Court Upholds Regulator's Case Against Apple Over App Store

[The_Gream]

So where is that room?

👉 Where is the competitive force or threat that would cause Apple to lower their rates?

Maybe. That’s why governments should and need to intervene in the market.

First off, the reason these tech companies are as big as they are and why we have no competition in these markets is because the same governments that are now going after the tech sector for being to be are what allowed those tech giants to buy up all the competition in the first place.
The politicians are doing what politicians do best, spinning a story that makes them out to be the good guy, when they are the ones that started the problem in the first place.

Why don’t the EU help Nokia back in the early days of the iPhone? Why didn’t Canada help BlackBerry (I think they were a Canadian company)?…

 

[I7guy]

Yes, but you are still free to sell your goods and services to the same customers everywhere else. While at Apple, you can't.

The wsj for example has multiple avenues of distributions. The iOS app is just one.

I think you're just missing this point. If Apple got forced (and they luckily gets, in more and more countries) to allow Apps from outside the store, they could even charge 100% of commission.

That’s the issue, they won’t be allowed to charge anything.

But at least give people the opportunity to get their stuff from a different place. That's the main difference between Apple and your Costco example.

But not with the wsj as one example. The wsj can be had from different entry ways.

And saying that Apps are not a commodity makes it just worse for Apple.

Apps aren’t a commodity information. One app doesn’t generically replace another.

You can get your commodities from any shady retailer/reseller of your wish. Why shouldn't that also be applied to Apps?

Apple built and owns the iOS App Store.

Why would you let a profit-driven company decide what you want and what’s best for you?

I don’t. If I don’t like their products and services I don’t buy the product.

Are you really that incapable of acting independently?

Are you? Buy android if that meets your requirements.

 

[Baslea]

The wsj for example has multiple avenues of distributions. The iOS app is just one.

That’s the issue, they won’t be allowed to charge anything.

That's just not true. Apple can still charge for hosting, services, or added value. If they think that 99$ dev-accounts covers that's up these costs, good. If they miscalculate, it's not (or should not be) neither the users fault nor the developers fault.

But not with the wsj as one example. The wsj can be had from different entry ways.

Apps aren’t a commodity information. One app doesn’t generically replace another.

Correct. But if an app is unique, and Apple blocks its distribution unless the dev pays 30% or follows arbitrary rules - or fakes the functional and then blocks the "origin" App or integrates the copied features better than any other could do due to missing APIs - then Apple is leveraging its gatekeeper role unfairly. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/)

Apple built and owns the iOS App Store.

So? That means Apple can behave as they were a dictatorship and force users to use their stuff without caring about laws? Once a platform becomes a dominant access point, it carries certain responsibilities. Ownership of something isn’t a free pass to restrict competition or innovation. Period.

I don’t. If I don’t like their products and services I don’t buy the product.

That's fine on an individual level and I completely agree with you - but again, the problem is structural. When Apple uses its market position to prevent alternatives, users can’t just not buy because there’s no comparable alternative without major lock-in costs (Apple created all these years when Android wasn't that good).

Are you? Buy android if that meets your requirements.

Suggesting to just switch to Android as a fix is like saying "just move countries" if you don’t like local laws. It’s not a realistic answer.

 

[I7guy]

That's just not true. Apple can still charge for hosting, services, or added value. If they think that 99$ dev-accounts covers that's up these costs, good. If they miscalculate, it's not (or should not be) neither the users fault nor the developers fault.

No they can’t really charge anything. Are they going to charge epic $1b to make up for the shortfall in not being able to charge by the transaction.?

Correct. But if an app is unique, and Apple blocks its distribution unless the dev pays 30% or follows arbitrary rules - or fakes the functional and then blocks the "origin" App or integrates the copied features better than any other could do due to missing APIs - then Apple is leveraging its gatekeeper role unfairly. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/)

Yes 2019. Apple vs epic App Store is not illegal monopoly.

So? That means Apple can behave as they were a dictatorship and force users to use their stuff without caring about laws?

