20 ms·

The App Store is a monopoly: Here's why the EU is correct to investigate Apple

237 points by waldohatesyou 6y ago

Findeton 6y ago
Yes, it's a monopoly, but that doesn't mean it's bad per-se. People are freely choosing to buy iPhones and there are alternatives. If the situation on the App Store was so bad, there wouldn't be enough good apps and perhaps people would choose other devices. No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store.
- baby_wipe 6y ago
  Good points. In fact, I'm guessing consumers ultimately want the App Store to be a monopoly. It gives us a central place where both devs and consumer can exchange with each other. Break it up, and then you may hear people complain about how the mobile app marketplace is too fragmented (similar to how video streaming currently is).
  - sanxiyn 6y ago
    Huh. I live in South Korea, and local Android app market is "fragmented", but approximately nobody complains, both users and developers. Local app market (owned by consortium of local mobile companies and local portals) takes less fee from developers, so developers love it. To let users use it, app developers do special promotion for the local app market, such as discount for in app purchases and special items for games, so users also love it. It is great.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  App Store is a two-sided market, which is known to persist even after it is extremely bad. Users go where apps are, and app publishers go where users are. The circular dependency can be broken by movement en messe, but that doesn't necessarily happen even if the situation is terrible.
- slivanes 6y ago
  "No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store." Yes Apple is, there is no alternative to the App Store on an iPhone.
  - mostlysimilar 6y ago
    I think the point is app developers can target other platforms to release their software, they don't have to target iOS. Part of my confidence in the iOS app store is the fact that Apple controls it so strongly. If they were forced to allow third party apps I doubt I would install any. My phone is too critical a part of my life to risk it.
    - skuthus 6y ago
      it would be on a different app store - you would still have full confidence if you used the Apple App Store only
    - justaguy88 6y ago
      But app developers can't make their own app store for iOS
  - michaelcampbell 6y ago
    No one is forcing anyone to write software for Apple.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    "Nobody is forcing them to be iPhone developers" - HN
    - Findeton 6y ago
      Well it's true isn't it? People make bad career choices all the time. And people also build failing business and we shouldn't save those companies because "they deserve it".
      - 6y ago
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Apple's cryptographic lockout of unsigned software and refusal to authorize any non-App Store distribution defacto forces people who want to publish iPhone software to agree to Apple's terms. I'd also argue that there are no practical alternatives here. Apple makes an industry-leading smartphone SOC and good operating system software designed to take advantage of it. If you want that, then you are also locked out of unauthorized third-party software unless you use an exploit to compromise the device's security. Quite honestly, the software lockout business model has been deserving of government scrutiny ever since Nintendo put a lockout chip in the NES. If you own a device you should be able to run any software you want on it.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  > No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store. If I want iOS users to use my app, where can I publish it besides the App Store? I like the Android implementation, allow users to install third-party apps but make them manually enable the feature, complete with warnings. Users don't have to enable the feature if they want App Store curation, but the option is there.
moralsupply 6y ago
The article states that Apple is extorting users. Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  By not allowing alternate app stores, yes.
  - errantspark 6y ago
    What if I just don't write apps for or use apple devices?
    - threeseed 6y ago
      Then don't. Trust me nobody will care. Because only the worst developers believe they are more important than the consumer.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Nobody forces anybody to buy an Apple product... In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not use that?
    - i5heu 6y ago
      I must have a smartphone. Android is not usable because of the lack of privacy. So I am forced to use an iPhone. Regulation is necessary in Oligopolys.
      - xvector 6y ago
        Just because the product you want doesn't exist doesn't mean you can force companies into making it. You can, on the other hand, support businesses or communities that are.
    - 6y ago
spullara 6y ago
As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me. Pro-consumer behavior almost always looks like anti-publisher behavior.
- anilshanbhag 6y ago
  Well they can do all that with a 10% fee too. The author is contending that by adding those restrictions and a high 30% fee, Apple is acting like a monopoly - it's their way or the highway.
  - vogre 6y ago
    Why do you think that fee is unfair?
    - skuthus 6y ago
      Because you cannot opt for a different store if you don't like the fee. If you want to sell independently, you cant. If you want to sell alternatively, you cant. This excludes many devs and shops from access.
    - sanxiyn 6y ago
      Because, I guarantee, if iOS app distribution market was competitive, fee would be lower than 30%. 30% fee is a monopolistic rent.
      - eigen 6y ago
        Google Play store is also 30%. > For apps and in-app products offered through Google Play, the service fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees. [https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...]
echelon 6y ago
Apple had the opportunity to lean on the web and elected not to. With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and more. HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available. Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders. Yes, they should be forced to do it. Edit: Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android, iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital? Edit 2: Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be broken up. My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies. Edit 3: If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your Netflix usage?
- spullara 6y ago
  There are plenty of cross-platform native app development platforms.
  - echelon 6y ago
    These are bolted on hacks and don't have the combined support of Apple and Google. Nevermind the fact that this doesn't solve monopoly of distribution.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >These are bolted on hacks and don't have the combined support of Apple and Google. If you don't like "bolted on hacks" you'd like Web APIs and HTML as an application development platform even less...
simonh 6y ago
The only monopoly here is Apple’s monopoly on designing its own products. The iPhone, iOS, it’s development tools and the App Store are all Apple products, so Apple gets to decide what features they have. It’s also not unusual for companies to make deals with third parties to include their technology and software in their products, often as optional chargeable extras. That’s all the App Store is, it’s a way to add optional features to your phone, offered by the phone manufacturer. There is nothing illegal or abusive about this. What’s the alternative. Are you going to mandate what features Apple, or any manufacturer of devices with embedded software, can or cannot implement? Are you going to mandate by law specific features for side loading that all manufacturers have to implement in all devices containing software? What features, who gets to specify them, how will this be enforced? So now we’re going to have governments design the software in our phones, enshrined in law? Finally, how does this serve my interests as an iPhone user or developer? Is fragmented app stores going to make it easier to find software, make it easier for developers to connect with customers and increase software revenues? I don’t see it. Android has had tons of app stores over the years, the public converged on the Play Store because they want to go to one place to get apps and have one company to deal with. Users like consolidation, it serves their needs. All this does not mean I’m against any regulation. I thing there’s a reasonable case for oversight of these things and a dialogue between law makers and tech companies about how they manage their products and customer relations. That’s fine, but chopping up the market and products arbitrarily does not serve the public interest.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium of industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and open source foundations... sure why not?
