Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan

[gnipgnop]

"I see you've disproven my point, so I'm going to choose to ignore it."

Evidence of cheaper prices. Clearly a larger selection (which you said didn't exist I might add). Neither of those are compelling? Both of those are reason enough to take action and that's on top of not wanting to allow Apple to be the final arbiter on what software most of their country's citizens are allowed to install on their smartphone.

?? You provided a single example of a lower price...Epic briefly lowering in-app V-Buck prices when they knew they had violated App Store rules and would get kicked out. That's not compelling at all.

You also failed to provide any evidence that the 3.5 million apps in the Play store was actually the result of a greater level of competition. You just make the assumption that it is. But then I could point out that iOS users spend more money on apps than Android users. And that many high quality apps get released on iOS first before they get released on Android.

 

[Beautyspin]

Would it be feasible and make practical sense for Apple to somehow review the 3rd party app stores and the apps that were on them? (maybe not the apps that are on them). But make it so you can't just willy nilly be some 3rd party app store. Develop a strict set of rules associated with the 3rd party app store. For example, you must have and maintain a robust review system. If any app, downloaded from your store does harm (needs to be defined) to the "system" (again needs to be defined), then you lose your privledges/access to the platform. It cannot be the wild west. This would be no different that a retail store having rules for being on display (shelf fees, returns, etc.).

As long as Apple App Store abides by the same rules, this should be ok. Since Apple App Store has many scam apps, there is a real possibility that Apple's App Store may be the first one going out. Lol!

 

[jameslmoser]

There's no chicken/egg comparison to be made. Apple created the OS, phone, and store before app developers did anything. The level of consumer sales for iOS/iPhone is what attracted developers to the platform. That's how it always works.

The original version of iOS had no app store, and most people were not interested in spending all that money for a phone that was also an iPod.... I was one of them. How were developers suppose to do anything before they were able to??

Look what happened to Windows Mobile... no third party apps were supporting them because they were late to the game, so MS ended up going with android on their own phones.

We know how this game goes. We have done it many times on both desktop and mobile devices.

 

[turbineseaplane]

As long as Apple App Store abides by the same rules, this should be ok. Since Apple App Store has many scam apps, there is a real possibility that Apple's App Store may be the first one going out. Lol!

I'm so glad people keep saying this.

It's incredible gaslighting by Apple to keep talking about "safety" and "security" and insinuating we need to trust in Apple here to solve everything...

...while they simultaneously run a store, fast and loose, that is stuffed with all manner of scams and BS....many even gracing the "Top Charts" and/or stealing IP from other developers in the same store!

They get highlighted, reported -- endlessly and breathlessly -- and Apple does next to nothing.

Folks -- Apple are a money extraction racket with good branding.
A normal, barely ethical, "mega-corp"

Most anything "special" about Apple, departed with Steve and we've been languishing ever since.

 

[dk001]

iOS/iPadOS do not allow side loading but they do allow payments for content/subscriptions to be made outside of the App Store for apps that have been dowloaded from the App Store.

This is where Spotify was less than honest with their EU complaint. They complained about the 30% App Store commission in terms of pricing/revenue competition with Apple Music, but it turned out that 99% of their iOS subscribers were paying for the subscription through the internet and not the App Store. It was entirely viable for Spotify to get their customers to pay in a way that Apple got 0%.

Very minimally and that IS NOT an option open to general developers.

 

[gnipgnop]

What Apple is doing is essentially charging a 30% transaction fee more akin to a credit card processing free which is usually only 5%, and they are not acting as a reseller. They are also the only "seller" in regards to a paid app. Because Apple does not allow you to obtain the digital goods in any other way, this is where they are being anticompetitive.

Apple is charging a 30% or 15% commission based on revenue. A small fraction of that commission is related to payment processing because payment processing isn't the only thing they're doing for the developer. This "it's the same as a credit card fee" stuff has been debunked over and over.

 

[Ethosik]

Hundred of stores? For the last 30 years?

Are you talking different physical stores? Like Babbage’s and GameStop? Best Buy? Wal-mart? If so, then that’s great, but we live in the year 2022 and I’m pretty sure Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft operate their own online stores for digital downloads of games that run on their respective platforms and that they take a 30% cut. Also, I’m pretty sure Nintendo took a 30% cut on cartridge games when a third party launched a game on a SNES console, back in the day. I’m also sure Nintendo takes a 30% cut of those cute little packages they sell at the wal-mart and Best Buy now. But sure, FREEDOM OF CHOICE! SMH.

Most of the zealots demanding a “free and open” platform from Apple here are doing so to stick it to Apple because Tim Cook is “greedy”, not because they actually want to sideload apps.

