Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Telegram Hits Out at Apple's App Store 'Tax' in Latest EU Antitrust Complaint (techcrunch.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telegram Hits Out at Apple's App Store 'Tax' in Latest EU Antitrust Complaint More

Telegram Hits Out at Apple's App Store 'Tax' in Latest EU Antitrust Complaint

Comments Filter:

  • Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stevez67 ( 2374822 ) on Thursday July 30, 2020 @11:21AM (#60347807)

    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 store on ios.

      • No they donâ(TM)t.

        Donâ(TM)t like it? Thereâ(TM)s always Android...

        • 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

    • I agree with everything except this:

      Control of what's allowed (and not allowed) in a store is part of the store owner's right and responsibility.

      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

      • 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

        • 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

    • 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

      • 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

  • 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

    None of these complaints, however valid they may be, ma

    • Not necessarily in the EU.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Not necessarily in the EU.

        It is necessary for our referring to the matter as "antitrust" to be valid...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          It is necessary for our referring to the matter as "antitrust" to be valid...

          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.

    • 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)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Apple spends untold billions proprietizing their platform

        It is their money, developing and marketing products, which people buy voluntarely. They don't owe you anything beyond the 12 months warranty period.

        Thanks 80%, for always making sure we all get less.

        You'd prefer for the 20% to be content instead, uhm?

  • It's not tax (Score:3)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Thursday July 30, 2020 @11:34AM (#60347911)

    It's rent.

  • False Contentions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday July 30, 2020 @11:52AM (#60347999)

    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)

      by vix86 ( 592763 )

      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.

      • 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.

  • Apple charges that percentage to pay for their data center, their review of the code, and all of the other hassles of dealing with money. It is actually a small price to pay in the grand scheme. People can still program their apps in HTML5, and people can use those app, as Steve originally intended, without fees.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by aitan ( 948581 )

      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.

    • People need to learn to let go and let Apple.

  • Can no one see the conflict if interest? Maybe this will make it clear: All Apple apps in the app store pay the 30% commission not to Apple but to their app COMPETITORS. So Apple Musics pays 30% of revenue to Spotify, Bandcamp, Idagio, etc. There, now it is fair.
  • The App stores and Books store are full of FREE items.
    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
  • "contention that Apple's 30% fee on app developers leads to higher prices for iPhone users"

    Does anyone really think the price would be 30% lower if Apple doesn't take their share?

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close