Apple Fails to Block $995M UK App Store Commission Lawsuit

[davide_eu]

Then that abuse existed since day one as the App Store terms haven’t changed significantly. The minor changes they have made have been in favor of developers. SO, again, Apple was charging 30%-15% from the VERY beginning (with the blessing of the UK). Why didn’t the regulators regulate that “abuse”?

Not when there is an "abuse", but when you abuse due to your marketshare.

 

[steve09090]

Not when there is an "abuse", but when you abuse due to your marketshare.

So a company shouldn’t have the ability to charge 15% in a voluntary market, but a government can mandate it takes 40+% of wages and there is no disparity there?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not when there is an "abuse", but when you abuse due to your marketshare.

So you meant to say “Because they regulate when there is an abuse due to your marketshare”.
If there’s an abuse and you’re a small or unsuccessful company, that’s fine, they don’t follow up on those as they only look into abuses due to marketshare and nothing else.

I guess that makes sense as it does appear to align with their activities since other companies are taking similar commissions, but they’re not as successful as Apple.

 

[surferfb]

You know, before smartphones arrived, people who wanted to create a program to run on a computer did so and offered it however they wanted (over the internet) without having to get permission from the device maker or give the device maker a cut.

I say we go back to that model. And for developers who want to stick with Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store, Microsoft's store, they're all free to do so.

Because that model worked so well for security and normal users. Almost like it was so much of a disaster that Apple developed a better way.

If developers hadn’t created any apps, there would be no iPhone to use.

I mean, I'm not going to argue that developer apps don't make the iPhone significantly better, but the iPhone absolutely existed before third-party apps. And plenty of people used them.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You know, before smartphones arrived, people who wanted to create a program to run on a computer did so and offered it however they wanted (over the internet) without having to get permission from the device maker or give the device maker a cut.

I say we go back to that model. And for developers who want to stick with Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store, Microsoft's store, they're all free to do so.

Go back to? That model is still alive and kicking today, have I got a phone for YOU!

Open Source and Fairphone, what we believe in - Fairphone

Fairphone’s ambition is to bring more fairness to software. We believe in software longevity and privacy by design.

www.fairphone.com

You can even build your own OS, your own App Store and all of that, for free! If developers happen to like your OS and need you to fix bugs, improve security, and make other changes, you can do that, for free! If users are having difficulty using your OS and need assistance with it, you can provide them that support for free!

 

[steve09090]

You know, before smartphones arrived, people who wanted to create a program to run on a computer did so and offered it however they wanted (over the internet) without having to get permission from the device maker or give the device maker a cut.

Like Nintendo or Sega?

You also realise Microsoft (for example) used to charge US$210 in 1995 for Windows 95, and these programs used to drive sales of the O.S. Different model, same result.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's not anti-competitive - everyone pays the same fees.

They don’t. Companies that sell physical books or music CDs through their iOS pay no commission-while companies that sell digital book or music offerings do. On top of that, Apple competes with all of them.

Does Apple Music pay 30% commission to the Apple App Store?

If Apple had not created any of this....there would be no iPhone app to create. What is so hard about paying a fee to participate in a market that you had absolutely nothing to do with creating?

Nothing - as long as it’s a fee determined by competitive process - which it isn’t.

It’s not like the App Store opened yesterday.

Exactly.

If they were obligated to regulate the Apple owned App Store market, where were they when Apple said, “Hey, we’re going to do this App Store thing, that ok?” Apple didn’t slide in under cover of darkness, they had to get the way they do business approved before doing business. Why didn’t regulators… regulate?

Similar reason why we copyright and patents don’t last indefinitely. They expire. Innovators like Apple should reap the benefits of their innovation by pricing their products as they please. But not indefinitely and without limitations, when it’s become a ubiquitous device and tool in business and private lives of people.

I found it insane. Apple is offering a SERVICE with their Store. It is managed and it advertises apps to the customers. They are entitled to ask something in return.
We could speak about 10%-15%-20% or 30% as too much or not, but they are entitled to ask money for the service they are giving.

Absolutely. 👍🏻

Just stop them from monopolising it tomorrow be the only allowed service (…on, yes, iOS. Doesn’t matter what the unit share of hardware devices sold is, when iOS is a duopoly with Android and accounts for about half of market in mobile app spending).

