Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Antitrust Committee Chairman Calls App Store Fees 'Highway Robbery'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I keep saying Apple has an army of lawyers (internal and external) advising them. They are not as stupid as some posters here seem to believe. (Even though at times, some decisions may leave some of us scratching our collective heads)
Probably because the laws themselves can often leave many scratching their heads trying to understand.
It’s…pretty clear-cut. You don’t have to dig into the depths of antitrust law to see that the current App Store system flies pretty flagrantly in its face by prohibiting competition and doing harm to consumers. It does so because antitrust laws seek to limit monopolies from prohibiting competition in such a fashion that it does harm to consumers.
Democrats have a hankering to break up the big tech companies, and Republicans loathe them for perceived censorship. So, even if antitrust cases against Apple fail in the U.S., the current App Store system can absolutely be made directly, explicitly illegal. That’s where the House’s antitrust committee — chaired by someone who has referred to Apple as a monopolist and its 30% cut as “highway robbery” as mentioned in this article — comes in.
At that point, I’d point out that the big tech companies, including Apple, don’t exactly have much in the way of political favor on either side of the aisle right now. I’m sure Apple would lobby hard against whatever comes of the committee’s recommendations, but maybe that means it’s time that Tim Cook heeds his own advice and Apple “self-regulates” before the government steps in and fixes their **** for them.
None of that means anything will come to pass, for any tech company, which is the point. And I'll reiterate, it's not like Apple does not have an army of lawyers, although you and I are not privy to those internal discussions.
Microsoft also had an army of lawyers and still almost got the company split in two before they reached a settlement with the Justice Department. Guarantee you the federal government’s not afraid of taking on Apple for antitrust action; the question’s whether Apple leaves them any choice except to pull the trigger at this point.
If they do, it’s open and shut. (Not that they’ll go so far as to break up Apple, but again, I can assure you Apple would much rather fix its own **** than have the government do it for them.)
It's not about the federal government *being afraid* to take on apple. It's about the certainty in your post, which may never come to pass. The question is: is there anything to pull the trigger on, or just more MR ruminations and wishful thinking. You seem to say yes; I'm going with a qualified don't know and we'll see what happens. And there may not be anything for apple to fix, as much to tidy up.
Apple may get the super PAC pulled from this congressman, who knows?
I keep hearing people say that the current App Store model harms consumers, but how exactly? Unless you are referring to the Devs as the consumers in this situation. If you are talking about the end user then how are they harmed by the App Store being the only place to get iOS apps?
Is it about price? Are you suggesting that if Apple lowered their commission to say 5%, that the Devs would pass on all of those cost savings to the consumers? I doubt it based on many of the comments on here saying that Devs can't survive with Apple's commission...that would imply that the Devs would hoover up all of the available extra cash and not pass any on to the consumer.
Or is it about the fact that some developers are not able to continue with the current pricing model therefore the pricing model forces some Devs out of the market which means that their products aren't available to the consumer and thereby harming them in that manner? If so then, as sad as it is to say it, the Devs most likely to not be able to survive are those making the least sales.
App development has a fixed cost whether you sell 10 copies or 1000 (I am not factoring support costs, just pure development upfront costs). So if it costs you $700 to develop an app - in time, rent etc. - and you see if for $1 then you have to sell 1000 copies to break even after Apple's commission. If you only sell 500 copies then you lose money and will have to stop developing. But if you sell 10000 copies then you will still make good money, even after Apple's cut.
So it's the Devs with less sales who are most likely to be affected in this case and, sorry to say it, less sales generally means either too niche, or not good enough. Both of which are things that would increase your chances of your business going under regardless of commission and in both the digital and physical worlds.
As for the antitrust committee, you may be right that it is being chaired by somebody who is against Apple's current policy. And you may be right that Apple are forced to change. If that's the case then I fear for all manner of businesses around the world because this is the first step towards "seizing the means of production"...IMHO of course...
30%, when compared to other industries, is not out of the ordinary: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html
The difference only being Apple's monopoly on the distribution of IOS apps. However, IOS does compete with Android so that Apple can claim not to be a monopoly.
The difference only being Apple's monopoly on the distribution of IOS apps. However, IOS does compete with Android so that Apple can claim not to be a monopoly.
Go buy the boxed version of Office 365 at Best Buy (I think it's just a card with a code in the box). Many probably wouldn't go do it randomly but a lot of people do it when buying a PC there. While Office 365 is a Microsoft service, your account, and billing, will be handled by Best Buy. This is the same at many other vendors. They decided they did indeed want a crack at the recurring subscription revenue, and Microsoft gave it to them.
-----The kerfuffle around the whole situation with parental-controls apps abusing mobile device management APIs to function was, frankly, ridiculous; a legitimate privacy concern existed there. I completely agree with everything else discussed by this article, however.
iOS and Android can still be construed as a duopoly. If they manage to win that argument, both of the app stores would be hit by regulations.
It's amusing how you keep insisting with Play Store and how it charges the same.
Do you know why nobody has a problem with Google and the fact that they charge the same 30% rate? let's see if you know what you are talking about.
Who is nobody?
Seems on iOS, some want their cake and the ability to eat it also. Whether or not that comes to pass is anyone’s guess.