10 ms·
I read this as Apple can't ban Spotify because they have Apple Music. The question is what happens when an app is competing with Apple but also is breaking Appl
by BadHumans 2y ago
I read this as Apple can't ban Spotify because they have Apple Music. The question is what happens when an app is competing with Apple but also is breaking Apple's TOS?
- b112 2y agoI think Apple might have to enforce the ToS on their own apps, if they want to levy them on competition, with such a law. But that's me thinking common law thoughts, not sure whst Japan's legal system is like. (There are alot lf things like this, such as when you are a distributor selling to more than your own stores.)
- BadHumans 2y agoThe issue that Spotify and others take with Apple is their 30% cut. So Spotify adds a payment processor that doesn't involve Apple, then what?
- FpUser 2y agoThen Apple will be forced to compete on merits
- BadHumans 2y agoI think that is what you would like to happen but this would have to play out in court because Apple makes so much money from that 30% they would fight it tooth and nail.
- posguy 2y agoNo, Apple will still have the advantage of not being restricted like 3rd party apps when it comes to running background activities, access to hardware features they haven't published APIs for, and integration opportunities via private Apple only APIs amongst their various apps and platforms that 3rd party apps can't replicate since Apple literally doesn't make those knobs available to them. Why can't my non-Apple laptop start a tethering session automatically with an iPhone when I open its lid? What good reason is there that a 3rd party tool can't generate an auto-reply to a notification from a chat app with my consent? Lots of user experience niceties that Apple keeps only for their 1st party apps to the detriment of us all. Google does similar things on Android, but at least you can get most of these features through 3rd party stores like F-Droid.
- seec 2y agoYeah, but the only reason devs are not using those "private" APIs is because Apple owns the only distribution possibility. For now, the 3rd party stores are a joke because Apple still has too much control (and the fees are a joke) but I hope the EU runs its course and finally forces them to allow installation of any potential software without any limitations. It is extremely dumb and uncompetitive that iPhones cannot install any apps under the guise of security or whatever. Apple has rested on its laurel and made some stupid choices that seriously limit the potential of their hardware. It's funny how they announced many features that people have wanted for years at this WWDC; they are starting to feel the pressure, I guess.
- lobochrome 2y agoThe 30% fee is not (only) for payments. It's a royalty for the core platform.
- troupo 2y agoWhy doesn't the same logic apply to MacOS? Perhaps because that "royalty" has already been paid by users who bought the device?
- pineaux 2y agoNo, because people wont accept it in the "old system".
- troupo 2y agoAccept what? Greediness? Apple used to charge for MacOS. And then they made it free because hardware sales more than made up for any costs of the platform. Apple themselves claim they don't care if AppStore is profitable. Schiller himself suggested they cap AppStore revenue at 1 billion. If it's so costly for them to run why don't they let devs and users use the alternatives? Alternative payment methods, alternative app distribution etc.? Edit. Here's Apple financial report for 2023: https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_earnings/2023/q4/filing/_10-K-Q4-2023-As-Filed.pdf https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_earnings/2023/q4/fi... - iPhone alone generated 200 billion in sales - The entirety of their operational expenses is 54 billion Apple's customers have already paid for whatever expenses Apple is incurring for the "core platform"
- BelleOfTheBall 2y agoCouldn't they argue that these royalties don't apply if payments aren't routed through the core platform? Such as saying "oh, well, the user paid through the web version of Spotify, not the iOS one"?
- Zak 2y agoApple certainly looks at it that way, but is not legally entitled to collect a royalty simply for making apps that run on its operating system. Instead, they have created a technical mechanism to do so. The EU and Japan have decided that's unfair.
- shiroiushi 2y agoLike every country that isn't Anglophone, Japan does not have a common law system, it's based on Germany's civil law system IIRC.
- wordofx 2y ago[flagged]
- shiroiushi 2y agoWTF? This must be the dumbest comment of the day here. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that only Anglophone (which refers to a language, not a race) countries use the British common-law system.
- lesuorac 2y agoJapan is purple but that still means they're not Common law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#:~:text=The%20civil%20law%20system%20is,decisions%20as%20legally%20binding%20precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#:~:te....
- throwaway2037 2y agoUS is primarily English speaking and is not common law based. I assume the same is true for many Carribbean and Pacific island nations.
- shiroiushi 2y agoWhat universe do you live in? The US is absolutely a common law country.
- arrosenberg 2y agoThe answer is obvious, because you can’t fairly resolve a conflict of interest like that - alignment between publishers and distributors in the same vertical should be banned.
- cromka 2y agoThe conclusion I think is they’d have to establish an independent arbitration panel and put them in charge. But they’ll lose control over their user experience then, so it’s full circle.
- arrosenberg 2y agoThats the kind of regulation that inevitably fails for one reason or another, but usually capture. Ordering the break up the OS and App Store is a self-executing and relatively permanent solution that can’t be corrupted nearly as easily.
- alwayslikethis 2y agoRealistically, no hardware manufacturer of a significant size (let's say 100k total devices) should be allowed to dictate what software can be distributed to users. It opens up all kinds of unfair business practices.
- InitialLastName 2y agoRealistically, including avionics and medical devices where the software is restricted by regulation (in theory) and where the manufacturer is legally liable for failure of their device? More specifically, the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant?
- shiroiushi 2y ago>the radio in an iPhone can almost certainly be made to operate outside of licensed/compliant limits by tweaking the software. Should they be forced to allow that but still held accountable when their device is noncompliant? I can see an argument for this. Nothing forced Apple to design their hardware this way: they could have built licensing/compliance limits into the hardware itself. But they didn't want to do that because they wanted to use the same HW for all markets, and different governments have different rules about which frequency bands are allowed. Of course, this then brings up the question: if they did make slightly different HW per-market (perhaps with 1-time fuses), what happens when someone brings their iPhone from one country to another and they've modified it to ignore any new region restrictions (Apple could still use SW to force new restrictions, though they can't allow anything new because of the HW restrictions) and it's broadcasting on an unallowed band?
- seydor 2y agoIt will have to go to court
- a_victorp 2y agoApple's TOS does not have the same standing as a law, so whenever Apple's TOS is incompatible with Japan's law it probably will not be able to be enforced in Japan
- nottorp 2y agoConsidering this is a law, Apple's TOS becomes about not worth the toilet paper you could print it on. Contracts can't contradict existing law. Even in the US, I think.
- stavros 2y agoI hate Apple's app store policies as much as the next guy, but does this mean I can make malware that plays music and Apple has to allow it in the app store?
- BiteCode_dev 2y agoNo because Malware breaks the law.
- DetroitThrow 2y agoPresumably Apple could still legally restrict malware because they are not distributing their own versions of malware, yes?
- stavros 2y agoBut then they can restrict anything, on the basis that the software they're restricting does more than their software.
- DetroitThrow 2y agoI was being a little tongue-in-cheek, but I find your premise very fun when thinking about how quickly it can be taken to extremes with criminal or civil damages. Thankfully, our legal systems are much better equipped to deal with ambiguity like this than I think you are proposing.
- stavros 2y agoI guess I was more saying that ambiguous laws can cause more harm than good, but then I was basing that on the title of the article of a summary of a translation of a summary of a law, so I'm probably wrong :P
- kazinator 2y agoIn all likelihood, some of the pro-competitive laws will render illegal those terms of the TOS which are anti-competitive. Any rule in a TOS that is illegal is effectively tossed.