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.
Google Ordered to Support Alternative App Stores and Payment Methods in Play Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But do we blame and shame Apple, Microsoft, or Google for the lack of uptick with those other OS's?
They still exist, and you can still use them. They work. If any or all of them are actively preventing their adoption. That's a different story. But in this case, people are choosing what they want to use. This is how it is supposed to work. Until someone comes up with a better widget.
It should have been easy for Microsoft to get developers on board. Way easier than it was for Apple, which was WAY smaller at the time (in like every market they sold in). Microsoft just borked it.
They have means in which to avoid paying anything to Apple or Google. So they shouldn't be complaining much. In my opinion. They get to ride for free. I do wish however, they would offer the ability to sign up and pay via the AppStore, even at the higher price. At least give me that option.
If John Deere is extorting there customers. The customers have a right to complain and file lawsuits against them for it. If there are no alternatives to purchasing their farming equipment. They should be treated as a monopoly and dealt with accordingly. 70/30 split isn't extortion by any means. Physical stores are in the opposite direction of that number in favor of the store not the vendor. If we are just talking about the money here. Only one side is asking for that split to be more in their favor, and some will want it to be 100/0.
I do get that some of these companies already have means to accept payments and already manage their own infrastructures to supply their customers with the goods/services they offer. But they want to be seen via another businesses product, and either not pay at all (in some cases). Or have that fee be so low as for Apple or Google to not make anything from their inventions?
I'm sure there are a multitude of handsets with Android that can be picked from to handle that. That can meet or exceed many peoples wants/needs. Nothing is going to be perfect, and we all have to make some sacrifices. Either it costs too much or it's not the right shade of color. The screen is not bright enough or the USB is only 2.0 spec not 3.1.9999.
These are things we have to live with.
Not enough people bought their phones anymore.
If there’s anything the (potential) user base does no want, it a “third” mobile OS without established app ecosystem. And even less so “every large game manufacturer“ or other company developing their own OS - just because they disagree with Apple’s and Google’s anticompetitive terms and business conduct.
It is similar to Microsoft Windows.
…or Android.
You can develop a variation or flavour of Android - but it’d not change Google’s grip on distribution of apps and stores.
No one blames them. They’re being blamed for anticompetitively leveraging their OS in the distribution of apps and services against thrid-party developers.
…which are severely restricted by Apple and Google. Such as companies being unable to offer their own payment options and Apple even preventing companies (like Spotify) from communicating to consumers (unoess agreeing to be taxed by Apple).
Also: can an app developer offer unlocking functionality for a fee with using something like unlock codes (instead of Apple’s in-app purchasing system), without operating a cross-platform user account system (in which case they’d still be unable to communicate their offers in-app with paying commission)?
Physical stores aren’t monopolies (or monopsonies).
Any manufacturer can open their own “factory store” or web site and sell directly to consumers - and this ruling, just like the DMA in Europe allows developers to use and inform their customers about such options.
Epic or Spotify don’t need Apple’s (or Google’s) promotion.
They want do distribute and market products that work with/on consumers’ phones at competitive terms.
They’re just variations of the same OS (like iPadOS is one of iOS).
And I can only get such apps from Google’s (or Apple’s) store.
It is not. Apple can still offer that integration - and even bundle it with their operating system and devices.
They simply can’t use it to exclude competitor and prevent them from fairly competing.
Most normal people I know don’t use “half a dozen” of banks or payment providers. They want their main bank/payment account to work with it, and maybe a second.
…and chiefly among them a lack of regulation (not only with regards to sales of apps, but also usage and collection of user data).
It’s rather call it an admission of reality.
The last 15 years certainly didn’t require a DMA to “entrench” Google’s and Apple’s (or Microsoft’sm for desktop OS) positions in the market.
Integration by definition means something works better than another thing compared to something else. It’s obviously going to be unfair to somebody.
Simply sharing the same OS kernel doesn't automatically ensure application compatibility.
In addition to the Linux kernel, there are many other layers and not all builds include mutually-compatible layers. For instance, on the desktop, graphics could be based on X11 or Wayland. And UI widgets could be based on GTK, Qt or other layers. But unlike a desktop system, a mobile device can't just install them all in order to support whatever apps the user might want to run.
We see this in the Apple ecosystem. All Apple devices sold today run the same OSX/Darwin kernel. But the higher-layer frameworks that run over this kernel are very different on Macs, iPads, iPhones, Watches, Apple TVs, etc. Apps designed for one can't run on the other without explicit compatibility layers (that was recently added to macOS, but don't exist on other devices).
It will be the same for any Linux phones. Android took one approach. But there have been other mobile Linux distributions that are not compatible with Android. And any future mobile Linux builds that are not based on Android will require explicit compatibility layers in order to run Android apps.
