
EU opens Apple antitrust investigations into App Store and Apple Pay practices - adrian_mrd
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitrust-investigation-app-store-apple-pay
======
ericmay
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I really like things as they are and
I'm just not interested in change here. The iOS and App Store ecosystem work
extremely well for me, including changes like forcing developers to allow
users to sign in with Apple anonymously versus email, Google, or Facebook.

I understand Spotify's complaint about competing with Apple Music, and that
does have merit, but at the same time I kind of just don't really care.
Spotify is also in the process of ruining podcasts by making them exclusive to
their platform, so no real love lost here for me.

W.r.t Apple Pay and NFC - for the love of god don't fuck with this. It's a
perfect implementation as it currently is.

~~~
the_duke
Imagine an alternate reality where Windows is like the iOS ecosystem.

* No more downloadable exes or installers, or stores like Steam. The only way to install software is via the Windows App Store. If something is not on there for whatever reason: though luck.

* Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it.

* You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on their platform.

* If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue. You don't have any other option, except to only provide your app on Linux, losing a large market.

* If you want to support payments inside your application, you _have_ to use the Microsoft Pay service, which also takes a hefty cut, or you have to inconvenience users with side channels like ordering via a website. Which might still get you banned.

* Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time. Maybe because you broke some arbitrary rules, because it is politically inconvenient, or because you compete too closely with Microsoft software. Oh, and Microsoft also may mandate to see your source.

* The only way to use private/internal apps is to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using their distribution mechanism.

Ask yourself: in this world, would you happily use Windows as a developer?
Would you welcome these restrictions as a consumer?

This is increasingly important as phones and tablets become the primary device
for many.

I appreciate that a curated ecosystem has many advantages for users, but most
of the above concerns are orthogonal to a well-maintained app store.

Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers - on top of
being paid for their devices and software by consumers. They are highly
incentivized to keep it that way.

(Android has some similar issues, and shows that even with a somewhat more
open system there is still plenty of monopolistic potential, but that's a
longer topic)

~~~
surfpel
I'd argue that the reason Apple devices are so popular is because of the
restrictions that ensure quality. Would your app have any potential to make
money on the App Store if there wasn't a huge customer base?

> No more downloadable exes or installers

So it's harder for a user to get a virus or some malicious App? Great. If
Apple allows a service, it means they back it in a sense and people trust
Apple. Would you really back a bunch of different stores with content you
can't verify?

> Microsoft can delete all programs from your PC remotely if they feel like it

And lose their customer base? Sure? That's so unrealistic.

> You have to pay Microsoft every year for the privilege of developing on
> their platform

Grocery chains charge for shelf space. Also the fee is $99. There's also some
fee waivers available.

> If you charge for your app, Microsoft takes 30% of your revenue

So you don't want to pay to be on the store and you don't want to pay to make
money off their platform. They're just supposed to maintain a curated and near
seamless platform for free? Are you suggesting users just pay more?

Also, I'm seeing 30% thrown around a lot. It's 30% for a year and 15% after
that, let's be clear about that.

> Your app may be rejected or removed from the store at any time

If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete
it.

> Apple makes crazy amounts of money off the backs of developers

Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff?
Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I
don't think so.

> ..being paid for their devices and software by consumers Consumers pay
> directly for devices, not software. The only software they indirectly pay
> for is the 30%/15% fee that devs have to take into consideration.

Let's stop pretending that 95% of users have any degree of technical literacy
and that there's no value in what an App Store provides. I'm glad my non-
technical friends and family don't have to worry about viruses or phishing as
much after switching to Apple.

If you really don't like these things as a user, then jailbreak or use Android
or the Ubuntu phone or something. There's alternatives.

Also, if using iOS/OSX was like using Windows, I wouldn't use it.

~~~
modo_mario
Somehow google manages to have a store without fully locking your out of
alternatives. Their position certainly makes it so they can and do behave as a
monopsony in ways but certainly not to the same extent as apple.

> If theres a random app on my phone discovered to be malicious, PLEASE delete
> it.

Yet they also do it if the app competes with them or their functionality. Both
google and Microsoft have gone to court for way less.

>Grocery chains charge for shelf space.

Grocery chains buy the product for resale. A notable difference. Grocery
stores also have plenty of competition that can offer the same product.
Consumers aren't locked into choosing one grocery store to buy from after
purchasing a membership or some shit. Grocery stores aren't one of 2 viable
options and generally can't dictate pricing of the seller and their cut.
Grocery stores don't often pull anticompetitive shit like this:
[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
requires-s...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-six-
high-tech-companies-stop-entering-anticompetitive-employee)

>Ok then how much money would YOU be ok with them making? What's the cutoff?
Would you be ok with your app being capped in how much money it could make? I
don't think so.

Perhaps they could make money of value of the service they provide that being
the hosting of apps and curating a nice app-store rather than you know being a
monopsony.

