and diverse user base, Musk has an unrivaled capacity to create a public relations shitstorm of epic proportions for Apple. If Apple were to deplatform Twitter right now, they gamble that the users of Twitter wouldn't turn against them and put public scrutiny on the company during a time when it needs politicians to turn their eyes away.

This could be why Apple has not aggressively commented on Musk’s posturing and has yet to move to contain him. However, if Musk's gambit works and Apple has to blink, thousands of other developers could be impacted too - which could mean significant disruption to Apple's current income model. Something has to give, and both sides have created leverage. Who has more bargaining power remains to be seen, and is likely dependent on how Apple’s legal woes come out in the wash in the months ahead more than anything else.

So Apple's reported cessation of advertising on Twitter is probably less about taking a stand on content moderation and more about sending a message to Musk to tread carefully with them. And Musk's criticism about Apple's compliance rules is probably more about mitigating profit loss to Apple on future in-app purchases on Twitter than about innovation policy or your data ownership rights. These knock-on issues are likely window-dressing in a battle over corporate profit.

That said, in taking on Apple, Musk may be doing some public good in starting a debate about how much power platforms like Apple and Google should have over what you see on your device and which tech developers succeed or fail. The same goes for Apple in raising questions about how the extent of the obligations that social media platforms have to prevent abuse and hate speech. But make no mistake, this approach isn't entirely altruistic. These are the exact public relations postures each camp needs to take to ensure that they can't screw each other over - yet.

You, dear reader, are caught in this battle of titans. So pray that your friendly neighborhood politicians have the smarts and moral fortitude to avoid the ministrations of hordes of lobbyists who will be out on this issue and do what's in your best interest instead. 

In the meantime, spend a minute thinking about who the real gatekeepers of free speech and innovation are.