17 ms·

EU opens Apple antitrust investigations into App Store and Apple Pay practices

288 points by adrian_mrd 6y ago

Shivetya 6y ago
Pretty much I figure the percentage has to change at least in categories where Apple has its own products. As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps getting this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who is attempting to use them
- izacus 6y ago
  > As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps getting this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who is attempting to use them On Android the NFC can be either used by current foreground app (so you're looking at it), or by the default payment provider (which you set globally and more importantly - you have to set it yourself). Seems like a good tradeoff.
  - nottorp 6y ago
    What I'm wary of is having to install a shit app from each bank that I have a card from. I'm pretty sure that will be the outcome if they're forced to allow alternative payment apps. And please don't tell me they won't be shit, I know how their web sites work :) On the other hand, it's annoying from a "hey that's an evil monopoly" point of view that Apple makes money on every payment I make. Cannot win i guess.
    - 51Cards 6y ago
      How much would hit the fan if Microsoft changed Windows, even just on Surface hardware, to ensure that any time you bought something from Amazon it had to go through their payment gateway and they got a percentage?
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Well. That doesn’t happen with Apple now. Amazon can and does sell physical goods through its app and pays Apple nothing.
        lexs 6y ago
        Yes but I can't buy Prime Videos through the app, I have to do that from my android phone or desktop
        scarface74 6y ago
        Yes you can. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
      - nottorp 6y ago
        Different thing though, since you can pay on Amazon's web site by entering your credit card details even via an Apple device. Also, I can pay contactless directly with my credit card instead of using Apple Pay.
    - sigwinch28 6y ago
      Consider also that MasterCard and Visa make money on every payment you make with their cards. The only real "free" option is cash, but that requires additional labour on both sides.
      - nottorp 6y ago
        Except with credit cards you get some protection. As a consumer, you can refuse any purchase before money gets taken out of your account for it. The merchant gets to pay for that, and indirectly it means the people paying cash are subsidizing credit card users, since the prices are identical. Again, cannot win.
        sigwinch28 6y ago
        Not all Visa and MasterCard cards are credit cards, for example Visa Debit and MasterCard debit. Furthermore, credit cards linked via Apple Pay (e.g. a Mastercard credit card) are afforded the same legal protections in the UK as using the physical card itself in person or online.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      >What I'm wary of is having to install a shit app from each bank that I have a card from. I'm pretty sure that will be the outcome if they're forced to allow alternative payment apps. I don't really know how to feel about it. My bank has yet to implement Apple Pay support. However, they've had a payment application on Android for a while, since they can access the NFC directly. So while Apple Pay might be really nice to use, it might also mean that you don't get anything if your bank doesn't want to play with Apple. I'm now using Curve (curve.com) to circumvent my bank in order to use Apple Pay. Maybe even if the NFC access was opened up, applications like Curve would still provide an option to use Apple Pay for the people who want to use that.
    - izacus 6y ago
      My bank supports both their "shit app" and Apple/Google/Samsung Pay for payment on my Android phone. This allows me to choose the best option, which IMO, is the best result you can hope for. On Apple device, you have no such option or competition.
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  A likely outcome is that Apple negotiates rates with each developer and simply drops anyone too small to care. So the only options would be free or big, which covers almost all apps and users.
greatgib 6y ago
Finally!
ecmascript 6y ago
As a European I just feel "finally". It's time for this kind of monopolistic behaviors to stop.
acd 6y ago
Was waiting for app stores to be tried on anti competition law. App stores is basically a form of App monopoly On devices where the Device operating system vendor decides which apps get go no go. It can block competing apps such as Spotify/Apple Music for example. One could argue the same for YouTube music vs Spotify. Also vendor decides kickback commission fees which may also be anti competitive. Same for payment services nfc access. Also sometime vendor makes similar function from an app IOS battery health. Blocks Native Battery api access, makes it hard to sell battery analytical apps.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > Was waiting for app stores to be tried on anti competition law. The Apple App Store is clearly a lot different from the Play Store; since almost all Android devices (and all Play-capable devices controlled by Google) support sideloading and alternate app stores.
  - cattlemansgold 6y ago
    Agreed. I see no issue in in google’s situation for 2 reasons: 1) I am able to, by default, download apps from other app stores and marketplaces (albeit at my own risk) 2) The Play Store is valuable to me because I know that the apps I download there have been verified and are safe to use (at least in theory). In Apple’s case, I think the argument is that their operating system is not open to other hardware vendors, so they don’t need to allow alternative app stores. I don’t think it’s anti-competitive that Mazda doesn’t allow me to choose the navigation software in my car’s HUD. If I wanted different navigation software, I should have considered that before purchasing a Mazda.
