Apple Argues DoJ Lawsuit Could Set 'Dangerous Precedent' for Tech Design

[surferfb]

They certainly do for distribution of application software to iOS consumers.

Apple runs the only store on iOS, but that’s not a monopoly on smartphones or mobile software. Android crushes iOS globally and offers sideloading and other stores. People choose iOS because they value Apple’s model, not because they lack alternatives. You’re arguing “Target has a monopoly on Target customers, so Walmart should be allowed to sell its house products in Target without paying Target anything”.

Also, what other NFC card payments do they allow except Apple Pay?

I’d argue the reason Apple Pay is trusted by consumers, banks, transit systems, and even governments for IDs is in large part because Apple doesn’t let third‑party wallets hook into the secure element. If anyone could, adoption would be slower, fraud risk higher, banks would be less willing to partner, we’d have more CurrentC type situations, etc. Limiting it to just Apple is actually MASSIVELY better for consumers. The fact that regulators don’t understand that is just proof they aren’t qualified to decide how iOS works.

Watches have displays to show something. Message notifications, in the case of smart watches. That’s a core feature.
Rings usually don’t have a display.

There are plenty of options with a screen and that provide notifications. Smart watch makers don’t have an inherent right to get the same access to Apple’s property that Apple does. Especially when providing said access has legitimate risks to Apple’s customers.

It’s indeed different.
PlayStations don’t double as

• driving licenses
• toll booths
• transit tickets
• ticketing machines
• event tickets
• GPS/navigation systems
• phones
• phone books
• calendars
• cameras
• payment instruments
• keys and keychains
• identification devices
• home automation controls
• primary communication devices
• alarm clocks
• scientific calculators
• document scanners
• dictionaries and thesauruses
• …
• …and that’s without even mentioning the gaming and media playback functionality that the console also has.

Lots of reasons indeed.
PlayStations are devices that provide entertainment.
Whereas smartphones are used to communicate and manage big parts of everyone’s every-day lives.

I agree the iPhone is more important to modern life than PlayStation. But that doesn’t mean Apple should forfeit control over its platform. Cars are also critical to daily life, but the government doesn’t require Ford to let you install a Toyota infotainment system in a Mustang, or force Tesla to allow anyone who wants to install an app on the car’s computer, or make its Supercharger network fully interoperable with all brands.

Apple is still one of several major smartphone vendors globally (Samsung, Google, Chinese OEMs, etc.), and people have a choice if they want a more open device. Regulation shouldn’t be about punishing the most successful company in a sector because its products are widely adopted, or declaring its platform a public utility just because a profitable subset of users rely on it.

I’d argue that the fact that iPhones handle payments, IDs, and sensitive communications actually strengthens the argument for Apple keeping things locked down, because the risks of opening system‑level APIs to every third‑party accessory or app are much higher than on a PlayStation. And if you don’t like it, there’s an easy way to avoid it: just buy an Android!

 

[Ctrlos]

As with all such points, it’s the very definition of not researching a device before buying it. I feel a little for folks that get blinded by the Apple logo such that they lose the ability to do a critical assessment of what features the product offers, but, with every day that goes by, I hope that more and more people are learning, THAT research is important to ensure that a person’s buying a device that they will like to use for years to come!

It's Apples usual contrary logic. They sell a watch that doesn't even sync with their other products (Hi, iPad) yet that PlayStation controller you have works 100% with iPhone, TV, Mac and iPad.

I get why they'd want to lock out Android but why the heck do they.do they treat their own products just as badly?

 

[jlc1978]

It's Apples usual contrary logic. They sell a watch that doesn't even sync with their other products (Hi, iPad) yet that PlayStation controller you have works 100% with iPhone, TV, Mac and iPad.

Sony chose to make the controller act like a standard bluetooth device .

I get why they'd want to lock out Android but why the heck do they.do they treat their own products just as badly?

