Encrypted Messaging App Telegram Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple With EU

[I7guy]

Telegram spends ton on servers and services and commitment to its customers. Apple doesn’t contribute in its overhead, or for that matter no other companies hardwork in keeping its customers happy. It is only interested in 30% cut on revenues. Even governments have better hearts 🤣

On the other hand, Telegram wants access to Apples' lucrative customer base and wants to bypass Apple. Apple has worked hard to develop the iphone, ios and associated ecosystem and Telegram wants to waltz in and bypass the processes and protections that Apple has put into place? For all of that and the potential to sell your platform, $99 plus 30% is cheap at any price.

 

[bsolar]

I do not agree with Telegram’s position. I hope they have to pay Apple’s legal fees when they lose.

Telegram cannot lose, because they are not actually engaged in a legal battle over this.

What they did was not filing a lawsuit, but filing a complaint for antitrust violation to the EU Commission. Now it's up to the EU Commission to decide whether to investigate the issue and whether to eventually object against Apple's behaviour.

 

[ryuworks]

Some of these devs need to know that many iPhone users chose to use an iPhone exactly because there is only one way to install apps.

There’s a growing trend of iOS devs becoming more and more user-hostile in their pricing/update strategies in recent years.

Hard to side with the devs here.

 

[trusso]

Interesting how companies want to use Apple's platform but not pay Apple any fees.

Clearly companies want their apple pie and to eat it too.

Could you bend over any further?

 

[Ramchi]

On the other hand, Telegram wants access to Apples' lucrative customer base and wants to bypass Apple. Apple has worked hard to develop the iphone, ios and associated ecosystem and Telegram wants to waltz in and bypass the processes and protections that Apple has put into place? For all of that and the potential to sell your platform, $99 plus 30% is cheap at any price.

Apple gets its money and the margin in selling its iPhones. That user base is right now without a choice or alternative. Developers pay licenses for the software tools and deploy them in their customer devices which is outrightly owned by the customers.

No organisation or developer parts away their revenues with the Software tool owner. Apple will not come and rescue developers or small organisations when they need financial or other support.

Developers need customers and serve customers. Same way Network Providers provide the network connectivity hence they cannot charge 30% in every commercial transaction going through in its network.
For example App Store May provide user base for Uber to operate but managing the entire fleet of taxis and customers is the responsibility of Uber in addition to Software Development cost and Apple can’t sit nicely at the payment counter taking 30% cut.
If developers could charge less their customers than paying 30% to Apple, I am sure developers would pass the benefit to customers. Right now there is no other option hence they have to go through this App Store. Android has much bigger user base but that doesn’t mean Android has to charge 30% or 50% in every transaction.

sLAs are committed by the developers not by Apple.

 

[I7guy]

Apple gets its money and the margin in selling its iPhones. That user base is right now without a choice or alternative. Developers pay licenses for the software tools and deploy them in their customer devices which is outrightly owned by the customers.

No organisation or developer parts away their revenues with the Software tool owner. Apple will not come and rescue developers or small organisations when they need financial or other support.

Developers need customers and serve customers. Same way Network Providers provide the network connectivity hence they cannot charge 30% in every commercial transaction going through in its network.
For example App Store May provide user base for Uber to operate but managing the entire fleet of taxis and customers is the responsibility of Uber in addition to Software Development cost and Apple can’t sit nicely at the payment counter taking 30% cut.
If developers could charge less their customers than paying 30% to Apple, I am sure developers would pass the benefit to customers. Right now there is no other option hence they have to go through this App Store. Android has much bigger user base but that doesn’t mean Android has to charge 30% or 50% in every transaction.

sLAs are committed by the developers not by Apple.

In others words, yes. Telegraph wants to waltz in and make its own rules.

Apple is a minority player and has worked hard to build a cohesive , safe ecosystem. Telegraph wants to bypass it. Users have a choice of smartphone. With hundreds of millions of customers there will never be 100% consensus on things Apple. If devs don’t like it, there are alternatives.

I doubt highly there exists a concept called trickle down savings. Devs will pocket the difference.
[automerge]1596169439[/automerge]

Could you bend over any further?

OP is correct in my opinion.