    - cageface 6y ago
      Cars and phones play very different roles in our lives. Phones have become the way we access the internet and the internet is increasingly at the center of everything so the considerations for regulation are different.
ericmay 6y ago
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extremely well for me, including changes like forcing developers to allow users to sign in with Apple anonymously versus email, Google, or Facebook. I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care. Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to their platform, so no real love lost here for me. W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a perfect implementation as it currently is.
- leokennis 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment. All major companies are assholes, but most of them in different areas. Likewise they are also angels in others. Don't complain Apple is an asshole in category A, when you yourself are an asshole in category B.
  - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
    So nobody can complain about Apple just because another company does "asshole" things too? Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea for customers.
    - leokennis 6y ago
      No, we end users and the general public can complain all we want (and preferably also vote with our wallets). But asshole companies complaining that other companies are assholes is very hypocritical IMHO.
      - arkades 6y ago
        It doesn't matter if they're hypocrites. At all. It matters that we create reasonable and sane policies and enforce them evenly and fairly across all market participants. We don't apply them selectively based on whether the company is "a nice guy." None of them are nice guys. They're not people, and folks need to stop anthropomorphizing them.
mtgx 6y ago
> “It’s disappointing the European Commission is advancing baseless complaints from a handful of companies who simply want a free ride, and don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else,” says an Apple spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We don’t think that’s right — we want to maintain a level playing field where anyone with determination and a great idea can succeed.” So Apple competing against niche apps with its own applications while also not having to pay the same fees is what it believes is a "level playing field" then?
chj 6y ago
This may not happen if Spotify didn't speak up. https://timetoplayfair.com/ https://timetoplayfair.com/
- leokennis 6y ago
  Eh...says the company that buys up formerly free shows, and makes them an exclusive for their paid service. Spotify buys intellectual property (a podcast) and proceeds to sell access to that for a profit. Apple invents intellectual property (the iOS ecosystem, App Store) and proceeds to sell access to that for a profit.
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    Spotify is also complaining that "Apple won’t let us share awesome deals and promotions" [1]. I love you Spotify but I don't want your ads, I don't want ads on my phone period. I'm currently using Android, and it's just ridiculous how much my phone is demanding my attention with notifications of "Rate us!" or "Look at this emergency news! Joke, it was just an ad". They even have "let me upload all of your contacts or I wont start"-apps. Android really lets the users decide, and the app-companies sure tries every foul play they can get away with, and to be frank, giving those app-companies a smack on the back of their head from time to time as Apple is doing can be a good thing. That said, 30% is... hefty especially when some companies don't have too. "Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No." [1]. [1]: https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/ https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/
    - an_opabinia 6y ago
      The takeaway should be, choosing between two giant corporations is almost always a losing proposition, somehow, for the little guy.
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      The difference in amount of notifications is really one of the reasons I ended up with an iPhone. That's sad
  - 6y ago
Angostura 6y ago
I'm an Apple user and as a user, I'm pretty happy with the walled garden approach and the stores on iOS. However, I also hold the EU's atttude to anti-trust in fairly high regard, so I'm happy to see them scrutinise this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jamil7 6y ago
  The curation and walled garden rules can work and have a lot of upsides for a lot of users. The problem is the inconsistent application of those rules that ultimately hurt independent and small time developers. A lot of whom are making the most interesting software for the platform rather than churning out a client to support some existing service.
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
  I wonder if you really like it, or have the Tesla/Jeep psychology where you have high customer satisfaction, but on paper, the quality is poor. Apple is best in class in marketing.
- swiley 6y ago
  I don’t like being given the choice of owning my phone or being able to talk to my friends (iMessage.) That’s actually a pretty big deal.
- DavideNL 6y ago
  > I'm pretty happy with the walled garden approach and the stores on iOS The walled garden can stay, but users should have a simple way to opt-out. Like for example SIP on macOS which you can (temporarily) turn off with a terminal command, if you accept the risks of degraded security. Apple (or Google/any company) should not have the power to dictate which software we may use. Like for example any banking app that wants to use NFC for wireless payments being rejected. It has taken way too long for the EU to step in and forbid this in my opinion.
