8 ms·

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to othe

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.

coldtea 10y ago
>Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian restrictions and cuts) that the quite liberal App Store. And it having 1 million apps and having pushed 50 billion dollars to developers doesn't really paint it as a "restricted area with tight controls where only Apple benefits" either.
- teacup50 10y ago
  We really need to revisit the purely geographic definition of a "market" when it comes to antitrust law in a digital age.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    No, we really don't. The same things hold true for the non-digital age. If you open a store you can do everything you want in it (within the law of course, can't e.g. refuse to serve blacks), specify how you want it to be run, and sell or not sell whatever you like. Doesn't matter if it serves millions or billions (e.g. McDonalds), as long as there are other vendors with a large aggregated share selling the same goods, you're not a monopoly. Nor does it make sense to. This essentially boils down to: Apple built the iPhone, and they've built iOS SDK, and they've build the App Store, but I, who didn't have anything to do with creating those, want to go there are sell stuff and not be bound by any rules Apple dictates. Sure, one could say "that would be better for the customers", but it's not the customer's store. It's Apples (or Google's, etc). If you want to sell in it, it means you see value in what Apple built (and possible profit for you), but yet you don't want to pay the requested price for this value -- and you feel entitled that you don't have to either.
    - teacup50 10y ago
      No, we really do. You simply punted on addressing what "multiple vendors" means given platform lock-in, and how that relates to traditional geographic definitions of a market. The geographic model is based on the obvious notion that it's unreasonable to expect people to simply pack up and move to a different city to get access to a different vendor. Given the amount of lock-in inherent in these platforms, it seems pretty clear that people can't simply drop their current platform and switch to another one just to access to a different vendor.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  The app store itself is a monopoly. Apple then leverages its monopoly in app stores on Apple's platform into other business (Apple Music, eBooks, digital video, etc). This is anti-competitive behaviour and illegal. Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "The app store itself is a monopoly." No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. "Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations." Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform.
    - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
      > No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores. > Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made. > Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform. You, nor I, have any way of knowing or proving that. This will likely go to SCOTUS in our lifetime, until that happens we won't know the scope of what is a monopolistic market.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        "Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores." Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. "You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made." It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands.
- mortenjorck 10y ago
  It's a widely-held misconception of antitrust law that it only applies to a de facto monopoly. Antitrust laws in the US tend to deal more with anticompetitive behavior that abuses a dominant position in the marketplace – by a business with or without a monopoly. The question then becomes not "does Apple have a monopoly," which it obviously does not, but rather "is Apple abusing its position in the marketplace," which leads to the much trickier question of where to draw the line between legitimately using a dominant position and abusing it.
- canuckintime 10y ago
  DOJ has already previously said the Apple's in-app purchase policy could be investigated for anti-trust violations: https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/ https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple...
  - Bombthecat 10y ago
    Since it is almost three years ago, I guess it is safe to say that it is not happening. Except Spotify for example start to spent millions to push it.
    - canuckintime 10y ago
      The DOJ spent the past three years pursuing the broader case of Apple's collusion with the book publishers — the publishers immediately settled but Apple kept appealing. Those appeals were finally exhausted earlier this year ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/technology/apple-supreme-court-ebook-prices.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/technology/apple-supreme-c... ) so the DOJ might now take the opportunity to tackle Apple's other anti-competitive tactics. Spotify shouldn't have to spend millions to push it. It's a criminal matter not a civil case. The DOJ is duty-bound to investigate complaints.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  anti-trust for anti-competitive practices. Nothing about a monopoly.
3327 10y ago
Curious on what grounds are you making these claims? Would you disagree if this was a startup whom had built an app store over a decade and was getting violated? I am not a fan of jagurnaut tech companies but the rules are the rules. They built it and from what I can see (I am an IOS developer) the payment system is indeed in violation. The guidelines clearly say that apple payment system MUST be used. It doesn't matter if you are Spotify or an indie game dev. is 30% steep? absolutely! But hey if it was my business I would love it its a great margin - so would you. Bottom line is Spotify is in violation and they don't want to pay the 30% which Is understandable but Apple will not budge because they don't half too. TLDR; "Apple to Spotify: Kiss my Ass".