 

[skitidetdu]

As of April 2020, they had 400 million users, so all of these people are hackers? Ok, sure . I use it and like it a lot. I like the fact that you need a code sent to you on text to even log in (and you can also set a password). I like the features that iMessaga lack, I like that it's cross platform that I can log into ANY device (Mac, Windows, Linux, Android, and even web) and use it. You don't care about privacy, cool, good for you. I own a very small business and I can't afford my own encryption system, and why would I want too anyways? I also use Signal as well, another great encrpyted cross platform messaging app.

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” - Edward Snowden

Fair enough

 

[Puonti]

If developers could charge less their customers than paying 30% to Apple, I am sure developers would pass the benefit to customers.

I'm not convinced that customers would feel like the savings were being passed on to them, for a couple of reasons:

The floor is unlikely to move

The App Store's been live for 12 years now and as we all know, app prices have plummeted. The great "Race to the Bottom" was a thing. It's safe to assume that the app / IAP price points most users are looking at are "Get" and "$0.99" (or your local equivalent). "Get" can't get any cheaper, and regardless of what percentage Apple dropped their cut to that $0.99 would not go down because that would slice their portion of it further (yes, I know, there's a special €0,49 price point in Europe - possible in some other places too).

The savings aren't high enough to pass on

Looking at the other price points, what would the developer savings look like if we for example assumed that Apple halved their cut from 30% -> 15%? (dev proceeds change in parenthesis)

$1.99 ($1.40 -> $1.70 = $0.30 savings): can't pass the savings to customer, because next Price Tier down is $0.99

$2.99 ($2.10 -> $2.60 = $0.50 savings): can't pass the savings to customer, because next Price Tier down is $1.99

(skipped $3.99, $4.99 and $5.99 because it's more of the same)

$6.99 ($4.90 -> $5.90 = $1.00 savings): can barely pass the savings to customer, because next Price Tier down is $5.99

As I noted above, past behavior suggests customers are looking for the lowest prices. At a 15% Apple cut developers would still not be able to pass the savings on to their customers at six of the lowest Pricing Tiers. To my knowledge there's around 200 Pricing Tiers in the App Store - I don't see Apple adding new half-dollar steps just to make it possible for developers to pass on their savings to customers at a lower price point. Especially since shrinking their cut would already hurt Apple's income.

Not all developers make a lot of money as is

Then there's the popular (and rooted to truth) refrain that many developers are already "struggling". If that's the case, would they really want to pass 100% of the savings to their customers when they could instead, you know, survive? So let's say they want to make a bit more than they are making currently - at what point could they pass a 1-dollar savings to their customers, while also making at least a dollar more themselves? Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Not at $7.99, $8.99, $9.99, $10.99 or $11.99.

$12.99 ($9.10 -> $11.10 = $2.00 savings): can barely split the savings to benefit both themselves and their customers.

We're now 13 Price Tiers deep and in pricing territory I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of regular customers are not comfortable / familiar with. You could argue that mobile game whales will benefit, but then again they're spending that money to get something - and if the prices were lower, you could argue they would continue to spend the same amount just to get more.

Customers are che... cost-conscious

Finally, whatever price you set something at, you're going to have people complaining it's not worth it (they conveniently forget the "to me" part). Even customers who would learn of the savings being passed on to them would quickly forget it happened because they have their own lives to run. Gratitude tends to be fleeting, unfortunately.

 

[coolfactor]

I'm not quite sure why Apple hasn't released a "store marketplace" platform where independent stores can be built on top of Apple-provided frameworks. Each store owner would be able to define their own terms within their store. This would effectively create a competitive marketplace while still enabling Apple to vet the apps. So instead of just having one "app store", we have an "app mall". It's a step in the right direction.

 

[I7guy]

I'm not quite sure why Apple hasn't released a "store marketplace" platform where independent stores can be built on top of Apple-provided frameworks. Each store owner would be able to define their own terms within their store. This would effectively create a competitive marketplace while still enabling Apple to vet the apps. So instead of just having one "app store", we have an "app mall". It's a step in the right direction.

So each store owner would have to buy a "license" in the form of a certificate? That could work. Apple could charge say: $15M for the certificate. No reason Apple should give this away for free. And then let the store owner provide a cheap platform for distribution.
[automerge]1596195545[/automerge]

"...Telegram is the third company after Spotify and Rakuten to formally complain to the EU Commission, which is already conducting two investigations into Apple's App Store and Apple Pay...."
man - aapl has to defend against so many pesky lawsuits
hope aapl legal depertment is earning its pay by winning

Yep, there's a trend to get a free slice of the apple.

