Apple Clashes With UK Regulator in Fierce Response to Warning That Could Require It to 'Redesign the iPhone'

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, but this is also about the bigger picture.

If we look at the court data from Epic vs Apple mobile Fortnite revenue accounts for less than 6% whereas consoles were 80% and of that 80%, half was to Sony. Epic 'lost' more money in store fees to Sony than it ever did to Apple. So why sue them?

Sure and it’s been great for users and developers. Microsoft wants to cut the Xbox store takes down to 12%. But the most important difference is that Sony and Microsoft doesn’t allow In game Purchases, only direct store bought things. This removes the ability to sue them. Apple does it differently by allowing in app purchases outside the store.

Apple are the biggest company and the court case would generate the most buzz. Epic doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it but if it could get Apple to capitulate on store fees, Sony etc would have to drop theirs as well and it would cascade over every digital storefront.

Well that would be great leading to more competitive prices and functions. Steam and epic being the best example.

Apple is in the same boat. If it lets that 0.6% sideload (which is still hundreds of millions of users) it cascades.

Still an irrelevant amount for apple. 1%< is not a threat to anyone.

The bigger risk of sideloading on iOS is piracy. There are loads of great premium games and apps on iOS that never see the light of day on Android because of piracy risks. You up that risk and the premium games all go to Apple Arcade, Apple up the sub cost and we get a glut of F2P games and apps looking for their own subs in their place.

That is indeed the biggest threat, but is also an age old problem Easley fixed on iPhones that are always online and doesn’t use physical media. So it’s just an easy server verification to lock if the app is registered to your appleID etc.

If they want to move games to Apple Arcade it’s fine by me, at least it improves the quality available

 

[deevey]

No, but a lot of people buy it and wants to side load by jailbreaking it. But doesn’t buy an android phone.

#1 Very few people buy a brand iPhone with the sole intention of Jailbreaking.
#2 They are not the target audience for iPhones in the first place.

 

[deevey]

Still an irrelevant amount for apple. 1%< is not a threat to anyone.

One in a hundred people with the potential to load the next viral must-have direct download app is ALOT of potentially compromised phones - about 72,000,000!

 

[Timster83]

It's a weird definition of monopoly. 4 companies enter a market each with a 25% share and it's a monopoly? Strange laws from overseas.

"Monopoly" is probably the incorrect word for it. The UK bases things on whether the composition of a market is likely to cause harm to customers and suppliers.

A big example would include the supermarket situation, where the biggest supermarket has around 30% market share and the next two each with 15%-20% share. The entire market is highly regulated to reduce abuses towards suppliers and customers.

Another example here is the mobile network market, where three companies have around 25% each, another has 12% and some smaller operators have less. Very heavily regulated following some customer harm which occurred previously.

With these examples in mind, a market where 2 companies own a market with close to 100% penetration is obviously in scope for regulation.

 

[Marshall73]

And one that many including me would be happy with. Slap it behind a big clear warning, sure. But give the option, like you have on mac.

Would be better to do it like Microsoft does with the Xbox. Put the device in a dev mode that is sandboxed where you can run whatever you like with no access to the iCloud ecosystem, then switch back to normal mode when you have finished playing about with dev mode. On xbox you can do this to run emulators and other bits that Microsoft don't want on their store.

 

[Marshall73]

The Play Store.

That's not a garden, its a sewer: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/xenomorph-teabot-android-trojans

 

[I7guy]

Sure. But it’s likely based on real data, considering it’s rare for anything to get 100%, and is more valuable to have legal frameworks getting in to effect before this is reached to limit harm. Perhaps why many nations doesn’t have laws saying monopoly is illegal or classify it as sim with 100% or close to 100%. UK 25% as their limit, EU Have 0% legally speaking as it’s not defined but practically is around 30-40%

So you agree as you quoted the law it makes little sense in the example I cited.

As I said, it’s luxurious things, it provide a higher status.