grezql 6y ago
I am a former App-dev. I hope Apple burn in hell for that 30% scam. Daylight robbery, should be ordered to pay back atleast 5 years back.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  An argument I've heard is that - looking back to the 1990s when software was sold in boxes in retail stores - was that the publisher, packager, retailer, credit-card processor, et al. combined would take 60%+ - so Apple's 30% means we're getting a good deal... I suppose I'd be okay with a 30% fee if Apple didn't charge us $99 to maintain a developer account... I thought the $99 was meant to cover the costs of curating the Apple App Store, so what added-value does the 30% cover then?
  - tosers4 6y ago
    Having to pay is by itself a filter. So, some curation is done.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      Yes, I'm really relaxed about the $99 fee as it keeps a lot of half-baked software out of the store. On the other hand the 30% fee would stop me putting my software in an app store. I know the usual argument is they will deliver extra customers however that argument seems dubious when there are 2 million other apps fighting for attention.
      - tosers4 6y ago
        The only reasonably argument for such a big % fee is that when software was shipped physically you would even have bigger "fees", as GP was saying. People are willing to pay for those 30%, as long as iOS has an healthy supply of apps, apple will keep it.
      - watermelon0 6y ago
        I'd prefer having a half-baked option, as opposed to not having an app for something. $99 per year seems quite a lot, if you are not planning on making money with the apps.
rahkiin 6y ago
I cannot write applications for the Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through their manufacturers and paying them a part of my revenue. In the mean time, Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo have their own studios as well. Their stores are also curated and gated. If I want an open gaming device I take a PC. If I want a more open phone, I take an Android. Is this different than the situation with iPhone? (Sidenote: I can put whatever I want on my iPhone using Xcode)
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  I think it is different because gaming consoles are single purpose devices. Whereas smartphones are marketed as general purpose. I am all for forcing the manufacturers of the gaming consoles to allow running of arbitrary unsigned code in a different sandbox than their DRM. Also I believe in the right to have root on all devices you have.
  - izacus 6y ago
    Interesting how being allowed to run your own software is now a downvotable opinion here on HN.
    - messe 6y ago
      I can't understand why that comment is being downvoted. It's a constructive comment, featuring an opinion that I would have genuinely thought would be well supported on HN.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > I think it is different because gaming consoles are single purpose devices. Gaming consoles aren't single purpose devices. They're still general purpose computers. The only thing that makes them "single purpose" is the manufacturer restrictions on what you can install on them, which shouldn't be allowed any more than it is for Apple.
    - swiley 6y ago
enitihas 6y ago
I think this is a very good start. The iOS ecosystem is a lot more monopolistic compared to android. And before someone says iOS is not a majority of the market, it easily is in several countries. In iOS, you can't even make your own browser, and neither set your webkit wrapper as default.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
This continues to be a complete embarrassment for the United States. We should've regulated Google, and we should've regulated Apple. But our federal government is so corrupt that an outside entity is having to do it for us. Epic Games has already stated they'd like to be able to launch an app store on iOS just as they intend to do on Android, so competitors will be lining up if Apple is forced to tear down the walls. And after switching from other platforms, I always found it a bit of a shock when I'd be on an app like Vudu, and find myself unable to buy things, unless I popped over to the website.
- libertine 6y ago
  Regulating Amazon.com could be a starting point for redemption. Amazon can use your seller data, wipe you out and slaps you with a automatic reply that you have now to deal with stranded inventory they no longer want in their warehouses. Not to mention the classic demanding proof of oficial supplier, just so you do the work for them and tell Amazon who the supplier is, and cut you as a middle man. They don't even abide by their own guidelines regarding product listings.
- rahkiin 6y ago
  The Epic Games that gives free distribution when you use their other product, UE4? The Epic Games that buys exclusives away from other markets by pushing a boatload of money into some games, money they got from a third product: Fortnite. Sounds they will do great as a phone app distributor.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Every single avenue is open: Developers can decide whether or not to use Unreal Engine, and still use the Epic Store. Developers can decide whether or not to use the Epic Store, and still release on any other platform. They also let you use any payment provider you want. You can take Unreal games and sell them on Steam. You can take Unreal games and pile Steam's services layer into them. I get that Epic has earned a bunch of butthurt from gamers because they... offered developers money... but this is fundamentally opposite to the behaviors of Apple and Google, where their 30% app tax is compulsory, and use of their services is mandatory.
macspoofing 6y ago
Dare I dream that iOS will finally get an alternative browser rendering engine? Or more precisely, would Mozilla and Google finally be allowed to release their browsers on iOS?
