Proton Sues Apple Over 'Artificial and Arbitrary' App Store Fees

[AppliedMicro]

In 17 years of App Store operation, there was only one outage I could recall that caused some loss by app developers.

That's no guarantee for the future.
Also, customer accounts have been successfully hacked more than once.

100% false. Apple setup agreements with China so you literally have access to #1 smartphone market in the world without setting up special infrastructure. Even Apple Maps works in China which is free for developers and users to use.

I'm not in China.
And in competitive markets for transaction infrastructure, costs go down with increased economies of scale.
There are software application stores today that offer lower rates than Apple.

Amazon doesn't have the market concentration? They have 40% of the market. Kindle ereader has 72% of market. Alexa has 67% of the market

On selected markets, yes. I agree

Also Apple/Google makes it pretty easy to switch in and out of iPhone
https://www.apple.com/iphone/switch/

Thanks for the links.
But I've already done it - and it's arduous. Simply syncing some contacts and photos isn't everything.

 

[breenmask]

Netflix can because Apple created a special category to allow them to do so.

Yes I'm aware of the special reader app category

I believe Hey had to modify their app so it offered some functionality for free in order to be able to not offer IAP.

Yes. Offer a free trial. Then user signs up through Hey's website. Zero IAP. Proton can do the same.

 

[breenmask]

I think he would have made changes to the App Store so things like the DMA would never have happened.

Considering refusing to adopt Flash caused a stir and caught some attention by regulators?
plus ban of flash-to-iphone conversion?
ebook price fixing?
blocking third party browser engines?

all under Steve Jobs' direction

 

[willzyx]

We all know who uses protonmail 😏

People? Journalists? Politicians? Some of us who care about privacy?

 

[breenmask]

That's no guarantee for the future.

There's zero guarantee self distribution would be better.

Also, customer accounts have been successfully hacked more than once.

I have no idea what argument you're trying to make as developers have their own services hacked.

Epic Games Security Breaches: Full Timeline Through 2023

The most recent security breach to hit Epic Games happened on January 2019, when a webpage security flaw left 200 million Fortnite players vulnerable to hacking. As of October 2023, there have been no…

firewalltimes.com

I'm not in China.

You are going to use yourself as an argument for efficient economies of scale? You are only one individual. This argument makes no sense.

And in competitive markets for transaction infrastructure, costs go down with increased economies of scale.

Unless you have access to Chinese governments to secure a deal for your company to operate in china, no. Apple did the hard work for all iOS app developers.

There are software application stores today that offer lower rates than Apple.

Offering lower rates isn't proof that it's more efficient. Stores could simply be operating at a loss to attract consumers away from bigger stores until they can grow.

On selected markets, yes. I agree

Yet you don't seem to be arguing for regulations by these companies. Only Apple.

Thanks for the links.
But I've already done it - and it's arduous. Simply syncing some contacts and photos isn't everything.

It's easier than completely switching away from Amazon, yet you don't seem to care about that. Clearly you're being biased and not objective.

 

[surferfb]

I use an S25 Edge and I among many “Samsung users” do care. For full functionality I need the Galaxy Store and the Play Store. Other Android OEMs have OEM alt stores that are needed.
Now the other alt stores like F-Droid, I like but do not need.

Not sure which “alt stores” you are referencing.

I’ve been told repeatedly that if Apple is forced to open up I can still just use one store. Thanks for confirming for me that for “full functionality my closed ecosystem will be forced open.

 

[dk001]

Exactly who uses Proton mail? If they interfaced with Apple mail I would’ve switched a long time ago. I hate spam and my email provider isn’t doing a damm thing about it.

Problem is Apple Mail won’t support the E2EE. That is no surprise.

btw - moved States (Cali to Az) and bought a new house couple years back. I was very surprised at the number of brokers, professionals, small businesses, contractors, and others that used Proton. I didn’t see any large businesses or finance institutions use it.

 

[dk001]

I’ve been told repeatedly that if Apple is forced to open up I can still just use one store. Thanks for confirming for me that for “full functionality my closed ecosystem will be forced open.

