Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'

[theluggage]

Nope. Apple can conduct its business (and as long as they are not in violation of laws that were in effect at the time) and if consumers don’t like them, the product etc, let them use their agency.

About that illusory "agency" that you suppose consumers can "use":..

The only real choice is iPhone, Android or two tin cans and a piece of string. The latter is cheap and eco-friendly but won't run online banking apps, run the 2FA authenticator you need for work or pay for your parking when the coin-op machine is broken. The multitude of manufacturers, sizes, shapes and prices of Android phones to choose from is irrelevant because the relevant "products" here are the Google Play Store vs. the Apple App Store - and to switch between those you need to change phones and learn a new OS.

Even on Android, sideloading is too complicated to offer any real competition to the official store and (as per my earlier post) it's about to get so onerous that it will only be useful to a tiny niche of "power users".

These rules are not about consumer choice of phone hardware - they're about fair competition between all of the third party businesses and organisations that now do business via mobile phone apps and services - for which Apple and Google have become effective gatekeepers. The rules have been imposed because the reality is that consumers *don't* have the agency to ensure a functioning free market.

 

[I7guy]

It involves government informal and formal regulation of one's property. Sometimes at total loss.Period.

Government better make a law banning certain chips.

 

[I7guy]

About that illusory "agency" that you suppose consumers can "use":..

The only real choice is iPhone, Android or two tin cans and a piece of string. The latter is cheap and eco-friendly but won't run online banking apps, run the 2FA authenticator you need for work or pay for your parking when the coin-op machine is broken. The multitude of manufacturers, sizes, shapes and prices of Android phones to choose from is irrelevant because the relevant "products" here are the Google Play Store vs. the Apple App Store - and to switch between those you need to change phones and learn a new OS.

Even on Android, sideloading is too complicated to offer any real competition to the official store and (as per my earlier post) it's about to get so onerous that it will only be useful to a tiny niche of "power users".

These rules are not about consumer choice of phone hardware - they're about fair competition between all of the third party businesses and organisations that now do business via mobile phone apps and services - for which Apple and Google have become effective gatekeepers. The rules have been imposed because the reality is that consumers *don't* have the agency to ensure a functioning free market.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat. The DMA is not about fairness, it’s about regulation of American tech. There is no way giving away apples property and by law allowing third parties crawling into apples ecosystem as fair competition. It’s illusory using the term you used.

No different than if the government forced you to give your bedroom out rent free. Real competition is another platform. But even that will be touch because many people would vote for the incumbents with their wallets.

 

[BaldiMac]

About that illusory "agency" that you suppose consumers can "use":..

The only real choice is iPhone, Android or two tin cans and a piece of string. The latter is cheap and eco-friendly but won't run online banking apps, run the 2FA authenticator you need for work or pay for your parking when the coin-op machine is broken. The multitude of manufacturers, sizes, shapes and prices of Android phones to choose from is irrelevant because the relevant "products" here are the Google Play Store vs. the Apple App Store - and to switch between those you need to change phones and learn a new OS.

Even on Android, sideloading is too complicated to offer any real competition to the official store and (as per my earlier post) it's about to get so onerous that it will only be useful to a tiny niche of "power users".

These rules are not about consumer choice of phone hardware - they're about fair competition between all of the third party businesses and organisations that now do business via mobile phone apps and services - for which Apple and Google have become effective gatekeepers. The rules have been imposed because the reality is that consumers *don't* have the agency to ensure a functioning free market.

A functioning free market for what? Apps? Phones? They both seem to be pretty healthy to me. Low prices and a huge variety.

I just wish people would say what they want instead of couching it in nebulous claims of competition to make it seem more noble.

 

[theluggage]

No different than if the government forced you to give your bedroom out rent free.

I'd be miffed at that, but I'm an individual human being with only one bedroom, not one of a pair of trillion dollar corporations that, between them, own 98% of all bedrooms in existence.

Not everybody believes that the rights of a massive corporation in a dominant market position are even remotely similar to the human rights of an individual.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Government better make a law banning certain chips.

No different than if the government forced you to give your bedroom out rent free. Simply put, ones is taking another one's customers for free.

 

[I7guy]

I'd be miffed at that, but I'm an individual human being with only one bedroom, not one of a pair of trillion dollar corporations that, between them, own 98% of all bedrooms in existence.

Maybe 30%?

Not everybody believes that the rights of a massive corporation in a dominant market position are even remotely similar to the human rights of an individual.

The analogy holds and Apples’ dominant position is a matter of a measurement. Market share, not so much.

 

[I7guy]

No different than if the government forced you to give your bedroom out rent free. Simply put, ones is taking another one's customers for free.

Not it at all. More nuanced than that. The free renter can redecorate your bedroom the way they want.

