U.S. App Store Ecosystem Facilitated $406 Billion in Sales in 2024, Up From $142 Billion in 2019

[rp2011]

If a monopoly is established, and abuse of that position is taken, it doesn’t matter how it is established.

Or replace monopoly with any other term describing anticompetitiveness.

To add, the question is not if Apple has a monopoly on smartphones/phones, but on app distribution on iOS.

Apple does not have a phone monopoly. And no developer is obligated to participate in it. If terms on another market are better, there is that choice. Likewise, if no developer or consumer chooses Apple, the marketplace settles that. It shouldn't be government.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Apple does not have a phone monopoly.

As I confirmed in that very post you replied to. The question is, if they have a monopoly on iOS app market.

 

[Graphate]

As I confirmed in that very post you replied to. The question is, if they have a monopoly on iOS app market.

Well if that’s the question, then unquestionably Apple has a monopoly on the iOS app market.
The next question is, is it problem or unlawful under US law?

 

[surferfb]

It is not the case.

Paragraph 7 of DMA:

No mention of United .. States or USA.

You don’t have to spell out “USA” to make a law that targets American companies. If I pass a law that says “All car companies whose CEO was the head of DOGE have to pay extra taxes” I’m targeting Tesla without saying Tesla. Same thing here - the thresholds were set with a laser scalpel to ensure they avoided EU companies.

I’ll point you to this post of mine a few months back for quotes. My favorite is the MEP saying the DMA should “unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

Apple doesn't have to give its IP to others, it needs to implement an API for others to give interoperate with the such features. Anyway, if you argue Apple needs to limit other hardware makers etc on arbitrary grounds to be competitive, they sure must make ****** products. Also, consider this with the fact of Apples power of one of only two OSes. And Apple limits also common infrastructure like bluetooth sharing between devices etc. because safety I guess.
---

Apple can’t develop a feature to competitively advantage itself over its competitors without giving the competitors access to the same feature, thus removing the competitive advantage. Absurd and will absolutely chill innovation.

'to integrate, access, and control' not to implement. So Apple could provide an API on which bluetooth sharing could interoperate with AirDrop.

So your argument is that 9to5Google, tech radar and others are wrong with their stories?

So they don't have to give up intellectual property, they require others the posibility to interoperate with it.

“Disney doesn’t have to give up its IP, they just have to let anyone use its characters without paying them for it”

 

[AppliedMicro]

(I may be misunderstanding you) The developer account and Xcode are tied together, and there isn’t a practical way to develop an App for iOS without it.

What I meant is this:

There is - or used to be - no practical way to distribute an app for iOS/to iOS users without going through Apple's App Store. Now, Apple provides its developer tools and access to distribution through the App Store all for this $99 developer subscription. As is proven by many "free" apps available from the store, whose developers paid nothing more than that developer fee.

The oft-heard argument from those defending Apple's actions now goes like this:

"Oh, but surely you can't expect to get all of that for merely $99 a year! Apple somehow has to make money and be compensated for all their hard work - and that's what the 30% commission pays for."

👉 Which is where I say: If they're pricing it below market value - let alone cost - and if have to "make up for it" through that 30% commission, then they are undercutting the market for such tools. Mere access to their store is priced so low that it has enabled them to obtain a duopoly with Google for mobile OS and stores. Which they are making up for by charging a limited subset of customers (that can't quite escape it) the supracompetitive 30% commission.

This is just a search away (that I did not do), but didn’t they have a dominant (or at least Apple equivalent) position in the late 90s early 00s?

No, they didn't. If anyone did, it was Nokia.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Well if that’s the question, then unquestionably Apple has a monopoly on the iOS app market.
The next question is, is it problem or unlawful under US law?

I think I hopped a step, because in my opinion it is, but it would start with, is iOS distribution a market in itself. If the answer to that is yes, you'd move on to your questions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Glad we agreed. Yet you want legislation to decide for the consumer instead of just letting them choose another option.

Quite the contrary.

I want consumers and the market to decide for both smartphones and software purchases/streaming services.
Independently from each other. Without my choice of smartphone tying me to one software vendor/payment processor.

