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

[wbeasley]

The local shopping centre both charges tenants rent for the space AND a percent of their takings.

bottom line: 15-30% is significantly cheaper than what retail space is/was for selling software.

when you add in all the parts from dev tools, to infrastructure, to marketing, payments and refunds and updates ...

bargain!!!

 

[theluggage]

The local shopping centre both charges tenants rent for the space AND a percent of their takings.

bottom line: 15-30% is significantly cheaper than what retail space is/was for selling software.

when you add in all the parts from dev tools, to infrastructure, to marketing, payments and refunds and updates ...

bargain!!!

Good argument, if the situations were exactly alike - and I think the App Store developer charges are very reasonable for smaller developers who don't have the resources and economies of scale to get better deals on promotion, distribution and payment processing.

...but if a new shopping centre down the road opens up and charges lower rents and/or percentage then tenants are free to move there - and there's a good chance that their customers will follow - yes, some people won't set foot out of their preferred mall but it's no big deal for a customer to say "hey, I'll give that new mall a go today and if I don't like it I can go back!". It's not like visiting two different shopping centres on a shopping trip is particularly unthinkable.

If the mall owners ever get greedy and charge so much that it's cheaper for tenants to buy their own shops, or set up their own webshop and sell their goods direct to the public, they are free to do so, and that also keeps a downward pressure on what the mall can charge.

Or if the mall owner suddenly says "Hey, we've got our own brand batteries, your products must use them exclusively" or "We've got our own-brand beans, you can't chage less for your beans" or "If you sell your customer a camera from your concession then you have to make them buy film "we've decided your store no longer reflects the mission and principles of MallCorp, bye bye!" then tenants can take their product, as-is, to another outlet.

...and if MallCo ends up owning too high a percentage of the malls in the country, there are laws to prevent them abusing that position (if not very well enforced). But what "too high" means assumes all of the above alternative routes... And, no, folks, even those laws don't require a literal monopoly or duopoly to cut in.

Currently, if you're an iOS/iPadOS developer, the App Store is the only outlet anywhere and there's no alternative distribution route. You can "switch" to Android - but that can involve major re-tooling for you to *produce* an android version, and a major upheaval for your customers, who would typically have to buy a whole new phone, learn to use it and find alternatives for all of their apps.

The two situations are not the same, and what comprises a "dominant position" is not the same. Developers and customers may have the illusion of choice, but exercising those choices comes with huge expense and inconvenience - you can't apply the same reasoning as you would to someone deciding which box of breakfast cereal to buy today.

 

[Kal Madda]

Good argument, if the situations were exactly alike - and I think the App Store developer charges are very reasonable for smaller developers who don't have the resources and economies of scale to get better deals on promotion, distribution and payment processing.

...but if a new shopping centre down the road opens up and charges lower rents and/or percentage then tenants are free to move there - and there's a good chance that their customers will follow - yes, some people won't set foot out of their preferred mall but it's no big deal for a customer to say "hey, I'll give that new mall a go today and if I don't like it I can go back!". It's not like visiting two different shopping centres on a shopping trip is particularly unthinkable.

If the mall owners ever get greedy and charge so much that it's cheaper for tenants to buy their own shops, or set up their own webshop and sell their goods direct to the public, they are free to do so, and that also keeps a downward pressure on what the mall can charge.

Or if the mall owner suddenly says "Hey, we've got our own brand batteries, your products must use them exclusively" or "We've got our own-brand beans, you can't chage less for your beans" or "If you sell your customer a camera from your concession then you have to make them buy film "we've decided your store no longer reflects the mission and principles of MallCorp, bye bye!" then tenants can take their product, as-is, to another outlet.

...and if MallCo ends up owning too high a percentage of the malls in the country, there are laws to prevent them abusing that position (if not very well enforced). But what "too high" means assumes all of the above alternative routes... And, no, folks, even those laws don't require a literal monopoly or duopoly to cut in.

Currently, if you're an iOS/iPadOS developer, the App Store is the only outlet anywhere and there's no alternative distribution route. You can "switch" to Android - but that can involve major re-tooling for you to *produce* an android version, and a major upheaval for your customers, who would typically have to buy a whole new phone, learn to use it and find alternatives for all of their apps.

The two situations are not the same, and what comprises a "dominant position" is not the same. Developers and customers may have the illusion of choice, but exercising those choices comes with huge expense and inconvenience - you can't apply the same reasoning as you would to someone deciding which box of breakfast cereal to buy today.

And basically you highlight the reasons why your argument falls apart… Because it is exactly the same in principle as a mall or shopping center, with vendors paying percentage rent… And iOS/iPadOS developers do have recourse…

iOS/iPadOS is only one mall of many different options out there. It is not the only mall. That would be like claiming “Big City Shopping Center” is the only “Big City Shopping Center” mall available for vendors. And? There are many other shopping centers available… And yes, it wouldn’t be convenient to pull up shop, pack up all of your wares, try to make customers aware of your new location, etc. that’s all extremely inconvenient. But it is absolutely recourse, and vendors can and do do it when they feel the terms aren’t worthwhile. And developers can do exactly the same… There are many alternative distribution routes.

