Telegram Hits Out at Apple's App Store 'Tax' in Latest EU Antitrust Complaint (techcrunch.com) 59
Apple has another antitrust charge on its plate. Messaging app Telegram has joined Spotify in filing a formal complaint against the iOS App Store in Europe -- adding its voice to a growing number of developers willing to publicly rail against what they decry as Apple's app "tax." From a report: A spokesperson for Telegram confirmed the complaint to TechCrunch, pointing us to this public Telegram post where founder, Pavel Durov, sets out seven reasons why he thinks iPhone users should be concerned about the company's behavior. These range from the contention that Apple's 30% fee on app developers leads to higher prices for iPhone users; to censorship concerns, given Apple controls what's allowed (and not allowed) on its store; to criticism of delays to app updates that flow from Apple's app review process; to the claim that the app store structure is inherently hostile to user privacy, given that Apple gets full visibility of which apps users are downloading and engaging with. This week Durov also published a blog post in which he takes aim at a number of "myths" he says Apple uses to try to justify the 30% app fee -- such as a claim that iOS faces plenty of competition for developers; or that developers can choose not to develop for iOS and instead only publish apps for Android.
Re: (Score:1)
Because what they make is high quality, its really not that hard to understand, even for a Linux guy like me.
Re:lulz (Score:4, Informative)
I dunno. The metal shells > plastic maybe, but Apple phone batteries exhibit higher-than-normal wear to the extent that Apple throttles the CPU to compensate ... my co-worker is on his 4th replacement for his beats headphones ... the keyboards (enough said)... I opened my iMax years ago to find that expensive “Apple Memory” is cheap consumer-grade Hynix ... I had to fight with them when they stuck me with a lemon GPU (8600M with known faulty thermal issue causing premature gpu death) ... their iOS devices have less RAM than most equivalently-priced Androids and they don’t even list it because “specs don’t matter” (while touting every other spec) ... Bugs languish for years, unfixed ... the App Store is a scammer’s bazaar and search never worked ... 90% of apps are cheap clones of successful apps with predatory “subscriptions” ... I mean ... compared to Windows and cheap plastic PC stuff, I grant you it seems higher quality, especially MacBooks trackpads versus shitty pc trackpads ... but what lies beneath doesn’t always deliver. I mean, think about it, they have the highest profit margins in the industry, and profit is the difference between what you pay for and what you get.
Re: (Score:1)
1 word.
Software.
POSIX for the consumer.
The profit comes from the duplication cost of high quality software being zero, meaning they can charge a higher price for cheaper hardware.
Simply because it doesn't crash 4 times a day.
Re: lulz (Score:3)
But you are the product. Apple is selling you to app devs.
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's 30% fee on app developers is consistent with fees charged by other tech companies. Control of what's allowed (and not allowed) in a store is part of the store owner's right and responsibility. Delays to app updates due to app review processes are routine in the industry because reviews take time and developers don't always adequately address the store policies. An app store where developers could do as they please would be vastly more hostile to user privacy. Every store (digital or brick n mortar) gets full visibility of which products users are purchased as part of running a store.
ok then apple needs to let you use 3rd party app s (Score:3)
ok then apple needs to let you use 3rd party app store on ios.
Re: ok then apple needs to let you use 3rd party a (Score:1)
No they donâ(TM)t.
Donâ(TM)t like it? Thereâ(TM)s always Android...
Re: (Score:2)
No they donâ(TM)t.
Donâ(TM)t like it? Thereâ(TM)s always Android...
It’s not that big companies have chipped away at private properties rights, it’s that the owner’s of said property have willingly given them away. When technology was the domain of a smaller group of people, people passionate about technology, and dare I say, more cognitively-inclined, this stuff would never have flown,
Once it hit critical mass, however, and it became ubiquitous, the companies quickly releas
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything except this:
The problem with that is that the role of phone manufacturer does not enshrine the right of sole store proprietor, and could be a monopolistic practice.
Apple needs to figure out how to address this. Allow competing stores (maybe), even if a phone is locked to a single store. I am sure there are other good options, but I am not creative enough to come up with one
Re: (Score:2)
I see where you're coming from but at the same time, the people who buy the phones know this going in, they chose to buy the phone anyway. They've voted with their wallets on how they feel on the matter, who is the government to say otherwise?