Forced? No. Unless Apple agrees to use the OEM model that is used by Android. Including “tweaked” OS versions.

 

[BuffaloTF]

But I've already done it - and it's arduous. Simply syncing some contacts and photos isn't everything.

It also installs all the apps where there’s an Android equivalent in the Play Store. What else is there? Passwords? You can do that on a computer. Passkeys? Set up backup ones after you move the passwords on same computer.

 

[TruthAboveAllElse]

Shareholders don’t profit only from dividends, but also from stocks going up. On average you often profit more from the latter than from the former. Technically stocks are valued by the sum of all expected future dividends, but in reality the market isn’t quite that rational.

In any case, the difference is that nonprofits aren’t beholden to shareholders’ private interests, but only to the company’s mission. In the US, NPOs have to operate for the public good, but there is also NFPOs (not-for-profit organizations) which don’t.

Yes I understand that. I still think it’s rather strange. I don’t see how the fact people trade on the perception of a company’s value affects what I said.

 

[breenmask]

How is that fair?

We as consumers love to continue and invest into products that are not fair as opposed to buying fair products. Right?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Then user signs up through Hey's website. Zero IAP. Proton can do the same.

Except… they can’t (couldn’t) tell users in their own app. Or via email.

I have no idea what argument you're trying to make as developers have their own services hacked.

Simple: when my Apple Account gets hacked or blocked, I lose access to ALL of my software purchases.
When my Software X account gets hacked, I only lose access for that one purchase - not everything I’ve ever bought.

You are going to use yourself as an argument for efficient economies of scale? You are only one individual. This argument makes no sense.

Individual consumers benefit from decreasing transaction costs in competitive intermediary markets due to economies of scale.

Offering lower rates isn't proof that it's more efficient. Stores could simply be operating at a loss to attract consumers away from bigger stores until they can grow.

So did Apple, when the 70/30 was (supposedly) so great, 15 years ago.

It also installs all the apps where there’s an Android equivalent in the Play Store. What else is there? Passwords? You can do that on a computer. Passkeys? Set up backup ones after you move the passwords on same computer.

Does it download paid apps though?

Having to sign in to everything.
Learning how to use a different keyboard.
Researching replacement apps for ones that have no direct couterpart.
Passwords, yes - since Apple began taking keychain passwords hostage (about the time they introduced Mobile Me).
Also, messaging history being lost on both iMessage and WhatsApp (unless, maybe, it transfers over using a vendor specific migration app).

There’s no tool to migrate to stock Android, there are merely a few hardware-vendor specific ones (Google, Samsung).

The point isn’t blaming any company - it’s that switching is still a mess in the eyes of an average consumer. Unless you’re switching to a Pixel or Samsung and very modest in your migration requirements.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Sued yet again for creating a shop, setting rules for selling in the shop, allowing others to sell in the shop, and then enforcing the shops rules.

Nobody asked for the store!

Nobody wanted a closed store!

No one wanted Apple's App Store dictatorship with participation!

Sounds crazy?

Then call macOS, Windows and linux crazy:

-> it's been going on there for decades without Apple's gold hand. 😌

 

[breenmask]

Except… they can’t (couldn’t) tell users in their own app. Or via email.

They shouldn't. Anker can't tell Amazon users to buy directly from their website instead of using Amazon either.

Simple: when my Apple Account gets hacked or blocked, I lose access to ALL of my software purchases.
When my Software X account gets hacked, I only lose access for that one purchase - not everything I’ve ever bought.

You argued earlier that it's nice to have all of your previous purchases in one searchable place as a benefit.

Now you're arguing that it's better to split your app purchases into different stores so that if one account gets hacked, you don't lose all of your software purchases.

Choose one side or the other. You can't have both arguments that contradict each other.

Individual consumers benefit from decreasing transaction costs in competitive intermediary markets due to economies of scale.

When you purchase a product, your money goes towards operational costs. So even if you are not in China, your money goes towards paying for global distribution costs either way. So when Apple has successfully setup distribution worldwide and a developer pays essentially nothing (especially when they are allowed to sell licenses/digital goods outside the app), the developer's operational costs is minimized substantially compared to self distribution. Developer can either pocket those savings or pass the savings onto you.

