Apple App Store Payment Rules Anti-competitive, Dutch Watchdog Finds (reuters.com) 20
The Dutch antitrust authority has found that Apple's rules requiring software developers to use its in-app payment system are anti-competitive and ordered it to make changes, Reuters reported on Thursday, in the latest regulatory setback for the iPhone maker. From a report: Apple's app-store payment policies, in particular its requirement that app developers exclusively use its payment system where commissions range between 15% and 30%, have long drawn complaints from developers. The Dutch investigation into whether Apple's practices amounted to an abuse of a dominant market position was launched in 2019 but later reduced in scope to focus primarily on dating market apps. They included a complaint from Match Group, owner of the popular dating service Tinder, which said Apple's rules were hindering it from direct communications with its customers about payments. The Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) last month informed the U.S. technology giant of its decision, making it the first antitrust regulator to make a finding the company has abused market power in the app store, though Apple is facing challenges in multiple countries.
There's always Apple Pay (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the App Store revenue comes from games, so I think Apple's real hedge against this is Apple Arcade. Since the App Store is clearly going to end up regulated, they want to shift the playing field from the store to a subscription service. Since Apple Arcade is product unto itself, no regulator will tell Apple they can't collect whatever percentage they want from it. Over time they build more and more of the game features of iOS into Apple Arcade (much like PSN or Xbox Live), stop promoting non-Apple A
Re: (Score:2)
Their and Google's reign as thinking they can operate markets independent of regulation end, and they can continue fucking the loyal followers via rent seeking.
Geen stront Sherlock (Score:2)
I thought it was kind of obvious. But nice to see it's official at least somewhere.
This could hurt developers (Score:2)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue. It could charge for things now included in the developer fee, raising upfront costs that would hit small developers the hardest. Or, they simply could, as part of contractual terms, require a percentage of all sales in exchange for hosting the app and that developers submit audited statements if they allow payments outside of the App Store.
.
Apple has not done that, even as such payment
Re: (Score:1)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue. It could charge for things now included in the developer fee, raising upfront costs that would hit small developers the hardest.
They could, but they won't, because that would just drive more people towards Android.
Or, they simply could, as part of contractual terms, require a percentage of all sales in exchange for hosting the app and that developers submit audited statements if they allow payments outside of the App Store.
I don't think Apple wants to go that route, especially given the burden of paperwork it would represent even for them. But that would also be very easy to cheat anyways.
Apple has not done that, even as such payments were possible, but I suspect if they see a drop they will find ways to compensate.
That's not how anti-competitive businesses such as Apple are run. They just get as much money as they can, instead of asking market rate.
If you close one of their anti-competitive loophole, they can't charge more somewhere else, because they are already cha
Re: (Score:2)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue. It could charge for things now included in the developer fee, raising upfront costs that would hit small developers the hardest.
They could, but they won't, because that would just drive more people towards Android.
Possibly, but given how lucrative Apple's installed base is I doubt many would leave it. Android would need to see a large shift in users from Apple to make that even worth considering. Possibly, but given how lucrative Apple's installed base is I doubt many would leave it.
Or, they simply could, as part of contractual terms, require a percentage of all sales in exchange for hosting the app and that developers submit audited statements if they allow payments outside of the App Store.
I don't think Apple wants to go that route, especially given the burden of paperwork it would represent even for them. But that would also be very easy to cheat anyways.
Not really. Apple knows how often an app is downloaded, and what % buy using Apple's payment system. They can extrapolate from that and get a good idea if a developer's numbers seem accurate. If they seem odd they can do an audit, pai
Re: (Score:2)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue. It could charge for things now included in the developer fee, raising upfront costs that would hit small developers the hardest.
They could, but they won't, because that would just drive more people towards Android.
Possibly, but given how lucrative Apple's installed base is I doubt many would leave it. Android would need to see a large shift in users from Apple to make that even worth considering.
If Apple could charge $20k/year for every app developer, or for every application submitted to the app store, they'd do it. They do not because it would damage their ecosystem, and slowly push away both users and developers to Android. It's not a question of if. It's a question of how many would switch, and how fast.
Based on a cursory review of prices for apps that you can but using IAP or form developers I suspect developers will simply pocket the windfall, and thus help Apple's argument they do not keep prices higher and thus are not abusing their market power.
Your understanding is wrong. Just because developers pocket the different doesn't mean Apple was not abusing their market power.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple could charge $20k/year for every app developer, or for every application submitted to the app store, they'd do it. They do not because it would damage their ecosystem, and slowly push away both users and developers to Android. It's not a question of if. It's a question of how many would switch, and how fast.
It's really a question of how they respond and who it will impact most. The big players may complain over new fees but can absorb the costs and will do so because of the user base. Given most revenue appears to come from a small set of developers, Apple can hit the the hardest. The problem becomes collateral damage for smaller ones if Apple raises some fees. They may leave, but given the small amount of revenue and thus likely small user base most iPhone users won't care or even notice.
