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.
Proton Sues Apple Over 'Artificial and Arbitrary' App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean, I get the point you’re making, but honestly I don’t trust third party developers further than I can throw them. I already buy subscriptions inside of the App Store even if I can get them for cheaper outside. I’d much, much rather go through Apple and have everything in one place. It’s why I get annoyed at attempts to change that.
And, FWIW, I did pay a lot of money for an iPhone in June 2007 that didn’t have an App Store at all.
And you know whose preferences are more important than the platform owner? The government ones =) So let's hope citizens will push what majority likes into regulations, while that has obvious pros and cons. And there is many things can be done to check if user is not scammed when he wants to install non-appstore apps. You can show big red warnings, you can asks to send email to apple to give you access with some personal info, register an developer account and pass security knowledge test, wait a day for access, etc. Just like what people do when they need to use cars themselves. No need to ban cars for everyone because they are unsafe in general.
Not in the EU - cause Amazon Marketplace has been designated a gatekeeper and was required to make changes to their policies (as confirmed, for instance, by Amazon's DMA compliance reports).
Companies with dominant market positions / monopoly power are not - and should not - are limited in the pricing models they can adopt. Especially when it comes to anticompetitive pricing models.
Moving goal posts again. We were discussing Hey and not required in offering IAP which you argued that they're not allowed to mention it in email for direct payment to which I replied that's how others do it. We're not discussing what EU is doing.
1. Not a monopoly
2. Android is the most dominant one.
1. But having monopoly power. (Let's not move the goalposts, mind you)
2. Since there's a de facto iOS/Android duopoly, with sizeable market shares for both, they should be regulated the same.
1. Apple doesn't have a monopoly power *in the smartphone market*. Their pricing model for the App Store will not affect the Play Store.
2. No. Android Play Store can increase prices by 10x and it won't increase prices in third party stores on Android or iOS App Store. iOS and Android keeps each other in check.
1. Never did i say have. But they have for distribution of apps to consumers
Exactly!
👉 That is why they have monopoly power:
Price increases - or decreases for that matter - won't affect the "other" store. As I've long been saying (albeit it's very obvious): the iOS App Store does not compete for Android customers' purchases and vice versa.
There is lack of competitive pressure on both operators to reduce their rates (or "discipline" their terms and conditions through market forces) - which is indicative of both having monopoly power.
In the same way McDonalds has monopoly power of distribution of Big Macs to consumers.
If the App Store doesn’t compete with Google Play, someone should tell Apple and Google; they’ve spent 15 years trying to poach each others’ users and developers.
But Android is open to third party stores, from major companies including Samsung and Amazon, and sideloading. That strongly suggests the prices of the Play Store are indeed market value. I know it’s inconvenient for your argument, but it’s a fact you can’t ignore.
No. Big Mac is a brand of burger among many burgers and competing stores.
It competes with Big King from Burger King and other burger from other market participants.
iOS apps are not a brand of apps - they're a whole category that competes only for one subset of smartphone users.
Sure, I'd tell them (and you): They don't compete for the same customers. Google Play does not compete for iPhone users in the short- to mid-term. And only indirectly at best in the long term.
If I own an iPhone, I don't go shopping for apps at Google Play. I literally can't (use their offerings).
...and yet, basically all apps (except a handful of open-source apps with often questionable use) are on Google Play. And many are not.
Which pretty much disproves your argument that a "closed experience" would be taken away from you (an iPhone user) by allowing alternative stores. You'd more than likely be able to choose the same "closed" first-party experience on iOS as you can on Android.
I also don't trust many third party developers, and I only use Apple's Health and Journal apps because I find others to be woefully inadequate in privacy/security. But I also think that the App Store team's ego has gotten way too big.
For example, emulators were disallowed, but the second there's competition in the form of alternate app stores in the EU, they allow it not just in the EU but globally? (If it was harm reduction, they wouldn't allow them globally.)
Or policing Patreon to add IAP with the 42% surcharge when I'd bet my iPhone that a grand total of zero subscribers found Patreon or creators through the App Store? (Free negative publicity when all the creators complain to their audience about greedy Apple reaching into their monthly earnings.)
Meanwhile, Facebook is free on the App Store, and you can't convince me that they aren't doing everything in their power to bypass the technical privacy and security restrictions to fingerprint and track users across apps. (Not the useless "privacy and security review" of the App Store review, but real privacy and security built into the OS.) They were caught wiretapping users (!!!) with their VPN some years back, and nothing they've done since indicates they've changed colors. If Apple had guts, they would have at least banned Facebook when they tried to inform users about the 30% App Store tax like they banned Epic for the Fortnite stunt. Facebook has also publicly stated their intention to compete with the App Store.
Last edited:
The Big Mac is a product that only exists within McDonald’s ecosystem. Just like iOS apps are software that only exist within Apple’s ecosystem.
McDonald’s controls the only way to get a Big Mac, but that doesn’t mean they have a monopoly on burgers because burgers can be bought elsewhere from other market participants. Similarly, Apple controls the only way to distribute iOS apps, but that doesn’t mean they have a monopoly on mobile apps, because mobile apps are available elsewhere from other market participants.
If you say “iOS apps are a whole category,” then aren’t Android apps a different category? If so, Apple doesn’t compete with Android at all, which is clearly false.
Yes, if you own an iPhone, you don’t use Google Play. But that doesn’t mean Apple has a monopoly in the mobile app market. It means you, as a consumer, chose to enter Apple’s ecosystem, just like someone buying a PlayStation isn’t shopping for Xbox games or someone who walks into McDonalds isn’t shopping for a Whopper.
