Dutch Antitrust Watchdog to Investigate Whether Apple Gives Itself Preferential Treatment in App Store [Updated]

[mwd25]

What the real issue is, is that developers want to just have free open access to all Apples ecosystem without paying a dime. Its indicative of the insane sense of entitlement people have today. I want to graduate secondary school, be accepted at the most prestigious universities.....for free......then graduate and start out making 6 figures right out of college. ITS MY RIGHT!!!!!
Well, no, its not. Apple could have easily just allowed only Apple apps on their phones. You don't have the RIGHT to put your app on their platform. Your lucky you have access to the millions of people that own an iphone. Its a level playing field between all non Apple apps. Apple doesn't have all kinds of different rules for different developers. You don't get preferred treatment if you pay a little extra to Apple. Do they not charge themselves a percentage to have THEIR OWN apps in app store? Obviously not.Not sure how this will even be proven. When you have apps on app store that are thriving, and some that are far and away more popular then Apples pre installed apps, then how did those people manage it. Google Maps, Plex, a massive amount of weather apps Firefox,Skype,Photography apps, all seem to thrive with these so-called unfair practices. And they all compete with pre-installed Apple apps.

 

[lazard]

What the real issue is, is that developers want to just have free open access to all Apples ecosystem without paying a dime. Its indicative of the insane sense of entitlement people have today. I want to graduate secondary school, be accepted at the most prestigious universities.....for free......then graduate and start out making 6 figures right out of college. ITS MY RIGHT!!!!!
Well, no, its not. Apple could have easily just allowed only Apple apps on their phones. You don't have the RIGHT to put your app on their platform. Your lucky you have access to the millions of people that own an iphone. Its a level playing eild between all non Apple apps. Apple doesn't have all kinds of different rules for different developers. You don't get preferred treatment if you pay a little extra to Apple. Do they not charge themselves a percentage to have THEIR OWN apps in app store? Obviously not.Not sure how this will even be proven. When you have apps on app store that are thriving, and some that are far and away more popular then Apples pre installed apps, then how did those people manage it. Google Maps, Plex, a massive amount of weather apps Firefox,Skype,Photography apps, all seem to thrive with these so-called unfair practices. And they all compete with pre-installed Apple apps.

except developers do pay for access to Apple's ecosystem

 

[matc]

As much as I love Apple and its products it's about time that they focus on competing by just building better products than the competition. This and the Spotify fight is a step into the right direction.

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

Apple is clearly misusing her position for anti competitive behavior because only her own apps can show the current date or be set as default.
Apple always maxes out her border for maximum profit and customer dis-satisfaction!

 

[BrettArchibald]

Does Walmart give preference to the store brand products. Yes they do. It would be stupid on their part not to.

But you can choose to go to another store, there's no other official way to get iOS apps other than the App Store itself.

Using your own analogy, you could always choose to buy a different phone, similar to how you can choose to go to a different store...

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

What the real issue is, is that developers want to just have free open access to all Apples ecosystem without paying a dime. Its indicative of the insane sense of entitlement people have today. I want to graduate secondary school, be accepted at the most prestigious universities.....for free......then graduate and start out making 6 figures right out of college. ITS MY RIGHT!!!!!
Well, no, its not. Apple could have easily just allowed only Apple apps on their phones. You don't have the RIGHT to put your app on their platform. Your lucky you have access to the millions of people that own an iphone. Its a level playing eild between all non Apple apps. Apple doesn't have all kinds of different rules for different developers. You don't get preferred treatment if you pay a little extra to Apple. Do they not charge themselves a percentage to have THEIR OWN apps in app store? Obviously not.Not sure how this will even be proven. When you have apps on app store that are thriving, and some that are far and away more popular then Apples pre installed apps, then how did those people manage it. Google Maps, Plex, a massive amount of weather apps Firefox,Skype,Photography apps, all seem to thrive with these so-called unfair practices. And they all compete with pre-installed Apple apps.

But, they didn't allow just their apps in the App Store. They allowed it to be offered as a service to third-party developers, some being competitors, and therein created a free marketplace for software on the iOS platform. So, the App Store can't be anti-competitive or create an anti-trust and if the argument is posed that they are in a particular fashion, then the burden of proof is on Apple to show that their tactic doesn't influence user choice of their service over a competitors.

 

[jlc1978]

Funny... At the start of the iphone Apple needed the companies to develop apps. Now that Apple knows what generates money they come with competing apps. But those apps of Apple don't have to pay an extra 30% for the first year and 15% for the years after.

True, but Apple has to pay for maintaining the apps store, curating apps, localizing the store, etc, so it's not exactly free of costs for them either. I just do not understand the notion that Apple should somehow let app developers have access to the app store free of charge. 15% is not an unreasonable markup; nor 30% to cover the costs of initial review. Even so, for many apps I doubt the money they get covers their costs. If Apple charged a fixed fee for access and review many of the apps currently on there would not exist.

 

[EvilEvil]

Apple is not a monopoly.

They are for Apple products.

 

[Remy149]

and the app store is the only store for all apple consumers

However iOS is only in Apple hardware and consumers have way more options when you compare the number of iPhone models released a year versus what’s on androids platform. I like having a safe and closed ecosystem. It seems like it’s mostly non Apple costumers who want the change

 

[lazard]

Using your own analogy, you could always choose to buy a different phone, similar to how you can choose to go to a different store...

so you're all for anti-competitive behavior

 

[Khedron]

Except windows was the only operating system for all pc costumers

entry level devices now have 64gb there is enough space

My point was more making fun of Apple's low storage, but they still sell 32GB iPhones and iPads in 2019 so maybe it's literally true.