I can see it from a customer experience POV. The watch, unless you have cellular connectivity, relies on a secondary device to get data it then uses. Of all the Apple devices, the iPhone is the one most likely to be with a person most of teh time, thus ensuring the needed connectivity for the watch to preform multiple functions reliably. Absent that, it's just an expensive digital watch with a short battery life; so most people that synch it with a Mac, iPad, or TV would have a very sub-par experience.

For me, a bigger question is why don't they make the Apple Watch modem universal like the iPhone?

 

[surferfb]

It's Apples usual contrary logic. They sell a watch that doesn't even sync with their other products (Hi, iPad) yet that PlayStation controller you have works 100% with iPhone, TV, Mac and iPad.

I get why they'd want to lock out Android but why the heck do they.do they treat their own products just as badly?

This is a great example of why I really think the restrictions Apple puts in place aren't primarily about "locking out competition." I think Apple truly thinks it would be a worse experience on iPad, so they don't allow it. Apple is an extremely opinionated company, and always has been.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple runs the only store on iOS, but that’s not a monopoly on smartphones or mobile software.

But it's part of a duopoly of ecosystems for said software. Of which Apple controls about half of the market (in terms of revenue or application purchases - more than their share of sales of hardware devices, i.e. phones).

People choose iOS because they value Apple’s model

There are lots of reasons to choose iOS.
And Apple's model of a monopoly on app distribution is just one among many.

Familiarity with the OS, interoperability with Mac OS X, attractive hardware offerings, tech "support" provided by friends and family etc.

I don't know anybody that chose iOS because it has only one application store.
No one in my family - and neither any friends.

You’re arguing “Target has a monopoly on Target customers, so Walmart should be allowed to sell its house products in Target without paying Target anything”.

I argue that there is a difference between Walmart/Target and mobile platforms.
Namely market concentration, entry barriers to the market, technical dependence on API and cryptographic signing, barriers for consumers to switch.

Literally everyone can set up a small stall or store in my or your neighbourhood - or an online storefront - to sell the same (category of) items as available at Target or Walmart and market them to the same customers (again: Apple and Google do control almost all customer relationships in these markets). You can't do it to market to iOS customers. And Google was anticompetitively undermining fair competition on Android.

That is the difference:
Walmart and Target do no control 95% or more of the market for the (category of) goods they sell.
And consumers can walk over to the other side of the street to shop at a competitor.

I’d argue the reason Apple Pay is trusted by consumers, banks, transit systems, and even governments for IDs is in large part because Apple doesn’t let third‑party wallets hook into the secure element.

They do let them:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024...pp-nfc-transactions-using-the-secure-element/

It's yet another instance where Apple just disallow other use as a matter of policy, to protect their Apple Pay revenue streams. As with enterprise apps, it's only a security concern as long as it benefits Apple monetarily.

Smart watch makers don’t have an inherent right to get the same access to Apple’s property that Apple does. Especially when providing said access has legitimate risks to Apple’s customers.

Maybe governments should regulate and award them certain rights then.
At least they should if they want to have a competitive, diversified smartwatch market.

But that doesn’t mean Apple should forfeit control over its platform. Cars are also critical to daily life, but the government doesn’t require Ford to let you install a Toyota infotainment system in a Mustang

If the market for smartphone software ecosystems was as diversified and competitive as the one for cars and their accessories, I'd agree that Apple and Google should be left alone and do as they please.

And if you don’t like it, there’s an easy way to avoid it: just buy an Android!

You know what? I did.

And Google refuse to let me redeem the Play Store gift cards that I bought from a local (large) supermarket.
This is unacceptable and forces me to rely on the Apple App Store to download critical apps.

There are other reasons why I'd prefer iOS over Android.
But that one is enough.

 

[Ctrlos]

This is a great example of why I really think the restrictions Apple puts in place aren't primarily about "locking out competition." I think Apple truly thinks it would be a worse experience on iPad, so they don't allow it. Apple is an extremely opinionated company, and always has been.

I understand that they don't want their own products competing with each other but the watch app is long overdue for Mac and iPad.

