France Asks EU to Examine Apple's Removal of AppGratis From the App Store

[Dorje Sylas]

But they don't have 100% of apps distribution, nor Google or HTC

And Sony doesn't have 100% of the video game disk distorbution, nor Microsoft, nor Nintendo. App distribution is not a market.

I will point out that Amazon tried to have 100% control of App distorbution on the Kindle Fire. If they had locked down side loading better they may have gotten away with it too. Apple's just better a fighting Jailbreaks/Rooting then Amazon.

If you want to go after Apple over something it really should be Jailbreaking and the devices owners choice of what they can do with the hardware they own, especially if they chose to void any warrantee or liability of the manufacturer.

=====

Here is another one. The "Ring tone" market. Before the iPhone who controlled that. Was it an 'open' market or was it curated and locked down by device/service providers. Apps are the same deal today, only it's not the carriers, it's the device and the device OS makers. Google has just been 'free' with how people can put 'ringtones' (Apps) on devices using their OS, and many devices makers have gone along with that... with some exceptions (see Amazon). If side loading 'ringtones' is a feature you want or you are 'ringtone' maker who doesn't want to have to deal with the rules of a particular 'carrier', you find a different 'carrier' to work with.

 

[roadbloc]

That won't happen until Android users, categorically, start paying for apps. Devs are always going to follow the money and, for the forseeable future, that's with iOS.

So you claim that no Android customers have bought apps?

Get real.

 

[xsmspiffx]

But they don't have 100% of apps distribution, nor Google or HTC

That wasn't what I replied to, I replied to the statement that Apple owns 100% of the iPhone market. Yes, of course they do, just as any manufacturer owns 100% of the market of the product they manufacture.

Apple also does not control 100% of the App store market, Google Play for instance.

Apple also does not control 100% of the iPhone App store market, Cydia for instance.

The iPhone is not an app distribution market, the iPhone is a smartphone, one of many in the marketplace.

You guys really need to get your terminology straight, as well as your facts.

At the moment the claim is basically that Shell gas stations only sell Shell gas. Yes, of course Shell gas stations only sell Shell gas. Of course you will point out that cars can go to other gas stations than Shell, and they can. As can iOS devices, or more generally smartphone users.

Here is what you want to say, Apple controls the store that allows people to put apps onto their Apple iOS devices.

Two issues with that, it is not true, see Cydia above. Secondly there are a whole number of other things similar, such as XBox, PlayStation, etc... that have the same "issue". Yet you don't "complain" about them.

So, why is it an issue for iPhone but not PlayStation for instance?

 

[roxxette]

I just want the damm old layout back lol or atleast the old way of search results.

 

[Compile 'em all]

I just want the damm old layout back lol or atleast the old way of search results.

ThIS + million.

 

[Oletros]

So, why is it an issue for iPhone but not PlayStation for instance?

I have not said that it is an issue.

Apple also does not control 100% of the iPhone App store market, Cydia for instance.

Jailbreaking it is illegal in some countries

 

[vmistery]

That wasn't what I replied to, I replied to the statement that Apple owns 100% of the iPhone market. Yes, of course they do, just as any manufacturer owns 100% of the market of the product they manufacture.

Apple also does not control 100% of the App store market, Google Play for instance.

Apple also does not control 100% of the iPhone App store market, Cydia for instance.

The iPhone is not an app distribution market, the iPhone is a smartphone, one of many in the marketplace.

You guys really need to get your terminology straight, as well as your facts.

At the moment the claim is basically that Shell gas stations only sell Shell gas. Yes, of course Shell gas stations only sell Shell gas. Of course you will point out that cars can go to other gas stations than Shell, and they can. As can iOS devices, or more generally smartphone users.

Here is what you want to say, Apple controls the store that allows people to put apps onto their Apple iOS devices.

Two issues with that, it is not true, see Cydia above. Secondly there are a whole number of other things similar, such as XBox, PlayStation, etc... that have the same "issue". Yet you don't "complain" about them.

So, why is it an issue for iPhone but not PlayStation for instance?

Whilst I believe that Apple should have the ability to do whatever the hell they want with their App store within the law I do take issue with some of your statements

Its not an issue for playstation because I can go to several stores to buy games, similarly for Xbox / PC / Mac

Just because I use a Shell Petrol station doesnt mean I need a Shell car so that ones broke too, if I want access to the appstore i need an ios device

Mentioning Cydia is daft because Apple want to eliminate it

Google play is not available on the iPhone but several market places ARE available on Android

 

[Bug-Creator]

Its not an issue for playstation because I can go to several stores to buy games, similarly for Xbox / PC / Mac

How many PlayStation games can you buy that have not been officially endorsed by Sony ?

If I had a say (yeah I know I don't) I would force everyone of these companies to allow "homebrew" and provide customers with an easy way to install such SW. I have no problem with a warning that it's "unsafe", but that descion should be with the user not Sony,MS,amazon or Apple.

 

[steve-p]

What ?????
Perhaps you think McDonalds should show the menu for Burger King in store too ? Perhaps even allow them to have a serving aisle there too.

Maybe Barnes and Noble should have an Amazon Desk in their stores.

