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

[Rogifan]

You should read the post I replied to.

I replied to: 'So f**** what? It's their OWN store. Having an app for sale in APPLE's AppStore is not a right, it's a privilege.'

That has nothing to do with what you are asking.

[doublepost=1555003635][/doublepost]

Apple can not dictate everything they want (even in their own store). Also selling apps in the App store is not a privilege but a legal/sales agreement between the App developer and Apple. That gives the seller rights too.

The poster I originally replied to (see 4 paragraphs above) was way to simplistic with his claim.

But Apple still has the right to decide whether they’re going to enter into a legal/sales agreement with an app developer. So in that sense yes it is a privilege to have an app on the App Store not a guaranteed right.
[doublepost=1555004809][/doublepost]

The AppStore is not a public institution, it's a private entity. Apple has every right to decide who has the privilege to sell in its property and under what terms. (as long as its not driven by discrimination). Don't like their terms? Don't sell there.

Apple discriminates all the time. Not allowing pornography or gay conversion apps in the App Store is discrimination.

 

[macplay]

Im glad that Apple has some monopoly... it delivers stable apps..

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

But Apple still has the right to decide whether they’re going to enter into a legal/sales agreement with an app developer. So in that sense yes it is a privilege to have an app on the App Store not a guaranteed right.
[doublepost=1555004809][/doublepost]
Apple discriminates all the time. Not allowing pornography or gay conversion apps in the App Store is discrimination.

I agree partly. But when you'r in the appstore already It is not a privilege anymore and Apple can not do what it wants to you anymore..
This thread is not about getting in, but about already being in (in other words: having a legal agreement already).

 

[windywalks]

Apple Music? Apple News? Just some examples

Apple Music is part of the Music app - not in the AppStore
Apple News is also bundled with the iPhone in eligible markets.
If anything, Apple is using it's position to negotiate terms of agreements with record labels and publishers. This has nothing to do with developers.

 

[lost-again]

The AppStore is not a public institution, it's a private entity. Apple has every right to decide who has the privilege to sell in its property and under what terms. (as long as its not driven by discrimination). Don't like their terms? Don't sell there.

When private entities become large enough or important enough they become public and subject to regulation, you accept it for Plans, Cars, Food, Drugs, why not for technology?

 

[Timemaster]

Apple is not a monopoly.

It may not be a monopoly but it is a duopoly. Basically they are not that far removed from a monopoly. Have almost the same amount of power. More importantly free market does not work under duopolies.

When you drop below 4-5 major players duopoly and monopoly tendances start happening where the big players can and do start abusing their power. Once you cross 4-5 players free market really runs the show. There is not a large difference between 4-5 vs a 100 in terms of pricing as free market really controls everything but at 2-3 players those players have all the power to set the rules and honestly very little motivation to offer better power and all the motivation to screw over everyone else.
When you get down to a 2-3 major players range free market and capitalism start breaking down and no longer work. Competition is suppressed and breaking in becomes cost prohibited if it is even possible. Hence at that market range regulations need to take over to keep the market fair.
Apple's early days it was a minor players and had to fight the big dogs (Microsoft) it as allowed to use those abuse tools to get into power. But now that they are there the rules have changed. They choose to be this big. They choose to be the power player. As such the rules are different and they need to play about them. It is better for everyone but Apple.

 

[Glideslope]

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

One could apply this observation toward the entire EU, IMO.

 

[BvizioN]

Outside of the US there are many countries with laws designed to appear they give a **** about people, not corporations.

I fixed something on your comment.

 

[farewelwilliams]

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.

You can ditch iOS and choose Android.

 

[bollman]

I wonder what the consensus on this forum will be when all competing apps are driven away.
I can't remember anyone siding with Microsoft when they had to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 95 in Europe.

Apple is using the same tactics as MS did back then: Observe what users use the most and deliver the same functionality built into the operating system, pre-installed. Thereby eliminating the need for the user to go anywhere else.
What if you had to go to the App Store and browse the Music category to find the music service you wanted? Or the streaming movie service, or news outlet, or anything else beside the bare essentials to get the operating system working? Let's say Apple allowed operators to decide what apps to be pre-installed. They could decide that Spotify should be pre-installed instead of Apple Music, what would happen?

Internet Explorer was by no means the best browser, but it effectively killed off all competitors since noone bothered with paying Netscape for something that was included when you bought Windows.

You can defend Apple on these cases all you want, but contrary to what you might think, it's not the smart move. The smart move is to let competition be the decider on what service to use. You can loathe Spotify all you want and never let it on your device, but the fact that it's there and profitable ensures that Apple keeps enhancing their service to lure over users, not by stifling competition by taxing their income.