Mind you, I'm all for people having choices. An open phone platform that will permit users to install any OS they want would be great. And I think there are some (not many) examples of this. But ultimately, users want access to all the popular apps, they want security, privacy, reliability and performance (not necessarily in that order) and the OS running underneath is rarely a concern. So most people will still choose iOS or Android - just like most choose macOS or Windows for their desktops.
Concerns about app-store restrictions, on the other hand, are a big deal. When there's only one possible way to get apps, and the managers of that store block what you want to install, it's a real problem. This is a problem in the iPhone ecosystem and which the EU did something about (whether or not you agree with the way they did it). But it is not a problem in the Android ecosystem, which has supported side-loading and alternate app stores since day-one.
No.
“Integration: the action or process of combining two or more things in an effective way”
Apple can integrate functionality.
The DMA doesn’t prevent that.
So can others.
And the DMA enables third parties to integrate with Apple’s software - where Apple previous wouldn’t allow It.
That is fair and beneficial for consumers.
It’s fair and beneficial to consumers only to the point that Apple is willing to spend the resources and effort to extend the same functionality and integration to third party OEMs, rather than decide that it’s simply not worth the effort (in which case consumers lose from not even being able to access a more limited version of said feature).
iPhone mirroring is already an example of how users in the EU are losing out on a feature rather than Apple deciding to open it up to other smartphones or laptops.
Apple uses integration as a key selling point for their devices. Buy all our hardware and they work seamlessly with one another. This provides a unique selling point which a small group of consumers value enough to pay a premium for. In a sense, Apple made a conscious decision to give up market share in exchange for targeting a smaller but more lucrative user base. In other words, Apple is willing to do this because they know there is good money to be made. And consumers benefit from their Apple devices working together in a manner that you don’t see if you were say, using a windows laptop and android smartphone.
If everything integrates together, Apple products lose their key selling point, and the overall value proposition is diminished. Why buy airtags if a third party can produce a Bluetooth tracker for way cheaper, piggy-bag on Apple’s find my network (which again, they built up with a formidable iPhone network), while undercutting Apple? And not forgetting that Apple is the one investing in the technology and the infrastructure making all this possible, and they are just expected to give it away for free?
In an alternate reality, Apple may well decide that airtags are simply not worth the effort, and we would still be stuck with crappy Tile trackers that don’t work well, drain battery life like crazy and (until recently), didn’t even let you replace the battery inside.
Are customers really better off with potentially fewer options, or 1 optimised choice at the expense of all other options? I personally still prefer the latter.
You want the benefits of “equality”. Are you prepared for the drawbacks as well?
They actually can, and I did (buy a third-party tracker - cause I preferred them over the AirTag).
Because Apple licenses it and third parties can make compatible trackers that Apple doesn’t make.
It’s good to have choice and interoperability.
And Apple’s “Find my” network working with third-party trackers is a great example.
Having to pay a premium does not benefit consumers.
Unless that premium is making the difference between long-term viability (profitability) for a product or service or not.
That is, unless the company can’t develop or maintain it without charging a premium.
But Apple and their products are laughably far away from such unprofitability.
Quite the contrary - if it integrates well with other (third-party) accessories or software too, the value proposition increases.
At least to consumers.
…and they (would) benefit even more if they worked well (better) with Windows laptop.
👉 Restricting interoperability (integration) to Apple’s own products and ecosystem doesn’t benefit consumers.
It merely benefits Apple and their bottom line.
Your example (of Apple’s “Find my” network and AirTags) strongly demonstrates that these choices aren’t mutually exclusive.
There can be first-party AirTags and third-party trackers in other form factors or at other price points interoperating on the same network.
Last edited:
Opening up “competition “ by regulating apple and their hard work and giving away their property under the guise of “competition “ is rubbish.
„Competition“ through erecting artificial barriers and highway robbery is rubbish.
Fair and constructive competition is making a better, more desirable product than your competitors.
Not „you can‘t talk, you can’t link, you need to apply for ridiculous entitlements“.
Fair and constructive competition is making a better, more desirable product than your competitors.
Not „you can‘t talk, you can’t link, you need to apply for ridiculous entitlements“.
Last edited:
And in Apple's case, the desirable product is their integrated ecosystem, something which the competition hasn't exactly been very successful at. And Apple is willing to go the distance to make their products work well together precisely because there is money to be made from getting consumers to buy only apple devices and subscribe to their own in-house services.
If it was so easy to make all devices worked together, why hasn't anyone tried to coordinate windows and android hardware to play better with one another? The simple answer is that there is no money to be made from such an endeavour (why would I do something that would benefit my close competitor equally?).