  - xvector 6y ago
    Because the government should not have unilateral power over a platform you've poured your own time, money, and effort into developing. That would be theft. I am honestly amazed that people are still in favor of gross government overreach in the era of Trump.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I applaud this. The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. Third-party appstores and app sideloading is a must. (And do not forget third party push-notifications, iOS devices are next to useless without them)
- xvector 6y ago
  > The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. If you do not like it, then there is no obligation for you to buy said device. You are not entitled to make the device manufacturer pour time and effort into developing support for features like this. It's quite simple - if you don't like the ecosystem, move on.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this reason. And I happen to actually like them. This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a monopoly, and it hurts consumers. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.
    - xvector 6y ago
      > It is a monopoly, Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life in any meaningful way whatsoever. > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.
      - 6y ago
newbie578 6y ago
You should not share articles like these on HN. Sacred things are not to be critized, and everything Apple is sacred :) Just check the comments in this thread. As long as I get my "flawless user experience" it doesn't matter what happens and how Apple treats the backbone of its platform (independent developers) and forcing them in a feudal relationship, one might even call it a road to serfdom. And I can see already that there will be people jumping out of the woods with the classic argument: "The devs are free to leave the App store" You try to make a business and the first decision you make is that you abandon half of your potential marketshare (iOS is over 50% in the U.S.)
BoysenberryPi 6y ago
Genuine question: Why does this matter? I see 0 problems with Apple having a "walled garden." It's their product and their platform so they should be able to decide what gets supported and developed for it. I personally don't like how Apple conducts their business so I just don't use Apple products and that's that.
- RivieraKid 6y ago
  Because it makes apps more expensive.
  - BoysenberryPi 6y ago
    If the apps become more expensive then people will stop buying them from the App Store and seeing people are not willing to pay for more expensive apps developers would probably stop developing for iOS which in the end would cause users to abandon the platform seeing as they cannot get the apps they need. If apps being more expensive is really the only problem then it seems like the problem fixes itself.
    - RivieraKid 6y ago
      It clearly doesn't fix itself, because both Apple and Google are taking a 30% cut. You're assuming efficient markets. The App Store is a monopoly, i.e. the opposite of an efficient market. (Well, it's more nuanced, all markets are somewhere between efficient and monopolistic.)
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Well, you should hope that your country doesn't turn into a authoritarian regime. Cause then you'll be unable to use VPN or any kind of encrypted chats - only those that give access to comrade Major from the secret police. If you think I'm overblowing things, try finding Signal in China's AppStore.
  - BoysenberryPi 6y ago
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
The ability to communicate by smartphone is so ubiquitous in our society that it has effectively become a basic need on the level of electricity, water, natural gas, and internet access. The utility service that was land-line telephones is becoming obsolete, and it's becoming increasingly harder to participate in society without a smartphone and the ability to install apps on that smartphone. In light of that reality, the duopoly of Apple and Google are effectively public utilities. They can no longer be considered solely as providers of discretionary consumer goods, and should be subject to additional scrutiny and regulation beyond that applied to ordinary commodity manufacturers.
- echelon 6y ago
  If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then you support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix. If you support Apple and Google having locked down authoritative control over the code run on their devices, then you support the Great Firewall. The only choice of a free and open society, and one mindful of the great benefit of open source and open platforms, is to remove these companies from executive control of mobile platforms. They must become free and open, just like the web. They're sucking all of the air out of the room. It kills freedom, diversity, and progress. It's rent-seeking.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    Apple retaining 30% on the store is fascism, but the open web is a utopia? This argument completely ignores the reality of the situation. One of the greatest abusers of the open web is Facebook who tracks users on almost every site and infringes on the privacy of everyone despite whether of not you hold an account. I'm not interested in Facebook, TikTok, or the next VC social media company, getting native, unfettered access to hardware on my phone or anyone around me where they would be free to run the GPS 24/7. That's the reality of the "open web" today.
    - echelon 6y ago
      > the open web is a utopia? It's pretty great afaict. > One of the greatest abusers of the open web is Facebook who tracks users on almost every site and infringes on the privacy of everyone despite whether of not you hold an account. Another area where we should exercise legislative action to protect Americans. > I'm not interested in Facebook, TikTok, or the next VC social media company, getting native, unfettered access to hardware on my phone You're ignoring the great strides we've made, and continue to make, in sandboxing. I'd rather these developments happen out in the open, too.
tschellenbach 6y ago
I think the important part is that they apply the same rules to all the apps in their app store so it's a fair playing field between companies. IE they should not be allowed to for instance get into the dating market, and start by blocking Tinder.
skuthus 6y ago
If you purchase the hardware for the product, no company should be able to stop you from installing whatever you like on the product.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Like in consoles for the past thirty years? Why is it the government’s responsibility to stop you from buying a device that doesn’t fit your needs when you had an option.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    You seem to be stuck on continually making the point that if something hasn’t happened already that it should never happen. Phones are a lot more important than consoles but, if a law doesn’t exist let’s make one that applies to both phones and consoles. This is our country. If Apple doesn’t like it they can go do business somewhere else.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Right because giving the government more power can’t possibly have negative consequences. Did you watch the congressional testimony a few days ago? Would you trust this government to pass laws with regards to tech?
      - d0gbread 6y ago
        Yes, that's exactly the goal. Antitrust laws need to be updated for today's technology and businesses.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And you trust the current politicians who were more concerned about Big Tech being unfair to conservatives than they were about antitrust. Did anything productive come out of the dog and pony shoe?
Apocryphon 6y ago
Blast from the past: Apple using EU courts to prevent Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe (2012) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862
DenisM 6y ago
The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25% of the market and thus does not qualify for the Sherman Act definition of "monopoly". Punters, however, believe that once they enter the establishment they are now in the clutches of the monopoly, and so demand competing popcorn stands and reject the suggestion of walking over to the competing theater. Sorry folks, that's not how Sherman Act works. So long as there are enough movie theaters in town it's not a "monopoly", and a non-existent monopoly cannot be abused. The US congress could, of course, rewrite the law (as they did to pass the Sherman Act in the first place), but until such day Apple is not a monopoly in the US.
