EU to Accuse Apple of Unfairly Blocking Third-Party Access to NFC Payment Technology on iPhone

[dk001]

Like I've already pointed out, nobody can claim that the iOS/App Store and Android/Play Store market for smartphones made things worse for consumers OR developers than the Nokia/Blackberry/Palm market for smartphones. So there's nothing in the past for smartphones that the EU can point to that was better. That by itself calls into question the idea of "abuse". The vast majority of consumers would not want to go back to the Nokia E62 versus current iOS or Android smartphones.

And if you compare the mobile market to desktop/laptop, can you realistically make an argument that bargaining power for consumers has "ceased to exist"? For both hardware and software, the mobile market has experienced a significant level of improvement from 2007-2022. Nobody can deny that. It's improved in leaps and bounds. The relative computing power and app sophistication of a 2007-2009 circa iOS/Android phone seems quite primitive now. That's supposed to be representative of dysfunctional market that lacks competition?

A non-competitive market should show clear signs of stagnation where companies can force consumers to continue to pay without offering much of anything that is improved or is even worse than before.

You missed the "limited" instead of worse.
By limiting what can be done, not could be done, Apple, and Google define and place artificial limits on what our devices could really do or be used for. The things devs could do if they were allowed...

For Nokia/Palm/Blackberry, the iPhone was a very different beast. Google was playing major catch-up and we can remember the legal battles where Apple tried to slow (or destroy) Android. N/P/M never were able to come up with a really competing device and they ... died. App developers had nothing to really do with it.

JMHO YOMV

 

[vipergts2207]

That's a nonsensical statement. Everyone knows that the software on mobile has increased in sophistication in parallel to all of the hardware improvements. That's the way it works. Microsoft didn't launch the Xbox Series X so that developers could continue to make Xbox 360 games.

What are all the recent software innovations that aren’t simply utilizing the advances and innovations in the hardware? Generally a market involving only two noteworthy participants would not be considered highly competitive. I will say nobody is complaining about the OS UI either. The complaints are in regard to the artificial limitations of what you can do with the OS.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

Companies can “leverage” or abuse (the difference between the two being a blurry one) their market power even without guns to people’s heads.

Companies are supposed to leverage their market power. That doesn’t mean competition should be allowed a free ride.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

In combination these two requests to open up the iPhone are rather disturbing.
Having uncontrolled side loaded apps on the iPhone and providing an open API to the payment system is really not what I consider a safe system I would trust with my credit cards or bank account information.

Wow, so the only thing you've ever purchased online is through the AppStore using Apple's payment system? What a crazy life!

 

[I7guy]

I did answer the question. The Amex card's app doesn't have access to the NFC chip. Apple's card's app does. That is the answer and I'm not sure what you don't understand here. Without access to the NFC chip those card issuers are not able to implement useful ideas for their card and their own app they may have that require direct NFC access. This means Apple can artificially limit the abilities of a competing card issuer's app, and by extension the potential of a more competitive feature set for the bank's associated card offering. A card issuer is unable to implement competitive NFC-based features in their offering that Apple has not thought of. If Amex thinks of a great idea for the NFC chip in their app, if they're unable to implement that idea, they are effectively being limited in ways they can compete that could draw customers to their card over Apple's card. If this sounds repetitive, that's because it is. I really don't know how many different ways I can explain it to get you to comprehend the issue.

Creating competition by regulation fornApple is on top of these other regulations a downhill spiral. On top of Apple not being paid for its hardwares’ forced use.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

If your comment includes a suggestion Apple should leave the EU (or any other market) please use a font colour that matches the background.

Apple and Germany should leave the EU.

 

[Ethosik]

You have choice. Use Android. What you seem to believe is that instead of accepting responsibility for your choice, you want to run to bureaucrats to force companies to do what you want.

I agree with what you are saying! It really boggles my mind that people complain about "lock in" or "product doesn't do what I want it to do even though I bought it". This is like me complaining and trying to regulate Apple because I didn't think things through and bought a Windows PC and am unable to run Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro. What would people here tell me? That I didn't do my research right....RIGHT? So why is the general attitude of allowing third party apps because people "were not aware" of the sole app store?

And BTW, the people complaining its SO DIFFICULT since you spent $1,000, my PC example is WAY more expensive mistake than that!

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Things like this make people, especially certain groups in the US, despise regulations and government oversight as they see it as overreaching and anti-capitalism. It is a reason for hating all regulations including the important and meaningful environmental regulations. If the people in the EU ever wonder why the US has shifted so far right, things like this and the other regulations the EU has proposed lately are a big reason why.