Is Costco allowed to kick vendors off their property if they do not want to continue selling a specific product. Why should Apple have to accept vape and porn apps?

Once a platform becomes a dominant access point, it carries certain responsibilities. Ownership of something isn’t a free pass to restrict competition or innovation. Period.

Apple has met those responsibilities and in no way should it compromise its vision.

That's fine on an individual level and I completely agree with you - but again, the problem is structural. When Apple uses its market position to prevent alternatives, users can’t just not buy because there’s no comparable alternative without major lock-in costs (Apple created all these years when Android wasn't that good).

Apple has a set of rules surrounding engagement. Agree to them or not. If not don’t engage.

Suggesting to just switch to Android as a fix is like saying "just move countries" if you don’t like local laws. It’s not a realistic answer.

It’s the right answer. Vote with your $$$.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Is it? In electronics it’s commonly accepted to use units. Not avg $ per customer.

It is. The Apple App Store isn’t in the “electronics” business.
It’s a software distribution, software licensing and payment transaction provider.

And you can’t know the feelings what the dev community at large. Just the vocal minority eg epic.

I’m not talking about Epic - but small, independent developers. And yes, of course, the vocal ones among them. But even Gruber is ready to concede that Apple’s business model isn’t attractive or competitively priced - just that developers can’t do anything about it and have no other choice but to accept it, if they want to be in business at all.

 

[AppliedMicro]

First off, the reason these tech companies are as big as they are and why we have no competition in these markets is because the same governments that are now going after the tech sector for being to be are what allowed those tech giants to buy up all the competition in the first place.

Partly.
Apple did buy some companies that developed technology used in the iPhone - but many of them at an early stage in their business and innovation cycle. It’s not as if Apple bought competitors (whether smartphone manufacturers, operating system developers or application stores) outright.

The politicians are doing what politicians do best, spinning a story that makes them out to be the good guy, when they are the ones that started the problem in the first place.

There’s no politician or business entity to blame. Operating systems are a platform business. And if anyone is to blame, it’s Apple for their anticompetitive stranglehold on software distribution.

Why don’t the EU help Nokia back in the early days of the iPhone?

Why or how should they’ve done that? It’s just competition having played out as it did. Apple’s product was more attractive (early on) as an operating system and software platform for third-party apps to run on. That’s how they grabbed their market share.

It’s in many ways efficient and “natural” for consumers and developers to “converge” on one - or very few - such platforms. Rather than having a fragmented market of a couple of dozens of competing operating systems. The few that survive become de facto standards - though that doesn’t mean their developers should have the right to exploit them as they please (in a duopoly).

That’s the issue, they won’t be allowed to charge anything.

They are allowed. Nothing stopping them from charging a fair $0.10 per yearly app download or something.

Apps aren’t a commodity information. One app doesn’t generically replace another.

Exactly. Which is why market share for software purchases shouldn’t be measured in units (or compatible devices).

 

[I7guy]

[…]

They are allowed. Nothing stopping them from charging a fair $0.10 per yearly app download or something.

They are not allowed to charge the historical rate.

Exactly. Which is why market share for software purchases shouldn’t be measured in units (or compatible devices).

One thing has nothing to do with another. Electronic devices are usually measured in units. Not customer revenue.

 

[I7guy]

It is. The Apple App Store isn’t in the “electronics” business.
It’s a software distribution, software licensing and payment transaction provider.

Apple is a maker of an electronic for consumer oriented device. So yeah it’s in the electronics business.

I’m not talking about Epic - but small, independent developers.

I’m talking about epic. They made $700 million or some such thing from the iOS App Store. Since Apple can’t charge them the historical fee should they just charge them a $1b distribution fee?

And yes, of course, the vocal ones among them. But even Gruber is ready to concede that Apple’s business model isn’t attractive or competitively priced - just that developers can’t do anything about it and have no other choice but to accept it,

The other choice is don’t engage. When I got my drivers license I have no choice but to follow the laws or pay the consequences.

if they want to be in business at all.

That’s the choice.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They are not allowed to charge the historical rate.

There is no such historical rate.
Because Apple did not allow distribution of apps outside of their store.

