EU Likely to Charge Apple With Anti-Competitive Behavior This Week

[cyb3rdud3]

Because their main competitor does sign up people through the app, giving them a competitive advantage. And if Spotify were to put subscriptions in their app, their main competitor would get a significant chunk of that revenue. That's a patently unfair situation.

I don't understand how people can look at those facts and think Apple are in the right here. The idea that because they created the phone they should somehow be entitled to a cut of every payment running through that phone, is absolutely mad.

I have both 🤷‍♂️

They aren't competitors, Spotify has lots of Music that I can't get on Apple Music and Vice Versa. And you can buy both. They are cross platform applications as well. There is the consumer choice.

Heck Spotify also sells cheaper through other providers and parties so they can set the price which ever way they want. What they are asking for seems price fixing to me, the opposite of consumer benefit.

 

[gnipgnop]

Because their main competitor does sign up people through the app, giving them a competitive advantage. And if Spotify were to put subscriptions in their app, their main competitor would get a significant chunk of that revenue. That's a patently unfair situation.

Yet Spotify has doubled their subscriber base since 2017 and now has 150+ million subscribers. Apple Music, which you're saying has an unfair advantage, has less than half that many subscribers.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

EU competition law doesn't require monopoly market share, or even majority market share. It just requires the company to have a material ability to affect market pricing. Apple easily meets that criteria for the mobile device market.

One would note that Google has already lost (well, settled because they were going to lose) a similar case.

Then they should counter file a complaint against Spotify because that is what Spotify seems to be doing whilst raising its prices as well There is no market benefit here, there is a Spotify benefit.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The biggest anti competitive practice is forcing developers to infuse their in app payment system while not allowing businesses to sell in their app by other means.

If this practice was considered abuse and regulators require to be opened to other payment methods and prices, this issue would be solved easily. After all, the App is devs property, devs technology.

Let consumer have the choice in app how to pay for the service or digital goods.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple needs to bite the bullet and allow 3rd party payment options in the App Store for all non-game apps. And don’t use security as an argument because Apple isn’t the payment processor for in-app purchases of non-digital goods or purchases made via a web browser. Offer 3rd party options along side Apple’s IAP. And then let developers and consumers choose which one they want to use.

 

[ksec]

How did Apple FanBoys used to say?
There are enough alternatives out there, I you don't like it, move along.

Same applies here, if Apple don't like the rules of EU market, move along.
Simply as that... hahaha

Exactly as I have been saying the same thing.

Apple App Store Apple Rules , EU's Market EU's rules.

It isn't about taking side, it is that you can have one argument and not have the other. Which is what some people on MR is doing.

And in case anything is wondering on precedent, look at Visa and MasterCard.

 

[Rogifan]

Netflix already figured this out. They don't want to pay Apple's 30% so they don't let people sign up inside the app anymore. You must create an account on their website.

Amazon already figured this out. They don't want to pay Apple's 30% so they don't let people buy Kindle books inside the app anymore. You must buy Kindle books on their website.

So why hasn't Spotify gone this route? Why are they getting Governments involved?

I don’t think Spotify allows you to sign up in-app? I believe they operate just like Netflix.

 

[Havoc035]

EU competition law doesn't require monopoly market share, or even majority market share. It just requires the company to have a material ability to affect market pricing. Apple easily meets that criteria for the mobile device market.

One would note that Google has already lost (well, settled because they were going to lose) a similar case.

How does Apple have the ability to affect market pricing for the mobile device market? Last time I checked there were still tons of cheap Android phones around of which the price is hardly, if at all impacted by any changes Apple makes.

If you look at mobile app distribution, which you could reasonably argue is a market, I am not convinced Apple can materially alter pricing there either. Apple's competitors in for example music are perfectly able to ask similar prices for their services as Apple through their websites. They wouldn't be able to do that if in general the App Store fees were a huge burden to them. Also, iOS is not the only means of conversion for them and there are plenty of users who buy through the websites of those platforms.

I'm not defending the height of Apple's fees, maybe they can be lower across the board. And maybe it's a good idea to allow companies to mention the ability to buy through their website. Those options should be considered. I just think that basically opening up iOS will not offer any benefits to users, only problems.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The biggest anti competitive practice is forcing developers to infuse their in an payment system while not allowing them to sell in app by other means.

If this practice was considered abuse and regulators require to be opened to other payment methods and prices, this issue would be solved easily. After all, the App is devs property, devs technology.

Let consumer have the choice in app how to pay for the service or digital goods.

Then let the developers distribute and sell directly themselves Some of them may remember the days where it actually cost them a lot more. Then try and reach a global audience and deal with all the tax and invoice factoring and pricing etc. They will soon realise what they have now is a bargain.

To me these kind of statement seem to be made by people who never tried and distribute their own software around the globe and what it actually entails.

