Kaspersky Lab Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple Over App Store Policy

[Rob_2811]

I don’t think Apple is being uncompetitive.

It’s really about seeing how the various policies come together to allow for a better end user experience for us consumers.

Look to the post above mine for why I feel Apple is justified in having their own competing apps and services. It basically serves as a hedge should influential app developers ever get greedy or act in a manner that is not in the best interests of their consumers. I am absolutely behind Apple in this regard, even as I acknowledge that it might not be entirely fair to app developers whose apps have been “sherlocked”.

I think it also makes sense that if a certain feature proves popular enough that Apple end up just folding that functionality into its own OS, such as integrating a flashlight function into control centre, or bundling a free measuring app with iOS 12. There are still plenty of ways the developer can differentiate his app, since Apple is copying just the very basic functionality here.

The 30% cut is probably the most contentious point, but I find it is disingenuous that every company conveniently fails to mention how this drops to 15% after the first year.

Same for not allowing other payment processing options. It’s probably better that my payment details stays with Apple, rather than proliferating to every developer whom I buy an app from.

I suppose Apple might eventually capitulate on allowing app developers to mention that they could also subscribe directly via the website. I really don’t see the harm, but I can also see why Apple has no incentive to give in if they absolutely didn’t have to.

At the end of the day, it’s really about ensuring a great integrated experience of us end users.

Ok so there are a couple of things here..

Banning third party services from mentioning promotions or using push notifications from their app for marketing purposes. Apple does both of these things frequently for Apple Music thus Apple is abusing its App Store policy to handicap competing services. Clearly anticompetitive.

You consider it better to have your payment details only registered with Apple but I think this is a non issue for most people. Particularly when you are talking about subscription services where the subscriber is a customer of that service on an ongoing basis such as Netflix or Spotify.

The 15% only applies if the subscriber has a continuous subscription.

 

[Abazigal]

The 15% only applies if the subscriber has a continuous subscription.

And I consider 30% reasonable for paid apps.

 

[Rob_2811]

And I consider 30% reasonable for paid apps.

I don't think it's reasonable for ongoing subscription fees.

 

[Abazigal]

I don't think it's reasonable for ongoing subscription fees.

Which is why Apple dropped it to 15% after the first year.

I feel 30% in the first year is not unreasonable given the role the App Store plays in facilitating discovery and making it easy for the user to subscribe without having to key in any payment details at all.

In the second year, 15% is a decent reduction given the app store’s diminished role in maintaining the relationship between the user and the developer.

I suppose a case could be made that this cut be further reduced to 10% or even 5% from the third year onwards. But I suspect Spotify and Kaspersky aren’t so much interested in wrangling that bit of extra cash from Apple as they are about wanting to wrestle control of the App Store from Apple.

To go back to my original analogy, Apple is like a grocery store who gets to decide what to sell and how to sell it, while these companies want Apple to be more like a mall where they only need to rent the space but are otherwise free to run their business however they deem fit within that space.

I very much prefer the former over the latter, for the simple reason that I trust Apple to keep these developers honest than I would trust the developers to keep themselves honest.

 

[Rob_2811]

Which is why Apple dropped it to 15% after the first year.

I feel 30% in the first year is not unreasonable given the role the App Store plays in facilitating discovery and making it easy for the user to subscribe without having to key in any payment details at all.
.

Come on, discovery Netflix? Spotify? Epic Games? Not so much. They are effectively processing the payment and distributing the app for those kind of services and for that 30% is way too high.

 

[Abazigal]

Come on, discovery Netflix? Spotify? Epic Games? Not so much. They are effectively processing the payment and distributing the app for those kind of services and for that 30% is way too high.

Okay, maybe I shouldn’t keep fixating on those few companies.

You can’t just focus on a few big names and forget that there are tons of smaller developers out there who do benefit from this, such as Todoist and Bear.

Also, John Gruber did mention that he suspected Netflix managed to negotiate paying out just 15% to Apple even in their first year, but I have no idea how accurate this is.

 

[Rob_2811]

Okay, maybe I shouldn’t keep fixating on those few companies.

You can’t just focus on a few big names and forget that there are tons of smaller developers out there who do benefit from this, such as Todoist and Bear.

Also, John Gruber did mention that he suspected Netflix managed to negotiate paying out just 15% to Apple even in their first year, but I have no idea how accurate this is.

Cant have a one size fits all policy then.

It makes no sense for huge services with 100 million + subscribers like Netflix and Spotify. Next to nobody is discovering these services for the first time via the App Store.