 

[Krizoitz]

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.

Actually no, that’s completely wrong. The iPhone was already a runaway success before they introduced the AppStore and 3rd party apps.

 

[truthertech]

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.

Wrong analogy. If you don't want to pay for a Spotify subscription through the App store, you can "walk" to their website and get it there.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I wonder what the consensus on this forum will be when all competing apps are driven away.
I can't remember anyone siding with Microsoft when they had to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 95 in Europe.

Apple is using the same tactics as MS did back then: Observe what users use the most and deliver the same functionality built into the operating system, pre-installed. Thereby eliminating the need for the user to go anywhere else.
What if you had to go to the App Store and browse the Music category to find the music service you wanted? Or the streaming movie service, or news outlet, or anything else beside the bare essentials to get the operating system working? Let's say Apple allowed operators to decide what apps to be pre-installed. They could decide that Spotify should be pre-installed instead of Apple Music, what would happen?

Internet Explorer was by no means the best browser, but it effectively killed off all competitors since noone bothered with paying Netscape for something that was included when you bought Windows.

Back in Windows time, Windows had 95%+ marketshare. Android has more marketshare than iOS. If you don't like iOS, you have a viable alternative. Users didn't have a viable alternative to Windows.

Tesla cars don't have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto. I want Waze on it, but can't get it. So what do I do? I can dump Tesla and get a different EV. It's not really different from that.

 

[vivo]

This has been on the frontpage much too long.

please update, this acm has had their moment of 'news' and does not deserve all this attention.

NL is such a small country.

move on, stop b*tching the app store, it's a great benefit/infrastructure for people who want or need it.

Edit: maybe a nice new xcode beta will make my day today on 10.14.5 beta2 , Apple?

 

[burgman]

When private entities become large enough or important enough they become public and subject to regulation, you accept it for Plans, Cars, Food, Drugs, why not for technology?
[doublepost=1555005758][/doublepost]

When private entities become large enough or important enough they become public and subject to regulation, you accept it for Plans, Cars, Food, Drugs, why not for technology?

Really? Who has investigated Ford for not allowing a customer having Ford install a different engine or sound system? The App Store is a product just like a car, created and maintained by Apple with the T&C very clear. Ironic that after becoming successful, partially from selling on App Store, companies start calling the store unfair.

 

[bollman]

Back in Windows time, Windows had 95%+ marketshare. Android has more marketshare than iOS. If you don't like iOS, you have a viable alternative. Users didn't have a viable alternative to Windows.

Tesla cars don't have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto. I want Waze on it, but can't get it. So what do I do? I can dump Tesla and get a different EV. It's not really different from that.

So, this is fake news then?
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/08/iphone-teen-survey-piper-jaffray-spring-2019/

And Mac OS was not a viable alternative to Windows in 1995??

 

[Krizoitz]

Apple is using the same tactics as MS did back then: Observe what users use the most and deliver the same functionality built into the operating system, pre-installed. Thereby eliminating the need for the user to go anywhere else.

Yeah no, thats not what Microsoft got in trouble for. Microsoft got in trouble by using its near Monopoly on computer operating systems to prohibit PC manufacturers from including non-MS browsers, for leveraging Office to threaten companies like Apple to try and force them to kill competing products (QuickTime), and bundling, which was not including the functionality into the OS, but as a separate app and then claiming it was unable to be removed. Apple doesn’t really meet any of those criteria. First, it doesn’t have a monopoly on smartphone OSs. Second, it’s not licensing it’s OS to anyone, so it’s not leveraging that licensing to prevent manufacturers from installing anything. Third, The apps in question aren’t even pre-installed, Apple is doing the OPPOSITE of what Microsoft did in that sense. The only similarity between Microsoft then and Apple now is that both are very financially successful.

What if you had to go to the App Store and browse the Music category to find the music service you wanted? Or the streaming movie service, or news outlet, or anything else beside the bare essentials to get the operating system working? Let's say Apple allowed operators to decide what apps to be pre-installed. They could decide that Spotify should be pre-installed instead of Apple Music, what would happen?

What would happen? The Android market that’s what. If you want that kind of experience, buy an Android phone. One of the key value propositions of Apple products, since the before iPhone was introduced was that its an easy to use, end to end solution. You’re argument is that Apple shouldn’t be able to offer customers something that customers have clearly decided they want.

Internet Explorer was by no means the best browser, but it effectively killed off all competitors since noone bothered with paying Netscape for something that was included when you bought Windows.

Which is why Internet Explorer is the only browser today. Wait, it’s not? We’ll surely it’s the most popular! Oh it’s not that either? Huh, weird...

not by stifling competition by taxing their income.

