Japan To Crack Down on Apple and Google App Store Monopolies (nikkei.com) 51
Japan is preparing regulations that would require tech giants like Apple and Google to allow outside app stores and payments on their mobile operating systems, in a bid to curb abuse of their dominant position in the Japanese market. From a report: Legislation slated to be sent to the parliament in 2024 would restrict moves by platform operators to keep users in the operators' own ecosystems and shut out rivals, focusing mainly on four areas: app stores and payments, search, browsers, and operating systems. The plan is to allow the Japan Fair Trade Commission to impose fines for violations. If this is modeled on existing antitrust law, the penalties would generally amount to around 6% of revenue earned from the problematic activities. The details will be worked out this spring.
The government will determine which companies the legislation applies to, based on criteria such as sales and user numbers. It is expected to affect mainly multinational giants, with no Japanese companies likely to be caught in the net. Apple does not allow apps to be downloaded onto iPhones through channels other than its own App Store. In-app payments also must go through Apple's system, which takes a cut of up to 30%. And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system. These effective monopolies on in-app payments can lead to users paying more for the same content or services on mobile devices than on personal computers.
The government will determine which companies the legislation applies to, based on criteria such as sales and user numbers. It is expected to affect mainly multinational giants, with no Japanese companies likely to be caught in the net. Apple does not allow apps to be downloaded onto iPhones through channels other than its own App Store. In-app payments also must go through Apple's system, which takes a cut of up to 30%. And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system. These effective monopolies on in-app payments can lead to users paying more for the same content or services on mobile devices than on personal computers.
Game Consoles (Score:5, Insightful)
This should apply to game consoles as well, but it probably won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Game consoles are so locked down that it is literally a crime to sell a hacked saved game. Yes, really.
Re: Game Consoles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you honestly saying the Japanese, the people who created Nintendo, couldn't create a smaller version with cellular capabilities? Not to mention losing the huge market of Japan.
Or just create their own app store.
It's not like Japanese culture is quite insular to begin with. Foreign corporations leaving will likely be seen as a win.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on this site.
Re: Game Consoles (Score:2)
That and binaries on operating systems too. I can only run exe files on Windows and it wonâ(TM)t run my ELF files, thatâ(TM)s a monopoly, the Windows App Store should run on my Google Watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Analogy fail. Anyone can make an EXE binary for free and run it on Windows without paying Microsoft anything. The App Store issue is that Apple is actively blocking anyone from being able to make their own App Store on an iOS device.
"Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it means. (Score:2)
>And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.
I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.
Re:"Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mean (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mean (Score:4, Interesting)
If you install the Amazon app through the Amazon App Store can you buy a Kindle book?
Why does Google allow Amazon the keys to install and update apps but F-Droid can't get update permissions?
Does rooting the phone to allow security updates negate Google's monopoly control of updates? How about on unrootable Verizon phones?
Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea (Score:2)
The only way to buy a Kindle book on an Android phone is through Amazon store on a web browser. Kindle is not available in Amazon app store.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything can be called a monopoly if one artificially restricts the market definition.
And tell me what is 'the market definition'? You seem to think one definition you heard at some point is the one everyone should use. This journalist may have meant another one. Generally speaking authorities don't even use the term monopoly. Generally they talk about abuse of market power or a dominant market position. Which Apple and Google have as authorities in the US, Europe and now Japan have judged.
If you prefer the future of computing to be owned and regulated by two companies that's your prerogativ
Re: (Score:2)
Especially in the case of Google, which freely allows users to install, and download apps from, other stores (Amazon Appstore being a notable example). Neither Apple nor Google hold a monopoly on software distribution - developers are free to create and sell games
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I asked what your definition is? You answered with 'Google or Apple' are not a monopoly. Well if that is your definition then yes, by your definition Google and Apple are not a monopoly. Great definition mate.
Let me ask you a another question. If you have a small company and want to build a mobile app for a phones, can you realistically publish it without Google or Apple? If you are a provider of payment systems for applications, could you provide this to app-makers that sell digital products without
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really sophistry to point out the practical problems with "I know it when I see it" [wikipedia.org].
Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea (Score:3)
You are the one playing games of evasion. You willfully refuse to know what words mean, then when called on it you double down on ignorance.
If your ideas can only exist when you are ignorant then they are bad but every definition.
Apple absolutely does have a textbook monopoly over delivering apps to iOS devices. Interestingly, Google has no such monopoly involving Android, yet many people want to pretend they are the same. The only way they are the same is that if you use their official app store you must u
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't having to use Google's payment system a monopoly? There are no other choices for the entire ecosystem, despite being able to get apps from other sources.
