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

[truthsteve]

I still use the apps I purchased for it that were never available on Android to begin with. Whilst nobody is holding a gun to my head I rely on a library of software I have spent 16 years building. I am, by my own volition locked in to iOS. We don't buy handsets as stand alone hardware but rather as empty shells for our operating system of choice. I've made my bed and now lie in it but I couldn't move to Android even if I wanted to.

now imagine someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to switch to Android despite the consequences of leaving iOS

this is what many will feel when they are forced to install iOS apps outside of the App Store because the apps they used to use left the App Store, there are no alternatives, and now they must jump through the hoops of the third party app system, which essentially moved them into Android land against their will.

see where we are getting at?

 

[gnipgnop]

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

Of course. NES used the 6502 processor. Apple II desktop computer used the 6502 processor.

 

[gnipgnop]

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.

The article DOES say that Epic didn't pay for the copies being given away free.

 

[hans1972]

No, they don't want Apple to force notarization upon developers. Apple has been designated as a gatekeeper, and the whole point of competition law is to make companies like Apple stop gatekeeping.

The purpose of the DMA isn't to stop gatekeepers from gatekeeping. It's only to stop gatekeepers from gatekeeping in certain ways

 

[webkit]

Nothing that Apple did was anticompetitive relative to the 1990s. iOS only runs on 1st party hardware. So its success or failure was entirely dependent on customers wanting to use Apple hardware. Apple's choice for the App Store was to base it on digital storefront models that were already accepted in the electronics industry on video game consoles. Video game consoles ran 1st party operating systems on 1st party hardware just like the iPhone. Video game console companies like Nintendo had already won antitrust lawsuits challenging their right to control software on the platform.

The factor here is really about dominance in the market, mobile OS in this case, where there are only two major players. The reality is Apple was being even more restrictive than 1990s Microsoft as they not only prevented third party retailers (AT&T, Best Buy, etc.) from sideloading, offering alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones they sold but even restricted end users from being able to sideload, use alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

The DOJ (and EU) helped put an end to some of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in the 1990s, and the EU is doing similar with Apple (and others) today. I imagine other countries/regions including the U.S. may follow.

 

[bcortens]

The article DOES say that Epic didn't pay for the copies being given away free.

Sort of, it said it didn't pay for each copy given away, it doesn't actually say it paid nothing for the privilege of giving the copies away. If they actually paid nothing to give them away I wouldn't expect it to cost millions to give away games every week.

 

[Ctrlos]

now imagine someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to switch to Android despite the consequences of leaving iOS

this is what many will feel when they are forced to install iOS apps outside of the App Store because the apps they used to use left the App Store, there are no alternatives, and now they must jump through the hoops of the third party app system, which essentially moved them into Android land against their will.

see where we are getting at?

Given how hostile Apple has made the environment of actually stepping outside the App Store I remain unconvinced many will bother.

On ther subject of Android devs over there have the option of deploying an .apk file but still use the Play Store anyway because customers dont want the inconvenience.

 

[hans1972]

Putting aside that the Mac and iPhone are completely different platforms with different software, different uses, different users, and different business models, the EU has already said Apple can’t require notarization, ie Gatekeeper. So the one big macOS security feature isn’t even allowed on iOS in the EU.

How will Apple keep users safe, then? According to the EU, “ummmmm…competition!”

Where exactly has the EU explicitly said that?

 

[webkit]

But why didn't developers flock to Blackberry? Or Windows mobile? Or Symbian?
They're all presents for many years before the App Store.

As far as at least BlackBerry is concerned, sideloading or getting or having pre-installed apps from third party or even in-house (company) sources was more the norm before the company "officially" created its own app store in 2009. BB's app store was kind of an afterthought and never really caught on especially as the market started to shift away from physical keyboard to touchscreen phones in the 2010s. Select Android apps had also become available for BlackBerry devices during this time, even before BlackBerry switched its OS to Android in 2015.

 

[hans1972]

So you're fine with Apple abusing its power, because users and developers can technically choose to not use Apple products and not develop for them?

Yes, when Apple's actions benefits me. It's a central part of selfish computing.

 

[iOS Geek]

Given how hostile Apple has made the environment of actually stepping outside the App Store I remain unconvinced many will bother.

On ther subject of Android devs over there have the option of deploying an .apk file but still use the Play Store anyway because customers dont want the inconvenience.

Then this is unnecessary legislation and the EU should've kept their meddling noses out of it. If the customers actually wanted it...THAT is when their government should step in. Instead, the EU meddled and has mandated something that customers, as you say, DON'T want. The EU has done what governments do best...introduced inconvenience and **** things up.

 

[surferfb]

Where exactly has the EU explicitly said that?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1769654179209875472

 

[hans1972]

Does free speech include defaming others? Just asking.

In the US it's usually legal if the person is a public person.

 

[hans1972]

You say this as if the customers in the EU have no other alternatives.

They have no alternatives if they want to use iOS with alternative app stores and side loading.

 

[contacos]

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

Exactly why BK can’t make this claim in advertisement. There was actually a lawsuit regarding this in Germany many years ago. Another one was a dating platform that claimed every x minutes someone fell in love using the app on their marketing claim

 

[hans1972]

Freedom = I paid for my device and I should be able to load whatever software I want.
Freedom = I want a closed system so I only load my feudal overlord's approved software.
Serfdom = I can by this device, but cannot do anything not approved by my feudal overlord.

I'm not buying Apple products to increase my freedom.

