Well EU don’t have monopoly laws so indeed. But they hold market power over iOS app distribution and is abusing it in their favor against the market.
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.
U.S. App Store Ecosystem Facilitated $406 Billion in Sales in 2024, Up From $142 Billion in 2019
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, Apple is “abusing” its market power just as landlords “abuse” their market power by colluding to all charge market rate rent.
They have a monopoly on their own products but that’s it. They never had a monopoly on apps. Nor does Apple have a monopoly on app stores.
We keep going around in circles.
But landlords don’t own 98% of all rental properties/space in the country.
It remains an inappropriate Apples and Orange comparison.
(and the fact that some online storefronts with monopoly power charge 30% doesn’t make it a competitive market rate)
We keep going around in circles.
But no, third-party apps or streaming services are not Apple’s products or services.
Uber and Fortnite are Epic’s an Uber’s respective products - not Apples.
Apple just has a monopoly on distributing their apps to iOS customers - and processing transactions for digital products in them.
This is obvious to everyone (except, maybe, people that defend Apple’s business practices - that have now been found anticompetitive in multiple jurisdictions - in online forums).
Why would I, when that’s massively inferior to the iPhone I already have?
Why would I, when I have to re-train my muscle memory to operate it?
Why would I, when I have to spend hours to set everything up (including apps)?
Why would I, when I’m already invested in third-party app purchases that I can’t transfer over to Android?
Because it allows you to download apps without having the government steal from a company while forcing it, and most of its users, to operate in a way they don’t want, and in a way that is inarguably worse for their safety, security, and privacy.
You knew the deal when you bought the phone. You had options. But “open ecosystem” wasn’t even important enough for you to choose another option when it’s arguably the biggest difference between the two platforms. So if it’s not an important enough issue to cause you to switch, why on earth is it an important enough issue to get the government to interfere in the market like a socialist republic while they pretend a market participant with ~28% is somehow Microsoft in 1998?!?
But the point of bringing up the $40 Android phone is to make it abundantly clear that not one consumer is “locked in” to a decision to use Android. Skip going out to dinner sometime in June - you’ll probably end up ahead assuming prices in Europe are what they are here on the East Coast. Or, since you’re not using iOS anymore, sell your existing iPhone and buy a nicer phone on Android.
Because you want an open ecosystem.
Because you want an open ecosystem.
You repeatedly told me that apps have to be on both platforms for developers to survive, so I’m sure they’re on Android too. But if they’re somehow not, I’m bet there are comparable apps for Android.
Or, knowing you like open ecosystems, pledge to only buy and use cross platform apps and services from here on out, and when it’s time for a new phone you can easily switch. That even gives you time to ask those developers who aren’t on Android to write apps for Android. Since Apple is clearly such a bad partner to developers and just takes and takes while providing no value I’m sure they’ll take you up on it!
I bought a Nintendo switch in 2021, and have purchased a couple of game titles over the years. If I were to switch to a Steam Deck, I would have to re-purchase my games all over again (I think to date, I have only bought one PC game on it). I did also end up buying a game again on the Switch that I already owned on iOS (Grimvalor).
The same could be said if I were to switch to a PS5, or xbox. None of my switch titles would transfer over. Apparently people whine about having to buy a $5 app again on a separate platform, but not when it comes to purchasing a AAA title and paying $60 (or more) a second time?
Conversely, if I do switch to Android, at least my subscriptions (like Office and Youtube Premium) port over.
You keep saying things are different because iOS is a core computing platform while gaming consoles aren't, but to me, it just feels like a cheap cop-out so people can continue to criticise Apple for not doing the things they want Apple to do, while conveniently not having to deal with other platforms also doing the exact same thing (and also normalising them as "just the way it is for consoles").
Criticise Apple all you want. All I ask is that everyone here be consistent and apply the same moral standards to every other platform out there. 😕
There is zero market rates for this part of the landlordmarket. No landlord takes a fee nor a cut of your revenue from outside the property.
Market rates require market competition
Well they do. If we can have steam on all our devices we can buy games once.
