EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings

[Beautyspin]

"Apple will get blamed for third-party App Store hack" doesn't reinforce your argument that third party app stores will have to be better than Apple; it refutes it.

Also, why are you assuming all third party app stores are going to be rational, safe actors? You don't think China or Russia might have reason to spin up a third party App Store and trick users into downloading apps that compromise security and/or privacy?

Apple is good at deflecting blame so there is no sympathy for Apple here. Even if it is a mistake by Apple, I am confident it will push it on to the alt store and the fans will lap it up.

All I am saying is that it is not for Apple to worry about the alt store app security. The alt stores could be better at security than Apple as Apple is not setting a high bar currently. If the state actors want to compromise app stores, there is nothing apple or anybody can do. Do you think Apple will vacillate and hedge so much if China were to bring a similar law? Apple will go through hoops for China.

 

[surferfb]

Gruber seems to be very pro big corporation lately. For example, he seems to think that requiring companies to stop tracking of users without their consent is some horrible thing that we should view the EU poorly for (Daring Fireball: REUTERS: ‘EU’S VESTAGER WARNS ABOUT APPLE, META FEES, DISPARAGING RIVAL PRODUCTS’ )

That's not what he said. He said requiring Facebook to charge less for users pay to remove ads than they make if they served the ads because they want fewer users to see targeted ads is ridiculous.

If EU doesn't like targeted ads, pass a law banning them, don't say "well you'd make $20 serving targeted ads, but you can't charge more than $2 to remove them."

 

[wanha]

Side-observation:

people who jump and say "Apple should leave market X" at the first difficulty probably behave that way in their own relationships as well. It's their go to response for dealing with adversity.

 

[hans1972]

Not true, apple isn’t allowed to force every app to be notarized.

As long as the option exists of not participating it’s all fine and kosher.

Do you have any evidence directly from EU on this.

"The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

[...]

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper." -DMA

I believe this allows for app notarisations as long as it's not content based.

 

[Jamie0003]

And closed platforms existed since Nintendo launched the NES in 1985. You can't really make an argument about "it's always been that way" when closed platforms existed in parallel with things like the Macintosh.

A game console isn’t the same thing as a computing device. Pretty silly argument imo. And the Mac is still a thing, in case you forgot

 

[Beautyspin]

You don't need to say anything. Epic testified in court that the store was currently unprofitable with a 12% commission. I guess there is the possibility that they're perjuring themselves with that statement.

Not being profitable is not illegal. They were giving away free games. I am not sure if this comes under loss leading. From what I gathered, the free games are demos and the user can buy the actual game from any store. I cannot verify this as I do not play games so this is something that others can chip in to verify or refute.

 

[gnipgnop]

A game console isn’t the same thing as a computing device. Pretty silly argument imo. And the Mac is still a thing, in case you forgot

It isn't the same thing in terms of the commercial objective by the company selling it. It does have the capability to run non-gaming apps IF the company allowed those kinds of apps to be sold. But since they have total control over their closed platform they don't have to allow it.

In other words, the silly argument is trying to say the iPhone couldn't be closed in the same way as a gaming console. It could be. But that's not Apple's commercial objective.

 

[bcortens]

That's not what he said. He said requiring Facebook to charge less for users pay to remove ads than they make if they served the ads because they want fewer users to see targeted ads is ridiculous.

If EU doesn't like targeted ads, pass a law banning them, don't say "well you'd make $20 serving targeted ads, but you can't charge more than $2 to remove them."

The critics in the EU suggest that consent to targeted advertising must be freely given and that charging any amount violates this consent. Meta offers to almost halve Facebook and Instagram monthly fees.

The argument isn't "well you'd make $20 serving targeted ads, but you can't charge more than $2 to remove them." the argument is "you can serve targeted ads only with user consent charging users to opt out of targeting violates the spirit of consent freely given"

The EU doesn't say targeted ads should be banned, they say they should be via user consent. Not the same thing.

 

[hans1972]

Consumers flocked to the iPhone because it was designed and targeted to everyone and not just business users like most smartphones. Consumers flocked to the iPhone because it was designed and targeted to everyone and not just business users like most smartphones.

Nokia, Ericsson, RIM and others sold more than 100 million smartphones before the iPhone launched. Also to consumers in Europe and even North America.

The App Store wasn’t even part of the early story. Early on the killer apps were first-party. One device that could call, text, provide GPS, act as your iPod, and had a real internet browser? That was insanely desirable. The App Store didn’t even come out until after the iPhone was already a market success.

The App Store launched one year after the iPhone was launched for sale.
The first iPhone only sold a few millions and only in select countries.

In many countries, iPhones were never sold without the App Store or the knowledge of the App Store coming.

 

[gnipgnop]

Not being profitable is not illegal. They were giving away free games. I am not sure if this comes under loss leading. From what I gathered, the free games are demos and the user can buy the actual game from any store. I cannot verify this as I do not play games so this is something that others can chip in to verify or refute.

Giving away free games isn't why the store isn't profitable. The 12% commission is why it isn't profitable. Epic is trying to undercut other game stores which goes back to my original point: what if Apple undercuts alt stores or web stores? Is the EU going to say that's anticompetitive?

 

[surferfb]

Apple is good at deflecting blame so there is no sympathy for Apple here. Even if it is a mistake by Apple, I am confident it will push it on to the alt store and the fans will lap it up.

All I am saying is that it is not for Apple to worry about the alt store app security. The alt stores could be better at security than Apple as Apple is not setting a high bar currently. If the state actors want to compromise app stores, there is nothing apple or anybody can do. Do you think Apple will vacillate and hedge so much if China were to bring a similar law? Apple will go through hoops for China.

