Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dutch Antitrust Watchdog to Investigate Whether Apple Gives Itself Preferential Treatment in App Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
McDonald's make their big macs themselves. A very very large portion of apps in the iOS app store are not made by apple.
If apple has no control over prices, why are some apps/services more expensive in the iOS store vs www. Example YouTube tv and Spotify.
I can understand many people’s view that Apple built the App Store so they can do what they want. However, the key difference between EU and US consumer law is that where situations occur where corporate interests conflict with consumer interests, even if no party is doing anything “wrong” then the US tends to support corporates (which normally means doing nothing) whereas the EU will impose a solution that favours the consumer. It’s got nothing to do whether it’s morally and commercially right or wrong, it just levels the playing field.
Last edited:
Apple is the global leader in mobile app revenue 2 to 1 even if android dominates global marketshare. If you want to make an app or compete in this space, you NEED an ios app. Especially in the US where Apple dominates even further revenue wise. It's that simple.
And in order to do that, you have to kneel before Apple and obey. Even if they are or will be stacking the deck against you. Antitrust laws exist because companies like to engage in practices that restrain trade and competition designed to gain or hold on to monopoly like power.
Does apple engage in practices designed to elevate apple music to be the dominant player in this specific market? You bet it does. Spotify doesn't have a chance to compete with apple music having to pay 30% tax on top of other restraints imposed upon it. The list goes on.
And in order to do that, you have to kneel before Apple and obey. Even if they are or will be stacking the deck against you. Antitrust laws exist because companies like to engage in practices that restrain trade and competition designed to gain or hold on to monopoly like power.
Does apple engage in practices designed to elevate apple music to be the dominant player in this specific market? You bet it does. Spotify doesn't have a chance to compete with apple music having to pay 30% tax on top of other restraints imposed upon it. The list goes on.
Definition of Free Market "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." The competition is not unrestricted, Apple Places restriction on what you can sell in the App Store. A free market is one that is not governed, the AppStore is governed, you can't just put any product you want in there.
Hardware and operating systems need to be seperated from apps and content .
As in no business connection whatsoever , apart from technological exchange required for compatibility .
In the US, anti trust laws exist, but are hardly ever enforced - especially when the offender can afford a decent legal team .
As in no business connection whatsoever , apart from technological exchange required for compatibility .
In the US, anti trust laws exist, but are hardly ever enforced - especially when the offender can afford a decent legal team .
Remember the story recently about apple having a monopoly with teens?
I see both sides of this argument. In the one hand, Dutch authorities want to make sure that consumers aren’t misled. On the other hand, surely Apple have a right to market their own apps in their own store.
As others have said, there appear to be no rules about bricks and mortar stores promoting their own products over their competitors.
There appears to be a very simple compromise though... Whenever Apple’s apps are given a priority ranking in a search e.g. promoted above the position they would achieve naturally through SEO, simply label it a “sponsored listing” or words to that effect.
As others have said, there appear to be no rules about bricks and mortar stores promoting their own products over their competitors.
There appears to be a very simple compromise though... Whenever Apple’s apps are given a priority ranking in a search e.g. promoted above the position they would achieve naturally through SEO, simply label it a “sponsored listing” or words to that effect.
But, there are soooo many more Android users they can entice to pay for Spotify. Why is Spotify so concerned, if Apple has such a low market share? Apple built the ecosystem and app store. Apple spent money to start it and money to maintain it. So stop crying Spotify and work harder at getting Android users to pay........
I'm no legal expert. I do know Apple chooses to do business in The Netherlands. Therefor, they need to follow the laws of The Netherlands. I can't say if they're doing that or not since I'm not familiar with that legal system. So this ought to be an interesting investigation.
Yes please! I need Apple to lose this case, the Spotify case, and I hope someone files an anti competitive case against Apple on default apps and not allowing users to choose any Assistant or app they want as a default. When that happens I'll gladly pick up another iPhone, until then I'll keep watching.
The Dutch are very big on being egalitarian... however after 10 years here I've learned that for a Dutch person "egalitarian" means it's not fair that anyone should have more than *I* have
Do they have a competitive advantage over non-Apple software developers? Yes, they do, because they don't have to pay a 30% fee to the app store, and can price that into their products. Is that monopolistic or anti-competitive? Probably not, though it may be skirting the boundaries. IANAL, so I'll leave the details to those who are.
