Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules

[Kal Madda]

Ask those developers how much money they made following these rules.. I'll wait. Everyone of them has grown since the AppStore came to be. Every one of them.

Why should any one of them be allowed to "steer" a customer that bought it via the AppStore TO another Store? That doesn't happen in real life physical stores. Or any other digital store. Xbox doesn't let games advertise for Playstation. Nintendo doesn't advertise on Xbox. Target doesn't advertise in Walmart, and so on and so forth. There have been companies that also have their own stores that only sell their own stuff OR stuff they agree to also sell for others. And companies that don't sell their own stuff or have their own store. And only distribute it to wholesale or retail stores. We have been doing this forever.

Exactly. 👍🏻. First of all, these competing apps have become successful while abiding by the terms they agreed to with Apple. It’s a mutually beneficial contract. Otherwise, developers either wouldn’t agree to it, or they would leave, and take their users with them to other platforms.

This exactly. Other stores are not forced to allow vendors to “steer” customers outside of the store and bypass paying commissions on sales at the checkout. But that’s exactly what the EU wants to impose on Apple. Meanwhile, they aren’t trying to apply such rules to other digital platforms like Nintendo. Yet somehow some try to argue that vendors on Apple’s platform should be allowed to “steer” customers to their payment processes and bypass paying the commission they owe to Apple for accessing their platform…

This is well outside the proper scope of government authority, and the EU isn’t even fairly applying these edicts across the board to other companies like Nintendo, so it isn’t even fair or consistently applied. In other words, it’s overreaching rule at a whim…

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well, if they are using Apple’s APIs to do so, they should pay up.

Absolutely. If they want to use Apple's IAP and pay with their Apple Accounts, they should pay up what Apple charges.
Apple's IAP should just not be the only (viable) way of making transactions with customers.

Developers shouldn’t have a right to freeload just because they want to.

Neither should Apple - such as charging commissions (after a third-party developer has acquired a customers) where no service is provided.

I suspect they were blocked for legitimate security reasons (running code that was not reviewed by Apple), but once the EU forced alternate app stores, there was no point in keeping that restriction around anymore because it was going to happen anyway.

Why though?

If these security reasons are legitimate - as is your premise - why would Apple allow them?
It contradicts your (and Apple's) argument that only they can provide the most secure platform and do their utmost to do so.

Android exists. No need for the DMA

No, the existence of Android does not vindicate Apple.

There's no guarantee that Android and the ecosystem stays "open" (which it isn't so much). And also, both operating systems/ecosystems - having market shares in similar order of magnitude - should be regulated the same way.

Everything else would not be fair and allow for a level playing field between them to compete.

They do, if they pick Android.

That's the equivalent of saying "if you don't like it, move to Canada".
There are other, good reasons why consumers will not want to pick Android.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A. Apple has a minority of the market, they are nowhere near having a “monopoly”

They don't. They're estimated to command about half of the market for app spending (in money, even in Europe).

Nobody is forced to develop iOS apps.

No by law - but by market forces.
Developing a mainstream dating app, for instance, it's just not viable to ignore Apple's platform.

...if you want to be in the market at all, of course.
But there's pretty much consensus that mobile apps are an important and useful market.

All that is required is an alternative to Apple's current solution

No, because there's no guarantee or legal provision that makes Android remain that alternative.
And also, it would be unfair to regulate Android any different than Apple.

And you all have that in Android and the variety of handhelds that run it.

And yes, users on these handhelds still depend on Google's Store - which is not an acceptable alternative for everyone.

All these companies that are complaining can pool their resources together and get one done if they really wanted to. With a variety of stores running some form of Android

Maybe - but in the end, it'd be just another form of Android. And Google Play is still the dominant API and store.

Why should any one of them be allowed to "steer" a customer that bought it via the AppStore TO another Store? That doesn't happen in real life physical stores.

Neither does a real life physical store charge commissions on future purchases directly made from a product's manufacturer. Or prohibit that manufacturer from communicating with consumers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Other stores are not forced to allow vendors to “steer” customers outside of the store and bypass paying commissions on sales at the checkout. But that’s exactly what the EU wants to impose on Apple.

It's not.

When the Spotify app has been installed on my phone, it has already been checked out from Apple's store.

No one demands any ability to steer away at Apple's checkout.
Not the DMA, not the Open App Markets bill, not Gonzalez-Rogers, not Spotify.

 

[Kal Madda]

Their concepts of fairness might start with belies like this:

• A direct competitor should not leverage their market power in another market (operating systems) to demand 30% commission without providing a service.

It's not about devices. There's healthy competition on the market for smartphones. It's about operating systems - where customers can't just "buy any other alternative". None of the other options provide the baseline of functionality and third-party apps expected by consumers in developed markets.