- habitue 6y ago
  This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize are happening (if ever). Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are really disincentivized to switch. - For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people, and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as well). People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies, and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and you literally can’t leave at will. While you’re aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from the cruise company. I don’t think a cruise ship would ever allow competing companies to provide those services. I’m personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don’t a have fundamental issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it’s limitations as an advantage. However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don’t know how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.
bostonvaulter2 6y ago
As an app developer, what bothers me is not so much the fact that you have to pay the 30% when going through the app store it's the fact that you cannot even mention the Android Play store AT ALL. Also I don't like that they completely force app developers to use IAP instead of supporting other purchasing flows (without Apple's cut)
- threeseed 6y ago
  You actually want Apple to allow you to advertise a competitor's phone on their phone. What company would ever allow that ?
  - ac29 6y ago
    Pre-smartphone era pretty much every hardware vendor didnt impose arbitrary restrictions on software like that (the notable exception being video game consoles). If you wanted to write a Mac app that said "also available on Windows" (or vice versa), no one cared.
eykanal 6y ago
> This is virtually indistinguishable from a protection racket: It is a fee that developers must pay if they want to stay in business. And it is a fee which ultimately harms consumers because these fees are indirectly passed on to users, either through higher prices, or through fewer competing products in the marketplace. I guess this would be great, if it were true. There are over two million competing apps in the market [1], and the vast majority are priced ridiculously competitively at less than a dollar each [2]. That's the average cost, not the median, which would be significantly lower. I'm sure proton isn't happy about this, but considering the ridiculously high salaries app developers are able to command [3] but the market doesn't seem to agree with their assessment. Now, this may be more true about app companies, but the numbers there tell a different story. Based on this analysis [4], the thing killing them isn't the developer fees, its that its ridiculously hard to make any sort of living if your only product is a phone app. The majority of apps simply make no money at all. Adding 30% to 0 doesn't do much for anyone. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available-apps-in-the-apple-app-store/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-availab... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store-price-app/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app... [3]: https://www.businessofapps.com/app-developers/research/ios-android-developer-salary/ https://www.businessofapps.com/app-developers/research/ios-a... [4]: https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data-and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-reve...
kennydude 6y ago
Some of the arguments here reminds me of "Unauthorized Bread" (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...) where, take a fridge. Why would any fridge be allowed to not accept certain brands of milk? But, it is the manufacturer's product and right to do so right?
- threeseed 6y ago
  You mean like how I can only play Sony approved games on a Playstation, install Tesla approved apps on a Tesla, watch TV shows that a cable company has approved etc. The standard for most products that have addons since the beginning of time. Forcing companies to build an open ecosystem around every feature is a pretty unprecedented and unworkable concept.
RivieraKid 6y ago
I think the right approach here would be to regulate the revenue cut Apple is allowed to take. Right now it's 30%.
skuthus 6y ago
Apple doesn't just own the only app store on their platform: They also prevent apps that don't meet their personal moral standards on the store, arbitrarily. As a result, Instagram, tumblr, and many other sites are forced to censor and curtail content on their platforms because of apples perpetual moral consternation. Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through another app store.
- oscargrouch 6y ago
  > Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through another app store. I dont think they should. They should only do enough to comply with the law. eg. child pornography Each human being has its own moral standards and should be allowed to choose and not let others choose for them, unless as stated before, its considered illegal.
- grishka 6y ago
  It's as if they want to eradicate the very concept of sexuality from the internet. Even if you rate your app 18+, you still aren't allowed to have any actual 18+ content in it. This makes no sense whatsoever. Also: you have any UGC in your app? Too bad, you'll have to hire a team of moderators to enforce Apple's rules because won't someone think of the children.
moogleii 6y ago
I'm guessing Apple's defense will be very similar to the author's own words, except a little less emotional: > Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage > Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is largely controlled by Google’s Android). This means that for over a billion people (particularly in the US where their market share approaches 50%), the only way to install apps is through the App Store. This gives Apple enormous influence over the way software is created and consumed around the world. 25% is indeed "enormous influence" but it's not a monopoly. It feeling like one isn't enough. The telcos in the States seem like a comparable example. There are three major players, so it's roughly 33% control for each (differs per region I'm sure). With ISPs, it feels even worse. In most areas you can't even choose another provider with the same technology type (if you want fiber in my area, it's only Verizon. If you want cable, it's only Spectrum; DSL, AT&T; etc). But the rationale is, it's still internet at the end of the day, so I can technically choose.
- toyg 6y ago
  25% market share is a misleading statistic. Since iPhones dominate the higher end of the market, where the real money flows, they actually make twice as much money as Google: https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-.... So it’s more like a 70% share, in practice.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    One dollar, one vote!
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
These devs are such whiny entitled faggots. Be glad that Apple allows you to create apps at all, you ungrateful cretins.
julietteeb 6y ago
I'm a iOS tweak developer and the way the App Store is ran is fantastic as it prevents people like me from posting our tweaks to the main store as in my opinion a regular person shouldn't be installing tweaks or jailbreaking their device as if they install a bad tweak or fuck up their device they should know how to navigate the command line to fix it. Jailbreaking is cool but if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't do it. There are plenty of 3rd party app stores for the iPhone/iPad that anyone can access with out jailbreaking, Ignition (https://ignition.fun https://ignition.fun), TuTuApp (https://tutuapp-app.org https://tutuapp-app.org), TweakBox (https://www.tweakboxapp.com https://www.tweakboxapp.com), I'm probably missing more but they do exist. But they're sketchy and ad filled. They do how ever allow anyone to install semi-untethered jailbreaking software like Unc0ver and Electra. That being said Apple taking 30% cut in revenue is way too much in my view and the way it's set up could be better.
nodamage 6y ago
I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes meaningless. Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales on its own devices might be technically true but is not a meaningful statement when there are plenty of alternatives to Apple devices on the market. It is about as meaningful as claiming a gas station has a "monopoly" on gas sales in a three block radius, or that a bar has a "monopoly" on cocktail sales in its own building, or that I have a "monopoly" on lemonade sales on my front lawn. If you have to apply an arbitrary constraint to eliminate the consideration of meaningful alternatives that the consumer has access to, then you're not dealing with an actual monopoly.