- jamil7 6y ago
  I'd be satisfied with just being able to set a default browser at the very least.
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
  I hope they stay the same, and Apple users have to live with the consequences of buying Apple products. (My iPhone users have to use a web app because I refuse to give Apple money)
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    or rather than being bitter, having apple open up to other browser engines will open the way to your users to get better experience from your own web app as well.
  - jamil7 6y ago
    Let me guess you use Arch or Gentoo.
- pentae 6y ago
  What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store. Then you'd get your alternative browser rendering engine as well as tons of other useful apps that will never be available. Apple can do their best to make it difficult and warn users of the risks but it should be possible.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store Not really. The curation and verification of the App Store is a feature. I don’t want to have to download a must-have sideloaded Google app for work that snuzzles up all my data to Mountain View.
justapassenger 6y ago
Personally I’m happy to pay 30% higher prices for better integration, comfort and security. But at the same time this shouldn’t be forced on everyone. There’s tons of people that prefer worse experience to save money.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  How is having a choice a worst experience? Can you even use Firefox on iOS? I don't know how Apple gets away with so much... maybe because of all the politicians that they are legally allowed to buy?
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    I'm in favor of Apple losing control. That being said, it's probable that if the walled garden disappeared, you would see more companies choosing to ONLY host apps on the non-apple venues to avoid their burdensome rules. Some of those rules are pro consumer. You could easily see the average customer experience getting worse because things they want are now only available with a lot of crap that Apple would previously have forbidden. The choice isn't guaranteed.
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
  I'm not sure if any of those are really a result of the 30% charge. Or any of those are even real. The worst experience I've had on Android is a free guitar tuner had ads, I uninstalled and moved on.
- gerbal 6y ago
  Isn't the issue that Apple doesn't charge the same 30% surcharge to their own business units? Apple controls the entire ecosystem and can use it's control to force anti-competive terms on its competition.
- zorbash 6y ago
  I'm a MacOS newbie and my experience with the App Store made me think that they've given up completely. It's incredibly slow, lacks a way to do things programmatically like Debian's `dist-upgrade` or the ability to automatically download and install security updates. Afaik most developers who work on a mac prefer either homebrew or downloading .dmg images.
chintan 6y ago
Here is my anecdata on Apple Pay and why I stopped using it altogether: Once I used Apple Pay from my phone to pay on a third-party website, it showed a nice popover on Safari and it automagically used my address from my info as the SHIPPING address. Neat but the address was my old address, so I edited and changed the SHIPPING address to my new address. I press OK. Then Checkout. I see that order was shipped to my old/incorrect address. The vendor said this is the address they received. I remember changing and updating the address on the APPLE PAY popover. I called Apple as I had entered the correct address on APPLE PAY popover, they said may be the website vendor implemented it incorrectly, there are millions of websites using Apple Pay and they CANNOT/DO NOT check those integrations. This was a breach of trust. I entered my information on a pop-over shown on Apple iPhone by Apple iOS and not the third-party website. Bottomline: Either Apple takes full responsibility of the data entry or leave it to third-party. Else consumers are stuck in limbo
- zionic 6y ago
  Why haven't you updated your billing address to match your new shipping address? Doesn't that mean your potential statements are getting sent to your old address?
  - chintan 6y ago
    It is not necessary that my billing and shipping be same. I might order to ship elsewhere
- jamesgeck0 6y ago
  Would it be better if Apple required you to enter your addresses in a web form exposed by the third party instead of hiding the form behind a slick interface?
buboard 6y ago
What really needs to be done, without "planning the market": Require browser engine competition. This can be legally valid considering that the web itself is an essential utility, since a lot of government functions go through it. App stores are not essential (and i hope they ll never be). Therefore, access to the web should be high priority and high quality, therefore browser engine freedom is sine qua non. This could lead to a virtuous cycle of finally making web apps work well on iOS, which will also break the chains of many developers. The web is our common , open platform that nobody owns. We should be protecting it in the mobile market Let apple own their app store, but not to the detriment of the web
corkmask 6y ago
I only want Apple to stop forcing IAP down my throat as a developer of an app the has zero benefit from the app store.
greenhatglack 6y ago
Nice to see EU going corporations errands instead of the looming homelessness, bombings and income inequality. Maybe Spotify could spend of their billions to make their own device and platform instead of going through a "criminal" organization pretending to care about people but just caring about business interests because their consumer tech startup just amount to tiny square but slightly rounded cornered icons on devices made in Japan, Korea, China and the U.S.
dariosalvi78 6y ago
finally!

