17 ms·

Antitrust, the App Store, and Apple

119 points by djug 8y ago

kyleandrew 8y ago
I've been thinking about this case a lot as it compares to the investment industry and it's troubling. Apple is the "market maker" here, not unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ and they certainly add value to the consumer and the developer by facilitating sales for devs and offering some level of protection for the customer. Apple of course deserves to be compensated for that value-add. On the other hand, Apple has built this "walled garden", which is another way of saying monopoly, and that comes at a cost to both the consumer (higher prices) and innovation (devs spend time/effort/energy complying with Apple's app store policies). I'm not terribly familiar with the case law but I do know that NYSE has had at least a handful of similar antitrust cases in the past. I'm not sure if the cases were getting at transaction costs but the crux of every antitrust suit is generally that XYZ action by a monopoly leads to unjustifiably higher prices. It occurred to me that as a result of this case Apple might change their pricing structure to align with the pricing strategy stock exchanges typically use. That is, a nominal transaction fee that covers only the cost of the transaction but then charges the companies an annual "listing fee." That would be awful for innovation, small developers, and by extensions, consumers who would then having fewer apps to choose from. I suppose thats just a long way of me saying that I fear the Plaintiffs may actually hurt consumers more in the long run.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > It occurred to me that as a result of this case Apple might change their pricing structure to align with the pricing strategy stock exchanges typically use. That is, a nominal transaction fee that covers only the cost of the transaction but then charges the companies an annual "listing fee." FWIW, Apple already charges an annual fee of $99 to enroll in their Developer Program, which is required to list apps on the App Store: https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    Plus the mandatory cost of an Apple computer.
- scarface74 8y ago
  devs spend time/effort/energy complying with Apple's app store policies). And that’s a good thing. Nintendo figured out in the 80s that crap devalues your platform and they had to approve what games were allowed to run on it. They saw what happened to Atari. I’ll download basically anything on my iPhone because I know an app can’t do much damage - unlike a Windows computer or a Mac.
  - kyleandrew 8y ago
    I absolutely agree from a consumer perspective. From the developer side though I'm certain that there are some app store policies dev's have to comply with that benefit neither consumer nor developer and are solely in Apple's interest. I guess it's just interesting to me because Apple is both the market and the market regulator here. Continuing with my stock exchange analogy Apple plays the role of NYSE and the SEC. The nature of wearing both hats means there are going to be conflicts of interest and Apple has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not to their consumers. I see both sides but struggle to see a solution that doesn't leave app store customers worse off.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - lostgame 8y ago
    Macs are much less so these days. The numerous security constraints that have evolved over time make running insecure software, or even a lot of third party software, a bit of a pain in the arse.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      And that’s a good thing. The average user is more secure and the advanced user can jump through a few hoops.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    The App store is completely full of crap. It's easily 99% crap. 20000 new game apps come out a month. 19900 of them are crap. 90 are mildly interesting, 10 are maybe ok at most. Apple is in no way copying Nintendo here. There are 2 million apps. There were less than 1000 apps for Atari. Not being able to do damage as nothing to do with the store. It has to do with whether or not iOS's sandbox is secure.
scarface74 8y ago
While I don’t care either way about the lawsuit, he did make one great point. Apple under Tim Cook is more concerned about being profitable through rent seeking than making products that people are willing to pay a premium for. On an unrelated note, when people call Apple a monopoly because the only way that you can reach IOS users is via the App Store, I always say how is that different than the console makers[1]? But even more broadly, if you want to reach Facebook users you have to go through the Facebook and the same with Google and Amazon. How are any of the other platform providers any different? [1] yes the physical media you buy for consoles still has to be approved by the console makers, they are cryptographically signed and they have to pay a license fee to the console makers.
- DavideNL 8y ago
  > How are any of the other platform providers any different? One thing that comes to mind is that a phone is much more personal, carries much more personal data (health data, banking, etc.), and it's something you often interact with the entire day, every day. So, with Apple closing down the iOS system (for example you cannot inspect/debug ios apps like you can do with apps on a laptop), you end up having less transparency and less control over what apps do with your personal data.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Your control over which apps have your personal data is far greater on iOS than Windows. You’re not going to inspect every app that you run on your computer, but an app on an iOS device is very limited by both the sandbox that they are in and the granular permissions that iOS provides.
