The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment to Apple is hurting developers and ultimately consumers... Apple is so upset about this they won’t let developers like Spotify link to buying the subscription on their own website anywhere on the app that is sold through their App Store, if that’s not Monopoly abuse I don’t know what is.
As much as I love Apples products I do feel that they have gotten away with a lot here, especially since there is zero other ways to load apps into iOS devices, in the very least consumers are paying 30% more for apps if there was a competing App Store on iOS that charged less to load apps.
Edit: whether the Supreme Court will see it this way or not is a whole other issue.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....
This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS that whole time, so that changing can't have been the difference.
Moreover, the market they're monopolizing isn't the market for apps, it's the market for app distribution. So the relevant price isn't the price of apps, it's Apple's 30%. Which is obviously higher than in markets where there isn't a single-party distribution monopoly, e.g. payment processing is typically ~3%, various packaging systems like apt are free (or user can download binary from website as on Windows), and the binary hosting cost per user is negligible.
There is also a tying argument. App Store ties payment processing, distribution and curation together when the buyer might want different providers for each.
Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases.
Free-to-play is an increase in price.
I completely agree that prices on Apps have come down but that is just what happens when a new market is created. Supply and demand has to set in. Developers are guessing what people will pay at first and if they find they can sell millions more if they just drop the price to 99c then they might just do that. In my opinion the Apple App Store has had very little to do with those prices coming down.
While I do admit the App Store was incredibly innovative and has ushered in an era of new ways for developers to create/distribute/monetize this stuff it is hard to deny that if there was any competing way to load Apps that the 30% fee Apple collects would stand... not to mention the many practices that developers (and consumers) disagree with that Apple regularly does such banning apps that may compete with their products or somehow upset them.
Edit: I don’t want to come off as overly negative here, I love Apple and their products. I am simply arguing that a little competition here would do consumers good.
Not sure if I want to have a second AppStore (APNS, etc, etc.)
Money is universally reviled, and rightfully so: it is a dark, vile, evil thing. It brings out the very worst in the very best of us. It brings entire countries to their knees. Money corrupts. Money is awful.
But there is one thing that money does better than anything else, bar nothing. No contest. No competitor on the horizon. Many have tried, all have failed. Money quanitifies value.
It is not up to you to defend how much money Apple should get. It is not up to us to contradict it. It is up to the market. This is the one and only thing it does well, so let's at least give it that.
Because allowing Apple to get all the benefits of determining the value of their app store, without letting the market give it a go, is actually unfair to Money.
- Build, not exactly -- only in the sense that they can handle minor upgrades via bitcode for new ARM variants, if you choose to enable that.
- Moderate/curate, sure.
- Provide a lucrative channel? Yes, but only because they've made it the only channel by fiat.
I'm not sure I see 30% worth of mandatory value here. Is Apple's moderation so good it's worth 27% the cost of my app? Do developers think they're paying for bitcode upgrades, and do they think that justifies the fee? Recompiling for new minor architectures isn't difficult.
For that matter, is there more value provided in moderation for a more expensive app? If they approve my app at $5, and then I up the price to $25, did their moderation process retroactively become more valuable to anyone?
I love the Android community because they come up with cool things like DNS66 or YouTube Vanced. Ad blocking on iOS is halfhearted.
All that said Apple can do what they want consumers have a choice: buy an Android phone.
Would love to see some unbiased numbers on this.
If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.
I feel this is often overlooked in discussions where users from certain areas where iOS is less prevalent don't understand the perspective of users from other regions where iOS is more popular.
You're talking about two different markets, the devices themselves and the app distribution.
Suppose there are many truck manufacturers and none has majority share, but only one makes diesel trucks. Then that company gets into the market for diesel fuel and makes it so that customers can't use any other provider's fuel in their trucks. They've just leveraged their diesel truck monopoly into a diesel fuel monopoly.
Your argument is that they don't have a truck monopoly, because other people make lots of gasoline powered trucks and electric trucks etc., and truck buyers could reasonably choose them instead. Many of them do. But those aren't relevant when we're talking about the market for diesel fuel. You can't use gasoline in a diesel truck. You can't use an Android app on iOS or install iOS apps on an iPhone with Google Play.
Some consumers still choose to purchase in app- for a variety of reasons: ease of use, speed, accessibility, streamlined with the rest of their Apple purchases, who knows. People choosing to overpay for Spotify shows the Apple ecosystem and model provides value to at least some consumers. Whether it is worth 30% is a different question.
If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited?
The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost competitors. So you would get everything you want and with lower costs.
(1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the legal standing to bring this case at all.
(2) If Apple loses at the Supreme Court, this just gets sent back to a lower court. It's not going to force Apple to do anything at this point.
