Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

cyb3rdud3 said:
I think the bit in bold is a great snippet...To me it seems that the success of apple over the years also is becoming its downfall. It has attracted users who just look for the cheapest in everything and don't really care about what they use. They now want it work like the competition does but somehow don't want to go to the competition. I find it fascinating. As daft as it sounds I think there is something in it. Many nowadays just aren't Apple users, they just want the look, the badge, whatever it is, but don't really care how it operate. Very interesting....
Click to expand...

Lolol. I think it’s quite the contrary. The “real apple users” almost took the company to bankruptcy.

“Haidt describes American liberals and conservatives as living in two separate versions of The Matrix: each engaged in a consensual group hallucination held together by psychosocial homogeneity and confirmation bias.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: CJM, BKDad and cyb3rdud3
Ubuntu said:
Nah. The Mac does quite well as it is and that’s not down to the App Store so iOS would survive.
Click to expand...
Survive, definitely, but user experience I don’t know man... I’m still on Catalina wondering if I should update to Big Sur to see if it fixes some bugs and doesn’t introduce breaking compatibility issues. When updating iOS the hesitation is way lower, thanks to being tighter (albeit crippled).

I find myself opening an Activity Monitor to check why the system has stalled and there are a couple of processes like pkd, lsd, etc (and of course several of Adobe ones) hogging all the resources on Mac, some of these are support for plug-in style third parties and hang or fail at times. There isn’t one on iOS.

ManDark said:
Then the "expert" Dr Rachael Kent should parallel go after the Banks, and everyone that makes "unlawfully excessive amount of profit" Google, Sony, Microsoft, a mazbee like everyone who is sucessfull in their business. Oh my.
Click to expand...
And the lawyers themselves, they take a cut of the litigation settlement (or whatever the legal term is) and since the lawyers are the only ones able to do that and not anyone else they have a monopoly on that. /s
 
Kierkegaarden said:
Wow. Is a 30% sales commission really considered an “unlawfully excessive amount of profit” in the UK? What is a lawful amount of profit?

And how exactly did Apple overcharge? Doesn’t the developer set the price?

Sounds like a lawyer that just wants publicity, at any cost.
Click to expand...
I am guessing her logic is that since Apple is charging 30 %, they cannot offer the item for the same price as they could do outside of the store. Hence Spotify used to be more expensive if you subscribed via the App Store compared to the website and she wants that difference back for the customer? I know, its weird
 
Nuno Lopes said:
Lolol. I think it’s quite the contrary. The “real apple users” almost took the company to bankruptcy.

“Haidt describes American liberals and conservatives as living in two separate versions of The Matrix: each engaged in a consensual group hallucination held together by psychosocial homogeneity and confirmation bias.”
Click to expand...
LOL And at the same time I don't disagree with you there either. I think both views are correct.

In the mobile os and device market we could really do with a third system or fourth. I actually really liked several of the losers but there is something to be learned there. In a simplified way inter alia;

  1. Windows Mobile - definitely worked for me, but there were no apps and there was plenty on Android and iOS. The Microsoft developers program and appstore really let the platform down.
  2. Blackberry OS - especially when on their deathbed they moved to a touch interface in addition to the keyboards it was pretty awesome. The inbuilt separation between personal and business was really good. But again their developer program was cumbersome and meh. No money to be made. And then there was this stupid outdated reliance on BIS with email.
  3. Palm WebOS - this was actually my favourite. Oh wow that card interface really worked so well. It was fast, great devices, but absolutely **** cameras and again no application support. And when HP bought it they really killed any potential it had left.
But now we've got Android trying to become more like iOS and iOS is under assault where some want it to be like Android. So we end up with nothing great in the end and a fragmented mess. This will be a setback by about 12 years if this ongoing assault succeeds.
 
contacos said:
I am guessing her logic is that since Apple is charging 30 %, they cannot offer the item for the same price as they could do outside of the store. Hence Spotify used to be more expensive if you subscribed via the App Store compared to the website and she wants that difference back for the customer? I know, its weird
Click to expand...
yet all customers (like myself) could get spotify subscriptions from where ever they choose and still use it on iOS. My subscription came from my UK ISP who bundled it with their services.

I find Harrods is generally a more expensive market place than Aldi as well. As a consumer I've a choice where I go and where I buy my groceries. In case anyone is interested it is more often than not Waitrose actually...
 
amartinez1660 said:
Survive, definitely, but user experience I don’t know man... I’m still on Catalina wondering if I should update to Big Sur to see if it fixes some bugs and doesn’t introduce breaking compatibility issues. When updating iOS the hesitation is way lower, thanks to being tighter (albeit crippled).

I find myself opening an Activity Monitor to check why the system has stalled and there are a couple of processes like pkd, lsd, etc (and of course several of Adobe ones) hogging all the resources on Mac, some of these are support for plug-in style third parties and hang or fail at times. There isn’t one on iOS.


And the lawyers themselves, they take a cut of the litigation settlement (or whatever the legal term is) and since the lawyers are the only ones able to do that and not anyone else they have a monopoly on that. /s
Click to expand...
That’s true, but I would argue much of that is down to how iOS handles apps and memory management. Essentially, iOS is much more strict when it comes to apps hogging memory.
 
djcerla said:
30% is industry standard, and Apple has a minority share of phones in the UK. Hardly a "monopoly".

These actions will end up ruining the iOS experience for consumers, which is at present far superior compared to the competitor's.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Microsoft charges 30% because it is selling their devices at a loss. Apple is has huge profit margins on the devices they sell already. How else you think Apple is the richest company in the world. They have more money than some countries even.

Microsoft and Sony make money of the games, not the consoles they sell (which they are sponsering basically as they make a loss on it). So there, the 30% is justified.