I’m perfectly happy with my sandboxed iPhone and iPad and after it gets wrecked by this sideloading crap the advocates around are going to disappear back into the woodwork or claim that they weren’t really for it. I won’t forget who they are and they’ll get verbally bludgeoned every chance I get.

Again, people like that around here don’t understand unintended consequences, but I guess we’ll all find out together.

It’s also 2022. The “discs” of physical media don’t contain the full game 90% of the time.

 

[Ethosik]

Do Sams/Walmart prevent their customers from shopping at competing retailers?

Does Apple? How are they preventing me from using Android?

 

[BootsWalking]

Does Sams/Walmart have to allow any product that wants to be on their shelves into their store?

No, because they're not considered to have monopoly power or exercising anti-competitive behaviors within their industry. Apple is, hence why governments around the world all discussing regulating Apple's behavior.

 

[Ethosik]

No. Those developers should pay for the development kits used to write to those APIs and system calls, just the same as if they were building apps for other operating systems.

Oh wait - they already do.

The larger companies pay so that others can create free apps. This happens all the time. I have paid for Visual Studio Professional and that helps provide the community edition for free for others.

 

[dk001]

People keep saying that but it’s not true. Will it be baked it the law that every developer still needs to put their app on Apple’s App Store? I have not seen such a clause. So developers will pull their apps THUS forcing us to use alternate stores.

And don’t counter the argument saying I don’t need said app. With that line of thinking, you don’t need side loading to get whatever-random-app either.

I read your argument(?) on this but I absolutely fail to see your point. It makes no sense from a consumer point.
If your claim that it has to be also on the App Store that means Apple still dictates what categories of apps can be released for use on an iDevice and whether or not they can even be released. You are asking for App Store clones run by ... Apple.

 

[dk001]

What is your context? My context is a market comparison for apps as it currently exists on Android/iOS.

Now you are just being either argumentative or failed to read the original question / claim and my response.

 

[Ethosik]

I read your argument(?) on this but I absolutely fail to see your point. It makes no sense from a consumer point.
If your claim that it has to be also on the App Store that means Apple still dictates what categories of apps can be released for use on an iDevice and whether or not they can even be released. You are asking for App Store clones run by ... Apple.

Therefore you just proved my point. If I want said app that’s not on the App Store, I’ll be forced to change my security on my phone. So the argument of “it won’t change, just don’t side load!” is not valid.

 

[vipergts2207]

?? You provided a single example of a lower price...Epic briefly lowering in-app V-Buck prices when they knew they had violated App Store rules and would get kicked out. That's not compelling at all.

You also failed to provide any evidence that the 3.5 million apps in the Play store was actually the result of a greater level of competition. You just make the assumption that it is. But then I could point out that iOS users spend more money on apps than Android users. And that many high quality apps get released on iOS first before they get released on Android.

In your two paragraphs you didn’t come up with a good counterpoint as to why Japan shouldn’t move forward with this. Feel free to source your own data showing that apps aren’t cheaper through third-parties when also available on the first-party store. Put in your own effort to prove your points. At least I’m bothering to source data whereas you’re just dismissing things with raw conjecture.

 

[gnipgnop]

Now you are just being either argumentative or failed to read the original question / claim and my response.

Here is the original post/response:

Me: IMO, if someone is going to claim that a single 1st party store is anti-competitive versus 3rd party stores then it should be easy to demonstrate that lack of competition through prices, quality, selection and satisfaction with apps on the platform. None of the governments in question are doing that. They're entirely avoiding those kinds of comparisons. That's a rather obvious red flag within the "game".

You: I suggest you take a serious look at the current Android world.
This is worst case if Apple just copies Android. I am quite sure they could come up with a far more equitable solution.
As we have seen snippets of code in the 15.5 beta releases os "sideloading" I suspect they are working on some kind of initial draft solution.

I was specifically talking about price, quality, selection and satisfaction comparisons between the App Store and 3rd party stores. You respond with "take a serious look at Android". If your comment wasn't related to price, quality, selection and satisfaction issues...what was it related to?

 

[dk001]

Therefore you just proved my point. If I want said app that’s not on the App Store, I’ll be forced to change my security on my phone. So the argument of “it won’t change, just don’t side load!” is not valid.

You can't have it both ways.

A. I want the App Store because Apple provides me great apps with privacy and security.
B. I want apps that Apple doesn't allow in the App Store.

Which is it? A? or A+B?

 

[Macative]

Palm Treo, HP iPaq, Nokia Communicator....

Its not about regulating because Apple did so well but regulating on behalf of the consumer to increase choice.

Don't make me laugh. Those smartphones are where? Exactly.

It's literally because Apple did so well. To the point some people aren't even aware that the App Store is something Apple owns.

