UK Class Action Accuses Apple of Breaking Competition Law by Overcharging for Apps

[Abazigal]

If that’s the case wouldn’t lowering the 30% cut result in an even worst situation?

Competition is supposed to encourage innovation, not laziness. When everyone is subjected to the same 30% the developer then have to innovate to get business. Saying that it is unlawful now when it’s ok before doesn’t make sense when the law hasn’t changed.

Just because the competition is saying the 30% cut is unlawful doesn’t mean it is. Notice how it’s all the big players like Spotify and Epic clamouring for this.

Ultimately, what I believe these companies want is to wrest control of the App Store away from Apple. It’s an open secret that Epic wants to be able to offer their own App Store on iOS, where they get to keep 100% of IAPs for themselves, in addition to hosting other developer’s games and charging them a commission for doing so.

Spotify wants more power on iOS, probably more than what they are allowed to do under current App Store rules.

It’s the same old story all over again. The app store is a powerful equalising force for developers. So companies like Epic were content to pay the 30% for as long it suited their interests (ie: the App Store was invaluable early on for customer acquisition), then once user growth plateaued and they saw that the App Store no longer served its purpose, they turned on Apple and start attacking the 30% cut.

It’s a blatant power grab. These companies are not doing this to empower developers or users. They just want more money, and they will burn the App Store model down to the ground to achieve their goals.

They cannot be allowed to have their way with this world.

 

[deevey]

Competition.

On 2008, the App Store was so new that there was virtually zero competition in the App Store. You could release any app, and there would be a ton of people buying it, and you would make a lot of money even after paying Apple your 30% cut.

Today, the App Store is overcrowded with apps, people have more choices than ever, and it’s harder than ever for your app to get noticed. So even though there are more iPhone users than ever, intense competition has driven app prices down, and it doesn’t mean you may get many downloads if your app can’t stand out.

So what is the only option left to grow your revenue? You attack the 30% cut.

Ok, now apply that same reasoning to overpriced coffee shops that have opened up in the past 13 years.

 

[Abazigal]

Ok, now apply that same reasoning to overpriced coffee shops that have opened up in the past 13 years.

Starbucks doesn’t sell coffee, they sell an experience. They are able to thrive by essentially rewriting the rules of the game. These developers haven’t.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Competition.

On 2008, the App Store was so new that there was virtually zero competition in the App Store. You could release any app, and there would be a ton of people buying it, and you would make a lot of money even after paying Apple your 30% cut.

People don’t choose devices based on App Stores but device/OS capabilities and apps. The App Stores don’t even enter in the Marketing equation as it is not a core value driver hence driving competition.

People with your point of view use the App Store as an entity separated or together from OS/Device depending on how you want to condition the narrative.

Either it is separated from device or it is not. Deciding this is fundamental to ascertain if there is competition between App Store as an entity or not.

Suppose it is, but it is not clearly sustained technically. Technically at is core is the only way people have to install and updates apps on their device. Proven by absurd there is no competition here.

If is one and the same than than competition is not between App Stores but between devices/OSs. Which makes your competition point of view absurd.

Either way the logical conclusion is the same. There is no completion between App Stores, it’s a fallacy. It’s an instruments that serves the competition between devices manufacturers where digital services and devs are being harvested in the middle.

Take a competition between Athletes. Would you say that it’s about competition between lungs? Well that is what you are saying … it’s absurd.

Now because this does not serve the narrative than we divert the competition between App Stores to competition between digital services/apps. But the crux of the matter is not here, but as digital services and devs are cought in the middle so is the ability of this companies to harvest their value for themselves. It is this harvesting ability that is under discussion … how far can it go.

For the sake of iOS you don’t want to go here, really.

 

[I7guy]

People don’t choose devices based on App Stores but device/OS capabilities and apps. The App Stores don’t even enter in the Marketing equation as it is not a core value driver hence driving competition.

There is no way you can know what "people" do and the decisions they make. When I say people I am referring to the hundreds of millions of Apple customers who buy iphones.

People with your point of view use the App Store as an entity separated or together from OS/Device depending on how you want to condition the narrative.

Either it is separated from device or it is not. Deciding this is fundamental to ascertain if there is competition between App Store as an entity or not.

The app store is not pivotal to setting up an iphone, but important to the ecosystem. Same as icloud, apple tv, apple music etc.

Suppose it is, but it is not clearly sustained technically. Technically at is core is the only way people have to install and updates apps on their device. Proven by absurd there is no completion here.

If is one and the same than than completion is not between App Stores but between devices/OSs. Which makes you competition point of view absurd.

Either way the logical conclusion is the same.

Take a competition between Athletes. Would you say that it’s about competition between lungs? Well that is what you are saying … it’s absurd.

Now because this does not serve the narrative than we divert the competition between App Stores to competition between digital services/apps. But the crux of the matter is not here but in the App Store policies and how far it conditions third party digital services in competing with first party hence the law suits.

For the sake of iOS you don’t want to go here, really.

We don't know how this particular lawsuit will end up, how long it will take and if there will be appeals.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There is no way you can know what "people" do and the decisions they make.

Actually there is. People decision processes aren’t that random. That is why the iPhone is called an iPhone not an App Store …

Now what you are saying is that an App Store is a component of the ecossystem. It is true.

That is not at stake at all as far as competition goes which was the main thing of my intervention. There is no competition has a component either in iOS or other devices of the kind of the ones you mentioned. The Apple App Store does not compete instance to be a component of Android smartphones …

This law suits as a collective is about the hability of these device manufacturers and software developers to harvest globally digital services businesses and condition them, based on their capacity for conditioning the ability users or their devices to install and updates apps. That conditioning is done through what we call an App Store.