- ig1 6y ago
  I think you're confusing the common-usage meaning with the legal definition. Generally in Europe the market share threshold for monopoly investigations is 25% - Apple's market-share for mobile app sales is well above that threshold.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Not sure where you got 25% from? > The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [1] Historically the European Commission's antitrust cases against tech giants have largely been against companies with overwhelming market share: European Commission vs Google: 90% market share in search [2] European Commission vs Intel: 70% market share in x86 CPUs [3] European Commission vs Qualcomm: 90% market share in LTE chipsets [4] Apple's 25% is nowhere near the same level and I expect the Commission's investigation will conclude that they do not, in fact, have a monopoly in the EU. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009XC0224%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1784 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_... [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_745 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_... [4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_421 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
daniel-s 6y ago
There is no definition of monopoly. People complain about monopolies when they lose or don't get what they want so resort to the government to cheat their way to competitiveness/success.
solvorn 6y ago
I don't know anything about EU law, but 25% marketshare is a tough case to make for a monopoly in the US. Also, antitrust has literally nothing to do with what laws/regimes Apple supports. Why not just focus on that?
627467 6y ago
It's funny to see tribal reactions to these news. Apple and other large tech companies have obviously arrived at a dominant position that would trigger these sort of investigations. You could say it's an attack on their success, and it is ironic that: success obviously has to do with it. What apple and other tech companies have are not natural monopolies so it's not always easy for everyone to understand why anyone could claim they wield monopolistic powers. But the point of these "platform businesses" is and has always been about gaining quasi-monopolistic strength so you can extract value from the margins of everyone involved in the platform ecosystem. Is a monopoly illegal or necessarily undesirable to society? It depends on how society sees and regulates it. Depends on what society interprets as a NET win or net loss to itself. And I can definitely think of several aspects of this state of affairs (handful of platforms sitting at nodes of large chunk of digital economy) that present as triggers for society to question the value of the ongoing monopolistic powers of these companies. But if anything is to be taken from Google's case with EU, Apple will just pay a headline-grabbing fine and continue doing whatever they are doing.
jlnthws 6y ago
Apple sells an experience, it's hard to find a common ground to those single store monopoly issues without compromising this experience and tarnishing Apple's precious image. Suppose Apple standardizes jailbreaking: say they allow you to turn on a switch that creates a sandbox on your device for you to do whatever you want. Your device would then be running freestyle without warranty, fair enough for me as a first mockup. What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their misfortune. Apple would be cancelled overnight. I'm barely exaggerating. Now I guess some EU negotiations could help to have some in-app purchases without fees (like buying a book in the Kindle app), avoid getting their app rejected for a shady reason (because rules can be changed whenever Apple sees fit) and, above all, allow me to set my morning alarm to some radio app (this one is ridiculous). The tragedy is that no "developers union" could ever succeed at this. The last issue, about supporting authoritarian regimes, is probably the most difficult to solve. This is politics, there are no companies or governments that can have it all every time. China is a huge market: you cannot hope staying in business if you try to impose all your rules everywhere. That's the exact same idea behind having the EU make a stand on the single store issues. Also, the most intolerant wins [1]. [1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- striking 6y ago
  > What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their misfortune. Many Android phones already allow you to gain access to root or to replace the OS that the device ships with (and even more of them allow for indiscriminate sideloading, even without rooting). Has Android's reputation been "defaced" over this opportunity for users to run custom software on their devices?
  - jlnthws 6y ago
    I was being satirical with my wording but the issue with Apple is different. Android is fragmented by design, there is Google, Samsung, Huawei, etc. companies which sell a lot of other things, so Android image may be less of an issue for them. Apple literally is iDevice, it's more than 2/3 of their revenue. But indeed "reputation" is more about marketing and at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the margin they can extract from aftermarket sales. As the recent antitrust inquiry shows, we were short of having 40% fee on app store sales. https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1288567281396711426 https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/128856728139671142... I think 30% made sense back then when the platform was tiptoeing. Now it may look as an abuse of dominant position, the classical shareholders vs workers game. I wonder how the appstore operating costs and profit have evolved over time.
socialdemocrat 6y ago
I am a big Apple fan, but seriously, you guys are bending yourselves into pretzels to make up excuses for Apple. we already know what a market without a mandatory App Store looks like because it is like that for the Mac. I still prefer buying apps through Apple’s store. Due to safety, ease of use etc. But I am happy alternatives exist when I need them. They could follow a similar model for iPhone where non-Apple stores have to be enabled specifically with a security warning.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  An F-Droid equivalent for iOS would be awesome.
  - ProZsolt 6y ago
    The problem you can't even sideload apps on iPhone.
- jagged-chisel 6y ago
  I fear the inevitable end down that path lies people who bought an iDevice, enabled alternative stores, were duped/hacked/otherwise-invaded, visited a Genius only to be told Apple won’t help them, and then lawsuits against Apple for their trouble.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    So this must’ve happened to Google already since they allow sideloading... I was not able to find anything.
    - jackewiehose 6y ago
      I hate the current situation where you buy a 1000$ pocket-computer and when you want to run your own software on it they call it "sideloading" and it might not be even possible.
      - 6y ago
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I'll put it on the first level , because most Apple defenders say exactly same thing: "Why should Apple who created the iPhone sell it like it prefers to? If you don't like it buy another phone". In fact, there was a business in US that did just that. Hollywood's Studio System. Movie studios were vertically integrated with theater chains, and you could only see Paramount or MGM movies in the theaters that that owned. And you know what? Customers were really unhappy, because studios made all kinds of bad tricks like forcing to buy a week pass to see just one movie. Of course, you could refuse to watch other 15 crap movies that were bundled with High Noon, or, like Apple defenders here say, go watch some other movie. I imagined some arguments that some HN commenters could make: "It's not a monopoly if you can watch other movies in other theaters" "Paramount movie chain is just 15% of total number of theaters" "They made this movie and they should decide how you are allowed to see it" It all ended with an court decision [1] that ended this monopoly abuse. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
Flow 6y ago
A lot of people think their iPhone is a general purpose computer, it isn't. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores etc, shouldn't MS, Sony and Nintendo be forced to open their platforms as well?