So when you're talking about economies of scale, you factor in the entire world of distribution to maximize the potential user base. And if you sell the goods outside the app, Apple's cut is basically a flat $99/year fee. So there's no possible way you can setup your own private distribution that would cost less than $99/year that covers the same amount of potential reach and bandwidth Apple does.

So did Apple, when the 70/30 was (supposedly) so great, 15 years ago.

If you're arguing that 70/30 was operating at a loss then that just proves my statement more. So thanks?

 

[AppliedMicro]

They shouldn't. Anker can't tell Amazon users to buy directly from their website instead of using Amazon either.

They can't do it on Amazon's web site. But they can include a small leaflet in their product packaging that refers them to other offers on their web site. Just like a printer can direct me to the manufacturer's ink/toner subscription service. Amazon's purview ends when the box has been delivered to the customer.

You argued earlier that it's nice to have all of your previous purchases in one searchable place as a benefit.

It is, yes.

Choose one side or the other. You can't have both arguments that contradict each other.

Someone else may have other considerations or priorities.
Just don't force people to buy everything from the same store.

So when Apple has successfully setup distribution worldwide and a developer pays essentially nothing (especially when they are allowed to sell licenses/digital goods outside the app)

👉 ...Apple have either chosen a wrong pricing model. Or one deliberately that makes their platform attractive, recouping their costs otherwise (through hardware sales).

Are are free to adopt their pricing model to a more usage-based one.

But government should interfere when they're giving it away for (almost) free, to obtain a dominant market position - and then overcharge a particular subset of customers, or leverage it anticompetitively.

the developer's operational costs is minimized substantially compared to self distribution. Developer can either pocket those savings or pass the savings onto you.

...or improve their service or product. Two of the three benefit consumers.

If you're arguing that 70/30

70/30 at very low volumes (beginning of the App Store), along with relatively low fixed costs ($99 developer subscription), may well have been unprofitable per se.

At current scale it's not - it's pure money printing.

 

[Rogifan]

"Because one is offering a physical real world service and the other is offering a digital service."

An argument which makes exactly zero sense.

What Apple IP is Proton using that Uber isn’t?

 

[Rogifan]

Considering refusing to adopt Flash caused a stir and caught some attention by regulators?
plus ban of flash-to-iphone conversion?
ebook price fixing?
blocking third party browser engines?

all under Steve Jobs' direction

True but other than the ebook pricing how much of that was about money?

 

[breenmask]

They can't do it on Amazon's web site. But they can include a small leaflet in their product packaging that refers them to other offers on their web site.

1. You said in app or email. Amazon sellers cannot redirect users on website or through email.
2. You're moving goal posts to leaflet. My Anker box has a leaflet that shows I can get support through Anker. No where does it say "buy from us instead of Amazon!".
3. Seller policy on https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/G1801?locale=en-US says "Not attempt to circumvent the Amazon sales process". So if you happen to find a product that does this, they are violating the rules of selling on Amazon.
4. Youtube takes me to web support when I tap on help. Like Anker's leaflet. There I can go to YouTube and subscribe to premium, bypassing IAP.

So either way, you're incorrect and moving goal posts.

It is, yes.

Then you can't make that other argument about how it's beneficial to have many different places to buy apps from.

Someone else may have other considerations or priorities.
Just don't force people to buy everything from the same store.

You tried to argue both, but one contradicts the other. Choose one.

👉 ...Apple have either chosen a wrong pricing model. Or one deliberately that makes their platform attractive, recouping their costs otherwise (through hardware sales).
Are are free to adopt their pricing model to a more usage-based one.

You mean you're forcing them to adopt a pricing model to your preferred one.

But government should interfere when they're giving it away for (almost) free, to obtain a dominant market position

What happened to "free to adopt pricing models?"

leverage it anticompetitively.

Considering Google is their competition and Google is banned from China, they're competing against Google in attracting developers for a better user experience for both developers and consumers.

At current scale it's not - it's pure money printing.

if it's pure money printing to serve 1 billion active users, that just proves
1. Apple distribution is highly efficient in distribution
2. Raising 30% IAP over Web purchases won't hurt Apple so more developers should do that.