Apple shouldn't worry about its users' security and privacy, especially when they'll get unfairly blamed when it's users' security and privacy is compromised, is certainly a take.

 

[bcortens]

Do you have any evidence directly from EU on this.

"The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

[...]

The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper." -DMA

I believe this allows for app notarisations as long as it's not content based.

Which is I think where Apple is in trouble right now - they have been continuing to try and base notarization on whether or not the App follows their rules.

 

[Beautyspin]

Giving away free games isn't why the store isn't profitable. The 12% commission is why it isn't profitable. Epic is trying to undercut other game stores which goes back to my original point: what if Apple undercuts alt stores or web stores? Is the EU going to say that's anticompetitive?

If enough of them complain, then they may investigate. If their investigation proves that Apple is doing something illegal, they will be fined.

 

[bcortens]

Giving away free games isn't why the store isn't profitable. The 12% commission is why it isn't profitable. Epic is trying to undercut other game stores which goes back to my original point: what if Apple undercuts alt stores or web stores? Is the EU going to say that's anticompetitive?

Proof? Are Epic's hosting costs higher than what 12% would cover? Does 12% not cover Epic paying for exclusives ?

 

[hans1972]

Well with this we could get a single store for both android and iOS apps/ games.

Just how steam is today the one stop shop for windows,Mac,Linux,SteamOS

This will make things way more profitable for small businesses, they won’t need to try and meat multiple stores arbitrary rules and use “steam” for mobile apps

So you agree that one store is better than multiple stores?

It's something I have been arguing all the time.

 

[Macdaddy789]

The EU is nothing more than one big money grab. Times must be really hard.

 

[Beautyspin]

It's because what Apple wants, aligns with what I want.

I consider developers to be dangerous and hostile to me, unless proven otherwise. I want to have as little to do with them as possible except using their apps. Apple has worked as a great shield for me against developers.

Your argument is perfectly fine, if Apple were only selling to you.

If it sells to the general population in the EU, it will, unfortunately, have to follow the law of the land. The EU's job is making laws and it can make any law that gets approved by its member states. Apple cannot decide on whether the laws are applicable to them or not, sadly.

 

[Jamie0003]

It isn't the same thing in terms of the commercial objective by the company selling it. It does have the capability to run non-gaming apps IF the company allowed those kinds of apps to be sold. But since they have total control over their closed platform they don't have to allow it.

In other words, the silly argument is trying to say the iPhone couldn't be closed in the same way as a gaming console. It could be. But that's not Apple's commercial objective.

You mean, like, even back in 1985? On the NES? 🤔

 

[Beautyspin]

not if the apps leave the App Store, no.

Maybe Apple should be fair to the developers and try to retain them rather than try to lord over them.

 

[vipergts2207]

Are desktop/laptop app prices higher? Yes. Are other closed platform app prices higher? Yes. Your argument that it can't be about raising prices isn't supported by any known popular platform.

Have you considered that it has nothing to do with open/closed and more to do with the fact that desktop-class software can be and often is more sophisticated, feature-rich, and costly to develop than mobile OS software? Even when similar software is available across platforms, the mobile version tends to end up being more costly in the long run. Among Us is $4.99 on Windows and free on iOS. On the latter, because its free, you get the "privilege" of ads and in-app purchases that can add up to more than $4.99. It's $2 just to get rid of ads in the app. So the software is the "same", but what you receive isn't the same.

 

[gnipgnop]

Proof? Are Epic's hosting costs higher than what 12% would cover? Does 12% not cover Epic paying for exclusives ?

"Epic Games spends millions to give away free games every single week - which is meant as a fairer profit split between the developers and publisher - and an ongoing campaign that doesn't appear to be slowing down any time soon, even though the Fortnite company doesn't pay for each copy given away."

The Epic Games Store isn't profitable after five years, growth is still Epic's "goal"

Day one of the Epic vs. Google court case reveals new details

www.techradar.com

 

[Beautyspin]

Looking into my crystal ball I see a LOT of whining and complaining when devices are bricked in the EU from the mass side loading of apps from stores that cannot regulate the app code as thoroughly as Google/Apple. As a developer, if you allow me to side load apps to your device without some form of serious code review, there are SO many ways I can brick your device either intentionally or accidentally. Good luck all! I'll pay my 30% and live over here in the word of not getting my pants sued off of me, or the risk of taking down a lot of devices.

Had used Android for more than 10 years. Had installed many apps even from questionable sites. Had also installed custom ROMs for some of them in the early days. Not one phone bricked.

On the other hand:

Bricked iPhone running iOS 16.4 - Apple Community

discussions.apple.com

 

[bcortens]

"Epic Games spends millions to give away free games every single week - which is meant as a fairer profit split between the developers and publisher - and an ongoing campaign that doesn't appear to be slowing down any time soon, even though the Fortnite company doesn't pay for each copy given away."

The Epic Games Store isn't profitable after five years, growth is still Epic's "goal"

Day one of the Epic vs. Google court case reveals new details

www.techradar.com

Nothing in that article actually discusses how the 12% would not be sufficient to cover the costs of a store that wasn't just doing the equivalent of giving away money. Epic choosing to spend millions giving stuff away doesn't actually prove that 12% is unprofitable to run a digital store generally. It just proves it isn't enough to be profitable while also giving away millions of dollars of goods for free.

 

[hans1972]

Well this has always bean the case. Burger King is also not allowed to advertise that it’s Whopper is better than a Big Mac unless it can be proven by science or something

So, how would science "prove" being "best"?

 

[cocky jeremy]

What's the point of that?

Bypass their ********.