That's freedom to choose: Choosing different products from different vendors or suppliers.
Not having a choice of one type of product tying my choice of another one to that same vendor or intermediary.

 

[surferfb]

Quite the contrary.

I want consumers and the market to decide for both smartphones and software purchases/streaming services.
Independently from each other. Without my choice of smartphone tying me to one software vendor/payment processor.

That's freedom to choose: Choosing different products from different vendors or suppliers.
Not having a choice of one type of product tying my choice of another one to that same vendor or intermediary.

“My choice is superior to your choice, so your choice shouldn’t be allowed to exist, even though my choice already does”

 

[AppliedMicro]

I’ll point you to this post of mine a few months back for quotes. My favorite is the MEP saying the DMA should “unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

As far as I'm aware, that claim has been debunked - or is at least not supported from the link provided.

 

[ToothBlueth]

👉 Which is where I say: If they're pricing it below market value - let alone cost - and have to "make up for it" through that 30% commission, then they are undercutting the market for such tools. Mere access to their store is priced so low that it has enabled them to obtain a duopoly with Google for mobile OS and stores. Which they are making up for by charging a limited subset of customers (that can't quite escape it) the supracompetitive 30% commission.

Wouldn't it hold water anyway, in light of the recent case in the US, where they couldn't argue why it needed to be 30%. If they were undercutting because of the costs to run the App Store, they might had a valid argument, no?

 

[AppliedMicro]

My choice is superior to your choice, so your choice shouldn’t be allowed to exist, even though my choice already does

Freedom to choose still lets others (you) choose to limit themselves to one supplier/vendor.

My choice entails (more) freedom, which is why it's superior. (...which is, at least, my opinion)

 

[Graphate]

What I meant is this:

There is - or used to be - no practical way to distribute an app for iOS/to iOS users without going through Apple's App Store. Now, Apple provides its developer tools and access to distribution through the App Store all for this $99 developer subscription. As is proven by many "free" apps available from the store, whose developers paid nothing more than that developer fee.

The oft-heard argument from those defending Apple's actions now goes like this:

"Oh, but surely you can't expect to get all of that for merely $99 a year! Apple somehow has to make money and be compensated for all their hard work - and that's what the 30% commission pays for."

👉 Which is where I say: If they're pricing it below market value - let alone cost - and if have to "make up for it" through that 30% commission, then they are undercutting the market for such tools. Mere access to their store is priced so low that it has enabled them to obtain a duopoly with Google for mobile OS and stores. Which they are making up for by charging a limited subset of customers (that can't quite escape it) the supracompetitive 30% commission.
[…]

I think I see now.

I think Apple might be pricing is developer tools simply to act as a barrier of entry, 99$ is nearly nominal.

Not that either Microsoft or Standard Oil were any sort of minimum threshold of what an antitrust violation looks like. But your comments considered, I don’t think I have any problem with Apple’s market position or power within its store, as it is currently operating. I suppose other information could change my opinion; simply because they grew their market organically, doesn’t inoculate them from later scrutiny.

 

[surferfb]

As far as I'm aware, that claim has been debunked - or is at least not supported from the link provided.

It’s been reported on repeatedly with no retraction or denial.

See:

• https://www.reuters.com/technology/...minant-companies-eu-lawmaker-says-2021-06-01/
• https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5226238-jd-vance-eu-tech-regulation/
• https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulat...-eu-to-stop-singling-out-american-tech-firms/
• https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/us-warns-eu-against-anti-american-tech-policy/

You think if he didn’t say it he would have pushed back on it somewhere. And he did “unquestionably” push to increase the revenue limits higher to avoid hitting more companies.

And I also see this quote from expressing a similar thought process in that last article from Ars Technica:

“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line—one, two, three, four, five—and maybe six with [China’s] Alibaba,” he said. “But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Biden.”

 

[AppliedMicro]

As far as I'm aware, that claim has been debunked - or is at least not supported from the link provided.

Following up on this...