 

[surferfb]

True but other than the ebook pricing how much of that was about money?

You have to be kidding me. Apple blocking flash was hugely controversial.

At the time people argued Apple was blocking flash to force people to the App Store. Jobs blocked apps built from cross-compilers on iOS because they created a bad experience before pulling back after regulators started making noise about investigating.

From the Wikipedia page on Jobs’ “Thoughts on Flash” letter

The letter drew accusations of falsehood, hypocrisy, and ulterior motive. In retrospect many publications came to agree with Jobs.

And

Wired's Brian Chen had in a 2009 article claimed Apple would not allow Flash on the iPhone for business reasons, due to the technology being able to divert users away from the App Store.

I’m sure the usual suspects on here would be screaming about how that’s anticompetitive. And the EU would be saying “Apple can’t tell it’s about the bad battery life and security issues with flash.” And people on here would say I was spreading “FUD” and being “an Apple shill” by pointing out the security and battery life issues.

 

[breenmask]

True but other than the ebook pricing how much of that was about money?

Your argument was to change things to avoid gov scrutiny. I gave three examples of the opposite and you're exempting one from your newly moved goal post. Not sure where you're getting at.

 

[Moka Akashiya]

And Android has a ton more malware than iOS. There are significant benefits to Apple's approach, no matter how much you want to handwaive them away because you think you know better. The government shouldn't be taking those benefits away from users who prefer them because you can't be bothered to buy an Android phone.

You can just have big ass warning with 10 second waiting when installing apps outside of store, like on Android for years. If you cannot even read such warning on your iphone to not install third-party apps, you should not use this device then, you will send all your money and passwords to scammer anyway after he will ask do it on unsafe SMS, unsafe phone calls, unsafe Safari webpages, etc.

So where is other significant benefits of handling all your users as clueless? Compare it to list of having choice and market competition with competitive pricing and innovations.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If you cannot even read such warning on your iphone to not install thrid party apps, you should not use this device then, you will send all your money and passwords to scammer anyway after he will ask do it on unsafe SMS, unsafe phone calls, unsafe Safari webpages, etc.

Just add onto this.

So much of this concern on the App side is misplaced FUD.

People get primarily phished, left and right, straight out of email and messages on iPhones right this very moment.

It’s way more work to do any scamming through apps vs just using the tried and true techniques already in place.

 

[surferfb]

You can just have big ass warning with 10 second waiting when installing apps outside of store, like on Android for years. If you cannot even read such warning on your iphone to not install third-party apps, you should not use this device then, you will send all your money and passwords to scammer anyway after he will ask do it on unsafe SMS, unsafe phone calls, unsafe Safari webpages, etc.

No reason to give yet another attack vector.

So where is other significant benefits of handling all your users as clueless? Compare it to list of having choice and market competition with competitive pricing and innovations.

Your preference for an open ecosystem is not more important that my preference for a closed one. And neither of our preferences are more important than the platform owner’s.

And the platform owner has always treated the platform the same way. You knew that when you bought the phone. If you’ve decided you don’t like that anymore, there’s a really easy solution.

Just add onto this.

So much of this concern on the App side is misplaced FUD.

What is your explanation for the increased rates of malware on Android? If sideloading is not dangerous, why do Android users who sideload have a 200% greater likelihood to have malware on their devices than those who don’t? Why do security companies recommend that Android users not sideload AND not install third party stores? They’re spreading FUD for Apple?

People get primarily phished, left and right, straight out of email and messages on iPhones right this very moment.

It’s way more work to do any scamming through apps vs just using the tried and true techniques already in place.

“Let’s ban locking doors because people are breaking into houses anyway”

 

[russell_314]

We all know who uses protonmail 😏

People who are shocked when they are gifted a new set of silver bracelets because they thought it was “secure”? 😂

 

[01cowherd]

No reason to give yet another attack vector.

That’s why I eagerly await the day that Apple Sherlocks the last app in existence: Everything will be first party, and we can finally close the App Store to dangerous third party developers.