80 ms·

EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

• zibzab 5y ago
  Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
  • rusk 5y ago
    How is that unpopular? I think all but a fairly vocal minority of people (probably direct/indirect beneficiaries) would agree.
    • WA 5y ago
      "Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
      • bluescrn 5y ago
        Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably
        • numpad0 5y ago
          Are we doing “temporally embarrassed platformers” now
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • anoncake 5y ago
            Aren't startups just temporarily embarrassed FTAANGs?
        • ObserverNeutral 5y ago
          >> Because they're all trying to build platforms, probably Or not building products which collide with platforms. As a general rule, if you have to use offensive lawsuits you are not smart enough to do it cleanly. This is true in business and everywhere else
      • malka 5y ago
        The problem is not the rules themselves. The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay 30%.
        • harywilke 5y ago
          No company should have the power to tell another company that they must split up into separate entities.
          • gambiting 5y ago
            Company? No. But a government can absolutely do this and it's a thing that happens all the time, even in the US.
          • dkirill 5y ago
            No company, but the government should be able to
          • gcthomas 5y ago
            Apple has built itself up into a vertical monopoly, which used to be illegal. There is no good reason to allow anti-competitive behaviours. They shouldn't be allowed to host the platform and compete with applications at the same time.
            • simondotau 5y ago
              And yet vertical integration is a big part of why Apple products are so loved. By denying the option of vertical integration, you’re forcing the totality of products we use to be incrementally a little bit more crap.
              • malka 5y ago
                you can have vertical integration. But having an advantage at one layer should no be leveraged as advantage to another layer. Apple is free to make a music player. But its music player should abide by the same rules as other players in the market. Either Apple Music has its income cut by 30%, or no one does.
      • gcthomas 5y ago
        If only the refrain was "EU's territory, EU's rules". No platform can operate in isolation from the laws of the places they wish to trade.
    • Mindwipe 5y ago
      The vocal minority are very active on HN's voting mechanics.
      • rusk 5y ago
        Ssh don't mention "the thing"!
  • zibzab 5y ago
    Should add, the ruling is not really about the validity of the 30% fee. What EU seems to argue is this: 1. Apple is in phone business, Spotify music. So far so good... 2. Then apple wants to get into the music business too. Now they have an unfair advantage since Spotify must pay 30% to apple while apple music "pays" 0%. So apple use their dominance in one area (phones) to get an advantage in a totally different area (music), which is a textbook violation.
    • dustinmoris 5y ago
      I agree with this principle but in this specific case it’s not true because Apple started their music business long before the iPhone and Spotify existed. In fact they started with the iPod and their music business with the iPod is what lead them to invent the iPhone and the AppStore. It’s rich from other music businesses like Spotify to want to benefit from all of the R&D and innovation cost from Apple and the market they created whilst dismissing that in fact they entered the music market with the goal to eat shares from Apple and not the other way around.
      • teknopaul 5y ago
        starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.
        • dustinmoris 5y ago
          It’s hardly abuse if Apple was the first to invent an iPod and iTunes and the online music business and then evolved their own products around their own offerings. They decided to let others into their own platform to enrich it, not to crush them. Spotify entered knowing that Apple already had a competing product. Why did they enter and start competing if they thought it was an unfair competition from the start? I find it hard to believe given the history of events. If it was in any way different then perhaps I could understand but to me it feels that Spotify just decided that now is the time to look for avenues to increase their profits and see the AppStore as the first opportunity to attack after never having had a problem before. Only a fool would start a business in a platform which tries to crush them so clearly that was never the case. EDIT (cannot reply): So if Apple would basically not have an AppStore for third parties and only distribute their own apps then it would be fair. If Apple was to not allow other Music apps on their AppStore then it would be fair. But when Apple allows others to distribute a competing product to Apple on Apple’s own platform for a fee then it is considered unfair? I honestly don’t understand this logic.
  • beforeolives 5y ago
    > Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere. 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?
    • zibzab 5y ago
      Well, Apple has created a bunch of rules to address #1. For example, you cannot sell the same goods outside the store with a 30% discount.
    • deergomoo 5y ago
      > How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? I’m sure many businesses would be perfectly happy to have no access whatsoever to the platform Apple built and maintain (platform meaning the App Store in this context), but if they want to ship on iOS (which is where all the money is), they have no choice.
      • FredPret 5y ago
        So Apple is providing these businesses with a platform that has captured hundreds of millions of high-income users. That’s incredibly valuable
        • deergomoo 5y ago
          Indeed, which is why they took $48bn in revenue for iPhone sales this quarter. Their argument that they are responsible for Spotify’s iPhone-originating revenue to the tune of a 30% cut is a complete farce. If the iPhone didn’t have third party apps, no-one would buy them.
    • simion314 5y ago
      >What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? Maybe look at OSX ? Why can Apple be happy with OK with one but not the other? If you want to imply that phones are not computers then tablets are not phones and more like computers, so we all know that if it OSX was created today would be locked.
  • simonh 5y ago
    It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get nothing. https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees... OK, that's the fact side of things. As for opinion, I think it's ridiculous that App vendors can't point out alternative payment options in their apps. That's a step too far. I'm also a bit concerned about digital sales, I can see why Epic doesn't want to pay 30% on every skin or loot box sold in Fortnite, but it's a free app otherwise distributed on the App Store for nothing so I think some sort of deal needs to be struck there. Other than that, I think the iPhone is Apple's product. They get to decide how it works, and users get to decide whether that's acceptable or not. Apple (and NeXT) spent billions of dollars over many decades, taking huge commercial risks to build that platform. A decade ago we were constantly being told they were inevitably doomed and open always wins. Well no, some of us like the way Apple does things and don't want it to massively change. Some things sure, they're not perfect, but I do not support changes that would severely undermine the integrity of their product. You can always buy an Android phone.