 

[theluggage]

Maybe 30%?

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market share through iOS and Android, respectively" - https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-stores/

It doesn't matter if the Apple/Google split is 30/70, 50/50, or 70/30 - you still have just two companies effectively controlling the App market both of whom have fingers in other related pies like office suites, cloud storage, payment services, ads and media stores. Each of them also control one of the two dominant web browser engines. Both benefit from the cost and effort required by customers to switch allegiance.

That is not a free market. Plus (to repeat) Google are subject to the same rules as Apple - its moot which one of them is #1. You don't need an *absolute* monopoly to abuse your market position.

* Everything else - including Firefox - is a single-digit percentage of market share, and even then Edge, Opera and Samsung's browser are built on Chromium (i.e. the bits of Chrome that Google choose to open-source), and any alternative browser on iOS is just a skin on the Safari engine.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market share through iOS and Android, respectively" - https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-stores/

If that's the problem, then breakup Google's anticompetitive contracts with android manufacturers across 75-80% of the market. Stop pretending that the problem is a duopoly instead of one company with a dominant share.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Not it at all. More nuanced than that. The free renter can redecorate your bedroom the way they want.

Same here. Yet one still has to follow health and safety regulations as a renter. I suppose in the US is the same.

 

[theluggage]

If that's the problem, then breakup Google's anticompetitive contracts with android manufacturers across 75-80% of the market.

The EU has already hit Google with a €4bn fine for trying to force anticompetitive terms on phone manufacturers.

Google Android, the Final Chapter: Court of Justice Clarifies the Standard for Exclusionary Abuse in Digital Markets | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

On 2 July 2026, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Google Android case, upholding the European Commission’s €4.1 billion fine against Google for abusing its dominance through pre-installation requirements, app bundling and anti-fragmentation agreements tied to Android...

www.skadden.com

Google have also been forced to change their "steering" policy for the Play store (the same rules that Apple is chafing against here):

https://cybernews.com/security/google-updates-terms-play-store-eu-pressure/

Apple are just being held to the same standards as Google.

 

[BaldiMac]

The EU has already hit Google with a €4bn fine for trying to force anticompetitive terms on phone manufacturers.

Google Android, the Final Chapter: Court of Justice Clarifies the Standard for Exclusionary Abuse in Digital Markets | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

On 2 July 2026, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Google Android case, upholding the European Commission’s €4.1 billion fine against Google for abusing its dominance through pre-installation requirements, app bundling and anti-fragmentation agreements tied to Android...

www.skadden.com

Google have also been forced to change their "steering" policy for the Play store (the same rules that Apple is chafing against here):

https://cybernews.com/security/google-updates-terms-play-store-eu-pressure/

Apple are just being held to the same standards as Google.

Great. None of which solves the problem you pointed out.

Why is the only significant competitor to the company that's abusing its dominant share that it's maintaining through anticompetitive contracts "being held to the same standards"?

 

[I7guy]

"Outside of China, Apple and Google control more than 95 percent of the app store market share through iOS and Android, respectively" - https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-stores/

How much does Apple control?

It doesn't matter if the Apple/Google split is 30/70, 50/50, or 70/30 - you still have just two companies effectively controlling the App market both of whom have fingers in other related pies like office suites, cloud storage, payment services, ads and media stores

It does matter. You say it doesn’t and I say it does. That apple depending on the market segment being measured has a minority control (<40) to a majority (over 50%) control matters much.

Each of them also control one of the two dominant web browser engines. Both benefit from the cost and effort required by customers to switch allegiance.

I didn’t realize iOS safari was a dominant browser.

That is not a free market. Plus (to repeat) Google are subject to the same rules as Apple - its moot which one of them is #1. You don't need an *absolute* monopoly to abuse your market position.

Apple has not abused their market position.

* Everything else - including Firefox - is a single-digit percentage of market share, and even then Edge, Opera and Samsung's browser are built on Chromium (i.e. the bits of Chrome that Google choose to open-source), and any alternative browser on iOS is just a skin on the Safari engine.

 

[theluggage]

Great. None of which solves the problem you pointed out.

Google have been "persuaded" via fines and threat of more fines to dial back their anticompetitive activities. What more do you expect? Send an EU/UK task force to Mountain View to force Google to split up? You seem to be making some sort of reverse-slippery-slope argument that governments should have more draconian powers over companies...

Why is the only significant competitor to the company that's abusing its dominant share that it's maintaining through anticompetitive contracts "being held to the same standards"?

Because the alternative is for Apple to be allowed to get away with using similar anticompetitive practices to the ones that got Google fined. Certainly when it comes to "steering" - which is the subject of this thread & which Apple have already compromised on in the EU and US.