~~~
vlovich123
> Somehow google manages to have a store without fully locking your out of
> alternatives. Their position certainly makes it so they can and do behave as
> a monopsony in ways but certainly not to the same extent as apple.

Arguably they accomplish that by bundling (i.e. the problem that Microsoft in
trouble with Explorer). [https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-
eu-andro...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999366/google-eu-android-
licensing-terms)

You have to pay $40 to be able to launch your phone with GMS (Play store,
Maps, other 1p Google apps not part of AOSP) and where until recently it looks
like waiving that fee if you also preinstalled Chrome as the default browser.
That's literally the bullshit Intel & Microsoft did that got them in trouble
as monopolies. Google & Apple have pointed to each other as reasons neither is
a monopoly so that their BS practices don't get them into trouble. The EU has
been taking a harder stance than the US. In general I think we should be
banning these kinds of practices once the company size exceeds some point
(revenue, # of customers, something). It doesn't matter if you're a monopoly.
You're throwing your weight with dominance in once area to artificially
improve your reach in another (i.e. the customer isn't getting to make that
choice).

------
macspoofing
Dare I dream that iOS will finally get an alternative browser rendering
engine? Or more precisely, would Mozilla and Google _finally_ be allowed to
release their browsers on iOS?

~~~
pentae
What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store.
Then you'd get your alternative browser rendering engine as well as tons of
other useful apps that will never be available. Apple can do their best to
make it difficult and warn users of the risks but it should be possible.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _What you really want is the ability to sideload apps without the App Store_

Not really. The curation and verification of the App Store is a feature. I
don’t want to have to download a must-have sideloaded Google app for work that
snuzzles up all my data to Mountain View.

~~~
9HZZRfNlpR
We wouldn't have had the insane progress when it comes to software and
hardware if everything was locked down from the beginning as it is with Apple.

There are multiple ways to allow sideloading without your grandpa getting
infected.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _if everything was locked down from the beginning as it is with Apple_

Everything isn’t. Just one device among many.

------
acd
Was waiting for app stores to be tried on anti competition law. App stores is
basically a form of App monopoly On devices where the Device operating system
vendor decides which apps get go no go. It can block competing apps such as
Spotify/Apple Music for example. One could argue the same for YouTube music vs
Spotify.

Also vendor decides kickback commission fees which may also be anti
competitive.

Same for payment services nfc access.

Also sometime vendor makes similar function from an app IOS battery health.
Blocks Native Battery api access, makes it hard to sell battery analytical
apps.

~~~
google234123
People shouldn't be tricked into paying for an app reports the IOS battery
health since it's already available in settings. This is a net positive for
users.

~~~
swiley
Users also shouldn’t be tricked into paying for the python interpreter, but
the one apple recommends and integrates into their apps costs $10.

~~~
jamesgeck0
Are you talking about Pythonista? It's a whole IDE with GUI designer that
includes a bunch of custom libraries for iOS functionality. It's not just an
interpreter, and it's not even the top App Store search result for "Python".
It is the best Python app on iOS by a wide margin though, which is how it made
one of Apple's "featured" lists on the App Store.

Apple doesn't integrate Pythonista into their apps, as far as I know.

------
rahkiin
I cannot write applications for the Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going
through their manufacturers and paying them a part of my revenue. In the mean
time, Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo have their own studios as well. Their
stores are also curated and gated.

If I want an open gaming device I take a PC. If I want a more open phone, I
take an Android.

Is this different than the situation with iPhone? (Sidenote: I can put
whatever I want on my iPhone using Xcode)

~~~
ReptileMan
I think it is different because gaming consoles are single purpose devices.
Whereas smartphones are marketed as general purpose.

I am all for forcing the manufacturers of the gaming consoles to allow running
of arbitrary unsigned code in a different sandbox than their DRM.

Also I believe in the right to have root on all devices you have.

~~~
izacus
Interesting how being allowed to run your own software is now a downvotable
opinion here on HN.

~~~
messe
I can't understand why that comment is being downvoted. It's a constructive
comment, featuring an opinion that I would have genuinely thought would be
well supported on HN.

------
chj
This may not happen if Spotify didn't speak up.
[https://timetoplayfair.com/](https://timetoplayfair.com/)

~~~
leokennis
Eh...says the company that buys up formerly free shows, and makes them an
exclusive for their paid service.

Spotify buys intellectual property (a podcast) and proceeds to sell access to
that for a profit.

Apple invents intellectual property (the iOS ecosystem, App Store) and
proceeds to sell access to that for a profit.

~~~
danielscrubs
Spotify is also complaining that "Apple won’t let us share awesome deals and
promotions" [1].