237 points by waldohatesyou 6y ago

Yes, it's a monopoly, but that doesn't mean it's bad per-se. People are freely choosing to buy iPhones and there are alternatives. If the situation on the App Store was so bad, there wouldn't be enough good apps and perhaps people would choose other devices. No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store.

baby_wipe 6y ago
Good points. In fact, I'm guessing consumers ultimately want the App Store to be a monopoly. It gives us a central place where both devs and consumer can exchange with each other. Break it up, and then you may hear people complain about how the mobile app marketplace is too fragmented (similar to how video streaming currently is).
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  Huh. I live in South Korea, and local Android app market is "fragmented", but approximately nobody complains, both users and developers. Local app market (owned by consortium of local mobile companies and local portals) takes less fee from developers, so developers love it. To let users use it, app developers do special promotion for the local app market, such as discount for in app purchases and special items for games, so users also love it. It is great.
sanxiyn 6y ago
App Store is a two-sided market, which is known to persist even after it is extremely bad. Users go where apps are, and app publishers go where users are. The circular dependency can be broken by movement en messe, but that doesn't necessarily happen even if the situation is terrible.
slivanes 6y ago
"No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store." Yes Apple is, there is no alternative to the App Store on an iPhone.
- mostlysimilar 6y ago
  I think the point is app developers can target other platforms to release their software, they don't have to target iOS. Part of my confidence in the iOS app store is the fact that Apple controls it so strongly. If they were forced to allow third party apps I doubt I would install any. My phone is too critical a part of my life to risk it.
  - skuthus 6y ago
    it would be on a different app store - you would still have full confidence if you used the Apple App Store only
  - justaguy88 6y ago
    But app developers can't make their own app store for iOS
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  No one is forcing anyone to write software for Apple.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  "Nobody is forcing them to be iPhone developers" - HN
  - Findeton 6y ago
    Well it's true isn't it? People make bad career choices all the time. And people also build failing business and we shouldn't save those companies because "they deserve it".
    - 6y ago
kmeisthax 6y ago
Apple's cryptographic lockout of unsigned software and refusal to authorize any non-App Store distribution defacto forces people who want to publish iPhone software to agree to Apple's terms. I'd also argue that there are no practical alternatives here. Apple makes an industry-leading smartphone SOC and good operating system software designed to take advantage of it. If you want that, then you are also locked out of unauthorized third-party software unless you use an exploit to compromise the device's security. Quite honestly, the software lockout business model has been deserving of government scrutiny ever since Nintendo put a lockout chip in the NES. If you own a device you should be able to run any software you want on it.
bmarquez 6y ago
> No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store. If I want iOS users to use my app, where can I publish it besides the App Store? I like the Android implementation, allow users to install third-party apps but make them manually enable the feature, complete with warnings. Users don't have to enable the feature if they want App Store curation, but the option is there.

moralsupply 6y ago

The article states that Apple is extorting users. Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?

Apocryphon 6y ago
By not allowing alternate app stores, yes.
- errantspark 6y ago
  What if I just don't write apps for or use apple devices?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Then don't. Trust me nobody will care. Because only the worst developers believe they are more important than the consumer.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Nobody forces anybody to buy an Apple product... In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not use that?
  - i5heu 6y ago
    I must have a smartphone. Android is not usable because of the lack of privacy. So I am forced to use an iPhone. Regulation is necessary in Oligopolys.
    - xvector 6y ago
      Just because the product you want doesn't exist doesn't mean you can force companies into making it. You can, on the other hand, support businesses or communities that are.
  - 6y ago

spullara 6y ago

As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me. Pro-consumer behavior almost always looks like anti-publisher behavior.

anilshanbhag 6y ago
Well they can do all that with a 10% fee too. The author is contending that by adding those restrictions and a high 30% fee, Apple is acting like a monopoly - it's their way or the highway.
- vogre 6y ago
  Why do you think that fee is unfair?
  - skuthus 6y ago
    Because you cannot opt for a different store if you don't like the fee. If you want to sell independently, you cant. If you want to sell alternatively, you cant. This excludes many devs and shops from access.
  - sanxiyn 6y ago
    Because, I guarantee, if iOS app distribution market was competitive, fee would be lower than 30%. 30% fee is a monopolistic rent.
    - eigen 6y ago
      Google Play store is also 30%. > For apps and in-app products offered through Google Play, the service fee is equivalent to 30% of the price. You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees. [https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...]

echelon 6y ago

Apple had the opportunity to lean on the web and elected not to. With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and more. HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available. Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders. Yes, they should be forced to do it. Edit: Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android, iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital? Edit 2: Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be broken up. My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies. Edit 3: If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your Netflix usage?

spullara 6y ago
There are plenty of cross-platform native app development platforms.
- echelon 6y ago
  These are bolted on hacks and don't have the combined support of Apple and Google. Nevermind the fact that this doesn't solve monopoly of distribution.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >These are bolted on hacks and don't have the combined support of Apple and Google. If you don't like "bolted on hacks" you'd like Web APIs and HTML as an application development platform even less...

simonh 6y ago

The only monopoly here is Apple’s monopoly on designing its own products. The iPhone, iOS, it’s development tools and the App Store are all Apple products, so Apple gets to decide what features they have. It’s also not unusual for companies to make deals with third parties to include their technology and software in their products, often as optional chargeable extras. That’s all the App Store is, it’s a way to add optional features to your phone, offered by the phone manufacturer. There is nothing illegal or abusive about this. What’s the alternative. Are you going to mandate what features Apple, or any manufacturer of devices with embedded software, can or cannot implement? Are you going to mandate by law specific features for side loading that all manufacturers have to implement in all devices containing software? What features, who gets to specify them, how will this be enforced? So now we’re going to have governments design the software in our phones, enshrined in law? Finally, how does this serve my interests as an iPhone user or developer? Is fragmented app stores going to make it easier to find software, make it easier for developers to connect with customers and increase software revenues? I don’t see it. Android has had tons of app stores over the years, the public converged on the Play Store because they want to go to one place to get apps and have one company to deal with. Users like consolidation, it serves their needs. All this does not mean I’m against any regulation. I thing there’s a reasonable case for oversight of these things and a dialogue between law makers and tech companies about how they manage their products and customer relations. That’s fine, but chopping up the market and products arbitrarily does not serve the public interest.