    • thayne 5y ago
      But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
      • ChrisRR 5y ago
        And aren't even allowed to mention in your app that you can sign up outside of the app.
      • simonh 5y ago
        Sure I understand that, but personally as an iPhone user I don't care. Users benefit from consolidation in the app store space, it much easier for me to have all my apps come from one app store with one set of rules and policies. I benefit from the fact Facebook can't bypass the App Store rules for security and privacy through side loading and an alternate store. Why do you want to take that away from me? Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence. I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well. At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.
  • endisneigh 5y ago
    Is the issue the percentage or skimming off the top? What percentage is acceptable? How did you come up with it? You might as well say that all percentage based transactions should be illegal.
    • dannyw 5y ago
      Any percentage is acceptable if Spotify isn't forced to pay it. Any percentage is also acceptable if Apple wasn't directly competing with Spotify.
      • endisneigh 5y ago
        Isn’t Spotify benefiting from Apple devices? If not, then they can simply not be on Apple devices right? If they are benefiting, then is it unacceptable for them to pay for the benefit?
        • kryptiskt 5y ago
          Is Apple benefiting from selling in the EU? If they want to benefit from Europe, they got to obey the rules.
          • endisneigh 5y ago
            I agree completely, but for now they are following the rules. I’ll be happy to see the EU ban percentage based fees and make all platforms open.
            • simion314 5y ago
              Is not about the percentage, are you aware that you can't even mention you can buy a subscription from the website in the iOS application? Apple does not allow alternative app stores and is actively blocking you to inform of alternative methods of payment.
              • 5y ago
  • piokoch 5y ago
    I think argument about 30% is not that good. There is a number of services that Apple provides like software distribution, updates distribution, reviews (even though they don't benefit software creator directly, they build trust in the platform and attract more users), invoicing, regardless on the location (this one is really big - getting a single invoice from Apple instead of dealing with potentially thousands of documents) and also marketing. I spoke once to a guy who was selling English language courses on CDs in brick and mortar stores plus he was sending courses by snail mail. He's got interested in that new at that time App Store thing, so I've asked him about the fee. He said that comparing to his current packaging and distrubution costs, paying stores only to be able to put his product on a shelf those 30% is a laughably small fee.
    • simion314 5y ago
      Steam also has a tax but you still have a choice as a developer or as a gamer. Cyberpunk is on Steam, Gog, Epic and maybe other stores(there are many such games where you as the user can decide what store you trust , what is more comfortable for you or what company you like more). If you are an iOS developer and and 2 other stores would exists, then you would publish on all to maximize your profit, and hard core Apple fans still get their app from the Apple store but it could cost a bit more.
      • bzzzt 5y ago
        That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. I fear that the endgame of multiple App stores is that the guarantee Apple gives (for instance with the privacy labels) will be sidestepped by businesses like Facebook who will force people through their own store without them. Seeing how many people don't read the small print and just install everything available to them that's the most probable outcome.
        • simion314 5y ago
          >That would be great if stores weren't pushing so much for 'exclusives'. Exclusives are not that many and instead of fighting like idiots to have only one store we could ask laws to block artificial exclusives. On PC is not a big deal to install Origin and play a game if you are desperate, on iOS you can't install stuff without a big effort to jailbreak your device (though you can do it on OSX and I did not see any malware/viruses or similar complaints)
  • mrtksn 5y ago
    >company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes That's not a problem, there's no inartistic correct amount to make for enabling or providing value. For 30 years now, software makes much more than that as numerous industries no longer employ people but software. The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. For Apple, the advantage that can be misused is to deny some API or the existence of competing businesses on their platforms. They can also do unfair pricing, for example it could be argued that %30 on Spotify is unfair when Apple has directly competing product. For Amazon for example, they can have analytics on the businesses on their platforms and create competing products and promote them unfairly. There are countless examples of Amazon doing this. Google was also fined many times for using their dominance in one area to force dominance in another. Essentially, it's the good old platform owner getting greedy issue. IMHO we need platform and product separation rules, similar to the Hollywood rules on separation of production and distribution.
    • f6v 5y ago
      > The problem is, when you own the platform and you start competing on that platform you have an advantage that can be misused. Except every platform ever built is there to get an unfair advantage. That’s the endgame for all the companies. Why would you build a platform otherwise? There’s a perpetual growth expectation after all.
      • mrtksn 5y ago
        Yes, the incentives are often perverse. However, there are many reasons to build a platform even if your endgame is not extracting all of the value yourself and that is, make money from the commission on the platform or protect your interest in other businesses through the platform(for example, Android and Chrome platforms protect Google from being pushed out of data collection for advertisement). Anyway, businesses might have that kind of aspirations but thats why we have governments. An important argument against influence of the businesses in the government and libertarianism.
      • simion314 5y ago
  • bennysomething 5y ago
    How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice. Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.
    • f6v 5y ago
      People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.
      • simion314 5y ago
        You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
        • f6v 5y ago
          Why build a platform then?
          • simion314 5y ago
            Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
            • bennysomething 5y ago
              How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
  • xxs 5y ago
    >Unpopular opinion: Only if you own Apple stock... or well hackernews is overall unfriendly for anything Apple related.