288 points by adrian_mrd 6y ago

Pretty much I figure the percentage has to change at least in categories where Apple has its own products. As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps getting this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who is attempting to use them

izacus 6y ago
> As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps getting this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who is attempting to use them On Android the NFC can be either used by current foreground app (so you're looking at it), or by the default payment provider (which you set globally and more importantly - you have to set it yourself). Seems like a good tradeoff.
- nottorp 6y ago
  What I'm wary of is having to install a shit app from each bank that I have a card from. I'm pretty sure that will be the outcome if they're forced to allow alternative payment apps. And please don't tell me they won't be shit, I know how their web sites work :) On the other hand, it's annoying from a "hey that's an evil monopoly" point of view that Apple makes money on every payment I make. Cannot win i guess.
  - 51Cards 6y ago
    How much would hit the fan if Microsoft changed Windows, even just on Surface hardware, to ensure that any time you bought something from Amazon it had to go through their payment gateway and they got a percentage?
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Well. That doesn’t happen with Apple now. Amazon can and does sell physical goods through its app and pays Apple nothing.
      - lexs 6y ago
        Yes but I can't buy Prime Videos through the app, I have to do that from my android phone or desktop
        scarface74 6y ago
        Yes you can. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
    - nottorp 6y ago
      Different thing though, since you can pay on Amazon's web site by entering your credit card details even via an Apple device. Also, I can pay contactless directly with my credit card instead of using Apple Pay.
  - sigwinch28 6y ago
    Consider also that MasterCard and Visa make money on every payment you make with their cards. The only real "free" option is cash, but that requires additional labour on both sides.
    - nottorp 6y ago
      Except with credit cards you get some protection. As a consumer, you can refuse any purchase before money gets taken out of your account for it. The merchant gets to pay for that, and indirectly it means the people paying cash are subsidizing credit card users, since the prices are identical. Again, cannot win.
      - sigwinch28 6y ago
        Not all Visa and MasterCard cards are credit cards, for example Visa Debit and MasterCard debit. Furthermore, credit cards linked via Apple Pay (e.g. a Mastercard credit card) are afforded the same legal protections in the UK as using the physical card itself in person or online.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >What I'm wary of is having to install a shit app from each bank that I have a card from. I'm pretty sure that will be the outcome if they're forced to allow alternative payment apps. I don't really know how to feel about it. My bank has yet to implement Apple Pay support. However, they've had a payment application on Android for a while, since they can access the NFC directly. So while Apple Pay might be really nice to use, it might also mean that you don't get anything if your bank doesn't want to play with Apple. I'm now using Curve (curve.com) to circumvent my bank in order to use Apple Pay. Maybe even if the NFC access was opened up, applications like Curve would still provide an option to use Apple Pay for the people who want to use that.
  - izacus 6y ago
    My bank supports both their "shit app" and Apple/Google/Samsung Pay for payment on my Android phone. This allows me to choose the best option, which IMO, is the best result you can hope for. On Apple device, you have no such option or competition.
votepaunchy 6y ago
A likely outcome is that Apple negotiates rates with each developer and simply drops anyone too small to care. So the only options would be free or big, which covers almost all apps and users.

greatgib 6y ago

Finally!

ecmascript 6y ago

As a European I just feel "finally". It's time for this kind of monopolistic behaviors to stop.

acd 6y ago

Was waiting for app stores to be tried on anti competition law. App stores is basically a form of App monopoly On devices where the Device operating system vendor decides which apps get go no go. It can block competing apps such as Spotify/Apple Music for example. One could argue the same for YouTube music vs Spotify. Also vendor decides kickback commission fees which may also be anti competitive. Same for payment services nfc access. Also sometime vendor makes similar function from an app IOS battery health. Blocks Native Battery api access, makes it hard to sell battery analytical apps.

microcolonel 6y ago
> Was waiting for app stores to be tried on anti competition law. The Apple App Store is clearly a lot different from the Play Store; since almost all Android devices (and all Play-capable devices controlled by Google) support sideloading and alternate app stores.
- cattlemansgold 6y ago
  Agreed. I see no issue in in google’s situation for 2 reasons: 1) I am able to, by default, download apps from other app stores and marketplaces (albeit at my own risk) 2) The Play Store is valuable to me because I know that the apps I download there have been verified and are safe to use (at least in theory). In Apple’s case, I think the argument is that their operating system is not open to other hardware vendors, so they don’t need to allow alternative app stores. I don’t think it’s anti-competitive that Mazda doesn’t allow me to choose the navigation software in my car’s HUD. If I wanted different navigation software, I should have considered that before purchasing a Mazda.
  - cageface 6y ago
    Cars and phones play very different roles in our lives. Phones have become the way we access the internet and the internet is increasingly at the center of everything so the considerations for regulation are different.