(3) Most importantly, there's no guarantee that if Apple does ultimately lose that the remedy will be opening the iOS ecosystem up to other app stores.
The complaint in Apple v. Pepper is literally that Apple's lock on app distribution drives up app prices. If app prices are not being driven up by that lock, the argument has a very good chance of falling apart.
This is not a case about what restrictions Apple puts on the app store , about software or device freedom, and it's not even a case about whether Apple's mandatory 30% cut is "fairly priced" by whatever definition of fair you care to use -- the case as filed literally hinges on the claim that iOS app prices are artificially inflated by that cut. And I think that in a world where people have been trained to think that $4.99 is a crazy high expensive price for software, that could be a real tough case to prove.
Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%.
Think it’s better in brick and mortar land? Try again! Say you go buy a new TV from a major electronics store like Best Buy. Their effective margins are usually 50% or more. It gets even worse in other categories. Take shoes for example, in some cases 80% of the purchase price goes to the middleman.
Let’s also not forget that getting into the App Store, while us developers (myself included) whine about it like it’s the worst abuse, is far far easier than retailers like Amazon, Walmart, etc. Of course staying in the store is important too, talk to any businesses who were pulled due to low sales volume for their not even niche product. When has Apple really done that?
In conclusion, do I think what Apple is doing is fair, maybe, maybe not. I do however wish everyone would get out of their bubble though and realize as much as we like to complain, it’s really been a disruption to what was the status quo before.
I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.
I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android.
As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry would love to see Apple lose though, don't let them.
iOS Apps have no way to identify user's devices, apps can only store two bits of info locally, DeviceCheck. Location while using the app option, hello Android? :)
Safari's ITP 2.0 clears tracking cookies in a way, that no tracking is longer possible. Adtech not happy.
Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.
To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to sell.
They are seeking to chill consumers and developers alike.
Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent".
I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing, but I do hope the court sees through that particular sham of an argument.
The full reasoning chain seems to be that Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (1968), in which the issue was USMC's leasing but refusal to sell machinery on which they had a monopoly, decided that being able to "pass along costs" was not a valid defense by a monopoly when sued by its direct customers.
Consequently, in Illinois Brick v Illinois (1977) the court decided that if a monopoly cannot use "they can pass along costs" as a defense from damages, then it follows that indirect purchasers (ie customers of customers) cannot use same offensively to sue a monopoly.
The intent is to prevent the complexity of calculating damages-once-removed, and putting the onus on the (simpler) damage calculation between direct monopoly and immediate customer.
If the Court upholds the prior decision, the plaintiffs will be denied standing. In that case, the appropriate legal challenge would either be an app seller suing Apple, or a customer suing an app seller (who could likely sue Apple in response).
If this is still case law, the only way I see this going another way is if the Court sees Apple's flat-30% as fundamentally different (and simpler) than the previously considered costs.
[1] Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/481/
[2] Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/720/
“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”
if they decide that apple sells apps directly (after all, you go through apples distribution, payment, and “editorial” channels and have only a tenuous link to the developer i question) rather than the developers selling apps, then that could be an issue for them
Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.
I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be true of this case in that users shouldn't be the ones bringing cases but developers could by my read. But whatever we'll see what the court decides.
“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”
the question is whether apple sells the apps, or the developer sells the apps.
I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it will inevitably enable a huge contingent of lazy web developers to just display a “screw you and your device’s battery, go download Chrome” message rather than bother with crafting their sites and web apps in a web engine agnostic way. It’ll be just like when IE was the dominant browser, except this time around the dominant engine is favored by web devs and will continue to be thanks to Google’s web-centrism.
Similarly, Apple has been slacking off on improving Webkit and making it as good as V8. By getting rid of Apple's monopoly on web engines, developers will be able to push websites to new levels that are currently hard to attain.
There's also some conflict of interest if say Chrome were to come to be the dominant browser on iOS since they also control Android. Would battery life, performance etc be prioritized as highly on iOS as their own platform?
I think it would be nice to be able to load apps from outside the app store especially on devices like the iPad Pro, but I think that's a separate issue from web standards. I think the only practical way to advance web standards is for the major browser vendors to agree and implement them, even if that sometimes takes a while.
The nice thing about F-Droid is that the repository format is open. So you only need one "app-store" app installed (F-Droid), then add multiple app sources that are each controlled by some app curator. For example, the "F-Droid repo", the "Guardian Project repo", the "copperhead OS repo", the "micro G repo", etc etc. This allows for a unified user experience without centralising app execution power in the hands of one organisation.
If you've used GNU/Linux this is exactly how package repos work (and what F-Droid was inspired by), since several decades before the term "App Store" was invented.
