Apple's $85 Billion-a-Year Services Business Faces Legal Reckoning (ft.com) 150
Apple faces mounting regulatory scrutiny that threatens over $85 billion in annual services revenue. An antitrust trial against Google in the U.S. revealed multi-billion dollar payments to Apple to be the iPhone's default search engine. A plaintiff victory may halt the payments, estimated at one-quarter of Apple's services income. Meanwhile, Apple's App Store dominance draws Biden administration and EU oversight, with the EU enforcing changes. The landmark Google case and actions across Apple's two biggest markets represent growing legal and regulatory headwinds challenging the company's services growth strategy. FT adds: In the EU, Apple is preparing to allow "sideloading," which enables iPhone users to bypass its store and download apps from elsewhere. This will breach, for the first time, the walled-off ecosystem that the company has protected since Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007. Apple has dragged its feet on this issue, since it maintains the practice will create security risks to its system.
Sideloading could have an impact on the App Store, where Apple charges developers as much as a 30 per cent fee on digital purchases. Games account for more than half of that revenue. Google's Play Store, which charges a similar fee, is also in the spotlight after it lost a landmark trial against Epic Games in California in December. Apple draws between $6bn and $7bn in commission fees from the App Store globally each quarter, according to Sensor Tower estimates. Competitors are pushing to earn some of that share and launch rival app stores and payment methods on Apple devices. Microsoft is talking to partners about launching its own mobile store.
Sideloading could have an impact on the App Store, where Apple charges developers as much as a 30 per cent fee on digital purchases. Games account for more than half of that revenue. Google's Play Store, which charges a similar fee, is also in the spotlight after it lost a landmark trial against Epic Games in California in December. Apple draws between $6bn and $7bn in commission fees from the App Store globally each quarter, according to Sensor Tower estimates. Competitors are pushing to earn some of that share and launch rival app stores and payment methods on Apple devices. Microsoft is talking to partners about launching its own mobile store.
Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Apple has dragged its feet on this issue, since it maintains the practice will create security risks to its system."
With freedom comes risk. You can't be safe and free, they are generally opposed.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Apple has dragged its feet on this issue, since it maintains the practice will create security risks to its system."
With freedom comes risk. You can't be safe and free, they are generally opposed.
Safety and freedom are not opposed, they can exist in harmony, the thing that makes this happen is responsibility. If we're responsible with the risky things in our lives, we can use them safely.
"first time" (Score:2)
Apple will work around this (Score:3)
Division of support responsibilities (Score:4, Interesting)
So what does Apple say when some nimrod lands in the forums and demands to know why their iPhone won't run some independently distributed app they've sideloaded? Or that it barfs because the model doesn't have an expected feature? The right answer would be to tell them to go pound sand... but it's not a friendly one.
Like it or not, the walled garden does a good job about not offering you things that won't run on your device. And their rudimentary triage generally means nothing is tragically broken. Apple is protective for two reasons: the revenue stream (of course) and the perception that their devices perform cleanly and well. Having some shitty coder's app crash because package-445.76.6-RevA wasn't bundled wrecks that perception even though the fault is purely external.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, maybe you're right that Apple deserves to keep their walled garden, but Microsoft sure didn't and we have laws. The thing about laws is they are meaningless if they're selectively enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re:Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-trust laws don't just apply to monopolies, but also to any company with a large enough market share that it can abuse its customers. 60% is certainly big enough to do that. And YOU are not Apple's customer, in this context. App developers are. And app developers have no choice, if they want to make money, they must be Apple's abusive 30% fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is "elsewhere" if you want to sell your app on Apple devices?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:2)
iPhones and iPads are sold as a fully functional computer replacements. "There's an app for that" and "What's a PC?" marketing campaigns drove that distinction. Just like how MS couldn't lock out competition from within their fully functional product (Windows). Apple wants to be the future of computing, but doesn't want to follow the law, like MS before it
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is game consoles are marketed and sold as limited functionality devices. iPhones and iPads are sold as a fully functional computer replacements.
With a "Walled Garden", including the App Store. Stop pretending Apple sneakily pushed that past you.
Re: Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:2)
They aren't. I have no knowledge of future EU law enforcement decisions so I can't answer your second question.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve's original intent for the iPhone was no App Store - it was web apps instead. That is still available - you can still add a web page to your iPhone's Home Screen, and it will work and feel a lot like a native app. Apple added a ton of functionality to the mobile browser to get to phone functionality and sensors.
Unfortunately(?) that vision didn't take off, developers wanted to make native apps for the iPhone, so Apple figured out a way to allow it and charged a ridiculous fee. People jumped on-board an
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they offer their services for free to some customers, doesn't make it OK to gouge others. There is no competitive market where the house can skim 30% off the top. And no, there is no other place for developers to go, if they want to target iPhone users. If you're a brick-and-mortar store, for example, excluding iPhone users would make developing an app for only Android users a useless exercise. You want to reach customers where they are, and they certainly won't change platforms because you do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You Apple fanboys will defend any amount of gouging that Apple inflicts on its customers. Apparently, Apple deserves to be able to gouge its customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, I've never actually played a game made by Epic. And I've never owned an Apple device. But I do agree with their point of view in their lawsuit against Apple and Google.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they offer their services for free to some customers, doesn't make it OK to gouge others. There is no competitive market where the house can skim 30% off the top. And no, there is no other place for developers to go, if they want to target iPhone users. If you're a brick-and-mortar store, for example, excluding iPhone users would make developing an app for only Android users a useless exercise. You want to reach customers where they are, and they certainly won't change platforms because you don't want to pay Apple's 30% "commission."
I'm glad Apple has people like you to stand up for the big guys.
You may have the Desire, but you most certainly do Not have the Right, to Develop for iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS/visionOS on Your Own Terms.
That's where your "Logic" goes Right Off The Rails!
And that's pretty early on. . .
Re: (Score:2)
The rules of competition change when one or two or three players dominate a market. It's *not* the same rules you would expect when there are a lot of players. Under antitrust law, when a few companies dominate the market, the government has both the right and the obligation to find ways to reduce the power of those companies, whether by enforcing special rules on them, or by breaking them up, or a host of other potential remedies.
The premise here is that app developers should be able to reach app customers
Re: (Score:2)
The rules of competition change when one or two or three players dominate a market. It's *not* the same rules you would expect when there are a lot of players. Under antitrust law, when a few companies dominate the market, the government has both the right and the obligation to find ways to reduce the power of those companies, whether by enforcing special rules on them, or by breaking them up, or a host of other potential remedies.
The premise here is that app developers should be able to reach app customers. Not specifically iOS customers, but more generally, mobile app customers. If Apple controls enough of the mobile phone market that it is able to gouge app developers, then the government can and (ideally) will place restrictions on Apple.
Failure to State a Cognizable Argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you don't understand antitrust law, it makes sense that you think the Feds shouldn't be going after Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple never had a 0% market share. Apple literally introduced the smartphone to the world, and therefore had a (nearly) 100% market share at that time. Google entered the market with Android and was able to grab about half the market. It's disingenuous for you to suggest that Apple had a 0% market share when they launched the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust law exists specifically to prevent that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple never had a 0% market share. Apple literally introduced the smartphone to the world, and therefore had a (nearly) 100% market share at that time. Google entered the market with Android and was able to grab about half the market. It's disingenuous for you to suggest that Apple had a 0% market share when they launched the App Store.
Oh, FFS! Will you people PLEASE Agree on your Alternate Facts?!?
First you argue that Apple STOLE the iPhone's Design (because Apple Never Invents Anything!).
Now you argue that "Apple literally introduced the Smartphone to the world, and therefore had (nearly) [?!?] 100% market share at the time."
Which is it???
BTW, Android OS existed for at least a couple of YEARS before the iPhone was Introduced.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say Apple invented the smartphone. Yes, the concept of a smartphone existed before Apple, and yes they borrowed it. But the concept didn't catch on until Steve Jobs told the world they needed one of these new gadgets. There basically was no smartphone market until Apple created that market. Sure, somebody else would have done so if Apple hadn't, but the reality is that Apple was the mover that made it happen.
In that sense, Apple "introduced" the smartphone to the world. Introduce != invent.
And when
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say Apple invented the smartphone. Yes, the concept of a smartphone existed before Apple, and yes they borrowed it. But the concept didn't catch on until Steve Jobs told the world they needed one of these new gadgets. There basically was no smartphone market until Apple created that market. Sure, somebody else would have done so if Apple hadn't, but the reality is that Apple was the mover that made it happen.
In that sense, Apple "introduced" the smartphone to the world. Introduce != invent.
And when they introduced the smartphone to the world, they indeed had basically 100% of the market, until Android caught up.
Actually, Apple didn't Borrow the Multitouch Smartphone Paradigm. They already had Developed an Experimental "iPad" Thingy In-House before the iPhone; but really hadn't decided whether to Market it. Then SJ evidently said one day in (IIRC) 2005, "Engineers, turn this Tablet thing into a Phone you can fit in a shirt pocket."
But I agree, Apple about knocked it out of the Proverbial Park on the overall iPhone Product Concept.
Android was Vewy Sad for a Long Time, relative to iOS; but it kept at it. Still Hinky
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-trust laws don't just apply to monopolies, but also to any company with a large enough market share that it can abuse its customers. 60% is certainly big enough to do that. And YOU are not Apple's customer, in this context. App developers are. And app developers have no choice, if they want to make money, they must be Apple's abusive 30% fees.
Apple's Users are the point here; not Apple, and not App Developers.
The Users have nearly unanimously decided they like Apple's App Store just the way it is; and have Cast their Votes with their Feet, and their Wallets.
So, Leave Us The Fuck Alone!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's users may be *your* point, but they aren't *the* point. Apple's *real* customers in this context are app developers, not iPhone users. And those customers have no choice, if they want to make money from their app, they have to be in the app store, period. That is the issue the regulators are looking at. Apple's power is too high, and 30% is abusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's users may be *your* point, but they aren't *the* point. Apple's *real* customers in this context are app developers, not iPhone users. And those customers have no choice, if they want to make money from their app, they have to be in the app store, period. That is the issue the regulators are looking at. Apple's power is too high, and 30% is abusive.
Ok; so Fuck The Users; We've got Scheckles To Make! Thank you So Much for Clarifying. . .
How many of Your Apps have made more than US$1,000,000 in Sales? Because, below that Threshold, Apple's Commission is only 15%, a Fact Always, Conveeeninently Ignored!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the users are important. They're just not the customers in *this* scenario. Of course, users are also customers, they buy the iPhones themselves and the other accessories. But as you pointed out, they DO have a choice. That's why the Feds are after Apple for locking in app developers, and not focusing so much (for now) and end users.
Antitrust law does not distinguish between small and large customers. If you're a large customer of Apple (an app developer that has more than $1M in sales), you are s
Re: (Score:2)
MS had something like 90 or 95 percent of the OS market before the US brought down the monopoly hammer. Apple has about 60% of the US market, 20% of the EU market and “Apple who???” percent of the rest of the world. This is happening because it’s fashionable to hate Apple, and some other businesses are jealous that Apple ate their lunch, and because “government micromanaging business ” is becoming politically popular again on both sides of the aisle (which the west is gonna deeply regret cause state capitalism has been proven to be a second-rate economic strategy).
I’m all for anti-trust laws and regulation. But you have to have a serious case of eyes-shut to conclude Apple is a monopoly. Not with Android around as a viable alternative.
Precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your opinion of the matter you can either credit or blame Tim Sweeny since he ran the company with a popular enough product and a big enough company and the will to take both the mobile giants to court about it. Before the Fortnite kerfuffle I imagine some companies were not pleased with the arrangement but too big a gamble to risk access to those users.
Mu opinion is a bit sympathetic to Sweeny's argument, the app stores taking 30% (although it's rumored Steam works with larger developers at be
Re:Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Why must we enforce a rule that every mobile environment must be like Android? Will it really make the world a better place?"
Nobody will be forcing you to side-load. If you want to continue to live in a locked-down world, you are free to do so on your devices.
In Android, you have to specifically set sideloading to "on", with appropriate warnings presented. I very rarely sideload, and only do it when absolutely necessary and with caution.
>"If Apple has to allow sideloading I imagine they will take the Google route which as far as I know doesn't really open any security problems since it's off by default and 95% of users never turn it on and 99% of apps will just remain on the store as it is now."
Exactly.
Apple will surely monitor who is doing it. Hopefully they are not tempted to pull any underhanded nonsense (I will leave that to your imagination... but it could get them into hot water).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will surely monitor who is doing it. Hopefully they are not tempted to pull any underhanded nonsense (I will leave that to your imagination... but it could get them into hot water).
Yeah I imagine they absolutely will and that will be an interesting case. I imagine Fortnite will launch on an "Epic Games App Store" and they will steer clear of that and say, an Apple version of F-Droid but I know there are a lot of, um, "discount" app stores and that will force them to show their hand on that (even if the smart move is to leave it alone)
An interesting sneak around I thought they might take (someone smarter can tell me its infeasible) is they set up a requirement that Apple has to digita
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will surely monitor who is doing it. Hopefully they are not tempted to pull any underhanded nonsense (I will leave that to your imagination... but it could get them into hot water).
Yeah I imagine they absolutely will and that will be an interesting case. I imagine Fortnite will launch on an "Epic Games App Store" and they will steer clear of that and say, an Apple version of F-Droid but I know there are a lot of, um, "discount" app stores and that will force them to show their hand on that (even if the smart move is to leave it alone)
An interesting sneak around I thought they might take (someone smarter can tell me its infeasible) is they set up a requirement that Apple has to digitally sign all apps. You can sell it on any app store you want, but if you want it to run on peoples phones Apple has to sign it?
Oh, so Force Apple to Notarize Every Fucking App with Zero Compensation?!?
We have a 13th Amendment against Slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Why must we enforce a rule that every mobile environment must be like Android? Will it really make the world a better place?"
Nobody will be forcing you to side-load. If you want to continue to live in a locked-down world, you are free to do so on your devices.
In Android, you have to specifically set sideloading to "on", with appropriate warnings presented. I very rarely sideload, and only do it when absolutely necessary and with caution.
>"If Apple has to allow sideloading I imagine they will take the Google route which as far as I know doesn't really open any security problems since it's off by default and 95% of users never turn it on and 99% of apps will just remain on the store as it is now."
Exactly.
Apple will surely monitor who is doing it. Hopefully they are not tempted to pull any underhanded nonsense (I will leave that to your imagination... but it could get them into hot water).
This is less about "sideloading" and more about Apple disallowing any form of in-app payment that doesn't go through them. Or any form of payment on an Apple device that doesn't give a cut to Apple really.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Oh the irony of people who claim users "won't be forced" and yet want the government to force Apple to make their products work the way they think they should."
The smartphone market is a locked duopoly. Google/Android and Apple/IOS. If we had healthy competition, it would correct itself because consumers would drive what they want. As it is, there are times government does have to step in and prevent monopolies from totally abusing their power. And trust me, I am pretty far on the side of less regu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Oh the irony of people who claim users "won't be forced" and yet want the government to force Apple to make their products work the way they think they should."
The smartphone market is a locked duopoly. Google/Android and Apple/IOS. If we had healthy competition, it would correct itself because consumers would drive what they want. As it is, there are times government does have to step in and prevent monopolies from totally abusing their power. And trust me, I am pretty far on the side of less regulation and smaller government. But I also know that ONLY works when there is free and open competition.
>"the product of entitled and arrogant fools who think that the government should be used to force a company to make its products work the way they think they should."
Or you could look at it as taming an abusive monopoly by giving its *customers* a CHOICE to be in a locked ecosystem or not.
If Apple's Customers (no Scare Quotes needed!) actually Wanted this, don'tcha think they would have started Bitching for it At least Sometime since their App Store Opened?!?
But they Haven't.
Go. The. Fuck. Away.
Re:Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Today, consumers can choose between an OS that allows side-loading and an OS that doesn't. In the future, they won't be able to"
???? That makes no sense. You would not be forced to side-load anything.
>" Lots of consumers value being in a secure walled garden"
Then they don't have to side-load anything on either platform. This wouldn't be taking away choice. It would be adding choice. How is someone else turning on side-loading going to affect someone who chooses not to?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Today, consumers can choose between an OS that allows side-loading and an OS that doesn't. In the future, they won't be able to"
???? That makes no sense. You would not be forced to side-load anything.
Exactly like developers aren't forced to pay Apple 30%. Exactly the same argument. But you don't want your stupid argument used against you, right?
Because where else are you going to go if an app is only available via side-loading. Boom, "forced". Exact same argument.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Exactly like developers aren't forced to pay Apple 30%. Exactly the same argument. But you don't want your stupid argument used against you, right?"
It isn't a stupid argument. Right now the developers *are* forced to pay Apple 30% if they want access to a huge part of the duopoly.
>"Because where else are you going to go if an app is only available via side-loading. Boom, "forced". Exact same argument."
Now that is a reasonable, although kinda unusual, argument. I don't think it holds that much wate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Today, consumers can choose between an OS that allows side-loading and an OS that doesn't. In the future, they won't be able to"
???? That makes no sense. You would not be forced to side-load anything.
>" Lots of consumers value being in a secure walled garden"
Then they don't have to side-load anything on either platform. This wouldn't be taking away choice. It would be adding choice. How is someone else turning on side-loading going to affect someone who chooses not to?
Do you use iOS?
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like precisely the sort of thing the public should use the force of government for -- to tilt things back in the public's interest.
Digital platforms and digital marketplaces have complemented physical ones, and there are very good reasons to have conversations about what is in the public interest on them, and how they should be regulated.
You write:
" This entire situation is the product of entitled and arrogant fools who think that the government should be used to force a company to make its products w
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like precisely the sort of thing the public should use the force of government for -- to tilt things back in the public's interest.
Digital platforms and digital marketplaces have complemented physical ones, and there are very good reasons to have conversations about what is in the public interest on them, and how they should be regulated.
You write:
" This entire situation is the product of entitled and arrogant fools who think that the government should be used to force a company to make its products work the way they think they should."
Yes. Precisely. Except there is nothing entitled or arrogant or foolish to use the government to regulate commercial activity in the public interest. That is what it is for.
Never forget that corporations should only even be permitted to exist if they serve the public interest. Not the other way around.
I'm sure you'll pound your first and demand that the corporate elite should be allowed to do whatever they want within the law or something along that line?
But This position only works if the law is already ideal and perfect to handle every situation, which is so laughable on its face that even you won't say it. Yet it is the foundational premise of your position.
But if someone suggests the law needs to be adjusted... well...you go off on them as entitled arrogant fools.
You wanted irony?
Actually, I just wanted a Cogent Argument; but I we won't be getting that from you!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will be forcing you to side-load. If you want to continue to live in a locked-down world, you are free to do so on your devices.
Oh the irony of people who claim users "won't be forced" and yet want the government to force Apple to make their products work the way they think they should. This entire situation is the product of entitled and arrogant fools who think that the government should be used to force a company to make its products work the way they think they should.
And to add to the irony, it's almost always people who don't even use iOS that are the ones cheering this on.
Precisely THIS!
Re:Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:5, Insightful)
And the hillbilly neighbors got jealous. Now they all want to kick down the front gate, rip up the flowers, take a dump on the front lawn and steal the lawnmower on the way out. And they’ve nearly convinced city hall it’s their right to do it.
What if I told you, just because Apple gets required to allow people to side-load apps on their phones instead of being limited to what is only available on the App Store, doesn't mean that you personally have to start installing apps from unknown sources on your own device. /morpheusmeme
I know the idea of choice and customization may be rather foreign to you Apple users, but really... e_e
Re: (Score:2)
Again, why must we force every company to be exactly like Google?
To repeat myself, this is basically the government and OTHER COMPANIES forcing a major design change on Apple, when there is zero evidence of a monopoly situation. Apple has 60% of the US market, 20% of the EU, and “who’s Apple?” percent of the rest of the world. You have to be a serious Apple hater to think they have a monopoly. Micro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the requirement that "side-loading" be allowed means that you are compelled to side-load apps? You are the perfect candidate to charge 5.99 monthly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that the apps you need/want are still available from the App Store. If a company/developer thinks they can monetise their app in ways that would fall foul of the Store rules, they might try making it side load exclusive.
The attraction of the App Store for many is a) one shopfront, b) one secure payment method, c) curation, d) some sort of initial/ongoing screening for malware and e) remote deletion for a discovered bad actor. A particular software package is unlikely to become cheaper after lea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that the apps you need/want are still available from the App Store. If a company/developer thinks they can monetise their app in ways that would fall foul of the Store rules, they might try making it side load exclusive.
Ahh, don't worry, this will end up like Epic vs. Google. Just sue your way back into the App Store while getting all the benefits of not being in it.
Next step is just suing for part of Apple's profits, because everything else is too hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ironic thing is that Google could have easily had a trusted store, had they went with a three tier approach:
Tier 1 -- everything is curated, approved before it goes on. Developers pay more, and have to do through a set of vetting before they are allowed to have anything on the Play Store. Updates are checked, and there are rules like code cannot be fetched from the Net and executed (so a normal program can't be used as a shell for malware.) Apple does this well.
Tier 2 -- the normal Play Store. Check
Re: Apple’s walled garden was just too nice (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you still have that? Will someone be forcing you to sideload?
Re: (Score:2)
And the hillbilly neighbors got jealous. Now they all want to kick down the front gate, rip up the flowers, take a dump on the front lawn and steal the lawnmower on the way out. And they’ve nearly convinced city hall it’s their right to do it.
Why must we enforce a rule that every mobile environment must be like Android? Will it really make the world a better place?
Meh, I already know the answer. This is standard tragedy of the commons. As soon as a nice place becomes widely known, humans trample it out of existence. The search for nice places is a moving target and always was.
When (not if) the barbarians succeed in ruining the Apple ecosystem, some other form of concierge device/service will arise that caters to the people who are willing to pay a bit extra to be insulated from some of the annoying bits of life. And I’ll migrate there instead. Actually, it’ll probably be Apple itself. As soon as ios becomes crapped up with hordes of malicious sideloaded comtent, they’ll introduce ios-ultra, 5.99 monthly, a separate ecosystem that excludes all sideloaded and non-Apple-approved content. And I’ll happily pay it to keep the neighbors from taking a huge steaming crap on my lawn every week.
This.
Why can't we Apple Choosers have the effing Ecosystem we Chose?!?
Is that so wrong?
All must learn to play the piano!
Re:Draconian Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
In this context, YOU are not Apple's or Google's customer. Yes, YOU have a choice. But if you're a customer of one of those two, you don't. Who are Apple's customers in this case? App developers. If you want to make money developing apps, you have no choice but to build on iOS and Android, and to pay Apple and Google's 30% "commission" rate. Yes, the government absolutely has the responsibility to make sure that one or two dominant businesses don't abuse their customers, and 30% commission, especially on all subscription transactions, is certainly abusive.
Re:Draconian Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Video game consoles charge the same. Nobody seems to complain about them.
Oh, the game developers absolutely do, you can tell because every large studio has their own app store after Steam came to dominate, of course they had that option on PC and Steam maintains it's top position by customer satisfaction. By the rules of the EU Digital Markets Act they will also likely be classed as "gatekeepers" just the same.
https://commission.europa.eu/s... [europa.eu]
Who decides what's abusive? You nor the government are qualified to make that determination
In the case of Epic vs Google it was a jury so... that's kind-of the end of it if they lose appeal, Unless it goes to a higher court what's more definitive than a jury trial, we send people to death on a jury.
Also the government is 100% absolutely qualified to make that determination, they enforce the laws. Are we really gonna say Apple gets to say if Apple is abusive?
Re: (Score:2)
Video game consoles charge the same. Nobody seems to complain about them.
Oh, the game developers absolutely do, you can tell because every large studio has their own app store after Steam came to dominate, of course they had that option on PC and Steam maintains it's top position by customer satisfaction. By the rules of the EU Digital Markets Act they will also likely be classed as "gatekeepers" just the same.
https://commission.europa.eu/s... [europa.eu]
Legal definitions aside, Valve never acted as a monopolist, they never made any moves to disallow competition hence we have dozens of other stores, it's just Steam was better. Even GOG struggles to keep up, although GOGs USP is more about selling older games DRM free. Sure, every AAA developer tried to do an end run around Steam assuming that people were idiots and would follow, boy did they get that wrong. Now almost all of their stores have shut down (Uplay, Origin) and Epic will do the same as soon as Fo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah i wouldn't accuse Valve as "acting" monopolist in that they didn't go out of their way to abuse their position but there was that period of time where if you wanted to sell a game you option was physical disc or pay Valve 30%, they had a de-facto position. It was counter to this idea that "nobody cared" about losing that 30% when obviously any developer, especially large ones absolutely did.
I was also a bit jumbled with my words, Team won't be classed as a gatekeeper under EU rules but Sony and MS pro
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has a "right" to be on someone else's platform.
Well the EU, a jury trial and now possibly the US government may disagree.
The mobile market is effectively a duopoly, with two companies carrying what, 98% of all customers? You can call that competition but with no interoperability between purchases it's effectively vendor lock in and agreements like the one noted above shows the two companies are not above cooperating with eachother. You can say consumers and develops have a choice but their choice is limited. Even if i wanted to get an iPhone it doesnt
Re: (Score:2)
just because government or a jury says something should be doesn't mean it's right
Sure, but this is just an eternal "ethics/morals vs legality" argument and gets us nowhere.
That and the speech thing are your opinion, my opinions disagree, as a US citizen I love how strong our 1st amendment is and think it's as strong as ever. Opinions like assholes...
If the EU citizens don't like it they are free to vote for people who would oppose it, same for the US. Liberal Democracy baby, it's a hoot!
Re: (Score:2)
Well those developers are welcome to develop their own gaming platforms and sell their games there. Nobody has a "right" to be on someone else's platform. If you don't like the rules, then hit the road jack.
Well, quite, but it cuts both ways. The thing being built is also a company, and the platform is the jurisdiction's laws. If Apple don't like the laws they can hit the road, jack.
Re:Draconian Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Where else exactly will app developers "peddle their wares"?
Just because 30% is "industry standard" doesn't make it acceptable. It can only be that high because...developers have nowhere else to go. If there were real competition, rates would be much lower. Microsoft found this out the hard way when it tried to lure developers to its app store. It went basically nowhere, because developers had an actual alternative (just skipping the app store). Apple app developers don't have this option.
The standard is not a subjective "abusive" benchmark. The standard, the objective mandated by antitrust law, is to compare the marketplace to what happens when customers have actual choices. If the ONLY reason a company can charge what it does, is that customers can't go anywhere else, it is by definition abusive, and subject to antitrust law.
This Wikipedia article has a good explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I never suggested that developers should get a free ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Where else exactly will app developers "peddle their wares"?
Just because 30% is "industry standard" doesn't make it acceptable. It can only be that high because...developers have nowhere else to go. If there were real competition, rates would be much lower. Microsoft found this out the hard way when it tried to lure developers to its app store. It went basically nowhere, because developers had an actual alternative (just skipping the app store). Apple app developers don't have this option.
Erm, the 30% isn't unreasonable, for this you're asking the store, be it Apple, Google, Steam, et al. to facilitate payment (the credit card fees and charges alone easily eat 10%), handle all customer service interactions, provide a platform to host the content, provide updates, et al. The major publishers thought that they could start their own stores and claw back that 30%, EA with Origin and Ubisoft with Uplay and they were both a terrible failure and all their games are now back on Steam because a lot o
Re: (Score:2)
No, credit card fees do not eat 10%, typical is 3%. https://www.nerdwallet.com/art... [nerdwallet.com]
No, app developers do NOT want to use Apple's payment processing, they'd rather use their own merchant accounts, which charge 3% or less. It's Apple that requires them to use their payment processing. There is NO technical reason Apple needs to require this, other than to skim off the top.
There will be some crappy third-party app stores, just as there are crappy brick-and-mortar stores. People will have to learn how to pick
Re: (Score:2)
So just because Amazon has an app in the App store, Amazon should give Apple a 30% cut of all sales from Amazon.com? Or if a restaurant wants to have an app where you can order takeout, Apple should get a 30% cut? That's ludicrous. It's Apple that's "entitled" here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, developers don't "voluntarily join" the app store. They have no choice. Saying they voluntarily join the app store, is like saying that New York City shops "voluntarily join" the mob-run "business protection plan." There's nothing voluntary about it. They join, or die.
