Apple Set to Be Hit by EU Antitrust Order in App Store Fight With Spotify (bloomberg.com) 13
Apple is set to be hit by a ban on its App Store rules that govern music-streaming rivals and a potential hefty fine in the European Union's latest attempt to limit the power of Big Tech. From a report: EU regulators are putting the finishing touches to a decision that would prohibit Apple's practice of blocking music services from pushing their users away from the App Store to alternative subscription options, according to people familiar with the investigation. The decision is slated for early next year, they added. As part of the upcoming decision, Apple runs the risk of a potential fine of as much as 10% of its annual sales -- although EU penalties seldom reach that level and orders for companies to change their business models can be more hard-hitting.
Change how it charges (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the problem. App makers want to use whatever app store they want, potentially cutting Apple out of the deal entirely. Not saying either side is right or wrong, but that's what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the problem. App makers want to use whatever app store they want, potentially cutting Apple out of the deal entirely. Not saying either side is right or wrong, but that's what they want.
No they don't. App makers want to use the most popular app store but don't want to funnel money through Apple's payment processor to do so, which is a very legitimate desire. It's not about the app store, it's about micro payments and subscriptions.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if perhaps Apple and the other stores will simply just split their fees up, and clarify that 3% plus $0.30 is the payment processing fee, and the other 27% is "you are putting this in the most lucrative for app developers device in the world" fee. (I think iOS is still the most profitable app store in terms of paying customers per app download isn't it?)
It's like people forget the 15/30% isn't for the payment processing. It's for the access to the people with pockets willing to pay for those microt
Re:Change how it charges (Score:4, Insightful)
No they don't. App makers want to use the most popular app store but don't want to funnel money through Apple's payment processor to do so, which is a very legitimate desire. It's not about the app store, it's about micro payments and subscriptions.
Precisely. Apple's App Store is the ONLY app store. If there were other app stores allowed, the "most popular" store would be the one that provides the best value to the consumer. That might end up being Apple's app store, but they likely would have to lower or change their charges. If they didn't another app store would, and would become the most popular. See? This is how the market balances itself.
That said, nobody is forced to buy an Apple phone. They know what restrictions they are getting when they purchase, and Apple has nowhere near the majority of the mobile market. So, I don't think Apple can be fairly accused of having a monopoly in this space and therefore this is an unfair judgement of anti-trust.
Re: (Score:3)
You don’t need a monopoly to be anti-competitive. If you’re leveraging your power in one area to stifle competition in another, that may be anti-competitive. In this case, Apple is saying, “It’s our App Store, so you can’t even tell people about a competing means to pay for your service via your own website.” To be clear: we aren’t even talking about competing payment processors for IAP, we’re talking about the freedom to even mention that an alternative exist
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the problem. App makers want to use whatever app store they want, potentially cutting Apple out of the deal entirely. Not saying either side is right or wrong, but that's what they want.
I suspect it's a bit more - they want access to Apple's user base without having to pay for it beyond the tiny developer fee. I wonder if they'd be fine with Apple saying - you can sell elsewhere but we will only host apps offering us exclusive rights to sell online or sell at the lowest price on our store. Once they have choices Apple gets a lot more leeway on how to charge for, and the conditions to be on, the App Store.
If they don't pay why let them in at all? (Score:2)
Re:If they don't pay why let them in at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
If companies don't want to pay to support the costs of keeping the app-store infrastructure going, why should they be allowed in the store at all? If they're going to just leech of of Apple's reach into the market that's not benefitting Apple in any way, just the opposite.
The problem is that Apple don't allow the use of any other app store other than ones they approve for installation from the Apple App Store because if Apple do it that way they get 30% of every sale. So they are forcing companies to use their App Store because there's no alternative other than hacking the phone so you can sideload apps.
Re: If they don't pay why let them in at all? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you want to cross the bridge you have to pay the toll.
Re: (Score:2)
And then all your data belong to Google.
Sure, the hardware is better. But the OS is a privacy nightmare with a horrible UI.
Re: (Score:2)
From Spring 2024, the EU laws require Apple to allow alternative App-stores : https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
This means that straightforward direct installation of apps will also become possible. So it will be irrelevant if you are not Apple's appstore.