 

[Macative]

Therefore you just proved my point. If I want said app that’s not on the App Store, I’ll be forced to change my security on my phone. So the argument of “it won’t change, just don’t side load!” is not valid.

That's not how it works. Your security is exactly the same as it is today until the moment you choose to install an app from elsewhere. Stop pretending it is anything else.

 

[gnipgnop]

In your two paragraphs you didn’t come up with a good counterpoint as to why Japan shouldn’t move forward with this. Feel free to source your own data showing that apps aren’t cheaper through third-parties when also available on the first-party store. Put in your own effort to prove your points. At least I’m bothering to source data whereas you’re just dismissing things with raw conjecture.

LOL...I'm not advocating for iOS to be forced to allow side loading or 3rd party stores. The Japanese government appears to be advocating for it. The U.S. Congress appears to be advocating for it. The EU appears to be advocating for it. Where is their data? It doesn't exist.

 

[vipergts2207]

Does Apple? How are they preventing me from using Android?

Go back and read the post below and you’ll see why it doesn’t work like that.

Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan

The “but, but consoles” crowd is annoying. First off, consoles probably will face more regulatory scrutiny in the future, but secondly they aren’t the same from a market standpoint. A marketplace can be defined by the individuals participating in it. In a small town the market will largely be...

forums.macrumors.com

People can readily shop at various retailers. Additionally no retailers have anywhere close to monopoly or duopoly power. Conversely, the vast majority of consumers can only shop on either the iOS App Store or the Play Store and third-parties. There’s near zero crossover market there and consumers are shoehorned into one or the other because of the duopoly and the fact that people generally only carry one phone.

 

[gnipgnop]

That's not how it works. Your security is exactly the same as it is today until the moment you choose to install an app from elsewhere. Stop pretending it is anything else.

Wouldn't that mean the app that is only available "elsewhere" is being anticompetitive?

 

[dk001]

Here is the original post/response:

Me: IMO, if someone is going to claim that a single 1st party store is anti-competitive versus 3rd party stores then it should be easy to demonstrate that lack of competition through prices, quality, selection and satisfaction with apps on the platform. None of the governments in question are doing that. They're entirely avoiding those kinds of comparisons. That's a rather obvious red flag within the "game".

You: I suggest you take a serious look at the current Android world.
This is worst case if Apple just copies Android. I am quite sure they could come up with a far more equitable solution.
As we have seen snippets of code in the 15.5 beta releases os "sideloading" I suspect they are working on some kind of initial draft solution.

I was specifically talking about price, quality, selection and satisfaction comparisons between the App Store and 3rd party stores. You respond with "take a serious look at Android". If your comment wasn't related to price, quality, selection and satisfaction issues...what was it related to?

No. You are claiming the government should be doing these as a precursor. My reply was for you to look at the current Android world as "worst case". Your problem is you made a claim and want someone to do all the work to prove your point. @vipergts2207 did a quick check for you generally disproving your claim. Take a deeper look at Android.

As a long term iOS/Android user I can say for what I look at, Android is cheaper especially as there is far less use of subscription pricing. This includes 3rd party stores.

 

[vipergts2207]

LOL...I'm not advocating for iOS to be forced to allow side loading or 3rd party stores. The Japanese government appears to be advocating for it. The U.S. Congress appears to be advocating for it. The EU appears to be advocating for it. Where is their data? It doesn't exist.

I don’t know about Japan, but here’s an over 400 page report you can read, created by the U.S. House judiciary committee. I’m sure it offers plenty of data for you peruse.

https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_digital_markets.pdf?utm_campaign=4493-519#page330

 

[gnipgnop]

No. You are claiming the government should be doing these as a precursor. My reply was for you to look at the current Android world as "worst case". Your problem is you made a claim and want someone to do all the work to prove your point. @vipergts2207 did a quick check for you generally disproving your claim. Take a deeper look at Android.

Of course government should be doing it as precursor. They're claiming that the App Store is anti-competitive. The purpose of competition is to provide better products/services to consumers. So they should be able to show that the prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction on iOS suffer in comparison to an OS that has 3rd party stores since they are also claiming forcing 3rd party stores is a solution to lack of competition.

Vipergts2207 didn't generally disprove anything. He provided an anecdotal example of Epic briefly lowering V-Bucks prices at the same time that they intentionally violated App Store rules and then made an unsupported claim that the larger number of apps on the Play store is the result of greater competition while also simultaneously admitting that the Play store doesn't really have a different financial/commission structure than the App Store.

 

[jakey rolling]

Does Apple? How are they preventing me from using Android?

Yes. Apple does. Unless you want to carry two phones around, you have to effectively quit using iOS altogether in order to start using Android. There is no other reason for someone to not understand the difference unless that person is being wilfully ignorant.