Proton Joins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple's App Store Practices (theregister.com) 26
Encrypted communications provider Proton has joined an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, filing a legal complaint that claims the company's App Store practices harm developers, consumers, and privacy. The Switzerland-based firm joined a group of Korean developers who sued Apple in May rather than filing a separate case.
Proton asked the US District Court for Northern California to require Apple to allow alternative app stores, expose those stores through its own App Store, permit developers to disable Apple's in-app payment system, and provide full access to Apple APIs. The company added a privacy-focused argument to typical antitrust complaints, contending that Apple's pricing model particularly penalizes companies that refuse to harvest user data. Developers of free apps typically sell user data to cover costs, while privacy-focused companies like Proton must charge subscriptions for revenue, making Apple's commission cuts more burdensome.
Proton asked the US District Court for Northern California to require Apple to allow alternative app stores, expose those stores through its own App Store, permit developers to disable Apple's in-app payment system, and provide full access to Apple APIs. The company added a privacy-focused argument to typical antitrust complaints, contending that Apple's pricing model particularly penalizes companies that refuse to harvest user data. Developers of free apps typically sell user data to cover costs, while privacy-focused companies like Proton must charge subscriptions for revenue, making Apple's commission cuts more burdensome.
Hypocrites (Score:1)
They want to allow "choice" to use THEIR payment system, but also the ability to DISABLE Apple's payment system, thereby disabling the same choice for consumers who want to use it.
Fucking hypocrites!
exactly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Plus, all your shit is in one place, instead of random payment systems spread throughout the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there are benefits to Apple's monopoly, isn't the point. The point is that app developers have no choice, if they want to sell an app or services within an app, they must do it through Apple and Google, an effective duopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
They want to allow "choice" to use THEIR payment system, but also the ability to DISABLE Apple's payment system, thereby disabling the same choice for consumers who want to use it.
Fucking hypocrites!
I think that perhaps Proton doesn't really care about - FTA - "allowing developers to disable Apple's in-app payment system and to gain full access to Apple APIs". I suspect it may be a negotiating tactic: ask for more than you really want so there's something to concede at the appropriate time.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike Apple, Proton isn't a monopoly. When you dominate a market, the rules of ethics and legality change. If you're a small company, you are free to require your customers to sign exclusive deals with you, in order to do business with them. It's legally and ethically OK because customers have somewhere else to go. But if you dominate a market, it's no longer OK to require customers to strike such deals, because they have nowhere else to turn. This is literally the core of antitrust law.
So no, it's not hyp
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike Apple, Proton isn't a monopoly. When you dominate a market, the rules of ethics and legality change. If you're a small company, you are free to require your customers to sign exclusive deals with you, in order to do business with them. It's legally and ethically OK because customers have somewhere else to go. But if you dominate a market, it's no longer OK to require customers to strike such deals, because they have nowhere else to turn. This is literally the core of antitrust law.
So no, it's not hypocritical, even if your contention is true.
But Apple doesn't dominate the smartphone market!
Alleging that Apple Dominating the "iPhone Market" constitutes "monopolistic behavior" is ridiculous on its face.
But that is what is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple does in fact own 60% of the smartphone market in the US, that's beside the point.
We're not talking about the smartphone market.
The market in question, is the smartphone *app* marketplace. If you are an app developer, and you want to reach customers, you cannot sidestep Apple, you *must* do business with Apple. If you choose not to do business with Apple, you forfeit access to 60% of the smartphone marketplace. This is why antitrust law applies.
Re: (Score:2)
While Apple does in fact own 60% of the smartphone market in the US, that's beside the point.
We're not talking about the smartphone market.
The market in question, is the smartphone *app* marketplace. If you are an app developer, and you want to reach customers, you cannot sidestep Apple, you *must* do business with Apple. If you choose not to do business with Apple, you forfeit access to 60% of the smartphone marketplace. This is why antitrust law applies.
What if Apple HAD no App Store, and the iPhone only allowed Web Apps? Would the Courts be justified in forcing them to Create an App Store structure comparable to Google Play?
