French Regulators Set to Levy Fine Against Apple for Anticompetitive Behavior

[farewelwilliams]

Take Square Enix for example: https://store.na.square-enix-games.com/en_US/hub/games

Which Microsoft and Sony takes a cut on every single copy they sell, not to mention they decide whether or not Square-Enix can sell games that work on their consoles.

Heck they even sell Mac OS games on their storefront.

Point is moot as Mac software has always existed outside of the App Store where none of the cut of the sales go to Apple.

What you're trying to claim: the software only works on it's own system, yeah that is true, but also irrelevant. No one is saying they want Apple's software to work on other devices or that they want other software to work on Apple devices.

You're failing to explain what's the benefit for an Xbox game to be sold in stores outside of the Microsoft Store when Microsoft makes $$$ regardless of distribution and controls whether or not the game can be run on their platform..

Microsoft reportedly makes 30% on every digital sale and publisher gets 70%. If the game is sold in Walmart, publisher of game only receives 45% after distribution costs, retailer margins, Microsoft royalties, etc...

And it's not like a publisher can suddenly make porn Xbox games if they sold it at a sex shop. Microsoft would not allow such a game to be run on their consoles.

So even if Apple allowed developers to sell their iOS apps at Walmart, developers would have a smaller cut of the pie after all the costs and their apps will still have to be approved by Apple. There's no benefit here to developers/publishers/or users.

 

[I7guy]

Did you comment on the wrong quote? The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in France.

No I didn’t. The ruling will determine the very same thing in the US. Apple is not likely to change anything unless they get a smack down from the Supreme Court. The fine in France is nuisance change to Apple.

 

[69Mustang]

Which Microsoft and Sony takes a cut on every single copy they sell, not to mention they decide whether or not Square-Enix can sell games that work on their consoles.



Point is moot as Mac software has always existed outside of the App Store where none of the cut of the sales go to Apple.



You're failing to explain what's the benefit for an Xbox game to be sold in stores outside of the Microsoft Store when Microsoft makes $$$ regardless of distribution.

Microsoft reportedly makes 30% on every digital sale and publisher gets 70%. If the game is sold in Walmart, publisher of game only receives 45% after distribution costs, retailer margins, platform royalties, etc...

And it's not like a publisher can suddenly make porn Xbox games if they sold it at a sex shop. Microsoft would not allow such a game to be run on their consoles.

So even if Apple allowed developers to sell their games at Walmart, developers would have a smaller cut of the pie after all the costs. There's no benefit here.

1. Whether MS makes 30%, 50%, or 75% there's no corollary to the Apple/iOS App Store/France issue. France's issue seems to be Apple's handling of the App Store relative to apps that compete with Apple's. Based on what I've read, they seem to be leaning towards a monopolistic practices angle. They found issue with Apple's sales and distribution practices. To be fair that could include Apple's rates, but it doesn't seem to have been a talking point for France in the past. Preferential treatment of it's own apps and lack of competition have both been talking points. So I'm more inclined to think the focus was there.

2. Why would I need to explain the benefits of an alternative App Store for iOS? I never said it was beneficial in the first place. I did use the lack of a competing app store as an example of why a. the App Store has no competition and Android ain't it, and b. the French might question monopolistic behavior.

3. You seem overly focused on everything but the relevant issue. This isn't about devs and whether they'd make more money in or out of the app store. This is about a government agency determining if a company has violated their laws. None of your replies address this fact.
[automerge]1584059209[/automerge]

No I didn’t. The ruling will determine the very same thing in the US. Apple is not likely to change anything unless they get a smack down from the Supreme Court. The fine in France is nuisance change to Apple.

Okay cool. You're on a different subject so I'm gonna bow out if it's okay with you. I'll re-engage on this when the topic is US related. The fine may end up being nuisance change. We'll know that when it's levied. Not really sure how relevant it is how it affects Apple's bottom line.