 

[Creek0512]

And considering there are twice as many people in the EU than the US that's unlikely to happen 😂

Since when is 445 million twice as much 331 million?

 

[Rogifan]

Because their main competitor does sign up people through the app, giving them a competitive advantage. And if Spotify were to put subscriptions in their app, their main competitor would get a significant chunk of that revenue. That's a patently unfair situation.

I don't understand how people can look at those facts and think Apple are in the right here. The idea that because they created the phone they should somehow be entitled to a cut of every payment running through that phone, is absolutely mad.

They don’t get a cut of every payment. They don’t get a cut of physical goods. They don’t get a cut of Uber/Lyft and they created the reader app category so some apps could get around having to pay them 30%. That just shows how the 30% fee isn’t necessary for running the App Store. Apple could easily solve this by allowing non-game apps to offer their own payment options alongside Apple’s IAP. Then consumers could choose which one they want to use. Many would probably still use Apple’s because they want all their purchases or subscriptions in ones place or they feel Apple’s IAP is more secure. But there would be choice. And Apple makes most of it’s money from game IAP so it probably wouldn’t even be a huge hit to their services revenue.

 

[Wildkraut]

None of which require paying Apple 30% or whatever for an app as long as it is free. A music subscription is not a must have, phones work just fine without one for all those examples.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Apple could, for example, allow apps to advertise subscription options beyond the app store but move to a per download charge for subscription based apps that do that; which would potentially cost more and be an upfront costs where if too few people subscribe the app becomes a money loser.

Or even better, Apple could be forced to open the iOS/iPadOS platform (just like macOS) for side loading, that way they could even charge 100% for AppStore Apps,(i wouldn't care) as long there are ways to circumvent it by downloading and installing apps from the web and from alternative stores, which i can decide to install on demand.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The idea that because they created the phone they should somehow be entitled to a cut of every payment running through that phone, is absolutely mad.

It's a nice phone though, isn't it? With a billion users? And those users like to spend money?

If Spotify wants access to Apple's giant, very valuable userbase... then Apple should get something in return.

Maybe it shouldn't be 15% or 30%... but it can't be nothing.

I think all of us MacRumors forum members can agree that Apple has created one hell of a device/platform.

Having said all that... there is a way for Spotify to give nothing to Apple: have people sign up on their website.

Then Spotify gets ALL the money. You'd think Spotify would prefer that anyway... so they have your actual email address and credit card on file.

Spotify should do what Netflix did... handle it on the open web.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Then let the developers distribute and sell directly themselves Some of them may remember the days where it actually cost them a lot more. Then try and reach a global audience and deal with all the tax and invoice factoring and pricing etc. They will soon realise what they have now is a bargain.

To me these kind of statement seem to be made by people who never tried and distribute their own software around the globe and what it actually entails.

As I have said. In this scenario the developer could very well only provide the App Store payment and billing method. The ones who want to provide others, such as a more personalized one to one service, could very well do so to … why not? Heck they could even provide several like App Store Pay, Apple Pay, MasterCard, Visa, PayPal …

Any App would still go through the App Store and devs should pay for that service, of course. Like businesses pay to have their website or web app hosted. If payment goes through the App Store Payment system the hosting could be very well free … Apple has total freedom on how they want their service to be payed as well as third parties. This looks like a far more balanced power relationship.

Your kind of rational against options does not make sense. I don’t think actual business people welcome competitors making business model decisions for them, do you? Fundamentally they hate competitors charging for their own technology. Because a forced revenue share in an in-app purchase is fundamentally what it does.

PS: I’ve skin in the game for 40 years and I can say that your description of how it was is a fantasy. Things got far simpler today to do it on your own. So no, the option is no go back 20 years.

 

[jeffreydi77]

Coronavirus Reporter and Five Unnamed Apps have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple yesterday representing all developers. This class is more broad than other pending lawsuits, as it includes free apps and apps that were suppressed in the rankings.

Coronavirus Reporter and Five Unnamed Apps vs. Apple Inc | PDF | App Store (I Os) | Apple Inc.

Developer Class Action Antitrust Complaint against Apple Inc. Federal Lawsuit Filed in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT App store Sherman Act Violations for all disallowed and ranking suppressed free and paid apps, $99 developer fee tax.

www.scribd.com

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Since when is 445 million twice as much 331 million?

Rough figures To be fair it has shrunk a little when the UK left and before that it was 'nearly' 2x give or take 100 million people 🤷‍♂️🤣

 

[jlc1978]

Then let the developers distribute and sell directly themselves Some of them may remember the days where it actually cost them a lot more. Then try and reach a global audience and deal with all the tax and invoice factoring and pricing etc. They will soon realise what they have now is a bargain.

