Apple Pushes Back Against India's New Digital Market Regulations

[BaldiMac]

In reality there are nearly countless properties which have myriad owners and serve a massive number of different purposes. When it comes to mobile platforms, there are but two. Is it strange that the latter may be considered with more scrutiny?

Again, the reason there are (arguably) "only two" is because Google enters into anti-competitive agreements with their horizontal competitors across 70-80% of the market. That's the problem.

The first half of your quote is exactly what many folks have already been arguing for a long time.

No, it's not. The distinction that I'm making is that they are arguing that Apple's actions are inherently illegal.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Apple's business plan is illegal because of the duopoly and then ignore that the duopoly only exists because of Google's anticompetitive agreements. Apple shouldn't be punished because of Google's anticompetitive actions.

I suppose you could argue a goal should be to "open up new opportunities for developers," but more importantly it would be to make sure Apple can't unilaterally control the commerce that happens on a large number of consumers' phones.

Why not? That's what I pay them for! I want to limit who I give my credit card to. I want one wallet that's well-supported. I want software reviewed for quality. I want apps to support native SDKs instead of cross-platform crap. I want one place to make sure all my software is up to date. I want developers to be forced to support a privacy-conscious identity service, instead of forcing Sign in with Google as the only option. I want Apple to prevent anti-consumer pricing schemes.

I think I see our misunderstanding then. I'm not advocating to dismantle Apple's app store. I just want to be able to buy my phone software elsewhere if I so please.

App Store should stay put, but the gates should be open to an alternative. This would also push Apple to improve their business terms, their storefront, etc.

And my argument is that I value having all iOS software available through the App Store. You're advocating the ban of that option from the marketplace. Multiple platforms already do what you want.

 

[BaldiMac]

Walmart or Disney World don't control the entire market and entire industries' access to consumers.

It's not like hundreds of banks, public transport companies, communication and messaging services with hundreds of millions of users depend on Walmart or Disney World.

As you said yourself:


Exactly.

Apple is more important to global commerce than Disney World. Or even Walmart. That is why governments should regulate Apple and impose restrictions on their business terms and exploitation of their property.

Great! Now stop making all the nonsense arguments about how this and that are unfair, so they must be illegal.

I know you only accidentally admitted that you want to exploit Apple's property, but it's a refreshing admission!

No there aren’t. Or if there are they have such an irrelevant market share that devs can’t justify investing in them. Practically it’s just Apple and Android and that’s it.

Windows and Mac are certainly not irrelevant.

 

[laptech]

......

The USIBC has raised concerns that these regulations could lead to significant repercussions for targeted companies like Apple. According to the council, the draft Indian law is "much further in scope" than the EU's regulations, potentially resulting in reduced investment in India, higher prices for digital services, and a decreased range of services available to consumers.

......

Translation:
US companies will no longer invest in India
US companies will no longer provide their products or services to Indian consumers
Both the above will cause increase in prices for digital services already in the country because those providing them will use 'supply and demand' as an excuse to raise prices.

Drop the DMB or we (US companies) will stop providing investment, products and services to India. It's blackmail but done in a manner that does not explicitly say it's blackmail.

 

[vipergts2207]

Again, the reason there are (arguably) "only two" is because Google enters into anti-competitive agreements with their horizontal competitors across 70-80% of the market. That's the problem.

Even if you eliminate Google's agreement, the only outcome will be that one company will kill off the others and you'll still be left with a duopoly. Most likely either Google will succeed with their hardware and Android or Samsung will succeed with their Galaxies and a new OS. Then you're left with Apple and either Google or Samsung. How does that fix anything?

No, it's not. The distinction that I'm making is that they are arguing that Apple's actions are inherently illegal.

Some of their actions are illegal. Their violation of anti-steering laws for instance. In other situations, they're being rendered illegal with new laws, like the DMA.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Apple's business plan is illegal because of the duopoly and then ignore that the duopoly only exists because of Google's anticompetitive agreements. Apple shouldn't be punished because of Google's anticompetitive actions.