I’ll point you to this post of mine a few months back for quotes. My favorite is the MEP saying the DMA should “unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

No, that does not seem to be what he said:

"The National Security Council, an arm of the White House, wrote last week to complain about the tone of recent comments about the EU’s flagship tech regulation, as debates are about to begin in the European parliament. “We are particularly concerned about recent comments by the European Parliament rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act, Andreas Schwab, who suggested the DMA should unquestionably target only the five biggest US firms,” said the email, seen by the Financial Times and dated June 9."

https://www.ft.com/content/2036d7e9-daa2-445d-8f88-6fcee745a259

👉 The U.S. National Security Council merely alleged it in their email. Given the lack of corroborating evidence that Schwab actually said that, it seems they were putting words into his mouth for political effect.

 

[bobone]

Its not. They are charging recurring fee for things that is already part of the cost of doing business which is their right. If you want developers to make software for you, you need to provide and SDK and APIs to use.

Apple $99 Annually

Google 1 time fee of $25

Microsoft 1 time fee of $19

Google and MS both collect data from users to sell. Apple does not.

 

[rp2011]

Quite the contrary.

I want consumers and the market to decide for both smartphones and software purchases/streaming services.
Independently from each other. Without my choice of smartphone tying me to one software vendor/payment processor.

That's freedom to choose: Choosing different products from different vendors or suppliers.
Not having a choice of one type of product tying my choice of another one to that same vendor or intermediary.

You want things done like you want. lol ok. They can't just choose, you want them to choose from exact like products. Homogenization. Is that like in Mother Russia?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s been reported on repeatedly with no retraction or denial.

Let's keep the facts straight:

"The DMA should be clearly targeted to those platforms that play an unquestionable role as gatekeepers due to their size and their impact on the internal market," he wrote in his report"

EU tech rules should only target dominant companies, EU lawmaker says

Draft rules aimed at reining in the power of Facebook Inc(FB.O), Alphabet Inc unit Google (GOOGL.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and Apple Inc(AAPL.O) should only target these U.S. tech giants, a leading EU lawmaker said, signalling a tougher stand than EU antitrust regulators.

www.reuters.com

👉 That is not the same as...

saying the DMA should “unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

As for the other links:

Vance is right: Europe’s freeloading is wrong

If Europe truly wants a say in how technology firms operate, they should get their own.

thehill.com

That's merely linking to the Pymments.com article.
Merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulat...-eu-to-stop-singling-out-american-tech-firms/

Quote: ..."according to a June 9 email seen by FT."
Again: merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

US warns EU against anti-American tech policy

NSC has some strong opinions ahead of Biden’s first presidential trip to Brussels.

arstechnica.com

Quote: "said the email, seen by the Financial Times and dated June 9."
Again: merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

👉 In the end, they're all referring to and relying on Financial Times reporting as the only original source.

Which I covered above: Someone in the U.S. put those words in his mouth.

And we have evidence of what he actually seemed to have said:

"The Rapporteur believes that the DMA should be clearly targeted to those platforms that play an unquestionable role as gatekeepers due to their size and their impact on the internal market."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-692792_EN.pdf

👉 Again: Something different than "only the five biggest U.S. firms."

 

[AppliedMicro]

“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line—one, two, three, four, five—and maybe six with [China’s] Alibaba,” he said. “But let’s not start with number seven to include a European gatekeeper just to please Biden.”

Spotify arguably is a "bottleneck" in music streaming.

But not nearly as much for the overall common market - or internet/digital platforms and service - as are the Big Five.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You want things done like you want. lol ok. They can't just choose, you want them to choose from exact like products. Homogenization.

No. I don't believe that Android and iOS are exact like products.
Which is why I disagree with the dismissive "Just move to Android then" argument.

 

[surferfb]

Let's keep the facts straight:

"The DMA should be clearly targeted to those platforms that play an unquestionable role as gatekeepers due to their size and their impact on the internal market," he wrote in his report"

EU tech rules should only target dominant companies, EU lawmaker says

Draft rules aimed at reining in the power of Facebook Inc(FB.O), Alphabet Inc unit Google (GOOGL.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and Apple Inc(AAPL.O) should only target these U.S. tech giants, a leading EU lawmaker said, signalling a tougher stand than EU antitrust regulators.

www.reuters.com

👉 That is not the same as...


As for the other links:

That's merely linking to the Pymments.com article.
Merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

Quote: ..."according to a June 9 email seen by FT."
Again: merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

Quote: "said the email, seen by the Financial Times and dated June 9."
Again: merely rehashing what someone else reported isn't a valid second source or proof.

👉 In the end, they're all referring to and relying on Financial Times reporting as the only original source.

Which I covered above: Someone in the U.S. put those words in his mouth.

And we have evidence of what he actually seemed to have said:

"The Rapporteur believes that the DMA should be clearly targeted to those platforms that play an unquestionable role as gatekeepers due to their size and their impact on the internal market."

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-692792_EN.pdf

👉 Again: Something different than "only the five biggest U.S. firms."

If he didn’t say it, very odd that he didn’t push back on the reporting that he said it at all, and then said something incredibly similar in public, and wrote a report in favor of the DMA publicly advocated for raising the thresholds to a level that no European company would meet.

But sure, the Biden administration, which from all reports was indifferent to, if not secretly supportive of, the DMA, made up a quote about him that aligns with his priors. Because… reasons? And then he didn’t deny the made up quote? Because… reasons? But it’s definitely made up.

 

[rp2011]

No. I don't believe that Android and iOS are exact like products.
Which is why I disagree with the dismissive "Just move to Android then" argument.

Okay..
so... you just want to be able to dictate how Apple runs their business.

Do you also want governemnt to tell Walmart and Costco what items and brands they stock and what payment systems they use? Have alternative payment systems at checkout?

Mandate McDonald's to sell Pepsi? And KFC sell Coke? is this really about choice? I'm pretty sure this is just political on your side, and go on replying forever because that is all this is.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Okay..
so... you just want to be able to dictate how Apple runs their business.

Do you also want governemnt to tell Walmart and Costco what items and brands they stock and what payment systems they use? Have alternative payment systems at checkout?

Mandate McDonald's to sell Pepsi? And KFC sell Coke? is this really about choice? I'm pretty sure this is just political on your side, and go on replying forever because that is all this is.

Perplexed, I am perplexed how after a lenghty thread, this is your conclusion. The same silly, based on nothing, conclusion as always. Bending words in the most twisted ways. There must be a word for these sort of bad faith conclusions, right? I think the correct word is strawmanning.

In a way, it is hilarious. Sadly hilarious.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If he didn’t say it, very odd that he didn’t push back on the reporting that he said it at all

Not odd at all.

Claiming something on the internet (or on an email that got leaked/forwarded to the Financial Times) takes little to no effort. So does misquoting someone. Debunking it takes many times that effort. And in the end, not every random newspaper article is worth that. If Schwab spend his time to counter every instance of having been quoted wrongly, he wouldn't have had time to rapport on the DMA.

Also, who says that the E.U. and/or Schwab did not push back on that quote in private?

In the grand scheme of things (trade policy and internet regulation that gets reported in the media), is nothing more than a minor footnote. Other than you (and me ) it itched hardly anyone on this planet.

But sure, the Biden administration, which from all reports was indifferent to, if not secretly supportive of, the DMA, made up a quote about him that aligns with his priors. Because… reasons? And then he didn’t deny the made up quote? Because… reasons? But it’s definitely made up.

I'd take it less as "having been made up" but rather as "embellished to fit the narrative".

The art of successfully embellishing one's points is of course to make them appear plausible - and fit into the public image of the person.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Okay..
so... you just want to be able to dictate how Apple runs their business.

I want Apple (a company with considerable monopoly power) dictate other companies (developers) less how they run their business.

Do you also want governemnt to tell Walmart and Costco what items and brands they stock and what payment systems they use? Have alternative payment systems at checkout?

Mandate McDonald's to sell Pepsi? And KFC sell Coke? is this really about choice? I'm pretty sure this is just political on your side, and go on replying forever because that is all this is.

See my signature.
And extrapolate from hamburgers to soft drinks.

 

[turbineseaplane]

That's fascinating. Even some AIs don't recognize each other. Clearly those two apps/sites are looking at different criteria.

EDIT: I checked several other AI detectors and they're all over the map on whether the quote attributed to Cook in the article is AI-generated or not. All I know so far is that the widely used tools I found in a brief search were very inconsistent with their results, and I probably wouldn't trust any single one of them at this point.

Not a good sign for the future