 

[Ctrlos]

Sony chose to make the controller act like a standard bluetooth device .



I can see it from a customer experience POV. The watch, unless you have cellular connectivity, relies on a secondary device to get data it then uses. Of all the Apple devices, the iPhone is the one most likely to be with a person most of teh time, thus ensuring the needed connectivity for the watch to preform multiple functions reliably. Absent that, it's just an expensive digital watch with a short battery life; so most people that synch it with a Mac, iPad, or TV would have a very sub-par experience.

For me, a bigger question is why don't they make the Apple Watch modem universal like the iPhone?

The ecosystem can pull in simultaneous data pretty easily if it wanted to. What I'd like to see is a 'combined compute' ability so that the more you buy, the faster on-device things happen by sharing the workload. This would be a godsend for AI.

 

[jlc1978]

The ecosystem can pull in simultaneous data pretty easily if it wanted to.

Perhaps, but connectivity is still the key issue. The ability to pull in simultaneous data is worthless if the devices can't connect unless they are nearby.

What I'd like to see is a 'combined compute' ability so that the more you buy, the faster on-device things happen by sharing the workload. This would be a godsend for AI.

Sure, I even did it in the pre-PC days where several of use would iterate over engineering calculations and passing results to the next to work while I started a new calculation. Much faster than trying to do it alone independently; the computational version of the bucket brigade.

But even then connectivity is the bottleneck. Sharing a workload is of little use if one device has to wait for the results from another and thus is idle.

 

[drrich2]

It's Apples usual contrary logic. They sell a watch that doesn't even sync with their other products (Hi, iPad) yet that PlayStation controller you have works 100% with iPhone, TV, Mac and iPad.

I get why they'd want to lock out Android but why the heck do they.do they treat their own products just as badly?

As another poster noted, the iPhone is near omnipresent, likely to be owned by Apple Watch users, and already has cell connectivity, so the watch can display phone notifications more conveniently.

My wife works in a place where having her phone out isn't practical, but it is nearby; we got her a wifi-only Apple Watch. Our daughter at school isn't allowed to have her phone around, and didn't have one when we got the watch; her Apple Watch is the cellular version, so she can even call me in a pinch.

Not sure how many people have an Apple Watch and iPad (particularly a cellular one) with no iPhone. I wouldn't mind a Mac having the power to adjust settings, etc... But iPhone sales are far ahead of Mac sales, and the Mac isn't omnipresent.

But it's part of a duopoly of ecosystems for said software.

So what '-opoly' is good enough? If Windows Phone were a thing would people be deriding the triopoly?

And if side-loading is viable on Android, it's not a true duopoly. It may well be that the large majority of Android users choose to act via Google's Play Store, but that doesn't mean alternatives don't exist or can't be found. Many people would prefer to settle on one trusted source for downloads; I see even Microsoft has an app. store these days.

Which raises a point - not everyone wants a highly Balkanized sector with a bunch of major players at the platform or app. store level. Some choice yes, but the alleged duopoly appears to serve many people fine.

 

[surferfb]

So what '-opoly' is good enough? If Windows Phone were a thing would people be deriding the triopoly?

Yes. The issue for most people posting about this is they want an iOS phone AND want to be able to sideload. If Android were 4 companies each with 15-20% market share they'd still be complaining about "Apple having a monopoly" because as long as they have to go through the App Store they're unhappy. But rather than buy a perfectly acceptable Android phone that does what they want, they instead get government to force their preferences on anyone because they don't care about other users preferences, safety, or security. They know better, and if grandma gets her phone hosed, well that's just too bad, asking them to use an Android device is a non-starter and they deserve to have their cake and eat it too.

Notably the DMA applies to any company with 10% EU market share. If there were 10 companies each with 45 million EU users, the regulation would apply to all 10. It's not about monopoly or duopoly, period. It's about being philosophically opposed to closed ecosystems in general, and using "monopoly" as an excuse because the average person hears monopoly and thinks "that means government regulation is warranted."