Apple allowed it as a response to potential competition - which in turn was enabled only by the DMA.
Anything else is in my opinion a gross denial of reality and cause and effect. We could argue that "nothing has ever got do with anything, it's all just speculative - but that's not constructive. You might also provide a more reasonable explanation for Apple's sudden shift in policy but there is none. And "oh, they simply reconsidered after 15 years from the good of their hearts without the DMA being the reason isn't".

Said Bloomberg "It hardly seems coincidental that Apple would have a eureka about emulators on the eve of one rolling out in a rival app marketplace. (An Apple spokesperson did not provide an explanation for the timing of the rule change.)"


The only "other" platform with relevant marketshare to even remotely rival Apple's (for apps and in-app transactions) is Google Play. Which has similar pricing and similar rules.

And no, it wouldn't simply draw users with them - when they are more or less firmly locked in due to their hardware purchase - and there are substitute apps or services on Apple's store (often provided by Apple themselves).

They hold few to no cards at all.

All developers together - or at least a "critical mass" of developers leaving iOS together - at the same time would absolutely crater not only Apple's App Store - but their iPhone hardware business as well.

One developer on its own, or even several? No. They can be replaced, their apps be substituted. Apple can (and does) play them off against each other. Let alone the fact that the coordination required for massive developer exodus would probably be considered illegal.


It absolutely is. In Europe as well as in the U.S. Monopolies are regulated or broken apart.


Which is way access to their property isn't free (there's a developer subscription).
And 30% commission for providing no service or otherwise restricting their capability to communicate and transact with customers is of course anticompetitive.

Yes 👍

And it's a serious misconception that only government intervention makes markets unfree. When a company controls access to a market (such as the Apple/Google duopoly for operating systems/APIs), it's companies that prevent the markets from being truly free.

Insurmountable entry barriers make markets unfree.

A. Apple does provide a service: access to their property. The ability to create a booth on their property. With the terms that vendors will pay a percentage-based commission on sales generated through that booth. It’s well within Apple’s rights to do so, it’s their property.

B. There are other operating systems available, and if developers thought Apple’s terms were too bad, they could simply move their software to those other platforms. Developers could even support other platforms with their apps even if they planned to stay with Apple’s platform as well. Again, you make the faulty argument that developers are held hostage, yet then claim that customers are held hostage to Apple’s platform because apps (made by developers) aren’t available on other platforms. These are contradictory.

C. You’re merely speculating about it, and continue to try to deflect from the main points at hand…

D. There are many other alternative platforms available, and app developers could choose to make them more popular by moving their apps to those platforms if they wished to. And as things are, alternatives are perfectly fine for many users. Android, HarmonyOS, Linux, there are many alternatives. And basically all of the alternatives can also emulate any Android app.

There’s also PWAs. PWAs usually behave nearly identically to native apps in most regards, but are booths hosted on the web (a public space) so Apple and/or Google don’t collect any commission on sales brought in by them. The web is the public square adjacent to Apple’s property. Vendors who don’t wish to pay commissions on sales from booths placed on Apple’s property can always choose to place their booths on the public square… Especially for streaming services, there really isn’t a reason streaming services cannot make use of the web and access customers on every platform… As NVIDIA GeForce Now and others have proven…

E. It absolutely would in many cases. Perhaps not immediately, but many would inevitably switch over. Here’s the problem. You argue on one hand that “smartphones are essential because apps”. Then you argue “Apple is crushing devs, and they have no recourse”. Then you argue “customers are held hostage because apps aren’t available on some other platforms.” The problem is, these ideas cannot and do not coexist unless one is trying to overlook the obvious logical problems with all of these adjacent claims. First, Developers obviously do have a recourse, and it is to distribute their apps on other platforms, whether it be via another OS, marketplace, or the web (where iPhone users could even still access it). You’ve argued that apps are critical, and users will go to the platforms that provide said apps (which you claim are limited to iOS and Android). But that means that if developers choose to move their apps to other platforms, say the web, then users will likely follow there, since you argue that users are “trapped” to those platforms currently due to apps. If apps moved over, then the same users would move with them. Furthermore, it would not require “all apps” or even a majority of apps moving over for consumers to move with them. Many consumers are more tolerant of switching OS as long as it’s relatively similar vs switching to completely different alternative apps, since they spend more time in apps then they do on the Home Screen, etc. They’re already familiar with those apps, and have either already paid for them, or are paying a subscription for them, which further reduces the odds of them switching to an alternative app… And developers can also provide discounts and other incentives to entice users to continue to use their services…

They absolutely could leave if they so chose, and they do hold all of the cards, since you’ve argued “apps are critical”, and that “consumers are held hostage to those platforms due to app availability”, which is completely in the hands of developers. At the very least, developers should be the villain in your story rather than Apple, since they’re apparently trapping consumers to choose either Apple or Android… But the fact remains, developers hold all the cards here…

