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

[breenmask]

Breaking up my post into tiny pieces

Point by point arguments are great. Because leaves no room for ambiguity.

engaging in whataboutism

Consistency on principle is a good thing.

not engaging with my primary point isn't convincing

I'm literally going point by point in your post. lmao.

Android and iOS are separate markets that both dwarf the video game markets

Arbitrary distinction. You're sounds like you're fine with "monopolistic stores" but as long as it reaches your artificial threshold of XYZ users which is based on zero statistical analysis to come up with that number.

don't run from it

I didn't.

 

[Rogifan]

You're looking at it at the wrong way. If you can walk into a website, I'd love to know how you to that. I guess Tron is reality for some.

How is Apple the only single store being the option? I can go to Disney+ on their website and subscribe. Like someone mentioned before, Safari exists. Apple isn't taking anything for that.

I recently picked up a Pixel 9, and downloaded Disney+ from the Play store.. How's Apple involved there?

There are more options than Apple to subscribe to Proton.

The only reason you can subscribe to streaming services that way is because Apple created a carve out called ‘reader apps’ that allowed them to be on the store as a non-functioning apps that just had a sign-in screen when you launched the app.

 

[Rogifan]

You think apples own apps are subject to the rules they enforce on 3rd parties?

We know Apple Music isn’t paying a 30% commission on every subscription.

 

[Rogifan]

But not the only place to discover apps.

Plus Proton can refuse to sell IAP and just sell through their website. Non-issue.

How do they do that? Would Apple allow them to be on the store as a non-functioning app (unless you were logged in)? They didn’t allow it with the Hey app.

 

[surferfb]

No, it doesn't.

Disagree.

The user.

Great in practice, but my MIL isn’t going to blame herself, she’s going to blame Apple. They’re going to charge her to fix it, and she’s going to have a very negative perspective on their company because of something they didn’t want to allow but were forced to by the government.

Not everyone is a technically adept user posting in MacRumors. The vast majority aren’t. Apple’s approach keeps them safe, even if that can make things more annoying for nerds like us.

No.

Agree, but I don’t think that’ll stop the EU from trying.

Ideally, something similar to those already on the Mac.

Which I don’t think is sufficient for iOS, particularly given iOS’ larger user base, most of whom are not technically proficient like most Mac users.

Is that because Apple (as found in other cases) went over the top with trying to scare users rather than just clearly communicating the relevant info?

Users who sideload are 200% more likely to have malware on their phones than those who don’t. Researchers can definitively trace almost 10% of Android malware directly to sideloaded apps.

Why do you want to bring that to iOS?

If you say Android, I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously. I picked Apple over Android for other reasons. My desire for Apple to improve their own platform is a separate point. This "if you don't like it then leave" mentality I'm seeing throughout this thread (not just from you) is really disingenuous and ignores that there are a lot of other reasons one might choose Apple over other options.

I’m sorry, but you’re not entitled to have your cake and eat it too. I don’t discount there are other reasons for picking iOS over Android; but no product is perfect, and you have to weigh the pros and cons and make the choice that makes the most sense for you.

When my wife and I were last shopping for a car, we wanted an electric car that had long range, and had a large charging network because we do a lot of road trips. My wife also really wanted a heads up display, and we both strongly preferred CarPlay support. We had to compromise on the latter two because we determined the first three were more important.

I don’t think the government should be coming in and forcing car markers to offer CarPlay and a HUD, (even though I think both are actually safety features!) I deal with it, when asked on surveys what would improve my experience with the car, I mention the two missing features, and I go along with my life.

Now there are cars that offer everything we want, so we will pick one of those next time. When asked why I’m switching, I’ll tell them. Voting with your wallet is how to get companies to change.

There's nothing wrong with picking the better of two flawed options and still expecting the one you picked to eventually become even less flawed.

Agree, but I don’t think it’s fair to force that change on the company. What you see as “becoming less flawed” others may see as “getting worse.” Apple knows its users better than the government, you or I do. If you don’t like the choices they make, there is another option.