So Apple should be required to cover all the costs associated with developing their API, tools, and the costs of running the AppStore and the Apps they host should get to benefit for free? It’s not a tax, it’s a fee, a fee that covers the services that Apple provides. If you don’t like the fee, hey Google offers an alternative where you don’t have to pay. Develop for Android instead. It’s 100% the developers choice. Competition already exists. Developers like Spotify are just trying to get everything for free, all the benefits, none of the costs. If they struggle it’s because of their own problems, not Apple. Tell you what, too be fair Apple can charge it’s own apps the same 30% it does to other Apps. There ya go, level playing field. Done.

 

[techwhiz]

People on this forum confuse choice of phone and choice in the App Store.
Assuming a person has chosen an iPhone, the only place to get apps is through the Apple App Store.
Developers cannot distribute any app to an iPhone any other way.
Consumers cannot get content on the device any other way.

If you want to compare it to Android; I don't have to use Google to get apps to my Android device. I can go to third party websites and download directly to the device or install directly from a computer to the device. I only need to click a box that says, I am aware of the risks of using software that has not been through the vetting process that Google set up.

Since Apple controls the app ecosystem for the iPhone, they can charge a fair and reasonable amount to curate the store, but it cannot put completing Applications at an unfair disadvantage. In reality Apple would have a separate group that checks to make sure Apple applications don't use any undocumented API that a third party developer cannot also use. The process for appearance on the store would be equivalent for Apple developed applications and the pricing would reflect the development effort required and Apple would put up a wall and charge a 15% or 30% (whatever) and book the appearance revenue to the App Store and book the remaining to the development group.

What the suit is saying is that Apple gives preference to Apple applications over third party applications in placement, revenue and API. You can't just go and release your app somewhere else if you want to release for iPhone.
If Apple had never opened up the store to third parties, then it would be different. They chose to create a marketplace to advance the platform. I hope we can agree that what made the iPhone a success is the fact that you had lots of developers and a marketplace. Without that, and only Apple developed applications the iPhone success would be very limited.

 

[vivo]

Spell

I think it's based on old thoughts/models etc. about software and that's a very general assumption but just like with Records/Movie companies the market/model/business model change due to technology.

Always be future bound.

 

[farewelwilliams]

So, this is fake news then?
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/08/iphone-teen-survey-piper-jaffray-spring-2019/

And Mac OS was not a viable alternative to Windows in 1995??

How is that fake news? They segmented the data to teens in the United States. Look at global statistics among all ages. Android has substantially larger marketshare than iOS

Regarding Mac OS, read the except from https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact#iiia

Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent.

Which means Microsoft dictated what the internet should be and all web developers had to develop for IE because Microsoft still had 80%+ marketshare. This means that web pages would be broken for other browsers. Users couldn't switch to Mac with a different browser unless they wanted a mostly broken web.

 

[vivo]

^^

Windows 95 v1 could not access the internet. they hacked in the tcp/ip stack because we need to go on the internet the internal memo from the CEO said in early 1996 right? But the injection to Apple from MS in 1996 was something else am I wrong? </offtopic>

 

[justperry]

This has been on the frontpage much too long.

please update, this acm has had their moment of 'news' and does not deserve all this attention.

NL is such a small country.

move on, stop b*tching the app store, it's a great benefit/infrastructure for people who want or need it.

Edit: maybe a nice new xcode beta will make my day today on 10.14.5 beta2 , Apple?

So because it's a small country it isn't important.

You might not know that in a (your) iPhone there's at least 2 technologies made in The Netherlands.
(NXP/ASML)

Oh, and that black hole picture was also the idea made possible by a Dutch professor.
Philips (Dutch) invented the cassette player, CD/DVD/.
Unilever is Dutch.
Shell is Dutch.
The best DJ's are Dutch.
Flowers.
Famous painters.
And so on....

 

[realtuner]

Apple chose which laws to be under when they sell iPhones in another country.

Great. Please explain in detail, showing the appropriate statues, where Apple has broken the law.

 

[farewelwilliams]

What the suit is saying is that Apple gives preference to Apple applications over third party applications in placement, revenue and API. You can't just go and release your app somewhere else if you want to release for iPhone.

You release on Android and customers will switch from iOS to Android.

This isn't different than...Playstation offering games through their Playstation Network Store. If you wanted to release a porn game on Playstation, you couldn't do that. Much like you can't release a porn game on the App Store. If you don't like what Sony is doing, you go to Microsoft or Valve and users have to buy a different console.

Video game platforms have been doing this for decades, but it's not until Apple got big is when people started complaining.

 

[norbinhouston]

Apple should just pull out of the Netherlands and have their citizens use the more "open" android and see how that works out when everyone of their citizens is monitized by google!