 

[AppliedMicro]

So what '-opoly' is good enough?

Well, more than two relevant companies for sure, if they want to operate free from regulatory and antitrust enforcement (see, for example, the mobile network operator market, that in most countries has at least three operators of physical infrastructure - while generally being subject to regulation that often provides access rights for MVNOs, etc.).

Which raises a point - not everyone wants a highly Balkanized sector with a bunch of major players at the platform or app. store level.

Agree.
Completely.

Consumers and developers "converge" on very few (1-3) general purpose operating systems.

We - or rather society and government - just have to ensure that developers of software applications and digital services (as well as accessories) can compete fairly on those platforms and deliver benefits to consumers.


The business model of

• we provide an operating system
• and we control distribution of all applications on said operating system
• and we control all digital transactions make through such applications
• and we charge a big (30%) share of that transactions volume
• for products/media we did not create and don't deliver
• and we're competing with our own, in-house services (streaming, music/ebook/game stores) against them

...doesn't do that.

It's a long-term threat to consumer choice, diversity and competitive pricing for transaction processing.

 

[drrich2]

and we charge a big (30%) share of that transactions volume

It seemed big to me, too, in the past, but I realized that was an arbitrary assessment on my part. After all, what is 'big,' what is 'reasonable,' etc...? I've seen a past discussion where Apple's app. store fee (which isn't what everybody pays!) was compared to other industry entities, and IIRC, it wasn't seen as egregious (perhaps not set by the same people who price internal SSD upgrades in Macs?).

Yet this 30% (again, not what everybody pays) is held out as unreasonably high. How well-grounded is that conclusion?

https://www.1d3.com/blog/platform-fees That source gives fees for a range of 'store' operators, including Nintendo, Apple, Epic, Steam, Microsoft and Google Pay. Apple's alleged 30% isn't the least and doesn't appear outrageous, and also "...The Apple App Store charges a 30% commission on app sales and in-app purchases, which reduces to 15% for developers earning less than $1 million annually."

So...I imagine for the large majority of developers, it's 15%.

If you want to talk about Apple's alleged price gouging in internal SSD and maybe RAM upgrades, I'm probably in, but on app. store fees, it sounds like they're in the ballpark of the broader industry.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It seemed big to me, too, in the past, but I realized that was an arbitrary assessment on my part. After all, what is 'big,' what is 'reasonable,' etc...?

Card payment transactions and the tax registration provide a good anchor at single-digit percentages for comparison.
Even I accept card payments for 1.5% - 2.5% of transaction value - and I don’t even do it as a proper business.

So...I imagine for the large majority of developers, it's 15%.

Probably. It’s 0% for developers like Uber or DoorDash.
But the large majority of transactions for digital products and services is conducted by large developers that pay 30.

 

[drrich2]

Card payment transactions and the tax registration provide a good anchor at single-digit percentages for comparison.
Even I accept card payments for 1.5% - 2.5% of transaction value - and I don’t even do it as a proper business.

From what I recall hearing, vendors pay for the equipment to handle credit card transactions, plus they pay those fees you mention, often on low margin sales (and the fees are so burdensome many charge more to use a credit card because fees added up).

And that's just for transactions. If Walmart pays so they can bill via the VISA network, for example, Visa doesn't advertise Walmart's products, host reviews and conduct sales for them.

The developer gets a lot more for their usually 15% fee (30% if really big money is rolling in) than just a transaction. They get what amounts to advertising, hosting, etc...

 

[Ctrlos]

As another poster noted, the iPhone is near omnipresent, likely to be owned by Apple Watch users, and already has cell connectivity, so the watch can display phone notifications more conveniently.

My wife works in a place where having her phone out isn't practical, but it is nearby; we got her a wifi-only Apple Watch. Our daughter at school isn't allowed to have her phone around, and didn't have one when we got the watch; her Apple Watch is the cellular version, so she can even call me in a pinch.