 

[coolfactor]

It's time for Apple to have the courage to drop the commission fee to 3% across the board.

 

[breenmask]

How do they do that? Would Apple allow them to be on the store as a non-functioning app (unless you were logged in)? They didn’t allow it with the Hey app.

Netflix has done this for several years. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/28/netflix-no-more-itunes-billing-options/

And if it's absolutely required, they could just charge 30% more on Apple's IAP.

Hey currently doesn't offer IAP as far as I'm aware.

 

[Shanesan]

If users sideload malware, who’s responsible?

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of precedent on loading applications onto ones own device and who'se responsible for being gullible or foolish.

I know for a fact that these "locked down, easy" solutions that have been created since 2008 have created a much less technologically responsible and knowledgeable populace, many of which don't even know what a directory tree or folder architecture is.

But that's beside the point. If users get malware right now on an iOS device, is Apple responsible? Of course they aren't.

 

[paradox00]

I didn’t make an argument at all. I asked a question, and you projected some strawman arguments on top of it.


None of that answers my question. I’m all for regulating Apple if they are found to have violated antitrust law. I just think alt stores are a poor remedy.

Sorry if I projected intentions on you that you didn't have, but I did answer your question (in two different ways). The below is mostly a copy paste/summary with minor clarifying details to follow the thought to the obvious conclusions.

"Why should there be competition to sell access to Apple’s platform?"

It's not solely Apple's platform. They simply hold the keys. They didn’t build it on their own. Third party developers have collectively put way more time into the platform than Apple has. If we were awarding money based on merit, developers would be getting a cut of iPhone sales instead of Apple getting a cut of app sales. The iPhone would only exist in history books today if they didn’t open up to third party apps when they did. Why shouldn't there be competition for access on "Apple's platform"? Shouldn't all who contributed have equal opportunity to benefit?

Then the legal answer: they hold monopoly control over a software market that serves well over a billion devices, and are leveraging it in manner to keep market competition out. That generally runs afoul of many anti-trust laws. Competition is a remedy to that foul.

To your new point. I'd love to hear what your alternate remedy would be if you feel alt stores are a poor one. Honestly, my preference is simply to allow notarised apps to be installed from any source (if the user so desires). Apple's the one purposely making the alt stores as convoluted as possible.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If users get malware right now on an iOS device, is Apple responsible? Of course they aren't.

An excellent point.

Same for on a Mac.

There’s no reason to think that would change.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Honestly, my preference is simply to allow notarised apps to be installed from any source (if the user so desires). Apple's the one purposely making the alt stores as convoluted as possible.

Same. And I never hear any justifiable reason why that’s not allowed that isn’t somehow tied to Apple business reasons.

Why can’t a developer offer a notarized IPA file directly to customers just like they offer Mac software directly to customers?

 

[IceCool]

This is so ridiculous.

 

[Rogifan]

I’m usually not fond of the Steve would/wouldn’t have commentary but I think in this case things would be different if he was still here. Back in 2008 he said the plan was to run the App Store at breakeven. I think at some point he would have lowered the fees to 15 or 10 percent. And across the board, not some convoluted, complex program. He would have talked about how the App Store was more successful than Apple could ever have imagined and really talked up how iOS is the best place to develop apps and offers the best deal for developers too. I don’t think we’d have all these lawsuits and court cases if Apple had lowered the fees years ago.

 

[surferfb]

I’m usually not fond of the Steve would/wouldn’t have commentary but I think in this case things would be different if he was still here. Back in 2008 he said the plan was to run the App Store at breakeven. I think at some point he would have lowered the fees to 15 or 10 percent. And across the board, not some convoluted, complex program. He would have talked about how the App Store was more successful than Apple could ever have imagined and really talked up how iOS is the best place to develop apps and offers the best deal for developers too. I don’t think we’d have all these lawsuits and court cases if Apple had lowered the fees years ago.