They are absolutely the same in principle. You don’t think it comes with large expense and inconvenience packing up your wares, trying to negotiate new rent at a new shopping center, or buy a parcel of property to build your own store, hauling all your wares to the new location, decorating and branding your new location, planning the layout of the new location, trying to make shoppers aware of your new location, etc.? Of course that is difficult and inconvenient. But not everything is easy and convenient, especially for businesses. Business involves a lot of difficulties and inconveniences. It’s not a walk in the park…

 

[theluggage]

iOS/iPadOS is only one mall of many different options out there.

...and that's where you and I are apparently living on different planets, because even switching between iOS and Android is a major upheaval for both developers and users, and, even if they do switch, the App Store and the Play Store are where most people need to shop if they want Apps for the main shopping/banking/social networking services. The existence of a few niche Unix phones, "Google free" Android phones (that Google have already tried to drive out of the market with anti-competitive practices) or the theoretical option of importing something from China (with all the security issues that brings) doesn't equate to a viable alternative for the majority of consumers.

But then the extreme "free market capitalism" mindset has always depended on believing in the illusion of choice, and pretending that any complicated transaction can be equated to choosing the cheapest bag of sugar.

Or maybe some people didn't experience what an uphill, expensive, struggle it could be back in the 90s/early 00s if you wanted to use anything other than a "Wintel" PC - and certainly anything other than a Mac with MS Office, IE, Photoshop etc. - as anything more than a hobby. Yet there were always "other options available"... For many, the only thing that made the Mac viable was that Microsoft kept supporting Office and Internet Explorer on Mac primarily to support their argument that Windows wasn't a monopoly...

The point of market regulation should be to prevent that sort of situation from happening again - not waiting until there really is a literal monopoly and then trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube...

 

[tranceme]

Yes - after Apple had to allow sideloading, they reversed their original ban on them.
Rather than let alternative stores become popular for them, they preferred keeping that business themselves.
It‘s a result of EU regulation.


There are simply no alternatives to Apple‘s iOS/App Store and Google‘s Android/Play Store that satisfy the demand and and functionality consumers expect. Do you talk to normal people at all? Do you know any normal people that have a smartphone arbutus use neither of those stores? Would you recommend options that don‘t use either of these stores to your family?

You can sideload with Google for years. My dad is turning 90 this year and knows this. And, non iOS manufactures can make their own devices and have their own stores. But, none of this matters. We are talking about iOS. You lumped IOS and Google together. Google is an alternative to Apple.

 

[wbeasley]

Good argument, if the situations were exactly alike - and I think the App Store developer charges are very reasonable for smaller developers who don't have the resources and economies of scale to get better deals on promotion, distribution and payment processing.

...but if a new shopping centre down the road opens up and charges lower rents and/or percentage then tenants are free to move there - and there's a good chance that their customers will follow - yes, some people won't set foot out of their preferred mall but it's no big deal for a customer to say "hey, I'll give that new mall a go today and if I don't like it I can go back!". It's not like visiting two different shopping centres on a shopping trip is particularly unthinkable.

If the mall owners ever get greedy and charge so much that it's cheaper for tenants to buy their own shops, or set up their own webshop and sell their goods direct to the public, they are free to do so, and that also keeps a downward pressure on what the mall can charge.

Or if the mall owner suddenly says "Hey, we've got our own brand batteries, your products must use them exclusively" or "We've got our own-brand beans, you can't chage less for your beans" or "If you sell your customer a camera from your concession then you have to make them buy film "we've decided your store no longer reflects the mission and principles of MallCorp, bye bye!" then tenants can take their product, as-is, to another outlet.

...and if MallCo ends up owning too high a percentage of the malls in the country, there are laws to prevent them abusing that position (if not very well enforced). But what "too high" means assumes all of the above alternative routes... And, no, folks, even those laws don't require a literal monopoly or duopoly to cut in.

Currently, if you're an iOS/iPadOS developer, the App Store is the only outlet anywhere and there's no alternative distribution route. You can "switch" to Android - but that can involve major re-tooling for you to *produce* an android version, and a major upheaval for your customers, who would typically have to buy a whole new phone, learn to use it and find alternatives for all of their apps.

The two situations are not the same, and what comprises a "dominant position" is not the same. Developers and customers may have the illusion of choice, but exercising those choices comes with huge expense and inconvenience - you can't apply the same reasoning as you would to someone deciding which box of breakfast cereal to buy today.

the tennants always move out when rents get too high.
even government services move around when they get pushed too far by a greedy landlord.
they dont buy their own shop.
the point of one stop shopping centres is the one stop part...

there does not NEED to be an alternative app store at all.
please tell me what app you want that isnt in the store now?

