Apple Ordered to Change App Store in Europe Again

[AppliedMicro]

you’re advocating for that preferred option to be taken away from them so you’re not inconvenienced. So you can have your cake and eat it to.

The DMA means I can have my cake - and you can have it, too.

I can have an open experience by choosing Apple among other distributors of software.
And you can have a closed experience by choosing only Apple as your sole distributor.

But there is for mobile applications, which is actually the relevant market.

It's not, as long as consumers are committed to a particular software platform by way of a hardware purchase.
Android users aren't on the market for iOS applications and vice versa.

That was acknowledged by the EU in fining Apple "over abusive App store rules for music streaming providers".

 

[Xand&Roby]

Go ahead EU.

**** Apple, **** Nazi Americans, **** macrumors and the whole galaxy of parasites of Cupertino's Microsoft.

Steve Jobs is with you!

 

[nottorp]

So, how is Apple supposed to monetize their investment and support ? Or are developers supposed to get everything for free? (And $99 is basically free)

I don't know, maybe they should ask Microsoft which has been surviving for as long as Apple while allowing anyone to install anything on Windows?

If anything, Apple is less entitled to "monetize" application installation since they sell hardware, and at premium prices at that, while MS only sells the operating system.

 

[koelsh]

I don't know, maybe they should ask Microsoft which has been surviving for as long as Apple while allowing anyone to install anything on Windows?

If anything, Apple is less entitled to "monetize" application installation since they sell hardware, and at premium prices at that, while MS only sells the operating system.

Addendum: Microsoft tries to make a version called Windows 11 in S mode where users can only install software from the Microsoft Store and only allows Edge for web browsing... (which means just as insecure and more annoying for the user)

I don't hear of anyone actually using it and more importantly it's a mode of Windows 11 that users can switch out of.

 

[I7guy]

A free and open market allows for consumers and developers to choose their preferred service for app distribution.
That is what Apple has been undermining.

What the eu did is not create a free and open markets. They strong armed a company to giving away its intellectual property. I’m nowhere in the world is that considered competition.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Hopefully your trailer park survives 🙏

What trailer park?

 

[AppliedMicro]

They strong armed a company to giving away its intellectual property

Preventing software developers from putting links in their software is not legitimate “intellectual property”.
Neither is making a a sales or subscription transaction in their software.

It’s just highway robbery.

 

[surferfb]

Preventing software developers from putting links in their software is not legitimate “intellectual property”.
Neither is making a a sales or subscription transaction in their software.

It’s just highway robbery.

Does the app function without Apple's IP? No. Then Apple has a right to be compensated for its use.

Doesn't matter that other companies don't charge for similar IP, or that developers "need" access to IP to be a sustainable business. If you're using someone else's property to do business, and they want to be paid for it, then you need to pay them.

Otherwise you are taking their property from them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Then Apple has a right to be compensated for its use.

…which they are.

Developer tools and access to the App Store aren’t free.

If you're using someone else's property to do business, and they want to be paid for it, then you need to pay them.

…which they do.

That doesn’t mean that “that someone” else can or should be allowed to charge any price/rate they want.
Particularly not when operating in a monopoly or duopoly.

 

[surferfb]

…which they are.

Developer tools and access to the App Store aren’t free.

Again, read the terms of the developer license agreement. Just because you want the $99 to be all Apple charges for IP doesn't mean that it is.

Arguing that the $99 fee wasn't set with the expectation that Apple would receive further compensation from paid apps is just not based in reality.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I don't know, maybe they should ask Microsoft which has been surviving for as long as Apple while allowing anyone to install anything on Windows?

If anything, Apple is less entitled to "monetize" application installation since they sell hardware, and at premium prices at that, while MS only sells the operating system.

Remind me which mobile device Windows is installed on?
But, to answer your question, the economic and development model are different. Plus, Windows is installed on 72% of all computers whereas iOS is installed on less than 28% of all mobile devices. And with only 28% of installed user base, why is it considered a monopoly unless you narrow the definition to only iOS devices; in which case it has a 100% market share.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, read the terms of the developer license agreement

The developer license agreement is subject to legislation that regulates what provisions may be put into it or enforced.

If markets for important infrastructure or intermediation services aren’t competitive, it’s up to governments and antitrust regulators to enact such rules or legislation - while taking into account and allowing market participants to be compensated fairly (but not in any extortionate or discriminatory way they please).

Some of Apple’s monopoly and rules on in-app purchasing on their platform - with its revenue accounting for about half of the overall market for such services for consumer transactions - has been found not to result in fair competition (as in pricing being subject to competition).

That does not mean that Apple can’t be otherwise compensated for the use of their IP. Such as through developer subscription fees or them operating an application store of their own, that’s bundled with every installation of their operating system, thereby enjoying considerable competitive advantage.

Which is why their intellectual property isn’t taken or given away - it’s just (legally) restricted from being exploited unfairly and anticompetitively.

Arguing that the $99 fee wasn't set with the expectation that Apple would receive further compensation from paid apps is just not based in reality.

It certainly was set with the expectation that Apple would benefit from a rich app ecosystem by increased hardware sales.

 

[BaldiMac]

Arguing that the $99 fee wasn't set with the expectation that Apple would receive further compensation from paid apps is just not based in reality.

Exactly. This is such a dishonest argument.

Landlord: "You owe me a $500 deposit plus $1,000 a month for rent."
Tenant: "Here's the $500. That's should cover everything. I don't want to pay the $1,000 a month. You've already paid off the mortgage."

 

[PlayUltimate]

It certainly was set with the expectation that Apple would benefit from a rich app ecosystem by increased hardware sales.