Exactly. Spotify doesn't want to have to deal with multiple app stores and apps that are not verified by Apple and thus could be written to inject ads, etc. They want a free ride on the App Store where Apple hosts the app for free and they get all the subscription revenue.

I suspect Apple would revise the terms for distribution to require upfront and/or per download fees to carry apps that allow subscriptions outside of the app store. that could cost developers money upfront before any revenue is received and make it a lot harder for smaller devs to compete.

To me these kind of statement seem to be made by people who never tried and distribute their own software around the globe and what it actually entails.

I'm sure they'd love the freedom to return to the days where they were lucky to get 30% of the purchase price.

 

[Ansath]

These are toys, Phones are general purpose devices, deeply involved into social life and other market types. It’s a payment device, and in a few countries even holds your Personal ID, Driver License, or Social Number. Apple is diving into new territories, and they will have to obey the rules.

Your post doesn’t really stand up. They’re directly comparable.

The things you listed are not the App Store. On Apple’s App Store, Xbox store & PS store, you have Spotify, Netflix, etc. You have games. You can buy films and telly shows.

Also, the Windows store on Windows 10, Google’s App Store both also have 30% commission like Apple. It’s a common thing, but it’s the usual thing where there’s hand waving over that point to excuse them, so they can pick on Apple.

If you’re going to go after Apple for this, go after all of them. Simple as.

Yeah agreed. Didn't Spotify team up with Epic and Tile and Match and try to recruit others? I mean this sounds like Cartel like behaviour.

Yup. It’s laughable.

 

[ksec]

Microsoft have a 30% commission on their Xbox store (where you buy games, films, etc). Sony has the same on the PS store, as does Nintendo.

Except their business model is not earning a single dollar on their hardware if not making a loss. That is why you cant even run it as a Windows PC despite being 99.9% a PC.

And Gaming Store does not block functions / requirement of a wider society. The same thing a government doesn't care if a feature film is only available in certain cinema.

 

[DesignTime]

I don’t understand the argument that “to keep iOS apps private and secure” requires all apps to go through Apple’s App Store. MacOS let’s users install apps from both Apple’s App Store and from websites. Does that mean all Macs are unsecured and everyone who uses one is having all of their data collected? Or maybe this is all just “marketing” from Apple?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

As I have said. In this scenario the developer could very well only provide the App Store payment and billing method. The one who want to provide others, such as a more personalized one to one service, could very well do so to … why not?

Your kind of rational against this options does not make sense to me against options. I don’t think actual business people welcome competitors do making business model decisions for them, do you? Fundamentally would hate competitors charging for their own technology. Because a revenue share an in app purchase is fundamentally what it does.

I think you have entirely missed the point.

Have you ever distributed product through a channel or got anything to be sold into shops? Do you remember the days you had to make deals with Telecoms providers to get your app distributed onto mobile devices? The roads are paved with service providers along the way. Getting it in-front of customers is very valuable though if you want to make money....Sure any percentage less that you pay is welcome, but don't be fooled that is to the benefit of consumers or motivated by that.

 

[User 6502]

About time. Once again the EU proves to be a champion of fairness that is not scared of going against huge corporations. Apple fanboys were not so critical when the EU broke internet explorer monopoly, now they seem to have changed their views when the monopoly being broken is Apple’s. Luckily no company is above the law, of course if Apple doesn’t like it they can stop selling their products in the EU 😉.

 

[Ansath]

About time. Once again the EU proves to be a champion of fairness that is not scared of going against huge corporations. Apple fanboys were not so critical when the EU broke internet explorer monopoly, now they seem to have changed their views when the monopoly being broken is Apple’s. Luckily no company is above the law, of course if Apple doesn’t like it they can stop selling their products in the EU 😉.

So fair that this ruling does not apply to the Google App Store, the Windows store, the stores on Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo consoles?

Apply the ruling to everyone, if you’re going to be fair.

 

[Wildkraut]

I don’t understand the argument that “to keep iOS apps private and secure” requires all apps to go through Apple’s App Store. MacOS let’s users install apps from both Apple’s App Store and from websites. Does that mean all Macs are unsecured and everyone who uses one is having all of their data collected? Or maybe this is all just “marketing” from Apple?

It's just Apple trying to fool the ones without technical knowledge, by spreading security though obscurity.
Simple as that! iOS even shares all of its data with macOS though the iCloud.
That would be like locking your front door(iOS), while leaving your backdoor(macOS) wide open.
Now they share the same chip (Apple ARM) it's even harder to argument that Marketing B$.

 

[Wildkraut]

So fair that this ruling does not apply to the Google App Store, the Windows store, the stores on Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo consoles?

Apply the ruling to everyone, if you’re going to be fair.

Others might follow later, but fill a complaint...
I'm with you, but no complaints, no issues...