I kinda think he’d have told the EU “have fun explaining to your constituents why they can’t buy iPhones anymore” and hung up the phone.

 

[GrassShark]

Disagree.

Based on what? Vibes?

Great in practice, but my MIL isn’t going to blame herself, she’s going to blame Apple. They’re going to charge her to fix it, and she’s going to have a very negative perspective on their company because of something they didn’t want to allow but were forced to by the government.

Not everyone is a technically adept user posting in MacRumors. The vast majority aren’t. Apple’s approach keeps them safe, even if that can make things more annoying for nerds like us.

Fortunately, that doesn't matter. Apple may want to offer some support in this regard to make it a good experience (or, maybe they want to offer no support and make it as painful as possible) but that still doesn't make them responsible. Are there any other platforms out there that are legally responsible for users installing software from other sources?

Agree, but I don’t think that’ll stop the EU from trying.

What the EU does or doesn't do doesn't affect me. Apple is a big company, they can sort out their own issues in the regions in they choose to operate in.

Which I don’t think is sufficient for iOS, particularly given iOS’ larger user base, most of whom are not technically proficient like most Mac users.

This wouldn't be mandatory to use. There's already a ton of iOS stuff that most users ignore, why would you assume that this is the one feature every average user would jump on.

Users who sideload are 200% more likely to have malware on their phones than those who don’t. Researchers can definitively trace almost 10% of Android malware directly to sideloaded apps.

I'm not sure I see the issue. I can't have a feature because someone else can't use their own device? By this logic we might as well get rid of encryption, since some people forget their passwords and lose data. If things have to be 100% safe for everyone, we're going to lose a lot of functionality.

Why do you want to bring that to iOS?

I want to bring additional functionality that Apple doesn't seem willing to allow. I'm comfortable with there being tradeoffs.

I’m sorry, but you’re not entitled to have your cake and eat it too. I don’t discount there are other reasons for picking iOS over Android; but no product is perfect, and you have to weigh the pros and cons and make the choice that makes the most sense for you.

When my wife and I were last shopping for a car, we wanted an electric car that had long range, and had a large charging network because we do a lot of road trips. My wife also really wanted a heads up display, and we both strongly preferred CarPlay support. We had to compromise on the latter two because we determined the first three were more important.

I don’t think the government should be coming in and forcing car markers to offer CarPlay and a HUD, (even though I think both are actually safety features!) I deal with it, when asked on surveys what would improve my experience with the car, I mention the two missing features, and I go along with my life.

Now there are cars that offer everything we want, so we will pick one of those next time. When asked why I’m switching, I’ll tell them. Voting with your wallet is how to get companies to change.

There is no way to vote specifically enough with my wallet. Not buying an iPhone sends no clear signal to Apple about what I'm unhappy with. Ironically, increased means of competition would actually give me a clearer way to signal dislike. This isn't about having my cake and eating it too, it's about expressing dissatisfaction with aspects of a product I generally like. Are you telling me you've never voiced a single iPhone-related complaint?

Agree, but I don’t think it’s fair to force that change on the company. What you see as “becoming less flawed” others may see as “getting worse.” Apple knows its users better than the government, you or I do. If you don’t like the choices they make, there is another option.

Apple may know its customers, but that doesn't mean they always act in their best interest. There are plenty of instances where companies act against the interests of their users because it preserves profit or marketshare. As a customer, I don't particularly care if Apple has a record quarter, I simply want the products to address my needs better. If that takes legal intervention to achieve, so be it.

 

[breenmask]

The user.

Weird how installing malware is the user's responsibility but choosing the correct device that allows for sideloading (android) is not the user's responsibility.