The entire payment system was setup with that in mind; not just the initial $99 payment. The initial fee and the app consignment fee were together designed for this. They are not separate. Even though many are arguing that they should be.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Landlord:
Tenant

Landlords do not own half of all housing or retail space (in the entire country).

The analogy is completely Apples and Oranges. No sane jurisdiction in the world would allow a profit-seeking duopoly in landlords exist - let alone charge people and businesses as they please.

 

[surferfb]

The developer license agreement is subject to legislation that regulates what provisions may be put into it or enforced.

Sure. And if said legislation forces Apple to give away its IP, I'm allowed to say that it does.

If markets for important infrastructure or intermediation services aren’t competitive, it’s up to governments and antitrust regulators to enact such rules or legislation - while taking into account and allowing the market participants to be compensated fairly (but in any extortionate or discriminatory way they please).

Again - the markets are extremely competitive unless you define the market in such a way to make it not. What you and the EU are arguing is that Android and iOS don't compete, which is laughable.

It's just as silly as saying "McDonalds doesn't let anyone else sell Big Macs, so they have a monopoly on the Big Mac market. Therefore they have to let Burger King sell Big Macs while forcing McDonalds to pay for the ingredients that Burger King uses."

It certainly was set with the expectation that Apple would benefit from a rich app ecosystem by increased hardware sales.

It was set in a way to ensure that everyone wins. Apple gets fairly compensated for developing the software, APIs, and attracting customers who will pay for software; developers get access to said market without huge upfront outlays that allow them to experiment and profit off of their ideas; and end users get the benefits of a robust app ecosystem.

But you're in favor of blowing all that up because you think Apple "makes too much money."

 

[AppliedMicro]

The entire payment system was setup with that in mind; not just the initial $99 payment. The initial fee and the app consignment fee were together designed for this

In-app purchases were introduced only later - and separately - from the App Store and its developer subscription pricing. And at a time when app revenue was minuscule compared to today.

Again - the markets are extremely competitive unless you define the market in such a way to make it not

There is a market for distribution of smartphone apps (which is separate, although obviously related to the one for smartphones). And it’s not competitive. Recent antitrust laws, regulation, court decisions and the fact that commission rates haven’t changed ever (over the last 15+ years) for biggest customers are indicative of it not being competitive.

It was set in a way to ensure that everyone wins. Apple gets fairly compensated for developing the software, APIs, and attracting customers who will pay for software

Absolutely 👍

But their prohibition on developers communicating with consumer were not - in no way “everyone wins”.
Which is why they’ve been compelled by law and the Epic decision - in both the U.S. and EU - to change them.

It's just as silly as saying "McDonalds doesn't let anyone else sell Big Macs, so they have a monopoly on the Big Mac market. Therefore they have to let Burger King sell Big Macs while forcing McDonalds to pay for the ingredients that Burger King uses."

There are virtually no market entry barriers to selling burgers - and neither is there a de facto duopoly for them.
Nor are Burgers a business with even nearly the consumer lock-in or network effects of mobile operating systems.

It’s just not an intermediary service or market.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

This really needs to be something that's allowed for those that want it, even if gated behind a toggle and reboot and/or entire other "mode" to have your device in.

Seriously, add all the scare screens you want, I’ll even take a damn warning sign before I open the app I’m that desperate

 

[I7guy]

Preventing software developers from putting links in their software is not legitimate “intellectual property”.
Neither is making a a sales or subscription transaction in their software.

It’s just highway robbery.

In no place in the world is splitting apart a company’s business and giving it away considered competition. I say if one doesn’t like they way a for profit company who produces consumer discretionary products acts, buy from another company.

Eg if you thing Ferrari is gouging consumers go talk to Lamborghini.

 

[BaldiMac]

Landlords do not own half of all housing or retail space (in the entire country).

The analogy is completely Apples and Oranges. No sane jurisdiction in the world would allow a profit-seeking duopoly in landlords exist - let alone charge people and businesses as they please.

You're just moving the goalposts here and throwing in a bunch of loaded language. The analogy was meant to apply to one specific argument.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In no place in the world is splitting apart a company’s business and giving it away considered competition

So the United States is apparently “no place in the world”.

Because they have split apart companies’ businesses multiple times (under antitrust laws).

 

[BaldiMac]

It was set in a way to ensure that everyone wins. Apple gets fairly compensated for developing the software, APIs, and attracting customers who will pay for software; developers get access to said market without huge upfront outlays that allow them to experiment and profit off of their ideas; and end users get the benefits of a robust app ecosystem.

You left out another big consumer benefit. Before first-party app stores were popularized, consumers had to pay for OS upgrades.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You're just moving the goalposts here

I'm not.

The analogy was meant to apply to one specific argument.

..and that is exactly where and why your analogy, fails (IMO):
It does not take into the dynamics of the respective markets.

👉 Different rules, laws and regulation apply to competitive markets than do for non-competitive markets (such as monopolies or duopolies). For very good reasons.

If the market for mobile software applications were as competitive and had as low market concentration as the one for rental properties, I'd agree that your analogy is appropriate. And I'd also agree that government should let competitive market forces play it out.

But it isn't.

I'd agree that the landlord-renter is (on its face) an appropriate analogy for Apple's App Store and third-party developers.
But you can't just separate that from the vastly different market dynamics (concentration, power of the largest operators) for mobile apps compared to the rental property market.

A good analogy does not just look at one side of a coin.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not.

You are. I was specifically commenting on the argument that the commission isn't part of the fee that Apple charges to access the developer program.

..and that is exactly where and why it, your analogy, fails:
It does not take into the dynamics of the market.

Because market dynamics have nothing to do with my argument.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Because market dynamics have nothing to do with my argument.

Exactly.

That's why I disagree with your argument and considered your analogy flawed.