No they provide more functionality. People believe all manner of things. I don’t believe leather has more status than cloth. Better to sit on, imo, but not more status.

I can, just because you don’t need anything more advanced doesn’t invalidate the nice to have features, practicality and the want to have a luxurious phones with premium quality and feeling. But don’t pretend it’s anything more than it actually is.

You’re confusing, imo, functions and quality with status. Pretty much a universal truth in the world of mass market consumer goods. Pay more, get more.

Almost no android phone is sold rooted today, and many are just as hard to root as iPhones out of the box. This is an old reality.

No iPhone is sold as jail broken either. People don’t phones because they can be rotted or jail broken as the #1 purchase reason.

I […]

 

[The Phazer]

The bigger risk of sideloading on iOS is piracy. There are loads of great premium games and apps on iOS that never see the light of day on Android because of piracy risks.

Are there? Given Apple's push to turn all games into gambling simulators this doesn't seem to be the case.

One would note that there aren't really any significant "premium" mobile games that aren't also available on the PC.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Are there? Given Apple's push to turn all games into gambling simulators this doesn't seem to be the case.

One would note that there aren't really any significant "premium" mobile games that aren't also available on the PC.

Yes, but I cannot take my PC on the bus or fit it in my pocket.

 

[robco74]

Are there? Given Apple's push to turn all games into gambling simulators this doesn't seem to be the case.

One would note that there aren't really any significant "premium" mobile games that aren't also available on the PC.

It's developers using IAP to turn games into slot machines.

Apple went the other direction by offering Arcade instead. One relatively cheap monthly subscription, no ads, no IAP.

 

[samden]

...

The CMA complaint only intends to open the market to abusive companies with poor security, subscription and ethical considerations.

That's already a problem on iOS...

 

[samden]

Everyone is parroting the line because apple isn’t implementing bleeding edge carnage like chrome and Firefox.

The browser feature set and the www these days is looking like an Indian train at rush hour held together with poop and sticky tape. It’s an absolute garbage fire and people have been sold the line that because more garbage isn’t being throw at the fire that the particular fire isn’t good enough.

Lol, what "bleeding edge carnage"?

 

[IHP]

Apple considers all of its app store data to be '1st party', but lets every app publisher target ads specifically against the other apps by name/category/interest, and then they can still use any data collected from the app store to enable user-specific (or rather - 5000/segment users) in the News feed. How is this any different than Google-Youtube or any other ad network targeting based on interests across media properties? Just because Apple controls the media and marketplace and offers a consent option to accept/decline personalized ads doesn't make their 'tracking' any less privacy-invasive than all the other apps that must request 'tracking' consent from their users. They just spend a lot on privacy branding and building their content fortress, so they expect to be immune from criticism.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I will never understand how consumers could support these attacks on iOS. Android phones are available everywhere, and come in all shapes and sizes. Why wouldn’t you just go buy your dream Android phone and enjoy your “open” OS and leave us alone? Why do you have to encourage government goons to ruin iOS for the rest of us?

Because we don't want Android junk. We want Apple hardware and OS, but without the walled garden. All the things us people want, DO NOT compromise anything for people like you. We just want freedom of choice. This choice will in no way remove your freedom of choice to continue using the Apple App Store, and continue to do everything else in the way you are accustomed to, with the same level of security and privacy you enjoy. But we will also have freedom of choice to sideload, and to have a file system that we can upload and download from. Basically, exactly like macOS, which has the freedom of choice to use the Apple Mac App Store, or to sideload. And has the file system.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

It isn't, though. Sideloading means bypassing the App Store and its inherent security measures, and that has wide-reaching ramifications for both Apple and iPhone owners.

No one will be forcing you to use sideloading, you will be able to continue to exclusively use the Apple App Store. For the rest of us, yes, sideloading simply means "installing", but without Apple nannying us, as we are grown adults, who can handle the risks and consequences of our own choices.