Forcing Apple to stop treating consumers like they own them just because they use an Apple device isn't "punishing" Apple. And from a dev point of view, it's like a modern version of the scenario laid out in the song Sixteen Tons.

"You make 16 apps, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the iOS store"

Why not? That's what I pay them for!

That might be your view of it. Others see it as paying for a piece of hardware to be used how they see fit.

I want to limit who I give my credit card to. I want one wallet that's well-supported. I want software reviewed for quality. I want apps to support native SDKs instead of cross-platform crap. I want one place to make sure all my software is up to date. I want developers to be forced to support a privacy-conscious identity service, instead of forcing Sign in with Google as the only option. I want Apple to prevent anti-consumer pricing schemes.

Then don't give your credit card information out to those who you don't want to have it. Stick with the iOS App Store for your software. I love using websites that offer Apple Pay. It makes buying things incredibly easy. If it's an important feature for me, I'll shop that sites that offer the feature and avoid those that don't.

 

[vipergts2207]

Translation:
US companies will no longer invest in India
US companies will no longer provide their products or services to Indian consumers
Both the above will cause increase in prices for digital services already in the country because those providing them will use 'supply and demand' as an excuse to raise prices.

Drop the DMB or we (US companies) will stop providing investment, products and services to India. It's blackmail but done in a manner that does not explicitly say it's blackmail.

It's also a bluff. They aren't going to abandon the world's 4th largest consumer market, just like they aren't going to abandon the EU, much to some folk's chagrin.

 

[BaldiMac]

Even if you eliminate Google's agreement, the only outcome will be that one company will kill off the others and you'll still be left with a duopoly. Most likely either Google will succeed with their hardware and Android or Samsung will succeed with their Galaxies and a new OS. Then you're left with Apple and either Google or Samsung. How does that fix anything?

Funny how your fantasy world supports your argument.

Some of their actions are illegal. Their violation of anti-steering laws for instance.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I explicitly support lawsuits that establish that things like anti-steering are illegal.

In other situations, they're being rendered illegal with new laws, like the DMA.

Yep! I'd add that laws like the DMA don't make those actions retroactively illegal.

Forcing Apple to stop treating consumers like they own them just because they use an Apple device isn't "punishing" Apple.

Loaded language aside, forcing a company to give up its property rights is a punishment.

That might be your view of it. Others see it as paying for a piece of hardware to be used how they see fit.

Sure, but the view that you associate with "others" is clearly wrong. They aren't simply asking to use the hardware as they see fit. Their asking for Apple to be forced to modify their property (iOS) to work how they want.

Then don't give your credit card information out to those who you don't want to have it. Stick with the iOS App Store for your software. I love using websites that offer Apple Pay. It makes buying things incredibly easy. If it's an important feature for me, I'll shop that sites that offer the feature and avoid those that don't.

You're deliberately ignoring the parts that aren't in my control.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You're advocating the ban of that option from the marketplace.

I'm not though? I'm advocating for increased competition in the iOS app distribution market. This does not necessitate the ban of a default App Store.

Realistically, Apple's store will remain the default. It will ship with every iDevice and be the one the vast majority of people will use. There should be an option to install an alternative.

 

[vipergts2207]

Funny how your fantasy world supports your argument.

Windows/Mac. Playstation/Xbox/Switch. iOS/Android. Mature markets will not support a bunch of different software platforms. Please explain why you think automakers will support a bunch of CarPlay/Android Auto systems when consumers with those OS's make up a tiny portion of consumers? Why would Philips or Nest spend resources making their lightbulbs or thermostats compatible with several OS's that a few consumers use? Why would any company that interacts with consumers' smartphones waste resources when they can target the vast majority of the market be resourcing for two platforms instead of tripling their development and resources costs to get access to slightly more of the market? The onus is on you to prove your theory because history has shown it to not be the case and business sense would indicate that this would not change.

Loaded language aside, forcing a company to give up its property rights is a punishment.

You're certainly free to view it how you like.

