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.
EU Announces Investigations into App Store In-App Purchase Rules and Apple Pay
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just read Apples statement. The ‘Level playing field‘ comment is absolutely shameless.
So much excitement in this one. Does anyone familiar with the EU even remotely believe some type of ruling will occur in the next 5 years? This is a negotiating tactic attempting to manipulate Apple's current App Store Model. Nothing more.
The only meaningful sentence in the article is the last. They always list investigations as a matter of priority.
"There is no legal deadline for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end, and the duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a range of factors that can take years to work through, but the EC said it will carry out its investigations "as a matter of priority."
The only meaningful sentence in the article is the last. They always list investigations as a matter of priority.
"There is no legal deadline for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end, and the duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a range of factors that can take years to work through, but the EC said it will carry out its investigations "as a matter of priority."
Nobody is forcing developers to create applications. It’s not like they’re doing it to give Apple a hand.
It requires more specifically market dominance and abuse of power. A monopoly is just one form of market dominance, but you do not need to have a literal monopoly to have market concentration, nor do you have to be the dominant player (e.g. a smaller actor within a duopoly can still have market dominance). Even a relatively small player like Apple (in terms of market share) can have significant dominance in practice and can be able to abuse it.
The mobile market is effectively a duopoly; where the choice of mobile ecosystem is binary. The consumer has only one choice to avoid Apple: go Android. Given this and the influence of the mobile market on many other sectors (not just music or ebooks), it is far too easy to pass off regulating Apple and Google, just because neither are a “monopoly”.
Yep.
Depends what you are talking about also, maybe not a monopoly in terms of total mobile OS market share but ..
Its not that high in Europe but its over 50%
The Apple Pay thing is confusing to me. I agree with the anti-trust investigation into the App Store. But Apple Pay, it’s Apple’s own hardware, why would they have to give access to someone else? In simple terms, that would be like saying Apple Store’s only sell iPhones, they have to also include Android phones in their stores going forward. Why does Apple need to allow other NFC-accessing services on their own hardware?
As an EU citizen, I’m completely with Apple on this one. Especially opening up the NFC chip and Secure Enclave will take away an essential feature (namely, a secure and controlled environment) that distinguishes the Apple ecosystem from android. The gatekeeper role, given that there should indeed be equal rules to all players, is an essential part of this.
Breaking the controlled environment of the App Store and NFC/Secure Enclave would, in my opinion, take away an essential benefit of Apple over android, and thus, basically limit choice for consumers.
Scrutiny is always good, of course, and I hope that the European Commission will act wisely on this. I don’t want the Apple ecosystem to become another Wild West.
Breaking the controlled environment of the App Store and NFC/Secure Enclave would, in my opinion, take away an essential benefit of Apple over android, and thus, basically limit choice for consumers.
Scrutiny is always good, of course, and I hope that the European Commission will act wisely on this. I don’t want the Apple ecosystem to become another Wild West.
As an App Developer, I think 30% is bloody good value for giving me a global marketplace, distribution system and financial handling I could never do myself. If not for Apple no small developer would exist.
It’s also why Apple devices are safe and not a toxic hellstew. There is absolutely no reason to allow other manufacturers to have their alternative App Store on Apple‘s own devices. It’s basically forcing Apple to jailbreak their own hardware.
The thing with the subscriptions is more nuanced, I agree. But for the App Store walled garden, I think it’s crystal clear.
This is what happens when you get too greedy. If they only charged 3%, or even 5%, no one would bother complaining. but they charge a whopping 30%, and it turns people militant. Imagine if Go Fund Me charged 30% instead of the 2.9% they charge... no one would ever want to use it. Or if credit cards charged stores 30% instead of the 1-2% they charge. And so on. That's why they are under scrutiny. Greed.
it’s nice to see someone who understands (and appreciates) what they signed up for.
Good. Consumable in-app purchases are a cancer and basically gambling in most cases.
I don’t even browse the App Store any more because it’s so full of this crap. Haven’t in a long time. If I download a new app or game it’s because I’ve read about it elsewhere.
Apple loves to push freemium games but I don’t think they understand or care that they turn a lot of people off.
I don’t even browse the App Store any more because it’s so full of this crap. Haven’t in a long time. If I download a new app or game it’s because I’ve read about it elsewhere.
Apple loves to push freemium games but I don’t think they understand or care that they turn a lot of people off.
I think as with any one-size-fits-all rule, there will always be winners and losers. You have the small indie developer who appreciates the exposure and how easy the App Store is for discovering and purchasing new apps, and for them, 30% is a small price to pay for the utility offered.
Then you have titans like Spotify and Netflix who clearly feel that they are big enough that they don’t need whatever benefits the iOS App Store has to offer, and feel that Apple is not entitled to a single cent of their revenue.
No right answer here, I guess.
The market share argument goes both ways. Apple is a minority player in the mobile space. Whether or not Apple is abusing its position is for the courts to decide. While we can have an opinion on it, the courts are the final arbiter.
[I posted this in another thread, then realised it was probably more relevant here]
Is Apple's behaviour anti-competitive? I don't know that it is. It's Apples Store, they built it. If it was my store and Company X wanted to sell its goods in it; taking up your resources, using your power, utilities and payment (merchant banking) services, that you paid for, I doubt I'd be happy about that. It's only different here because Apple is so dominant but, they didn't get to that position just by buying out competitors. They have *at least* three peer competitors, Google, Microsoft (arguably) and Samsung. Mostly it's the market that has led us to where we are now, with Apple having the largest share of App Store profits.
