13 ms·
Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B
- citizenpaul 1y ago[flagged]
- dmix 1y agoapparently people will make this same comment every single time whether it's a $2M fine or a $2B fine
- stavros 1y agoThat's why you head them off with $3Q fines.
- CamperBob2 1y ago(Shrug) Illegal with a fine is legal for a price. Apple can easily afford the price.
- ryandrake 1y agoWhy even have fines when they amount to an insignificant cost of doing business? What is the purpose? If the purpose is to deter companies from doing some thing, then a fine that equals a tiny number of days revenue is not providing any kind of deterrence.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jahewson 1y agoIsn’t this a counter factual that can’t be proved? How do you know it won’t deter other companies?
- ryandrake 1y agoThe thread is not about other companies. It's about Apple, and they can eat a one-time $2B fine for breakfast without even noticing it. It's not much of a deterrence. I'll be convinced the law has teeth when they're fined $2B daily until they take corrective action.
- genuineresponse 1y ago[dead]
- citizenpaul 1y agoYeah dipstick. C-suits quite literally sit around and discuss if it is worth breaking the law or not based on how much they will make vs the anemic penalties. Its a HUGE societal problem that apparently you don't understand.
- bobro 1y agoLooks like their net profit globally is like $90-100B per year. If you think of the share of profit that's coming just from the UK, this is probably very sizeable as a penalty.
- abtinf 1y agoIn English law, is there a clearly defined, well understood, written standard of “fair”?
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoI don't know, but when every single business on the planet has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users, it definitely isn't.
- jjtheblunt 1y agoHow do web pages accessed from (for example) Safari cost the publisher 30% of a subscription fee, when a subscription might be established off mobile first?
- bigyabai 1y agoHow are web pages analogous to installing mobile software, in this particular example?
- raincole 1y agoIn every single aspect of "business on the planet enabling access to mobile device users".
- bigyabai 1y agoNo? Websites are a subset of the software market, not the other way around. Apple can absolutely monopolize software distribution while providing a web browser.
- jjtheblunt 1y ago> has to pay you 30% for access to mobile device users is what the parent comment said, which overlooked web and assumed native app installs
- 1y ago
- tehjoker 1y agointeresting I suspect the UK uses the same Regan Era definition of monopolistic practice as the US, meaning monopoly is fine so long as prices seen by consumers are low (or rather not provably raised)
- dmix 1y agoThe UK adopted the EU antitrust model in the 1990s and still kept it after Brexit. So it's has a lot more stuff about 'fairness' and controlling markets, it's not just about prices or monopolies abusing their market position or blocking mega mergers. At least on paper...
- president_zippy 1y agoYou mean Circuit Court judge Robert Bork's "consumer welfare" standard? He's the genius behind that. The same Robert Bork whose SCOTUS nomination got held up by the Senate in a deluge of fire and fury, only for Antonin Scalia to get the job and make the same kind of rulings much more articulately.
- ur-whale 1y agoThe financial penalty is peanuts for AAPL. More interesting would be if they'd be forced to allow other app stores.
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoI think both third party app stores (without aggressive scare screens) and third party payments will be globally available on both platforms in the next few years. But it will take some time for enough piecemeal jurisdictions to require it for it to become burdensome for the companies to have different options in different regulatory regimes, and to make it no longer worth blocking in jurisdictions which haven't ruled against them yet.
- stavros 1y agoYeah but Apple always required signing, and Google is moving to that too, so they can simply charge you an exorbitant amount to get your app signed, moving the money maker from the store to the dev environment.
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoNow that the regulators are actually saying this is a problem I suspect these schemes will be addressed much faster. I'm pretty stunned Google announced that just after losing the case, because it's so remarkably stupid. Judges do not like being screwed with.
- stavros 1y agoI really hope so, because I was hoping Apple would be forced to be more open, and was surprised that, instead, Google got more closed.
- joomla199 1y agoThe police does not like being screwed with either. These aren’t good things. People with significant authority perform a duty and ought to act independently of their personal feeling.
- awillen 1y ago"The CAT said in its ruling that developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent's lawyers said was usually 30%." Where does the 17.5% come from? I can't find it here or in the link Reuters article. Is that just the number that the tribunal decided was fair? If so I'd love to read the analysis of how they got there.
- mikeiz404 1y agoI haven't dug through the linked documents but it's probably in here some where... https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14037721-dr-rachael-kent-v-apple-inc-and-apple-distribution-international-ltd-judgment-0 https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14037721-dr-rachael-...
- bmandale 1y ago""" 919. The comparators available to us (the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store and Steam’s lower headline rate) suggest that the competitive rate of commission would be in the range of 12 to 20%. We do think it is reasonable to make some adjustment to that range to accommodate the points made by Apple about its premium brand, the quality of its offering and its established market position. However, we do not think those would be sufficient to displace the upper end of the range and are likely to operate mainly at the lower end, where the offerings are arguably less attractive to users for those reasons. 920. Applying again an approach of “informed guesswork”, on the basis of the evidence before us, we find that the likely range of Apple’s Commission for iOS app distribution services in the counterfactual is between 15% and 20%. For the purposes of quantifying the overcharge (for both the exclusionary abuses and the excessive and unfair pricing abuse) we will use the mid-point of that range, which is 17.5%.
- crims0n 1y agoHonest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something.
- thunky 1y ago5% tops.
- bigyabai 1y agoWhatever Apple needs in order to compete with third-party distributors. They can set it to a 105% tax for all I care, just let me use third-party alternatives.
- kelthuzad 1y agoThat's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.