You can bet Apple wouldn't have been cutting Netflix any kind of deals had they been competing with them at the time either.

 

[ajistewart]

The funny thing is, both things Kaspersky is complaining about, you can do under Screen Time --> Content and privacy restrictions. Simply turn off Safari under "Allowed Apps" and change the "Content Restrictions" then Apps to whatever you want. It is a null argument from Kaspersky. All they need to do is open those particular sheets in the restrictions section and get them turned off. simple.

 

[Rob_2811]

The funny thing is, both things Kaspersky is complaining about, you can do under Screen Time --> Content and privacy restrictions. Simply turn off Safari under "Allowed Apps" and change the "Content Restrictions" then Apps to whatever you want. It is a null argument from Kaspersky. All they need to do is open those particular sheets in the restrictions section and get them turned off. simple.

I think you've missed the point ...

 

[Frank Dalton]

I feel that in such cases, Apple is justified in restricting the ability of other companies to perform such actions. If there is a need, Apple will handle it themselves.

They are not restricting other companies, they are restricting *me* from *choosing* what I want to do with *my* hardware.

The compulsory Crap Store model can't die soon enough, as far as I'm concerned.
[doublepost=1553474530][/doublepost]

I kind of agree ... but screen time isn’t an app you can launch, it’s core functionality now. And I’m not comfortable giving that kind is access to a 3rd party.

Then don't. Why does *your* choice to not give that access to a third party vendor necessitate restricting *my* choices?
[doublepost=1553474681][/doublepost]

To me, it’s common sense.

I don’t go into a french restaurant and then complain that it doesn’t serve Japanese cuisine.

If you want to use this analogy, it's more like buying a Chinese restaurant and then having the refrigerator and stovetop vendors show up and tell you that you aren't allowed to cook any Japanese food items *in your own restaurant.*

 

[Scottsoapbox]

If you were Dunkin’ Donuts would you let someone sell their own coffee out of your vestibule? Would that person have a right to sell their coffee at Dunkin' Donuts?

Suppose they were allowed to sell corn fritters because a Dunkin’ Donuts didn’t offer them and were okay with it. Now suppose a couple of years later they start offering corn fritters. Sad for the entrepreneur who built a corn fritters business out of a Dunkin‘ Donuts vestibule, but DD isn’t within their rights to now disallow this person from selling his own corn fritters in their property? It’s illegal to tell him he’s done? They must be forced to allow a competing product in heir own store? Especially if people though they tasted better?

It’s an interesting analogy. I guess the problem might be that right now there is no other place to sell “corn fritters.”

The counter argument is that “Dunkin’ Donuts” (iOS, App Store) is changing and adding features all the time, and that devs are bound by this. Plenty of devs/apps have dies due to a new baked-in feature or function, even without a ban.

In what world is a Dunkin Donuts a platform for other companies???

An actual platform example would be if Amazon banned all other charging cables from its store just as it launched its 'Amazon Basics' line of charging cables. Can Amazon do this? Sure, it is their store. Should Amazon do this? Well it certainly would be considered a bully move by most people and certainly isn't good for the competitive atmosphere that tends to benefit consumers. Look, you can make all the terrible made up examples you want, but IF Apple's products are better than the competition wouldn't they win customers without needing to ban all other options? So why then is Apple banning other options? Hmmm.

 

[Kabeyun]

In what world is a Dunkin Donuts a platform for other companies???

In the world of hypothetical examples such as the one I put forward. I thought that was obvious. No problem that you didn’t get it.

 

[garylapointe]

There are lots of app that replicate the built in app in iOS, but they have more features, so no just because the built in app does something similar, it does not work as a good excuses, as you might be missing out on features Apple pretend you do not need.

If it's providing MORE, then it's not only duplicating.

Well who tells you one work better than the other?

It doesn't matter, I'm saying I thought it was a rule of the app store.
[doublepost=1553971532][/doublepost]

As others have pointed out, you’re actually kind of making Kaspersky’s point for them.

Look forget for the moment this is Kaspersky. Think of yourself as a domestic developer laboring away producing an app that sells great for three years. Then Apple suddenly gets off its dead butt and decides to build into iOS all the functionality of your app.

How are you to feel after three years, when you are all of a sudden told your app violates their terms and needs to be removed? And then you find out Apple basically assimilated all of the functionality of your blood sweat and tears into iOS. The timing looks suspicious. The timing makes it look like Apple doesn’t really care about our security after all, until it becomes a convenient excuse to screw over a small competitor and feed into their new advertising campaign focusing on privacy and security.