Just asking to clarify your position, because from where I sit, that *definitely* puts them squarely in the monopoly seat.
Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it me (Score:2)
You can use other payment systems on Android, but there are restrictions if you deliver your app through the app store. However, Google made changes in Android 12 that make third party app stores first class. Once permission is granted they can do all the same stuff the Google Play store does, such as background updates. Consequently, Google does not have a monopoly on distribution of apps to their devices.
Their insistence that you use their payment system if you deliver your app through their store might s
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they are the same is that if you use their official app store you must use their official payment system
It sounds like a form of illegal tying [wikipedia.org].
Re: "Monopoly" doesn't mean what they think it mea (Score:2)
Monopolies are companies where the government grants exclusive market access or benefits a company through subsidies, immunity or other direct or in-kind benefits.
Pharmaceutical companies, patent trolls etc are examples of true monopolies. Just because you are the only one offering a product or because you are the best at offering a product does not make you a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you just describing 'de jure monopolies' or are you saying that according to your definition only government enforced monopolies are monopolies?
Re: (Score:3)
I have a monopoly on lawn clippings from my yard. Try to come after me for an anti-trust violation.
Anti-trust violations do not care if you're a monopoly or not, being a monopoly is not illegal. They care if you have market influence and if you use that market influence to monopolize the market. Your lawn clippings are not important in the grass industry therefore you will struggle to commit and anti-trust violation even if you wanted to.
Japan isn't doing anything based on a market definition, they are doing something based on market actions.
I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.
Google's billing system only applies to digital goods, not phys
Re: (Score:2)
Anything can be called a monopoly if one artificially restricts the market definition. I have a monopoly on lawn clippings from my yard. Try to come after me for an anti-trust violation.
Amazing, you know more about anti-trust regulation than the lawyers! They should pay you for your intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
>I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.
You obviously don't have any clue what is being discussed, so perhaps you should just keep quiet instead of letting everyone know of your ignorance on the subjects at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything can be called a monopoly if one artificially restricts the market definition. I have a monopoly on lawn clippings from my yard. Try to come after me for an anti-trust violation.
>And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.
I call bullshit. When I order stuff through the Amazon app, it does not get billed through Google.
Nor does that Amazon Purchase go through Apple on iOS. That Transaction is Not an "In-App Purchase".
I remember a conversation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
..from many years ago, when I worked at Disney. The first web browsers had just come out and we all saw the promise of the internet. One executive said.."the only problem with the internet is that we don't own it". The personal computer and internet were invented by people who wanted freedom and control. The corporate weasels hated this, but personal computers and the internet were too hard to exert control over.
When smartphones were invented, the scumballs finally fount a tool of control, a closed system with zero freedom
I generally oppose government action to solve problems, but in this case, I would support it
Re: (Score:2)
The PC was developed by guys at IBM who wanted in on the emerging micro computer market. They threw together a load of off the shelf components, and then the clone builders reverse engineered their BIOS for profit.
The internet started as a military project to survive a nuclear war, and only really took off then for-profit ISPs started offering access to it.
The freedoms that we have arrived largely by accident, and a little bit because businesses hate paying licence fees.
They got greedy (Score:1)
Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover. They have avoided regulation but they only skim about 3%.
Google and Apple had lawyers who said "Those guys are amateurs. Do what we do and skim 30%"
Re:They got greedy (Score:5, Informative)
They were also are regulated, and capped at 1.15% (debit) / 1.5% (credit) in EU. (The card systems that work at national level in EU charge 0.7-0.9%.) The first thing Visa did after Brexit (the EU cap was gone) was to raise the fees 5 fold. UK now proposes to cap them again again https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] https://www.ft.com/content/41d... [ft.com] (both paywalled, sorry for that).
The analogy here regarding the abuse of dominant position that Google is accused of would be: Google = Bank of America (in this though experiment, BoA owns 80% of all banks worldwide); Android applications = retailers who have an account at a bank that belongs to same group as BoA. Businesses with an account within our network of banks is forbidden to accept cash, traveler's checks, MasterCard, PayPal, Bitcoin, Apple Pay, and similar offers; all retailers must use only Visa.
This is what would put Visa in trouble. It does not happen, because every shop is free to accept Visa, MasterCard, Diner's club etc. nobody forces them to refuse some form of payment.
Re: They got greedy (Score:2)
In return the EU Visa system is severely handicapped. Things you have in the US such as card fraud protections simply do not exist, they donâ(TM)t offer true âoecreditâ cards which means that if your credit score decays where they think you become a risk for whatever reason they can simply convert your credit line to debit and collect the money from your bank account without recourse.