 

[AppliedMicro]

If there’s an abuse and you’re a small or unsuccessful company, that’s fine, they don’t follow up on those as they only look into abuses due to marketshare and nothing else.

Competition law is not concerned with small or unsuccessful companies in unimportant markets.
It is about keeping in check large and hugely successful companies from abusing their monopoly power.

Competition law and regulation distinguishes who does what.
The same business conduct may be acceptable for one company - but not others.

Because that model worked so well for security and normal users

It did work absolutely great, yes.
We wouldn’t have have the innovations in personal computing with similar gatekeeping of operating system developers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Similar reason why we copyright and patents don’t last indefinitely. They expire. Innovators like Apple should reap the benefits of their innovation by pricing their products as they please. But not indefinitely and without limitations, when it’s become a ubiquitous device and tool in business and private lives of people.

Both patents and copyrights are against immutable artifacts. Apple’s OS and App Store are not immutable artifacts (the initial versions of both won’t even run on today’s hardware). A most inventive use of the word “similar”.

If this aligns with the UK’s understanding of “software”, it’s clear to see why none of the large software companies are based there.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Competition law is not concerned with small or unsuccessful companies in unimportant markets.
It is about keeping in check large and hugely successful companies from abusing their monopoly power.

Competition law and regulation distinguishes who does what.
The same business conduct may be acceptable for one company - but not others.

Right, so, like the other poster said, as long as a company is NOT successful, the UK doesn’t care, they are free to do what they like and charge whatever commission they desire. The UK only wishes to punish successful companies. Which, I guess it makes sense why there’s no successful tech companies based in the UK. Their way of regulating ensures only small unsuccessful companies are allowed to exist.

And they wonder why they have to depend on non-UK companies for their entire tech strategy.

 

[steve09090]

It did work absolutely great, yes.
We wouldn’t have have the innovations in personal computing with similar gatekeeping of operating system developers.

Yet, Sony, Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft all had closed markets with propriety operating systems, UNLESS you paid a large amount of money to those systems you could not put a game or other software on it. Nobody said that was anti-competitive So how is that any different to what Apple/Google/Amazon are doing?

This isn't about providing a fair, competitive marketplace. It's about not getting the taxes it, as it demands from the British people. It's inconsistent with other practices it has used.

 

[Zest28]

Apple should really close down the Apple Store for European developers. Because the most used apps are not even from Europe in the first place (Temu, WhatsApp, Google, Google Maps, Snapchat, Netflix, Instagram, TikTok, ....).

These European developers cause way more headache and damages than they actual deliver in terms of apps. And the fault is not the 30% sales commission that Apple earns with every sale they make in the App Store.

 

[Zest28]

You know, before smartphones arrived, people who wanted to create a program to run on a computer did so and offered it however they wanted (over the internet) without having to get permission from the device maker or give the device maker a cut.

I say we go back to that model. And for developers who want to stick with Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store, Microsoft's store, they're all free to do so.

Hell no. Terrible developers who can't get passed the quality controls Apple has set in place, don't belong on a premium device like the iPhone.

You also don't see crappy ass brands in top luxury store either if their products don't meet the standards set by that luxury store.

To show you how amazing it is what Apple is doing for us, I actually did purchased a hardware device from an European manufacturer (which was supposed to be very high-end), but Apple kept rejecting their app. When Apple gave up and accept the app in the App Store after more than a year, we could see why Apple was rejecting it. Even the "Apple approved" app was total **** and nobody likes it. The fault is not with Apple if an app doesn't pass the quality controls, it's the horrible developers who can't develop good quality apps and it's hurting customers like me.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yet, Sony, Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft all had closed markets with propriety operating systems, UNLESS you paid a large amount of money to those systems you could not put a game or other software on it. Nobody said that was anti-competitive So how is that any different to what Apple/Google/Amazon are doing?

And, it’s still happening today. It will be interesting to hear the arguments around why a developer would feel paying a commission to Sony is fine, but paying one to Apple harms “innovation”. But, as it’s the UK, I doubt they have enough tech expertise there to understand what innovation is in the first place.