Apocryphon 6y ago
If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium of industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and open source foundations... sure why not?
- xvector 6y ago
  Because the government should not have unilateral power over a platform you've poured your own time, money, and effort into developing. That would be theft. I am honestly amazed that people are still in favor of gross government overreach in the era of Trump.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

I applaud this. The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. Third-party appstores and app sideloading is a must. (And do not forget third party push-notifications, iOS devices are next to useless without them)

xvector 6y ago
> The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have. If you do not like it, then there is no obligation for you to buy said device. You are not entitled to make the device manufacturer pour time and effort into developing support for features like this. It's quite simple - if you don't like the ecosystem, move on.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this reason. And I happen to actually like them. This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a monopoly, and it hurts consumers. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.
  - xvector 6y ago
    > It is a monopoly, Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life in any meaningful way whatsoever. > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.
    - 6y ago

newbie578 6y ago

You should not share articles like these on HN. Sacred things are not to be critized, and everything Apple is sacred :) Just check the comments in this thread. As long as I get my "flawless user experience" it doesn't matter what happens and how Apple treats the backbone of its platform (independent developers) and forcing them in a feudal relationship, one might even call it a road to serfdom. And I can see already that there will be people jumping out of the woods with the classic argument: "The devs are free to leave the App store" You try to make a business and the first decision you make is that you abandon half of your potential marketshare (iOS is over 50% in the U.S.)

BoysenberryPi 6y ago

Genuine question: Why does this matter? I see 0 problems with Apple having a "walled garden." It's their product and their platform so they should be able to decide what gets supported and developed for it. I personally don't like how Apple conducts their business so I just don't use Apple products and that's that.

RivieraKid 6y ago
Because it makes apps more expensive.
- BoysenberryPi 6y ago
  If the apps become more expensive then people will stop buying them from the App Store and seeing people are not willing to pay for more expensive apps developers would probably stop developing for iOS which in the end would cause users to abandon the platform seeing as they cannot get the apps they need. If apps being more expensive is really the only problem then it seems like the problem fixes itself.
  - RivieraKid 6y ago
    It clearly doesn't fix itself, because both Apple and Google are taking a 30% cut. You're assuming efficient markets. The App Store is a monopoly, i.e. the opposite of an efficient market. (Well, it's more nuanced, all markets are somewhere between efficient and monopolistic.)
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Well, you should hope that your country doesn't turn into a authoritarian regime. Cause then you'll be unable to use VPN or any kind of encrypted chats - only those that give access to comrade Major from the secret police. If you think I'm overblowing things, try finding Signal in China's AppStore.
- BoysenberryPi 6y ago

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

The ability to communicate by smartphone is so ubiquitous in our society that it has effectively become a basic need on the level of electricity, water, natural gas, and internet access. The utility service that was land-line telephones is becoming obsolete, and it's becoming increasingly harder to participate in society without a smartphone and the ability to install apps on that smartphone. In light of that reality, the duopoly of Apple and Google are effectively public utilities. They can no longer be considered solely as providers of discretionary consumer goods, and should be subject to additional scrutiny and regulation beyond that applied to ordinary commodity manufacturers.

echelon 6y ago
If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then you support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix. If you support Apple and Google having locked down authoritative control over the code run on their devices, then you support the Great Firewall. The only choice of a free and open society, and one mindful of the great benefit of open source and open platforms, is to remove these companies from executive control of mobile platforms. They must become free and open, just like the web. They're sucking all of the air out of the room. It kills freedom, diversity, and progress. It's rent-seeking.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  Apple retaining 30% on the store is fascism, but the open web is a utopia? This argument completely ignores the reality of the situation. One of the greatest abusers of the open web is Facebook who tracks users on almost every site and infringes on the privacy of everyone despite whether of not you hold an account. I'm not interested in Facebook, TikTok, or the next VC social media company, getting native, unfettered access to hardware on my phone or anyone around me where they would be free to run the GPS 24/7. That's the reality of the "open web" today.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > the open web is a utopia? It's pretty great afaict. > One of the greatest abusers of the open web is Facebook who tracks users on almost every site and infringes on the privacy of everyone despite whether of not you hold an account. Another area where we should exercise legislative action to protect Americans. > I'm not interested in Facebook, TikTok, or the next VC social media company, getting native, unfettered access to hardware on my phone You're ignoring the great strides we've made, and continue to make, in sandboxing. I'd rather these developments happen out in the open, too.

tschellenbach 6y ago

I think the important part is that they apply the same rules to all the apps in their app store so it's a fair playing field between companies. IE they should not be allowed to for instance get into the dating market, and start by blocking Tinder.

skuthus 6y ago

If you purchase the hardware for the product, no company should be able to stop you from installing whatever you like on the product.

scarface74 6y ago
Like in consoles for the past thirty years? Why is it the government’s responsibility to stop you from buying a device that doesn’t fit your needs when you had an option.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  You seem to be stuck on continually making the point that if something hasn’t happened already that it should never happen. Phones are a lot more important than consoles but, if a law doesn’t exist let’s make one that applies to both phones and consoles. This is our country. If Apple doesn’t like it they can go do business somewhere else.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Right because giving the government more power can’t possibly have negative consequences. Did you watch the congressional testimony a few days ago? Would you trust this government to pass laws with regards to tech?
    - d0gbread 6y ago
      Yes, that's exactly the goal. Antitrust laws need to be updated for today's technology and businesses.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        And you trust the current politicians who were more concerned about Big Tech being unfair to conservatives than they were about antitrust. Did anything productive come out of the dog and pony shoe?