And it would be a very different thing if Apple dominated the mobile phone market but it's only got 15% and that's currently projected to shrink a little more in coming years.
I'd also like to point out that the 30% thing isn't even what a lot of the big corporations c
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree with what you are saying... the EU seems to take a different view though. In fairness to their view, you have a limited set of options, and are forced to make compromises with each that you may not otherwise be willing to make that affect how you use your device (and how your device uses you).
I think the 30% cut is reasonable, if maybe a little on the high side especially for larger developers. If the lawmakers give Apple (and others) the legal cover to charge a ~20% rate to major developers an
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's 30% fee on app developers is consistent with fees charged by other tech companies. Control of what's allowed (and not allowed) in a store is part of the store owner's right and responsibility.
Sure, but it’s the only store they allow you to use, which changes your paradigm. I’m always surprised that this isn’t obvious to folks.
Imagine if your PC would only run software that Microsoft got a 30% commission on. Imagine if EVERY Purcell of software had to go through their store.
Your p
Re: (Score:2)
There is no change to paradigm; fees charged by tech companies is a fair, objective comparison. Any other basis of comparison would be subjective. And if a company wanted to make a computer that ran only proprietary software there's no law against that; the market sorts that out. As for “The OS is licensed and not sold therefore I don’t actually own anything I buy,” actually you own the device, even if it's little more than a paperweight without functioning software. And there's no law in
All of these complaints are irrelevant (Score:2)
None of these complaints, however valid they may be, ma
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
It is necessary for our referring to the matter as "antitrust" to be valid...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not [europa.eu], but if that's the hill that you want to die on, I'm happy to send a few rounds at you.
Re: (Score:2)
I was addressing the "antitrust" terminology dispute, thank you very much. If you want to debate European antitrust and competition law, then I suggest that you begin here [justice.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
There's an entire section on EC antitrust and competition law starting at roman numeral III, a contrast between the systems at roman numeral IV, and this little gem:
Re: (Score:2)
Your wish has been granted [justice.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
That's an article — not a law, much less a verse. And a very large article it is — TL;DR. If you'd like to continue, please, cite the relevant parts of the article — in lieu of the request for law/verse.
Re: (Score:2)
It cites plenty of law.
Your Trumpian attention span is your own problem.
All of it. The topic at hand is tying. The article is entirely about tying.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't... The citation I request earlier remains missing.
Unable to provide a citation backing up your bombastic claim, you switch to personal insults. How telling...
And it talks about "dominant position" — which Apple does not have.
Re: (Score:2)
Eurofix-Bauco v. Hilti, Commission Decision 88/138/EEC, 1988 O.J. (L 065) 19.
Yes, I'm insulting you for rejecting a comprehensive answer to your question in favor of a citation that you won't have a clue how to use. Well, you've got it, no more, and no less. Have fun with that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a case. The request was for the law and the verse. Yes, our jurisprudence is case-based, but cases still refer to laws. Which you're unable to cite, despite multiple attempts.
Until you turned to insults, I was willing to have a civilized conversation, but now — either put up or shut up.
Curious distinction
Re: (Score:2)
No, you do not get to define law to exclude precedent that constitutes law. Cases are law. Deal with it.
I have. You keep attempting to disqualify the "put up," and you're not even the one who made the initial demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you've gutted your requirement [slashdot.org] for law and verse, feast your eyes upon your answer:
15 U.S.C. 45(a) [cornell.edu], "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
Also, 15 U.S.C. 2 [cornell.edu]. I'd explain the verse [jdsupra.com], but you claim that cases don't count, so I presume that includes Supreme Court rulings that you really, really want to ignore as well.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't. Cases are cases. That particular case was decided based on some law. Can you cite it on the fourth attempt?
You're dodging the question. I'll repeat it: "which is the [market] "involving its own product" in the case of Apple?"
It completely destroys your — and the rest of Apple-haters' — whole reasoning. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
The App Store for Apple Phones, you idiot.
It doesn't.
They're not irrelevant. Have fun when the judgments come in, and don't s
Re: (Score:2)
I gutted nothing — the post you linked to shows, how an actual law can be cited — and the relevant part of it actually quoted...