 

[BaldiMac]

Google have been "persuaded" via fines and threat of more fines to dial back their anticompetitive activities. What more do you expect? Send an EU/UK task force to Mountain View to force Google to split up? You seem to be making some sort of reverse-slippery-slope argument that governments should have more draconian powers over companies...

Exactly what I said. An breakup of Google's anticompetitive contracts that they've use to dominate 80% global market outside of China.

Because the alternative is for Apple to be allowed to get away with using similar anticompetitive practices to the ones that got Google fined. Certainly when it comes to "steering" - which is the subject of this thread & which Apple have already compromised on in the EU and US.

Why is Apple targeted because Google controls 80% of the market? What's anticompetitive for a company dominating 80% of the market isn't the same as a company with 18%.

 

[theluggage]

How much does Apple control?

Well, the iPhone market share is almost 60% in the US, 49% in the UK. Its under 30% in the EU but that varies enormously from country to country - some are close to 50%.

Since you can't use the Google Play store on an iPhone or use the Apple App Store on Android, the app store market share isn't going to be much different.

iPhone Market Share by Country 2026

Sales statistics and data on the iPhone market share by country, including iPhone's market share per country, countries where the Apple iPhone sells the most, and countries where iPhone has the largest market share.

worldpopulationreview.com

It does matter. You say it doesn’t and I say it does.

Why?
This isn't 5% vs. 95% - once you've got 30%, 40% of the customers and there's only one competitor you are in prime position to throw your weight around. If a developer doesn't support iOS they throw away 30-60% of their potential customers (and predominantly the deeper-pocketed ones who don't buy £200 Androids).

Especially in a market where developers and customers have to endure significant cost and inconvenience to switch platforms. Most of this "invisible hand" nonsense treats every transaction as if it were choosing which 1kg bag of sugar to pick off the shelf.

didn’t realize iOS safari was a dominant browser.

Of course it is. It used to be Internet Explorer by a country mile - but that's gone now (Oh, frabjous day!) and what's left is either Chrome, Safari or re-skinned Chromium. If you're a web developer you pretty much need to develop & test on Chrome and Safari (or kiss goodbye to a significant part of your audience) and cross your fingers that the Firefox user doesn't find an issue (although Firefox is usually less trouble to support than Safari!)

Apple has not abused their market position.

Then they won't get fined by the authorities.

I know "the innocent person has nothing to fear from the law" is a fallacy, but "the innocent $4tn corporation with an army of top lawyers & executives that schmooze with world leaders has nothing to fear from the law" is still pretty apt.

 

[theluggage]

Why is Apple targeted because Google controls 80% of the market? What's anticompetitive for a company dominating 80% of the market isn't the same as a company with 18%.

...because the market we're talking about is smartphones in which Apple has a ~60% share in the US, about 49% in the UK and anything between 18 and 55% in the various EU countries (Your figures seem to have cherry-picked Hungary...)

...and Apple isn't being "targeted" - especially considering that they are the majority (or 1% off that) in some countries - the rules for Apple are the same as the rules for Google.

 

[I7guy]

Well, the iPhone market share is almost 60% in the US, 49% in the UK. Its under 30% in the EU but that varies enormously from country to country - some are close to 50%.

Since you can't use the Google Play store on an iPhone or use the Apple App Store on Android, the app store market share isn't going to be much different.

iPhone Market Share by Country 2026

Sales statistics and data on the iPhone market share by country, including iPhone's market share per country, countries where the Apple iPhone sells the most, and countries where iPhone has the largest market share.

worldpopulationreview.com

Why?
This isn't 5% vs. 95% - once you've got 30%, 40% of the customers and there's only one competitor you are in prime position to throw your weight around. If a developer doesn't support iOS they throw away 30-60% of their potential customers (and predominantly the deeper-pocketed ones who don't buy £200 Androids).

Especially in a market where developers and customers have to endure significant cost and inconvenience to switch platforms. Most of this "invisible hand" nonsense treats every transaction as if it were choosing which 1kg bag of sugar to pick off the shelf.


Of course it is. It used to be Internet Explorer by a country mile - but that's gone now (Oh, frabjous day!) and what's left is either Chrome, Safari or re-skinned Chromium. If you're a web developer you pretty much need to develop & test on Chrome and Safari (or kiss goodbye to a significant part of your audience) and cross your fingers that the Firefox user doesn't find an issue (although Firefox is usually less trouble to support than Safari!)


Then they won't get fined by the authorities.

I know "the innocent person has nothing to fear from the law" is a fallacy, but "the innocent $4tn corporation with an army of top lawyers & executives that schmooze with world leaders has nothing to fear from the law" is still pretty apt.