Looking back, I admit that my AirTag scenario perhaps wasn't my best argument (I don't know why the existence of third party trackers just didn't occur to me then ), but I feel it still supports my point in that Apple had to put in the extra legwork in engineering a solution that supported third party bluetooth trackers, at no apparent benefit to themselves (eg: it's not like they charge third parties a licensing fees to access their find-my network; maybe they should?).
I suppose if Apple were allowed to charge some sort of FRAND licensing fee for third party developers to access their platform, I could get on board with that. Like I am still not happy with Apple being forced to open up their platform, but at least they get some renumeration out of it?
That doesn’t mean they have to restrict access for third parties.
A single vendor is no requirement for consumer-friendly integration and interoperability. Neither is technically locking out others - that’s just a clever way to extract more money from consumers paying for it.
I mean… look at the iPhone and its ecosystem itself: you can instal hundreds of third-party apps - and it all runs just fine.
There is very apparent benefit to themselves: It increases usage of their proprietary “Find my” app and network - in the end helping them sell expensive phones and committing customers to their ecosystem.
Apple receive more than enough remuneration from iOS through sales of hardware devices.
They’re also free to license their operating system to other device manufacturer.
On top of all that, they’re still not prevented from bundling apps and services with their devices. My fifth generation iPad Air (that I purchased shortly after release) has just again 😡 begun bugging me with a red dot “Services Included with Purchase” in Settings app about redeeming free trials for Apple Music and Apple Fitness+.
…the
Internet carriers are pouring billions of Euros every year into maintaining and upgrading their networks to for increasing usage. You can’t expect them to give away access and usage of their networks for free to even biggest traffic generators like Apple), can you?
So how much cold they charge large traffic generators like Apple?
A 30% commission of Apple’s “services” revenue from app, in-app, media (music, movie, ebook) purchases and subscriptions seems fair enough to me. After all, that’s (supposedly) the industry standard in commissions on digitally delivered content.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Sure, bring it on. I assume that companies such as the EU's darling Spotify will be similarly subject to said tax as well?
The next question to ask yourself then is - are you prepared for the consequences on your own end?
Twitch to shut down in Korea over 'prohibitively expensive' network fees | TechCrunch
Twitch, the popular video streaming service, plans to shut down its business in South Korea on February 27 after finding that operating in one of the Twitch plans to shut down its business in South Korea after network costs became "prohibitively expensive" in the leading esports market.
techcrunch.com
Twitch recently pulled out of South Korea because the latter wanted to bill them for their high usage costs.
If the EU really wanted to tax Apple 30%, my first guess is that Apple would simply increase the price of apps to account for this. Like say an app sold for $10. Developer keeps $7, Apple gets $3. The EU wants $0.90 of that $3 (30% of 30% is 9%), so Apple imposes a 10% price hike on app prices (while making sure to remind consumers that all this is because of the EU). Basically, I see Apple just passing on any price hikes on to the end user, so they don't really lose anything. It's really the same logic as Apple hiking prices of their products in the EU to make up for exchange rate fluctuations. I don't know if this means that Apple makes more or less money net overall, but it does show that Apple does protect their margins fiercely.
And if you say that app sales fall as a result of higher prices, well then, it just ends up hurting the developer as much, if not more than Apple. To Apple, it's a little less app revenue. To the developer, it may well be their entire livelihood.
Second, I actually like the idea of Apple becoming their own MVNO. Perhaps Apple could become their own carrier (eg: Apple Cellular) and effectively pay 30% to itself?
Third, the more hostile the EU wants to be to Apple, the more likely that Apple may just wind up pulling out one day. It may seem unlikely, but once upon a time, the idea of the iPhone dethroning Blackberry seemed impossible as well.
Hurting Apple is easy, so long as you don't care about the collateral damage. Like I asked at the beginning - are you ready for the consequences?
Why must there be integration with 3rd parties? Sure it's nice, and when it's a common standard like Email or SMS. It's more or less expected. But, if you make something, and you make something "else" that integrates with the first thing you made. Why should you allow others to do so? Why should you be forced to?
In cases where a company wants that outcome. As long as they are not forcing out others from making their OWN thing. This shouldn't be a problem. But, if a company wanted to keep that all for themselves, because it's a great idea and sells well. They should be allowed to control the product they made. Someone else can try and come up with something else. Plus when the same company makes something integrate well with another thing they made. Its usually will work very well. Which is a benefit to the customer/consumer.
Competition by giving away someone’s assets is rubbish.
Fair and constructive competition is developing a new platform.
I don’t really understand the ridiculously entitled mindset that are prevalent in these posts.
To follow up on this, Ben Thompson of Stratechery has been following up on this for the past few days. He is of the opinion that nothing much will change for Google in the long run.