F. It is absolutely not… This is well outside the scope of proper government authority to tell businesses they can’t collect a percentage-based commission on revenue brought in from a vendor’s booth set up on their property… I don’t believe in Socialism or Communism. The government has zero business dictating to private businesses what percentages they can charge other companies for their services… And we’ve already firmly established Apple is not a “monopoly”, not even close…

G. Government interference with the free market automatically makes the market unfree… The free market should be picking winners and losers, not governments… Free market should determine what percentage commissions developers are willing to pay to make use of another’s platform, not government… The moment government touches the market, it ceases to be free… And all that government regulation ever does is make it harder for newcomers to the market, not easier. It adds to the excess bloat of out-of-bounds regulations and bureaucratic red-tape… It adds to an overreaching government’s always growing, unregulated overreach and power… It is the very enemy of the free market… It is not companies that make the market unfree, it’s overreaching governments trying to force edicts upon companies…

Out of control governments abusing power and trying to impose arbitrary and inconsistent edicts onto the market make a market unfree…

 

[Kal Madda]

They don't. They're estimated to command about half of the market for app spending (in money, even in Europe).


No by law - but by market forces.
Developing a mainstream dating app, for instance, it's just not viable to ignore Apple's platform.

...if you want to be in the market at all, of course.
But there's pretty much consensus that mobile apps are an important and useful market.


No, because there's no guarantee or legal provision that makes Android remain that alternative.
And also, it would be unfair to regulate Android any different than Apple.

Neither does a real life physical store charge commissions on future purchases directly made from a product's manufacturer. Or prohibit that manufacturer from communicating with consumers.

And that’s nowhere near being a monopoly…. You’d have to have quite a bit more than half…

Developers control the market forces, since they hold the cards, and can attract users to a platform or not… They hold the cards…

There are also Linux phones and a variety of other alternative options out there. So nobody has to rely on Android being open, or closing.

And oh, I see, so it would be unfair to regulate Android differently than Apple, but not say, Nintendo, Target, Walmart, or even Spotify. Because Spotify doesn’t provide me with free access to publish music on their platform without paying a commission. A quick Google search would reveal that artists pay a 30% commission to Spotify on revenue brought in from their music. Hey, just like Apple! And unlike Apple, who has a reduced 15% commission for smaller devs, Spotify seems to collect this commission from all music artists using their platform… It’s my album! Once users “leave the checkout” when they sign up for Spotify, Spotify shouldn’t be collecting a 30% commission on revenue brought in from my song in my album, right?…

These aren’t “future purchases directly from a products manufacturer.” This is revenue from another businesses booth on Apple’s real-estate. Installing the Spotify app from the App Store isn’t purchasing it, it’s merely akin to walking up to the booth. When you purchase the product in the booth (in-app purchase of the service), that transaction is occurring on Apple’s property (iOS), not public property or their own property (the web or their own store/platform). A few vendors are trying to cheat and not pay commissions by taking customers away from their booth to the street to pay them directly, and then try to claim “oh, we don’t have to pay commissions on that revenue, even though we’re using a booth on your property because we took customers to another location to pay!” But that’s not how that works…

If vendors don’t want to pay commissions for a booth on another’s property, they have recourse. They can choose to buy their own property, and set up shop their, or they can choose to use a public space set up for that sort of thing, like the web…

 

[Kal Madda]

It's not.

When the Spotify app has been installed on my phone, it has already been checked out from Apple's store.

No one demands any ability to steer away at Apple's checkout.
Not the DMA, not the Open App Markets bill, not Gonzalez-Rogers, not Spotify.

But the product has not been purchased. So a commission is still due to Apple…

Because installing an app is merely akin to walking up to the vendor’s booth in many cases. No product has been purchased. Once you actually purchase the products or services from the booth, then Apple collects a commission, as they should…

And yes, some apps are demanding the ability to steer away from Apple’s checkout or try to skirt paying commissions on revenue from the booth they’ve set up on Apple’s property by trying to claim that if they walk the customer onto the road, or put up signs in their booth telling customers to pay them directly later somewhere else, then they somehow magically no longer owe Apple a commission for the revenue, while they’re meanwhile using Apple’s property to facilitate those transactions…

 

[CarlJ]

These devices are all just computers.

Exactly why owners of these computers should be able to install software from any sources they prefer.

The difference is, in the case of an iPhone, you bought a device that is well known for operating in a closed ecosystem, and that was part of the agreement when you bought it. Now you're trying to renegotiate the contract, and since the other party doesn't want to renegotiate (and is not obligated to), you're calling in the government to force them to do so.