    - TheForumTroll 8y ago
      > iOS than Windows Unless you mean Windows on a phone that is completely irrelevant. Unless (when) Apple starts putting only iOS on PC's.
      - 8y ago
shmerl 8y ago
A functional anti-trust would have blasted Apple a long time ago for banning competing browsers on iOS. And I mean really competing ones, that aren't using Apple's browser engine.
- dep_b 8y ago
  Browsers are huge attack vectors as they allow you to run arbitrary code. I wouldn't say there isn't a case to not allow third parties to run a platform in your platform.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    It's not an excuse to violate anti-trust. MS were blasted for this, but Apple got away with this foul behavior.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Microsoft got hit for using their monopoly in one market (the market for operating systems) illegally to try to obtain better/monopoly status in another market (the market for web browsers. If you have an evidence-based argument to make that Apple has a monopoly in the market for mobile operating systems and has illegally used it to try to obtain a monopoly in the market for web browsers, I would be intrigued to hear it. (in other words, not every bundled web browser is automatically a violation of antitrust law; nor is every attempt to forbid something on iOS automatically a violation)
      - shmerl 8y ago
        In other words, you are giving an excuse to Apple, based on the current handicapped anti-trust practice by the courts. I don't see it as a valid excuse. Apple are clearly damaging the industry and market with their behavior. By blocking major features in their browser and banning all other browsers, they are forcing others into supporting their specific requirements, because otherwise they won't be able to reach iOS users. Examples like trying to sabotage DASH for video streaming by not supporting MSE on iOS are quite obvious. Anti-trust was intended to prevent such kind of outcomes. But it was diluted to the point of being practically useless, allowing the likes of Apple to run amok with their monopolistic garbage.
lbacaj 8y ago
I love the analysis that Ben does on so many pressing tech related issues. I agree with the majority of what he said but I disagree that it is that clear cut that Apple’s rent seeking isn’t hurting costumers. While I’m no lawyer either, the Supreme Court case that is relevant here was dealing with the state of Illinois as a customer and the mass consumer markets are two different things and I believe the Supreme Court will deal with this in a separate lens. Could be very well that Apple does win but the fact that a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store shows clearly that in fact this does harm customers. I think the Supreme Court could rule in a whole other direction on this because of that fact coupled with Apple allowing no other competition on the platform, meaning no way to download a second App Store or even link to purchasing the product on a website especially for digital goods.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  > a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store That's Spotify's choice though, right? They could charge iOS IAP subscribers the exact same price as non-IAP subscribers and absorb the 30% loss in much the same way a bunch of supermarkets absorb various unpopular taxes.
  - musiclover76 8y ago
    Not really. Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders. Spotify’s profits on a subscription are likely much less than 30%. They would go bankrupt if they tried to match Apple Music’s App Store price.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders. Whereas the products in a supermarket appear from nowhere without any money changing hands?
- nihonde 8y ago
dkrich 8y ago
I agree with most of the article, but don't really like how it just breezes through this part: [Apple] can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population. But it is something special precisely because Apple has enforced such strict quality control measures for its apps. It has refused lots of apps because allowing them would damage users' trust of its store. So just having an app show up in the store is a signal of quality. This is precisely why the store can reach 50% of the market. This is significant because without those standards from day one, I don't think Apple would have achieved its reputation as best in class which allowed it to gain the leadership position it has. So its a symbiotic relationship and you can't just focus on one side of the equation. There probably aren't a lot of people who remember the Palm app experience which was way before the App Store. Apps were horribly unreliable and one had to rely on outside reviewers to determine which if any should be installed. Granted technology has changed drastically since then so its not an entirely fair comparison, but still I believe that you can't simply look at the App Store as a provider that could be replicated by anyone in the exact same manner as Apple if only they were allowed to. I do agree that users shouldn't be restricted from visiting other sites from within apps or even download from outside sources if a particular developer chooses to release its apps through an outside distributor.