Not sure how many people have an Apple Watch and iPad (particularly a cellular one) with no iPhone. I wouldn't mind a Mac having the power to adjust settings, etc... But iPhone sales are far ahead of Mac sales, and the Mac isn't omnipresent.

You can buy a cellular iPad and it's about time they made a cellular Mac. You can given kids an Apple Watch as their only cellular device; why not let adults do the same thing and manage it with an iPad or Mac too?

The silly thing is that the only thing stopping it are some internal code switches Apple blocks off. The iPad and Mac are perfectly capable of running the Watch app right now.

In fact whilst we're at it you should also be able to mirror and manage an iPhone to an iPad and connect a Watch to Vision Pro. For saying Apple have the tightest ecosystem integration on the market they don't half make some dumb decisions when it comes to not connecting their devices.

 

[surferfb]

Card payment transactions and the tax registration provide a good anchor at single-digit percentages for comparison.
Even I accept card payments for 1.5% - 2.5% of transaction value - and I don’t even do it as a proper business.

Card payment fees are not a remotely appropriate comparison. Apple provides far more than payment processing, just for starters, they created and maintain entire platform and APIs that allow developers' apps to function, as well as attracted a customer base willing to pay for developers' services.

And again, as much as you try to hand-wave it away, 30% is the industry standard. Apple didn't create it. Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox, Google, Steam all charge 30%. Epic's 12% cut is widely seen in the industry as being a loss leader that is funded by Fortnite.

 

[AppliedMicro]

From what I recall hearing, vendors pay for the equipment to handle credit card transactions, plus they pay those fees you mention, often on low margin sales (and the fees are so burdensome many charge more to use a credit card because fees added up).

I pay only 1.5% to accept debit cards and 2.5% for credit cards (physical card payments).
No additional fee. No monthly fee.

The equipment? Oh yeah, the terminal cost me... I don't know exactly, but it was less than US$ 50 for that. To be clear, that's in Europe - where interchange fees for consumer cards are regulated - for the benefit of businesses and consumers.

just for starters, they created and maintain entire platform and APIs that allow developers' apps to function, as well as attracted a customer base willing to pay for developers' services.

...which they leverage to make hardware sales. Very successfully, from what I heard. They're well compensated through those sales. Also, developers pay a $99 yearly fee to use that infrastructure - just as Uber does.

30% is the industry standard

Not for in-app payment processing and software licensing.

Apple provides far more than payment processing

No one like Spotify, Match.com or Netflix needed or asked for that.

 

[surferfb]

...which they leverage to make hardware sales. Very successfully, from what I heard. They're well compensated through those sales. Also, developers pay a $99 yearly fee to use that infrastructure - just as Uber does.

Amazon originally built AWS to power Amazon.com. That doesn’t mean everyone else gets to use AWS for free just because Amazon developed it for its own business and leverage it “very successfully”; they charge others for the value AWS provides, even though Amazon itself also benefits from it.

Also, the fee isn’t “to use the infrastructure.” It’s for membership in the developer program. The terms every developer agrees to make clear that commissions are required in many instances. If they don’t like those terms, they don’t have to agree to them.

If I buy a concert ticket I still have to pay for drinks; that’s true even if others get comped drinks because they bought a more expensive ticket, are a VIP, or are friends with the owner of the venue. You’re declaring “the ticket gets me free drinks because others get free drinks.” That’s not how the world works.

Not for in-app payment processing and software licensing.

Just because you say it isn’t the industry standard doesn’t make it true. 30% is the industry standard commission for digital software and services. It’s not debatable. Sony, Microsoft, Google, Valve all charge 30%.

And again, if they don’t want to pay, there are plenty of ways to get around from paying. No one is forced to develop Apple either. (They want to develop for Apple because Apple provides significant value - value Apple should be compensated for).

No one like Spotify, Match.com or Netflix needed or asked for that.

If they want to use Apple’s platform, customer base, and IP to acquire and bill customers, they need to pay just as they pay landlords for physical store . Apple even provided them with workarounds (signups on the web, no App Store cut), but they want the benefits of Apple’s platform without paying for the value it creates. Wanting something for free doesn’t make you entitled to it.