/rant

Regardless of the US, the EU for its own sake can't be doing this stuff. They're taking for granted how difficult it is to get those countries aligned, despite different cultures/languages, and entrust so much power in an international government.

And yeah, unlike NFC compatibility, the environment is actually something that requires large-scale regulation.

 

[jakey rolling]

And if you compare the mobile market to desktop/laptop, can you realistically make an argument that bargaining power for consumers has "ceased to exist"? For both hardware and software, the mobile market has experienced a significant level of improvement from 2007-2022. Nobody can deny that. It's improved in leaps and bounds. The relative computing power and app sophistication of a 2007-2009 circa iOS/Android phone seems quite primitive now. That's supposed to be representative of dysfunctional market that lacks competition?

You're arguing that just because the mobile phone manufacturers and mobile OS developers have been continuously improving their products, that iOS and Android do not have monopolistic power in the mobile OS markets? This would have been a great memo to send to the DOJ in the late 90's when they were going after the MS Windows monopoly.

A non-competitive market should show clear signs of stagnation where companies can force consumers to continue to pay without offering much of anything that is improved or is even worse than before.

A non-competitive market isn't necessarily a stagnant one. There can still be great technological improvements made in those markets, and the monopolists will still make those improvements as long as they can be sold into those markets. In fact, what usually happens is that those monopolists tend to make incredibly huge profit margins from those markets by offering relatively incremental improvements. If you consider who some of the largest / most valuable companies in their respective markets have been at certain times over the past 100 years, you might notice a pattern:

- 1930's Standard Oil
- 1960's AT&T
- 1980's IBM
- 1990's Microsoft
- 2000's Apple

 

[Ethosik]

No, it isn't Apple's "propaganda". Example: the info below comes from Nokia, not Apple.

Apple’s IPhone Security Is at Risk From Congress

Potential remedies tied to antitrust legislation could weaken key safeguards, harming consumers.

www.bloomberg.com

According to a 2020 Nokia Threat Intelligence Report, Apple’s iOS was afflicted with the smallest percentage of overall malware infections at 1.7%, compared to 27% for Android and 39% for Windows PCs. The researchers credited the divergence to the fact that Alphabet Inc.’s Google Android system allows the installation of apps from external sources, while Apple’s does not.

Plus, in the hacker space (can't confirm this as I am not a hacker or visit the dark web), it might be "cool" to be the guy that took down iOS with their malware! If this happens, I would place a VERY LARGE BET that iOS will be highly insecure for the first few releases. I mean pre-Windows XP SP2 messy.

 

[Ethosik]

Because of the built-in consumer base and the fact that there's a lot less complexity for a dev than distributing the app on their own.

Why would Final Fantasy 7 Remake or Tiny Tina's Wonderlands be exclusive to Epic Games Store when Steam is THE...THE gaming platform on PC? Historical trends will show Epic will create their own store on iOS and in order to compete, they will purchase exclusivity rights....just like how they can compete with Steam.

 

[Ethosik]

You can just use another app.
One from a (one of the thousands) developer that does offer it on Apple’s App Store.

And you can just not side load or use third party stores! It goes both ways.

 

[Kyanar]

Does VISA "prevent competition" by not allowing competitors to access the NFC chip on a VISA card?

Uh, competitors do install applications on the NFC chip on a Visa card. Ever heard of a dual-network card? Besides, that's the decision of the card issuer, not the card network.

Does Walmart "prevent competition" by not allowing Target to set up shop inside Walmarts stores

Spurious example. You're comparing Walmart not allowing Target to set up shops on Walmart's private property. Once the iPhone is paid for, it's not Apple's property to continue to prevent others accessing. Apple is effectively infringing on property rights.

Google? Absolutely. They've entered into agreements with their direct horizontal competitors to install Google Play services across almost all android devices outside of China

That's the exact same scenario as Apple. Your examples are nonsensical. The rule with Android is if you as an OEM sell Google Android devices, they come with GMS because it's part of Google Android. There is no rule preventing you installing other stores as Xiaomi, Huawei, Samsung, and others do. If you sell devices with AOSP, the Open Source OS, you do not have to install GMS because it is not part of AOSP. In both cases the user once they receive the device have the power to decide how they want to use it - and yes by default the operating system very greatly discourages the installation of apps sourced via other mediums. Apple does not believe that the user is intelligent or mature enough to make that decision, and it's baffling how so many people here seem to enjoy being controlled.