 

[jlc1978]

But, they didn't allow just their apps in the App Store. They allowed it to be offered as a service to third-party developers, some being competitors, and therein created a free marketplace for software on the iOS platform. So, the App Store can't be anti-competitive or create an anti-trust and if the argument is posed that they are in a particular fashion, then the burden of proof is on Apple to show that their tactic doesn't influence user choice of their service over a competitors.

What? Every retailer that sells house and name brand items is doing the exact same thing; it's not nor ever was a free marketplace. Apple has no obligation to make it easier for someone to sell an item on the app store; I would say their only obligation is to not screen search results to eliminate apps.

 

[Remy149]

except developers do pay for access to Apple's ecosystem

They pay the same flat developer cost regardless of if they create a free of paid app. Take Spotify for instance less then half of their total users are paid subscribers yet they benefit all the perks of developers with free apps

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

Using your own analogy, you could always choose to buy a different phone, similar to how you can choose to go to a different store...

The analogy isn't correct. Every product manufacturer negotiates an individual contract, which includes product placement, advertising, etc. So, it's not considered a free marketplace but a private one. The contract between Apple and developers to offer their software are all the same which would infer no individual, preferential treatment and thus is a free marketplace for all software and services. So, the comparison to Walmart is not the same.

 

[realtuner]

and the app store is the only store for all apple consumers

Logical fallacy.

The App Store is not the only market for mobile phones.

 

[Porco]

I don’t think I can never read “watchdog” without imagining an actual canine.

Watchdog to investigate Apple... starts by sniffing their behind, then becomes distracted by postal worker and ends up chewing on carpet and ‘leaving a message’ in the middle of the room. Bad dog! Very responsive when told to sit though. Good dog!

If they were investigating the Apple Watch, would that mean we could all watch the Watch watchdog? But who watches those who watch the Watch watchdog?

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

What? Every retailer that sells house and name brand items is doing the exact same thing; it's not nor ever was a free marketplace. Apple has no obligation to make it easier for someone to sell an item on the app store; I would say their only obligation is to not screen search results to eliminate apps.

Every retail store is not the same. If you're trying to compare retail stores, then this is a dumb analogy. Almost every, if not all, retail stores are private marketplaces which negotiate individual contracts for product placement, advertising, etc.

 

[realtuner]

so you're all for anti-competitive behavior

Except there is none. You’re on a roll for logical fallacies today.

 

[willyx]

Oh yes, it does. Not only in the App Store but in the entire iOS ecosystem.

 

[bitslap47]

But you can choose to go to another store, there's no other official way to get iOS apps other than the App Store itself.

Yes and so can you. Go buy an Android phone and get apps from Google Play. Apple's app store already provides alternatives to their own apps.

 

[Baymowe335]

this analogy only makes sense if only apple apps were in the app store.

So these other companies can take their app off if they don't like it. At the end of the day, there is no compulsion to use the App, be on the App Store, or use the hardware that runs the Apps.

 

[gaximus]

Again, they created a free marketplace which offers unbiased advertising, hosting, and related customer services to third-parties which includes their competitors in other services offered by them. Once any free marketplace is created, then you lost control over prioritizing and/or preferential treatment of your service above the competitors service. The idea that just because software operates on hardware doesn't give a company exclusive rights to infringe upon the idea of a free marketplace. Don't want a free marketplace, then don't create one by offering a service on your platform to third-parties and competitors of those services. The free marketplace is promoting unbiased choice for the user and can't be influenced by one service having certain privileges which would deter the user from choosing the competitor's service.

But the AppStore is not a free market, it's never been, you have to pay to put your products in there, you have to pay if you make money off of your product. And you have to sign all kinds of contracts that agree to this before you're allowed to put any products in there. Apple created a marketplace, that they control, they did not create a free marketplace.

 

[Baymowe335]

Only if it were actually possible to install a different app store on the iOS device or if it were easily possible to "side-load" apps. And as others have already correctly mentioned: Nobody forced people to use Microsoft Windows either, still Microsoft got its butt kicked for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

Nobody should be allowed to have a stranglehold over an ecosystem, no matter how large or small.
[doublepost=1554994004][/doublepost]

Really? Because Apple is the ONLY company writing software for iOS? Because that would be the analogy for what you just said about Disney.

You have options on what devices you want to use, just as the companies writing software have no obligation to be on the App Store. Apple can be as vertically integrated as they want and anyone that doesn't like it has the option of leaving.

Disney has tons of companies doing work for their content, including movie theaters that have to pay Disney a cut of revenues. If they don't like the terms, don't show the movie at your theater. But guess why they want to? That's right...people want to see Disney movies...just like people want iOS Apps.

These snakes don't like the terms and now they're crying foul. TOO BAD...write software for the Android platform.

 

[lazard]

So these other companies can take their app off if they don't like it. At the end of the day, there is no compulsion to use the App, be on the App Store, or use the hardware that runs the Apps.

aka anti-competitive behavior

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

But the AppStore is not a free market, it's never been, you have to pay to put your products in there, you have to pay if you make money off of your product. And you have to sign all kinds of contracts that agree to this before you're allowed to put any products in there. Apple created a marketplace, that they control, they did not create a free marketplace.

It's a free market for user choice not to be influenced by the controlling party for preference to one service or product over another. Apple doesn't negotiate individually varying contracts with each developer. The contract is the same. Private marketplaces negotiate individual contracts which have varying stipulations and preferences. So, you're wrong.