 

[wbeasley]

...and that's where you and I are apparently living on different planets, because even switching between iOS and Android is a major upheaval for both developers and users, and, even if they do switch, the App Store and the Play Store are where most people need to shop if they want Apps for the main shopping/banking/social networking services. The existence of a few niche Unix phones, "Google free" Android phones (that Google have already tried to drive out of the market with anti-competitive practices) or the theoretical option of importing something from China (with all the security issues that brings) doesn't equate to a viable alternative for the majority of consumers.

But then the extreme "free market capitalism" mindset has always depended on believing in the illusion of choice, and pretending that any complicated transaction can be equated to choosing the cheapest bag of sugar.

Or maybe some people didn't experience what an uphill, expensive, struggle it could be back in the 90s/early 00s if you wanted to use anything other than a "Wintel" PC - and certainly anything other than a Mac with MS Office, IE, Photoshop etc. - as anything more than a hobby. Yet there were always "other options available"... For many, the only thing that made the Mac viable was that Microsoft kept supporting Office and Internet Explorer on Mac primarily to support their argument that Windows wasn't a monopoly...

The point of market regulation should be to prevent that sort of situation from happening again - not waiting until there really is a literal monopoly and then trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube...

it can't be that big a hurdle. plenty of tools to create apps for both OSes easily. they arent that different.

most of the big name apps are available in both OS stores.
and many smaller ones.

using words like "literal monopoly" is silly.
even EU knows and admits iOS is a minority OS and another viable (and popular) OS exists.
hence the "gatekeeper" term.

 

[Fara82Light]

t

he fines arent going to consumers...

It does not matter if the fines do not go to consumers.

 

[wbeasley]

It does not matter if the fines do not go to consumers.

but but but.... all this is to "help the consumers". hahaha

it's cash grab. simple

 

[Kal Madda]

...and that's where you and I are apparently living on different planets, because even switching between iOS and Android is a major upheaval for both developers and users, and, even if they do switch, the App Store and the Play Store are where most people need to shop if they want Apps for the main shopping/banking/social networking services. The existence of a few niche Unix phones, "Google free" Android phones (that Google have already tried to drive out of the market with anti-competitive practices) or the theoretical option of importing something from China (with all the security issues that brings) doesn't equate to a viable alternative for the majority of consumers.

But then the extreme "free market capitalism" mindset has always depended on believing in the illusion of choice, and pretending that any complicated transaction can be equated to choosing the cheapest bag of sugar.

Or maybe some people didn't experience what an uphill, expensive, struggle it could be back in the 90s/early 00s if you wanted to use anything other than a "Wintel" PC - and certainly anything other than a Mac with MS Office, IE, Photoshop etc. - as anything more than a hobby. Yet there were always "other options available"... For many, the only thing that made the Mac viable was that Microsoft kept supporting Office and Internet Explorer on Mac primarily to support their argument that Windows wasn't a monopoly...

The point of market regulation should be to prevent that sort of situation from happening again - not waiting until there really is a literal monopoly and then trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube...

We’re not living on different planets, we simply have different views about the same world…. Switching between iOS and Android is perfectly doable, there are even apps that make moving between both yet easier, and most of the common apps you’re saying people want/need already exist on both… Most developers have already managed to support both platforms, probably because it’s fairly simple to do, and there are tools out there that streamline that process even further. I don’t buy that this is as difficult for developers or users as you claim, and I have seen people switch between Android and iPhone quite often…

It isn’t an illusion, the choices are real, and many people avail themselves of these said choices. For example, I grew up using only Windows computers. When Windows 10 came out, I tried it, but was constantly having issues with automatic updates causing issues with my computer, and installing when I was trying to work on projects, causing me to lose files. I didn’t like Windows automatic updates, so I decided to switch over to a Mac. Was it different? Sure. Impossible. Not even close. I was able to get a hang of it in a short time period, even though I had zero prior experience with a Mac ever in my life. Other customers can do the exact same thing in the phone market. There are alternative options out there, and I have seen plenty of people switch between them…

There is no literal monopoly, and we’re nowhere close to having one. And beyond that, essentially what these regulations do is force one of the popular options on the market to essentially become like another popular option on the market. It takes away diversity from the market, leaving consumers with less real choices, not more. It would be like in my situation, if government created regulation that forced Macs (and all other systems in the market) to upload automatic updates with no user opt-outs just like on Windows… Then people like me who specifically chose Mac because it didn’t do that would be stuck without options. And the same is true of consumers who specifically chose iOS because of the greater security and privacy offered by Apple’s approach, now they’re essentially stuck with the same lower security and privacy model Android has…