Sure, but the view that you associate with "others" is clearly wrong. They aren't simply asking to use the hardware as they see fit. Their asking for Apple to be forced to modify their property (iOS) to work how they want.

Actually, really I'm after fair markets. If a result of that is more freedom on my device, then that's a welcome development as well.

You're deliberately ignoring the parts that aren't in my control.

What part isn't in your control?

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not though? I'm advocating for increased competition in the iOS app distribution market. This does not necessitate the ban of a default App Store.

Realistically, Apple's store will remain the default. It will ship with every iDevice and be the one the vast majority of people will use. There should be an option to install an alternative.

I didn't say you wanted to ban the App Store.

I said "I value having all iOS software available through the App Store." That's what you want to ban.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

I said "I value having all iOS software available through the App Store." That's what you want to ban.

I'm not advocating for a ban on that, either. I have no problem with Amazon selling everything on the planet, just like I have no problem with Apple selling all the Software possible. I just want the choice to get my software elsewhere if I so please.

In an environment where multiple stores exist, it would be a bad decision to not also distribute on the App Store. As an example of this, MS Office apps for Mac can be had via the App Store or Microsoft's own installer.

 

[BaldiMac]

Windows/Mac. Playstation/Xbox/Switch. iOS/Android. Mature markets will not support a bunch of different software platforms. Please explain why you think automakers will support a bunch of CarPlay/Android Auto systems when consumers with those OS's make up a tiny portion of consumers? Why would Philips or Nest spend resources making their lightbulbs or thermostats compatible with several OS's that a few consumers use? Why would any company that interacts with consumers' smartphones waste resources when they can target the vast majority of the market be resourcing for two platforms instead of tripling their development and resources costs to get access to slightly more of the market? The onus is on you to prove your theory because history has shown it to not be the case and business sense would indicate that this would not change.

For the obvious answer, android is open source. One platform, multiple gatekeepers each with their own OS forked from AOSP using a variety of apps and services if you prevent Google's anticompetitive agreements. Compatibility agreements can be built into the project license.

Actually, really I'm after fair markets. If a result of that is more freedom on my device, then that's a welcome development as well.

Hah!

What part isn't in your control?

The options that Apple currently requires, but developers could eliminate without Apple's requirements. I mean, that's what we are talking about.

 

[lartola]

Windows and Mac are certainly not irrelevant.

We were talking about mobile OS. For mobile OS it’s practically just iOS and Android and nothing else. Windows and Mac are desktop OS, that’s a different market.

 

[BaldiMac]

We were talking about mobile OS.

No, we weren't. Mobile was never specified in my original statement that you responded to.

 

[vipergts2207]

For the obvious answer, android is open source. One platform, multiple gatekeepers each with their own OS forked from AOSP using a variety of apps and services if you prevent Google's anticompetitive agreements. Compatibility agreements can be built into the project license.

So then it's still iOS and slightly different flavors of Android. How is that substantially different from how things are today? This doesn't change Apple's amount of power in the market, which is the issue.

The options that Apple currently requires, but developers could eliminate without Apple's requirements. I mean, that's what we are talking about.

Then you don't download those companies' apps. That is within your control. What you want is for Apple to be able to use their enormous market power to force companies, including direct competitors, to operate in a specific way that you want.

 

[lartola]

No, we weren't. Mobile was never specified in my original statement that you responded to.

But in my comment that you responded to I was addressing a previous conversation where someone complained that as a dev he had no platforms to develop for other than iOS and Android, and for iOS the appstore is the only available channel to distribute apps. That’s a problem exclusively within the mobile OS market, not in the desktop market where certainly there are more options.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not advocating for a ban on that, either. I have no problem with Amazon selling everything on the planet, just like I have no problem with Apple selling all the Software possible. I just want the choice to get my software elsewhere if I so please.

In an environment where multiple stores exist, it would be a bad decision to not also distribute on the App Store. As an example of this, MS Office apps for Mac can be had via the App Store or Microsoft's own installer.