Considering Microsoft seems to be pushing for it on Xbox, and PlayStation is already using ApplePay
I have long thought of this. Let's say that Steam were somehow allowed on every gaming / computing platform as a thought exercise. This sounds good on paper for the consumer (buy once, play everywhere). However, what incentive is there then for gaming consoles to enter the market, given how the bulk of their revenue comes not from the sales of hardware, but from sales of games (and that 30% cut)?
Microsoft probably has its own motives for allowing Steam (my uneducated guess is that the sales of xbox pass, a subscription service, means that they are not really making that much money from individual game sales, so it may not a huge loss to allow a competing platform onto their hardware, and they are already losing to Sony anyways, so better to cut their losses maybe?).
Even if Sony allows Apple Pay, I assume that they are still getting 30% of game sales. Developers are still not getting to keep a larger potion of earnings (or all of it), or will they be allowing devs to link users out to an external payment option anytime soon.
By extension, while I understand why Valve would release the steam deck (it's a way for users to play games without having the deal with the bloat or the bloat of Windows, and an additional way to push the Steam App Store to more users), I am not so sure about the economics of other companies selling gaming handhelds running SteamOS. They don't own the Steam App Store, they don't get a cut of games that consumers go on to purchase on said device, that sale is one and done. And I assume that gaming handhelds would not be as profitable as say, a gaming PC, component-wise.
It's the same Android hardware problem all over again. You are pushing someone else's OS, the parent company derives all the financial gain from having their platform available worldwide, while you are stuck bearing the costs of maintaining it for the years to come while lacking a recurring source of revenue of your own to show for your troubles. That's why there are really only a few successful smartphone OEMs, while everyone else has bitten the dust (or will eventually get there). The best play is really to just not play.
That's why Apple's approach ultimately strikes me as the most financially-sound one, in that they have an expansive ecosystem with numerous ways of monetising customers (eg: services, app sales, Apple Pay, having google search as default, just to name a few). And it begins with having an ecosystem that they control.
It's regrettable to see the App Store model being fingered as the problem by other billion-dollar companies with ulterior motives.
Customers aren't locked in strictly (as in facing a monopoly). But they're locked in as in "switching would get expensive".
Because... let's be honest here: People in developed countries do not buy $40 smartphones.
They're spending $400. For a mid-range option. Or $800. They reasonably expect some haptics, build quality, support, etc. And they get used to and "learn" how their platform works. It's not like using a ticket machine they're unfamiliar with in a city they've never been to once in their lives.
👉 There is real effort and cost involved with switching.
And also, switching doesn't really solve the problem of platform operators putting the financial burden on third parties while enriching themselves: Because the "other" relevant operator operates a similar business model.
...which usually require a new purchase.
To make the market competitive and prevent consumers and other businesses from paying too much. Both iOS/App Store and Android/Play Store are important platform services. And overcharging by platform services that businesses and consumers have to use causes massive economic to society, only enriching the platform operator.
They don't have a market share of only 28% in the U.S. And neither do they in Europe, when you look at their share of revenue of the market. And the other part of that duopoly has very similar terms and conditions.
I'd like to answer with a counterquestion:
There are platform operators and infrastructure providers of important significance to the economy.
Such as electric power companies, internet service providers, possibly road operators and shipping companies.
👉 Do you such important platform operators or infrastructure providers should be in a position to "charge as they please" - and impose a 30% commission on the supplied companies' revenue?
Does your bank deserve a (percentage) portion of your monthly income?
Does your power company deserve a percentage of your salary/wage when you're working from home?
Well it can be a very strong selling point as the availability of games can increase. As the threshold for users lowers dramatically in regards to amount of games you might need to purchase. But also apple(Sony/microspft) doesn’t need to maintain any expensive servers for software deliveries, no review teams. Not deal with refunds. Steam is likely willing to revenue share for the access.
For example I wouldn’t need to buy different copies of Elden ring, dark souls, cyberpunk etc if I wanted to enjoy a console for what it can deliver compared to a computer. I don’t want to buy an Xbox of PlayStation for just a few exclusive titles.