    • mhh__ 5y ago
      How is hackernews in any way unfriendly to Apple? Anything involving Apple Silicon goes straight to the top of the frontpage, comments are full of people absolutely gushing over just about anything - I personally don't really care other than that I find it subtly funny the number of times I see people saying "Wow my new M1 Mac is so much faster than [Different Mac that's almost a decade old, but I'm either not used to thinking about Apple products in terms of their internals, or I'm forgetting the passage of time]"
      • xxs 5y ago
        unfriendly as in "unfriendly to discuss"... not the company, itself - which tends to be favored. (this is why I said unfriendly 'for') Just the topics. It's a download fest (on any side) for anything that doesn't fit their purpose. M1 is a prime example - it was top of the page and most of the comments were nothing about the technology, etc. About M1 - I find nothing spectacular about it, given the amount of transistors it has.
  • slver 5y ago
    The App Store, iOS and Apple's hardware are all Apple's infrastructure.
    • simion314 5y ago
      something is missing here, maybe quote the thing you replied to or be more clear. Since is not clear, I might be off topic, Apple can not sell it's stuff in EU or can comply with the laws , it is fun when "our stuff, our rules, use something else if you don't like it" is applied to Apple.
      • Oddskar 5y ago
        It's far from the first time Apple tries to weasel it's way out of EU legislation. I remember it was this way with AppleCare years ago as well. One had to really fight them to uphold the minimum warranty guaranteed by national legislation.
    • realusername 5y ago
      I'm sure they'd like to not use those if they could.
  • Someone 5y ago
    I disagree. It’s not that Apple wants 30%, it’s that they get away with it. For most companies, such a demand would be fine, legally (suicidal, but fine. Companies are free to make stupid decisions)
    • simondotau 5y ago
      30% has been an industry standard for digital sales for a long time, long before Apple adopted it.
      • username90 5y ago
        Which is what EU intends to fix.
        • simondotau 5y ago
          Fine, so long as they “fix it” for everyone. Whatever rules they come up with must be universally applied. That includes for Sony and Microsoft and the game console online stores.
  • saynay 5y ago
    I believe it is 30% for the initial subscription (or maybe first year?), and then 15% after that. If you are big enough, and probably aren't competing with a market Apple wants, you can negotiate to the 15% (maybe lower?) from the get go, e.g. Netflix.
  • oaiey 5y ago
    They were very accurate about the following: (A) It is only about Music (other cases exists in parallel). (B) They declared that the 30% market share of their devices has a practical vendor-lock-in (so a monopoly without choice there). (C) Apple competes with other Music vendors and cut them by 30% AND blocking them from directly accessing the user AND that they abstract the user away from the App (leaving the other app zero information while they have a monopoly on information)
  • harywilke 5y ago
    narrator voice: they all used apple infrastructure.
    • stby 5y ago
      ... because they had to
  • jVinc 5y ago
    > Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me decide to put my products in their store without their say, or without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen through their store.
    • gcthomas 5y ago
      Walmart is competing openly with the store down the street. If I have a iPhone I can't use another store — it is a lock-in.
      • simondotau 5y ago
        If you walk into Walmart, you’re not going to find a Target. And you’re certainly not going to find a Target paying 0% commission to Walmart. There you go, another equally ridiculous Walmart analogy.
      • jVinc 5y ago
        Walmart isn't competing openly though. They have a 100% monopoly on wallmart shelf space. Target is a different platform down the street sure, but that's like Apple vs. Samsung. You can't get the Apple app store on a Samsung, and you can't get the android appstore on an iPhone. But Target can't put products on wallmarts shelves and wallmart can't put products on targets shelves.
  • fastball 5y ago
    Yeah, my stance has always been that companies should exist to: 1. deliver value. 2. capture a fraction of that value. I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. It's not like Apple is building the apps for other people. You still have to build the app entirely on your own, the only thing Apple is doing is letting you distribute your app / distributing it for you, which costs pennies. People keep saying "but you wouldn't have devices to distribute your app to without Apple" and while that is true, Apple is already capturing the value for that part of the deal – they're selling the devices to customers. If they were giving away iPhones for free, that would be one thing. But if the only reason you are able to charge 30% is because you've monopolized distribution on a device that the user "owns", that is not ok. Then there is the dubious value Apple claims to be providing to end-users by "maintaining the quality of the app store", but I don't think this is true anymore. Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. Apps are pretty well sandboxed at this point, requiring explicit permission for most worrying features, so I don't really think Apple oversight is needed. Allow 3rd party app stores already.
    • sixstringtheory 5y ago
      > I think it is pretty clear in most cases that 30% is well above the value Apple is actually delivering with their App Store. You’re entitled to your opinion. And maybe it is not valuable to you. But I doubt you even know the costs to run the service so my opinion is that you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Part of the value of the service is that you don’t have to go and build it yourself. I’m going to bet that you’d die before you built it. How valuable is your life? > Shit-tier apps get thru every day, and great apps get knocked for arbitrary reasons. My opinion is this will get much worse. Just because you are a cute tinkerer who just wants to publish the app you made for your grandma doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who can’t wait to get their malware onto the platform that carries the most wealthy consumers.
      • colinmhayes 5y ago
        The app store makes tens of billions of dollars a year. You can't argue it delivers anywhere close to that amount of value.
  • zuhsetaqi 5y ago
    > no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. That’s not exactly right. If Spotify (just as an example) would acquire all of their customers through their website or desktop app then they would pay nothing to Apple. That fee is only there if a user does use the InApp purchase option which Spotify doesn’t have to offer. So they’re paying only 30% to Apple if the their customer has subscribed through the iOS App.
    • oaiey 5y ago
      Where there are forbidden or prevented to inform the user that they can register somewhere else cheaper. This is explicitly mentioned by the EU commissioner in the press conference.
  • ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
    That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market place, even if many don't take advantage of it. Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30% off the top.