People who want greater control over what software runs on their computers - in this case, the iPhone - have an easy and clear alternative: buy an Android phone. It's not like they're hard to obtain or cost 10x what an iPhone does. It imposes no burden on the prospective phone buyer to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone. And if you bought an iPhone, with its well-known closed ecosystem, but wanted an open ecosystem, well, that's on you.

There are two well-established ecosystems, Apple's closed one and Android's open one, and buyers are free to choose either, and many choose Apple's design quite intentionally. Forcing Apple's system to work like Android's is not adding choice, it's removing choice.

If you lived in a town where there are were flavors of ice cream, chocolate and vanilla, and someone came along and made a law that vanilla ice cream now had to have chocolate added to it, that's not improving choice, that's removing choice, even if you think chocolate is better.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The difference is, in the case of an iPhone, you bought a device that is well known for operating in a closed ecosystem, and that was part of the agreement when you bought it. Now you're trying to renegotiate the contract, and since the other party doesn't want to renegotiate (and is not obligated to), you're calling in the government to force them to do so.

A few things:

1. I'm not doing anything, the EU is.
2. As time evolves, so should how things work. That's sort of at the crux of what the EU is saying here.
3. I respect you and your opinions as well as those of others in this thread. I may disagree with many of you, but I respect your differing viewpoints.

At this point I'm going to agree to disagree and move on, as I have nothing more to say on this particular topic at this time. I'm sure something will come up in a future thread and I'll reengage there. Page 24 on this is about my limit. haha.

Cheers to all!

 

[Kal Madda]

A few things:

1. I'm not doing anything, the EU is.
2. As time evolves, so should how things work. That's sort of at the crux of what the EU is saying here.
3. I respect you and your opinions as well as those of others in this thread. I may disagree with many of you, but I respect your differing viewpoints.

At this point I'm going to agree to disagree and move on, as I have nothing more to say on this particular topic at this time. I'm sure something will come up in a future thread and I'll reengage there. Page 24 on this is about my limit. haha.

Cheers to all!

View attachment 2528336

I respect you and your opinions (though I disagree with them) as well, cheers to you too. 👍🏻

 

[CarlJ]

Which is way access to their property isn't free (there's a developer subscription).
And 30% commission for providing no service or otherwise restricting their capability to communicate and transact with customers is of course anticompetitive.

The current developer subscription is priced at the price point it holds, in conjunction with the 15%/30% commission on sales of apps, IAPs, and subscriptions. If you force them to remove the commission, then it would be entirely reasonable for them to raise the yearly developer subscription fee, now that you've made that the only remuneration for running the store, hosting downloads and cloud services, developing the OS, the APIs and frameworks, and development tools, and other such costs. So, what if they instead go to a developer subscription cost of $1 million per year?

Of course, it doesn't scale to the amount of business a given developer does through the store, but it will definitely be a win for all those huge software developers you champion. Though we'd lose most of the bottom 80% of developers - someone making $10k or even $100k a year off writing iOS software wouldn't be able to pay the fee. Currently, those developers get a pretty decent deal, their cost is based on how much they use the services (essentially "pay as you go"), but you want to get rid of that.

So, would that work better for you? Get rid of all those commissions. And make sure big companies like Epic and Spotify get lots more money.

The alternative you have in mind, by the way, where Apple does all the work they do now, and provide all the services they do now, but they only get $99/year from each developer (whether they're Spotify, or that guy with one $5 app that gets 20 sales a year) - that model is entirely unsustainable. If the commissions go away, the developer membership is going to have to go way up in price.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does provide a service: access to their property. The ability to create a booth on their property

That is not a service. It's seeking of rent.

There are other operating systems available, and if developers thought Apple’s terms were too bad, they could simply move their software to those other platforms

They have negligible market share and you know it. And that's why developers aren't moving to them.

You’re merely speculating about it, and continue to try to deflect from the main points at hand…

No - I made a reasonable argument based on observation and deduction (and it is shared by others).
You made no reasonable counterarguments against it whatsoever.

There are many other alternative platforms available, and app developers could choose to make them more popular by moving their apps to those platforms if they wished to

Please name two or three - and their market share.

There’s also PWAs. PWAs usually behave nearly identically to native apps in most regards

They don't.

Especially for streaming services, there really isn’t a reason streaming services cannot make use of the web and access customers on every platform

There are. PWA have only very limited caching ability and lack in user experience and reliability. Such as audio streaming to users' home stereo systems/speakers (let alone TVs).

First, Developers obviously do have a recourse, and it is to distribute their apps on other platforms, whether it be via another OS

Distribution on platforms with negligible market share solves nothing - and does nothing to change or challenge Apple's market power.

If apps moved over, then the same users would move with them.