Which is exactly what macOS is. macOS users can exclusively stick to the Apple Mac App Store (with its "inherent security measures, and wide-reaching ramifications") if they prefer. The rest of us Mac users happily sideload to our heart's content, with no harm done to you, or any other Mac users who stick exclusively to the Apple Mac App Store. Apple makes no fuss about it. Users make no fuss about it. Life just carries on happily. If the same was brought to iOS and iPadOS, then you would find that it doesn't even effect you, and you wouldn't even care. You'd just be like, oh, ok, I don't have to change a thing, my phone still works exactly how it did, and I am still safe and secure.

 

[I7guy]

Because we don't want Android junk. We want Apple hardware and OS, but without the walled garden. All the things us people want, DO NOT compromise anything for people like you. We just want freedom of choice. This choice will in no way remove your freedom of choice to continue using the Apple App Store, and continue to do everything else in the way you are accustomed to, with the same level of security and privacy you enjoy. But we will also have freedom of choice to sideload, and to have a file system that we can upload and download from. Basically, exactly like macOS, which has the freedom of choice to use the Apple Mac App Store, or to sideload. And has the file system.

And we want Apple hardware and the OS with the walled garden. And yes, creating a garbage dump of IOS does compromise everything. Freedom of choice === Android. Sideload to your hearts content...just don't expect Apple to help you.

 

[rlhamil]

Why should they? And why should it be related to what Amazon charges? Why not relate in-app purchase commissions to what similar companies in similar industries charge? Here's some info on what they were charging in 2021.

You don't know Apple's costs. You don't know how much they spend on running, maintaining and improving the App Store, Xcode, Developer websites, security, etc. You don't know how much they pay to employ staff to review apps, market them, deal with developer queries, improve Xcode and the other developer apps, or how much they pay their legal team to sort out contracts and tax agreements.

15% might give them a little profit, they might break even, and they might make a lot of profit, but that's up to them - it's their business/ If they make no money on it they have to cover all these costs through other revenue and profits.

If they were charging 50% then yeah you might have a point.

In the sense that they CAN charge whatever they please, you're right. A seller should be able to charge anything, and a buyer choose to go somewhere else if they don't want to pay that. And governments should not get involved, unless someone claims that a signed contract was violated.

But Apple wants to win arguments with regulation-crazed governments like the UK or the EU or potentially even the US anymore, they should probably charge not much more than enough to cover costs for handling in-app purchases, and avoid any appearance of heavy charges to 3rd-party sellers on things they also provide a channel for (media, ebooks, etc). That way they can show that they're not being anti-competitive or restricting choices or whatever (not to mention that it is a PITA to have to e.g. buy those ebooks you can only get on Kindle through the web rather than through the app - but Amazon understandably doesn't want to either charge more on the platform or suffer a 30% bite). Otherwise they end up with competing app stores, and THAT could damage the brand, because they may not all uphold standards of privacy or security.

 

[darkpaw]

In the sense that they CAN charge whatever they please, you're right. A seller should be able to charge anything, and a buyer choose to go somewhere else if they don't want to pay that. And governments should not get involved, unless someone claims that a signed contract was violated.

But Apple wants to win arguments with regulation-crazed governments like the UK or the EU or potentially even the US anymore, they should probably charge not much more than enough to cover costs for handling in-app purchases, and avoid any appearance of heavy charges to 3rd-party sellers on things they also provide a channel for (media, ebooks, etc). That way they can show that they're not being anti-competitive or restricting choices or whatever (not to mention that it is a PITA to have to e.g. buy those ebooks you can only get on Kindle through the web rather than through the app - but Amazon understandably doesn't want to either charge more on the platform or suffer a 30% bite). Otherwise they end up with competing app stores, and THAT could damage the brand, because they may not all uphold standards of privacy or security.

Right, but we don't know what Apple's costs are. People keep saying 30% is too much, and now most developers pay 15%, people say that's too much. They do not know Apple's costs. We do not know Apple's costs, and for us to pick a figure out of the air seems wrong. Apple is charging what every other company is charging.