“Abused the market” like innovation is a personal definition, rife with bias. I don’t have to define Apple, show us case law where it says they have abused their position to prevent new competitors from developing their own products, locking the ecosystem to make it inescapable, etc. Or even having an illegal monopoly. I’ll wait, while you show citations for a pattern of these findings.

 

[BaldiMac]

...because the market we're talking about is smartphones in which Apple has a ~60% share in the US, about 49% in the UK and anything between 18 and 55% in the various EU countries (Your figures seem to have cherry-picked Hungary...)

Now we get to the part where you switch markets to find ones that better fit your point. You brought up global market share of app stores outside of China. That was what I was responding to. Not Hungary. Pick a lane.

...and Apple isn't being "targeted" - especially considering that they are the majority (or 1% off that) in some countries - the rules for Apple are the same as the rules for Google.

Yes, they, along with Google, are being targeted. The regulations we are discussing don't apply to anyone else in the market.

Even though Apple is the company most hurt by Google's anticompetitive behavior.

 

[theluggage]

Now we get to the part where you switch markets to find ones that better fit your point.

Go look at the article title - "UK App Store Steering Rules" - plus all the other posts mentioning the EU (which is actually what the UK is trying to copy). This has always been about the UK and EU markets. (The US market is also very relevant to UK App developers who want to export to a large mainly English-speaking market)

The global figure is pulled down by a bunch of single-figure countries like India (4.3%). The only place in Europe with an iPhone market share as low as your 18% is Hungary.

Even though Apple is the company most hurt by Google's anticompetitive behavior.

Apple doesn't give a wet slap about Google's anticompetitive behaviour. The people potentially being hurt are partly UK/EU customers but mostly App developers and service providers who have no real choice but to support both platforms unless they want to give up a huge chucnk of their potential customers.

 

[BaldiMac]

Go look at the article title - "UK App Store Steering Rules" - plus all the other posts mentioning the EU (which is actually what the UK is trying to copy). This has always been about the UK and EU markets. (The US market is also very relevant to UK App developers who want to export to a large mainly English-speaking market)

I'm aware of the thread topic. If you want to stick to the UK market, then don't bring up other markets. If you do, don't be surprised if someone responds to that context.

The global figure is pulled down by a bunch of single-figure countries like India (4.3%). The only place in Europe with an iPhone market share as low as your 18% is Hungary.

Again, you brought it up, not me.

Apple doesn't give a wet slap about Google's anticompetitive behaviour. The people potentially being hurt are partly UK/EU customers but mostly App developers and service providers who have no real choice but to support both platforms unless they want to give up a huge chucnk of their potential customers.

Whether Apple cares or not has nothing to do with my point. Which was that Google's anticompetitive agreements with their horizontal competitors cost Apple a whole lot of money. So punishing Apple because Google entered into those agreements doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[mcnallym]

See is the usual rehash of the usual thing.

However it really is time for Apple to Fork iOS.

Relaunch iOS as Classic iOS
Launch a Fork that all open as "Why didn't you just buy an Android if you wanted all this openess OS"

Give users the choice of what they want.

Choosing a Closed Walled EcoSystem is a VALID Choice and that Choice is being eroded from people such as myself that bought into the Apple Ecosystem precisely because it is the Apple Ecosystem and NOT some Open Ecosystem.

For people that says that gives more choice NO it doesn't.

People that want an Open Ecosystem can choose to buy an Android based phone and Ecosystem.
People that want the Closed Ecosystem will have NO choice as the one that they have now is being FORCED to become an Open System. Even if you don't use any of the other parts then the Apple Ecosystem still becomes open.

Apple being forced to become open ecosystem removed MY Choice to buy a Closed Ecosystem
Apple remaining a Closed Ecosystem does not stop YOUR Choice to buy an Open Ecosystem - it just won't have an Apple Badge on it.

 

[MilaM]

However it really is time for Apple to Fork iOS.

Relaunch iOS as Classic iOS
Launch a Fork that all open as "Why didn't you just buy an Android if you wanted all this openess OS"

Give users the choice of what they want.

Not a bad idea. I think such a fork would prove quite popular.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The DMA is not about fairness, it’s about regulation of American tech. There is no way giving away apples property and by law allowing third parties crawling into apples ecosystem as fair competition. It’s illusory using the term you used.

The DMA laws are applied equally regardless of the country of origin. Unlike some American tariffs for instance.

American tech in the west are major players in that space, is merely coincidental.

Don’t you think that it’s great that American companies are in such a terrific position. Would you prefer if that was not the case? Still how dare the EU regulate the participation of companies in the region?

That is weird. It simply does not make any sense to things in this there

PS: I tell you this, if it was the other way around most probably the US would be way more protective. Look at how protective it is even in such an excellent position. Still that is not the EU way.