- pentae 8y ago
  You nailed it on the head in your last sentence. Consumers can enjoy all of the benefits you mentioned with the App Store but should still have the ability to side load apps from Safari with a big "Warning - this app is not approved by Apple and may harm your device" popup. The fact that it's not even remotely an option like it is on Android devices is the issue. As a developer I want to be able to provide my customers with my iOS software without going through the app store, and if they don't want to load it that's up to them. But we should all have a choice.
  - macintux 8y ago
    Part of the reason Android has a reputation as a malware-ridden platform is due to that freedom of choice.
amelius 8y ago
The same arguments hold for the entire platform-economy. See also: Uber, AirBnb, Amazon, UberEats, ... We need some new laws, fast.
- nabnob 8y ago
  Yup. Anti-trust legislation has lost its teeth. Analyzing monopolies based on whether there is harm for the individual consumer is completely insufficient for determining whether a company is a monopoly. From "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox", in the Yale Law Journal: >This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
  - pitaj 8y ago
    If a monopoly exists, and doesn't harm the consumer, what's the issue?
    - shadofx 8y ago
      Tracking users and showing ads is blatant harm. Controlling the market and raising costs for sellers results in those costs being passed on to the buyer, causing indirect harm.
AlexandrB 8y ago
I think what bothers me most about Apple's behaviour with the App Store is this: > Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can. 30% is a huge cut for what amounts to hosting, payment processing, and basic QA. Despite taking this big chunk, quality control in the App Store feels like it's on the decline - with a bunch of malware and scams slipping through in recent years. And of course, charging 30% for non-app content distributed through the App Store is completely insane.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  How does Apple get a 30% cut out of me using Netflix? If I want Netflix, I go to netflix.com, sign up and give them payment information, and then use my browser, or Netflix apps on phones, TVs, etc. The Netflix iOS app is listed as free to download. Where is Apple's 30% cut of my Netflix subscription coming from? Same for Amazon's Kindle and video apps. Same for Spotify's app. The trend there seems to be they make the app free, and let you sign up and pay for their service on their own website (which you can do in Safari on iOS, if you want to). So I don't understand how Apple's "skimming" anything out of those apps -- 30% of $0 is $0.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You can buy a Netflix subscription through the App Store but you don’t have to. Netflix must have decided it was worth it.
  - luigi23 8y ago
    Here are the rules: you can offer subscription on your site, but you can't link to it in the app. If you want to buy a subscription for Netflix/Spotify in the app, then Apple will take 30% cut. Some sites give this option with increased price by 30% to move payments to their sites, some don't.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      I know you can offer subscriptions and purchases in the app. I just don't understand how anyone thinks Netflix, Amazon, etc are forced to, because they aren't.
throwaway122378 8y ago
This should be looking at allowing users porting capabilities for their Apps from iOS to Android (or others). That’s the real monopoly across all platforms and devices, not the App Store.
andrewla 8y ago
Full transcript of oral arguments : https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-204_32q3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
makecheck 8y ago
I would add to this that there is no way for developers to actually know what their sales are without depending on Apple APIs, there is no way to even communicate with customers without Apple APIs, etc. Furthermore, Apple forces you to take out a short-term loan with them because they won’t pay you until some threshold is met every month or so (great, let me tell my web host to not charge fees this month). Sometimes they will not show you any numbers at all, even for history that you know is nonzero, if your app falls below threshold for awhile. And these are completely unnecessary Apple dependencies.
- willio58 8y ago
  What would you suggest for knowing sales of apps without Apple's APIs? Basically all of these issues come from Apple requiring all apps to be sold through their store. For the end-user experience this has proved very good.
auslander 8y ago
It is a counter-attack by Adtech industry. They were not amused by Safari ITP 2.0 and other Apple privacy features. iPhone market share in US is ~50%.
thstart 8y ago
“Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.” The author is obviously not developer to see what Apple provides for their 30%: 1) publishing platform. 2) hosting services 3) payment services 4) customer support for payment support. 5) testing platform 6) analytics platform 7) advertising platform And so on... If you are developer just try to implement a payment system and support it with phone . Good luck.