  • boublepop 5y ago
    Same is true for Walmart. If you own shelf space in a store front you get to dictate the terms for people who want to get onto those shelves. The major difference is only that for other phones, the stores decided to let everyone go and put up diy shelves in their stores and now people are demanding the ability to do it in Apple stores too.
• La1n 5y ago
  Link to the press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2061 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
• georgyo 5y ago
  > In response, Apple said the EU’s case was the “opposite of fair competition,” according to a statement cited by Reuters. So apple thinks that allowing any competition is the opposite of fair.
  • zibzab 5y ago
    Remember their response in the ebook price fixing lawsuit? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
    • oblio 5y ago
      No?
      • wil421 5y ago
        Maybe this: >Apple asserted that it is entitled to a verdict in its favor since the evidence does not "tend to exclude" the possibility that Apple acted in a manner consistent with its lawful business interests.
        • oblio 5y ago
          The original comment had just the text, without the link.
    • georgyo 5y ago
      I was unaware of that case, interesting stuff.
• sebmellen 5y ago
  Maybe I’m too cynical, but how will Apple get out of this? What’s the trick they’ll use this time? After all, this is only a “preliminary view.”
  • arkitaip 5y ago
    They might just increase their fees. Or increase their pricing on other products.
  • simion314 5y ago
    They cut the 30% tax down in some cases(I am still waiting for the fanboys to admit that this would never had happened if not for the large number of investigations running). Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to unlock you phone but will shame you for it, probably put a watermark on a screen that you are a communist or pedo if you use the unlock device feature. Apple needs a Microsoft moment, a moment where they realize what are their strengths and focus on that and stop with the FUD and anticompetitive bullshit.
    • solarkraft 5y ago
      > Next will probably give to EU guys a convoluted way to unlock you phone This is the end game. Jailbreaking should be a supported feature. What they'll actually do is most likely expanding features for side-loading with enterprise certificates, improving solutions like Alt Store.
      • Jcowell 5y ago
        I disagree with supported. I think jailbreaking is in good place right now. No company should be force to fix phones that we cause harm to due to breaking into, but companies should also not be allowed to claim that that alone is the reason a product is broken without evidence. I can’t imagine being forced to support a misuse of a product I develop outside of the scope Of it’s advertised intentions if it directly leads to the products deterioration.
        • 5y ago
• mnd999 5y ago
  It's not clear to me from the article what remedy they're proposing. Seems like it could be any of: * Drop the 30% fee * Drop the 30% fee for apps the compete directly with Apple apps. * Allow users to install other app stores.
  • spzb 5y ago
    I don't think they're proposing anything at this point but the obvious remedy would be to allow third party payment options.
    • yarcob 5y ago
      I think this would be the best solution. Apples only (real) reason for forbidding sideloading is because then they could no longer force people to use their payments. If developers were free to use 3rd party payment solutions, then Apple would probably be a lot more lenient towards side loading apps. I believe that Apple generally wants to build what's best for their customers, except when money is on the line.
      • evgen 5y ago
        The (real) reason to forbid sideloading is that it opens your customers up to the malware sewer that is Android. If sideloading is allowed it would take about 30 seconds for Facebook to create their own 'store' where the only product is Facebook apps with tracking turned on and data pilfering turned up to 11. You would see similar fly-by-night 'malware r' us' stores pop up pushing casinos, lotteries, and whatever other crap they can A/B test which shows that users with few technical skills can be tricked into using/installing. Happy to have 3rd party payment options as long as it prevents sideloading.
        • simion314 5y ago
          The malware on Android is mostly FUD. But if the OS would be competent enough then this would not be a problem. OSX is not locked and there are not millions of daily victims, so maybe it is not impossible to have low malware problems and freedom.
• throw14082020 5y ago
  The difference between EU and Apple is EU makes laws, and Apple makes guidelines. Here are my definitions: Guidelines: Do not break these. If you break these, your business will be crushed, the app removed for the app store. Law: Break them when they make financial sense. For large corporations, it makes sense to break relevant laws. e.g. GDPR. In replying to zibzabs comment/ Unpopular opinion: Yes, they still did it because it makes financial sense. (see the definition of law above)
  • sgift 5y ago
    All this says is that the ramifications for breaking these laws are not big enough. I fully agree. More laws should state a percentage of global turnover as fine. Also, start sending managers to prison for this and you will see changes pretty fast.
• speedgoose 5y ago
  I wish one of the outcome would be to allow better web browsers than Safari on iOS.
  • dmitriid 5y ago
    You mean "allow other browser engines. There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's. iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
    • simion314 5y ago
      >I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody forces you to install Google version. I understand the potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features then you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
      • dmitriid 5y ago
        > but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon. And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only those) harmful for a bunch of reasons, the primary of which is privacy.
        • simion314 5y ago
          Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.
          • dmitriid 5y ago
            Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way. And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers", but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently, or... The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google).
• tchalla 5y ago
  The core issue here is Apple favours their own product over competitors as they control their store. In this case, the product happens to be Music [0]. > The Commission is concerned that users of Apple devices pay significantly higher prices for their music subscription services or they are prevented from buying certain subscriptions directly in their apps. This doesn't seem to be a general issue about the 30/15% charge. It's specific to products (in this case Apple Music) on the App Store where Apple has a competitor. This was bound to happen the moment Apple started launched their "services" strategy. [0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2061 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_...
  • dmitriid 5y ago
    I wish they'd do something about Apple Arcade. The way it's aggressively promoted (slightly less aggressive now than at the beginning) would get any other developer permanently banned from the platform.
    • hu3 5y ago
      I thought you were exaggerating but nope: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1327979418954977283 https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1327979418954977283 Apple shows ads for Arcade, TV and AppleCare inside iPhone settings. EU regulators are going to have a field day with this with regards to anti-competitive practices.