 

[malkovich87]

Have you, or anyone, looked at what developers would have to pay to make they products available in the same way? To replicate the services Apple provides for this 30%. How they would get word of their product to end users for example or the cost of the bandwidth to support downloads, the costs of taking small payments and how they would distribute updates to users?

It seems to me that there are a lot of services that Apple is covering here that developers would need to provide, pay for and manage themselves, taking time away from doing product development and possibly missing out on economies of scale that Apple can achieve.

As I said further up already: for smaller devs it’s alright.

 

[MacBH928]

There is ways around this:

1-Apple sells 2 kinds of iPhones, the "Apple Secured" iphone for $600 and the "Open Platform" for $1500. Make your choice

2-Apple could open 3rd party installing sources, but they can also issue a "warranty breach"... by opening 3rd party installation sources you lose any guarantees on the product and if you brick it you are on your own.

Honestly, there is no reason for Apple to forbid installation from 3rd parties I know I will be upset if this was the case on MacOS but since the iPhone is ...a phone, its more of a gadget and I rather sleep like a baby knowing that no trackers or viruses are on my phone. It works for me.

It would have been more ok if Apple just took their 30% and release safe apps but they force their own views and politics on what should be on the app store and what should not be... I believe they already ban porn, emulators, gambling, different web engines, and they banned Infowars...not that I encourage any of this but it starting to sound like the "Ministry of Truth".

Whats next? Ban Trump campaigners and advertise CCP in China? Ban the Bible and endorse Scientology?

While I have massive respect for Telegram, demanding that Apple allow the installation from apps from untrusted sources is unacceptable.

This could be a big blow to privacy (the irony!) if Apple is compelled to make this a feature.

Imagine the lay user downloading an app from malicious pop ups thinking it's legitimate.

uhhh...this is a very bad argument. This is actually how every other computer device works since the 70s including Windows, Linux, MacOS, Android, FreeBSD, Commodore 64, Amiga, MS-DOS...

It’s a typical monopoly abuse situation. Developers have no choice but to develop for the Apple platforms if they want to survive. And Apple abuses that fact by asking unreasonably high fees.

Actually its not, not only does a competitor exists which is Android and other options like SailFish, Librem, and Kai OS...its not Apple's fault that people choose their product because its the best. The door is also open for any company that wishes to take a risk and compete against Apple who have the money and sources to do so like Microsoft, Samsung, Oracle, Huawie, Amazon, and FaceBook.

They should take a risk and invest in an OS like Apple did with iOS back in 2007, lack of competitors is not Apple's fault.

 

[MacBH928]

I'm not quite sure why Apple hasn't released a "store marketplace" platform where independent stores can be built on top of Apple-provided frameworks. Each store owner would be able to define their own terms within their store. This would effectively create a competitive marketplace while still enabling Apple to vet the apps. So instead of just having one "app store", we have an "app mall". It's a step in the right direction.

That could work but Apple really wants the 30% cut, there is also the arguement that Apple should let me be free to install whatever I want on my device not just apps that meet their standards of quality. Currently on MacOS, apps that meet their standards are on the App Store and those that are not can be installed by downloading from the web.

 

[imasterus]

Want to swim in an ocean of sharks, use Android.

Or, want to swim in an ocean of sheep, use iOS

 

[peter34]

there was independent store for iOS - cydia and it also charged 30% and it just paid expenses for running that store

Saurik (Jay Freeman) Talks Cydia Revenue, Mac OS X Cydia And More

The creator of Cydia, Saurik (Jay Freeman) talked about how much he makes off Cydia, what happened to Cydia for Mac OS X, HackStore, Rock Your iPhone and more in a forum rant.

www.ijailbreak.com

 

[peter34]

uhhh...this is a very bad argument. This is actually how every other computer device works since the 70s including Windows, Linux, MacOS, Android, FreeBSD, Commodore 64, Amiga, MS-DOS...

you are correct. I can also remember times ZX Spectrum, but now we live in different times.
To me it seems that when Apple created app store, they saw how will privacy develop over time and build in iOS lot of protections which was not available at that time in OS X. And we still benefit from it. In past no apps would care what you have on your computer or what you do on computer. Now there is lot of free apps, which have some easy function, but in reality they are used only for purpose of collecting data about user by any means possible (gps, clipboard, microphone, contacts, camera...). Only thing how you can limit it, are quite strict rules what can app do on your device and controlling entry point, so you have capacity switch off app which goes rogue.
And for me it’s hard to imagine how this can be maintained when there is multiple stores. So I take one app store as price which we pay for privacy.