Perhaps Shell can also have some pumps with Exxon fuel too.

If you were locked in to only being able to use one of them for years, then that might be a reasonable analogy, but it's not. Last time I checked you didn't routinely sign a two year exclusivity contract with physical stores to be able to use their products and nobody else's.

----------

Since when did the EU rule USA?

Since when was Apple the USA? It's a multinational privately owned entity which happens to trade in many territories, including the EU which by the way has a higher GDP than the USA, so I'm guessing it's an important strategic market and therefore Apple are probably quite interested in continuing to grow within it.

 

[Winni]

Last time I checked, it was Apples' App Store. They own it, they curate it. What is there to examine?

If there were other App Stores for the iOS platform: Nothing. But since there is no other way to obtain software for an iOS gadget, putting them under legal examination and observation is absolutely justified and the right thing to do. In fact, I believe that Apple should be forced to open their platform for competing app stores.

It's not a problem on Android. It's not a problem on Windows. It's not YET a problem on OS X. Say again, why is iOS nailed shut except for establishing an illegal monopoly on software distribution?

It's almost ironic that Americans, who always claim to believe in competition and free markets, have such a weak spot for Apple's anti-competitive, monopolistic business behavior.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

Since when did the EU rule USA?

Since the USA rules on everyone everywhere.

 

[vmistery]

How many PlayStation games can you buy that have not been officially endorsed by Sony ?

If I had a say (yeah I know I don't) I would force everyone of these companies to allow "homebrew" and provide customers with an easy way to install such SW. I have no problem with a warning that it's "unsafe", but that descion should be with the user not Sony,MS,amazon or Apple.

But Sony don't actively monitor every game or piece of software made for the device and restrict it to one store. Locking down the hardware is different, lots of people do this (I am not saying if this is right or wrong).

I think the issue is thus: If I am buying a game for a PC for example and one store does not stock a game because they don't think its suitable its ok I just go to another store. On iOS I can't do that as there is only one store. Its whether people believe this is right and does a company like Apple have the right to basically make a company go bust and restrict customer choice just because they don't like it? On the other hand the customer buys into the ecosystem when they buy an iOS device so you could argue that they know this already.

 

[Stella]

Nor can you sell your XBox Game, PlayStation Game, Nintendo Game, etc if those companies say no.

consoles don't change dev rules and disallow games after they've been released and then say NO.

 

[roxxette]

consoles don't change dev rules and disallow games after they've been released and then say NO.

Exactly, not even indie games get that treatment.

 

[Rogifan]

Once more: You cannot sell your iOS App that you've just developed if Apple rejects it. AppleStore or no store.

Yes but my point is there's nothing special about AppGratis that they couldn't write it for another platform is there? They could make an Android version, no? Why does it have to be iOS?

----------

The question is, will they pull Pandora when Apple's steaming radio service starts?
It is after all directly competes with a core Apple feature, just like those pulled apps similar to Siri.

Last time I checked google maps and a whole host of other navigation apps are available in the AppStore. Or is Apple maps not a core Apple feature?

----------

now try and make it your default browser for when u click on a link in an app

Of course I know you can't. The times I use them its easy for me to copy the link and open it in that app. I'm not suggesting Apple shouldn't allow people to choose default apps. I'm just saying its not difficult to find alternatives to Apple's default offerings in the App Store

 

[spazzcat]

Last time I checked, the Government has the right to regulate private businesses. Just because a company owns something doesn't mean they can do whatever they want if it harms the public interest. What's there to examine? To see if Apple is using ther extraordinary power in the App Store in any unfair or anti-competitive way (because competition helps the public, and is in the public interest.)

Here is the problem with this argument, Apple isn't the only smart phone maker or seller.

 

[gotluck]

Here is the problem with this argument, Apple isn't the only smart phone maker or seller.

and why is this a problem? MS isn't the only OS vendor and was punished and forced to open up more by the EU.

 

[Terrin]

Retail stores don't have to carry items they they don't want to because those items can be sold at other retail stores. With the App Store, an ios app cannot be sold anywhere else. So if Apple can just determine arbitrarily what apps can and can't be sold, they can effectively destroy the software companies because there is no other market (IOS apps will only work on iOS, and can only be bought from the App Store.) That is extraordinary power, and frankly too much power. I don't get why some people can't see this.

This pretty much sums the issue up, and Apple's decision was brutal because this company invested significant resources into its App. The app was on the store since 2008, the company has 45 employees, and over 20 million people downloaded the app.

It is not like the devolper can just take his iOs app and go else place.

Moreover, Apple's rules aren't always clear, are subject to change, and enforced arbitrarily.

Further, as a person who has bought iPhones and iPads I dislike being told what I can download.

 

[everything-i]

I agree in one respect, but in another respect you could turn around and say "Well Windows is Microsoft's operating system, they own it, they are free to stop any non-microsoft application working on it, or anything that competes with them".

Eventually a government (or more likely, the EU and US combined) will open an antitrust case (just as they did with Microsoft) and Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party app installations. Obviously Apple can do it in such a way that makes it more worthwhile for people to go via their appstore, but it wouldnt be at all surprising to see everyone+dog jump on the bandwagon and open a bunch of stores on the iPhone.