      • dmitriid 5y ago
        Oh god. Somehow I forgot about Apple TV+ :) I probably got fewer ads for it than for Arcade :)
  • biztos 5y ago
    Would that not equally apply to video game console makers who also make video games? Which is all of them, right?
• xondono 5y ago
  Let’s not act like this is some “principles” based discussion. The only reason for the EU getting into this is that spotify is european and Apple isn’t
  • simion314 5y ago
    There are laws that were created before the iPhone existed, like laws that were applied in US too in Microsoft case.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    If Apple was an EU company and Spotify was an US one, I think you'd get the same outcome by the DOJ.
    • xondono 5y ago
      Yes, that was implied in my comment
• paulcole 5y ago
  HN when government does something they like about tech: This was a no-brainer. HN when government does something they dislike about tech: Tech is too complex for government to understand.
  • baq 5y ago
    tech, maybe. monopolies, though... governments understand that part very, very well.
  • simion314 5y ago
    Is not all of HN, and people from outside US are not that anti-regulation, anti-socialism like US citizens. But this is EU rule, so if you are from US it won't apply to you anyway.
    • jamesrr39 5y ago
      maybe, who knows. GDPR for example got more companies making "download my data" options, even for users outside the EU.
      • simion314 5y ago
        Nice of those companies that offered you the option, though I expect that they track you if you are from US with all those 100+ partners and not even inform you.
      • La1n 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
  • swiley 5y ago
    Apple has effectively become a psuedo government by dictating what software is legal.
  • KptMarchewa 5y ago
    Apparently it's impossible to hold a nuanced position.
• endisneigh 5y ago
  I personally don’t get it. iOS is a choice. Android is a choice. Neither is a choice. Back in the day, we had Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile among others to choose from. The decisions made by the respective companies affected adoption and now we’re left with Android and iOS for now. People compare phone choice to things like electricity and water which makes no sense. Let’s ignore Apple and Google specifically here. Is the argument that all platforms should accommodate all users and use cases for free? Is the argument that companies should have a gap on profit margins? Do we really want the government involved in all minutiae? Can’t we just vote with our wallet. The top 1000 app developers could just figure something out and move to a new platform if the money issues are too much no? I’m happy to have a discussion on this with anyone who replies.
  • chipgap98 5y ago
    A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to vote with your wallet. B. Neither is not really a choice for most people. C. It is one thing if Apple wants to charge a percentage of revenue to use their app store. But they have made it against the rules to: allow side loading, allow alternative app stores, link to a web payment option in one of their apps, and even to mention that they charge 30% of the revenue for in app purchases. That is clearly anti competitive.
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      > A. This market is a duopoly so there is limited opportunity to vote with your wallet. This was not always the case. What’s stopping a competitor from defeating both Apple and Google? Windows Mobile had a peak market share of about 42%, higher than what Apple has in the EU. My response to B is the same to A. Regarding C what is an acceptable percentage - how did you come up with that number? Apple has been pretty transparent about the rules - why buy if you don’t like?
      • ahiknsr 5y ago
        > Apple has been pretty transparent about the rules I disagree. Apple doesn't let App developers to inform users about the 30% tax. How is that transparent?
• Multicomp 5y ago
  If the outcome of this is that they are rquired to enable app installation from sources that are not just their app store, then Apple will likely have a customer from me. Think about it, if they are required to support third party app stores, they might as well enable sideloading. Else someone will form an app store where you submit an app just to download it to your phone. Or maybe that testflight feature is made cross platform and more permanent? They still get their $100 sdk rental fee
  • dannyw 5y ago
    They will probably just force Apple to allow Spotify to use their own billing system.
  • solarkraft 5y ago
    I like 90% of the Apple ecosystem (they could tone down the constant rule exemptions for themselves), but side-loading is a requirement. Now that jailbreaking iPhones up to the X is possible again (checkra1n) it's fairly likely that I will buy one.
• ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude. The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-industry.
  • endisneigh 5y ago
    What percentage is acceptable to you? Perhaps all percentage based transactions are rent seeking and should be made illegal. I’m on board.
    • dannyw 5y ago
      Any percentage is accessible, Spotify just can't be forced to use it. Don't wanna use Spotify's own billing system? Don't use Spotify, there's Apple music. Voila. Competition.
      • endisneigh 5y ago
        Spotify doesn’t have to be available on Apple devices at all. The competition you’re describing already exists no? There’s a contradiction in these arguments. Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices, in which case the fee is a cost of doing business that ultimately benefits them, or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform. It’s the same thing with the food delivery apps and other food apps. There are literally thousands of platforms like this. People should just leave if they don’t like the rules.
        • itg 5y ago
          Apple devices and services don't have to be available in Europe at all. Either Apple benefits from Europe, in which case they need to follow European rules and regulations, or they don't benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the EU.
          • 5y ago
• grezql 5y ago
  5 months after I applied for 15% app store fee reduction, I still havent got it. First they said I needed the account owner to submit a form. Then when account owner submitted it, they ignored me until I emailed them. When I emailed they kept forwarding me to different departments. At last they said they fixed it but I still see 30% cut off my sales. Something tells me if it had been the other way, a fee increase to 45%, this would be implemented overnight with no forms, no questions asked. disgrace
• minikites 5y ago
  It's nice to see government on the side of people, the US government could learn a lot of lessons from the EU and their consumer protections.
• newbie578 5y ago
  Great to hear this! Another win for the EU. Finally someone defends the right of the developers, and at least tries to put a stop to Apple and it's hug of death. Microsoft had the same issues, and it is only natural and fair Apple goes through the same process. The only thing that puzzles my brain is the people here STILL defending Apple and it's monopoly practices by implying everything is a free choice. If I offer you only two choices, you don't really have a lot of "free choices".