 

[I7guy]

Actually there is. People decision processes aren’t that random. That is why the iPhone is called an iPhone not an App Store …

There is obviously some thought that goes into what the masses want. Apple seems to be very good at that and hence why their iphone is a success. But one still does not know how the masses think, other than an educated guess.

Now what you are saying is that an App Store is a component of the ecossystem. It is true.

That is not at stake at all as far as competition goes which was the main thing of my intervention. There is no competition has a component either in iOS or other devices of the kind of the ones you mentioned. The Apple App Store does not compete instance to be a component of Android smartphones …

This law suits as a collective is about the hability of these device manufacturers and software developers to harvest globally digital services businesses and condition them, based on the ability of conditioning the ability users or their devices to install and updates apps. That conditioning is done through what we call an App Store.

I'm going to leave the issue of competition, anti-trust and monopoly to the government, lawyers, judges and the judicial system. I have my uninformed, non-lawyerly opinion.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm going to leave the issue of competition, anti-trust and monopoly to the government, lawyers, judges and the judicial system. I have my uninformed, non-lawyerly opinion.

As I’ve said was merely offering a different perspective over the poster declarative stance that the issue was about “App Store competition”. I guess the motivation of your intervention may be that does not fit a particular narrative that you are more inclined to agree with?

Using simple logical reasoning we can easily conclude that there is no competition between App Stores. Yet also using simple logical reasoning we can conclude that the absence of competition does not imply a monopoly, neither a monopoly implies anti competitive practices … neither is a necessary condition for such an assessment.

More interesting to me are the challenges the digital material poses even to the Constitution of a country. For instance, how does the ability to sell a property and simultaneously act as the land lord of the property fit in the Constitutional framework? How do policies that inhibit communication outside the scope of the property, say a party to communicate with the other, say by mail, promoting alternative legal payment methods and pricing, fits the democratic Constitutional framework.

This all thing of Meta Stores and their policies is extremely interesting.

 

[I7guy]

As I’ve said was merely offering a different perspective over the poster declarative stance that the issue was about “App Store competition”. I guess the motivation of your intervention may be that does not fit a particular narrative that you are more inclined to agree with?

Isn't it true we all have our narratives and biases?

Using simple logical reasoning we can easily conclude that there is no competition between App Stores. Yet also using simple logical reasoning we can conclude that the absence of competition does not imply a monopoly, neither a monopoly implies anti competitive practices … neither is a necessary condition for such an assessment.

There is nothing simple about this. Saying there is no competition amount app stores, presumes the universe of app stores is limited to the platform they server. If the universe is expanded to all app stores then one can conclude there is compeitions.

More interesting to me are the challenges the digital material poses even to the Constitution of a country. For instance, how does the ability to sell a property and simultaneously act as the land lord of the property fit in the Constitutional framework? How do policies that inhibit communication outside the scope of the property, say a party to communicate with the other, say by mail, promoting alternative legal payment methods and pricing, fits the democratic Constitutional framework.

This all thing of Meta Stores and their policies is extremely interesting.

I'm not clear that digital possessions are different than physical possessions. After all they all are possessions.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There is nothing simple about this. Saying there is no competition amount app stores, presumes the universe of app stores is limited to the platform they server.

The term App Stores is being used not as a generic abstract term as you know, but to define a set of App Stores that limit to the platform their serve.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

There is nothing simple about this. Saying there is no competition amount app stores, presumes the universe of app stores is limited to the platform they server. If the universe is expanded to all app stores then one can conclude there is compeitions.

It presumes neither needs to presume nothing of such sort. It just acknowledges as a fact that the App Store is indissociable component of the platform, Apple defined it that way not me or you. Like a heart, a lung of a person.

Either is or isn’t.

One cannot argue one thing without the other and arrive to a consistent conclusion.

 

[I7guy]

It presumes neither needs to presume nothing of such sort. It just acknowledges as a fact that the App Store is indissociable component of the platform, Apple defined it that way not me or you. Like a heart, a lung of a person.

Either is or isn’t.

One cannot argue one thing without the other and arrive to a consistent conclusion.

Where the platform can be the entire smartphone market. I think this can be argued both ways…at least in the US.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Where the platform can be the entire smartphone market. I think this can be argued both ways…at least in the US.

Well people tend to take things to such high level o abstraction where reality become meaningless. Reality is mostely a good guide to validate an abstraction. A store in LA does not compete with one in NYC. Same with a store in Android vs a store in iOS. Now LA and NYC might compete to attract populations and businesses. Which in this case, LA and NYC represent platforms. Considering the US as a business platform does not change this reality.

Now black to the level of abstraction where contention is being played, imagine a city with a size of half the US territory with only one chain of stores (one per each device networked device), call it the App Store and no other. That is what the iOS market share represents in the smartphone landscape. Digital services in comparison are fish, yes including Spotify (8B) or Epic (3B), digital schools … vs App Store/Apple (72B/274B).

The contention is between digital services (the fish) and each platform/AppStore (cities), not between platforms/AppStore’s (cities). These don’t seam to be taking each other to courts.

Your idea of option seams to be … don’t like the rules being played in half the country? Move somewhere else. That is far easier todo by people than businesses, especially if their customers aren’t moving. Yet the moving costs for people are also rising.

There is a bit of exaggeration here but it serves has way to effectively explain what is going on and geting gradually worst in the Meta Store world.

PS: Yes you can see the entire US or the entire planet as a platform, but for the issue at hand is meaningless, its only relevant when in the realm of international competition or interplanetary competition … but that is not the space where the contention is being played. Its between “cities” and “cities” business residents, “hey build your own city of you want to compete” does not make any sense as a conversation starter.