- tomdell 10y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding something. The specific, supposed violations weren't mentioned in the article. It was just mentioned, as an aside, that Spotify claims Apple is pressuring them into forcing all iOS Spotify users through Apple's pricing scheme. If the violation were that Apple was forcing Spotify to pay Apple 30% for subscriptions, then that would be a very clear breach of the spirit of anticompetitive laws in the United States, considering the existence of Apple Music, and considering that it would force Spotify to either raise its prices and reduce its consumer appeal or take a substantial, perhaps fatal, revenue cut.
  - oddevan 10y ago
    Except that's already happened. That's been the rule since the App Store was set up. And Spotify responded by having the in-app price be $13 instead of $10. Spotify's other option is to not allow signups in the app at all; I believe this is what Dropbox and Amazon do to avoid falling afoul of these rules. Spotify is trying to have it both ways here.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      Spotify has pulled the signup process in the app
    - 10y ago
st3v3r 10y ago
If iOS was the only mobile OS out there, then you might have a point. But there's not. There's a decent amount of competition out there.
- Fej 10y ago
  It's a duopoly. I wish it were better but there isn't much choice anymore for consumer smartphones. Windows Phone is dead (even if its market share is >1%, I believe the project has been abandoned) and BlackBerry OS is hanging on but holds a trivial share of the market.
  - NEDM64 10y ago
    There's Amazon besides Microsoft. Duopoly? No, more like Apple and Google are the only good companies out there. And that didn't came from anti-competitive behaviors, but from HARD WORK. Things like Google Maps and Apple Stores are cold hard work that are really meaningful for people's quality of life. Amazon and others don't give any of this to the consumer, that's the reason nobody wants to go with their platforms.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  I read this comment and the other ones, and it is interesting how you guys collectively think that being a monopoly is a prerequisite for an antitrust violation, and decided to debate the existence of a monopoly or not, instead of an actual antitrust issue lol I wonder if this is also a reflection on broader society too because it is very very inaccurate.
j2bax 10y ago
I read a comparison on another forum that I thought made sense... Consider Apple is Walmart and Spotify is wanting to sell their product in Walmart. Is Walmart going to take a cut? Of course they are! What if Spotify asked Walmart to give their product box away free from their stores and inside there was a message that said "Hi there, please come to our website and pay to signup for our service!". How is this any different? Does Walmart have an advantage in its store when it sells its own Great Value products? Yes of course they do. If you don't like it, start your own Big Box store!
- cbreeden 10y ago
  Maybe it's more like: hey, I see that you bought that phone at Walmart. You better give Walmart a 30% cut from that phone bill!
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Apple doesn't get a 30% cut from any user who uses Spotify on iOS, that would be pretty blatant anti-trust. However Apple gets 30% from anyone they handle billing/tracking for. Spotify, if they allow subscriptions purchased in app, is paying Apple for a service. They're free to think that price is way the hell to high and not sell there. What if Spotify got their way? What if any app could embed their own payment system minute? Now Apple has hundreds of millions of users who could easily be defrauded and have their credit card stolen from stuff downloaded from their store. They get sued. As a user, I wouldn't use any of them. The reason I buy so much on iOS is because I trust Apple. I know that if I signed up for a subscription for something it turns out to be a piece of junk, I can easily cancel it with one click. No weird cable company style negotiations. No worrying if some unscrupulous company is going to steal my credit card. Apple has some pretty reasonable reasons for this policy (besides all the obvious selfish/monetary ones).
    - canuckintime 10y ago
      > What if Spotify got their way? What if any app could embed their own payment system minute? Now Apple has hundreds of millions of users who could easily be defrauded and have their credit card stolen from stuff downloaded from their store. They get sued. No, they don't get sued. > As a user, I wouldn't use any of them. The reason I buy so much on iOS is because I trust Apple. I know that if I signed up for a subscription for something it turns out to be a piece of junk, I can easily cancel it with one click. No weird cable company style negotiations. No worrying if some unscrupulous company is going to steal my credit card. Apple has some pretty reasonable reasons for this policy (besides all the obvious selfish/monetary ones). Then Apple should let you as a user decide whether to use those apps. Apple should let other users decide if they prefer Spotify's billing/tracking in-app. After all Apple would still control the iOS App Store so they can ban any unscrupulous companies that try to steal credit cards. It's absurd though that Apple insists that beforehand that they are the only billing/subscription company that their iOS customers can trust; Amazon for example has been handling ecommerce longer than Apple
coderdude 10y ago
I'm guessing you have an agenda and that you've had your apps rejected from both the app store and from Play.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  How would you suggest a neutral third party makes these observations?