• cletus 5y ago
  So Apple's ecosystem does two things: 1. it gatekeeps what's in the App Store. This is of course controversial but is a net positive for consumers (IMHO); and 2. It provides a convenient payments infrastructure. I certainly hope no government forces Apple to allow third-party App stores. Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where there are a million launchers (eg Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar) and nearly all of them are terrible. (2) also has value, even for big companies. There are definitely people who buy things (including subscriptions) on Apple devices because of the ease of doing so. Remember that cut also does include credit card processing fees so that sets the floor at 1-2% not 0%. That's still a lot less than 30% of course. And I think this is particularly egregious for recurring charges like Spotify in this case. This is why I was utterly confused by Apple's move last year to lower the cut for small developers only. This is the complete reverse of what they should do. It's clear that the winds are blowing towards government intervention here so Apple should be looking to control the narrative and deciding what compromise looks like. If Apple had come out and said that if you process more than $10m/year then their cut was 10% of initial purchases and 5% of recurring charges do you honestly think that Spotify or Epic or anyone else would be suing them or seeking government intervention to anywhere the same degree? Apple (and Google) are just holding on too tight to the 30% cut and they're not reading the (antitrust) room.
  • polskibus 5y ago
    Apple could just stop offering own apps. Utility companies are often regulated similarly - in many countries you can be either an energy producer or grid, not both.
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      Why do people compare luxury phone products to utilities lol. Do people honestly believe access to electricity and to iPhones are in any way comparable?
      • simion314 5y ago
        Because sometimes you have no choice then build a mobile app and you have to build it for what your customers use, I can't ask my customers to switch to some Linux phone or PC because I have the choice to build only Linux stuff. From the POV of users I would like to see soemthing to make it easy to escape the lockin, like to be able to keep your movies and apps.
• polskibus 5y ago
  I hope that all market makers that compete in their own market get more scrutiny after that.
• Isn0gud 5y ago
  > “Once again, they want all the benefits of the App Store but don’t think they should have to pay anything for that.” lol , it's not like there is an alternative...
  • Spivak 5y ago
    I thinks what Apple is arguing is that the benefit is having access to, and the opportunity to sell to, users of iOS devices. If Target wants to charge for shelf space I don’t see why Apple shouldn’t be able to charge for the use of their platform in any capacity.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  It's crazy to me how nobody seems to have copied the lucrative app store model. Why isn't there a service that reviews websites and programs to give them a "trust" rating?
  • isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    You can't bundle them with the OS like Apple does, so why would anyone use it?
    • cblconfederate 5y ago
      I mean , for other stuff, like desktop or web apps. Reviewed and checked to rigorous usability and safety standards. Apple claims that this service is worth 30% of a program's cost
• ObserverNeutral 5y ago
  Oh c'mon ref...let them play a bit.
• florin_g 5y ago
  Should Apple forbid any for-pay streaming service, yet charge for their own, would Apple still breach competition rules?
• oaiey 5y ago
  I was accidently tuning into the press conference. I was surprised how accurate their statement was and how well defined the commissioner spoke.
• amelius 5y ago
  Which reminds me: where is EU's browser ballot screen? And why don't similar rules apply to render engines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
• briv 5y ago
  Another reason I wish iOS devices, and some other computing devices, were not so locked down: preserving our environment and resources. The hand-wavy argument is, perhaps these business models are legal, but I don't feel our social and environmental progress is at a point where we can afford to have companies create "disposable" devices - "disposable" in the "long-term" of course, I understand iOS devices for example are supported quite well compared to average. And there is the problem for me, I don't believe "better than average" should be a valid defense for this practice. Yes, companies are entitled to end support of their software, leaving vulnerabilities in browsers or the OS, but on a locked down device, that can drastically alter its usefulness and its lifetime. Allowing customers who bought a device to repurpose it by installing their software of choice should be a possibility. A quick aside, I (sort of) get Apple's 7-day limit on side-loading iOS apps with a free Apple developer account, but my gosh does that feel petty and creates a sad barrier for creating fun little apps for a small group of friends. And this issue has some subtlety I think. More than my (naive?) arguments capture I'm sure. One aspect is I don't know if these ideas would preclude the security model on iOS, which I very much enjoy, to be fair. I understand security, flexibility and a great user experience can be hard to integrate together, especially in an intuitive matter, but I wish Apple - and others - would try to find other creative solutions to some of these problems and trade-offs. Another aspect is where to draw the "general computing device" line which would compel a manufacturer to have, somehow, a "long-term open device". Perhaps this would backfire and Apple would start trying to make a "non-general" computing device to avoid this sort of rule. I just wish we could have it all of course: a great security model, ease of use but the flexibility to use hardware as we wish 10 years down the line. Hopefully people working at all these companies want this too, and I can keep dreaming.
• FridayoLeary 5y ago
  So, the EU will make a big fuss, lump Apple with a huge fine, which in the grand scheme of things amounts to a slap on the wrist, and then what? Apple will be forced to lower their fees, but i'm sure they'll come up with another creative way to fleece off app store vendors. Sigh. I wonder if they're not already selling information to Facebook after releasing ios 14.5...
  • kwyjobojoe 5y ago
    Force Apple to allow other billing systems?
    • FridayoLeary 5y ago
      Why not alternative stores?
• nolok 5y ago
  Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much, but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what percentage should they take ?" Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay through the provider they can negotiate and then pay you back the cost they owe you. It's ridiculous that it doesn't matter if my app has a 5$ sub or a 50$ sub, I owe them 30% anyway. What they provided is the same in both cases, they should be able to price it out to me. Their current pricing structure is not setup like a fee for services and infrastructure usage, it's setup like a tax.