 

[farewelwilliams]

My point stands as a consumer I can buy my games from numerous places and it matters not that Microsoft takes a licence fee. As long as that fee doesn’t set a fixed price and vendors can sell at any price they choose, then there is competition. The App Store has the same “licence fee” (Apple cut) and one price and I can only acquire it from that one place.

What you're arguing for is "I want lower prices, so I want Walmart and Best Buy to compete for my money". Reality is, you're arguing for a middle man to take a piece of that $60 video game (industry standard is $15). Only thing the middlemen can do to compete with other middlemen is to give up a piece of that $15.

Ok, let's say you get an awesome deal from Best Buy for $47.99 on a game. Cool. Problem is publishers only get 45% of that $60 ($27) for a game sold in brick and mortar after all of the costs and middlemen (Microsoft + Best Buy + distribution costs). Because they give up a large piece of the pie, they budget less for the development of the base game. Then they start selling DLC so you end up paying more $$$ for what should have been in the base game had publishers got a larger portion of the cut. The end result is less content for your money even if Best Buy gave up all of their margins on a game.

Selling the game on Sony's and Microsoft's store, publishers get 70% instead of 45%. Guaranteed, if publishers sold the game exclusively on those stores, you'd get a lot more content for that $60 since they can budget more money for development.

If Apple allowed iOS apps to be sold via Walmart, Apple would still get a cut, and on top of that, publishers need to give up more of the pie to Walmart which means less budget for development and/or a higher cost of the app.


Another great example of this: Tesla does not sell their cars through a dealership. Had they sold through a dealership, guaranteed the sticker price would be higher. Sure you can negotiate the price down, but it'll rarely be lower than if Tesla just sold directly to you to cut out the dealership.

 

[sinsin07]

Tim Apple to France:
Let them eat Android.

 

[I7guy]

...
Okay cool. You're on a different subject so I'm gonna bow out if it's okay with you. I'll re-engage on this when the topic is US related. The fine may end up being nuisance change. We'll know that when it's levied. Not really sure how relevant it is how it affects Apple's bottom line.

Sure you can do whatever.

I'm pointing out you all can have opinions on this subject, apple is already addressing, according to rumors, some items in ios 14. However, apple is not likely to change anything in France, which is the point, unless it gets some direction from it's home turf.

 

[farewelwilliams]

France's issue seems to be Apple's handling of the App Store relative to apps that compete with Apple's.

Where does it say that? The report is vague at best and all you're doing is guessing. Isabelle de Silva complained last year that the problem was with products like Apple Pay.

2. Why would I need to explain the benefits of an alternative App Store for iOS?
3. You seem overly focused on everything but the relevant issue.

You're continuing the conversation between me and ani4ani which diverged to about alternatives for App Store for iOS (click back on the history). If you don't want to talk about it, don't continue that part of the conversation.

My first reply to you was disagreeing with your statement "Consumers who want iOS don't have two choices." which doesn't make sense. Ani4ani picked it up and diverged to App Store alternatives.

 

[miniyou64]

So funny, first try and read what ‘anticompetitive’ means, then try again..

It wasn’t a joke. There isn’t even a specific allegation in the article or any links. Please enlighten me

 

[Alan Wynn]

This is not a cogent argument. It's just a long-winded way of saying you think Android is an alternative for someone who wants iOS. It's not imo.

Sorry, the market is the smart phone market, not the iOS market. That is the problem with your argument.

It also doesn't seem to be an alternative in the eyes of adjudicating authorities.

Since there has been no ruling you cannot make this claim yet. You have no idea what anti-competitive behavior they may find. In the U.S. the PeopleSoft example shows why you are wrong.

 

[69Mustang]

Sorry, the market is the smart phone market, not the iOS market. That is the problem with your argument.

The smart phone market is a generality. The French are looking at Apple specifically, not the smart phone market as a total entity. Android is not an alternative to iOS for someone using iOS devices. I can't put Android Apps on my iPhone or iPad.

Since there has been no ruling you cannot make this claim yet. You have no idea what anti-competitive behavior they may find. In the U.S. the PeopleSoft example shows why you are wrong.