But taking the AppStore on iOS It would make the ability to use the store more accessible. I really despise that iTunes no longer have the AppStore for me to browse through. Even using the steam app is a billion times friendlier to use than the AppStore.
I agree as it’s currently it’s better for Apple in a way, but I would say it’s worse for everyone else. The ios AppStore can perhaps become a store for everything else unrelated to games
If there are other options, sure they can try. If they’re actual monopolies, unlike Apple, then no.
And point of clarification, Apple doesn’t charge commission on “the supplied companies’ revenue” just on “revenue that was earned with the help of Apple’s property”. Literally the same way malls do.
I don’t use the bank’s property to do my job, so no. If I use their money to help my business (I.e., a loan), then yes I should (and do) pay them per the contractual agreement signed with them that allowed me to use their property.
I have literally no choice in power company, because they’re actually a monopoly, so no. If I had multiple options, then sure they could try and I would switch.
Again, I’ve long said that if Android was similarly closed the regulation would be warranted. It would also be warranted if Apple had Google’s 72% of the market. I’d be right there with you! But Google is open, and Apple has 28%.
Apple takes a fee of a cut of revenue earned using their property. The same way many malls do.
Again, just because you pretend iOS and Android don’t compete with each other doesn’t make it true.
Edit to add: On open Android, their store is open to completion and have the exact same rates as Apple. If it was such a ridiculous charge with no value provided surely Amazon, Epic, or Samsung or whoever would have undercut them! But no one has, because despite protestations on MacRumors, Apple and Google are providing significant value to developers at that rate.
Last edited:
You’re mistaking apples property and developers property. Zero malls in the world takes a fee for anything purchased from the product sold when it left the store.
Apple doesn’t give Walmart or Amazon a cut if consumers buys something from the Macappstore just because it was bought in the mall. Apps purchased on the iPhone doesn’t revenue share to Walmart if it’s purchased from there.
Just how windows store doesn’t compete with the MacAppstore. Steam competes with both because it’s available on both
The AppStore and the Playstore have zero competition with each other
If that is your belief, despite all evidence to the contrary, then we’re just going to continue talking past each other because we live in entirely different realities.
There’s no evidence to the contrary.
iPhone competes with Samsung.
Even if I grant you Android and iOS competes, AppStore and playstore doesn’t compete on any level. Because a playstore customer can’t use the AppStore and vise versa. Playstore, epic store, galaxy store etc competes with each other.
AppStore, AltStore, Epic store etc competes with each other.
There is tons of evidence to the contrary.
The Play Store and App Store are in direct competition for both users and developers.
Users choose their smartphones based not just on hardware, but on the overall ecosystem, which includes the quality, safety, and ecosystem of available apps. Apple and Google both compete to attract and retain app developers by offering improved developer tools, better revenue-sharing terms, streamlined submission processes, and expanded capabilities like APIs and new features. As often stated on here, Apple needs developers! If developer time and resources end up focusing on Android then Apple loses!
From the user side, both companies heavily market their app ecosystems and strive to improve discovery, security, and reliability of apps, because consumers absolutely consider this when purchasing a new phone. That consumer desire pressures Apple and Google to maintain competitive ecosystems.
Additionally, pricing policies, commission rates, and even guidelines are influenced by each platform’s actions. When Google introduced a reduced 15% commission for small developers, Apple responded with a similar program almost immediately. That kind of reactive change shows that the stores watches each other closely and adapts to remain attractive to both developers and users.
Sure, at specific point of time, a consumer may not be deciding to download Spotify on the Play Store or the App Store, but they are absolutely considering the ecosystems available when they buy their device. The two stores are part of broader ecosystems that consumers and developers weigh against each other, which creates real and ongoing competition.
So declaring closed ecosystems aren’t allowed is the government declaring by fiat that certain preferences are verboten when the free market has clearly indicated it is desired by the market. The government does not know better than the free market! Europe’s history makes that abundantly clear. They should butt out and let the completion happen organically.
Due to you are using the DMA to justify the necessity of the DMA.