If third-party developers took action of moving over yes, maybe.
That is illusory.

Consumers aren't going to drop their iPhones (or Android phones) that they paid hundreds of dollars/euros for, for another platform that has only 10%, 20% or 50% of the apps they want - when iOS/App Store and Android/Play Store provide for 95%.

Your argument also flies in the face of the increasing market concentration over the last 20 or so years. Which has not only eliminated Blackberry, Symbian, Windows Phone and webOS from contention. But also not brought about meaningful market share for alternative platforms.

They absolutely could leave if they so chose

Theoretically - but not economically feasible.
They'd be making no money in the short to mid-term and simply go bust.

The government has zero business dictating to private businesses what percentages they can charge other companies for their services

Government does it all the time. They do it for cellular service, they do it for payment service.
It benefits consumers and smaller businesses.

Your opinion is based on dogma - not concern for the needs of consumers or other businesses.

And we’ve already firmly established Apple is not a “monopoly”, not even close

They've had a monopoly for distribution of apps to iOS consumers (a relevant submarket of the mobile app market, because iOS users can't "switch" and shop for Android apps in the short to mid-term). And they've operated in a de facto duopoly with Google for mobile apps.

The free market should be picking winners and losers, not governments…

Based on fair competition, which requires low barriers to entry.

It is not companies that make the market unfree, it’s overreaching governments trying to force edicts upon companies…

When a company gains market power, the market fails and isn't free anymore.

Out of control governments abusing power

You should ask yourself why regulation for mobile app markets is gaining traction around the world. In the U.S., the EU, Japan, Korea, Brazil, the U.K.

Feel free to subscribe to your unshakable belief that all of these governments are jurisdictions are "out of control" and abusing their power. That opinion isn't shared by everyone.

Developers control the market forces, since they hold the cards, and can attract users to a platform or not

Single developers can't.
These markets are highly asymmetric (Apple and Google in a duopoly, facing tens of thousands of developers).

This is revenue from another businesses booth on Apple’s real-estate.

It's not. Spotify's or Epic's app isn't Apples "real estate". And if it comes to real estate, very rarely are landlords able to charge a commission on sales. In fact, I don't know of anyone. Does a landlord charge a bank or investment firm that has rented his space commission? They don't.

👉 That is the point that you got wrong earlier:
Apple acts as if all customers as "subjects" that belong to them. And as if all third-party apps belong to them - and the transactions conducted through them.

And that is the thing that needs to stop.

Apple may "rent their space". But smaller businesses need to be empowered to freely do their transactions with their transactions on the space they "rented". Without Apple overreaching and forcing them to do it through Apple. Or extort commissions.

And that's entirely appropriate, given the market share and market power they have.

They can choose to buy their own property

They can't - when Apple and Google have a duopoly on nearly all rental space (customer base).
That's why both of them are being regulated.

But the product has not been purchased

It has. At the price Apple chose to demand (developer subscription plus, surprisingly, zero per download).

Because installing an app is merely akin to walking up to the vendor’s booth in many cases

It's not. I can use many free-to-download with copious functionality.
Or make transactions in them, free of Apple's interference.
Take Uber, for instance: It clearly provides all functionality and transaction processing for the service in-app.

yes, some apps are demanding the ability to steer away from Apple’s checkout

Apple's checkout is in the Apple App Store.
There's a clearly defined checkout with a price-button and purchasing confirmation.
Which works exactly the same for free-to-download apps.

 

[AppliedMicro]

People who want greater control over what software runs on their computers - in this case, the iPhone - have an easy and clear alternative: buy an Android phone

I don't.

Android and the Google Play Store are - objectively - not a trustworthy or acceptable alternative for me.
Neither are they for my mother who has never used Android and whom I might be unable to help.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So, would that work better for you? Get rid of all those commissions. And make sure big companies like Epic and Spotify get lots more money.

Exactly. 👍

Once their app has been downloaded and installed on the iPhone I own, Apple's service has been fulfilled.
When they provide service or entertainment to me and bear all the costs, why shouldn't they keep 100% of revenue?

The local electricity provider doesn't keep 30% of my internet services provider's revenue.
Nor does any of the two keep it from the computer repair and support shop around the corner.
Or the shop's landlord.

 

[CarlJ]

1. I'm not doing anything, the EU is.

Fair point, I should have used "one is" rather than "you are" - it's the opposite of the royal "we", I suppose.

2. As time evolves, so should how things work. That's sort of at the crux of what the EU is saying here.

Evolving how things work is something I can agree with. But retroactively renegotiating contracts between a company and users without the company's agreement/consent doesn't seem like the right way to go about it.

3. I respect you and your opinions as well as those of others in this thread. I may disagree with many of you, but I respect your differing viewpoints.