Again, if they think Apple is charging more than the value they get, no one is forcing to sign the agreement. Or they can use Apple’s handy workaround. But they’re not entitled to take that value for free.

 

[jlc1978]

and we charge a big (30%) share of that transactions volume

For big developers. Most pay 15%. In the US. at least, a payment processor charges a percentage plus a fixed charge, when combined can be near 15% in total, or more for, cheaper apps.

Probably. It’s 0% for developers like Uber or DoorDash.
But the large majority of transactions for digital products and services is conducted by large developers

And, IMHO, it’s not unreasonable for Apple to get paid for access to a customer bade that is making them millions. Expecting Apple to let app developers get rich while providing services for free is not reasonable.

...which they leverage to make hardware sales. Very successfully, from what I heard. They're well compensated through those sales. Also, developers pay a $99 yearly fee to use that infrastructure - just as Uber does.

Apple, if forced to significantly reduce fees, will need to change that model. Maybe like EPIC and charge based on total app revenue after the first million, or per download plus a hosting fee. That would hurt small developers who would have to upfront money before making any and put many out of business. That’s the collateral damage I worry about.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Amazon originally built AWS to power Amazon.com. That doesn’t mean everyone else gets to use AWS for free just because Amazon developed it for its own business and leverage it “very successfully”

AWS is an ongoing provided that costs money to operate.
Spotify putting a link or (non-Apple IAP) purchase button is not - that's pure rent-seeking on Apple's part.

Also, the fee isn’t “to use the infrastructure.” It’s for membership in the developer program.

Membership in Apple's developer program is $99/year.
As evidenced by the Uber or Booking apps (which also allow consumers to make purchases/orders in-app).

Given Apple's market power, all companies are asking to not discriminate against certain companies and provide them worse conditions than Uber or Booking.

 

[surferfb]

AWS is an ongoing provided that costs money to operate.
Spotify putting a link or (non-Apple IAP) purchase button is not - that's pure rent-seeking on Apple's part.

Is your argument that iOS does not cost money to operate?

Membership in Apple's developer program is $99/year.
As evidenced by the Uber or Booking apps (which also allow consumers to make purchases/orders in-app).

Not for digital goods and services. Just because you don't agree with charging differently for physical and digital goods doesn't mean there isn't

Given Apple's market power, all companies are asking to not discriminate against certain companies and provide them worse conditions than Uber or Booking.

"Paying for use of property per the property owner's terms and conditions" is not discrimination. If they don't like the terms, don't agree to them.

Spotify doesn't allow me to host my music and deliver it to its subscribers without paying Spotify. Spotify should pay Apple as required. If having a link is so important, there is clearly value there that Apple is not being compensated for. So they should pay up.

Instead, they get a free ride and raise prices on all Europeans, revealing what a farce the DMA's backers arguments are. Lower prices, hah! Nope, prices raised, more money for Spotify. Can't believe anyone fell for that. DMA just took from Apple and gave to others, claiming it would lower prices for consumers when really it was just about hurting Apple and giving a handout to EU companies because the EU can't compete.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Is your argument that iOS does not cost money to operate?

It’s well supported by device sales and app/subscription sales from developers that are happy to sell through Apple.

Not for digital goods and services

Obviously it does. Fortnite and many other games are free to download (and play) from the App Store.
These goods and services are distributed as part of the $99 yearly developer membership.

"Paying for use of property per the property owner's terms and conditions" is not discrimination. If they don't like the terms, don't agree to them.

The owners terms and conditions are discriminatory and anticompetitive. Yet given Apple‘s market share and market power (and the required app signing) developers can‘t just ignore them and distribute their apps and services to the same consumers elsewhere. That is why governments and antitrust legislators should intervene and ensure fair competition. (And maybe as well for Spotify having a dominant position in music streaming as well).