Besides, on Android you are not tied to the "App Store". The same also for Windows, you can install software from other sources so nobody is forced to pay 30%.

So Apple is doing something completely different.
 
cyb3rdud3 said:
yet all customers (like myself) could get spotify subscriptions from where ever they choose and still use it on iOS. My subscription came from my UK ISP who bundled it with their services.

I find Harrods is generally a more expensive market place than Aldi as well. As a consumer I've a choice where I go and where I buy my groceries. In case anyone is interested it is more often than not Waitrose actually...
Click to expand...

The problem is. Apple blocks spotify from telling customers who user their app on how to get a subscription which is an abuse of power.

Most people know on how to get a Netflix and Spotify subscription, but I am sure there are a few elderly people who do not know it and Netflix and Spotify are not allowed by Apple to tell them on how to get it.
 
Everyone is equating the App Store to a store. Well it is not, it never was. Again …

The App Store is fundamentally a technical device for people to install and update their apps in their smartphone of choice, yes 30% commission over in app transactions as payment is way outside the industry prices. The industry practice is for installing and updating apps 0, a facility included in the OS license, with only few exceptions extremely limited in scope, such as gaming consoles.

But everyone is comparing it to regular store tariffs where from a a function point of it’s not even close.

The reality is that a comparison with a regular store is nothing but a smoke screen to hide from consumers minds what it is at its core. Leading to totally misleading if not historical counter arguments.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: flofixer, robco74, iOS Geek and 3 others
Nuno Lopes said:
Everyone is equating the App Store to a store. Well it is not, it never was. Again …


If we consider that the App Store is fundamentally a technical device for people to install and update their apps in their smartphone of choice, yes 30% commission over in app transactions as payment is way outside the industry prices. The industry practice is actually 0, a facility included in the OS license, with only few exceptions extremely limited in scope, such as gaming consoles.

A comparison with a regular store is nothing but a smoke screen to hide from consumers minds what it is at its core.

Leading to totally misleading if not historical counter arguments.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I believe on Linux (which Apple stole the App Store from), is basically free of commission?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: robco74
UBS28 said:
Indeed, I believe on Linux (which Apple stole the App Store from), is basically free of commission?
Click to expand...

Industry practice man. The idea that the industry practice is the OS to charge the user for the ability to install and update apps is just not true. But that is what the App Store does. Not even Android does that. It’s actually close to 0 with the exception of gaming consoles, very limited in scope

On the other hand arguing that the App Store policies are about security it’s also not true. Case is case, recently Apple denied xCloud to be installed and updated on iOS devices … only served through a web browser. The denial was not based on any security premisse, but forcing a commission over any and all game streams. This is extended to any kind of digital media.

All paying for the ability to install and update an app. There is no natural law being played here not even industry practice, which as I explained and can be backed formidable amount of industry examples is close to 0, included in the OS license.

See how things stack up?

Conclusion, talking about tariffs according to industry practice makes no sense unless we actually look at the industry practice. Which cannot be found by looking at Best Buy, Amazon, Epic Store or whatever kind of Store. If we look at the industry practice when it comes users ability to install and update their apps actually rose by an infinite order of magnitude. Hence why App Store policies may look so arbitrary, it is playing in a “infinite” space.

I think it’s brilliant. Industry practice and potential abuses aside.
 
Last edited:
Excellent news. Hopefully I will get some money back and Apple will be forced to reduce their AppStore tax from 30% to 15% on all apps from all developers.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: diandi and iOS Geek
What on earth are they doing? Customers get to choose whether to buy an app or not. The average app price isn’t expensive.

You know the government couldn’t give a hoot about their people when they go after Apple for this, but are fine at petrol price increases before weekends and holidays. Where is the lawsuit or public hearing? Disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martinpa and iOS Geek
Nuno Lopes said:
Well in reason the conclusion does prove the relationship. You need to show a set of logical steps equally truthful to prove the relationship.
Click to expand...
Well I guess if the government doesn't have much of a case for anti-trust and monopolistic behavior, they'll authorize a class action lawsuit for price fixing and racketeering.
 
Pair said:
‘Unlawful levels of profit?’
What are the maximum levels of allowed profit? 😂
Click to expand...

That would be for a judge to decide, if it comes to it. As it was in the case when Apple colluded in price-fixing ebooks (2012).
 
Aurial said:
The truth is that it's a payment processing fee in a marketplace where all other methods of payment are forbidden.
Click to expand...
See, there you start telling us things that are absolutely one hundred percent not true.

I'm in the UK. I don't even know how to legally sell my app in the UK, with VAT, whatever regulations there are, and so on. But my app is being sold in 150 countries, and Apple handles all the tax business, all the local regulations of these countries, for me. I wouldn't have a chance in hell selling there without Apple. So stop the dishonesty and add this to what I pay for.

Now that's one item on the list. I can add a dozen if I want to.

And my app is $0.99 in the USA, £0.99 in the UK. If I didn't have to pay Apple, it would be $0.99 in the USA, £0.99 in the UK. The savings would go in my pocket, not in consumer's pockets. I worked hard for this, they can pay. If they don't want to pay, they can ffffade away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diandi, WiseAJ and I7guy
I7guy said:
Well I guess if the government doesn't have much of a case for anti-trust and monopolistic behavior, they'll authorize a class action lawsuit for price fixing and racketeering.
Click to expand...

Well I think the the EU and UK have a different way of looking at market abuse than the US.

I have the impression that the US stance gravitates towards evidence that there are no players left until they may actually do something for the consumer. That is, as long there is a player left and or there is at least one way to get around a conditioning, the relationship between companies and their customers can never be abusive.

The old continent tend to look at it differently. A bit more like the relationship between a couple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back