The main reason is the uncertainty caused by the "for three years" deadline imposed by the judge, and what exactly happens to third party app stores' access and subscriptions made via in-app purchases afterwards. As such, the main recipients are likely games (especially those with a fairly short shelf life). So it may well be that three years later, Google regains control over their play store and Epic loses whatever traction they made during this time.
The second reason is tangentially related to the overarching point I have been making about Apple and third party app stores in the EU. For better and for worse, the majority of consumers have been conditioned to use the default App Store for everything, and it's going to be hard to get users to change their behaviours and switch to alternative payments and app stores. The reason is simple - consumers don't really hate closed ecosystems, and bringing the walls down doesn't imply that users are clamouring to leave anytime soon.
There is a certain poetic irony if the second point turns out to be true. Imagine one reality where Google won the lawsuit and nothing changed, vs another reality where Google lost the lawsuit, and still nothing changes because consumers don't want to change, much to the consternation of lawmakers and third party App Store owners worldwide. 😆
Third reason - the ruling doesn't say Google does not have to waive their 30% cut altogether. Remember when I said that instead of the core technology fee, Apple could in theory charge developers 27% of revenue for apps sold outside of the app store? If Google can extract a cut of third party payments, they could disincentivise developers from adopting it altogether.
There's a broader point to be made here about competition and government regulation. You may see that there is a problem and agree that something needs to be done, but it's not so easy to come up with a solution that does have the intended impact, and there's always unintended consequences to be mindful of.
I remain optimistic that the impact of legislation like the DMA or this recent ruling for Google will do much to change the status quo.
The main reason is the uncertainty caused by the "for three years" deadline imposed by the judge, and what exactly happens to third party app stores' access and subscriptions made via in-app purchases afterwards. As such, the main recipients are likely games (especially those with a fairly short shelf life). So it may well be that three years later, Google regains control over their play store and Epic loses whatever traction they made during this time.
The second reason is tangentially related to the overarching point I have been making about Apple and third party app stores in the EU. For better and for worse, the majority of consumers have been conditioned to use the default App Store for everything, and it's going to be hard to get users to change their behaviours and switch to alternative payments and app stores. The reason is simple - consumers don't really hate closed ecosystems, and bringing the walls down doesn't imply that users are clamouring to leave anytime soon.
There is a certain poetic irony if the second point turns out to be true. Imagine one reality where Google won the lawsuit and nothing changed, vs another reality where Google lost the lawsuit, and still nothing changes because consumers don't want to change, much to the consternation of lawmakers and third party App Store owners worldwide. 😆
Third reason - the ruling doesn't say Google does not have to waive their 30% cut altogether. Remember when I said that instead of the core technology fee, Apple could in theory charge developers 27% of revenue for apps sold outside of the app store? If Google can extract a cut of third party payments, they could disincentivise developers from adopting it altogether.
There's a broader point to be made here about competition and government regulation. You may see that there is a problem and agree that something needs to be done, but it's not so easy to come up with a solution that does have the intended impact, and there's always unintended consequences to be mindful of.
I remain optimistic that the impact of legislation like the DMA or this recent ruling for Google will do much to change the status quo.
Exactly. Then the EU will just come up with something else. Which is to "incentivize" consumers to look outside of the default store. By charging a tax on the default stores. To make it more obvious that there is an alternative.
They will come up with something that will "make it work' the way they want.
If past history is anything to go by the EU’s usual approach to this is to make it easier to switch. Maybe all your app purchases and subscriptions will follow you from store to store.
Something that technically already happens. For instance, Netflix, Microsoft Office, and or anything you already subscribe to. Since most things are subscriptions. Anything one off, could just add an account to it and you good anywhere. In fact, if I remember correctly. Apple wanted iPhone/iPad apps to "just work" on Mac "IF" the developer was OK with it. So you would just buy it once.
Steve Jobs also essentially said that if you wanted apps on iPhone besides the ones Apple made, you could have web apps. Imagine how different things would look if they hadn't eventually started an app store. Sure, it brought about a lot of good things, like letting Apple manage your licenses for paid apps and auto-update your apps for you, but F2P apps and games would be different. We would see a lot less emphasis on microtransactions and in-app ads for other games, and probably less shovelware. That part sounds great. But there'd also be a lot fewer people trying to develop apps.
Sounds like more apps may just go subscription, if developers can’t profit off someone buying their app again when they switch platforms.
It can’t be that much of a money maker since consumers rarely switch platforms. But yes, it would likely incentivise the subscription business model, even more so than is already incentivised.
Epic judge lets Google keep its Android app store closed to competitors — for now
Google may get its appeal before consequences arrive.
www.theverge.com
Don’t pop your champagne yet.