119 points by djug 8y ago

I've been thinking about this case a lot as it compares to the investment industry and it's troubling. Apple is the "market maker" here, not unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ and they certainly add value to the consumer and the developer by facilitating sales for devs and offering some level of protection for the customer. Apple of course deserves to be compensated for that value-add. On the other hand, Apple has built this "walled garden", which is another way of saying monopoly, and that comes at a cost to both the consumer (higher prices) and innovation (devs spend time/effort/energy complying with Apple's app store policies). I'm not terribly familiar with the case law but I do know that NYSE has had at least a handful of similar antitrust cases in the past. I'm not sure if the cases were getting at transaction costs but the crux of every antitrust suit is generally that XYZ action by a monopoly leads to unjustifiably higher prices. It occurred to me that as a result of this case Apple might change their pricing structure to align with the pricing strategy stock exchanges typically use. That is, a nominal transaction fee that covers only the cost of the transaction but then charges the companies an annual "listing fee." That would be awful for innovation, small developers, and by extensions, consumers who would then having fewer apps to choose from. I suppose thats just a long way of me saying that I fear the Plaintiffs may actually hurt consumers more in the long run.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
> It occurred to me that as a result of this case Apple might change their pricing structure to align with the pricing strategy stock exchanges typically use. That is, a nominal transaction fee that covers only the cost of the transaction but then charges the companies an annual "listing fee." FWIW, Apple already charges an annual fee of $99 to enroll in their Developer Program, which is required to list apps on the App Store: https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Plus the mandatory cost of an Apple computer.
scarface74 8y ago
devs spend time/effort/energy complying with Apple's app store policies). And that’s a good thing. Nintendo figured out in the 80s that crap devalues your platform and they had to approve what games were allowed to run on it. They saw what happened to Atari. I’ll download basically anything on my iPhone because I know an app can’t do much damage - unlike a Windows computer or a Mac.
- kyleandrew 8y ago
  I absolutely agree from a consumer perspective. From the developer side though I'm certain that there are some app store policies dev's have to comply with that benefit neither consumer nor developer and are solely in Apple's interest. I guess it's just interesting to me because Apple is both the market and the market regulator here. Continuing with my stock exchange analogy Apple plays the role of NYSE and the SEC. The nature of wearing both hats means there are going to be conflicts of interest and Apple has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not to their consumers. I see both sides but struggle to see a solution that doesn't leave app store customers worse off.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- lostgame 8y ago
  Macs are much less so these days. The numerous security constraints that have evolved over time make running insecure software, or even a lot of third party software, a bit of a pain in the arse.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And that’s a good thing. The average user is more secure and the advanced user can jump through a few hoops.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  The App store is completely full of crap. It's easily 99% crap. 20000 new game apps come out a month. 19900 of them are crap. 90 are mildly interesting, 10 are maybe ok at most. Apple is in no way copying Nintendo here. There are 2 million apps. There were less than 1000 apps for Atari. Not being able to do damage as nothing to do with the store. It has to do with whether or not iOS's sandbox is secure.

scarface74 8y ago

While I don’t care either way about the lawsuit, he did make one great point. Apple under Tim Cook is more concerned about being profitable through rent seeking than making products that people are willing to pay a premium for. On an unrelated note, when people call Apple a monopoly because the only way that you can reach IOS users is via the App Store, I always say how is that different than the console makers[1]? But even more broadly, if you want to reach Facebook users you have to go through the Facebook and the same with Google and Amazon. How are any of the other platform providers any different? [1] yes the physical media you buy for consoles still has to be approved by the console makers, they are cryptographically signed and they have to pay a license fee to the console makers.

