Microsoft President Met With U.S. Antitrust Committee Investigating Apple and Expressed Concerns Over App Store

[jonblatho]

I've beaten this to death: free apps don't pay a dime except their annual dues for the dev program. Free apps represent over 90% of apps on the App Store. All that bandwidth and cloud storage space they could be charging for is being used rent-free.

If it’s such a burden on Apple, why not start billing developers of free apps (presumably with an exception for schools, nonprofits, etc.) fees to offset the storage space and bandwidth they’re using and/or for App Review? Seriously, I’m not sure why we’re supposed to feed bad for Apple here. If they don’t like their business model, they have every right in the world to change it, and I strongly expect that they would prefer to do so themselves before a government entity does it for them.

Ultimately what’s happening is paid/IAP app developers are being forced to subsidize costs associated with work that mostly isn’t theirs by way of a fee that far exceeds Apple’s actual costs for their own work. This policy also indirectly pushes developers toward making their apps free and ad-supported. Is that best for privacy?

Seriously, Apple’s not a charity. No one’s making them host free apps for free.

 

[jlc1978]

"Microsoft has announced today that it is updating its Microsoft Store revenue sharing agreement. The company says that starting immediately, developers will keep 95 percent of app revenue, while Microsoft will take the remaining 5 percent."

That is a bit misleading on MS' part, since the actual charges vary by product or how the item is found. It apparently requires a direct URL vs a search on the app store, which results in a 15% cut.

For example, per MS' blog:

The new fee structure is applicable to app purchases made on all Windows 10 PCs, Windows Mixed Reality, Windows 10 Mobile and Surface Hub devices. The new fee structure excludes all games and any purchases on Xbox consoles.

Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

As of March 5th, the Microsoft Store team has updated the Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement (ADA). The next time you log into your Partner Center dashboard, you or someone with an administrative role on your account will be prompted to reaccept the ADA before you can continue to update or...

blogs.windows.com

I'm not surprised since their app store appears to be struggling and they need more developers to sell on it.
[automerge]1595349185[/automerge]

If it’s such a burden on Apple, why not start billing developers of free apps (presumably with an exception for schools, nonprofits, etc.) fees to offset the storage space and bandwidth they’re using and/or for App Review? Seriously, I’m not sure why we’re supposed to feed bad for Apple here. If they don’t like their business model, they have every right in the world to change it, and I strongly expect that they would prefer to do so themselves before a government entity does it for them.

Ultimately what’s happening is paid/IAP app developers are being forced to subsidize costs associated with work that mostly isn’t theirs by way of a fee that far exceeds Apple’s actual costs for their own work.

True, but that is not unusual. I suspect if Apple is forced to redo it's fee they will simply raise other fees such as the annual membership as well as charge for stuff such as app review; which will result in higher up front costs for developers. The good news it will probably get rid of free apps that are basically junk or ripoffs of otehr apps if developrs have to pay upfront more to get them hosted.

This policy also indirectly pushes developers toward making their apps free and ad-supported. Is that best for privacy?

Yes, but the low prices consumers expect to pay for apps drives that as well as it's hard to make money on an app that sells for a few dollars/ Euros/etc.

Seriously, Apple’s not a charity. No one’s making them host free apps for free.

No, but the current fee structure makes that a viable option. Change the frees tructure and yo9ur likely to see free apps greatly diminished, which is not all bad.

 

[jonblatho]

Let's compare this to something else. Take Amazon. You are a 3rd party seller wanting to sell your goods. You really think you have the right to say hey Amazon Im going to sell my stuff on your site, that you pay to maintain and used your money to build its reputation to what it is now, and not give you 1 penny? I mean good luck I guess?

You want to play in someone's sandbox they built up on their money and consumer capital then it is pay to play. That is how the world works; nothing is free.

Now you can argue 30% is too high or not, but all devs should have to pay Apple SOME piece for using their store and customer base Apple built up on its own money.

This is a disingenuous “comparison” because last time I checked, no one’s forced to distribute goods on Amazon if they don’t want to. If you have an iOS binary (or set of binaries) intended for general consumer use, you must distribute it on the App Store. There’s no other app marketplace, and direct-to-consumer distribution is disallowed.

 

[funkahdafi]

Which is irrelevant. There is nothing illegal about Apple controlling access, aand charging for, to their user base since they are not a monopoly. It's no different than a retailer marking up a product they sell.