Apocryphon 6y ago

Blast from the past: Apple using EU courts to prevent Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe (2012) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862

DenisM 6y ago

The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25% of the market and thus does not qualify for the Sherman Act definition of "monopoly". Punters, however, believe that once they enter the establishment they are now in the clutches of the monopoly, and so demand competing popcorn stands and reject the suggestion of walking over to the competing theater. Sorry folks, that's not how Sherman Act works. So long as there are enough movie theaters in town it's not a "monopoly", and a non-existent monopoly cannot be abused. The US congress could, of course, rewrite the law (as they did to pass the Sherman Act in the first place), but until such day Apple is not a monopoly in the US.

habitue 6y ago
This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize are happening (if ever). Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are really disincentivized to switch. - For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple - If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people, and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as well). People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies, and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and you literally can’t leave at will. While you’re aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from the cruise company. I don’t think a cruise ship would ever allow competing companies to provide those services. I’m personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don’t a have fundamental issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it’s limitations as an advantage. However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don’t know how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.

bostonvaulter2 6y ago

As an app developer, what bothers me is not so much the fact that you have to pay the 30% when going through the app store it's the fact that you cannot even mention the Android Play store AT ALL. Also I don't like that they completely force app developers to use IAP instead of supporting other purchasing flows (without Apple's cut)

threeseed 6y ago
You actually want Apple to allow you to advertise a competitor's phone on their phone. What company would ever allow that ?
- ac29 6y ago
  Pre-smartphone era pretty much every hardware vendor didnt impose arbitrary restrictions on software like that (the notable exception being video game consoles). If you wanted to write a Mac app that said "also available on Windows" (or vice versa), no one cared.

eykanal 6y ago

> This is virtually indistinguishable from a protection racket: It is a fee that developers must pay if they want to stay in business. And it is a fee which ultimately harms consumers because these fees are indirectly passed on to users, either through higher prices, or through fewer competing products in the marketplace. I guess this would be great, if it were true. There are over two million competing apps in the market [1], and the vast majority are priced ridiculously competitively at less than a dollar each [2]. That's the average cost, not the median, which would be significantly lower. I'm sure proton isn't happy about this, but considering the ridiculously high salaries app developers are able to command [3] but the market doesn't seem to agree with their assessment. Now, this may be more true about app companies, but the numbers there tell a different story. Based on this analysis [4], the thing killing them isn't the developer fees, its that its ridiculously hard to make any sort of living if your only product is a phone app. The majority of apps simply make no money at all. Adding 30% to 0 doesn't do much for anyone. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available-apps-in-the-apple-app-store/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-availab... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store-price-app/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app... [3]: https://www.businessofapps.com/app-developers/research/ios-android-developer-salary/ https://www.businessofapps.com/app-developers/research/ios-a... [4]: https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data-and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-reve...

kennydude 6y ago

Some of the arguments here reminds me of "Unauthorized Bread" (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...) where, take a fridge. Why would any fridge be allowed to not accept certain brands of milk? But, it is the manufacturer's product and right to do so right?

threeseed 6y ago
You mean like how I can only play Sony approved games on a Playstation, install Tesla approved apps on a Tesla, watch TV shows that a cable company has approved etc. The standard for most products that have addons since the beginning of time. Forcing companies to build an open ecosystem around every feature is a pretty unprecedented and unworkable concept.

RivieraKid 6y ago

I think the right approach here would be to regulate the revenue cut Apple is allowed to take. Right now it's 30%.

skuthus 6y ago

Apple doesn't just own the only app store on their platform: They also prevent apps that don't meet their personal moral standards on the store, arbitrarily. As a result, Instagram, tumblr, and many other sites are forced to censor and curtail content on their platforms because of apples perpetual moral consternation. Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through another app store.

oscargrouch 6y ago
> Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through another app store. I dont think they should. They should only do enough to comply with the law. eg. child pornography Each human being has its own moral standards and should be allowed to choose and not let others choose for them, unless as stated before, its considered illegal.
grishka 6y ago
It's as if they want to eradicate the very concept of sexuality from the internet. Even if you rate your app 18+, you still aren't allowed to have any actual 18+ content in it. This makes no sense whatsoever. Also: you have any UGC in your app? Too bad, you'll have to hire a team of moderators to enforce Apple's rules because won't someone think of the children.

moogleii 6y ago

I'm guessing Apple's defense will be very similar to the author's own words, except a little less emotional: > Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage > Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is largely controlled by Google’s Android). This means that for over a billion people (particularly in the US where their market share approaches 50%), the only way to install apps is through the App Store. This gives Apple enormous influence over the way software is created and consumed around the world. 25% is indeed "enormous influence" but it's not a monopoly. It feeling like one isn't enough. The telcos in the States seem like a comparable example. There are three major players, so it's roughly 33% control for each (differs per region I'm sure). With ISPs, it feels even worse. In most areas you can't even choose another provider with the same technology type (if you want fiber in my area, it's only Verizon. If you want cable, it's only Spectrum; DSL, AT&T; etc). But the rationale is, it's still internet at the end of the day, so I can technically choose.

toyg 6y ago
25% market share is a misleading statistic. Since iPhones dominate the higher end of the market, where the real money flows, they actually make twice as much money as Google: https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-.... So it’s more like a 70% share, in practice.
- manicdee 6y ago
  One dollar, one vote!

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

These devs are such whiny entitled faggots. Be glad that Apple allows you to create apps at all, you ungrateful cretins.

julietteeb 6y ago

I'm a iOS tweak developer and the way the App Store is ran is fantastic as it prevents people like me from posting our tweaks to the main store as in my opinion a regular person shouldn't be installing tweaks or jailbreaking their device as if they install a bad tweak or fuck up their device they should know how to navigate the command line to fix it. Jailbreaking is cool but if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't do it. There are plenty of 3rd party app stores for the iPhone/iPad that anyone can access with out jailbreaking, Ignition (https://ignition.fun https://ignition.fun), TuTuApp (https://tutuapp-app.org https://tutuapp-app.org), TweakBox (https://www.tweakboxapp.com https://www.tweakboxapp.com), I'm probably missing more but they do exist. But they're sketchy and ad filled. They do how ever allow anyone to install semi-untethered jailbreaking software like Unc0ver and Electra. That being said Apple taking 30% cut in revenue is way too much in my view and the way it's set up could be better.

nodamage 6y ago

I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes meaningless. Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales on its own devices might be technically true but is not a meaningful statement when there are plenty of alternatives to Apple devices on the market. It is about as meaningful as claiming a gas station has a "monopoly" on gas sales in a three block radius, or that a bar has a "monopoly" on cocktail sales in its own building, or that I have a "monopoly" on lemonade sales on my front lawn. If you have to apply an arbitrary constraint to eliminate the consideration of meaningful alternatives that the consumer has access to, then you're not dealing with an actual monopoly.