ericmay 6y ago

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really like things as they are and I'm just not interested in change here. The iOS and App Store ecosystem work extremely well for me, including changes like forcing developers to allow users to sign in with Apple anonymously versus email, Google, or Facebook. I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care. Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to their platform, so no real love lost here for me. W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a perfect implementation as it currently is.

leokennis 6y ago
I agree with your sentiment. All major companies are assholes, but most of them in different areas. Likewise they are also angels in others. Don't complain Apple is an asshole in category A, when you yourself are an asshole in category B.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  So nobody can complain about Apple just because another company does "asshole" things too? Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea for customers.
  - leokennis 6y ago
    No, we end users and the general public can complain all we want (and preferably also vote with our wallets). But asshole companies complaining that other companies are assholes is very hypocritical IMHO.
    - arkades 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if they're hypocrites. At all. It matters that we create reasonable and sane policies and enforce them evenly and fairly across all market participants. We don't apply them selectively based on whether the company is "a nice guy." None of them are nice guys. They're not people, and folks need to stop anthropomorphizing them.

mtgx 6y ago

> “It’s disappointing the European Commission is advancing baseless complaints from a handful of companies who simply want a free ride, and don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else,” says an Apple spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. “We don’t think that’s right — we want to maintain a level playing field where anyone with determination and a great idea can succeed.” So Apple competing against niche apps with its own applications while also not having to pay the same fees is what it believes is a "level playing field" then?

chj 6y ago

This may not happen if Spotify didn't speak up. https://timetoplayfair.com/ https://timetoplayfair.com/

leokennis 6y ago
Eh...says the company that buys up formerly free shows, and makes them an exclusive for their paid service. Spotify buys intellectual property (a podcast) and proceeds to sell access to that for a profit. Apple invents intellectual property (the iOS ecosystem, App Store) and proceeds to sell access to that for a profit.
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  Spotify is also complaining that "Apple won’t let us share awesome deals and promotions" [1]. I love you Spotify but I don't want your ads, I don't want ads on my phone period. I'm currently using Android, and it's just ridiculous how much my phone is demanding my attention with notifications of "Rate us!" or "Look at this emergency news! Joke, it was just an ad". They even have "let me upload all of your contacts or I wont start"-apps. Android really lets the users decide, and the app-companies sure tries every foul play they can get away with, and to be frank, giving those app-companies a smack on the back of their head from time to time as Apple is doing can be a good thing. That said, 30% is... hefty especially when some companies don't have too. "Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No." [1]. [1]: https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/ https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    The takeaway should be, choosing between two giant corporations is almost always a losing proposition, somehow, for the little guy.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    The difference in amount of notifications is really one of the reasons I ended up with an iPhone. That's sad
- 6y ago

Angostura 6y ago

I'm an Apple user and as a user, I'm pretty happy with the walled garden approach and the stores on iOS. However, I also hold the EU's atttude to anti-trust in fairly high regard, so I'm happy to see them scrutinise this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jamil7 6y ago
The curation and walled garden rules can work and have a lot of upsides for a lot of users. The problem is the inconsistent application of those rules that ultimately hurt independent and small time developers. A lot of whom are making the most interesting software for the platform rather than churning out a client to support some existing service.
FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
I wonder if you really like it, or have the Tesla/Jeep psychology where you have high customer satisfaction, but on paper, the quality is poor. Apple is best in class in marketing.
swiley 6y ago
I don’t like being given the choice of owning my phone or being able to talk to my friends (iMessage.) That’s actually a pretty big deal.
DavideNL 6y ago
> I'm pretty happy with the walled garden approach and the stores on iOS The walled garden can stay, but users should have a simple way to opt-out. Like for example SIP on macOS which you can (temporarily) turn off with a terminal command, if you accept the risks of degraded security. Apple (or Google/any company) should not have the power to dictate which software we may use. Like for example any banking app that wants to use NFC for wireless payments being rejected. It has taken way too long for the EU to step in and forbid this in my opinion.