 

[breenmask]

I’m usually not fond of the Steve would/wouldn’t have commentary but I think in this case things would be different if he was still here. Back in 2008 he said the plan was to run the App Store at breakeven. I think at some point he would have lowered the fees to 15 or 10 percent. And across the board, not some convoluted, complex program. He would have talked about how the App Store was more successful than Apple could ever have imagined and really talked up how iOS is the best place to develop apps and offers the best deal for developers too. I don’t think we’d have all these lawsuits and court cases if Apple had lowered the fees years ago.

I think Steve would be so pissed at EU with USB-C, cookie popups, and now the DMA that he'd go thermonuclear on the EU gov body that gets in his way of making great products.

 

[Plutonius]

They should have shortened the explanation to "we don't want to pay" .

 

[GrassShark]

Weird how installing malware is the user's responsibility but choosing the correct device that allows for sideloading (android) is not the user's responsibility.

I picked an iPhone for other reasons. The iPhone was and still is the best fit for my needs, but I still want it to become more capable.

Just FYI, people can hold multiple, competing thoughts in their head.

 

[surferfb]

Based on what? Vibes?

See below.

Fortunately, that doesn't matter. Apple may want to offer some support in this regard to make it a good experience (or, maybe they want to offer no support and make it as painful as possible) but that still doesn't make them responsible. Are there any other platforms out there that are legally responsible for users installing software from other sources?

What the EU does or doesn't do doesn't affect me. Apple is a big company, they can sort out their own issues in the regions in they choose to operate in.

My point is these changes make the platform worse and less secure for most users and don’t serve a benefit other than allowing big companies to keep more money by not paying Apple for use of Apple’s IP.

This wouldn't be mandatory to use. There's already a ton of iOS stuff that most users ignore, why would you assume that this is the one feature every average user would jump on.

Because I’ve done tech support and seen how easy “normal users” get tricked into hosing their devices. I shared on here that last week my mother in law was about to call “Microsoft” because a malicious ad in Chrome had convinced her she had a virus on her copy of Windows before I stopped her. She has a MacBook, and trust me, she’s not running parallels. You think they wouldn’t have been able to tell her she needs to allow “sideloading” on her phone?

(PS the reason she asked me to look? Not because she thought the “virus” notification was sketchy, but because she was hoping I could fix it so she wouldn’t have to wait on hold. Not sure what would have happened had I been in a work meeting).

I'm not sure I see the issue. I can't have a feature because someone else can't use their own device? By this logic we might as well get rid of encryption, since some people forget their passwords and lose data. If things have to be 100% safe for everyone, we're going to lose a lot of functionality.

You can’t have the feature because Apple doesn’t offer it and doesn’t want to offer it. You shouldn’t be able to force Apple to offer it.

I want to bring additional functionality that Apple doesn't seem willing to allow. I'm comfortable with there being tradeoffs.

If Apple doesn’t want to allow it who are you to force them to? Apple isn’t comfortable with the trade offs and I’m not comfortable with the trade offs. Why do you get to overrule me and Apple?

There is no way to vote specifically enough with my wallet. Not buying an iPhone sends no clear signal to Apple about what I'm unhappy with. Ironically, increased means of competition would actually give me a clearer way to signal dislike. This isn't about having my cake and eating it too, it's about expressing dissatisfaction with aspects of a product I generally like. Are you telling me you've never voiced a single iPhone-related complaint?

No, I have tons of complaints with my iPhone. But I don’t think having the government come in and force my preferred solution is the answer. Particularly because I think Apple knows better than I do what is best for most of its customers in almost all cases. I’m a power user, most users aren’t.

Apple may know its customers, but that doesn't mean they always act in their best interest. There are plenty of instances where companies act against the interests of their users because it preserves profit or marketshare. As a customer, I don't particularly care if Apple has a record quarter, I simply want the products to address my needs better. If that takes legal intervention to achieve, so be it.

I don’t care if Apple has a record quarter either, I’m not a shareholder. But I do care if the government comes in and makes iOS worse over Apple’s protestations. And I think this will absolutely make iOS worse. Your preferences shouldn’t outweigh mine or Apple’s.

 

[GrassShark]

See below.