I can claim it seems that way to me, because it does seem that way to me. It's my opinion... kinda why I said "seems". Last time I checked, France wasn't in the US or governed by US laws so your PeopleSoft example doesn't really mean anything.

 

[kuebby]

Good. I hope they get them for enough money or with some regulatory provision that it actually has an effect. I can't imagine the previous $25m fine was felt much.

 

[I7guy]

If there is a way to cheat, you bet Tim has thought if it and done it

And he should. After all profits before customers, as some MR posters suggest. /s

 

[Ruggy]

We'll find out soon enough but France has a number of retail laws that are designed to aid competition they may have fallen foul of.
This won't apply but for example, you can't just open a supermarket where you want. In France the size of a store is linked to the local population it will serve and what other supermarkets are already installed in the area. This is to protect small shopkeepers.
It is also illegal to sell anything below cost- so loss leaders don't exist in France. This won't apply to Apple either I doubt but it gives you an idea of how different things are.
There are very strict rules about 'Sales'. If you declare a sale and therefore are selling something below cost or very cheaply then there are rules about for how long you do it, and it must have been on sale at a higher price for a period of time before-I think it's 90 days.
You also get two year warranty on any electrical items in France and that includes refurbished items.
I've noticed many iPhones sold by the registered refurbishers saying 6 months or a year, but I know for sure it's still 2 years. None of this explains what Apple have supposedly done but it may well be something to do with the physical retail stores or not giving access to OEM parts like batteries.
Just too many differences to speculate at the moment.

Note: which reminds me Amazon got in trouble for offering free delivery as it was deemed to be the equivalent of a illegal price reduction.

 

[ani4ani]

What you're arguing for is "I want lower prices, so I want Walmart and Best Buy to compete for my money". Reality is, you're arguing for a middle man to take a piece of that $60 video game (industry standard is $15). Only thing the middlemen can do to compete with other middlemen is to give up a piece of that $15.

Ok, let's say you get an awesome deal from Best Buy for $47.99 on a game. Cool. Problem is publishers only get 45% of that $60 ($27) for a game sold in brick and mortar after all of the costs and middlemen (Microsoft + Best Buy + distribution costs). Because they give up a large piece of the pie, they budget less for the development of the base game. Then they start selling DLC so you end up paying more $$$ for what should have been in the base game had publishers got a larger portion of the cut. The end result is less content for your money even if Best Buy gave up all of their margins on a game.

Selling the game on Sony's and Microsoft's store, publishers get 70% instead of 45%. Guaranteed, if publishers sold the game exclusively on those stores, you'd get a lot more content for that $60 since they can budget more money for development.

If Apple allowed iOS apps to be sold via Walmart, Apple would still get a cut, and on top of that, publishers need to give up more of the pie to Walmart which means less budget for development and/or a higher cost of the app.


Another great example of this: Tesla does not sell their cars through a dealership. Had they sold through a dealership, guaranteed the sticker price would be higher. Sure you can negotiate the price down, but it'll rarely be lower than if Tesla just sold directly to you to cut out the dealership.

l’m not arguing

 

[5232152]

These socialist policies and rulings will just drive Apple prices overseas up. If they don’t like Apple, don’t buy it.

That's not how global economics work though.

 

[Glideslope]

In the eyes of French regulators, Apple‘ greatest crime is it is not French.

The same can be said for every EU Nation State, although historically the French have always been the most anti- Private Sector. The EU constitution is invisible ink. The internal friction between the EU Nation States is palatable. The current Viral Pandemic will leave even stronger, longer lasting animosity among them. It's a failed experiment. I could not think of a more hostile geographic area to try and form a homologous union of "All for one, one for all" other than the Balkans. All you need to do is look at the last 500 years of history in the region.

 

[Digitalclips]

'Anticompetitive Behavior,' i.e. being successful while not French.