grezql 6y ago

I am a former App-dev. I hope Apple burn in hell for that 30% scam. Daylight robbery, should be ordered to pay back atleast 5 years back.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
An argument I've heard is that - looking back to the 1990s when software was sold in boxes in retail stores - was that the publisher, packager, retailer, credit-card processor, et al. combined would take 60%+ - so Apple's 30% means we're getting a good deal... I suppose I'd be okay with a 30% fee if Apple didn't charge us $99 to maintain a developer account... I thought the $99 was meant to cover the costs of curating the Apple App Store, so what added-value does the 30% cover then?
- tosers4 6y ago
  Having to pay is by itself a filter. So, some curation is done.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Yes, I'm really relaxed about the $99 fee as it keeps a lot of half-baked software out of the store. On the other hand the 30% fee would stop me putting my software in an app store. I know the usual argument is they will deliver extra customers however that argument seems dubious when there are 2 million other apps fighting for attention.
    - tosers4 6y ago
      The only reasonably argument for such a big % fee is that when software was shipped physically you would even have bigger "fees", as GP was saying. People are willing to pay for those 30%, as long as iOS has an healthy supply of apps, apple will keep it.
    - watermelon0 6y ago
      I'd prefer having a half-baked option, as opposed to not having an app for something. $99 per year seems quite a lot, if you are not planning on making money with the apps.

rahkiin 6y ago

I cannot write applications for the Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through their manufacturers and paying them a part of my revenue. In the mean time, Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo have their own studios as well. Their stores are also curated and gated. If I want an open gaming device I take a PC. If I want a more open phone, I take an Android. Is this different than the situation with iPhone? (Sidenote: I can put whatever I want on my iPhone using Xcode)

ReptileMan 6y ago
I think it is different because gaming consoles are single purpose devices. Whereas smartphones are marketed as general purpose. I am all for forcing the manufacturers of the gaming consoles to allow running of arbitrary unsigned code in a different sandbox than their DRM. Also I believe in the right to have root on all devices you have.
- izacus 6y ago
  Interesting how being allowed to run your own software is now a downvotable opinion here on HN.
  - messe 6y ago
    I can't understand why that comment is being downvoted. It's a constructive comment, featuring an opinion that I would have genuinely thought would be well supported on HN.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I think it is different because gaming consoles are single purpose devices. Gaming consoles aren't single purpose devices. They're still general purpose computers. The only thing that makes them "single purpose" is the manufacturer restrictions on what you can install on them, which shouldn't be allowed any more than it is for Apple.
  - swiley 6y ago

enitihas 6y ago

I think this is a very good start. The iOS ecosystem is a lot more monopolistic compared to android. And before someone says iOS is not a majority of the market, it easily is in several countries. In iOS, you can't even make your own browser, and neither set your webkit wrapper as default.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

This continues to be a complete embarrassment for the United States. We should've regulated Google, and we should've regulated Apple. But our federal government is so corrupt that an outside entity is having to do it for us. Epic Games has already stated they'd like to be able to launch an app store on iOS just as they intend to do on Android, so competitors will be lining up if Apple is forced to tear down the walls. And after switching from other platforms, I always found it a bit of a shock when I'd be on an app like Vudu, and find myself unable to buy things, unless I popped over to the website.

libertine 6y ago
Regulating Amazon.com could be a starting point for redemption. Amazon can use your seller data, wipe you out and slaps you with a automatic reply that you have now to deal with stranded inventory they no longer want in their warehouses. Not to mention the classic demanding proof of oficial supplier, just so you do the work for them and tell Amazon who the supplier is, and cut you as a middle man. They don't even abide by their own guidelines regarding product listings.
rahkiin 6y ago
The Epic Games that gives free distribution when you use their other product, UE4? The Epic Games that buys exclusives away from other markets by pushing a boatload of money into some games, money they got from a third product: Fortnite. Sounds they will do great as a phone app distributor.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Every single avenue is open: Developers can decide whether or not to use Unreal Engine, and still use the Epic Store. Developers can decide whether or not to use the Epic Store, and still release on any other platform. They also let you use any payment provider you want. You can take Unreal games and sell them on Steam. You can take Unreal games and pile Steam's services layer into them. I get that Epic has earned a bunch of butthurt from gamers because they... offered developers money... but this is fundamentally opposite to the behaviors of Apple and Google, where their 30% app tax is compulsory, and use of their services is mandatory.

macspoofing 6y ago

Dare I dream that iOS will finally get an alternative browser rendering engine? Or more precisely, would Mozilla and Google finally be allowed to release their browsers on iOS?