(Although actually they did in limited ways - with their enterprise developer subscription being priced at $299 - without additional commissions).

Either way, I’m glad we clarified and agreed that (contrary to the small misunderstanding above) Apple are allowedto charge money. Just maybe not in a way that gives their own store an unfair advantage or makes alternative distribution/ transactions economically infeasible.

One thing has nothing to do with another. Electronic devices are usually measured in units. Not customer revenue.

Agree.

Electronic devices (that market) is most commonly measured in units.
And transaction processing charged as a percentage of revenue in …well, as a percentage of revenue, obviously.

Apple is a maker of an electronic for consumer oriented device. So yeah it’s in the electronics business.

Both, of course.
They make electronic devices.
And they process transactions on behalf of third parties for media content and software.

I’m talking about epic. They made $700 million or some such thing from the iOS App Store. Since Apple can’t charge them the historical fee should they just charge them a $1b distribution fee?

They should charge them the same, non-discriminatory fees as Uber, for example.
A company which probably generates earnings in a similar order of magnitude.

The other choice is don’t engage

Given Apple’s market share, that’s a pseudo choice.
“Take it or leave it” (as in having to leave half of or the entire market) is not a choice that characterises competitive markets.

That’s the choice.

👉 Compete or be regulated.

That’s the choice for Apple to face (and slowly but surely and increasingly, they do).
Not “We price as we please - just because we can (and have the power)”.

 

[I7guy]

There is no such historical rate.
Because Apple did not allow distribution of apps outside of their store.

(Although actually they did in limited ways - with their enterprise developer subscription being priced at $299 - without additional commissions).

Either way, I’m glad we clarified and agreed that (contrary to the small misunderstanding above) Apple are allowedto charge money. Just maybe not in a way that gives their own store an unfair advantage or makes alternative distribution/ transactions economically infeasible.

Agree.

Electronic devices (that market) is most commonly measured in units.
And transaction processing charged as a percentage of revenue in …well, as a percentage of revenue, obviously.


Both, of course.
They make electronic devices.
And they process transactions on behalf of third parties for media content and software.


They should charge them the same, non-discriminatory fees as Uber, for example.
A company which probably generates earnings in a similar order of magnitude.


Given Apple’s market share, that’s a pseudo choice.
“Take it or leave it” (as in having to leave half of or the entire market) is not a choice that characterises competitive markets.


👉 Compete or be regulated.

That’s the choice for Apple to face (and slowly but surely, they do face it).
Not “We price as we please - just because we can (and have the power)”.

The historical rate is 30% whether you acknowledge it or not. The DMA is terrible ambiguous legislation. The definition of eu competition is to turn Apple into a public utility, because unfortunately that’s the only way it can create competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The historical rate is 30% whether you acknowledge it or not

...for Apps distributed by Apple.

@Baslea was talking about "Apps from outside the (Apple App) Store".

That is, apps not distributed by Apple.

...on which Apple incurs only a small fraction of the cost of apps distributed through their own store. And no distribution costs whatsoever.

Charging the same rate (or even a slightly smaller, such as the 27% junk fees that Gonzalez-Rogers rightly prohibited) while providing only a small fraction of the service obviously only serves anticompetitive purposes.

You provide no (or only a small fraction of service) - you deserve no (or only a small fraction) of the 30% "historic rate".

 

[I7guy]

...for Apps distributed by Apple.

No. Nearly every software distributor in the United States used 30%.

@Baslea was talking about "Apps from outside the (Apple App) Store".

That is, apps not distributed by Apple.

...on which Apple incurs only a small fraction of the cost of apps distributed through their own store. And no distribution costs whatsoever.

Charging the same rate (or even a slightly smaller, such as the 27% junk fees that Gonzalez-Rogers rightly prohibited) while providing only a small fraction of the service obviously only serves anticompetitive purposes.

Well this is still under appeal. And as I said being a dev in Apple is an opt in relationship.

You provide no (or only a small fraction of service) - you deserve no (or only a small fraction) of the 30% "historic rate".