My point is these changes make the platform worse and less secure for most users and don’t serve a benefit other than allowing big companies to keep more money by not paying Apple for use of Apple’s IP.

Or allowing functionality that Apple doesn't currently allow on the App Store. Kinda of a big point to skip, which makes me feel like you haven't really given this a lot of genuine thought.

Because I’ve done tech support and seen how easy “normal users” get tricked into hosing their devices. I shared on here that last week my mother in law was about to call “Microsoft” because a malicious ad in Chrome had convinced her she had a virus on her copy of Windows before I stopped her. She has a MacBook, and trust me, she’s not running parallels. You think they wouldn’t have been able to tell her she needs to allow “sideloading” on her phone?

People can get social engineered on their phones as they exist now. Might as well get rid of screen sharing, since people get scammed that way. Better ban email apps and get rid of the browser, those can be dangerous too. Hell, phone calls can be used to scam, should we cut phone functionality from the phone? There's always going to be some level of risk, the answer isn't to stick your head in the sand.

(PS the reason she asked me to look? Not because she thought the “virus” notification was sketchy, but because she was hoping I could fix it so she wouldn’t have to wait on hold. Not sure what would have happened had I been in a work meeting).

That sounds like an Apple problem that money can solve.

You can’t have the feature because Apple doesn’t offer it and doesn’t want to offer it. You shouldn’t be able to force Apple to offer it.

Do you think I'm the one bringing this lawsuit?

If Apple doesn’t want to allow it who are you to force them to? Apple isn’t comfortable with the trade offs and I’m not comfortable with the trade offs. Why don’t get to overrule me and Apple?

I'm literally just a guy. I'm not forcing Apple to do anything. I do believe that an elected government representing the population of a region where Apple chooses to operate should have the power to overrule Apple if they deem it appropriate.

No, I have tons of complaints with my iPhone. But I don’t think having the government come in and force my preferred solution is the answer. Particularly because I think Apple knows better than I do what is best for most of its customers in almost all cases. I’m a power user, most users aren’t.

And that's fine, but just because you feel that way doesn't mean others aren't entitled to feel differently.

I don’t care if Apple has a record quarter either, I’m not a shareholder. But I do care if the government comes in and makes iOS worse over Apple’s protestations. And I think this will absolutely make iOS worse. Your preferences shouldn’t outweigh mine or Apple’s.

My preferences don't outweigh anyone's. I promise, I'm not in any position of power to be forcing Apple's hand.

 

[breenmask]

I still want it to become more capable.

Plenty of customers want it simple. Your "want" can be a regression in user experience for many.

Anyways that's just a "want", not an actual "need". Laws generally shouldn't accommodate personal desires unless there's some statistical evidence showing the majority are asking for this.

I picked an iPhone for other reasons. The iPhone was and still is the best fit for my needs

Just FYI, people can hold multiple, competing thoughts in their head.

If having an open platform is not enough to get you to stop sending money to Apple to fund their "monopolistic" store, it's probably not that important enough to enact it as a law.

 

[breenmask]

It's time for Apple to have the courage to drop the commission fee to 3% across the board.

that barely covers credit card fees lol. App Store would be a money losing business and will be forced to shut down.

 

[surferfb]

Or allowing functionality that Apple doesn't currently allow on the App Store. Kinda of a big point to skip, which makes me feel like you haven't really given this a lot of genuine thought.

Trust me, I’ve given this a whole lot of thought and debate (as the regulars in these threads over the past 15 months who disagree with me can attest. Ask @turbineseaplane @AppliedMicro or @Sophisticatednut among many others - I’m sure they’re dying for me to please stop giving it genuine thought 🤣)

I simply don’t think the “new functionality” is actually a benefit to anyone outside of a very small subset of power users and a bunch of big companies who want to freeload off of Apple’s hard work).