- bitpush 1y agoThis question is valid only if Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. Apple bans all such activities, has held the entire app ecosystem and seeks rent. If they think their offering is superior, then they should be OK competing. The fact that they have not opened it up says that they are happy to overcharge. Remember, competition is always good. Let Stripe and Apple duke it out on payment processing, and let the best one win. Let games me hosted both on Epic Store and App Store, and let users decide where to download it from. That will be fair.
- thewebguyd 1y ago> Apple lets apps host their own apps, bring their own payment system. And also not require those apps to be also approved by Apple, which they are trying to do with AltStore and the DMA. Users should be able to go to a dev's website, pay them directly, and download the ipa and install it with a click from the website. Having to go through any kind of "app store" at all should be optional.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mikeiz404 1y agoThe tribunal judgement documents are here... https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14037721-dr-rachael-kent-v-apple-inc-and-apple-distribution-international-ltd-judgment-0 https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14037721-dr-rachael-...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giobox 1y agoThis isn't an EU judgement.
- aydyn 1y ago[flagged]
- celsoazevedo 1y agoIt's worth pointing it out as the UK isn't in the EU anymore.
- bloppe 1y agoSeriously? I thought that was a joke
- aydyn 1y ago[flagged]
- celsoazevedo 1y agoI understand what you're saying, but some on HN have issues with EU's fines against Apple, Google, Meta, etc. Some in the UK also like (or liked, before brexit) to deflect blame towards the EU. So I think it's important to be clear about who made the decision: it was a London/UK court. But moving on.
- 1y ago
- europeisdoomed 1y agohow can I sue Google and Apple for not letting me change my device’s MAC address (Pixel and iPhone) and internet companies for leaking my IP addresses for tracking my internet activity or to track me. Does it violate GDPR requirements?
- potwinkle 1y agoWhat are you talking about? Both iPhones and Android let you spoof your MAC address to a random or fixed value if you want, for privacy. Also, "leaking my IP addresses" how the fuck do you expect a website to talk to you without an IP address to send the data back to.
- jeroenhd 1y agoFor changing your MAC address, randomly generated MAC addresses are the norm unless you change your settings to use a static one. You can set up your phone to use the phone's MAC or to generate a new one every time, but by default it'll generate a MAC address per WiFi network. As for tracking you and your internet activity, you can file a complaint with your local DPA to hopefully spur them into action, that's free. If they don't take action, or decide that your complaint won't convince a judge, you can contact a legal professional and pay them to take your case to court like with any other legal matter.
- somenameforme 1y agoI find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.
- throwaway-0001 1y agoYeah it’s good. Probably should be both days of revenue and days of profit to account for low profit margin companies. Or % of market cap would also be good.
- haute_cuisine 1y agoStill cheaper than giving up the monopoly position.
- johnfn 1y agoThat's not really a meaningful comparison, either. If you assume every engineer makes ~300K at Apple, perhaps a more meaningful comparison is "Apple loses ~7K engineers for 1 year", which seems a bit more than a slap on the wrist as you are suggesting.
- kybernetyk 1y agoDon't worry. They can replace those lost engineers with AI ;)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bravetraveler 1y agoAssuming it's like every other large business, that's an optimization.
- wiz21c 1y agoexcept that the money doesn't go only to the engineers.
- thisislife2 1y ago> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.
- vladvasiliu 1y agoIn which situation does the end user not pay for everything? Even a fine or a tax on a company ends rolled up in the price paid by the end user. Same thing with programs paid for by the government. It’s the taxpayers who foot the bill. I’m kinda split on the whole Apple situation. I’m firmly in the camp of “monopoly bad”, but apparently people are fine with apple’s practices. It’s not like they have to buy an iPhone.
- eviks 1y agoIn a situation where profits decrease instead of price increase
- vladvasiliu 1y agoBut that would only work if the end user refused to pay whatever price the company asks for. In the specific case of Apple, people line up to buy their product.
- eviks 1y agoAre you saying that every single person on the planet bought /lined up to buy iPhones? Or did a lot of people refused to pay whatever price?
- stale2002 1y ago> In which situation does the end user not pay for everything? If you want to get technical about it the field of economics addresses this question. Its called Tax Incidence. The short story is that the side of the market that has the least elasticity of demand (IE, they respond to price changes the least, and don't buy more or less because of price changes) is the entity that suffers the costs of taxes and gets the benefits of subsidies. Intuitively this makes sense. Imagine if there is a luxury good that you don't need. If taxes increase significant on it, you may just choose not to buy it. That has a high elasticity of demand. Meaning that the tax incidence isn't going to be on the consumer and will instead be on the produce. Whereas, think about food. People don't eat much more or less based on how much it cost. You can't physically eat more than like twice as much, and if you don't have any you die. Meaning that its a low elasticity of demand, meaning that the consumer pays the taxes.
- concinds 1y ago> “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” This is complete nonsense. App companies set price based on willingness to pay. If Apple allows custom payments alongside IAP, you might get a temporary gap (naturally <30%) to steer people towards in-house payments, with harder refunds etc. But as soon as they're no longer required to adopt IAP their own prices will go back up to exactly what they were. The vast majority of Apple's app/IAP revenue is from "mobile game" companies. You think they won't enjoy a 42% increase in iOS revenue (1/0.7=1.42) by keeping prices at a level consumers have already accepted for years? There's no "lower sales" tradeoff, customers are used to those prices.
- ath3nd 1y ago[dead]
- lunias 1y agoIf they won't hold those deserving it accountable, then I guess they themselves should become accountable. Failure to punish should be punishable. Every single fine of this magnitude should also be accompanied by at least one person going to jail. Or, if you send all of those accountable to jail then maybe the fine could be waived for the benefit of those who remain.