  • MperorM 5y ago
    Or do like apple and charge both!
  • darkwizard42 5y ago
    But is the work of the app store flat fee for an app? I think if you have a massive userbase and drop an update etc. this requires way more of Apple's resources to keep up with, it should probably be a sliding scale right?
    • nolok 5y ago
      I don't understand your point. If you're serving a file from AWS to ten people or to a massive userbase what happens ? Does AWS pricing change once you have a certain amount of traffic ? No, you pay per GB delivered. Apple should offer that kind of pricing, or a price per user (download) if they want. And Apple should also be free to offer the % as an alternative if they wish, "don't want to bother with details ? Just stay entirely within Apple's system and pay 30% and that's it". But not strip the possibility of paying by use. Because again, if I have 500 millions users, delivering a 5 MB update costs the same for a 5$ sub as it does for a 50$ sub, yet Apple's bills 10 times more to the second one.
      • dropofwill 5y ago
• willtim 5y ago
  App makers complain about Apple's dominance, yet seem to put significantly more effort into iOS apps than Android apps.
  • colinplamondon 5y ago
    iOS customers are far higher income and spend more money - they're way more valuable. You get more revenue per user with way lower support costs. From a demographic standpoint it's a no-brainer.
    • Spivak 5y ago
      Hence why Apple thinks that they can get away with charging 30% just for access to the platform. I’m really having a hard time understanding the other side of this argument. Apple largely keeps to themselves and doesn’t mess with other markets. Competition among products on the shelves of Kroger seems like such a silly thing.
• perryizgr8 5y ago
  They should fine apple some reasonable percentage of their global revenue for this. Otherwise they will continue these user hostile anti competitive practices.
• badkitty99 5y ago
  Like many too-big-to-fail outfits, Apple and Google's products are so ubiquitous in our life. Since they both never actually have a finished software product, it is difficult (if not impossible) to even evaluate it. We’re stuck waiting for their update, as the answer to any problem or question. They’re Bill and Teding us with their ability to manufacture reality
• IndySun 5y ago
  If 30% goes to Apple AND the quality & privacy of every app was high and secure, as they boast, I wouldn't mind - but it is not. So I wonder what Apple ARE doing with that 15%-30% because it is not quality control or tight privacy across the board. The figure will come down to 10%-20%, and we can move on.
• trapped 5y ago
  Why doesn't EU force European automakers with same laws? Users need to pay extra to even use freely provided Apple CarPlay on BMW. European Car makers have monopoly in the app ecosystem installed in the cars. Where is alternative App store for BMW, Benz, Audi, VW ?
  • mmmmmbop 5y ago
    The issue is that Apple is leveraging their dominant position to push a Spotify competitor. Apple Music is not subject to the 30% App Store fee, and so they can just simply undercut Spotify by 30%. Going with your analogy, is BMW trying to push an Apple CarPlay competitor?
  • cblconfederate 5y ago
    is there an app ecosystem in cars?
    • trapped 5y ago
      In car entertainment provided by car makers have app ecosystem and fully controlled by car makers.
      • cblconfederate 5y ago
        Can third parties sell apps there?
        • qwytw 5y ago
          Are you implying that Apple should be punished for offering a more open platform than some other companies?
          • cblconfederate 5y ago
            Apple claims to have a market. Apparently bmw doesn't have one. (does it?)
• 6510 5y ago
  I think the legal question should be from the consumer perspective similar to purchased movies: Do I buy an apple device or am I renting it? (note: I'm not trying to answer it) Buying a product suggests to end users a specific set of benefits. If the assumption is far from usual we might have to stop describing the transaction as a purchase. For example: There are no apps for the iphone4 available in the store while they certainly exist. Perhaps its fair to ask: Why is there no support for android apps on iphones?
• 300africans 5y ago
  Many people support apple in questioning the business model of Facebook on cross app/site tracking. I think she this is my opinion that apple should not be allowed to put themselves without recourse between businesses and the customers. The customer should always have a choice.
• jonplackett 5y ago
  The more Apple have tried to strangle Spotify, the more I am determined to wait this out and get Spotify working properly on Siri and Watch. Every time I accidentally say "Siri play ${song_name}" without appending "on Spotify" and Siri nonchalantly replies that it cannot find ${song_name} in my Apple Music library, I double down on my determination not to let them win! Wasn't the default app thing declared a problem decades ago when Microsoft made you use IE? Why is Apple still allowed to force me to have Apple Music (and Apple Maps) as my defaults?
  • okwubodu 5y ago
    On iOS 14.5 Siri will occasionally ask which service you meant and use that as the default for a while. Although that’s just a “soft” default. If I press play on my headphones with both Spotify and AM closed it still latches to Apple Music.
    • pudmaidai 5y ago
      I just asked to use Spotify as soon as I updated and now it doesn’t ask anymore. I don’t remember the exact query, but I know it exists.
  • shuckles 5y ago
    I have trouble reconciling complaints like this with the argument that Apple should charge for App Store something based on the cost of operating the store. How do you price the engineering hours and strategy risk that go into opening an Apple feature like Siri to 3rd parties? Should it only be users who pay for those costs through their hardware purchase? Certainly not, since it’s impossible to predict those costs over the 5-6 year life of a new iPhone.
    • jonplackett 5y ago
      I’m paying for those costs with my £1300 iPhone. Now I want to set whatever app as default that I like. Also it isn’t like apple aren’t offering those features - I can play music on Spotify with Siri already. They are just putting deliberate annoying barriers in the way to make their own product appear better.