jamil7 6y ago
I'd be satisfied with just being able to set a default browser at the very least.
FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
I hope they stay the same, and Apple users have to live with the consequences of buying Apple products. (My iPhone users have to use a web app because I refuse to give Apple money)
- kyriakos 6y ago
  or rather than being bitter, having apple open up to other browser engines will open the way to your users to get better experience from your own web app as well.
- jamil7 6y ago
  Let me guess you use Arch or Gentoo.
pentae 6y ago
What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store. Then you'd get your alternative browser rendering engine as well as tons of other useful apps that will never be available. Apple can do their best to make it difficult and warn users of the risks but it should be possible.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store Not really. The curation and verification of the App Store is a feature. I don’t want to have to download a must-have sideloaded Google app for work that snuzzles up all my data to Mountain View.

justapassenger 6y ago

Personally I’m happy to pay 30% higher prices for better integration, comfort and security. But at the same time this shouldn’t be forced on everyone. There’s tons of people that prefer worse experience to save money.

coronadisaster 6y ago
How is having a choice a worst experience? Can you even use Firefox on iOS? I don't know how Apple gets away with so much... maybe because of all the politicians that they are legally allowed to buy?
- jkinudsjknds 6y ago
  I'm in favor of Apple losing control. That being said, it's probable that if the walled garden disappeared, you would see more companies choosing to ONLY host apps on the non-apple venues to avoid their burdensome rules. Some of those rules are pro consumer. You could easily see the average customer experience getting worse because things they want are now only available with a lot of crap that Apple would previously have forbidden. The choice isn't guaranteed.
FirefoxIsSlow 6y ago
I'm not sure if any of those are really a result of the 30% charge. Or any of those are even real. The worst experience I've had on Android is a free guitar tuner had ads, I uninstalled and moved on.
gerbal 6y ago
Isn't the issue that Apple doesn't charge the same 30% surcharge to their own business units? Apple controls the entire ecosystem and can use it's control to force anti-competive terms on its competition.
zorbash 6y ago
I'm a MacOS newbie and my experience with the App Store made me think that they've given up completely. It's incredibly slow, lacks a way to do things programmatically like Debian's `dist-upgrade` or the ability to automatically download and install security updates. Afaik most developers who work on a mac prefer either homebrew or downloading .dmg images.

chintan 6y ago

Here is my anecdata on Apple Pay and why I stopped using it altogether: Once I used Apple Pay from my phone to pay on a third-party website, it showed a nice popover on Safari and it automagically used my address from my info as the SHIPPING address. Neat but the address was my old address, so I edited and changed the SHIPPING address to my new address. I press OK. Then Checkout. I see that order was shipped to my old/incorrect address. The vendor said this is the address they received. I remember changing and updating the address on the APPLE PAY popover. I called Apple as I had entered the correct address on APPLE PAY popover, they said may be the website vendor implemented it incorrectly, there are millions of websites using Apple Pay and they CANNOT/DO NOT check those integrations. This was a breach of trust. I entered my information on a pop-over shown on Apple iPhone by Apple iOS and not the third-party website. Bottomline: Either Apple takes full responsibility of the data entry or leave it to third-party. Else consumers are stuck in limbo

zionic 6y ago
Why haven't you updated your billing address to match your new shipping address? Doesn't that mean your potential statements are getting sent to your old address?
- chintan 6y ago
  It is not necessary that my billing and shipping be same. I might order to ship elsewhere
jamesgeck0 6y ago
Would it be better if Apple required you to enter your addresses in a web form exposed by the third party instead of hiding the form behind a slick interface?

buboard 6y ago

What really needs to be done, without "planning the market": Require browser engine competition. This can be legally valid considering that the web itself is an essential utility, since a lot of government functions go through it. App stores are not essential (and i hope they ll never be). Therefore, access to the web should be high priority and high quality, therefore browser engine freedom is sine qua non. This could lead to a virtuous cycle of finally making web apps work well on iOS, which will also break the chains of many developers. The web is our common , open platform that nobody owns. We should be protecting it in the mobile market Let apple own their app store, but not to the detriment of the web

corkmask 6y ago

I only want Apple to stop forcing IAP down my throat as a developer of an app the has zero benefit from the app store.

greenhatglack 6y ago

Nice to see EU going corporations errands instead of the looming homelessness, bombings and income inequality. Maybe Spotify could spend of their billions to make their own device and platform instead of going through a "criminal" organization pretending to care about people but just caring about business interests because their consumer tech startup just amount to tiny square but slightly rounded cornered icons on devices made in Japan, Korea, China and the U.S.

dariosalvi78 6y ago

finally!