 

[I7guy]

You probably don't know apple doesn't review the source code of approved apps.your trust in apple approval of any app is misplaced. Have you already forgotten about apps that read your clipboard or use the camera without permission

What I trust Apple to do is an overall process to keep the App Store safe. It was never claimed Apple did a “source code” review as devs don’t submit source code for submission.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

While I have massive respect for Telegram, demanding that Apple allow the installation from apps from untrusted sources is unacceptable.

This could be a big blow to privacy (the irony!) if Apple is compelled to make this a feature.

Imagine the lay user downloading an app from malicious pop ups thinking it's legitimate.

You mean like how Macs already work and have always worked?

 

[@Brett]

You mean like how Macs already work and have always worked?

Mac have always been that way. iPhones have more users and a lot more users who may potentially download something bad. Typical of companies running to the EU. They lose credibility in my eyes perhaps Apple needs to look at the Telegram app and see if there are any patent issues there.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

Mac have always been that way.

Exactly. As have Windows PCs which most people use on a daily basis.

iPhones have more users

Android makes up ~90% of the worldwide smartphone market and has always allowed the option to install apps from third parties as well.

Apple's approach is the outliner here, not the rule.

Typical of companies running to the EU.

Telegram is a small business that I am pretty certain runs at a loss. They don't have money to throw around at lawsuits like Apple, Spotify, Epic, etc do.

They lose credibility in my eyes perhaps Apple needs to look at the Telegram app and see if there are any patent issues there.

Lol what does Apple own the patent for sending messages through the internet? 😂

Knowing the US patent system such a patent is probably legally possible, but Apple would be the ones losing credibility if they stooped to becoming patent trolls out of spite.

And if such a thing ever went to court, especially with the amount of bad PR it would generate if Apple is the one doing it, the EFF would fund Telegram's defence and they'd easily win the lawsuit. Generic patents like that almost always get thrown out when it actually goes to trial.

Apple should just stop being anticompetitive. Google and Microsoft allow you to install software from outside their app stores on their platforms. Apple does as well on the Mac.

 

[@Brett]

Exactly. As have Windows PCs which most people use on a daily basis.



Android makes up ~90% of the worldwide smartphone market and has always allowed the option to install apps from third parties as well.

Apple's approach is the outliner here, not the rule.



Telegram is a small business that I am pretty certain runs at a loss. They don't have money to throw around at lawsuits like Apple, Spotify, Epic, etc do.



Lol what does Apple own the patent for sending messages through the internet? 😂

Knowing the US patent system such a patent is probably legally possible, but Apple would be the ones losing credibility if they stooped to becoming patent trolls out of spite.

And if such a thing ever went to court, especially with the amount of bad PR it would generate if Apple is the one doing it, the EFF would fund Telegram's defence and they'd easily win the lawsuit. Generic patents like that almost always get thrown out when it actually goes to trial.

Apple should just stop being anticompetitive. Google and Microsoft allow you to install software from outside their app stores on their platforms. Apple does as well on the Mac.

Exactly and look at the malware on Android and Windows. Another point if Telegram is running at a loss that is their issue. Claiming anti trust is plain rubbish. The iOS ecosystem has always been somewhat closed and they agreed to terms. Because they saw the benefit of iOS and the money that could be made. You cannot make money and agree to terms and them complain later on. Just like Epic has done. You speak of the US patent system but Telegram has run to the EU not the US. Personally I use iMessage I am not interested in installing apps that do pretty much the same thing most of my friends and family are also on iOS. And iMessage is popular in Australia where is live and so is iOS so not a US centric thing. Perhaps Telegram should read terms before agreeing to them.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

Exactly and look at the malware on Android and Windows.

Most malware on Android comes from pirated apps. If you for instance install F-Droid and get apps from there your chances of getting malware are extremely low. Same as if you get apps from the Amazon Appstore etc.

I would even say the same is true of Windows these days. Windows 10 has a lot of active security protections. Windows Defender is as good as third party AV and W10 is very good at picking up malware. Most people still getting malware on Windows today are disabling security features so they can install cracked games. That's on them.

Another point if Telegram is running at a loss that is their issue.

My point there is that is why they are going to the EU instead of starting an expensive legal battle against a two trillion dollar company.