Lower prices, hah! Nope, prices raised, more money for Spotify. Can't believe anyone fell for that. DMA just took from Apple and gave to others, claiming it would lower prices for consumer

Price increases are a fact life. And since Spotify isn’t profitable - as has been pointed out repeatedly by their detractors - why shouldn’t they increase prices slowly? That is a normal thing in business. Also…

👉 There is zero logic or evidence that or how slapping an additional 15% or 30% „Apple tax“ on them and their transactions - or Apple prohibiting them from communicating their pricing to consumers in-App otherwise - would have any effect of lowering prices for consumers.

it was just about hurting Apple and giving a handout to EU companies because the EU can't compete.

It‘s not about hurting Apple.
If anything, Apple‘s App Store policies are just about hurting Spotify.

And yes, since Apple operates the largest competitor to Spotify - while restricting Spotify‘s ability to communicate with consumers and/or tax the - European companies can‘t compete fairly in the music streaming market.

Which is why government needs to intervene to ensure fair competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple‘s policies only serve them to reduce competition and make more money.
Nothing about them is in any way suitable to reduce prices for consumers.

That‘s true for their restrictions on in-App purchases and Link-outs. Their restrictions on NFC access for payments. And their prohibition of super apps.

Prohibiting Apple from - or restricting their ability of - preventing developers from communicating offers and purchasing options has potential to lower consumer pricing in the long run. If only by reducing reduce future price increases.

That doesn’t mean that no one will increase prices ever.

Instead, they get a free ride and raise prices on all Europeans, revealing what a farce the DMA's backers arguments are.

A price increase in a certain developer’s service is no proof that the DMA can‘t or won‘t result in lower pricing long-term. That’s a logical fallacy.

👉 There is very little real-life evidence or support in economic teaching that a huge and obscenely profitable company (Apple) restricting their competitors‘ abilities to communicate and transact with consumers has ever resulted in long-term lower pricing for consumers.

 

[surferfb]

Apple‘s policies only serve them to reduce competition and make more money.
Nothing about them is in any way suitable to reduce prices for consumers.

That‘s true for their restrictions on in-App purchases and Link-outs. Their restrictions on NFC access for payments. And their prohibition of super apps.

Prohibiting Apple from - or restricting their ability of - preventing developers from communicating offers and purchasing options has potential to lower consumer pricing in the long run. If only by reducing reduce future price increases.

That doesn’t mean that no one will increase prices ever.


A price increase in a certain developer’s service is no proof that the DMA can‘t or won‘t result in lower pricing long-term. That’s a logical fallacy.

👉 There is very little real-life evidence or support in economic teaching that a huge and obscenely profitable company (Apple) restricting their competitors‘ abilities to communicate and transact with consumers has ever resulted in long-term lower pricing for consumers.

Vestager promised the DMA would lower prices for consumers. She corruptly exempted Spotify, gave them free stuff she stole from Apple, and they promptly raised prices on their European customers.

Was she in on the take, or just that incompetent?

 

[jlc1978]

AWS is an ongoing provided that costs money to operate.
Spotify putting a link or (non-Apple IAP) purchase button is not - that's pure rent-seeking on Apple's part.

Which is why Apple needs to switch to a cut of revenue model like EPIC has, or a hosting/ per d/l fee to charge based on service used by a developer.

Membership in Apple's developer program is $99/year.
As evidenced by the Uber or Booking apps (which also allow consumers to make purchases/orders in-app).

Given Apple's market power, all companies are asking to not discriminate against certain companies and provide them worse conditions than Uber or Booking.

Different markets can result in differing pricing models.

👉 There is very little real-life evidence or support in economic teaching that a huge and obscenely profitable company (Apple) restricting their competitors‘ abilities to communicate and transact with consumers has ever resulted in long-term lower pricing for consumers.

Standard Oil. It made purchasing kerosene cheaper and ensured the quality of the product; facts lost in the common story about Standard Oil. Not arguing monopolies are good, but can result in lower consumer prices as they attempt to stifle competition by making entry too expensive. In the end, all that matters is the price to the consumer lower.