About customers and about competition / competitive markets.
Why otherwise do you think they'd be doing this?
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.
Tim Cook Meets EU Antitrust Chief Ahead of iPhone App Sideloading Deadline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why otherwise do you think they'd be doing this?
Sure. Which means there exists plenty of alternatives in the market. The EU isn't motivated by the idea of offering "choice" to consumers.
The EU, in my estimation, is trying to assert control over a market it feels it has little control over, because there are no major players in the digital realm that are headquartered in the EU. The idea that a government thinks they need to regulate a company who has less than 1/3 of the marketshare has nothing to do with competition.
Last edited:
Subscriptions, just like on Spotify, are a large part of the complaints being levied against Apple. In fact, this is the fundamental complaint of Spotify against Apple; that Apple should allow Spotify to sidestep payments to Apple for the subscriptions it charges its customers.
You're free in your own Country to not be consistent in your application of the law or the philosophy of the Law. But when the application of that law is inconsistent, benefiting one of your own companies and penalizing a foreign company, that's protectionism, plain and simple. Which, sure, is fine. But let's not dress it up in noble sounding terminology.
Last edited:
You're changing what you say from one post to the next. You said 30% isn't a large market share so the EU need to step in now you're saying it is a large share, then you say sideloading isn't a big deal but the EU must step in to mandate it?
There is plenty of customer choice and competition without EU meddling.
There is plenty of customer choice and competition without EU meddling.
Do you have a link? I'd like to keep reading about that
I mean, it really depends. For example, all apps are constrained to their own sandbox on iOS. That includes sideloaded apps. Which, I mean, would be fine. But if Apple were to arbitrarily deny "entitlements" such as "this app can send notifications", "this app can update in the background" on the basis that they're from third-party sources, then I do see the EU stepping in. Ideally they'd have the same level of access
Why wouldn't it be the other way around? Why would the locked-down system be called "pro" and the modern open system "basic"? Is there some sort of "peasant-ness" to sideloading the Apple Fanboy Elite refuse to accept?
Spotify's complaints about Apple had no relationship to their own business. 99% of Spotify's iOS subscribers were paying via the internet and not the App Store. So 99% of their subscription revenue was not subject to an App Store commission. The 1% of subscription revenue that was subject to the App Store commission was being charged at the 15% rate for recurring subscriptions.
In other words, Spotify has alway been lying about the competitive disadvantage part.
As a developer I don't want nor should I need to shell out 99$/year for the basic privilege of installing my own apps on my own phone. It's already limiting having to refresh my registrations every week but the "max 3 apps" limit is absurd.
Please enlighten us, O Grand Market Analyst. How are you so sure?
I thought Apple's OS was supposedly "secure"?I kinda like the idea that iOS is so closed that it's really hard to get ransomware or a hacked iPhone. I imagine that if iOS is open to random installs, then problems will begin and your aunts will get infected and then pass it to you
That's a rhetorical question, any app that is able to act as a ransomware is a critical bug and should be fixed by Apple because, as has already been demonstrated in this thread, malicious apps can and will find their way into the App Store.
Why does the EU think the desktop/laptop model is more competitive when prices for hardware and software are higher and the two dominant operating systems have a 70%/20% split?
The mobile revolution was about lowering the cost of entry to computers/apps. And it achieved that.
There are.
In fact, you named less than 10 minutes after that:
So are Qobuz and Deezer, by the way.
When there are just two competitors that basically form a duopoly (iOS & Android, as well as the App Store and the Play Store), it is.
So is Apple's prohibiting Spotify to market offers on their iOS app.
Or the requirements placed on the game streaming services.
Why are many other apps, including Amazon or travel booking apps able to make millions or billions of dollars with in-app purchases - but software developers aren't? That's totally inconsistent.
Apple aren't the government or the law - but with respect to their iOS ecosystem, they're behaving like one.
Spotify had already moved 99% of their iOS subscribers to internet payments before they ever complained to the EU. And they did it without having messages in the app.
The reality is that iPhone users have access to all kinds of information outside of the App Store...internet, social media, email, text messaging and push notifications. It's not actually difficult for any of the app developers to communicate to customers outside of the App Store. That's how gigantic consumer oriented apps like Netflix and Spotify and Kindle successfully moved payments outside the App Store a long time ago.
I just have to ask, do you understand how to engage with hypothetical questions and situations?
Well then I can gladly inform you that iOS hasn’t been a closed platform for over a decade. Developer certificates are sold and shared for cheap so side loading is very easily done if you have cydiaimpactor. As well as signing .IPA not available on the AppStore without the need of jailbreaking.
The fact you haven’t ever used this less than legal option doesn’t take your choice away from you of a “closed “ system. You can continue to use the AppStore exclusively even when developers and users no longer need an official Apple certification to offer their apps and to install them.
Do you not understand a metaphor/ analogy?
👉 That is because they suspended in-app subscriptions.
Which they had to, due to Apple charging supracompetitive commissions of 30% over the first year - where Spotify could do it themselves for 5% or so.
They are very much competitively disadvantaged by Apple's self-preferencing.
Whereas Spotify can't even offer subscriptions or offers on their app - without succumbing to paying Apple's supracompetitive commissions. Which Apple aren't subject to with their own competing music streaming service.
Also, Apple are literally pestering consumers with free trial offers for their own competing music subscription service every time you take a new device (iPhone, iPad, AirPods) into operation, and frequently after iOS updates, iCloud logins and whatnot. Including with system preferences, with the little red dot notifications indicating that the user should take action.
Last edited:
For your first point, that's what any app would do if they wanted customers to pay on the web. And it works. Spotify didn't have any problems with customers paying online because their iPhones give them access to online payments. Neither did Netflix or Kindle. iPhone users know that their phones do more than just open the App Store. iPhone users know that they can get information elsewhere and make payments elsewhere.
For your second point, see your first point. Spotify has never been competitively disadvantaged. They successfully moved their iOS customers to web payments and are also the largest music streaming service in the world. The fact that their business model doesn't really generate profit and they completely rely on inflated stock pricing to prop up the business has nothing to do with Apple.
Control historically is the best answer
Being able to side load spyware is a great benefit to them
The cost of computers is higher because they're different devices. You even said it yourself: "the desktop/laptop model." You're conflating the differences in price due to the different internals and app store monopolies
Because of course Apple is going to make it so that any third party can install apps without your consent. Come on, even Android doesn't allow that (unless the device has been previously compromised but that is a separate issue)
Of course they want them to pay on the web - but solely because Apple doesn't allow them to accept payments in-app without paying their commissions.
You don't believe for a second that Spotify would not offer in-app subscription managements and payments, were it not for Apple's high commission, do you? Of course they'd want customer's to conveniently pay in-app (where they're already signed into their account) rather than routing them to a web site - something which, again, Apple doesn't allow them.
But Apple Music has absolutely no problem with in-app subscription management - the transaction costs get just absorbed within Apple in a self-preferentiating manner.
If they do, Apple could get rid of their developer terms that prohibit linking to outside payment options (possibly on the web), can't they?
I'm not conflating anything. Consumers who wanted to use email, browse the web, play some games and do light computing tasks typically bought desktop/laptop computers. They don't have to do that anymore. They can just buy a mobile phone or tablet. The barrier for entry to using a computer or apps was LOWERED. Hardware is generally cheaper. Apps are generally cheaper.
Then that begs the question: what does all that have to do with the issue at hand?