 

[Ethosik]

We should remind ourselves that Apple can “pull” any app from the App Store at any time. At will.

Not really without getting in to trouble. For example they can't pull Netflix because they want Apple TV to succeed. THAT is the definition of anti-competitive behavior and Apple CANNOT do that. As for cloud gaming, Apple left the door open, if each individual game was on the Store, cloud gaming would exist. And you do know emulators are in a grey area. Nintendo cracks down on emulators and ROM sites. Emulators are another way to "cheat" the system in place.

 

[vipergts2207]

Why would Final Fantasy 7 Remake or Tiny Tina's Wonderlands be exclusive to Epic Games Store when Steam is THE...THE gaming platform on PC? Historical trends will show Epic will create their own store on iOS and in order to compete, they will purchase exclusivity rights....just like how they can compete with Steam.

They’ll have exclusive rights to distribute it how they see fit. Including on the iOS App Store if they want. And if they choose not to, you’ll just have to use the Epic Store or do without. Just like folks do have to do without Xbox Cloud and Google Stadia apps now.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And how would in-app subscription pricing on mobile compare to subscription pricing on desktop/laptop? Do developers on desktop/laptop try to avoid making people pay for software through subscriptions?

I’m not totally sure what you’re getting at with that last sentence. But I’d argue that subscription pricing isn’t really so much the result result of customer demand - as it has been rather arbitrarily pushed abd forced upon customers by developers, often against strong customers’ opinion and backlash.

I also couldn’t and can’t help but notice how in the desktop software market, the most well-known examples of subscription pricing are the Adobe suite and Microsoft Office. Two mature sets of applications that indeed are described as “stagnating”, and being able to “force” people to make monthly/yearly payments due to their strong dominance of their respective markets - without providing comparable innovation anymore.

For Nokia/Palm/Blackberry, the iPhone was a very different beast. Google was playing major catch-up and we can remember the legal battles where Apple tried to slow (or destroy) Android. N/P/M never were able to come up with a really competing device and they ... died. App developers had nothing to really do with it

App developers had everything to do with the demise of Windows Phone. Microsoft and No,ia had very competitive hardware devices - but the lack of third-party support from developers was their undoing. And that’s similarly true for webOS (Palm/HP).

Companies are supposed to leverage their market power. That doesn’t mean competition should be allowed a free ride.

No - they should leverage innovation and competitive pricing.
Leveraging dominant market power in one market to succeed in another, separated and sufficiently unrelated market (e.g, through the practice of tying) is a classic example of anticompetitive behaviour sanctioned by regulation and competition authorities,

 

[Ethosik]

They’ll have exclusive rights to distribute it how they see fit. Including on the iOS App Store if they want. And if they choose not to, you’ll just have to use the Epic Store or do without. Just like folks do have to do without Xbox Cloud and Google Stadia apps now.

Thus, leaving the "you can keep your walled garden" line of thinking up to the developers and not me.

 

[vipergts2207]

Not really without getting in to trouble. For example they can't pull Netflix because they want Apple TV to succeed. THAT is the definition of anti-competitive behavior and Apple CANNOT do that. As for cloud gaming, Apple left the door open, if each individual game was on the Store, cloud gaming would exist. And you do know emulators are in a grey area. Nintendo cracks down on emulators and ROM sites. Emulators are another way to "cheat" the system in place.

So if Apple didn’t allow Netflix that would be anti-competitive. Apple “allows” game streaming, but only if every available title is submitted for approval by Apple. You say this is not anti-competitive. Let’s flip these scenarios a bit. What if Apple only allowed Netflix and other video streaming apps if Netflix and the streaming apps submitted every title for approval? Would that be anti-competitive?

 

[vipergts2207]

Thus, leaving the "you can keep your walled garden" line of thinking up to the developers and not me.

Right, but the fact is most developers and apps will remain. You might lose an app or two and you’ll just have to deal with that if you aren’t willing to install outside of the App Store. For most people changes will be minimal and should an app they use leave the App Store, they’ll just replace with one of a dozen others that does the same thing.

 

[Ethosik]

So if Apple didn’t allow Netflix that would be anti-competitive. Apple “allows” game streaming, but only if every available title is submitted for approval by Apple. You say this is not anti-competitive. Let’s flip these scenarios a bit. What if Apple only allowed Netflix and other video streaming apps if Netflix and the streaming apps submitted every title for approval? Would that be anti-competitive?

If the reason for pulling Netflix is to ensure Apple TV succeeds, then yes that is the definition of anti-competitive. But pulling an app by Joe Somebody that injects adult material after you use the app for 5 hours is valid.

Your flipped scenario is different than games. 99% of the Netflix content is purely consumable and not role playing/highly interactive content that games are. Its a lot more difficult for me to make a movie that could ask for sensitive information than it is for me to write that into a game. So yes, I think games and highly interactive content need special approval vs a video library.

 

[Ethosik]

Right, but the fact is most developers and apps will remain. You might lose an app or two and you’ll just have to deal with that if you aren’t willing to install outside of the App Store. For most people changes will be minimal and should an app they use leave the App Store, they’ll just replace with one of a dozen others that does the same thing.

So you are telling me to "deal with it" but we cannot say "deal with not being able to side-load"? Why is your opinion worth way more than any of ours?

 

[AppliedMicro]

And you can just not side load or use third party stores! It goes both ways.

Exactly. It goes both ways.
That’s what the “you’ve made your choice by not buying Android” argument fails to address. People make independent choices for their phone, of an app or OS they “need” - and are then restricted in other choices.

“If I need app X, I’ll be forced to sideload.”
“If have phone Y, I’m forced not to sideload.”

Not really without getting in to trouble

What’s stopping them?
Certainly not their own legal paperwork, is it?
And certainly not the “they created the platform, so can (should be able to) do with it as they please” that I’ve read reiterated countless times on this forum.

As for cloud gaming, Apple left the door open, if each individual game was on the Store, cloud gaming would exist.

Yeah, if it was one the App Store and Apple could charge their 30% tax on it.
Come on, if anything is a blatant attempt at (extortionate) money grabbing from Apple, it’s this.
Are individual Netflix shows or Spotify albums on the App Store? (Edit: someone beat me to it)

And you do know emulators are in a grey area

Why? They seem perfectly legal if you’re not providing third-party code with them.
But Apple has a vested commercial interest not to allow them.

 

[Ethosik]

Yeah, if it was one the App Store and Apple could charge their 30% tax on it.
Come on, if anything is a blatant attempt at (extortionate) money grabbing from Apple, it’s this.
Are individual Netflix shows or Spotify albums on the App Store?

Apple doesn't get my money for my Netflix subscription, I have a pre-existing account. XBox Game Pass would just have you log in to the individual "game app" and let you play. Problem solved.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Its a lot more difficult for me to make a movie that could ask for sensitive information than it is for me to write that into a game

The argument that this were about „sensitive“ information and privacy is ludicrous. There‘s hundreds of thousands of apps asking for sensitive information that sends this information to the developers servers (think: dating apps ?) and databases - which aren’t vetted by Apple.

Apple makes most of their App Store money from mobile gaming - that’s why they‘ve come up with ever more creative ways of restricting the competition (unless they pay the Apple App Store tax).

Apple doesn't get my money for my Netflix subscription, I have a pre-existing account. XBox Game Pass would just have you log in to the individual "game app" and let you play

Let‘s get facts straight:
Game streaming services can have the very same pre-existing account setup as Netflix.
Are they, would their native app be allowed into the app store, that allows you to log in with your pre-existing account, just as you do with Netflix or other „reader apps“?

But pulling an app by Joe Somebody that injects adult material after you use the app for 5 hours is valid.

I haven‘t heard much of game streaming apps offered by Joe Somebody.
I have heard of them offered by Microsoft, Nvidia and Google.
But not much of Microsoft, Nvidia or Google injecting adult injecting adult material into their offerings (or even wanting/planning to).

 

[vipergts2207]

If the reason for pulling Netflix is to ensure Apple TV succeeds, then yes that is the definition of anti-competitive. But pulling an app by Joe Somebody that injects adult material after you use the app for 5 hours is valid.

Your flipped scenario is different than games. 99% of the Netflix content is purely consumable and not role playing/highly interactive content that games are. Its a lot more difficult for me to make a movie that could ask for sensitive information than it is for me to write that into a game. So yes, I think games and highly interactive content need special approval vs a video library.

I didn’t say a random Joe Somebody app who then surreptitiously uploads adult content. I’m taking about the mainstream players everyone uses. Netflix, HBO, Hulu, Disney, etc. would it be anti-competitive if Apple made them submit every one of their titles for approval or otherwise disallowed their app?