I don't have an issue with Apple charging on their own store, if that happens in a competitive environment.
A duopoly of stores that don't even compete directly against each other (for the same customer purchases) - and where those two store operators are economically linked to each other (Google paying them many billions for being the default search engine) isn't that.
And Apple have been forcing (a particular subset) developers to use their store and in-app purchasing if they wish to market to customers using iOS (which, again, there's hardly any competition for except Android).
I don't think so. Not much, if any.
Take Spotify for example: There's no reality in which consumers today "discover" Spotify through the App Store - rather than Spotify relying on their advertising and word of mouth recommendations.
...for which (sideloaded apps) Apple - a direct competitor in music streaming - still intends to charge commission.
I completely disagree.
There's literally no difference in the transaction flow of purchasing a physical book or an ebook except the delivery online vs. by mail. Both of which Apple isn't even involved in (the book gets downloaded directly from the eBook store). And of course the the mandatory use of Apple's IAP that Apple forced upon certain types of transactions.
Let's call it unjustified differentiation then.
A. I don’t buy into the “duopoly” argument. Other options do exist, and just because two options are the most popular of a variety of options doesn’t mean it’s a “duopoly”. Besides, if governments actually cared about this and trying to promote anything else, they would be removing red tape, not adding it. More government regulation = harder for newcomers to even get off the ground (more red tape to comply with). The best solution, if one were to believe this to be a problem, is to actually remove more of this excessive regulation and allow the free market to decide, rather than piling on more red tape that essentially picks winners and losers by whoever has enough money to hire a large legal team to figure out what they can and can’t do to be in compliance with an excessive burden of regulation and red tape…
B. Developers are able to distribute their apps via sideloading in the EU. They are not forced to use the App Store. As to developers paying commissions for sideloaded apps, the only commissions I’m aware of is a small Core Technology Fee, for notarization and anti-malware screening services that Apple provides. I have yet to find a single source anywhere that suggests that Apple collects any commission on in-app purchases in sideloaded apps. And I’m pretty sure I’ve read the exact opposite, that developers don’t pay a commission for in-app purchases. PS. Just read back through the terms, only apps
on the App Store using alternative payment options in the EU are mentioned as owing a reduced commission. Not developers who deliver sideloaded apps with alternative payment options…
We have no data to suggest that doesn’t still happen. I am sure that there are people who discover Spotify via the App Store, or otherwise via Apple’s marketing. But even if it doesn’t, that doesn’t change anything. Because Spotify signed a contract. If a company enters into a voucher contract with Target or some other store to advertise and house a rack of vouchers for their service, then they don’t get to have government force Target to continue to distribute their voucher cards for free when that vendor decides their own advertising is good enough, and they don’t need Target’s advertising. That would be wrong. They have the choice to either continue paying commissions on sales coming in from Target’s stores via the voucher program, or they can withdraw from it, and Target can take down the displays and marketing for their service vouchers, and the other store can actually lean in on their own resources. What you’re talking about isn’t these developers leaning in on their own resources. If Spotify thinks their own advertising and resources are good enough, then they can withdraw from Apple’s platform, and rely entirely on their own advertising and resources. Instead, they expect to continue to use Apple’s resources, benefit from the customers coming in through that avenue, but try to cheat Apple out of the commissions due by contract for the services Apple is providing. And that is wrong.
Apple’s platforms are that:
Apple’s platforms. Apple created and own iOS, iPadOS, etc. They don’t even have to allow any third parties to distribute on their platform if they don’t want to in the first place. In fact, early on they didn’t, and the web was the only way third parties could provide services on Apple’s platforms… They can decide the terms for distributing software on their platform. Same thing as the Switch.
Furthermore, developers are not forced to distribute on Apple’s platforms at all if they don’t wish to. If Spotify really thought Apple’s terms were unfair, they could make their app for Android and other platforms and either completely ignore Apple’s platforms, or have iOS users use their web app. They don’t have to do business with Apple. They choose to, and chose to sign an agreement to pay commissions for services provided by Apple. And they
continue to choose to do so, and expect to reap the benefits of Apple’s services on Apple’s platforms, but apparently now also want to violate the contract as well and not pay Apple for the services and access to Apple’s platform that Apple provides. Again, if developers think that Apple’s terms are unfair, no one is forcing them to agree to them, or to distribute on Apple’s platforms. They are choosing to do so, because Apple’s platform provides value to their product. Just like when game devs decide to distribute via the Switch’s platform, and all the benefits it provides.
And before you try to argue “but Spotify wouldn’t make money without Apple’s platforms so they have to use them”, A. They would make
less money, not zero money. They make enough money that they can just take the losses. See how that works? B. Then that right there proves that Apple
does provide value to Spotify. And apparently enough value that Spotify has agreed to the terms of distribution on Apple’s platform, and found it fair enough when they signed that contract…
Then I think we’re just going to continue to disagree on that point, because they are, in fact, very different kinds of transactions. Whether you believe they’re different enough in end result is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that they are different… And developers agreed to a set of terms and conditions in contract with Apple, and Apple is fairly and consistently applying those agreed on terms and conditions…
support.spotify.com