They rent space (sometimes the rent is $0) in order to use apples ip to distribute their wares.
Like m&mS aren’t costcos, yet you can buy them at Costco.
Apple has a monopoly in its products. apple rents space in its digital platform, where rent starts at $0.
What’s obvious to the defenders of Apple clearly aren’t obvious to the critics and vice versatility.
For the developer they chose both the stores and doesn’t change much unless there’s some fundamental difference such as with steam and Macappstore.
The primary vector is the device hardware and experience etc the AppStore is rarely relevant to the choice over the other metrics.
No person would allow malls to act like iOS because it would be rent seeking as well as taxing unrelated revenue. And it’s wild how people think it’s okey on iOS but wouldn’t like it if malls did it.
The Mall Analogy: Why iOS App Store is Worse Than Any Mall
Imagine a mall operator demanding:
1. Total Tenant Control:
In reality: Malls compete on foot traffic 👉 lower rents👉better tenant deals.
On iOS: One landlord (Apple), zero competition 👉abusive terms.
1. The "Pamphlet Tax" (Apple's 12-27% Steering Commission)
Scenario: A bookstore sells a travel guide.
2. The "Test Drive Toll" (Apple's 30% IAP Commission)
Scenario: A car dealership lets you test drive a Tesla.
Why it’s Absurd: No ongoing service provides a pure discovery tax.
3. The "Brochure Fee" (Apple's Core Technology Fee)
Scenario: A hotel provides a tourist brochure at check-in.
4. The "Shipping Surcharge" (Apple's 15% Small Biz "Discount")
Scenario: UPS delivers a small business's product.
The primary vector is the device hardware and experience etc the AppStore is rarely relevant to the choice over the other metrics.
No person would allow malls to act like iOS because it would be rent seeking as well as taxing unrelated revenue. And it’s wild how people think it’s okey on iOS but wouldn’t like it if malls did it.
The Mall Analogy: Why iOS App Store is Worse Than Any Mall
Imagine a mall operator demanding:
1. Total Tenant Control:
- Every shop (developer) pays 30% of all revenue(even online/phone sales) (DMA outlaws this).
- Shops can't tell customers with pamphlets in the products: "Buy cheaper on our website" (anti-steering = illegal IRL).
- Shoppers who enter must use mall-branded credit cards (Apple Pay only).
- Leaving to buy elsewhere across the street? Guards block exits with "SECURITY RISK" warnings (scare screens).
- Even after moving out, ex-tenants pay 27% of revenue forever (Apple's "link tax").
In reality: Malls compete on foot traffic 👉 lower rents👉better tenant deals.
On iOS: One landlord (Apple), zero competition 👉abusive terms.
1. The "Pamphlet Tax" (Apple's 12-27% Steering Commission)
Scenario: A bookstore sells a travel guide.
- Apple's Rule: If the guide mentions Visit ParisAirbnb dot com for deals, the bookstore would demand 27% of all revenue from users who book via that link for 7 years.
- Real-World Equivalent: Barnes & Noble charging Airbnb a commission because their travel guide included a website link.
2. The "Test Drive Toll" (Apple's 30% IAP Commission)
Scenario: A car dealership lets you test drive a Tesla.
- Apple's Rule: If you later buy any Tesla (new car, upgrades, charging credits) directly from Tesla, the dealership takes 30% because you "discovered Tesla here."
Why it’s Absurd: No ongoing service provides a pure discovery tax.
3. The "Brochure Fee" (Apple's Core Technology Fee)
Scenario: A hotel provides a tourist brochure at check-in.
- Apple's Rule: For every attraction you visit was listed in the brochure (museums, tours), the hotel charges €1 per visit even years later.
- Real-World Equivalent: Marriott billing the Louvre because you used their brochure.
4. The "Shipping Surcharge" (Apple's 15% Small Biz "Discount")
Scenario: UPS delivers a small business's product.
- Apple's Rule: UPS charges 15% of revenue (not shipping costs) because they "enabled the sale."