Their Platform; their Rules. You can’t Punish someone for coming up with a better idea!
Re: (Score:2)
Their platform, their rules...applies ONLY until you control a market to the extent that market participants MUST do business with you, if they want to be part of the market at all. As soon as you do have that level of control, it's your platform, *government* rules. Clearly, you don't understand the nature or rationale behind antitrust law. I recommend some reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apple was well within their rights to apply whatever app store rules they wanted, while Apple was small and t
Re: (Score:2)
Their platform, their rules...applies ONLY until you control a market to the extent that market participants MUST do business with you, if they want to be part of the market at all. As soon as you do have that level of control, it's your platform, *government* rules. Clearly, you don't understand the nature or rationale behind antitrust law. I recommend some reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apple was well within their rights to apply whatever app store rules they wanted, while Apple was small and trying to build a new marketplace. Once that marketplace became ubiquitous, they lose the right to apply whatever app store rules they want.
The web app conjecture doesn't matter, it's not about what technology is specified. What matters is, do you have the market dominance to dictate terms because you don't have to compete anymore.
Oh, so you really think that Apple "[. . . ] doesn't have to compete anymore"???
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are again confusing the nature of the marketplace. This is not about the cell phone marketplace. It's about the app store marketplace.
If you want to get an app to smartphone users, you have no choice but to list your app on Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store. There are no other ways to reach the vast majority of smartphone users. You, the app developer, do not have a choice. You have to suck it up and live with Apple and Google's policies, you can't take your business elsewhere if you don
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are again confusing the nature of the marketplace. This is not about the cell phone marketplace. It's about the app store marketplace.
If you want to get an app to smartphone users, you have no choice but to list your app on Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store. There are no other ways to reach the vast majority of smartphone users. You, the app developer, do not have a choice. You have to suck it up and live with Apple and Google's policies, you can't take your business elsewhere if you don't like it.
So no, Apple and Google do not have to compete to attract developers to their platforms. Their terms are equally onerous, almost as if they colluded to keep prices high.
Or maybe, just maybe, they both looked at the costs of maintaining their App Stores, Approval Processes, and Payment Processing, and came to about the same conclusion regarding a reasonable Commission.
And no, I'm not confused at all. Android allows Sideloading; therefore, a reasonable Consumer has a Choice, and so do App Developers. Too bad the old independent software distribution model isn't seen as more desirable to most Consumers; that's simply Market Forces.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Apple and Google commissions aren't reasonable. They charge separate developer fees to cover the approval process. The commission, then, is the question. We can compare this to other online marketplaces, like Shopify, which handles hosting and payment processing, for about 3%.
Even if their commissions were reasonable, that's not the point. The point is that if you're a developer, you can't say no to Apple and Google. You have to do what they say, and if you don't like it, you can't take your business el
Re: (Score:2)
No, Apple and Google commissions aren't reasonable. They charge separate developer fees to cover the approval process. The commission, then, is the question. We can compare this to other online marketplaces, like Shopify, which handles hosting and payment processing, for about 3%.
Even if their commissions were reasonable, that's not the point. The point is that if you're a developer, you can't say no to Apple and Google. You have to do what they say, and if you don't like it, you can't take your business elsewhere. That by itself is a problem.
Sideloading isn't a real workaround. The system requires you to disable security "protections", and presents scary warnings about security, intimidating all but the most determined.
Sideloading isn't an option for developers who want to reach 60% of the market that has iPhones.
If Shopify is so great; then why not a giant Exodus from Google Play?
Those Scary Warnings are there for a Reason; sorry that the "Developer Community" has historically Proven time and again to be, to a truly unfortunate percentage, to absolutely warrant them, as well as all those Security Restrictions!
The Bad Actors have made it this way. Now STFU!
Re: (Score:2)
Developers can't exodus from Google Play because if they do, they'll be invisible to the vast majority of Android users. That's the very definition of market dominance.
My point about Shopify was to compare pricing for payment processing with the App Store payment processing services. Your response completely misses the point.