ig1 6y ago
I think you're confusing the common-usage meaning with the legal definition. Generally in Europe the market share threshold for monopoly investigations is 25% - Apple's market-share for mobile app sales is well above that threshold.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Not sure where you got 25% from? > The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the undertaking's market share is below 40 % in the relevant market. [1] Historically the European Commission's antitrust cases against tech giants have largely been against companies with overwhelming market share: European Commission vs Google: 90% market share in search [2] European Commission vs Intel: 70% market share in x86 CPUs [3] European Commission vs Qualcomm: 90% market share in LTE chipsets [4] Apple's 25% is nowhere near the same level and I expect the Commission's investigation will conclude that they do not, in fact, have a monopoly in the EU. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009XC0224%2801%29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_1784 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_... [3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_745 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_... [4] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_421 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...

daniel-s 6y ago

There is no definition of monopoly. People complain about monopolies when they lose or don't get what they want so resort to the government to cheat their way to competitiveness/success.

solvorn 6y ago

I don't know anything about EU law, but 25% marketshare is a tough case to make for a monopoly in the US. Also, antitrust has literally nothing to do with what laws/regimes Apple supports. Why not just focus on that?

627467 6y ago

It's funny to see tribal reactions to these news. Apple and other large tech companies have obviously arrived at a dominant position that would trigger these sort of investigations. You could say it's an attack on their success, and it is ironic that: success obviously has to do with it. What apple and other tech companies have are not natural monopolies so it's not always easy for everyone to understand why anyone could claim they wield monopolistic powers. But the point of these "platform businesses" is and has always been about gaining quasi-monopolistic strength so you can extract value from the margins of everyone involved in the platform ecosystem. Is a monopoly illegal or necessarily undesirable to society? It depends on how society sees and regulates it. Depends on what society interprets as a NET win or net loss to itself. And I can definitely think of several aspects of this state of affairs (handful of platforms sitting at nodes of large chunk of digital economy) that present as triggers for society to question the value of the ongoing monopolistic powers of these companies. But if anything is to be taken from Google's case with EU, Apple will just pay a headline-grabbing fine and continue doing whatever they are doing.

jlnthws 6y ago

Apple sells an experience, it's hard to find a common ground to those single store monopoly issues without compromising this experience and tarnishing Apple's precious image. Suppose Apple standardizes jailbreaking: say they allow you to turn on a switch that creates a sandbox on your device for you to do whatever you want. Your device would then be running freestyle without warranty, fair enough for me as a first mockup. What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their misfortune. Apple would be cancelled overnight. I'm barely exaggerating. Now I guess some EU negotiations could help to have some in-app purchases without fees (like buying a book in the Kindle app), avoid getting their app rejected for a shady reason (because rules can be changed whenever Apple sees fit) and, above all, allow me to set my morning alarm to some radio app (this one is ridiculous). The tragedy is that no "developers union" could ever succeed at this. The last issue, about supporting authoritarian regimes, is probably the most difficult to solve. This is politics, there are no companies or governments that can have it all every time. China is a huge market: you cannot hope staying in business if you try to impose all your rules everywhere. That's the exact same idea behind having the EU make a stand on the single store issues. Also, the most intolerant wins [1]. [1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

striking 6y ago
> What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their misfortune. Many Android phones already allow you to gain access to root or to replace the OS that the device ships with (and even more of them allow for indiscriminate sideloading, even without rooting). Has Android's reputation been "defaced" over this opportunity for users to run custom software on their devices?
- jlnthws 6y ago
  I was being satirical with my wording but the issue with Apple is different. Android is fragmented by design, there is Google, Samsung, Huawei, etc. companies which sell a lot of other things, so Android image may be less of an issue for them. Apple literally is iDevice, it's more than 2/3 of their revenue. But indeed "reputation" is more about marketing and at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the margin they can extract from aftermarket sales. As the recent antitrust inquiry shows, we were short of having 40% fee on app store sales. https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1288567281396711426 https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/128856728139671142... I think 30% made sense back then when the platform was tiptoeing. Now it may look as an abuse of dominant position, the classical shareholders vs workers game. I wonder how the appstore operating costs and profit have evolved over time.

socialdemocrat 6y ago

I am a big Apple fan, but seriously, you guys are bending yourselves into pretzels to make up excuses for Apple. we already know what a market without a mandatory App Store looks like because it is like that for the Mac. I still prefer buying apps through Apple’s store. Due to safety, ease of use etc. But I am happy alternatives exist when I need them. They could follow a similar model for iPhone where non-Apple stores have to be enabled specifically with a security warning.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
An F-Droid equivalent for iOS would be awesome.
- ProZsolt 6y ago
  The problem you can't even sideload apps on iPhone.
jagged-chisel 6y ago
I fear the inevitable end down that path lies people who bought an iDevice, enabled alternative stores, were duped/hacked/otherwise-invaded, visited a Genius only to be told Apple won’t help them, and then lawsuits against Apple for their trouble.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  So this must’ve happened to Google already since they allow sideloading... I was not able to find anything.
  - jackewiehose 6y ago
    I hate the current situation where you buy a 1000$ pocket-computer and when you want to run your own software on it they call it "sideloading" and it might not be even possible.
    - 6y ago

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

I'll put it on the first level , because most Apple defenders say exactly same thing: "Why should Apple who created the iPhone sell it like it prefers to? If you don't like it buy another phone". In fact, there was a business in US that did just that. Hollywood's Studio System. Movie studios were vertically integrated with theater chains, and you could only see Paramount or MGM movies in the theaters that that owned. And you know what? Customers were really unhappy, because studios made all kinds of bad tricks like forcing to buy a week pass to see just one movie. Of course, you could refuse to watch other 15 crap movies that were bundled with High Noon, or, like Apple defenders here say, go watch some other movie. I imagined some arguments that some HN commenters could make: "It's not a monopoly if you can watch other movies in other theaters" "Paramount movie chain is just 15% of total number of theaters" "They made this movie and they should decide how you are allowed to see it" It all ended with an court decision [1] that ended this monopoly abuse. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....

Flow 6y ago

A lot of people think their iPhone is a general purpose computer, it isn't. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores etc, shouldn't MS, Sony and Nintendo be forced to open their platforms as well?