- Real-World Equivalent: FedEx demanding 15% of a bakery's annual revenue for delivering one cake.
Agree. They’re in both stores because the stores compete with each other for users.
Malls do act like iOS. The idea that they don’t is silly. Mall of America charges 18% of stores’ revenue.
And Apple doesn’t rent seek. That’s a term with a specific meaning: increasing a company’s wealth without creating value or contributing to productivity. You can’t possibly argue Apple doesn’t create value - the fees it charges support further development of the tools developers use to make money. It funds the fraud protection that creates a safe environment for consumers to feel comfortable spending their money, and again, developers VOLUNTEER to be on Apple’s platform. No one forces them to.
iOS does not take 30% of all revenue. It takes 15-30% of revenue that uses Apple’s property to function. Apple takes 0% of OpenAI’s subscriptions that don’t happen through the app, for example. Apple takes 0% from Spotify.
Shops absolutely can prevent their products from saying “buy cheaper online” in their stores. Stores can carry or not carry stuff for all sorts of reasons or no reason at all. It’s illegal?!? Where do you come up with this stuff?
And malls absolutely take a percentage of revenue that happens through the stores in their mall, as noted above.
Their store, their rules. In the US, stores are allowed to choose what companies they do business with. Walmart doesn’t allow Apple Pay or Google Pay. It’s one of the reasons I don’t shop there. But I don’t get the government to force them to allow them even though they have 20% of their market in the US.
And if the store across the street has a history of faulty products or people getting mugged, then yes, warn your customers.
No one forced to do business with said landlord. And in reality, stores don’t deserve to be in the mall without agreeing to the mall’s terms just because they want to be.
And again, just because you don’t think iOS and Android compete doesn’t make it true.
Bad example because the bookstore’s property isn’t used to have the website function. Apps use Apple’s property to function.
The app LITERALLY DOESNT WORK unless Apple’s property is used.
The link out commission is 7 calendar days. Not last year.
The CTF is to catch those who are freeloading off of Apple’s property. Again APPS LITERALLY DON’T FUNCTION without Apple’s technology. I don’t know why you keep trying to turn it into an acquisition fee, it’s not. It’s compensating for the platform services (iOS maintenance, APIs, etc. that used to be able to be recouped through a fair sharing of revenue with Apple, but the EU deemed illegal because they don’t understand how private property works.
If UPS wanted to try that, they’d be welcome to. I suspect they’d find it wouldn’t be in their interests to do so. But they aren’t a monopoly.
I would be interesting in seeing that mall of America ( if they sell iPhones etc) gives 18% of all revenue that Apple makes on every sold device from said store.
And you would not complain about it because. Just go and purchase a phone, computer somewhere else who takes the same fee.
Apple's model exhibits classic rent-seeking: resources spent maintaining dominance through exclusive control rather than competing on merit.
The EU uses rent-seeking in its standard economic sense: "expenditures incurred by the incumbent to maintain its position" spending resources to preserve market dominance rather than to create value or improve efficiency”
And that’s very arbitrary. No distinction to the user pressing a link in the app when they already know about it and going to safari on the same device. Apple doesn’t provide any technology that makes that any more possible than a browser.
Not in the product. The box can contain any kind of offer to give the customer ( inside the app)
I follow EU law where we take competition seriously. Explains why Walmart failed miserably in Germany if they tried such tactics.
Not with what happens outside the mall( inside apps). But as we can see you are never allowed to leave the mall. You’re a perpetual customer inside the mall Apple have the right to extract value from in perpetuity.
Here that’s just anticompetitive. The banks and payment terminal providers can’t discriminate against it. The mall or any company for that matter can’t choose it unless they want no NFC.
It’s none of your business where the customer wants to go outside your premises.
Just because it’s a contract doesn’t make the contract legal. The ToS can’t be anything.
It’s their ink and their paper. The information was made available with their property. If you don’t like it you should have your own store and books and You can’t access any website without their technology either. But neither can Apple without the internet providers customers use etc.
7 days or 7 years are equivalent and complete detached from the purchase and arbitrary. And would be equally absurd unless you actually made the purchase then and there.