I respect your opinions too - I don't always agree, but you seem fairly level-headed. Plus, I like your username. Kinda miss the old avatar that matched.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Kinda miss the old avatar that matched.

It comes and goes ... I'll be cycling in more seaplanes again soon 🙂

 

[CarlJ]

Exactly. 👍

Once their app has been downloaded and installed on the iPhone I own, Apple's service has been fulfilled.
When they provide service or entertainment to me and bear all the costs, why shouldn't they keep 100% of revenue?

Great! You've now just eliminated the bottom 90% of the iOS app development market! Only the big boys will be able to pay the large fixed fee to gain entry to the App Store.

Wait, wasn't part of your argument something about the store not being fair to app developers? Well, I guess that they're now all out of a job, they are no longer subject to unfairness from Apple. So, good work!

But you insisted on shifting from an effective sliding scale charge based on how much they used the store (membership + commissions), to a flat fee for everyone, so both Spotify and Joe Programmer have an equal opportunity to pay $1 million to get access to the store. Problem solved, I guess.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Only the big boys will be able to pay the large fixed fee to gain entry to the App Store.

The large majority of developers pay only the small fixed fee for access.
And Apple would remain profitable with competitively determined commission rates.
Not even to mention all of the iPhones they're selling as a result of their rich app ecosystem.

There's no need whatsoever to charge a "large" fixed fee to gain entry to the App Store that only the "big boys" can afford.
Microsoft doesn't do it either.

 

[wbeasley]

Great! You've now just eliminated the bottom 90% of the iOS app development market! Only the big boys will be able to pay the large fixed fee to gain entry to the App Store.

Wait, wasn't part of your argument something about the store not being fair to app developers? Well, I guess that they're now all out of a job, they are no longer subject to unfairness from Apple. So, good work!

But you insisted on shifting from an effective sliding scale charge based on how much they used the store (membership + commissions), to a flat fee for everyone, so both Spotify and Joe Programmer have an equal opportunity to pay $1 million to get access to the store. Problem solved, I guess.

and apps get updated hence Apple have an Update/AutoUpdate function that keeps your apps up to date, new features and more secure.

Service.

Something worth money. Because the app dev doesnt need to email everyone or send updates or maintain a webpage with updated apps. Or worse, like the old days, remove boxes from shelves, return them, trash them and distribute updated ones. Huge waste of resources.

Therein lies the ongoing service relation Apple has with devs and users.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Service.

Something worth money.

They happily do it for Uber at no cost.

And all of the other free-to-download apps.
Banking apps etc. (which are quite regularly updated).

I'm not opposed to Apple charging them - as long as they're charging them nondiscriminatory.

 

[AppliedMicro]

(double post)

 

[AppliedMicro]

Gatekeepers that treat everything as "their turf and property", imposing 30% (or whatever unilaterally set) commission rates on everyone else, have become the greatest scourge in the history of digital capitalism.

Particularly not when those gatekeepers bear none of the business risk.

Companies charging each other competitive fees for services in competitive markets and being done with it - that is what benefits the economy and consumers.

Piling layers upon layers upon layers of businesses charging each company operating/depending "on" their service 30% commission on "on-top" revenue does not.
What's next? Adobe charging design companies a 30% commission on their revenue?

 

[djphat2000]

No, the existence of Android does not vindicate Apple.

It removes the ability to call Apple a monopoly. And it provides another option. Which in this case actually provides MANY options. From the cheapest price phone to the most expensive options. All on Android.

There's no guarantee that Android and the ecosystem stays "open" (which it isn't so much).

That has nothing to do with Apple's right to be exactly as they have been. A closed platform. When they started off that way when many other companies were around. They didn't change. They simply made a better product that many people preferred to purchase. And developers came aboard when they saw how much money they could make. The rules were agreed to and were clearly cheaper than any physical store would charge for the same thing. Plus the benefit of not ever having to lose out do to thief, or any "hack" of the license or key. None of their software would be ripped off. Every sale was a sale.

And also, both operating systems/ecosystems - having market shares in similar order of magnitude - should be regulated the same way.

So why not regulate every single digital store the same? Why is gaming somehow left out?

Everything else would not be fair and allow for a level playing field between them to compete.

It's not fair when you succeed and then are forced to never do it again. Would any government save Apple if its products were not successful? So why break them because they are successful? They earned it. It wasn't handed to them. They didn't steal it. Nothing wrong with how they got to there current position. Other than the fact that other companies couldn't make a good enough competing product. Other than Android and the dozens of handsets to choose from.

That's the equivalent of saying "if you don't like it, move to Canada".