DavideNL 8y ago
> How are any of the other platform providers any different? One thing that comes to mind is that a phone is much more personal, carries much more personal data (health data, banking, etc.), and it's something you often interact with the entire day, every day. So, with Apple closing down the iOS system (for example you cannot inspect/debug ios apps like you can do with apps on a laptop), you end up having less transparency and less control over what apps do with your personal data.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Your control over which apps have your personal data is far greater on iOS than Windows. You’re not going to inspect every app that you run on your computer, but an app on an iOS device is very limited by both the sandbox that they are in and the granular permissions that iOS provides.
  - TheForumTroll 8y ago
    > iOS than Windows Unless you mean Windows on a phone that is completely irrelevant. Unless (when) Apple starts putting only iOS on PC's.
    - 8y ago

shmerl 8y ago

A functional anti-trust would have blasted Apple a long time ago for banning competing browsers on iOS. And I mean really competing ones, that aren't using Apple's browser engine.

dep_b 8y ago
Browsers are huge attack vectors as they allow you to run arbitrary code. I wouldn't say there isn't a case to not allow third parties to run a platform in your platform.
- shmerl 8y ago
  It's not an excuse to violate anti-trust. MS were blasted for this, but Apple got away with this foul behavior.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Microsoft got hit for using their monopoly in one market (the market for operating systems) illegally to try to obtain better/monopoly status in another market (the market for web browsers. If you have an evidence-based argument to make that Apple has a monopoly in the market for mobile operating systems and has illegally used it to try to obtain a monopoly in the market for web browsers, I would be intrigued to hear it. (in other words, not every bundled web browser is automatically a violation of antitrust law; nor is every attempt to forbid something on iOS automatically a violation)
    - shmerl 8y ago
      In other words, you are giving an excuse to Apple, based on the current handicapped anti-trust practice by the courts. I don't see it as a valid excuse. Apple are clearly damaging the industry and market with their behavior. By blocking major features in their browser and banning all other browsers, they are forcing others into supporting their specific requirements, because otherwise they won't be able to reach iOS users. Examples like trying to sabotage DASH for video streaming by not supporting MSE on iOS are quite obvious. Anti-trust was intended to prevent such kind of outcomes. But it was diluted to the point of being practically useless, allowing the likes of Apple to run amok with their monopolistic garbage.

lbacaj 8y ago

I love the analysis that Ben does on so many pressing tech related issues. I agree with the majority of what he said but I disagree that it is that clear cut that Apple’s rent seeking isn’t hurting costumers. While I’m no lawyer either, the Supreme Court case that is relevant here was dealing with the state of Illinois as a customer and the mass consumer markets are two different things and I believe the Supreme Court will deal with this in a separate lens. Could be very well that Apple does win but the fact that a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store shows clearly that in fact this does harm customers. I think the Supreme Court could rule in a whole other direction on this because of that fact coupled with Apple allowing no other competition on the platform, meaning no way to download a second App Store or even link to purchasing the product on a website especially for digital goods.

zimpenfish 8y ago
> a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store That's Spotify's choice though, right? They could charge iOS IAP subscribers the exact same price as non-IAP subscribers and absorb the 30% loss in much the same way a bunch of supermarkets absorb various unpopular taxes.
- musiclover76 8y ago
  Not really. Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders. Spotify’s profits on a subscription are likely much less than 30%. They would go bankrupt if they tried to match Apple Music’s App Store price.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    > Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders. Whereas the products in a supermarket appear from nowhere without any money changing hands?
nihonde 8y ago

dkrich 8y ago

I agree with most of the article, but don't really like how it just breezes through this part: [Apple] can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population. But it is something special precisely because Apple has enforced such strict quality control measures for its apps. It has refused lots of apps because allowing them would damage users' trust of its store. So just having an app show up in the store is a signal of quality. This is precisely why the store can reach 50% of the market. This is significant because without those standards from day one, I don't think Apple would have achieved its reputation as best in class which allowed it to gain the leadership position it has. So its a symbiotic relationship and you can't just focus on one side of the equation. There probably aren't a lot of people who remember the Palm app experience which was way before the App Store. Apps were horribly unreliable and one had to rely on outside reviewers to determine which if any should be installed. Granted technology has changed drastically since then so its not an entirely fair comparison, but still I believe that you can't simply look at the App Store as a provider that could be replicated by anyone in the exact same manner as Apple if only they were allowed to. I do agree that users shouldn't be restricted from visiting other sites from within apps or even download from outside sources if a particular developer chooses to release its apps through an outside distributor.