How about Apple freeloading on the malls and ISP infrastructure and not paying a fair share of their revenue to them? They Can’t make a profit without their technology either
Apple loses second bid to challenge Qualcomm patents at U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday again declined to hear Apple Inc's bid to revive an effort to cancel three Qualcomm Inc smartphone patents despite the settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.
Seems like the developer fee is more accurate in that regard. They should update their agreement considering it’s not a commission anymore. Perhaps increase the price for the device. Considering Amazon, uber, Netflix, Meta etc( some of the most profitable companies on the AppStore) doesn’t pay a dime above 99$ a year and freeloading on apples technology 🤷♂️
Eu don’t care about monopolies so wouldn’t much matter.
"$277 billion of the total includes sales of physical goods and services". Apple is the king of bogus studies like that. It sounds like they counted every sale from Amazon done via Amazon app. Sure, App Store facilitated it. Now, close App Store tomorrow and those very sale volumes would keep going just fine without this "facilitation".
"Over 250,000 APIs and frameworks including HealthKit and Metal." Another bogus claim. The very best case here is that all Apple interfaces and frameworks have 250K methods combined. Putting 250K and HealthKit in one sentence is intended to create a very wrong impression for people who have no idea about software design. To create and maintain 250K "interfaces and frameworks" like HealthKit and Metal Apple would need millions of software developers not to mention that nobody needs that many "interfaces".
"Over 250,000 APIs and frameworks including HealthKit and Metal." Another bogus claim. The very best case here is that all Apple interfaces and frameworks have 250K methods combined. Putting 250K and HealthKit in one sentence is intended to create a very wrong impression for people who have no idea about software design. To create and maintain 250K "interfaces and frameworks" like HealthKit and Metal Apple would need millions of software developers not to mention that nobody needs that many "interfaces".
Well. You’re at least being consistent.
What if the two operators providing service are (tacitly or explicitly) colluding in their business terms and conditions though? (side note: and even commercially related, one paying the other to the tune of billions of $ each year)
And I still don’t get how that’s in any way or form economically beneficial to you or other business. That huge economic rent is inefficient and detrimental to the economy.
Well, you and your business somehow depend on their banking services.
But you don’t you don’t advertise or work on their premises (or server infrastructure).
And your banking service is exchangeable (in the long term).
👉 Same as for Spotify, Netflix or Epic selling in-app items or subscriptions.
They provide a service or product to consumers. Which - these in-app subscriptions or digital items - does not depend Apple or their technology. It could - and does - run on any platform.
Is a third-party app Apple’s property?
Are all third-party apps Apple’s property?
Is the third-party (e.g. Spotify website) linked out to Apple’s property?
The Google Play Store does not compete for my purchases as an iOS user.
It does not compete for any iOS user’s digital purchases.
Being and iOS users that might make digital purchases is mutually exclusive to being an Android user. (Well, pretty much, for the majority of normal consumers that own and use one smartphone).
I would love to take a peek into Apple’s rental agreement for their Mall of America store.
I’d bet a good amount of money that they aren’t forking over a whopping 18% to the Mall.
But to keep with the analogy:
👉 Does Mall of America take 30% - almost a hundred dollars - commission off my Final Cut Pro purchase from Apple's App Store - or otherwise prevent them from advertising Final Cut Pro to me?
👉 When I ask the Apple retail clerk: "Hey, where can I buy Final Cut?”, does he answer me “I wish I could tell you, but I can’t. We know it’s not ideal”
Answer: of course not. A mall does not claim ownership of the customer relationship after a product has been checked out from the mall.
You could, of course, argue…
…and say Malls should have that right. In which case I’d applaud your consistency.
But again: it’s beyond me why governments should tolerate or support this rent-seeking and overreaching business conduct.
….but Spotify’s subscription will work (on other platforms) without Apple’s property being used.
So does my Fortnite virtual stormtrooper helmet or the Kindle eBook I’m purchasing.
👉 They all literally work without any piece of Apple’s property or programming code being used.
Last edited: