Apple and Google Face Growing Revolt Over App Store 'Tax' (bloomberg.com) 128
A backlash against the app stores of Apple and Google is gaining steam, with a growing number of companies saying the tech giants are collecting too high a tax for connecting consumers to developers' wares. From a report: Netflix and video game makers Epic Games and Valve are among companies that have recently tried to bypass the app stores or complained about the cost of the tolls Apple and Google charge. Grumbling about app store economics isn't new. But the number of complaints, combined with new ways of reaching users, regulatory scrutiny and competitive pressure are threatening to undermine what have become digital goldmines for Apple and Google. "It feels like something bubbling up here," said Ben Schachter, an analyst at Macquarie. "The dollars are just getting so big. They just don't want to be paying Apple and Google billions." Apple and Google launched their app stores in 2008, and they soon grew into powerful marketplaces that matched the creations of millions of independent developers with billions of smartphone users. In exchange, the companies take up to 30 percent of the money consumers pay developers.
Google is not a tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you don't have to use their store. Just like Epic did with their game.
Apple's, however, is a real tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google is not a tax (Score:5, Informative)
3rd party app stores since they're clearly abusing the monopoly they have on app distribution for iOS.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so there is no place the DOJ gets to intervene. iOS is just a closed platform like the WiiU, Xbox, Playstation 4, or Nintendo Switch. Just like those other platforms Nobody is allowed to build applications for those platforms without a contract with Apple --- If you don't think Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony require developers contract with them to develop on their platforms and share a big cut of revenue from sales and any subscriptions for the right to distribute anything on those platforms, then i'm sure you'd be sorely mistaken. You can become an Apple developer for a fee and have the ability to use a device you personally own for development purposes, but you have to agree to and follow Apple's rules to play in their ball court, and that includes your app has to follow strict guidelines and can only ever be sold through the App store --- any cost necessary to purchase your app will be collected using the approved APIs, and Apple takes whatever cut they were able to get you to agree to.
Re:Google is not a tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read the Sherman Antitrust Act again. See if you can find the word "monopoly" in it. Go ahead. I'll wait. (One of the two parts does contain "monopolize or attempt to monopolize", to be fair, but that is also not the part that would apply in this case, as it is predominantly concerned with mergers and conspiracy.)
Anticompetitive practices are more strictly regulated in monopoly situations, but nothing in any of the relevant laws precludes legal action against a company that is not a monopoly.
Re: (Score:1)
ROFL. Keep telling yourself that, AC. There have been countless restraint of trade cases that didn't involve monopolies, particularly when it comes to contract law. In fact, app developers could actually bring a case without the government's help. All it takes is one class-action lawyer hoping to make a name for him/herself.
Re: (Score:2)
Anticompetitive practices are more strictly regulated in monopoly situations
Charging a 3rd party to use your closed platform is not an anti-competitive practice unless you are in a monopoly situation and in a situation to provide the same thing that you are charging that party for.
, but nothing in any of the relevant laws precludes legal action against a company that is not a monopoly.
There's nothing in the laws that would prevent me suing you for your post either. That doesn't mean I would win or that it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about charging a third party to use the platform. This is about rules that require app developers to use their payment service when running apps on their platform. Whenever multiple companies collude in ways that harm consumers, that is an anticompetitive practice.
In this case, Apple's agreem
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about charging a third party to use the platform. This is about rules that require app developers to use their payment service when running apps on their platform.
This is most commonly known as a business arrangement with a third party and nothing to do with being anticompetitive.
In this case, Apple's agreement with app developers forces the use of a payment processor that, while possibly cheap for app developers that take micropayments, is downright extortionate when compared with normal payment processors for app developers that charge double-digit-per-month subscription fees, sell expensive digital downloads, etc.
Which would be a problem only if Apple had the market power of a monopoly. They don't. Take your business elsewhere.
And you cannot argue that it not an anticompetitive practice
Of course you can, mainly because you can't be anticompetitve against people you don't compete with. Apple blocking Google maps when introducing their own service was anticompetitive. A general case where a bunch of people are whining that they don't like the terms of entering
Re: (Score:2)
By that standard, about half of the illegal anticompetitive practices would never be illegal (agreement not to deal, tying agreements, MFN agreements, etc.), because all of those are business agreements with third part
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Apple just got their a**es handed to them in court over one of those
I assume you're talking about Apple v Pepper? You may be interested to know that the appeal currently underway is based entirely on Apple's status as a monopoly in its app store. Like I said from the beginning.
Again, upon what are you basing that legal theory?
Legal fact.
Contracts can create illegal restraint of trade without monopolies being involved.
Contracts can create very specific illegal restraint on trade. There's no general case that isn't entirely moderated by the market power of either party.
How does Apple's payment system not compete with other payment processors?
Because we're moving the goalposts, but the fact is that contractually blocking specific 3rd party services universally to all customers
Re: (Score:2)
No, United States v. Apple Inc.
And therein lies the question that determines whether this is actionable. Is this an abuse of Apple's market power? I would argue that the wide-rangi
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the wide-ranging impact that extends far beyond Apple's ecosystem means that it is; you argue that it isn't, without giving any specific reasons.
No I countered that there is no wide-ranging impact in the first place and by extension not an abuse of market power since Apple doesn't have market power in the area to begin with. They are a minority player in the mobile world with 20% market share. A developer wanting to target that specific customer doesn't change the state of the industry in that regard.
Again your premise is the thing I disagree with. There's nothing preventing a company using whatever payment processor they want for their software whe
Re: (Score:2)
Although Apple has only 20% of the worldwide market share, it has nearly half of U.S, market share, which is where most app developer profit is made (statistically). Worse, iOS users are significantly more affluent than Android users, on average, to such an ex
Re: (Score:2)
Honda doesn't require you only buy Honda approved parts to fix your car. You aren't forced to go to a Honda dealer to get a computer read out of your car.
I googled how you would side-load applications and found it's pretty straight-forward on Android that a normal user could handle it. On iphone the instructions have me downloading a development application of some sort and requiring source code of whatever applications I wanted to install. I stopped reading at this point as I don't even own an iphone but t
or at very least an adults only and open political (Score:2)
or at very least an adults only and open political part of the ios store to at the very least stop ios content centership
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
No. This is more like an automaker made a vehicle with no radio. You could only buy a radio if you bought it from the automaker's dealership. And whoever made the radio paid the dealership 30% of whatever they sold the radio for. So they have to mark it up 43% to come out on par.
I bought a Chevy. It drives down the road. It does what it needs to do. But everyone else is listening to music, getting navigation tips, answering calls. I don't have any of that. So I want something. The only people that make my r
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you have a good understanding of what a monopoly is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And people have been bitching about that since 1985 [wikipedia.org]. It apparently wasn't illegal then so it's probably not illegal now, but people should still be looking for any ways that this kind of thing can be prosecuted. If Apple is a big enough company that people are finally starting to give a shit about this problem, what's the downside?
A
Re: (Score:1)
That taking instinct doesn't just go away, every human struggles to keep that under wraps, some really badly.
Google and Apple also have that taking instinct. Capitalist society elevates this behaviour, because in the mind of a shareholder, you're only winning if you take ALL of the cash.
The EU laws also there political censorship as wel (Score:1)
The EU laws also there political censorship as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can bypass the Apple store completely for iOS apps with only a modest amount of technical skill required on the part of the users, even without a jailbreak.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't have to use their store. Just like Epic did with their game.
Apple's, however, is a real tax.
Oh my, Apple astroturfers are on the job again.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies should remember their master (Score:1)
But the number of complaints, combined with new ways of reaching users, regulatory scrutiny and competitive pressure
What competitive pressure? Apple and Google provide the platform for building the apps and the marketplace used by their respective platforms. If you want to do business, then you gotta pay the fee.
Sure, there are some legitimate ways around them, but you there are also disadvantages in doing so.
Furthermore, regulatory scrutiny may be interesting, but at the end of the day regulator
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to do business, then you gotta pay the fee.
Yah, no. There are little details like consumer protection and antitrust, admittedly taken more seriously in Europe these days.
Re: (Score:2)
There are little details like consumer protection and antitrust, admittedly taken more seriously in Europe these days.
There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for "consumer protection" to have a role in this.
Recall that the iPhone when released had no App capabilities at all --- you could only run apps built by Apple.
To an extent that's still the case: there are private frameworks that only Apple can use, but they partially opened it up
to developers. Consumer protections don't apply to the rel
Re: (Score:2)
this is both to cover Apple's costs of billing/payment processing, refunds, etc (Because they require all the billing be done through Apple), AND to provide Apple profit in whatever amount of profit Apple thinks the market will bear.
This is where antitrust watchdogs get interested, because of "market power". You're clear on that, right? If not, then please bring yourself up to speed [wikipedia.org] before replying.
T&C (Score:2)
I propose a boycott (Score:3)
Just sell only to Windows phone users.
Both of them.
Employers and Unions (Score:1, Interesting)
Apple and Google are the abusive employer. Developers need to unionise.
Nope (Score:2)
I write MacOS / OSX apps. Don't have any dealings at all with Apple's app store, nor do I plan to — really not a fan of Apple, the company, though I'm reasonably pleased with the computer (not phone) OS. Nor do I plan to "unionize", inasmuch as I'm not employed by them in the first place. Apple does not pay me anything, nor I them.
Tempest in a teapot, at least as far as MacOS / OSX goes.
Google's 30% would be more tolerable... (Score:5, Interesting)
....if they actually enforced their developer policies. Every day my competitors upload pages of 5* reviews for their apps, typically one to two words each (real positive reviews tend to be 1-3+ sentences). And the majority of my competition are copies of the same apps, differentiated only by various insane and obnoxious advertising strategies. Myself and my legitimate competitors have no recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Junk ratings are a huge pain... I deal with them when buying from Amazon with a very trained eye to weed through the trash. They need to at least allow some sort of search criteria for ratings to help people sort through junk ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, valve? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing Valve wants to have a "Steam Store" app for iOS and Android. I'm willing to bet they'll lower their % (at least, for those stores) to try to undercut Google/Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be connected to this [theverge.com].
I think the argument would be, the problem isn't the existence of app stores, but tying the app store to a hardware platform so that other app stores can't compete. I remember reading a while back that Valve was pretty upset with Microsoft when they introduced the "Microsoft Store". Valve makes a lot of its money from Steam on Windows, and Microsoft has pushed developers toward using the Microsoft Store instead, and have threatened to lock Valve out.
Part of the problem is that discovery SUCKS. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think part of the problem is that, back in the day, it didn't seem all that unreasonable to pay Apple a 30% tax on the software you distributed. After all, they would host your app, provide a landing page, handle credit card transactions, handle the electronic distribution, and there were so few apps on the App store discovery was a snap. Because there were so few apps on the App store, it seemed reasonable to spend part of that 30% on a form of "advertising": after all, even something as stupid as a "fart" app that charged 99 cents could make its developer a millionaire.
Apple's gone through a number of redesigns of their App Store, and all have made discovery worse, not better. There are no "related applications", no systematic way for people to browse applications. Worse, on Mobile we lost the ability to browse applications for our phones on a desktop system; instead, we're left shopping for apps on what? A 5 inch screen that only shows you three apps at a time, max?
And it seems Apple's response to all of this is "get bent." Advertising, in other words, is the developer's responsibility. All Apple does--unless you're one of the lucky hand-picked few--is process credit card transactions and handle distribution. And we must now build our own landing pages, engage in SEO, and do the other advertising stuff ourselves--on the 70% left over from Apple.
Well, hell's bells; this doesn't seem like a toll worth 30% of each transaction. This feels like it's worth 10%--because Apple is not standing in as a publisher (who often takes a greater percentage of your income but also provides advertising for your product); they're basically a warehouse full of stuff. They are just doing fulfillment.
And heck, Amazon only charges about 15% of the product's price on average to handle fulfillment--and Amazon has to stock a warehouse full of crap and hire people to stuff boxes to fulfill your product. Apple simply hosts a bunch of bits on a server somewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
What's funny is that Apple probably isn't even really hosting the bits on the server somewhere, but rather pointing to a cache in someone else's distributed edge network; Akamai or Amazon CloudFront, something like that.
So really they're just paying a bill that you otherwise could from the same service provider, except they've managed to wedge themselves in between you and your user.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that you can open an AWS account, put your app on S3, and then distribute it via CloudFront yourself for far fucking less than the 30% that Apple or Google take. The "value" they are offering used to be the marketing, but as the grandparent points out, the "marketing" has only gotten worse with time.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that you can open an AWS account, put your app on S3, and then distribute it via CloudFront yourself for far fucking less than the 30% that Apple or Google take. The "value" they are offering used to be the marketing, but as the grandparent points out, the "marketing" has only gotten worse with time.
Or you could just host a webpage yourself and not demand any free services from Apple. Apple isn't your sugar daddy, you lazy for profit corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except if you want to be a software developer that sells software to iPhone users, you have to use Apple's store with Apple's hosting and pay Apple's tax.
That's the whole fucking point of the article you're posting a comment to.
Usually if there's a middleman, that middleman should add some value somewhere, which justifies them being in the middle. Apple is increasingly failing to do so for their 30% cut.
Please try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except if you want to be a software developer that sells software to iPhone users,
What part of "use a fucking webpage" did you not understand? Oh, sorry, I'm talking to a Fandroid. Who somehow wants free stuff from Apple despite hating them.
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing about me so don't even try, son. Go play in the back yard, grown-ups are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> we lost the ability to browse applications for our phones on a desktop system
Been complaining about this to a hardcore Apple fan friend of mine and he refuses to back down. Posted it on Reddit before, the Apple fans attacked me and just outright blinders on and defense mode.
For.F.Sake!
My ipad is in the lounge charging, 4 rooms away, I see a tweet for a cool app I'd like to buy, why the can I not click the god damn link, log in to the web based app store and buy the @#$^ing thing?
It is literally one
Re: (Score:2)
And this is a prime example of the Apple mentality right here.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is a prime example of the Apple mentality right here.
Pointing our that your argument is totally bogus? Yeah, Apple users have to do that a lot, but it's totally due to the idiots they have to argue with. And his "you can't link to apps on the App Store" shit is as stupid as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
My argument is in 0 ways bogus whatsoever.
Please tell me how I can access the App store, via the web, on my PC and purchase an application, then send it to my iPad.
Because I've been able to do this on Android for over 7 years, maybe as long as 9.
You Apple fools defenders are not playing with a full deck.
Just stop, you're wrong, so stop. You are literally incorrect here.
Re:The death of the list-view (Score:2)
A 5 inch screen that only shows you three apps at a time, max?
This is what happens when business or art majors dictate UI design-form over function. Business majors want to make every website/app/application look like a car brochure, and art majors just care about how pretty something looks. Out the window goes usability.
This tiling of 3-5 item per page design garbage is the worst user-unfriendly trend today, and it's not just found in Apples App store but you see it almost everywhere. Even on a 30" des
Re: (Score:2)
back in the day, it didn't seem all that unreasonable to pay Apple a 30% tax on the software you distributed
Yes, it always seemed unreasonable to pay a 30% tax. Remember shareware sites? They were typically free, or asked for a low flat fee. Before that, AOL did essentially the same thing for free (if you were a subscriber). Windows and Linux software developers did, and still do, get to distribute their software with no "tax," and if you want a landing page, you can get those for next to nothing. Advertising? Hardly. Being on the AppStore puts you in the middle of a huge pile of copycats.
A listing fee would be m
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the original promise of the Apple App Store was that they'd host your software, provide you a landing site, handle credit card transactions, handle application installation and security, handle anti-piracy by signing downloaded software, and handle advertising and app discovery.
And that last part--advertising and app discovery--is a pretty big damned deal.
Drop that--and it's only worth perhaps a 10% tax. (Remember, credit card transactions charge around 3%ish, which means Apple is collecting the ot
There's actually a solution (Score:3)
There's a clear hierarchy in the developer community. There's the people who actually write good apps, and there's scumbag imitators who shamelessly rip them off and load up their stolen versions of decent apps with borderline malware. Neither Apple nor Google seems to give a damn about this. Both app stores are awash with shytte apps.