The real question is “do Apple and Google compete to attract users and developers into their ecosystems in the first place?” And the answer is absolutely. Users choose between Android and iOS, and developers choose where to invest based on the size and value of those user bases. That competition shapes prices, policies, and incentives on both platforms.
Heads: I win - Apple charges developers too much because there’s no competition, we must open Apple up to lower prices!
Tails: You lose - The prices are the same on the Play Store because competition doesn’t matter, so let’s open Apple for….reasons!
If open ecosystems don’t actually deliver better prices for developers or consumers, then what problem are we solving with these massively burdensome regulations? What exactly are consumers gaining from being forced into a more fragmented, less secure and less private ecosystem on iOS, that by your own admission, practically no one is going to use except for “apps with questionable purposes.”
You can mix & match McDonald’s and Burger King food everyday at virtually no additional cost.
…but not for the iOS devices people paid hundreds of Euros/Dollars for - and learned to use.
That‘s the crucial difference: iOS and Android have considerable degrees of customer lock-in (in the short to medium term), whereas McDonald‘s and Burger King don‘t. You don‘t spend hundreds of dollars for admittance or compatibility of your eating device/orifice with Burger King or McDonald‘s.
You can eat any burger you want today, and a different one tomorrow.
At no cost to switch. These burgers are all eaten the same bloody way:
Open your mouth - bite - chew - swallow - repeat - digest.
Yes - but once they‘ve been attracted and made their device purchase, they‘re locked in.
Normal people don‘t spend any thought about switching platform for months if not years.
Last edited:
I think we went over this point already. Stores should have control over their own store. For obvious reasons.
I didn't say decrease. I said increase. big difference. One with monopolistic power means increasing prices would increase prices for everyone, because by definition, they have exclusive control over the service.
If Android increased prices and iOS users aren't affected, they don't really have monopolistic power over mobile users in general.
I'm not sure why you said "exactly". I think you're not understanding the point properly.
people who do not want google employees reading their data
Google Engineer Fired In Teen Cyber-Stalking, Privacy Flap | CRN
A Google engineer was fired after he reportedly inappropriately accessed the data of several teens while working for the search giant.
www.crn.com
They should not have complete „do as they please“ control without (meaningful) competition.
For obvious reasons: namely the potential abuse of a dominant position, restraint of competition and (undesirable) rent-seeking.
Each has monopoly power over their respective (pretty much non-overlapping) customer bases.
Apple are able to unilaterally increase their prices - without competitive pressure restraining them. That ultimately is the point.
They do have competition. Android.
Amazon has Walmart competition.
I can start a store today and I should be able to put whatever I want on it to compete with Joe's shop. Joe shouldn't put his crap on my store.
AMC theaters sell popcorn once people step into the theater. Under your definition, AMC has monopoly power and under your rules, should be regulated. Hard disagree. No matter how much everyone hates paying $10 for popcorn, I wouldn't consider them having monopoly power in the movie theater space. I simply wait until I can stream it at home, go to another theater that has cheaper popcorn, or I watch a movie at AMC without buying any food.
Well, false. If Apple raised royalties to 99% instead of 30%, developers would stop building apps for iOS and only build for Android/Web. Users would either try to work with web or move over to Android if they need a native app experience. That's where competition is working.
I have been following along on your back and forth with @AppliedMicro and have to say I do not see your point.
I use Apple and Android. If I want App A in iOS/iPadOS I have to but it from Apple via the App Store. I cannot go elsewhere. There is no competition. The same sort of applies to Android also though I do have alt and OEM stores.
The only place I compete between Apple and Google is in hardware. Once my hardware is selected, I am locked in to a single source for software.
I completely fail to see how you are calling this a Amazon vs Walmart (or other examples) equivalency.
Last edited:
Anyone holding that up as a useful example is totally misunderstanding the situation.
It's not a good comparison at all.
And yet, in the Epic case, the court determined the market for mobile apps (specifically mobile gaming apps) to be cross platform. A ruling that was confirmed on appeal. Obviously, that's relevant precedent for the Proton case.
And I agree with that, mostly. Epic only sells software and it is cross platform. I can play it on my pc, iPhone or other. Gaming is a different animal.
It comes down to hardware. If I own an iPhone, I only have one avenue to procure apps.
Not sure how much of a precedent that case would be to this.
“In the Apple vs. Epic Games case, the court ruled that Apple's anti-steering provisions were illegal, meaning developers could no longer be prohibited from directing users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. While Apple largely won the case, this ruling forced them to allow developers to steer users to potentially cheaper payment options. Additionally, Apple faced penalties for violating an injunction related to these policies, including fines and a referral to the U.S. Attorney for potential criminal sanctions, according to Perkins Coie. ”
Note: I am a Proton Suite user and not via Apple.
Last edited:
Again, the Epic decision on the relevant market directly refutes your point. Epic made the same argument you are making and it was rejected.
App Store is a store. Google Play store is a store. Amazon is a store. Walmart is a store.
Google can't drive people from inside the App Store towards Play Store just as much as Walmart can't drive people inside Amazon store away towards Walmart.
Not sure how clearer I can be.
Color it a dust storm then …. If I own an iPhone I am limited to the App Store. If I own an Android I am limited mostly to the Play Store. Doesn’t matter what I own or do or … I can buy from both Amazon and Walmart and use both.
Not seeing the relevance. Oh well.
What?
You need path to a device to buy from Amazon or Walmart website.
Do you have a path to buying apps from Apple App Store and Google Play Store? Do you have a path to buying games from Playstation Store and Nintendo eShop store?
Yes you do.
I explained it as clear as possible so I can't help you there.
Last edited: