Yeah, alternative browsers, except they're all the same, because they're forced to use webkit. Who cares if the interfaces are different. If something doesnt render or work properly in safari, it won't work in any other iOS browser.
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.
European Regulators Awaiting Response From Apple After Spotify Called the App Store a Monopoly
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, alternative browsers, except they're all the same, because they're forced to use webkit. Who cares if the interfaces are different. If something doesnt render or work properly in safari, it won't work in any other iOS browser.
Why are you even on this forum. You just described android as your dream OS. go on. run
I’d love to have someone explain to me how Spotify or any app maker has a right to sell their iOS app? Apple created the App Store. They get to call the shots if you want access to their customers.
Wait, you parse my quote and stop just short of this:
You do that you so can make an argument that an app store monopoly is an absurd claim? Almost as absurd and disingenuous as trying to frame part of my quote as if I was implying that, when I clearly wasn't. I even spelled it out. Seriously, it was my very next line. Don't you think it would have made a bit more sense to reply to one of the other quotes that you claim were actually making that argument?
In this case, your opinion is not as relevant as the European antitrust law. Forcing users to use the App Store on their iPhone would be seen as violating the European antitrust law. This case could be compared to the Microsoft Media Player one in 2004 where Microsoft was forced to unbundle Windows Media Player from the OS and was imposed a fine.
Apps will have bugs no matter how they're distributed. And if recent news is any indication Apple hasn't been able to prevent abuses either.
That said, I do agree having an app approval process does provide some measure of quality control and security so here's what I propose - have a voluntary app certification program where app developers can submit their apps to Apple, which would undergo the same process as current App Store approval but allow those certified apps to be signed and distributed elsewhere. Apple could charge developers a premium for this service.
The AppStore rules have been created long before Spotify had an app.
For digital products that end up in your iOS device or are consumed on the device, any purchase from within the app must go through Apple. For other products, developers are _not allowed_ to use Apple's in-app purchase mechanism. So if you open a shop delivering sandwiches that users can order through your app, Apple says you _must_ provide your own purchasing methods, and you _must not_ take payments through Apple's in-app purchases.
That's why eBay or Amazon can let you purchase CDs or DVDs without paying Apple. If Uber allowed you to watch a video of a trip to your destination and charged $1 for it, that would be consumed on your device and Uber would have to go through Apple's in app purchases.
Hopefully we get better Spotify prices of something out of this.
The European Commission is awaiting a response from Apple after Spotify accused the iPhone maker of anticompetitive business practices in relation to its App Store, said the European Union's antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager.
"We are looking into that and we have been asking questions around in that market but of course also Apple themselves, for them to answer the allegations. And when they come back, we will know more," said Vestager, speaking on the sidelines of an economic conference, according to Reuters.
In March, Spotify announced it had filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the European Commission over unfair App Store practices. Apple responded two days later, labeling the complaint as "misleading rhetoric" and arguing that "Spotify wants all the benefits of a free app without being free."
In a blog post, Spotify founder and CEO Daniel Ek took particular issue with Apple charging a 30 percent "tax" on App Store purchases. This results in Spotify charging existing subscribers $12.99 per month for its Premium plan via the App Store just to collect nearly the $9.99 per month it charges normally.
Apple also forbids developers from alerting users that they can sign up for a subscription or complete a purchase outside of an app, which would bypass Apple's commission on in-app purchases tied to digital goods.
Spotify later said "every monopolist will suggest they have done nothing wrong" and that Apple's response was "entirely in line" with its expectations.
Apple has faced increasing scrutiny as of late over the way it runs its App Store, beyond Spotify's complaint. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of operating an App Store monopoly can proceed to trial in a lower court.
Parental control app developers have also petitioned Apple to release a public API for its Screen Time feature to ensure a fair playing field on the App Store, while the Netherlands is investigating whether or not Apple favors its own apps.
In response, Apple added a new page to the App Store section of its website titled Principles and Practices, noting that the App Store was created with two goals: to be "a safe and trusted place for customers to discover and download apps" and "a great business opportunity for all developers."
Apple emphasized that the App Store "welcomes competition" and listed many examples of third-party apps that compete with its own apps, such as Spotify versus Apple Music and Google Maps versus Apple Maps.The deadline for Apple's response to the European Commission is unclear.
Article Link: European Regulators Awaiting Response From Apple After Spotify Called the App Store a Monopoly
Every retailer takes a cut of the revenues generated by sales of products. Why should Apple be required to sell other vendors' products for free? The 30% that they take from the retail price is significantly less than what a clothing store would make, for example. I really don't see this as a problem.
No, Apple gets nothing if you subscribe to Netflix _on Netflix' website_.
That's
That's not the whole issue though. Apple doesn't want the iPhone to become like Windows which is full of malware. That means Apps have to go through Apple, and they have to be verified that they do as they claim. If Spotify doesn't want to pay Apple 30%, then all they have to do is tell their customers to sign up on their own website and give the app away for free. Once you download the app, you have to sign into your account and then you gain access to your account.
I for one DO NOT want apps outside of the App Store, and I don't think Apple should have to offer that. If Spotify doesn't like those terms they can sell to the Android market which is FAR larger than the Apple market. I am all for free markets, but this isn't it. The free for all, which exists on Windows, has proved to be a disaster. We have to pay a fee to virus check our machines constantly. And you have not just users, but even small governments bit by malware locking them out of their PCs. It damages the platform.
That's not the whole issue though. Apple doesn't want the iPhone to become like Windows which is full of malware. That means Apps have to go through Apple, and they have to be verified that they do as they claim. If Spotify doesn't want to pay Apple 30%, then all they have to do is tell their customers to sign up on their own website and give the app away for free. Once you download the app, you have to sign into your account and then you gain access to your account.
I for one DO NOT want apps outside of the App Store, and I don't think Apple should have to offer that. If Spotify doesn't like those terms they can sell to the Android market which is FAR larger than the Apple market. I am all for free markets, but this isn't it. The free for all, which exists on Windows, has proved to be a disaster. We have to pay a fee to virus check our machines constantly. And you have not just users, but even small governments bit by malware locking them out of their PCs. It damages the platform.
One of these things is not like the other.
iOS apps can be only bout from apples iOS app store. PS4 games can be bought from multiple sources.
And there are no malware on PS4 consoles
The PS4 not on many cellular networks, and it's not multitasking, personal computer with all your personal data on it either. Fact is, the game has to be licensed to run on the PS4. You can't just write a game for the PS4 and sell it without dealing with Sony in some way.
I agree. I just updated my original post with an idea to address this. Here's a link: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-app-store-a-monopoly.2183751/#post-27414403
The EU has far larger issues than the App Store. They will wait, and wait, and wait.
The EU is capable of doing multiple things at once. If Apple keep the EU waiting too long, steps can be taken against Apple.
You don't have to have an absolute amount of market share to be a monopoly, legally speaking. Apple takes a large part of industry profit and could therefore qualify as a monopoly. It really depends on how you define the market.
I see...you bought a product knowing the restrictions and now want Apple to change the rules to suit your wants and needs. Switch to Android phone if you don't like the state of the iPhone.
Yeah right. Let’s pay even less for music. Those overpaid musicians and producers.. MTV Cribs my a$$!