Ahhh, yeah. That's not a bad analogy. Of which, if you don't like America as the saying goes "Love it or Leave it". People in the US move if they don't like a village/town/city/municipalities/Boroughs/Essex/county/city or state they live in. Leaving the country would be a bit much. But many have done it. In the EU it's even easier to do so. You can live and work in any EU country. Like American can move to different states.

There are other, good reasons why consumers will not want to pick Android.

Then that is their problem. We get to pick from the options we have. Not always the options we wish we had. And if we don't like any of them. We have the freedom to build something more to our liking. Good old entrepreneurship.

 

[djphat2000]

Gatekeepers that treat everything as "their turf and property", imposing 30% (or whatever unilaterally set) commission rates on everyone else, have become the greatest scourge in the history of digital capitalism.

It's still cheaper than any physical store. Stop acting like 30% is some crazy amount of a fee. There is a markup on every product from the time it's mined or thought up to the finished product. NOTHING costs just the raw materials or labor costs to make anything.

Particularly not when those gatekeepers bear none of the business risk.

Reputational risk is real. And has cost companies billions if they fail to keep up their reputation as being a good business. The AppStore always bears the risk that if something bad happens to a customer from it. They and many others will have second thoughts about using it. Many some will never come back. Some will give it another go. But the risk is real.

Companies charging each other competitive fees for services in competitive markets and being done with it - that is what benefits the economy and consumers.

Everything costs what the market will bear. If it is too high, people/companies will look elsewhere. If it's too low, then you drive up demand and maybe run out of supply. But, ititss generally priced at what is expected to be paid.

Piling layers upon layers upon layers of businesses charging each company operating/depending "on" their service 30% commission on "on-top" revenue does not.
What's next? Adobe charging design companies a 30% commission on their revenue?

Last I checked Adobe wasn't cheap to purchase. And is on a subscription. Which is basically the same thing. And what Apple would very like end up doing to developers. Just charging them a very high subscription fee. Not the $99 fee or $299 business fee. It will be depending on what they feel is fair, maybe thousands. And if you want to run a 3rd party store... Millions. The high price of compliance will also deter those that would seek to create "issues" for end users. Not going to join if you have any plans on making malware or damaging the device.

 

[Kal Madda]

That is not a service. It's seeking of rent.

They have negligible market share and you know it. And that's why developers aren't moving to them.

No - I made a reasonable argument based on observation and deduction (and it is shared by others).
You made no reasonable counterarguments against it whatsoever.

Please name two or three - and their market share.

They don't.

There are. PWA have only very limited caching ability and lack in user experience and reliability. Such as audio streaming to users' home stereo systems/speakers (let alone TVs).

Distribution on platforms with negligible market share solves nothing - and does nothing to change or challenge Apple's market power.

If third-party developers took action of moving over yes, maybe.
That is illusory.

Consumers aren't going to drop their iPhones (or Android phones) that they paid hundreds of dollars/euros for, for another platform that has only 10%, 20% or 50% of the apps they want - when iOS/App Store and Android/Play Store provide for 95%.

Your argument also flies in the face of the increasing market concentration over the last 20 or so years. Which has not only eliminated Blackberry, Symbian, Windows Phone and webOS from contention. But also not brought about meaningful market share for alternative platforms.

Theoretically - but not economically feasible.
They'd be making no money in the short to mid-term and simply go bust.


Government does it all the time. They do it for cellular service, they do it for payment service.
It benefits consumers and smaller businesses.

Your opinion is based on dogma - not concern for the needs of consumers or other businesses.

They've had a monopoly for distribution of apps to iOS consumers (a relevant submarket of the mobile app market, because iOS users can't "switch" and shop for Android apps in the short to mid-term). And they've operated in a de facto duopoly with Google for mobile apps.


Based on fair competition, which requires low barriers to entry.

When a company gains market power, the market fails and isn't free anymore.


You should ask yourself why regulation for mobile app markets is gaining traction around the world. In the U.S., the EU, Japan, Korea, Brazil, the U.K.

Feel free to subscribe to your unshakable belief that all of these governments are jurisdictions are "out of control" and abusing their power. That opinion isn't shared by everyone.


Single developers can't.
These markets are highly asymmetric (Apple and Google in a duopoly, facing tens of thousands of developers).


It's not. Spotify's or Epic's app isn't Apples "real estate". And if it comes to real estate, very rarely are landlords able to charge a commission on sales. In fact, I don't know of anyone. Does a landlord charge a bank or investment firm that has rented his space commission? They don't.

👉 That is the point that you got wrong earlier:
Apple acts as if all customers as "subjects" that belong to them. And as if all third-party apps belong to them - and the transactions conducted through them.

And that is the thing that needs to stop.

Apple may "rent their space". But smaller businesses need to be empowered to freely do their transactions with their transactions on the space they "rented". Without Apple overreaching and forcing them to do it through Apple. Or extort commissions.