However, the free market doesn't work effectively without regulation, so I think there's definitely scope for investigation. If we look at the extreme case, of the EU deciding Apple must let companies like Spotify and the makers of, "Hey" sell there products in the App Store without Apple taking a percentage - then I think that would be abhorrent. People should be paid for their work, and Apple does a lot of work to make the App Store function, not withstanding it's (many) imperfections. Apple should pay more taxes, a lot more taxes but that's another question and I'm not sure that can be solved effectively without far more international cooperation. So long as companies can trade freely across international borders, and so long as countries maintain separate legal jurisdictions, Multinationals like Apple, will always be able to play one off against the other and pay ridiculous low levels of tax. Could the EU impose limits on the level/type of charges Apple can take? Perhaps, 30% does seem quite high, and, whilst the market does seem to be baring it, it could be that it is, nevertheless unfair from a larger socioeconomic stand point. How that would play out across the industry, we'd have to wait and see but it seems to me that either extreme view i.e Apple shouldn't be investigated or Apple should operate the App Store for free don't bare scrutiny.
Is Apple's behaviour anti-competitive? I don't know that it is. It's Apples Store, they built it. If it was my store and Company X wanted to sell its goods in it; taking up your resources, using your power, utilities and payment (merchant banking) services, that you paid for, I doubt I'd be happy about that. It's only different here because Apple is so dominant but, they didn't get to that position just by buying out competitors. They have *at least* three peer competitors, Google, Microsoft (arguably) and Samsung. Mostly it's the market that has led us to where we are now, with Apple having the largest share of App Store profits.
However, the free market doesn't work effectively without regulation, so I think there's definitely scope for investigation. If we look at the extreme case, of the EU deciding Apple must let companies like Spotify and the makers of, "Hey" sell there products in the App Store without Apple taking a percentage - then I think that would be abhorrent. People should be paid for their work, and Apple does a lot of work to make the App Store function, not withstanding it's (many) imperfections. Apple should pay more taxes, a lot more taxes but that's another question and I'm not sure that can be solved effectively without far more international cooperation. So long as companies can trade freely across international borders, and so long as countries maintain separate legal jurisdictions, Multinationals like Apple, will always be able to play one off against the other and pay ridiculous low levels of tax. Could the EU impose limits on the level/type of charges Apple can take? Perhaps, 30% does seem quite high, and, whilst the market does seem to be baring it, it could be that it is, nevertheless unfair from a larger socioeconomic stand point. How that would play out across the industry, we'd have to wait and see but it seems to me that either extreme view i.e Apple shouldn't be investigated or Apple should operate the App Store for free don't bare scrutiny.
Well one of the reasons i prefer Apple over Android IS the Appstore. The amount of trash you see in the Google Play Store is ridiculous. Shady apps with ludicrous subscription services (saw a photo editing app on Reddit that costs $90 per WEEK)
Look at apps like this or even worse, this one or this one (links are to Google Play Store)
Last one got reviews like: "Oh my god I wasted money on a circle that does nothing"
These are just SCAMS and Google does nothing about it to filter the rotten apples out, but publishes everything. Even racist apps like 'Make Me Asian' can make it to their store.
It's one of the reasons i jumped ship after two android phones. Now i feel much more comfortable in the safe(r) environment of the AppStore.
Look at apps like this or even worse, this one or this one (links are to Google Play Store)
Last one got reviews like: "Oh my god I wasted money on a circle that does nothing"
These are just SCAMS and Google does nothing about it to filter the rotten apples out, but publishes everything. Even racist apps like 'Make Me Asian' can make it to their store.
It's one of the reasons i jumped ship after two android phones. Now i feel much more comfortable in the safe(r) environment of the AppStore.
I just had flashbacks of those Jamster ringtone commercials on TV.
They would sucker people into paying $10 a month for crappy ringtones!
No it wouldn't, it would be fair. There is absolutely no defensible reason Apple should be entitled to 30%, or even 15%, of recurrent revenues for a subscription service where Apple provides absolutely no part of the service except massive ticket clipping. The EU needs to slap down this rubbish, and fast.
But then for apps that are free at point of sale, Apple would be stuck with the operating costs of distributing that app for free, because they can’t take a percentage fee of zero. This is why companies like Spotify want those fees cut, because distribution at scale is expensive. Apple would then have pay distribution costs for their own apps and their competitors.
Apple may be anti-competitive, but who change the law in EU to make things more restrictive? I recon this is always a catch-22..
You have rules for your store, then later someone comes in and changes the law... Now these same rules that have always been ok, is suddenly under investigation..
This is what EU seems to have done. It seems to be mostly in the EU and some others... but laws aside no other country seems to have issues about it.
You have rules for your store, then later someone comes in and changes the law... Now these same rules that have always been ok, is suddenly under investigation..
This is what EU seems to have done. It seems to be mostly in the EU and some others... but laws aside no other country seems to have issues about it.
Apple has already set a precedent that they will distribute apps for free when they're free at point of sale. If they have an issue with that, then they can offer a solution that allows a developer to distribute it themselves. Since they refuse to do that, they basically need to suck it up.
And exactly how many cable companies have been called on the carpet by the government for local monopolies? Time to wake up to reality. And before anyone goes off on them being local I present United States v. Von's Grocery Co., (1966) and regarding those exclusive city deals there is United States v. Griffith (1948). There is also the looks like a duck quacks like a duck interpretation given in United Shoe Machinery Corp v. U.S. (1954).
[automerge]1593082045[/automerge]
That sounds like an ex post de facto law - which is expressly illegal under the US constitution per Section 10. Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
This why many better written laws in the US have grandfather or sunset clauses on the old law (to give time to comply with the new law).
Last edited:
I couldn’t care less what US cable companies do or don’t. Besides the point as the topic is the App Store in the EU and Apple Pay.
And one monopoly in one industry hardly justifies another in a different one for that matter.