Claiming anti trust is plain rubbish. The iOS ecosystem has always been somewhat closed and they agreed to terms. Because they saw the benefit of iOS and the money that could be made. You cannot make money and agree to terms and them complain later on.

So basically your argument boils down to: "if iOS has always been anticompetitive, then it doesn't count as being anticompetitive"?

As for money, Telegram is free and does not have any in-app purchases. You will notice their complaint is regarding a gaming service they were planning to launch. The actual Telegram messenger app is 100% free and has no ads. It makes no money. It is funded by the founders and donations.

You speak of the US patent system but Telegram has run to the EU not the US.

But Apple is a US company, and you mentioned Apple's patents, so if there was a hypothetical patent lawsuit against Telegram from Apple (there won't be) it'd be in the US.

European patent laws are generally more sensible than those in the US and don't allow for as many frivolous patents to begin with.

Personally I use iMessage I am not interested in installing apps that do pretty much the same thing most of my friends and family are also on iOS. And iMessage is popular in Australia where is live and so is iOS so not a US centric thing.

Good for you? I don't really care if you use Telegram or not. Although just for the record, Telegram has many features iMessage lacks. Whether those features matter to you depends entirely on your use case. But there are many things you can do in Telegram that are simply not possible in iMessage.

Personally I use Signal as my primary messenger (it's by far the most secure) and Telegram as more of a social network. I reluctantly have WhatsApp installed because everyone uses it here (UK). iMessage is something I only use rarely as most of my messaging is through group chats and my friends are mixed between Android and iOS so a cross-platform messenger is a must have.

 

[@Brett]

Most malware on Android comes from pirated apps. If you for instance install F-Droid and get apps from there your chances of getting malware are extremely low. Same as if you get apps from the Amazon Appstore etc.

I would even say the same is true of Windows these days. Windows 10 has a lot of active security protections. Windows Defender is as good as third party AV and W10 is very good at picking up malware. Most people still getting malware on Windows today are disabling security features so they can install cracked games. That's on them.



My point there is that is why they are going to the EU instead of starting an expensive legal battle against a two trillion dollar company.



So basically your argument boils down to: "if iOS has always been anticompetitive, then it doesn't count as being anticompetitive"?

As for money, Telegram is free and does not have any in-app purchases. You will notice their complaint is regarding a gaming service they were planning to launch. The actual Telegram messenger app is 100% free and has no ads. It makes no money. It is funded by the founders and donations.



But Apple is a US company, and you mentioned Apple's patents, so if there was a hypothetical patent lawsuit against Telegram from Apple (there won't be) it'd be in the US.

European patent laws are generally more sensible than those in the US and don't allow for as many frivolous patents to begin with.



Good for you? I don't really care if you use Telegram or not. Although just for the record, Telegram has many features iMessage lacks. Whether those features matter to you depends entirely on your use case. But there are many things you can do in Telegram that are simply not possible in iMessage.

Personally I use Signal as my primary messenger (it's by far the most secure) and Telegram as more of a social network. I reluctantly have WhatsApp installed because everyone uses it here (UK). iMessage is something I only use rarely as most of my messaging is through group chats and my friends are mixed between Android and iOS so a cross-platform messenger is a must have.

You state most malware on Android comes from pirated Apps. So you are kind of proving my point openness does come at a cost to safety and security. Even malware protection and antivirus do not cover 100% of issues and threats. Many cases of malware have also been found on the Google Play Store. Cost or not running to the EU is going to do what they are a US company May make a difference in the EU but not anywhere else. I do not think it has much to do with money and more about the EU seeming more friendly to the so called little guy. Also sure Telegram wants to release their own gaming service. Claiming anticompetitive behaviour before even releasing something is a bit rich. If anything other gaming services which there are many would be more of a cause of concern for Telegram. In terms of my usage I do not care if you do not care what I use fact is they are claiming anti competitive issues for something they have not even delved into before. Is the new market research complain to a government body and try to get a deal before you have even launched anything. I mean I terms of publicity it gets your name out there but can also leave a bad taste in the consumers mouth. Earlier you stated Android has over 90% market share according to stats it is 74.6% but never mind that. If that is the case Telegram can launch their gaming service on that. Android users are always on about choice well guess what people have chasing to use iOS and devs have chosen to develop no one twisted their arm. If you do not like the terms then leave. Apples terms have been like this for the best part of 12 years now. I am sure Apple at times can be greedy but so can others.