Companies that aren’t public utilities within law can charge whatever they want and you ca elect to do business with them.

 

[Baslea]

Is Costco allowed to kick vendors off their property if they do not want to continue selling a specific product. Why should Apple have to accept vape and porn apps?

Yes, Costco is. Again: This comparison is just wrong. Apple can approve Apps as they like, if they offer users a way to get them from anywhere else.

Apple has met those responsibilities and in no way should it compromise its vision.

Countries start to seeing that different. Strange.

Apple has a set of rules surrounding engagement. Agree to them or not. If not don’t engage.

So have countries. If Apple want's to operate, they have to stick to the rules.

It’s the right answer. Vote with your $$$.

Sorry, I live in a country with a real currency not monopoly money in a free fall. Also, I vote with my vote. Although I am not living in the EU (anymore), I am proud EU fights for consumer rights and gives hope to "smaller" (or better said: not so powerfull) countries to stand against this sh*t. India, Korea, Japan, Brasil they're all to follow soon.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, Costco is. Again: This comparison is just wrong. Apple can approve Apps as they like, if they offer users a way to get them from anywhere else.

Only in the eu does it work that way. Apple doesn’t have to offer users a way to get the apps from somewhere else.

Countries start to seeing that different. Strange.

It will be what it will be, but that doesn’t make Apple a Public utility.

So have countries. If Apple want's to operate, they have to stick to the rules.

Same for its citizens.

Sorry, I live in a country with a real currency not monopoly money in a free fall. Also, I vote with my vote. Although I am not living in the EU (anymore), I am proud EU fights for consumer rights and gives hope to "smaller" (or better said: not so powerfull) countries to stand against this sh*t. India, Korea, Japan, Brasil they're all to follow soon.

There is a reason the wsj opined on the lack of innovation in the eu. The DMA was just one reason.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nearly every software distributor in the United States used 30%.

We’re not in the age of physical distribution (of software) anymore. And it doesn’t matter when Apple isn’t distributing the software anyway. Third parties can find more efficient ways to distribute software (or service providers helping them at that) - and customer benefit from that.

Companies that aren’t public utilities within law can charge whatever they want

…and Apple and their platform has become such quasi-utility.
Similar to internet access networks, cellular networks, etc.

Modern concepts of public utilities are not confined to services essential for human survival.

 

[I7guy]

We’re not in the age of physical distribution (of software) anymore.

Irrelevant. A service is being provided. If one doesn’t like the price don’t engage with the service.

And it doesn’t matter when Apple isn’t distributing the software anyway. Third parties can find more efficient ways to distribute software (or service providers helping them at that) - and customer benefit from that.

Then let third parties figure out how to distribute their wares. Maybe some platform competition will help.

…and Apple and their platform has become such quasi-utility.

No it hasn’t.

Similar to internet access networks, cellular networks, etc.

False equivalency.

Modern concepts of public utilities are not confined to services essential for human survival.

Basically they are. A circular argument is being used that Apple is a quasi public utility.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Then let third parties figure out how to distribute their wares. Maybe some platform competition will help.

As with natural monopolies, having a very low number of competing OS is economically efficient and preferred by consumers and businesses.

False equivalency.

We agree to disagree.

A circular argument is being used that Apple is a quasi public utility.

“In 2024, the App Store ecosystem facilitated nearly $1.3 trillion in billings and sales worldwide.”

More than a trillion dollars. When you’re proudly boasting about that, your service has become basically somewhat of a utility. And there’s nothing circular about that argument.

 

[I7guy]

As with natural monopolies, having a very low number of competing OS is economically efficient and preferred by consumers and businesses.


We agree to disagree.


“In 2024, the App Store ecosystem facilitated nearly $1.3 trillion in billings and sales worldwide.”

More than a trillion dollars. When you’re proudly boasting about that, your service has become basically somewhat of a utility. And there’s nothing circular about that argument.

A successful business, who would have thought. It certainly is pretzel logic trying to defend the DMA. Yes it is a codified ambiguous law and Apple is complying, but the pretzel logic trying to defend such a draconian law. Even the wsj has some opinions about this.