I don't think either you or I can really judge on the legality of this or whether this is a monopoly or not (unless you're a lawyer)? Either way, it is very relevant, otherwise the US anti-trust committee wouldn't be investigating Apple and invite other companies for hearings.

Microsoft has been charged and sentenced for much less. Anyone remember the browser wars? Yeah. That.

I don't even get why the fanboys keep defending Apple's practices. It's to their own detriment. Cognitive dissonance is real.

 

[shplock]

Uh, no. There’s endless piles of versions of Linux you could use, or macOS - you’re not forced to use Windows at all.

As for Microsoft Office, you could instead use Google’s programs, or iWork, or OpenOffice, or LibreOffice, or there’s tons of other smaller Office competitors.

You are wrong. Their point seems to be that over 90% of companies use Microsoft and therefore MS Do have a monopoly in the same way that Apple is accused of having a monopoly even though there are other app stores available.

 

[jlc1978]

None of this has anything to do with Apple charging too much money. It's all about choice. Which Apple does not provide, and that is clearly an antitrust issue.

there is no right to access a platform and the whole "choice" argument is specious. Developrs have a choice - sell on iOS or Android or Linux or whatever else. Apple is merely one platform and if developers want access to iOS users they must pay Apple's fees; just as if I want to sell my product at WalMart I must comply with their terms.

The problem for developers is iOS is a lucrative market, and thanks to Apple apps are less likely to be pirated and sideloaded; things developers like but don't want to pay for.
[automerge]1595349482[/automerge]

You are wrong. Their point seems to be that over 90% of companies use Microsoft and therefore MS Do have a monopoly in the same way that Apple is accused of having a monopoly even though there are other app stores available.

Except Apple's market share is nowhere near 90%.

 

[shplock]

Jfc. I know it’s unbelievably easy to dump on Microsoft on an apple related site. But you just come off as insecure. I’m so tired of this constant ******** on Microsoft around here. It leads to zero discussion.

Microsoft isn’t complaining about competing with the iPhone. As far as anyone can tell, they have zero interest in that. Instead, they’ve positioned themselves as more of a services company more than anything. And it’s smart. The duo looks like a legit awesome device that I’m sure is going to do pretty good in the corporate space. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

the issue here is the App Store. It’s the same problems that come up time and time again. Between the 30% cut, the fact that developers can’t put a CTA that says “go here to sign up” (say what you want, THATS a crap UX issue that shows up because of Apple).

I don’t even know why I’m bothering typing this out. You’re probably going to make some half assed comment ******** on Microsoft because you don’t like them

I know it is easy to dump on Apple for being successful but Microsoft is complaining a competitor being successful.

What Microsoft is saying is that a competitor of there's is doing well with their own ecosystem, making money, helping developers make a fortune and in return take a small 30% and how dare that happen when we could not do it, also while you are at it can you let us use the App Store to host our own products, advertise them, support them and collect revenues for them all for free!

Yeah and you think Microsoft is innocent huh!

 

[funkahdafi]

there is no right to access a platform and the whole "choice" argument is specious. Developrs have a choice - sell on iOS or Android or Linux or whatever else. Apple is merely one platform and if developers want access to iOS users they must pay Apple's fees; just as if I want to sell my product at WalMart I must comply with their terms.

As others have already pointed out, the legal ramifications look different. Microsoft as a platform was long considered a monopoly by judges, even though there were alternatives available. Apple is too big to be counted as "just another platform". And hence the antitrust issues are very real. Like it or not. Microsoft has been sentenced for far less in the past.

 

[alien3dx]

If it’s such a burden on Apple, why not start billing developers of free apps (presumably with an exception for schools, nonprofits, etc.) fees to offset the storage space and bandwidth they’re using and/or for App Review? Seriously, I’m not sure why we’re supposed to feed bad for Apple here. If they don’t like their business model, they have every right in the world to change it, and I strongly expect that they would prefer to do so themselves before a government entity does it for them.

Ultimately what’s happening is paid/IAP app developers are being forced to subsidize costs associated with work that mostly isn’t theirs by way of a fee that far exceeds Apple’s actual costs for their own work. This policy also indirectly pushes developers toward making their apps free and ad-supported. Is that best for privacy?