Hah! I think you are arguing a distinction without a difference. The practical effect of your argument is still the same.

But I am curious in what you think the benefits to you would be to pay someone else for the exact same software.

 

[BaldiMac]

But in my comment that you responded to I was addressing a previous conversation where someone complained that as a dev he had no platforms to develop for other than iOS and Android, and for iOS the appstore is the only available channel to distribute apps. That’s a problem exclusively within the mobile OS market, not in the desktop market where certainly there are more options.

A previous conversation that I wasn't involved in has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

But I am curious in what you think the benefits to you would be to pay someone else for the exact same software.

You're thinking of me as the app-user, not the app-maker.

As an app-maker, I would be able to choose and work with the marketplace that works best for me, be it favorable business terms, a different feature set (Settapp and their all-inclusive subscription model for example), or something else. I could go it alone if I wanted.

In other markets, business have that choice. Think online shopping; Levi's can sell jeans in Target or Walmart or Amazon, as well as direct to consumer on their own website. They chose to use all those distribution partners and more. Similarly, I can choose who hosts my website, UPS or Fedex or DHL to send my packages, Google or Amazon or F-Droid for android app distribution.

There is no such choice for iOS software. If I make iOS software, I have to sell via Apple. The only alternative is to simply not make my product, which is bad for business.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're thinking of me as the app-user, not the app-maker.

Of course! That's what we were talking about. You said you "want the choice to get my software elsewhere if I so please." Not, I want to sell my software elsewhere.

As an app-maker, I would be able to choose and work with the marketplace that works best for me, be it favorable business terms, a different feature set (Settapp and their all-inclusive subscription model for example), or something else. I could go it alone if I wanted.

Ah.. so you don't want to pay Apple's platform fee? That's a different argument than we were having.

(For the record, there's nothing preventing an all-inclusive subscription model on the App Store.)

 

[I7guy]

[…], which is bad for business.

But that’s your issue, not apples issue.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Of course! That's what we were talking about. You said you "want the choice to get my software elsewhere if I so please." Not, I want to sell my software elsewhere.

Both are true. I want the choice in where to get my software as well as the choice in where to distribute my software.

Ah.. so you don't want to pay Apple's platform fee? That's a different argument than we were having.

I would be fine paying whatever fee so long as it isn't compulsory. What do the platform fees cover and why am I not allowed to pay someone else to do the same things? If it subsidizes development for iOS, I have to ask, is MacOS less expensive to develop for?

But that’s your issue, not apples issue.

I'm not sure why you believe Apple should be allowed to make hostile business decisions with impunity. Amazon cannot prevent me from doing business, why should Apple be allowed to?

 

[vipergts2207]

But that’s your issue, not apples issue.

Well, wasn’t Apple’s issue anyway. It’s their issue in many places now courtesy of government regulation.

 

[lartola]

A previous conversation that I wasn't involved in has nothing to do with my comment.

However, your comment was a reply to mine that was related to that previous conversation and I was clearly talking about mobile OS only, not desktop OS.

 

[BaldiMac]

However, your comment was a reply to mine that was related to that previous conversation and I was clearly talking about mobile OS only, not desktop OS.

You're mistaken. You replied to me first.

 

[BaldiMac]

Both are true. I want the choice in where to get my software as well as the choice in where to distribute my software.

Okay? Then we're back to the original question. What do you think the benefits to you would be to pay someone else for the exact same software.

I would be fine paying whatever fee so long as it isn't compulsory.

I would be fine paying whatever for a new car so long as it isn't compulsory.

What do the platform fees cover and why am I not allowed to pay someone else to do the same things? If it subsidizes development for iOS, I have to ask, is MacOS less expensive to develop for?

That's a non sequitur. Who else would you pay for access to Apple's platform?!?! You derive value from Apple's investment in the platform and developer resources. Why shouldn't you pay for that?

I'm not sure why you believe Apple should be allowed to make hostile business decisions with impunity. Amazon cannot prevent me from doing business, why should Apple be allowed to?

I don't believe that. Nice strawman.