And that's entirely appropriate, given the market share and market power they have.

They can't - when Apple and Google have a duopoly on nearly all rental space (customer base).
That's why both of them are being regulated.


It has. At the price Apple chose to demand (developer subscription plus, surprisingly, zero per download).


It's not. I can use many free-to-download with copious functionality.
Or make transactions in them, free of Apple's interference.
Take Uber, for instance: It clearly provides all functionality and transaction processing for the service in-app.


Apple's checkout is in the Apple App Store.
There's a clearly defined checkout with a price-button and purchasing confirmation.
Which works exactly the same for free-to-download apps.

A. That absolutely is a service. Because vendors don’t have an inherent right to access Apple’s property. Apple has put in the investment, resources and time to create a platform. They allow developers to make use of their property when they abide by their terms. They charge a percentage-based commission on sales brought in through booths built on their property, just as many other businesses do that allow vendors to use their property… Similar to what even Spotify does, when they charge artists a percentage-based commission on revenue as well…

B. And you claim that the reason consumers are “trapped” to the two most popular platforms is because of app availability, something completely in the hands of developers, not Apple… The reason those platforms are supposedly according to you “unappealing” is because developers haven’t moved their apps over and made them so. So they should be able to change that if they really felt Apple’s terms were so bad… But they aren’t, probably because most developers are fine with Apple’s terms and conditions and it’s only a handful of multimillion dollar apps that want to benefit from Apple’s property and services, but don’t want to pay the commissions due…

C. And I pointed out the fact that emulators existed in the App Store before the DMA. So clearly Apple wasn’t opposed to all emulators, or there wouldn’t have been any. Apple simply updated the phrasing of a clause in their App Store policies. And it was a choice they made of their own free will, not via compulsion by the DMA… Besides, trying to claim that as if it’s some big positive is silly. Who cares, a few people can play games that most aren’t interested in anymore because they’re old…. Big deal. The point is, Apple chose to do that, not the overreaching EU government, and Apple likely would have done that anyways since there were already emulators in the App Store, and with their expanded push into gaming. And it is, again, irrelevant to the actual points at hand…

D. Android, HarmonyOS, Linux, Windows (yes, Windows is still an option, a third party could make a Windows phone similar to how manufacturers are making Windows handheld consoles), etc. And Linux is really more than one option, because there are tons of distros for it that provide different experiences.

E. I can cast audio from a web app to my home stereo perfectly fine. And web apps work great, I use them all the time…

F. Just because governments misbehave often doesn’t mean that they should, or that it is within the proper scope of their authority…

G. My opinion is based on truth, and the best interests of users and businesses. Because first government comes in and tramples on the rights of a business you don’t like, but then they will come after one you do, and all of the resulting issues of such overreach are passed onto the average consumer. It is not merely dogma, it is right vs wrong. We are simply never going to agree on this…

H. That is not a monopoly. That’s like saying Walmart has a monopoly on Walmart products, or Spotify has a monopoly on Spotify music. That’s not a monopoly… And “duopoly” isn’t a thing. I’m not buying it…

I. When their app is installed on Apple’s platform, they are vending on Apple’s platform. Apple didn’t supply all of the drapes, decorations, and wares for their booth, but they provide the ground on which they set the booth up in, and can collect a revenue-based commission on all revenue flowing in from the booth consequently, just as many other businesses…

J. No, Apple merely applies the terms and conditions that developers agreed to when they wanted to set up a booth on Apple’s property… They don’t act as if they own the customers or other businesses, just the platform on which the transaction is occurring…

K. That doesn’t need to stop, Apple should continue to collect commissions for access to their platform, just as many other businesses do…

L. Nope, vendors have no inherent right to set up a booth on another business’s private property. If they choose to do so, the other business is fully entitled to collect a commission on revenue coming in through that booth…

M. They absolutely can, and there’s no “duopoly”. Besides, your “duopoly” argument falls apart because developers are totally capable of changing that. They hold all the cards. So, if anything, the developers are causing this supposed “duopoly”, and could change that at any time by taking their apps elsewhere…

N. It has not. In that case, nothing has been purchased yet, so no revenue has come in from the booth for Apple to collect yet. When the transaction actually occurs inside the booth, then a percentage of that revenue goes to Apple, as it should. When you open the Spotify app, it is still running on iOS, using iOS frameworks (Apple’s property), and still falls under Apple’s terms because they are operating their booth on Apple’s property…

O. That’s the free samples that some vendors provide at their booths to entice you to buy. And apps like Uber are selling a physical product or service, not a digital in-app service or product, we’ve covered this ground before…

P. Vendors using Apple’s property owe Apple a commission for the use of said property. It’s very simple…