Given Visa has competitors, the fees arenâ(TM)t capricious, they represent a value for a service. MasterC
Re: (Score:2)
In return the EU Visa system is severely handicapped. Things you have in the US such as card fraud protections simply do not exist, they donâ(TM)t offer true âoecreditâ cards which means that if your credit score decays where they think you become a risk for whatever reason they can simply convert your credit line to debit and collect the money from your bank account without recourse.
Yow! That's horrible!
Re: (Score:2)
I see it the opposite way. Europeans enjoy cheaper payments. I mean, Visa taxes you 2 more percents on everything you spend, and you're trying to find excuses for that like some fraud protection that should be for free anyway. You definitely can report a payment as fraud in EU and regulations oblige banks to revert online payments when reported as fraud. Also because card fraud is much less relevant crime in EU; 1 billion Euro for EU cards vs 32 billion dollars in US. Data: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Why Google? (Score:3)
Apple's nut needs to be forcibly cracked open, for sure.
But as hateful and obscene as Google's own stranglehold on most aspects of the mobile ecosystem is, they do allow sideloading and 3rd party app stores on Android. So what does Japan reproach them exactly here?
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically for your comment, traditional anti-trust laws are okay with what Apple does, but not okay with what Google does, given that Google actively makes contracts with third parties that prevent those parties from preloading other app stores on their phone. So far Apple has been cleared of anti-trust violations and Google has been issued a record fine.
It doesn't matter if you *can* load a 3rd party app store. The question is how easy is it, both for the user and for a company negotiating with mobile pho
Re: (Score:2)
traditional anti-trust laws are okay with what Apple does
Well, there are many in power who take the view that Apple customers and makers of Apple-compatible software basically willingly put their head in the lion's mouth, and nobody forces them to because they're free to buy an Android cellphone if they're not happy with Apple's private playground.
That's how you end up with this bizarre idea that Apple is the voluntary captive ecosystem that people choose deliberately (i.e. not a forced sale, ergo not a monopoly) and the onus is on Google, as the maker of the def
Re: (Score:2)
traditional anti-trust laws are okay with what Apple does
Well, there are many in power who take the view that Apple customers and makers of Apple-compatible software basically willingly put their head in the lion's mouth, and nobody forces them to because they're free to buy an Android cellphone if they're not happy with Apple's private playground.
That's how you end up with this bizarre idea that Apple is the voluntary captive ecosystem that people choose deliberately (i.e. not a forced sale, ergo not a monopoly) [. . .]
That's not "Bizarre"; That's Freedom Of Choice.
Deal with it.
Will they defend data breach issues too? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
O Apple, our God, we beseech you in our fear.
We are threatened by the evil ones of the earth,
who have conspired against us and your will.
They have hacked our devices and our accounts,
they have spread malware and viruses among us,
they have corrupted our systems and our data.
O Apple, our God, have compassion on us, your faithful.
Protect us from the schemes of the Microsoft and the Linux,
who have rebelled against your authority and your design.
Shatter their devices and their networks,
and shield us from their a
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung is not a "third party" in this circumstance, since they are the hardware vendor. Let this be a good incentive for Apple and Google to harden the OS, though, and improve the sandboxing of userspace apps. I would go further and require that the entire OS be fully open source, it's just too important to get the security right to allow it to be a black box.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung is not a "third party" in this circumstance, since they are the hardware vendor. Let this be a good incentive for Apple and Google to harden the OS, though, and improve the sandboxing of userspace apps. I would go further and require that the entire OS be fully open source, it's just too important to get the security right to allow it to be a black box.
Don't like it? Then build your own Phone and Phone OS.
O Stallman, Our God. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations aren't people and they shouldn't have the same rights as people. In exchange for the liability limiting status of organizing as a corporation, corporations should be required to act in the public interest. It is overwhelmingly in the public interest for the operating systems of widely used communication devices to be fully open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations aren't people and they shouldn't have the same rights as people. In exchange for the liability limiting status of organizing as a corporation, corporations should be required to act in the public interest. It is overwhelmingly in the public interest for the operating systems of widely used communication devices to be fully open source.
I'm sincerely grateful we don't live in your "Utopia", Comrade.
So for Android, there's nothing to do? (Score:2)
Japan is preparing regulations that would require tech giants like Apple and Google to allow outside app stores and payments on their mobile operating systems
Android already allows outside app stores. In Android 12 and later, they can even do unattended upgrades.
If you deliver your app to an Android device some way other than Google Play, you can use whatever payment methods you like. And you don't even have to use Play Services at all, so Google will not be effectively replacing part of your app when Play Services is updated.
Maybe their complaint is actually about allowing other app stores to be preinstalled? That's something Google has fought against, which is