You cant have a huge marketshare and block competitors from releasing software for your product. Sure, if you're small enough, nobody will care, but sooner or later, someone will challenge it.

This is a poor analogy, Windows is an OS open to any application and always has been. When developers sign up to develop software for the iOS platform they agree to a set of rules to which software must adhere to in order to be eligible for distribution on the app store. The difference is that an agreement is made when signing up to the developer program with iOS and no such agreement is in place in order to develop or distribute software for the Windows platform. No matter if you agree with it personally or not that is the situation that even Microsoft have fallen foul of when submitting iOS apps. If Apple choose to enforce the agreement then their is little a developer can do because they have already agreed to abide by it. I suspect the French are trying to get the EU to regulate that such agreements are in themselves illegal. As far as I can see Apple is blocking no one from releasing software for iOS as long as it is in line with the agreed rules. If the rules were applied differently for different developers that would would trigger anti trust litigation but that is not what is happening.

 

[uknowimright]

Guess France ran out of religions to cheat.

don't know about the cheating part but from some of the responses in this thread it seems they are still going up against a religion

 

[GoldenJoe]

The socialists who believe a 75% tax rate is fair are telling Apple that they're too brutal towards their developers.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Every tom and dick started deciding what Apple supposed to do

This thread is full of coffee spill traps and you're one of them.

Congratulations, you missed the key aspects of international business operations and antitrust laws.

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[xsmspiffx]

Whilst I believe that Apple should have the ability to do whatever the hell they want with their App store within the law I do take issue with some of your statements

Its not an issue for playstation because I can go to several stores to buy games, similarly for Xbox / PC / Mac

Just because I use a Shell Petrol station doesnt mean I need a Shell car so that ones broke too, if I want access to the appstore i need an ios device

Mentioning Cydia is daft because Apple want to eliminate it

Google play is not available on the iPhone but several market places ARE available on Android

You cannot really go to a different store though. If Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc... refuse to allow your game on their system no amount of wandering from store to store is going to magically make it appear. You need their permissions to publish the game. This is no different than Apple.

If we go by what you just said, you could have 100 iOS App stores, all run by different entities, but they could only stock apps that are approved by Apple. How is that any different than Apple having the only iOS app store?

How mach Chevron gas can you buy at a Shell station?

If Apple truly wants to get rid of Cydia where are the lawsuits to make that happen? It is correct, as someone else pointed out, about jailbreaking not be legal everywhere though.

 

[Ryan John]

Since when did the EU rule USA?

You can be as insular as you want, but just remember the fact that as Apple markets to and profits handsomely from EU nations, it has to follow EU rules. Either that or don't trade in that nation/area. Considering the size of the EU market, most companies would try to accomodate or compromise rather than lose billions in potential revenue don't you think?

France is just protecting one of it's own companies and therefore it's own interests from what it sees as an unacceptable decision. Apple isn't a stupid company so I'm pretty sure we will see something worked out on this issue soon enough.

 

[xsmspiffx]

If you were locked in to only being able to use one of them for years, then that might be a reasonable analogy, but it's not. Last time I checked you didn't routinely sign a two year exclusivity contract with physical stores to be able to use their products and nobody else's.

----------



Since when was Apple the USA? It's a multinational privately owned entity which happens to trade in many territories, including the EU which by the way has a higher GDP than the USA, so I'm guessing it's an important strategic market and therefore Apple are probably quite interested in continuing to grow within it.

You can buy an iPhone outright without requiring a contract (that may depend on country/carrier). Assuming it is a carrier issue that that is a carrier issue, not an Apple one. Assuming it isn't available in all countries to be bought outright then you have a point on the multi-year contract part.

----------

consoles don't change dev rules and disallow games after they've been released and then say NO.

The rules didn't change. It was enforced. The terms were known to AppGratis before they wrote the program.

----------

and why is this a problem? MS isn't the only OS vendor and was punished and forced to open up more by the EU.

Because MS had a dominant market position. That was what the EU said right at the very start. The same thing for the USA anti-trust suit.

Monopolies are held to a different standard than other companies.

Apple is not a monopoly.

----------

But Sony don't actively monitor every game or piece of software made for the device and restrict it to one store. Locking down the hardware is different, lots of people do this (I am not saying if this is right or wrong).

I think the issue is thus: If I am buying a game for a PC for example and one store does not stock a game because they don't think its suitable its ok I just go to another store. On iOS I can't do that as there is only one store. Its whether people believe this is right and does a company like Apple have the right to basically make a company go bust and restrict customer choice just because they don't like it? On the other hand the customer buys into the ecosystem when they buy an iOS device so you could argue that they know this already.

They actively approve what can go to the stores though.

The PC is not a valid comparison, nobody approves PC games, or apps.

Console makers are also restricting consumer choice in exactly the same way. You need the console makers approval to publish a game for their consoles. You need Apples approval to publish an app for iOS. Where is the difference?

Does it really matter that you can go buy an approved game at one of many stores is you can never buy an unapproved game at any store?