People can get social engineered on their phones as they exist now. Might as well get rid of screen sharing, since people get scammed that way. Better ban email apps and get rid of the browser, those can be dangerous too. Hell, phone calls can be used to scam, should we cut phone functionality from the phone? There's always going to be some level of risk, the answer isn't to stick your head in the sand.


That sounds like an Apple problem that money can solve.

I think Apple’s current approach is an effective balance, and those who think it is too restrictive have an easy solution.

Do you think I'm the one bringing this lawsuit?

No, but, unless I misunderstand something you’re cheering it on and hoping it is successful.

I'm literally just a guy. I'm not forcing Apple to do anything. I do believe that an elected government representing the population of a region where Apple chooses to operate should have the power to overrule Apple if they deem it appropriate.

I don’t think government should be dictating how companies without very good reason (health, safety, actual monopoly, that sort of thing). “I could buy an Android but don’t want to” doesn’t, in my opinion, come close to a good reason, let alone a very good one.

Ironically, (and this is more for my normal sparring partners above than you) I think there is more justification for making Apple open up in the US than the EU, given Apple’s market share here. Not large enough to support doing it, but a much better argument.

And that's fine, but just because you feel that way doesn't mean others aren't entitled to feel differently.


My preferences don't outweigh anyone's. I promise, I'm not in any position of power to be forcing Apple's hand.

Agree. At the end of the day everyone arguing on here has no input whatsoever.

Anyways, I’m going to call it a night because I’m going on a much needed vacation tomorrow and haven’t even started packing because I’ve been debating strangers on the internet!

I do appreciate the spirited discussion.

 

[paradox00]

Point by point arguments are great. Because leaves no room for ambiguity.



Consistency on principle is a good thing.



I'm literally going point by point in your post. lmao.



Arbitrary distinction. You're sounds like you're fine with "monopolistic stores" but as long as it reaches your artificial threshold of XYZ users which is based on zero statistical analysis to come up with that number.



I didn't.

"Arbitrary distinction". Sure, a 3 trillion valuation is arbitrary, but it's absurd by any metric, which was my point. They are above the 99.9th percentile of corporations. If I chose "above 4 trillion" the list would be empty (for now). Don't complain that I haven't done a statistical analysis of such obviously absurd wealth. What would the point of that be? Does anyone care how many 9s we should include after the 99.9___th percentile? Hopefully not. Will it change my point? No.

1 billion active devices was also arbitrary on my part, but hardly picked for maximum effect since Apple is well over 2 billion active iOS devices. But compared to something like the PS5s ~80 million lifetime sales, there's really no sense in adding an extra billion onto an already absurd number that makes consoles look like a rounding error.

Your choice to compare iOS to the game console platforms was at least as arbitrary as any of mine. Why'd you pick them? I mentioned Windows because size of a market matters, and it was a general computing platform of similar size and scope to the iOS device count. The only other software market serving a similar magnitude or more devices (that I'm aware of) is Android. My position among those 3 is consistent. Windows, iOS and Android are all monopolies worthy of close antitrust scrutiny.

You're the one claiming the video game industry is relevant to the discussion, so why don't you provide the statistical analysis showing the relevance of a market that takes half a decade to move as many units as Apple does in a quarter? This is your claim, not mine, so it's not my responsibility.

PS: For what it's worth. As games continue to switch to almost exclusively digital (and consoles being fairly standard x86/ARM PCs), I think consoles should ultimately be forced to open up their platforms to other stores (or ideally licences become platform agnostic), but they might organically move that direction too. Xbox may be done as a true console, with the next possibly running windows, which might allow other stores like windows does today. SteamOS might fill some of the console gap with steamboxes, vr, and steamdecks. SteamOS allows allows party stores through its desktop interface and can then be incorporated into the launcher. Xbox Game Pass on Nintendo has been a rumour for ages, and could happen. With Sony possibly being the only holdout. I'm interested in seeing where all that heads, but it's a market that's at least an order of magnitude smaller than iOS. What happens to iOS should/could influence what happens to consoles, but not the other way around.