 

[The_Gream]

Wanna fix all these problems?

Two simple rules: If the OS is publicly available, it needs to allow side loading. If that OS supports the web, then the browsers on that OS should not be limited to a single engine.

Those two rules, that are not restricted by any quasi-vomit wording would solve all our current problems. None of this Gatekeeper BS ETC.

 

[Powerbooky]

They acted upon a complaint filed by a particular company operating in a certain sector of apps.

Yeah... a certain small sector. Meanwhile a clear monopoly in a much larger sector can continue. Probably has nothing to do with certain clientele whose name cannot be said benefitting from that smaller sector that also cannot be named of course.

So where is that room?

At least half of the fee is pure profit and since the digital store is global, there's enough room. This is similar to the discussion of exorbitant salaries of many executives of large companies. Just call it "conform to market standards" and everything is okay.

Also read this:

Welcome to the Age of Technofeudalism

In Yanis Varoufakis’ latest book, the former Greek finance minister argues that companies like Apple and Meta have treated their users like modern-day serfs.

www.wired.com

 

[frownface]

What’s the point in Appealing it’s only going to delay the inevitable

Probably because apple can afford to delay forever.

Each year of drawn out legal drama is one year they get to put off those changes; and if those changes are going to cost apple a billion dollars a year or something then spending millions on lawyers is a great ROI.

This is super effective against smaller plaintiffs, like developers, small businesses, etc who have a good chance of starving to death and going out of business while apple drags things out for months/years.

Yes the system is broken, but that's how it is.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It ain’t over till it’s over. Government has been known to be wrong.

Probably because apple can afford to delay forever.

Each year of drawn out legal drama is one year they get to put off those changes; and if those changes are going to cost apple a billion dollars a year or something then spending millions on lawyers is a great ROI.

This is super effective against smaller plaintiffs, like developers, small businesses, etc who have a good chance of starving to death and going out of business while apple drags things out for months/years.

Yes the system is broken, but that's how it is.

Well it’s over. And unlucky for Apple an appeal doesn’t equal the case being redone.

District Court of Rotterdam confirms ACM decision: Apple abused its dominant position for dating apps | ACM

Apple abused its dominant position by imposing unreasonable conditions on dating app providers in the App Store. The District Court of Rotterdam has confirmed this in a ruling today. The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), therefore, was right to impose an order subject to...

www.acm.nl

Seems like I and others are right again. Perhaps should keep a score board for what side is closer to the legal reality

 

[I7guy]

Well it’s over. And unlucky for Apple an appeal doesn’t equal the case being redone.

District Court of Rotterdam confirms ACM decision: Apple abused its dominant position for dating apps | ACM

Apple abused its dominant position by imposing unreasonable conditions on dating app providers in the App Store. The District Court of Rotterdam has confirmed this in a ruling today. The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), therefore, was right to impose an order subject to...

www.acm.nl

Seems like I and others are right again. Perhaps should keep a score board for what side is closer to the legal reality

I agree. Let's keep a worldwide scorecard of every case involving apples property and see where we are after a time. The ruling in the US of epic vs apple negates this ruling so we are at zero. The DMA isn't a ruling, but bad legislation so we award apple a whole lotta points in their favor.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I agree. Let's keep a worldwide scorecard of every case involving apples property and see where we are after a time. The ruling in the US of epic vs apple negates this ruling so we are at zero.

Well epic vs apple provided steering with zero fees 🤷‍♂️ (pending the appeal in a year or two)

plus the numerous ruling EU gave and I predict will not go in apple’s favor because of their malpractice in complying

 

[I7guy]

Well epic vs apple provided steering with zero fees 🤷‍♂️ (pending the appeal in a year or two)

But epic largely lost and the case is in appeal.

plus the numerous ruling EU gave and I predict will not go in apple’s favor because of their malpractice in complying

It’s unfortunate eu is playing in bad faith. As I said Apple, google and meta should leave the eu. They’ll have to regulate Spotify because that’s what’s left.