Apple Facing $1 Billion UK Antitrust Lawsuit Over App Store Fees

[kognos]

There are plenty of alternatives: the iPhone only has about 20% of the smartphone market! If you don't like the Apple store, choose Android, Chrome OS, Windows, Linux... or run web-based apps on your iDevice. Most "essential" apps are available for at least Android as well as iOS.

That's not an alternative.

You can't use a historical decision and claim that as defense. Like "well, maybe you shouldn't move to Florida if you didn't like hurricanes.... you had a choice!"

When you live in the Apple ecosystem you have no choice. Apple wants to have a dominant position in the market, and you can't say once Apple has won that position, that the Apple app store is anything fair. It's not. And that's what you have here. There is no easy egress, there is no choice once you're in. And if you take this to its extreme you can easily see that. That's monopolistic behavior, which does not require a monopoly position.

Edit: I still stand behind those other options have choices once you're on those platforms. Apple is the only platform that - once you're on that platform - locks you in. Web-based apps? Don't make me laugh. That's why all the engines are Safari and that particular avenue has been tightened so much as to be pointless. It's not like you're going to see Candy Crush as a web app either.

 

[cocky jeremy]

A bunch of bums wanting something for free. I'm shocked.

 

[Crowbot]

No wonder the students in the UK feel they are getting a raw deal. What utter hypocrisy from some professors in universities that thinks nothing about charging thousands of pounds for a course.

UAE missed its targets for admissions last year by 8p.c. and 21pc the year before and it still made a loss of £13.9m! so just perhaps professors in universities should spend more time teaching, let alone economics where their own university doesn't seem to be able to balance its books.

I wonder if his sense of inequality runs to advising UK government? Hope not as that doesn't seem to have benefited much.

George Bernard Shaw is attributed with the lines ‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’ from Shaw’s 1905 stage play Man and Superman.

Woody Allen: "And those who can't teach, teach Gym."

 

[jlc1978]

The authorities don't agree with you.

Others do:

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile games market, siding with a lower court’s 2021 ruling that largely gave the tech giant a victory in a lawsuit brought by Epic Games.

Alternative: Apple allows 3rd party in-app purchases, in which case every App maker with an ounce of avarice switches to the "freemium" model, leaving Apple with 30% of nothing.

Apple would likely charge hosting and d/l fees to make up for the 30%. Then some developers would whine about that.

The likely result of forcing Apple to allow 3rd party payments and App Stores is that they'll have to hike up the annual fees and lock out a load of small/amateur developers.

They'd also probably institute monthly hosting fees, etc. so developers would be out of pocket before a single sale is made. They may find, once they add up all the costs, that 15-30% at the backend isn't too bad.

 

[klasma]

If it weren't for Apple creating the App store in the first place, those developers would never have sold a thing.

I purchased apps for the Palm handhelds, which didn’t have an app store.

 

[webkit]

If it weren't for Apple creating the App store in the first place, those developers would never have sold a thing.

Similar types of things can be said about a lot of monopolies, duopolies, etc. That's doesn’t mean these companies should be allowed to unfairly use their dominance/market power.

 

[jlc1978]

100% Cheaper? So you mean free? Premium apps free?

Piracy. I remember the jailbreaking heyday when it was relatively easy to get pirated copies of premium apps and developers were all upset over sideloading.

You can download apps from the internet on your Mac... do you see premium apps like Flexbits Calendar or Cardhopper being free? No? What about Keycue, Pixelmator, Photomator, Default Folder X, Lingon X, Hazel, AudioHijack, etc etc? No none of those apps are 100% cheaper. Instead there are subscriptions like Setapp which give you access to premium apps but no you'll NEVER have complete ownership of any of them, even if you have subscribed to Setapp for years and maybe after 10 years when you've paid over 1000$ in subscription fees to them none of those apps you will have used will belong to you.

Subscriptions are a way to combat piracy since you can give the app away but a subscription is needed to make it work. Sideloading is likely to drive an increase in subscription based models as developers find ways to make money in an environment where piracy is a lot easier for the average user. From some things I've read that is why Android has a lot of apps for free that cost a fixed fee on the App Store; to make money on apps that can be more easily pirated.

Developers may find that alternate app stores and sideloading will have some collateral damage and not be teh panecea some think it will. If you're Epic, you'll win, becasue you can forgo teh App Store completely and make you app free on your own store and reach a large customer base. Subscriptions mean piracy is not an issue.

Small developers, OTOH...

 

[klasma]

Suggests to me that this isn't an issue for the majority of consumers.

It’s a big issue for me, but the sum of many other factors still make me opt for an iPhone. The problem is there is a duopoly of only two ecosystems (Android and Apple), but dozens of factors of why one would choose one over the others. The mandatory app store is just one factor of many. There is no platform that fulfills all my wishes, not even remotely, unfortunately.

 

[webkit]

...but its Apples digital mall, they could just shut it down if they wanted to.
There's rent and rules for being tenant - percentage of sales being one, don't sue the mall.

Yes, but there are still laws and regulations for dominant companies/products/services such as Apple with its App Store.

In the UK, Apple/iOS has around 51% share while Google/Android has around 49% share. For tablets, Apple/iPadOS has around 59% share while Google/Android has around 41% share. The success or failure of this lawsuit may depend on how Apple’s dominance is defined.

 

[webkit]

What kind of idiot does it take to believe that Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iPad and iPhone.

I think it's more like a duopoly with Android but how these things are defined can vary.

In the UK, Apple/iOS has around 51% share while Google/Android has around 49%. For tablets, Apple/iPadOS has around 59% share while Google/Android has around 41% share. Whether a monopoly or duopoly, Apple has a dominant position in both markets. The success or failure of this lawsuit may depend on how Apple's dominance is defined.