You got it! Almost... The law you cited is about the creation — and legal principles — of FTD, America's Federal Trade Commission. Is there anything
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mr. Quixote,
Were you to send him the citation that he requests, in black and white, in link form or tattooed on the ass of a nubile Thai virgin, can you imagine any scenario in which he would accept it?
I guarantee you it will be deficient in some way, shape, or form.
“Oh well see, that citation contains the word ‘and’, so clearly it’s not applicable ....”
You’re talking to someone who ostensibly lives in the
USA, yet does not have a healthy dose of skepticism and distru
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't... The citation I request earlier remains missing.
The fuck, seriously?
Then go and get it yourself, or disbelieve that it exists, who cares?
You do realize that your satisfaction, or lack thereof, has no actual effect on anyone’s life?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my fresh little unspoiled asshole, seriously. The burden of proof [wikipedia.org] is always on the one making the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
And it clearly is not [t4.ai]... And if it is not a monopoly, then Apple can do whatever it pleases — whoever dislikes their terms, can work with their competitors.
Apple spends untold billions proprietizing their platform, trying their level best to lock you into their own “ecosystem” of least-compatibility-possible. Then, once you spend thousands of dollars and several years accumulating hardware and creating content, they say “So look, we have this new policy ... but ... if you d
Re: (Score:2)
It is their money, developing and marketing products, which people buy voluntarely. They don't owe you anything beyond the 12 months warranty period.
You'd prefer for the 20% to be content instead, uhm?
It's not tax (Score:3)
It's rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It is a toll and Apple is essentially a toll-booth business."
They do own the bridge.
False Contentions (Score:4, Insightful)
These range from the contention that Apple's 30% fee on app developers leads to higher prices for iPhone users;
Since when have app prices been too high? They are in fact absurdly low.
to censorship concerns, given Apple controls what's allowed (and not allowed) on its store
That's kind of a concern to me also but I do think closed platform have the right to say who and what appears on that system - and then users have the right to say what is closed off is too much, and they are going elsewhere. I guess so far Apple's closed down system has not closed down so far that it drives users away.
to criticism of delays to app updates that flow from Apple's app review process;
This is absolute bullshit. Apple's review process USED to be absurdly long. But these days no developers I know of have complained about long review times for well over a year, with many updates and even app submissions being accepted the same day.
to the claim that the app store structure is inherently hostile to user privacy, given that Apple gets full visibility of which apps users are downloading and engaging with
Also false. Apple does know who downloads apps, but they do NOT get sent data about engagement. That's all local to the device. That is why so many apps include analytics packages.
It's kind of nuts to claim a store owner knowing what a person has purchased violates privacy; at some point someone somewhere is going to know something, just by the fact you accessed or purchased something online.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when have app prices been too high? They are in fact absurdly low.
The 30% doesn't apply to just app purchases. It also applies to in-app purchases as well. Ex: You purchase a cosmetic item for a character in a game you play on your iPhone -- Apple gets 30% of that unless you use a round about means of purchasing. In fact, until quite recently, they were taking comission on video and music sales [reuters.com] inside apps.
Re: (Score:1)
The 30% doesn't apply to just app purchases. It also applies to in-app purchases as well.
So? The price FOR THE USER (remember, the assertion the 30% cut was making app prices too high) for in-app purchases is not very high either, usually many items are around a dollar.
Their point? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a great idea, except that Apple refuses to add all the missing APIs in order to provide useful WebApps to fully replace native apps (like for example push notifications) and it also prevents any other browser in iOS, you can supply only skins for Safari, not a real useful browser.
Re: (Score:2)
People need to learn to let go and let Apple.
The market owner CANNOT SELL in the market (Score:1)
FREE Apps (Score:2)
You can even sear for free stuff.
If this was solely about Apple getting money they would have a minimum cost to the developer.
But Apple makes the software available world wide, keeps all the records of who buys what, supplies the updates. These Apps take up server space, use bandwidth so have a real (but very small) cost.
Just look at all the sales brick and mortar stores have, 60% off etc, they are NOT loosing money , they are selling at reduced p
Higher prices? (Score:2)
Does anyone really think the price would be 30% lower if Apple doesn't take their share?