Where was this concern three years ago?

Companies (even stores and restaurants) do things similar to what others have done and sometimes do better than the originals. This isn't a new thing.

Should Apple have said three years ago: "we're going to be doing this in the future"? And state their roadmap? Although, I'd have expected it way before now from Apple, but I'm still waiting for different user profiles for the same iOS device too...

Not having control over what the app store policy is, is clearly one of the downsides to developing for it.

I'm NOT defending Apple, I'm playing devil's advocate to what you are saying.

My question is, let's say Apple wanted to add a Hangman game built-in to iOS. That's pretty much going to affect all hangman games, right?
Which gets me to my more specific question is, did they steal anything unique from any of the hangman apps to put into their hangman game? Or did they just implement the obvious things that you'd implement in such a feature?
[doublepost=1553971810][/doublepost]

Was that good enough for Microsoft when they integrated browser level functionality into the operating system and restricted access of third-party programs like Netscape?

How did they restrict access? Did they stop you from installing Netscape?
Windows was MUCH more of a monopoly at the time. You basically couldn't run a business without Windows.

Does Apple even ship with third-party apps on iOS?

If does have the default for search set for Google (which I think they pay a pretty penny for) but they also have several other options you can switch to (but not many).
[doublepost=1553972096][/doublepost]

that could be argued as anti-trust and anti-competitive.

Kaspersky had a product people were paying for and using.

Apple comes out with their own version (this itself isn't the problem)

Apple then changes the rules on kaspersky stating that now since Apple has a competing product, Kaspersky is no longer allowed to have their product.

I thought they always had a rule related to duplicating the operating system.
Apple isn't selling its feature, so it's not really a competing product, right?
By not letting them sell it, Apple is actually losing it's 30% cut...

This itself might be enough to be considered anti-competitive.

For Example, on Windows, MacOS, Android, BBOS10, WinPhone, etc, etc. Almost every OS allows installation of programs from 3rd party sources and alternative "App stores". it's iOS exclusive practice to lock down delivery in such a way.

That's always been one of the benefits of iOS. Android is the other option and is probably more of a monopoly in cases like this.

 

[5105973]

If it's providing MORE, then it's not only duplicating.



It doesn't matter, I'm saying I thought it was a rule of the app store.
[doublepost=1553971532][/doublepost]

Companies (even stores and restaurants) do things similar to what others have done and sometimes do better than the originals. This isn't a new thing.

Should Apple have said three years ago: "we're going to be doing this in the future"? And state their roadmap? Although, I'd have expected it way before now from Apple, but I'm still waiting for different user profiles for the same iOS device too...

Not having control over what the app store policy is, is clearly one of the downsides to developing for it.

I'm NOT defending Apple, I'm playing devil's advocate to what you are saying.

My question is, let's say Apple wanted to add a Hangman game built-in to iOS. That's pretty much going to affect all hangman games, right?
Which gets me to my more specific question is, did they steal anything unique from any of the hangman apps to put into their hangman game? Or did they just implement the obvious things that you'd implement in such a feature?
[doublepost=1553971810][/doublepost]

How did they restrict access? Did they stop you from installing Netscape?
Windows was MUCH more of a monopoly at the time. You basically couldn't run a business without Windows.

Does Apple even ship with third-party apps on iOS?

If does have the default for search set for Google (which I think they pay a pretty penny for) but they also have several other options you can switch to (but not many).
[doublepost=1553972096][/doublepost]

I thought they always had a rule related to duplicating the operating system.
Apple isn't selling its feature, so it's not really a competing product, right?
By not letting them sell it, Apple is actually losing it's 30% cut...



That's always been one of the benefits of iOS. Android is the other option and is probably more of a monopoly in cases like this.

You don’t need to play devils advocate. I’m not making a particular value judgement of Apple’s actions. I’m just saying it sucks to be a developer for iOS if you make something great that Apple might want for itself. You just never know how it’s going to work out for you. Neither do your customers...thinking of Texture customers at the moment.

And I guess I’m also saying Apple’s actions on this case don’t really make sense from a “concern over customer security” standpoint because they did let all this carry on for 3 years. They didn’t think to put a stop to it until they had their own thing going. I just don’t take too much stock in Apple’s sudden PR over customer privacy and security because of these “little things.” It’s a selling point in their favor, but I don’t believe it’s some moral imperative like they like to portray.