 

[Ruggy]

OK, so end of speculation, here's the reason why:
In 2012 a company called eBizcuss filled a complaint against Apple for anti-competitive behaviour from a dominant position.
At the time, eBizzcuss had 15 stores in France and soon after Apple opened the first Apple store in France in 2001 their business declined and they went bankrupt in 2012 (Note: seems a long time between the two no?)
They opened a complaint against Apple claiming they used their position of dominance forcing premium resellers like them to buy from 3 suppliers: Ingram, Tech data and Virgin Mobile while at the same time negotiating favourable rates for themselves.

 

[H2SO4]

Funny, I think the App Store is a great example of competition at work. Consumers have two choices Apple’s walled garden and Android’s free for all.



On the other hand, I always try to buy the Mac App Store version. I like to be able to download it to any Mac I own and take advantage of family sharing for those apps that support it. Such a better experience than having to create credentials on every store for every product, worrying not just about their product, but their processes for keeping my information safe, etc.

Another great competitive choice!

Yeah except you’ve completely missed the fact that there were people writing Mac apps before the App store came along.
Which means I can add a third category, that is Apple apps NOT through the App Store. Even more routes to get your product = more consumer choice. Three choices to your two.
In addition having different stores isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I have different logins which is good what makes you think Apple is more secure than A. N. Other.
Plenty of devs and large software houses give you multiple seat licenses. On top of that, the apps are often more powerful and configurable. That suits plenty fine.
So that’s even more competition AND more variety which is what you were after right?
[automerge]1584109562[/automerge]

OK, so end of speculation, here's the reason why:
In 2012 a company called eBizcuss filled a complaint against Apple for anti-competitive behaviour from a dominant position.
At the time, eBizzcuss had 15 stores in France and soon after Apple opened the first Apple store in France in 2001 their business declined and they went bankrupt in 2012 (Note: seems a long time between the two no?)
They opened a complaint against Apple claiming they used their position of dominance forcing premium resellers like them to buy from 3 suppliers: Ingram, Tech data and Virgin Mobile while at the same time negotiating favourable rates for themselves.
[automerge]1584109010[/automerge]

That's just simply racist pure and simple. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The French are not a race. I think statements like yours belittle real racism.

 

[farewelwilliams]

l’m not arguing

that is literally an argument. ?‍♂️
bye.

 

[H2SO4]

that is literally an argument. ?‍♂️
bye.

Oh that’s very sweet indeed. Nicely done.

 

[Jimmy James]

I believe that privacy is the most important consideration here. Apple is best of the rest and I don’t want an open system for that reason.

 

[Ruggy]

Yeah except you’ve completely missed the fact that there were people writing Mac apps before the App store came along.
Which means I can add a third category, that is Apple apps NOT through the App Store. Even more routes to get your product = more consumer choice. Three choices to your two.
In addition having different stores isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I have different logins which is good what makes you think Apple is more secure than A. N. Other.
Plenty of devs and large software houses give you multiple seat licenses. On top of that, the apps are often more powerful and configurable. That suits plenty fine.
So that’s even more competition AND more variety which is what you were after right?
[automerge]1584109562[/automerge]

The French are not a race. I think statements like yours belittle real racism.

It's stereotyping a people. It's based on prejudice. It's denegrating a people suggesting they are somehow unlawful, lesser- frankly I don't know exactly what is going on in the mind of the person that said this but it's nothing positive
It's almost the definition of racism.

 

[H2SO4]

I believe that privacy is the most important consideration here. Apple is best of the rest and I don’t want an open system for that reason.
View attachment 898957

Can you tell exactly what is being sent at all?
What and how much are different things.
[automerge]1584121171[/automerge]

It's stereotyping a people. It's based on prejudice. It's denegrating a people suggesting they are somehow unlawful, lesser- frankly I don't know exactly what is going on in the mind of the person that said this but it's nothing positive
It's almost the definition of racism.

Why not just say prejudice? That’s what it is. If it’s not racism then don’t label as such.

 

[V_Man]

And he should. After all profits before customers, as some MR posters suggest. /s

That’s his job.