In a laissez-faire, meaning to free market then it also refers to unobstructed competition. The obstruction would be limiting the means by which a competitor has the freedom to offer subscription services through the app which doesn't directly pass through Apple which offers the in-app service as a payment processor. So, the App Store is a free marketplace for iOS users which has policies in-place that all developers, including themselves, which must abide by. This also means they can't restrict or place an unfair burden on their competitors. The argument is for them being anti-trust. Apple didn't want to open the App Store as a private, individually negotiated marketplace per each developer. All of them, including themselves as developers on the iOS software platform who use the App Store are bound by the same freedom from scrutiny in offering their service. They don't bare a burden of loss from in-app purchases. However, a class action suit could stipulate that Apple's growth was greatly influenced by third-parties and their competitors and should be given the same freedom from those burdens without unnecessary restrictions. Apple has to prove their restrictions are necessary for the end user. They would have to argue that without them, then the end user suffers from the experience and/or risks involved. The counterargument is that these restrictions aren't in place on a multitude of other software/hardware platforms which have posed no greater risk or loss in user experience.
Apple can't help itself. The pressure to monetize its users is driving them further into antitrust behavior. They didn't learn a lesson from the ebook thing.
Apple News. Apple conspires with most major magazines and attempted to with newspapers to corner it.
Apple games. They're doing the same with a list of devs to pump out a subscription model. If you're depending on the games for income, that's a direct threat to it.
TV plus. Apple once again is trying to bake in another service into its OS that isn't subject to the 30 percent tax and competes with netflix and others. Apple referred to it internally as their netflix killer. It'll flop but the intention is there.
Rather than engage in such behavior, I'd rather see them spend the billions in education. Providing macs or iOS devices to schools below cost. Supporting them. They need to engage young users. The billions spent on tv plus will never yield a profit either.. Get back to supporting businesses. There's PC and android share to steal.
Apple News. Apple conspires with most major magazines and attempted to with newspapers to corner it.
Apple games. They're doing the same with a list of devs to pump out a subscription model. If you're depending on the games for income, that's a direct threat to it.
TV plus. Apple once again is trying to bake in another service into its OS that isn't subject to the 30 percent tax and competes with netflix and others. Apple referred to it internally as their netflix killer. It'll flop but the intention is there.
Rather than engage in such behavior, I'd rather see them spend the billions in education. Providing macs or iOS devices to schools below cost. Supporting them. They need to engage young users. The billions spent on tv plus will never yield a profit either.. Get back to supporting businesses. There's PC and android share to steal.
Wow, I didn't know we had so many lawyers specializing in antitrust issues on MR. Even more surprising, it's also the same individuals who always criticize Apple for just about anything they do. What are the odds of that?
During the initial announcement of the AppStore Apple wanted a many apps to be offered for free, which does not apply to the 30% fee. Granted most of their apps are free and the price built into hardware sales, to sell on the store cost an annual fee even if the dev tools are free.
Business pay property taxes, sales and business taxes if they want to operate and sell their products in any city. I don’t see this as being any different. Maybe if you are offering your computer storage space to host third part apps and your bandwidth then come to the court to play, for not getting compensated. If not come up with another argument.
If Apple provided devices at a loss that would be a textbook antitrust case. Trying to use your money to drive competitors out of a market because you can afford to sell at a loss for longer then they can.
The problem is, you just cant say it, you have to actually PROVE IT. I have a equal chance to develop an app and have it be the most successful app ever created as you or any other developer. If Apple was being unfair if they favored themselves above others, then Apple would have the top apps all the time in the app store. Have you ever gone in it???
None of the top apps, at least top 20 are Apple apps. Either paid or free. And many are directly competing with Apple apps, whats app, facebook messenger, Spotify, Instagram,Gmail,Google Maps,Dark Sky weather,Camera2,Photoshop,Afterlight. So good luck. When a company is prosecuted for anti competitive behaviour, when they are accused of creating a un level playing field, they without exception DOMINATE the marketplace. All others are run out of business or are unable to make a profit.
That is so far from happening on the app store im shocked anyone is even bothering to investigate. Theres just way too many people that have made whole careers and retired on app store profits for this to be any kind of argument
These lawyers are so good at their profession that their have all the time to post here.
It’s a tad different though. You don’t have an investment in Walmart when you shop there, you can cross the street and head to Target. When you use an iPhone or Android, you’re more dug into the ecosystem and are forced to use whatever Apple or Google chooses.
Either way I’m not too worried about this, as it’s a minor issue compared to things like Apple’s 30% subscription cut.