Google and Apple use their marketplace dominance (i.e., if your app isn't there, it don't exist) to gouge developers for payment processing. These should not be a package. Listing an Ap
Re: (Score:2)
Developers can't exodus from Google Play because if they do, they'll be invisible to the vast majority of Android users. That's the very definition of market dominance.
My point about Shopify was to compare pricing for payment processing with the App Store payment processing services. Your response completely misses the point.
Google and Apple use their marketplace dominance (i.e., if your app isn't there, it don't exist) to gouge developers for payment processing. These should not be a package. Listing an App on the App Store should not require you to use the App Store's payment processing services, which are not competitive.
The App Store market dominance establishes that Apple and Google have a duopoly. Changing unreasonable prices for payment processing, is something the two giants can do because of their market dominance, not because their payment processing is so special.
Payment Processing is only part of the story, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! Apple shouldn't insist that payment processing can't be separated from other costs. Forced bundling at high cost is the definition of abusive behavior.
Apple offers several distinct services:
- A marketplace for developers to sell their software
- Infrastructure/hosting that enables that software
- Payment processing
Other types of internet providers offer all these things, as separate items. You can get your web hosting from one place, your marketing from another place, and your payment processing from
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! Apple shouldn't insist that payment processing can't be separated from other costs. Forced bundling at high cost is the definition of abusive behavior.
Apple offers several distinct services:
- A marketplace for developers to sell their software
- Infrastructure/hosting that enables that software
- Payment processing
Other types of internet providers offer all these things, as separate items. You can get your web hosting from one place, your marketing from another place, and your payment processing from a third. They compete for customers based on service and price. Apple doesn't do that, they just mandate that you get all three from them.
It all got bundled because of the perceived (and arguably correct) Concept of a Curated Software Collection.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing about curating a software collection, that requires bundling payment processing for everything the user does inside the app.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing about curating a software collection, that requires bundling payment processing for everything the user does inside the app.
You're right.
But more than one Slashdotter here has Commented about how much safer and convenient Apple's Secure, One-Stop Payment Processing and One-Stop, No-Fuss Subscription and In-App Purchasing Management, not to mention the One-Stop, Secure, no-fuss Distribution and Updating System is than the bad old days of "Shareware".
Sure, all that shit CAN be spewed all over the Internet (again); but where is the Value to the User?
Re: (Score:2)
You keep talking about the phone user as the customer. In this context, the *app developer* is the customer.
If Apple's payment system is really so great and convenient, developers will flock to it, because they will want users to be happy, and they'll want users to buy their app, or things sold in their app.
If the app developer thinks customers want to use the Apple payment system, they can chose to use the Apple payment system. That's not a problem. The problem is, they don't get to choose a different paym
Re: (Score:2)
You keep talking about the phone user as the customer. In this context, the *app developer* is the customer.
If Apple's payment system is really so great and convenient, developers will flock to it, because they will want users to be happy, and they'll want users to buy their app, or things sold in their app.
If the app developer thinks customers want to use the Apple payment system, they can chose to use the Apple payment system. That's not a problem. The problem is, they don't get to choose a different payment system with lower fees. If they could choose, Apple might just have to make their fee structure...*competitive*. Wouldn't that be a thing! Then they could win over developers by competing, instead of by dictating.
You *really* don't understand antitrust law, do you!
Wrong.
The Developer is the VENDOR in this Relationship. First, Last and Always.
Kraft is not the Customer of Walmart; just because they sell their Macaroni and Cheese there.
Apple is looking out for their Customers; too bad if the Suppliers don’t like the Terms THEY AGREED TO.
I feel for them not a whit.
Re: (Score:2)
In real life, it's possible to be both a vendor and a customer at the same time. In your example, Kraft is both a vendor and a customer.
Some brands, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi and Frio-Lay, transport their products to Walmart stores in their own trucks, using their own employees to place inventory on Walmart's shelves.
Other (usually smaller) brands, ship their products in bulk to Walmart distribution centers, after which Walmart employees distribute the products to the stores and stock the shelves. Walmart
Class Action (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)