• martimarkov 5y ago
  I can empathise with both sides. 30% is too high and Apple have costs and want to make money. But my question is: if apple are to be running the App Store at cost are devs okay to pay for their apps? Let’s say you have a free app but now you have to pay a fee for App Store maintenance and that would be on every download and every app update. Are developers actually ok with that? Is that a fee that the users will bear? Honestly not looking to pick a fight just asking on opinions.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    How does it work now for free apps?
    • fraud 5y ago
      Not an expert but i believe all they pay is the $100 apple developer fee every year to be able to publish apps... 30% seems to only be for apple payments like subscriptions and app purchases
      • s_dev 5y ago
        For digital goods. If you want to buy a coffee with your app you can as the coffee is not digital -- Apple will not take a 30% cut.
• kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 5y ago
  Why not google too? They do the same thing. How about Sony? Microsoft? They steal way more revenue from developers. Why does everyone have a hard on for taking down Apple?
• manuelabeledo 5y ago
  This is very good news. Sadly, there is already quite some backlash, mostly coming from Apple aficionados. And I say "sadly" because it is always sad to see how people would try to defend companies and brands, against their own interests.
  • Siira 5y ago
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/698866.The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/698866.The_Myth_of_the_R...
    • manuelabeledo 5y ago
      Looks interesting, thanks!
  • leadingthenet 5y ago
    You don't get to dictate to people what their own interests are, not matter how smug you feel about it.
    • manuelabeledo 5y ago
      I think we may agree that, when Apple and Google do not subject their own services to the standards they use for the competition, thus giving themselves a certain advantage, such competition may be hurt and, eventually, it may also disappear. That would not be the first time, either. Then you may argue if it is in the public interest to let companies compete at all or not.
  • heavyset_go 5y ago
    > And I say "sadly" because it is always sad to see how people would try to defend companies and brands, against their own interests. I've noticed that of them hold shares, or stand to buy shares, in AAPL.
• shuckles 5y ago
  How should Apple charge for the costs of building and maintaining SDKs for 3rd parties? There are plenty of UIKit SPI that undoubtedly took a lot of investment to turn into API. Apple also seems to spend considerable development resources building API which simply would not need to exist if there weren’t third parties on iOS (e.g. IDFA and its associated controls). Sometimes they likely have to develop new technology, such as 3rd party integrations with Siri or CoreAudio. Finally, there’s also the maintenance burden of API which Apple no longer uses but third parties do. I’m sure there’s more work in providing a platform; this is just what I can think of as examples for now. Who should pay for this work? How would you go about accounting for it when calculating the “cost” of operating App Store? Is it fair to say that all this cost should be capitalized into the hardware price of an iPhone, given that most customers use only a small subset of the features on iOS? Should developers be charged by API call, similar to the business model of a cloud platform?
  • nolok 5y ago
    Ah yes, developing APIs wouldn't be possible if every software maker didn't give them a 30% rent on their revenue ! Except Windows had already proved it's false. Those APIs are investment, you factor their r&d costs into the cost of your product, so the buyers of ios devices are already paying for that.
    • shuckles 5y ago
      You are arguing a straw man, and it’s quite obvious the price of hardware doesn’t cover the cost of iOS development because iPhones don’t cost much more than Android flagships, where the smartphone maker gets the OS for nearly free (and with little after-sales support!).
      • nolok 5y ago
        You are weirdly confused trying to compare two different things. Apple's financial results are public and you should check them because you will see that they make a massive amount of profit on their iphones, and they actively separates those numbers from their "services" (appstore and icloud) numbers. Apple themselves disagree with you in their financial statement.
• ilrwbwrkhv 5y ago
  If it is owners of Apple devices, isn't that by definition their own prerogative. Like if they didn't have app store at all and had only used their apps, would Spotify still complain?
• kaiju0 5y ago
  I wonder if Apple will delist Spotify from the app store. It would be a power move on their part to say mess with us and lose what you have.
• abductee_hg 5y ago
  well, the way I see it Apple does a better/less cutthroat job than spotify.
• l8rpeace 5y ago
  How's this different than physical retail? https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/222356 https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/222356
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• vhold 5y ago
  I think a lot of people are missing the important development here. This is not about having a monopoly in phones, or in the music industry. This is about a monopoly within the market Apple has created. > Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly
• Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  It would be in the common good if antitrust control were far stronger than it actually is. If it were up to me, Google would be compelled to provide clearly visible links to other search engines and other Android app stores just as Microsoft was compelled to allow for different browser selection in the past, and Apple would be compelled to do allow different app stores for iOs.
• ineedasername 5y ago
  I wouldn't mind Apple taking a 30% cut if they at least allowed devs to mention that users can sign up directly through the app developer's web site. And also if they allowed alternate app stores. I'm find with have a (badly) curated walled garden with arbitrary & whimsically enforced rules if, like a PC, users had alternate channels for obtaining software.
• krzepah 5y ago
  Not related to this, but I got locked out of my apple account few days ago, this means : loose of everything I bought, cannot update any software. Only way to retrieve said account was trough a SMS system that was locked on a non mobile phone. They nicely allowed me after to use my email account for it (which was already linked), and promptly asked me to a new number. To my surprise, this account status went back to it's original state (which mean I STILL have to re-do all of this process) and I'm still locked out of it. But they took my money, they took my phone number. And they are happily locking me out every few because they basically do wtf they want. I'm not buying any apple product anymore and I'm making sure everybody I know about knows about it. This company is a lie. These people are doing racketing in day light.
• franczesko 5y ago
  “Once again, they want all the benefits of the App Store but don’t think they should have to pay anything for that.” This is the biggest problem - Apple's narrative, that other companies' clients are theirs.