 

[rlhamil]

Right, but we don't know what Apple's costs are. People keep saying 30% is too much, and now most developers pay 15%, people say that's too much. They do not know Apple's costs. We do not know Apple's costs, and for us to pick a figure out of the air seems wrong. Apple is charging what every other company is charging.

...but there can be multiple app store equivalents for Android, but only one for iOS, iPadOS etc. If they want to defend that (IMO beneficial, in terms of being able to enforce privacy and security standards) against authoritarian regulators and activists, they need to put forward the best offer that doesn't hurt them (give or take a buffer for dealing with future jerks), not the same as everyone else.

I don't think you can reasonably suppose Apple's costs are near 30% for in-app purchases; that would be nearly 10x the higher end of the fee that credit card transaction processors charge merchants. Apple may need to do some expansion/upgrade/support of data centers to keep up with in-app purchase support, but for that kind of markup, they could be building Skynet.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Right, but we don't know what Apple's costs are. People keep saying 30% is too much, and now most developers pay 15%, people say that's too much. They do not know Apple's costs. We do not know Apple's costs, and for us to pick a figure out of the air seems wrong. Apple is charging what every other company is charging.

The thing is apple haven’t provided evidence that 15-30% is needed to support the store. Epic provided evidence that any fees above 3% is likely profitable, apple counter argued that it’s wrong but don’t know the revenue the AppStore brings in compared to costs. They didn’t feel the need to keep track.

 

[I7guy]

The thing is apple haven’t provided evidence that 15-30% is needed to support the store. Epic provided evidence that any fees above 3% is likely profitable, apple counter argued that it’s wrong but don’t know the revenue the AppStore brings in compared to costs. They didn’t feel the need to keep track.

Apple doesn't have to provide any proof of what it costs. Nobody is asking Ferrari what it's net profit is. Nobody is asking or regulating Costcos' net profit. It's none of anybody's business. Use the platform or not. Only socialists would want to regulate these fees in a product supported for a consumer facing company that mass produces products for it's customers. There that, needed to be said.

 

[usagora]

In this case it would result in several million British tutting loudly, then joining the queue for an Android device in an orderly manner.

Which would just prove there was no need to try to force Apple to allow side-loading, since these consumers could've done that at any point, including right now, if they don't like how Apple controls iOS.

 

[usagora]

Nonsense. Apple is worried about their bottom line, period. Any other “concerns” they have are purely profit driven.

So...then why do they continue to allow side-loading on macOS devices once the App Store for macOS was introduced? I realize the market share of Macs is much smaller than iPhones, but it would still pad their bottom line further, right? So I'm not so sure I buy the "it's all about profit" argument. In any case, I don't see anything wrong even if that IS a motive (or even THE motive) for resisting allowing side-loading for iOS. Businesses exist to make a profit. Governments need to butt out of these matters. As has been stated over and over again, consumers already have choices besides iOS devices and so do developers.

 

[SactoGuy18]

In the end, the best solution is to allow multiple app stores, but every one has to comply with a single, strict security guideline. That way, game publishers and even Amazon can have their own app stores.

 

[Smearbrick]

So...then why do they continue to allow side-loading on macOS devices once the App Store for macOS was introduced? I realize the market share of Macs is much smaller than iPhones, but it would still pad their bottom line further, right? So I'm not so sure I buy the "it's all about profit" argument. In any case, I don't see anything wrong even if that IS a motive (or even THE motive) for resisting allowing side-loading for iOS. Businesses exist to make a profit. Governments need to butt out of these matters. As has been stated over and over again, consumers already have choices besides iOS devices and so do developers.

iOS has always been a closed system. MacOS, on the other hand, allowed installs from other locations. I can’t imagine it would be great PR for them to suddenly shut down installs outside the App Store on MacOS under the guise of security. It’s easier to claim this on iOS because it’s never been officially open.