coldtea 10y ago

>Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian restrictions and cuts) that the quite liberal App Store. And it having 1 million apps and having pushed 50 billion dollars to developers doesn't really paint it as a "restricted area with tight controls where only Apple benefits" either.

teacup50 10y ago
We really need to revisit the purely geographic definition of a "market" when it comes to antitrust law in a digital age.
- coldtea 10y ago
  No, we really don't. The same things hold true for the non-digital age. If you open a store you can do everything you want in it (within the law of course, can't e.g. refuse to serve blacks), specify how you want it to be run, and sell or not sell whatever you like. Doesn't matter if it serves millions or billions (e.g. McDonalds), as long as there are other vendors with a large aggregated share selling the same goods, you're not a monopoly. Nor does it make sense to. This essentially boils down to: Apple built the iPhone, and they've built iOS SDK, and they've build the App Store, but I, who didn't have anything to do with creating those, want to go there are sell stuff and not be bound by any rules Apple dictates. Sure, one could say "that would be better for the customers", but it's not the customer's store. It's Apples (or Google's, etc). If you want to sell in it, it means you see value in what Apple built (and possible profit for you), but yet you don't want to pay the requested price for this value -- and you feel entitled that you don't have to either.
  - teacup50 10y ago
    No, we really do. You simply punted on addressing what "multiple vendors" means given platform lock-in, and how that relates to traditional geographic definitions of a market. The geographic model is based on the obvious notion that it's unreasonable to expect people to simply pack up and move to a different city to get access to a different vendor. Given the amount of lock-in inherent in these platforms, it seems pretty clear that people can't simply drop their current platform and switch to another one just to access to a different vendor.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
The app store itself is a monopoly. Apple then leverages its monopoly in app stores on Apple's platform into other business (Apple Music, eBooks, digital video, etc). This is anti-competitive behaviour and illegal. Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "The app store itself is a monopoly." No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. "Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations." Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    > No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores. > Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made. > Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform. You, nor I, have any way of knowing or proving that. This will likely go to SCOTUS in our lifetime, until that happens we won't know the scope of what is a monopolistic market.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      "Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores." Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. "You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made." It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands.
mortenjorck 10y ago
It's a widely-held misconception of antitrust law that it only applies to a de facto monopoly. Antitrust laws in the US tend to deal more with anticompetitive behavior that abuses a dominant position in the marketplace – by a business with or without a monopoly. The question then becomes not "does Apple have a monopoly," which it obviously does not, but rather "is Apple abusing its position in the marketplace," which leads to the much trickier question of where to draw the line between legitimately using a dominant position and abusing it.
canuckintime 10y ago
DOJ has already previously said the Apple's in-app purchase policy could be investigated for anti-trust violations: https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/ https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple...
- Bombthecat 10y ago
  Since it is almost three years ago, I guess it is safe to say that it is not happening. Except Spotify for example start to spent millions to push it.
  - canuckintime 10y ago
    The DOJ spent the past three years pursuing the broader case of Apple's collusion with the book publishers — the publishers immediately settled but Apple kept appealing. Those appeals were finally exhausted earlier this year ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/technology/apple-supreme-court-ebook-prices.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/technology/apple-supreme-c... ) so the DOJ might now take the opportunity to tackle Apple's other anti-competitive tactics. Spotify shouldn't have to spend millions to push it. It's a criminal matter not a civil case. The DOJ is duty-bound to investigate complaints.
cloudjacker 10y ago
anti-trust for anti-competitive practices. Nothing about a monopoly.

3327 10y ago

Curious on what grounds are you making these claims? Would you disagree if this was a startup whom had built an app store over a decade and was getting violated? I am not a fan of jagurnaut tech companies but the rules are the rules. They built it and from what I can see (I am an IOS developer) the payment system is indeed in violation. The guidelines clearly say that apple payment system MUST be used. It doesn't matter if you are Spotify or an indie game dev. is 30% steep? absolutely! But hey if it was my business I would love it its a great margin - so would you. Bottom line is Spotify is in violation and they don't want to pay the 30% which Is understandable but Apple will not budge because they don't half too. TLDR; "Apple to Spotify: Kiss my Ass".