pentae 8y ago
You nailed it on the head in your last sentence. Consumers can enjoy all of the benefits you mentioned with the App Store but should still have the ability to side load apps from Safari with a big "Warning - this app is not approved by Apple and may harm your device" popup. The fact that it's not even remotely an option like it is on Android devices is the issue. As a developer I want to be able to provide my customers with my iOS software without going through the app store, and if they don't want to load it that's up to them. But we should all have a choice.
- macintux 8y ago
  Part of the reason Android has a reputation as a malware-ridden platform is due to that freedom of choice.

amelius 8y ago

The same arguments hold for the entire platform-economy. See also: Uber, AirBnb, Amazon, UberEats, ... We need some new laws, fast.

nabnob 8y ago
Yup. Anti-trust legislation has lost its teeth. Analyzing monopolies based on whether there is harm for the individual consumer is completely insufficient for determining whether a company is a monopoly. From "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox", in the Yale Law Journal: >This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
- pitaj 8y ago
  If a monopoly exists, and doesn't harm the consumer, what's the issue?
  - shadofx 8y ago
    Tracking users and showing ads is blatant harm. Controlling the market and raising costs for sellers results in those costs being passed on to the buyer, causing indirect harm.

AlexandrB 8y ago

I think what bothers me most about Apple's behaviour with the App Store is this: > Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can. 30% is a huge cut for what amounts to hosting, payment processing, and basic QA. Despite taking this big chunk, quality control in the App Store feels like it's on the decline - with a bunch of malware and scams slipping through in recent years. And of course, charging 30% for non-app content distributed through the App Store is completely insane.

ubernostrum 8y ago
How does Apple get a 30% cut out of me using Netflix? If I want Netflix, I go to netflix.com, sign up and give them payment information, and then use my browser, or Netflix apps on phones, TVs, etc. The Netflix iOS app is listed as free to download. Where is Apple's 30% cut of my Netflix subscription coming from? Same for Amazon's Kindle and video apps. Same for Spotify's app. The trend there seems to be they make the app free, and let you sign up and pay for their service on their own website (which you can do in Safari on iOS, if you want to). So I don't understand how Apple's "skimming" anything out of those apps -- 30% of $0 is $0.
- scarface74 8y ago
  You can buy a Netflix subscription through the App Store but you don’t have to. Netflix must have decided it was worth it.
- luigi23 8y ago
  Here are the rules: you can offer subscription on your site, but you can't link to it in the app. If you want to buy a subscription for Netflix/Spotify in the app, then Apple will take 30% cut. Some sites give this option with increased price by 30% to move payments to their sites, some don't.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    I know you can offer subscriptions and purchases in the app. I just don't understand how anyone thinks Netflix, Amazon, etc are forced to, because they aren't.

throwaway122378 8y ago

This should be looking at allowing users porting capabilities for their Apps from iOS to Android (or others). That’s the real monopoly across all platforms and devices, not the App Store.

andrewla 8y ago

Full transcript of oral arguments : https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-204_32q3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...

makecheck 8y ago

I would add to this that there is no way for developers to actually know what their sales are without depending on Apple APIs, there is no way to even communicate with customers without Apple APIs, etc. Furthermore, Apple forces you to take out a short-term loan with them because they won’t pay you until some threshold is met every month or so (great, let me tell my web host to not charge fees this month). Sometimes they will not show you any numbers at all, even for history that you know is nonzero, if your app falls below threshold for awhile. And these are completely unnecessary Apple dependencies.

willio58 8y ago
What would you suggest for knowing sales of apps without Apple's APIs? Basically all of these issues come from Apple requiring all apps to be sold through their store. For the end-user experience this has proved very good.

auslander 8y ago

It is a counter-attack by Adtech industry. They were not amused by Safari ITP 2.0 and other Apple privacy features. iPhone market share in US is ~50%.

thstart 8y ago

“Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.” The author is obviously not developer to see what Apple provides for their 30%: 1) publishing platform. 2) hosting services 3) payment services 4) customer support for payment support. 5) testing platform 6) analytics platform 7) advertising platform And so on... If you are developer just try to implement a payment system and support it with phone . Good luck.