I use my freedom to limit my freedom on mobile devices, so I don't have to spend effort on dealing with security and a myriad of other things.

It's like outsourcing.

 

[hans1972]

The Board of Directors needs to ask who was involved/signed off on this entire mess and have them all fired.

If Cook didn't sign off on it himself (which should definitely get him fired), then it needs to be investigated how this happened without him noticing (which should probably also lead to him getting fired, if he's just asleep at the wheel and Schiller is driving.)

Tim Cook is a member of the board of Apple.

Nothing like this happens without his approval.

 

[hans1972]

Well, they cannot say things like "If you install apps from Alt Store, you face a security risk." The Alt Store will take care of the safety of its apps. If there is any laxity on their part, the EU will address it. Apple's job is to enable the alt store to let its apps install on iOS without a hitch. Period.

But it would be legal for the alternate app store vendor to say that installing apps from the App Store, you face a security risk, since they're not gatekeepers.

 

[hans1972]

Simply false. Especially if you only use Apple approved software.

As in the Mac App Store?

macOS security would generate so much more security problems on iPhones because the security threat is so different.
On Mac it's quite possible to create applications which encrypt all the user files, but it would be impossible in iOS.

 

[gnipgnop]

The factor here is really about dominance in the market, mobile OS in this case, where there are only two major players. The reality is Apple was being even more restrictive than 1990s Microsoft as they not only prevented third party retailers (AT&T, Best Buy, etc.) from sideloading, offering alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones they sold but even restricted end users from being able to sideload, use alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

It's not more restrictive because Apple only applied those limitations to its 1st party OS that only ran on its 1st party hardware. Microsoft was trying to control 3rd party hardware. Nintendo was sued by Atari in 1992 with Atari claiming that Nintendo's control of software on 1st party OS/1st party hardware was an antitrust violation. Atari lost that lawsuit.

"Around this time, Nintendo was planning to enter the North American console market by launching a version of its Japanese Family Computer (Famicom) console.[10] To differentiate the Famicom from failed consoles in America, Nintendo rebranded it as the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and its cartridges as Game Paks, with a design reminiscent of a VCR.[10][11] To limit the flood of games that led to the 1983 crash as well as bootlegging problems seen in Asia, Nintendo created the proprietary 10NES system, a lockout chip that would only allow the NES to play a cartridge with an authorized "key".[10][12][13][14] Game developers were only authorized if they agreed to Nintendo's licensing terms, preventing any developer from releasing more than two games per year, and limiting "inappropriate" content such as religious themes or excessive violence.[10] This led Nintendo to add the Official Nintendo Seal of Quality to their games, signaling to customers that their games met a consistent standard.[15]

The strategy allowed Nintendo to avoid some of the mistakes of other consoles in the market, including the older Atari 2600.[10] According to Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi, "Atari collapsed because they gave too much freedom to third-party developers and the market was swamped with rubbish games."[12] Officially launched in 1985, the NES quickly became a commercial success outside of Japan.[16] By the end of the decade, it was estimated that Nintendo's products were in 15–20 million homes in America,[17] or 30% of American households.[18] Nintendo accounted for 80% of the video game market at an estimate $2.7 billion in sales per year,[19] which was more than the market for all home computer software.[20][21]: 347 "

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Supermallet]

What you and others keep forgetting is the reason developers flocked to the App Store is Apple created an attractive market where normal, non technical, users felt safe trying and buying apps. The developers flocked to the iPhone because APPLE created a safe and secure marketplace that customers felt comfortable using.

I think the security aspect is overstated. People initially went to the iPhone because it was technologically ahead of any other smartphone on the market. Then when Apple introduced the App Store, it was just the place where you got your apps because there was no alternative. I’ve owned iPhones since the original and I don’t recall there ever being a big focus on the App Store making iPhones more secure. Was it one of the reasons Apple gave for requiring all apps go through the App Store? Yes. Was it ever a major focus in terms of selling iPhones? I don’t recall that ever being the case.

 

[Ctrlos]

Then this is unnecessary legislation and the EU should've kept their meddling noses out of it. If the customers actually wanted it...THAT is when their government should step in. Instead, the EU meddled and has mandated something that customers, as you say, DON'T want. The EU has done what governments do best...introduced inconvenience and **** things up.

I don’t think they’re equal to each other. Whilst I have no desire to process anything financial outside the App Store I would install a PSP emulator like a shot. I have a shelf full of those games so I can play the backups!

I would largely stick to the App Store for legacies’ sake. I cannot redownload something like Candybar on my Mac despite buying it from The Iconfactory years ago because I lost the files and paperwork. If I had it from the Mac App Store it would just be a click away.

 

[webkit]

Yes, when Apple's actions benefits me. It's a central part of selfish computing.

So, you are ok with companies potentially violating antitrust laws, abusing power, engaging in anticompetitive behavior, etc. as long as their actions benefit you? Your argument here is not that you disagree with those saying Apple is violating antitrust laws, it's more like you you are ok with Apple doing so??

 

[Zest28]

This whole thing is just annoying. Why does it have to be any different then on a computer?

Windows doesn't make any money at all. Windows only exists due to services Microsoft sells.

Microsoft doesn't even care if people pirate Windows.

 

[Beautyspin]

But it would be legal for the alternate app store vendor to say that installing apps from the App Store, you face a security risk, since they're not gatekeepers.

How will the alt app store show it? In cany case, if that is fact, then maybe they can it in their ads. In any case, the alt Appstore cannot provide all the required apps so the user has to have the regular Appstore installed anyway.