Seriously, Apple’s not a charity. No one’s making them host free apps for free.

developer also not charity , to devote 5 to 10 percent market only survive on big co op not small company. Its just pure simple, thats why they cannot overtook microsoft and nearly ehm ehm only upon steve job comeback. Now hardware platform getting worst and to many devices and now want consilidate to arm? Even so market still will like pc because cheaper.

 

[shplock]

Which is why more enlightened countries in Europe don't allow government files to be in proprietary formats as they don't believe that citizens should have to buy proprietary software to read a government document.

OpenDocument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is government and only in a very few countries. You do know that corporations make up more than 80% of IT use right?

 

[jonblatho]

small 30%

Lol.

 

[shplock]

problem is, it's anti-competitive and that hurts us, the consumers of apps since developers could be much more competitive in pricing if they weren't paying 30% off the top

Nonsense! 305 off the top hurts nobody!
It is up to the developer to charge what they want, just as it is up to the consumer to be tight fisted and decide they demand everything for free!
if I were a developer I would not bitçh about it and instead would be happy that I am making good money, even if it means giving away 30%. Do you want 70% of something or 100% of nothing?

 

[iBluetooth]

How? We use gsuite at work.

I am proud of your work place. Mine just spends millions on paying Microsoft and didn't allow us to use Slack, but forced us to Teams

 

[jlc1978]

I don't think either you or I can really judge on the legality of this or whether this is a monopoly or not (unless you're a lawyer)? Either way, it is very relevant, otherwise the US anti-trust committee wouldn't be investigating Apple and invite other companies for hearings.

Politics. Don't confuse reality with DC.

Microsoft has been charged and sentenced for much less. Anyone remember the browser wars? Yeah. That.

Yes. MS was using their monopoly position to exert market power for another product, i.e. predatory strategies and market barriers to entry. theyy entered into a consent decree not to tie products; which result in IE being a feature and not a product. Integrating IE set of a court fight , with MS losing the inital case. The verdict was overturned on appeal and the government dropped the case after a settlement agreement was reached, which gave developers access to MS' APIs.

All of which is very different from the App Store.

I don't even get why the fanboys keep defending Apple's practices. It's to their own detriment. Cognitive dissonance is real.

In my case, it's the concern for the long term implications of regulating a company that has nowhere near monopoly power, but deciding to do so based on a very narrow definition of a market. What happens to a developer whose app is on 50% of iOS devices, should they now be regulated and forced to lower prices based on being a monopoly in the market?

 

[alien3dx]

I am proud of your work place. Mine just spends millions on paying Microsoft and didn't allow us to use Slack, but forced us to Teams

now my work place using dingtalk . But sometimes its all about upper exec which want their big commision so haish.

 

[funkahdafi]

In my case, it's the concern for the long term implications of regulating a company that has nowhere near monopoly power, but deciding to do so based on a very narrow definition of a market. What happens to a developer whose app is on 50% of iOS devices, should they now be regulated and forced to lower prices based on being a monopoly in the market?

You don't really want to compare a random app developer with Apple, do you?

And are you really worried that one of the most valuable, richest and successfull companies in the history of mankind would be in danger because of a little regulation?

The thing is, this stuff works just fine outside the Apple world. See Android, for example. It's clear as day that Apple is abusing their market power and preventing free, open market competition. You can twist and turn it however you like.

What do you think would happen if all the bigshots like Netflix (who curiously don't have to pay Apple a share of their subscription revenue) and others would all pull their apps from Apple's app store?

 

[macsrcool1234]

no problem with this. apple needs to be humbled, can't wait for it.

 

[edgonzalez32]

I am proud of your work place. Mine just spends millions on paying Microsoft and didn't allow us to use Slack, but forced us to Teams

Lord you can't even use slack? I work at a 30 person design studio so I feel like that has a lot to do with it.
[automerge]1595353383[/automerge]

I know it is easy to dump on Apple for being successful but Microsoft is complaining a competitor being successful.

What Microsoft is saying is that a competitor of there's is doing well with their own ecosystem, making money, helping developers make a fortune and in return take a small 30% and how dare that happen when we could not do it, also while you are at it can you let us use the App Store to host our own products, advertise them, support them and collect revenues for them all for free!

Yeah and you think Microsoft is innocent huh!