Android pretty much only has 3 (Google Play, Amazon, & F-Droid), and the large majority never use anything other than Google Play.
Ideally what should happen is that someone makes a Store app that will install apps from arbitrary distribution services. Then there is still one interface for installing apps, but competition for distribution/payment/curation services.
If anything, what I've seen is the opposite concern, which is that app stores make prices too favorable for consumers, at an untenable cost to the developers.
But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc.
That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut.
I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has complete vertical integration. The 30% cut is a farce. But I’m not sure this is the best argument to end it.
It's interesting because I imagine that'll be Apple's argument, and the natural counter-argument is that the $0.99 price is deceptive because of the "freemium" model of most apps.
Not sure how convincing they can make that argument, but it'll be interesting nonetheless. I imagine it'll involve putting an average "cost-per-app" including in-app purchases.
It’s often followed up by claims that they could do it thenselves for much less in much less time, ignoring the realization that that is only possible because the original developer has done all the hard engineering and design work, and worked out how to make things fun, etc. (my most obvious memory of this was when Threes came out and it was instantly cloned by people who had full access to the game design)
I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there. Imagine the horror of having to get the apps from AT&T or Vz store for iPhone, or having to choose if I need to get an app from official store or from another one run by some east European dude from his basement. I love that apple curates the apps and at least tries to get rid of worst offenders whether it's privacy violations or outright malware.
Or you could buy an app directly from the developer, whom you presumably trust (and even if you don't, the app is sandboxed, so the chances of something bad happening are pretty low).
Or you could buy the app from an alternative store that's more trustworthy than just "some east European dude from his basement", which would someone would almost certainly create if they had the option to.
Plus, Apple isn't just getting rid of the "worst offenders", it's also banning apps with content it dislikes, or that hurt its business model:
https://bgr.com/2018/05/25/steam-link-for-iphone-download-io...
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-...
I mean, you could just change ISP to ISP2 if you didn't like it.
At least changing from iOS to Android (or vice versa) doesn't require you to buy a new house and move—probably move far enough that you need to find a new job, too.
But nobody is saying you can't or that it won't be curated or anything. The unfortunate part is some liking what ways others get their apps, not themselves. (granted I don't believe user freedom in this case should be government enforced, but we should all strive not to assume that our app retrieval methods are the best for others)
That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Apple can make the argument that curating the App Store is required to maintain quality.
This isn't the case with the iPhone. It isn't niche and plenty of people want to build and be listed in alternatives, but they are prevented from doing so.
I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
Had Apple tried to force everyone into using a gatekeeping App Store after smartphones took hold, end users would've rejected it.
It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.
There may be other laws that would prohibit that, but they aren't anti-trust laws.
Nintendo
Sega
Any loss leader product
I understand the free-software arguments for why I should be able to run arbitrary code on any computer I own. What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.
It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.
> Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons. Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for submitting apps to the App Store.
Search for safari, webkit or WKWebView in https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios and you'll see how the integration goes.
Unfortunately while I personally think Apple should allow other app stores I don't think this particular suit will succeed.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap...
In particular, the argument I've seen used in the past to contest GPL code in App Store apps is that Apple (as distributor) must distribute the source directly on the App Store, rather than the application or the App Store description having a link to the source via the developer's website or another third party site.
This isn't something Apple really cares about - but if someone says your app has a license violation, Apple will of course push dealing with said people onto you.
This has always stuck out to me as pedantic and hardly a violation of the spirit of the license. Such politics are what have and will continue to relegate the FSF to being a small social group rather than the originally intended purpose (whether you consider that a revolution, or a reversion back to software freedom)
The issue at hand here is standing: do consumers have the right to sue for antitrust violations or is that limted to the app/game vendors who paid the markup most directly? The supreme court isn't going to decide on the merits of the specific case (because the original case in district court was thrown out due to standing -- this is the appeal of that decision) or whether or not Apple's 30% cut is appropriate.
I'm surprised they haven't done it already. It would make sense for purely partisan reasons because tech companies are very liberal and extremely hostile to Trump's administration. But they could even reach across the aisle with megacorps like Amazon pretty clearly abusing their lower level employees which has been a cause on the left for decades.
To double down on this: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/wild-west-no-longer-h...
Anyone who opposes the administration would be short-sighted to allow themselves to be used as puppets in this manner.
Speaking selfishly from the outside the short-term effects might not seem so bad, but the I wouldn't relish the long-term consequences.
online presence requires app
to have an app my business "has to be approved by Apple"
That's a freaking monopoly.
To me, the entire concept seems wrong. It's like having to submit your website to chrome, and safari, and mozila, and be approved by them, for them to display your site... Don't you think it's wrong? Who are they to decide what I can or can not install on my device?