 

[webkit]

Why aren’t they investigating Amazon which takes 50%! It makes Apple’s fee structure look absolutely inexpensive in comparison. 💸

It's not necessarily just about a fee amount but rather how much dominance a company/product/service has in a particular market and if they offer alternatives (such as no fee sideloading). If Apple had only 25% of the smartphone or tablet OS market (where the App Store resides), for example, it wouldn't likely be an issue. At least not one worthy of a antitrust class action lawsuit such as this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And he was absolutely right. App store is filled with garbage as is; try to find an app from scratch and you'll find yourself sifting through dozens of crappy apps.

Would be the same irrespective of option. Unless no third party apps are allowed.

Nothing prevents app developers from jumping to Android, or passing the cost on to consumers. Nothing. This is a ridiculous lawsuit. if governments want to make the system fair, then they should force Apple to guarantee consumers quality control, transparency, and security for the fees Apple charges.

Everything prevents them. Different customers and different products. They can’t change store how a baker can just sell the exact same product in any store.

 

[visualseed]

It’s mad how little a uk developer sees of any app income.
First take off VAT, then Apples cut, then pay your own personal tax and NI.
You’re lucky to see half of any income for yourself.

Most of those are issues to resolve at the ballot box and not in the courtroom

 

[klasma]

The developers clicked “agree”.

Clicking “agree” on a contract doesn’t by itself imply that the contract is legal (e.g. non-abusive). It’s not uncommon for contracts to be contested and then voided by courts due to inadmissible terms.

And clicking “agree” also doesn’t mean that developers actually consent to the terms. In many cases it just means “I want to develop iOS apps”.

 

[webkit]

They’re not obliged to develop apps for Apple - other operating systems are available.

Just because there are alternatives (e.g., there were alteraitves to Windows in the 1990s too) doesn't necessarily mean dominant companies can do whatever they want or these types of lawsuit aren't justified.

 

[msackey]

I have too long made the point that App store charges to developers are excessive. 15% to 30%? For what? For keeping up with the basic infrastructure which Apple also ultimately depends on to run their iPhone? C'mon!

 

[VulchR]

...
Everything prevents them. Different customers and different products. They can’t change store how a baker can just sell the exact same product in any store.

Rumor has it that CPU's are rather flexible machines - I have programmed at a basic level (scientist) for macOS, Windows, and UNIX for over 4 decades. It's all just all variations on a theme. Plus, App Store developers can simply pass the costs on to consumers, as I mentioned above. This lawsuit is nonsense. I'd love to have a list of the developers in the lawsuit so I can boycott them for threatening the Apple ecosystem and for being prats in general.

Again, the sane approach to the app store fees should be to force companies that charge them to provide something to the consumer in return - quality control, security, and transparency (such as a rating system that cannot be gamed).

 

[klasma]

And how'd that work out for Palm?

Palm’s problem wasn’t lack of apps, or lack of revenue from apps.

 

[I7guy]

Just because there are alternatives (e.g., there were alteraitves to Windows in the 1990s too) doesn't necessarily mean dominant companies can do whatever they want or these types of lawsuit aren't justified.

It doesn’t mean that apple has broken any lawsuit that this lawsuit is justified.

 

[webkit]

You keep making these arguments as though "Laws" are immutable, perfect representations of some platonic notion of justice. But they aren't. Laws can be, and often are, flawed. There is no gods-eye perspective. So your arguments which you seem to think are rooted in some universal are nothing of the sort.

Laws certainly can be flawed which is why I said "...doesn't NECESSARILY mean...." I wasn't speaking it absolutes. This suit will go to court and both sides with make their arguments and hopefully the right side will win.

In the case of my reply you responded to, I was simply pointing out that just because there may be alternatives to a product or service doesn't mean a company can't justly be declared a monopoly, part of a duopoly, having a dominant position, etc.

 

[snak-atak]

Good time to repost this: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/22/apple-app-store-fee-study/

Love this table. It goes to show when you are perceived to be king of the mountain, everybody is gunning for you.

 

[webkit]

It doesn’t mean that apple has broken any lawsuit that this lawsuit is justified.

That's up to the courts to decide but I clearly stated in my reply regarding alternative products/services "...doesn't NECESSARILY mean...."

In the case of my reply you responded to, I was simply pointing out that just because there may be alternatives to a product or service doesn't mean a company can't justly be declared a monopoly, part of a duopoly, having a dominant position, etc.

 

[klasma]

So, trying to make some point that you were able to buy apps for Palm outside of Palm and comparing it to the iPhone is simply nonsensical.

I was reacting to the nonsensical assertion that no developer would make any money without the app store.

And I actually preferred the app landscape of the Palm, which was less focused on which apps can be monetized the most, but rather on which apps are actually useful.

 

[aParkerMusic]

I’d be genuinely curious to know how many of the folks who scream “you can’t share your multi stream Netflix account with your grandmother! That’s immoral and thievery!” also think developers are being moral and fair in complaining about Apple charging them to be hosted on the App Store. You may think theres no connection, but I just think there could be an interesting contradiction there. It’s interesting, the sides people choose to take.

I guess it all comes down to reasonableness. I think it’s reasonable for someone to share a multi-stream account (for an elevated (not necessarily in the same house), and I think it’s reasonable for Apple to get a fee from people benefiting from their platforms.

 

[webkit]

There is no "justly declared a monopoly" since there is no centralized source of what justice is.

When you say "hopefully the right side wins" you're speaking as though you hold a universalist view of what "right" is. You don't, and no such thing exists.

Justly declared in the case and jurisdiction where the suit is being brought. In this situation, it's the UK and applies to the UK market.