If you think that's all they're focused on then I definitely encourage you to look beyond just the headlines posted here because you are just picking an absolute small piece of what the bigger picture is here.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Yes and i like it that way. Based on the "theory" that apps are being inspected and confirmed to be safe, legitimate and free of malware and mostly "just work". As opposed to other platforms where one could get all kinds of craziness...viruses, trojans, etc. That is one of the reasons that I have always been on Macs and the Apple ecosystem...along with the ecosystem where all devices interact together. Desktop computer, laptop, iPad, iPhone, watch, etc.

Great. So you should be free to be able to use the App Store to procure your apps if that's what you want. I'm not saying the App Store shouldn't exist. I'm saying that it should also be possible to install apps in other ways.

 

[chickenninja]

I remember how fraught with danger it was before the app store, downloading apps from numerous sketchy sites for my Palm OS smartphone, you never knew if was a virus or if it was just going to brick your device. App store offered oversight and security a major contribution to consumer well being. Anything sketchy gets removed it's great, the store enforces policies in good confidence and support of the public trust. The cost of enforcing it over thousands of apps must be astronomical, someone has to test and comb through the code of all these apps, and then server host all of them, the cut they take might not even be profitable.

 

[So@So@So]

Windows, Word, Excel has MONOPOLY in all companies! But I guess it wasn't on the agenda.

That's why Microsoft had to open it's file format for all these apps!!! Maybe Apple needs to open iOS for other App Stores!

 

[falainber]

It's funny how there's complaints that side loading apps is "a pain", as if it's the primary method of app distribution.

Let's face it, devs want to use the App Store rent-free and keep 100% of the profits. That's not how the business world works. Unfair? Don't be in this business then, it's not for everyone.

I've beaten this to death: free apps don't pay a dime except their annual dues for the dev program. Free apps represent over 90% of apps on the App Store. All that bandwidth and cloud storage space they could be charging for is being used rent-free.

View attachment 935851
(As of June 2020)

If this is such a burden on Apple they can easily solve the problem by letting the developers independent distribution of apps. Besides, you are comparing only two options. You omitted the third and probably most interesting option: let other companies create their own app stores. Let, say, Google open and maintain an app store for iOS (and visa versa) then we'll see if 30% fee is really necessary.
[automerge]1595356737[/automerge]

You are wrong. Their point seems to be that over 90% of companies use Microsoft and therefore MS Do have a monopoly in the same way that Apple is accused of having a monopoly even though there are other app stores available.

Does the percentage even matter? If Microsoft achieved this high percentage by developing a superior product, it's one thing. Apple intentionally preventing iOS device owners from installing the software they want is a totally different situation. Antitrust laws are intended to protect the consumers. There are very good arguments in favor breaking Apple hold on the app store.

 

[Johnny907]

Good for him. I hope he threw Cook and Apple under the bus for continuing to get away with something that would have brought the full force of the fed down on them had MS done anything remotely similar.

 

[Ethosik]

People do not understand the arguments related to PlayStation and Xbox, saying you can still sell it at a physical store. Do you guess not realize you still need to pay Microsoft/Sony for it regardless?

I cannot create a game and release it on my website for Xbox and PlayStation to download via a browser without paying Sony or Microsoft something.

 

[rwxx]

If you were a developer it would be the same as any other environment. MS Xbox Store, Nintendo Switch and Playstation Stores all charge 30%, update fees and they choose which title can be sold on their stores. Mortal Kombat couldn't be sold on the SNES until it remove (re-painted) the blood!

Two wrongs don't make a right. My problem with the App Store approach is more philosophical than anything else. I don't like the idea of a single entity deciding what I get to see or hear, what apps I get to use, what web site I get to visit, etc. The long-term consequences of this will likely be quite chilling. In my opinion, Apple has become way too much of a nanny in recent years.

Whether Apple's business model is legal or not, I do think either the US or EU will take action regarding app stores in general. Personally, I have no problem with the fee structure, but I don't think Apple (or anyone else) should be playing content cop and deciding which apps belong on their platform. The market should decide that. Apple (and others) should only vet apps for security issues, nothing more.

If Apple is the only source for apps on their platform, they shouldn't be allowed to decide which apps get sold and which don't. If they want to open their platform up to other stores and/or developer direct sales, then they can decide what to carry in their store.