Going to Android
Re: (Score:2)
It's really a question of how they respond and who it will impact most.
The answer is obvious, and it's Apple itself, who will loose money they would have otherwise made through in-app payments.
I disagree. The key to a market power abuse is maintaining higher prices and thus harming the consumer.
Not necessarily. Market power can be abused to harm anybody, including app developers, and definitely not only the consumer.
If prices don't drop for non Apple payment schemes then it is hard to argue Apple artificially inflated prices and thus harmed the consumer.
Why is that? You seem to be making a conclusion which is obvious in your head but not outside of it. Care to explain?
Developers, like any producer of a product, have to pay teh sales outlet a cut in order to be in the store, even the EPIC judge said that.
Yep, but that's not the problem here. Read TFS. It's the forcing of the Apple in-app purchase which has been ruled illegal. Don't you think it's a go
Re: (Score:2)
It's really a question of how they respond and who it will impact most.
The answer is obvious, and it's Apple itself, who will loose money they would have otherwise made through in-app payments.
I wouldn't bet on it. Apple will simply find other ways to extract revenue from apps on the App Store.
I disagree. The key to a market power abuse is maintaining higher prices and thus harming the consumer.
Not necessarily. Market power can be abused to harm anybody, including app developers, and definitely not only the consumer.
What harm has come to developers? They get a very lucrative market at a cut that's less than they used to take. If they don't lower prices the consumer is screwed, and all that happens is one business' revenue is given to another. Look at it this way, some argue Apple's 30/15% cut is way to high and unreasonable. If that is the case, developers should be forced to lower prices for purchase accordingly
Re: (Score:2)
I think they've already started, but really doubt they'll raise upfront costs. They're in a better position once developers have already sunk time and money into creating a product, at which point they can squeeze them by doing things like charging for placement [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think they've already started, but really doubt they'll raise upfront costs. They're in a better position once developers have already sunk time and money into creating a product, at which point they can squeeze them by doing things like charging for placement in the App Store [apple.com]. An upfront cost only lets Apple charge a single fee, but when you're bidding for placement, that's an on-going fee with virtually no cap on it.
Yea, I think smaller developers who cheer this are thinking short term. Apple could raise the develop's fee for starters, and then introduce others such as d/l charges, etc. I was pretty broad in what I meant by upfront costs, meaning any fees or chargers that you get prior to sales, even if Apple waives payment of any accrued fees for d/l etc. until you get sales or for a set period. That would hit small developers harder since they would be paying money up front or accruing money due Apple before they
Re: (Score:2)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue.
If that's the case Apple could just raise fees now. The fee structure has nothing to do with this case or this requirement. Apple isn't some company that desperately needs the revenue to make ends meet.
Heck Apple only recently dropped fees so even if they raise them again developers are still better off than they were at the start of the year.
If developers don't drop prices significantly that would bolster Apple's argument it is not a monopoly that results in higher prices.
Neither Apple nor the regulator was making that argument. This is about who gets to keep profits. Incidentally this is the same case they just lost in California. The
Re: (Score:3)
While on the surface it seems like a good deal; Apple could simply change it's fee structure to make up fo lost revenue.
If that's the case Apple could just raise fees now. The fee structure has nothing to do with this case or this requirement. Apple isn't some company that desperately needs the revenue to make ends meet.
Heck Apple only recently dropped fees so even if they raise them again developers are still better off than they were at the start of the year.
No need to raise fees now; my point is if Apple winds up having to open a significant percentage of sales to alternative payment systems they can simply recoup the losses with new fees; ones that if they require payment before any sales are made will hurt smaller developers who may not have the cash flow to sustain themselves while hoping for their app to be a hit. Apple could take payment out of sales until any the sales revenue exceeeds the accumulated fees, but taht delays payment even though no upfront
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it'll be a problem. Apple's payment system is easy and low friction - you tap "buy" and log in and done.
Using your own third party payment system means you tap a link to buy, go to a website, fill in all your details and then click OK and hope it all goes through. Sure, using Paypal and such might help make it less painful, but it's still a pain to basically change contexts.
Most in-app payments are for instant gratification - oh, you ran out of crystals, buy more? Clicking tap and impulse buying are
Everything will soon be an in-app purchase (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not only that, you'll see a rise in scam apps using third party payment portals and then they'll complain and demand regulation to make sure Apple implements security measures.
The EU always wants its cake and eat it too. Hence they have to rely on other countries to develop a COVID vaccine because they ejected all but the largest Pharma houses and now they're complaining that the companies aren't providing it for free and are looking to implement patent regulation.
Dutch - Paying (Score:2)
Reason⦠(Score:2)