So maybe it's time for the good developers to simply walk away. The downside to jailbreaking and rooting has generally been that you're losing security. But if the cost of being a bit more secure was that you only had access to the garbage provided by outright thieves protected by Apple and Google, more and more people would want to escape from their walled gardens.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of "mobile apps" could be HTML 5 apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Apple supports a way to side load apps that's been (ab)used to pirate apps. It is official and has been available since iOS 9. And you don
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortnite (by Epic) is a bit weird with that... the game is free and nothing you buy will give you any game advantage, they only sell cosmetic changes. I was surprised they sell character skins for $20 (and skining the mining weapon can be an extra $20) ... but now I understand that people are paying to have a custom appearance, and the price means you're not likely to come across another player with the same one. It's almost like having an exclusive skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Capital cost on video games is so enormous, it's hard to get worked up about video game prices, especially for skins in free to play games. If it bothers you then wait for the discounts.
If you don't like this don't buy Apple/Google (Score:1)
It's really not that hard. I won't utilize Google's Play Store. I also won't purchase anything from Apple. My smart phone runs LineageOS and I utilize the Fdroid app "store". For the few apps it doesn't have you might have to do a little hunting on github. I mostly just use a few crypto wallets outside of what is in Fdroid. I also don't utilize Microsoft, Adobe, or numerous other products and services from other companies. I'm a fan of Uber-like services, but don't utilize Uber or Lyft, and not because they
Users pay an extra 30% (Score:2)
I see what you did there (Score:2)
Golf clap.
Safe spaces versus Wild West (Score:3)
App stores are the ultimate safe spaces. You can trust in any app there.
On the other hand, traditional computers are the Wild West. You take your chances, based on your knowledge.
At what point do we admit that having a computer illiterate population using these complex devices is sure to empower abusive monopolies like Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Spotify (F.A.R.T.G.A.S.)?
Re: (Score:1)
At what point do we admit that having a computer illiterate population using these complex devices is sure to empower abusive monopolies like Facebook, Apple, Reddit, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and Spotify (F.A.R.T.G.A.S.)?
Lovely acronym. If only you'd added Microsoft to the end of that list...
Re: (Score:2)
You can trust in any app there
Really!!! I've got a bridge to sell you!
The App Stores make headlines every so often when they catch somebody stealing your data, or inserting malware. But they only catch a tiny, tiny amount of what really goes on. For one example, see https://mashable.com/2018/07/2... [mashable.com]
Untrustworthy megacorps (Score:2)
I suppose the vetting process, then, is more designed to keep out apps from free speech sites like Gab.ai than it is to look for actually malicious apps? Terrifying. Then again, not entirely surprising given the monopolistic corporations involved. Thanks for posting that.
I am not giving you my f-ing credit card (Score:2)
I know who Apple/Google/Amazon are. If they suffer a data breach, they will be able to compensate me for the consequences. I have zero confidence in creators of Fortnite safeguarding my financial or contact info. I don't know about anyone else, but digital content only constitutes a small fraction of my total life expenses. Better write off 30% than p0wned. Plus I can't imagine building out your own payment infrastructure worldwide is free.
Re: (Score:1)
Other than a maybe a year of free credit monitoring, you probably won't.
As a small company we hate the App Store (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free Enterprise (Score:2)
It's free enterprise, if you don't like Apple or Google's business practices? Take your business elsewhere. Why is it that so many people are pro-free enterprise until someone else figures out how to make money at it?
micro-payments (Score:2)
people forget that in the world before the app store — you had to setup your own website, and promotion, and micro-payment transaction processing system. these were often onerous for small software developers who were at a significant disadvantage when trying to sell software online.
the app store gave you distribution — and micropayment transaction processing (that you could not obtain, since the credit card companies didnt want to deal with you unless you did a minimum of $30,000 in sales
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you don't want to post about LUDDITE cows going MOOOO?