The word "voluntary" implies that there is a choice. No, there is no choice. If you're not in the app store, you're not in business. That's not a real choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of businesses, yes. But not plenty of businesses that rely on apps for the survival of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
You say "well you can just choose not to be on Apple devices." And out of the other side of your mouth you say "but Apple's 30% commission isn't anticompetitive." You can't have it both ways. If your answer is just "take it or leave it" there is nothing competitive about that. Competition means there are multiple options, not "take it or leave it."
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a solo app developer, or a small company trying to get started, you do NOT have the ability to just "go to a company that makes Android phones." Why would such a company listen to you? And even if you did get one of them to listen to you, how does that help you reach iPhone users? No, that's not a real solution.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're never required to make apps for the iPhone.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, but it's simply not the case that Apple is the only game in town. It's the crux of a market that you might decide to enter, but you're not obligated to enter it. PC, Mac, video game console, Android--those are all alternate places that you might take an app of some kind that you want to develop. In some of those cases, there's no cut to be paid.
You're talking like app developers can only develop software for iOS if they
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read a word of the Wikipedia article, did you! Antitrust law does NOT REQUIRE a monopoly, to apply. All that is required, is a level of dominance that stifles competition. 60% is more than enough to qualify.
There are many kinds of businesses that, if you have access to only 30% of the market, your business would not be viable.
PC and Mac are not options for many types of apps, such as navigation apps, or brick-and-mortar store apps (like store mode at Walmart or Home Depot). Walmart says to custom
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm well aware of all of this; I was around during the Microsoft antitrust trials as well.
But you have to show that a company is abusing its power to distort the market, and that's actually pretty hard to show here, as the previous trial between Epic and Apple has already shown. In that case, the judge ruled that Apple isn't distorting any markets--they merely have a platform and some conditions that you have to abide by to sell products on that platform.
But it's also actually hard to claim that Apple
Re: (Score:2)
the judge ruled that Apple isn't distorting any markets
And the judge was contradicted in the Epic-Google case, setting up an appeal that could overrule this judge. His opinion is by far not the last word.
Whether Apple's market share is 40% or 60% doesn't matter, with respect to antitrust law.
You did NOT say before that you believe Apple should be made to open up their platform to alternative app stores. You DID say "PC, Mac, video game console, Android--those are all alternate places that you might take an app of some kind that you want to develop."
The only thing I have a problem with in your argument is this apparent claim that you NEED to make apps for their devices
It's not for
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't actually contradicted by the Epic-Google case, though it does feel like they're at odds. But in the case of Google, they actively paid companies to not open alternate stores, they made deals and went out of their way to suppress stores by illegally tying certain conditions to their platform. So, paradoxically, Apple did NOT abuse its power because it's the only manufacturer of its devices and platform. Because Android is available on many devices by many manufacturers, Google meddling in how other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's clear that "the Fortnite market" isn't in the same category as "the smartphone app market." That's like saying that Ford dominates the Mustang market. For a better equivalence, you'd have to say that Epic dominates "the FPS game market" which they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when being an editor meant that your job was to actually catch stupid shit like this? Now it means you steal your content from other sites, errors and all.
Re: 30 per cent? (Score:2)
This 30 per cent apple tax is real. Only subscription apps for the 2nd year are excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the OP referred to the typo "per cent" instead of the correct "percent".
Re: 30 per cent? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the OP referred to the typo "per cent" instead of the correct "percent".
Percent is the American spelling. The FT is a British publication, and use the British spelling, where per cent is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
This 30 per cent apple tax is real. Only subscription apps for the 2nd year are excluded.
Liar!
Apple only charges 15% for the Vast Majority of App Developers; those that have less than $1 Million Dollars in Sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people confuse "cent" used in this case with a unit of money. It actually is an abbreviation of "centum", which is "hundred" in latin. This is why C is a roman numeral for "hundred".
Per cent is an archaic form of British English, which is sometimes used in official publications.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's not stupid shit.
2. It's not an error.
Re: (Score:2)
Per cent is a variant used outside of the US. Not so common in everyday usage, but still used in formal writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful that AI would use archaic/official use form instead of modern normative. If anything, that's a marker of it being written and edited by a human.
Remember, this is a British publication, using British English. Colonials should not apply their standards here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)