tomdell 10y ago
I think you're misunderstanding something. The specific, supposed violations weren't mentioned in the article. It was just mentioned, as an aside, that Spotify claims Apple is pressuring them into forcing all iOS Spotify users through Apple's pricing scheme. If the violation were that Apple was forcing Spotify to pay Apple 30% for subscriptions, then that would be a very clear breach of the spirit of anticompetitive laws in the United States, considering the existence of Apple Music, and considering that it would force Spotify to either raise its prices and reduce its consumer appeal or take a substantial, perhaps fatal, revenue cut.
- oddevan 10y ago
  Except that's already happened. That's been the rule since the App Store was set up. And Spotify responded by having the in-app price be $13 instead of $10. Spotify's other option is to not allow signups in the app at all; I believe this is what Dropbox and Amazon do to avoid falling afoul of these rules. Spotify is trying to have it both ways here.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Spotify has pulled the signup process in the app
  - 10y ago

st3v3r 10y ago

If iOS was the only mobile OS out there, then you might have a point. But there's not. There's a decent amount of competition out there.

Fej 10y ago
It's a duopoly. I wish it were better but there isn't much choice anymore for consumer smartphones. Windows Phone is dead (even if its market share is >1%, I believe the project has been abandoned) and BlackBerry OS is hanging on but holds a trivial share of the market.
- NEDM64 10y ago
  There's Amazon besides Microsoft. Duopoly? No, more like Apple and Google are the only good companies out there. And that didn't came from anti-competitive behaviors, but from HARD WORK. Things like Google Maps and Apple Stores are cold hard work that are really meaningful for people's quality of life. Amazon and others don't give any of this to the consumer, that's the reason nobody wants to go with their platforms.
cloudjacker 10y ago
I read this comment and the other ones, and it is interesting how you guys collectively think that being a monopoly is a prerequisite for an antitrust violation, and decided to debate the existence of a monopoly or not, instead of an actual antitrust issue lol I wonder if this is also a reflection on broader society too because it is very very inaccurate.

j2bax 10y ago

I read a comparison on another forum that I thought made sense... Consider Apple is Walmart and Spotify is wanting to sell their product in Walmart. Is Walmart going to take a cut? Of course they are! What if Spotify asked Walmart to give their product box away free from their stores and inside there was a message that said "Hi there, please come to our website and pay to signup for our service!". How is this any different? Does Walmart have an advantage in its store when it sells its own Great Value products? Yes of course they do. If you don't like it, start your own Big Box store!

cbreeden 10y ago
Maybe it's more like: hey, I see that you bought that phone at Walmart. You better give Walmart a 30% cut from that phone bill!
- MBCook 10y ago
  Apple doesn't get a 30% cut from any user who uses Spotify on iOS, that would be pretty blatant anti-trust. However Apple gets 30% from anyone they handle billing/tracking for. Spotify, if they allow subscriptions purchased in app, is paying Apple for a service. They're free to think that price is way the hell to high and not sell there. What if Spotify got their way? What if any app could embed their own payment system minute? Now Apple has hundreds of millions of users who could easily be defrauded and have their credit card stolen from stuff downloaded from their store. They get sued. As a user, I wouldn't use any of them. The reason I buy so much on iOS is because I trust Apple. I know that if I signed up for a subscription for something it turns out to be a piece of junk, I can easily cancel it with one click. No weird cable company style negotiations. No worrying if some unscrupulous company is going to steal my credit card. Apple has some pretty reasonable reasons for this policy (besides all the obvious selfish/monetary ones).
  - canuckintime 10y ago
    > What if Spotify got their way? What if any app could embed their own payment system minute? Now Apple has hundreds of millions of users who could easily be defrauded and have their credit card stolen from stuff downloaded from their store. They get sued. No, they don't get sued. > As a user, I wouldn't use any of them. The reason I buy so much on iOS is because I trust Apple. I know that if I signed up for a subscription for something it turns out to be a piece of junk, I can easily cancel it with one click. No weird cable company style negotiations. No worrying if some unscrupulous company is going to steal my credit card. Apple has some pretty reasonable reasons for this policy (besides all the obvious selfish/monetary ones). Then Apple should let you as a user decide whether to use those apps. Apple should let other users decide if they prefer Spotify's billing/tracking in-app. After all Apple would still control the iOS App Store so they can ban any unscrupulous companies that try to steal credit cards. It's absurd though that Apple insists that beforehand that they are the only billing/subscription company that their iOS customers can trust; Amazon for example has been handling ecommerce longer than Apple

coderdude 10y ago

I'm guessing you have an agenda and that you've had your apps rejected from both the app store and from Play.

cloudjacker 10y ago
How would you suggest a neutral third party makes these observations?