I love you Spotify but I don't want your ads, I don't want ads on my phone
period.

I'm currently using Android, and it's just ridiculous how much my phone is
demanding my attention with notifications of "Rate us!" or "Look at this
emergency news! Joke, it was just an ad". They even have "let me upload all of
your contacts or I wont start"-apps. Android really lets the users decide, and
the app-companies sure tries every foul play they can get away with, and to be
frank, giving those app-companies a smack on the back of their head from time
to time as Apple is doing can be a good thing.

That said, 30% is... hefty especially when some companies don't have too.

"Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No." [1].

[1]: [https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/](https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/)

~~~
dirtnugget
The difference in amount of notifications is really one of the reasons I ended
up with an iPhone. That's sad

------
Angostura
I'm an Apple user and as a user, I'm pretty happy with the walled garden
approach and the stores on iOS.

However, I also hold the EU's atttude to anti-trust in fairly high regard, so
I'm happy to see them scrutinise this.

~~~
jamil7
The curation and walled garden rules can work and have a lot of upsides for a
lot of users. The problem is the inconsistent application of those rules that
ultimately hurt independent and small time developers. A lot of whom are
making the most interesting software for the platform rather than churning out
a client to support some existing service.

------
chintan
Here is my anecdata on Apple Pay and why I stopped using it altogether:

Once I used Apple Pay from my phone to pay on a third-party website, it showed
a nice popover on Safari and it automagically used my address from my info as
the SHIPPING address. Neat but the address was my old address, so I edited and
changed the SHIPPING address to my new address. I press OK. Then Checkout.

I see that order was shipped to my old/incorrect address. The vendor said this
is the address they received. I remember changing and updating the address on
the APPLE PAY popover.

I called Apple as I had entered the correct address on APPLE PAY popover, they
said may be the website vendor implemented it incorrectly, there are
_millions_ of websites using Apple Pay and they CANNOT/DO NOT check those
integrations. This was a breach of trust. I entered my information on a pop-
over shown on Apple iPhone by Apple iOS and not the third-party website.

Bottomline: Either Apple takes full responsibility of the data entry or leave
it to third-party. Else consumers are stuck in limbo

~~~
zionic
Why haven't you updated your billing address to match your new shipping
address? Doesn't that mean your potential statements are getting sent to your
old address?

~~~
chintan
It is not necessary that my billing and shipping be same. I might order to
ship elsewhere

------
Shivetya
Pretty much I figure the percentage has to change at least in categories where
Apple has its own products.

As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps getting
this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who is
attempting to use them

~~~
izacus
> As for the NFC chips, I am facing a quandary here. I am leery of apps
> getting this access unless all such usage is challenged and very obvious who
> is attempting to use them

On Android the NFC can be either used by current foreground app (so you're
looking at it), or by the default payment provider (which you set globally and
more importantly - you have to set it yourself).

Seems like a good tradeoff.

~~~
nottorp
What I'm wary of is having to install a shit app from each bank that I have a
card from. I'm pretty sure that will be the outcome if they're forced to allow
alternative payment apps.

And please don't tell me they won't be shit, I know how their web sites work
:)

On the other hand, it's annoying from a "hey that's an evil monopoly" point of
view that Apple makes money on every payment I make.

Cannot win i guess.

~~~
51Cards
How much would hit the fan if Microsoft changed Windows, even just on Surface
hardware, to ensure that any time you bought something from Amazon it had to
go through their payment gateway and they got a percentage?

~~~
scarface74
Well. That doesn’t happen with Apple now. Amazon can and does sell _physical_
goods through its app and pays Apple nothing.

~~~
lexs
Yes but I can't buy Prime Videos through the app, I have to do that from my
android phone or desktop

~~~
scarface74
Yes you can.

[https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-
vide...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-
app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change)

------
grezql
I am a former App-dev. I hope Apple burn in hell for that 30% scam. Daylight
robbery, should be ordered to pay back atleast 5 years back.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
An argument I've heard is that - looking back to the 1990s when software was
sold in boxes in retail stores - was that the publisher, packager, retailer,
credit-card processor, et al. combined would take 60%+ - so Apple's 30% means
we're getting a good deal...

I suppose I'd be okay with a 30% fee if Apple _didn 't_ charge us $99 to
maintain a developer account... I thought the $99 was meant to cover the costs
of curating the Apple App Store, so what __added-value __does the 30% cover
then?

~~~
macspoofing
>I suppose I'd be okay with a 30% fee if Apple didn't charge us $99 to
maintain a developer account

Those two things aren't remotely equivalent. $100 for a dev account is
peanuts. It's there to support the iOS dev ecosystem and isn't unreasonable.
It should be a non-issue. 30% of app revenue, on the other hand, equates to
thousands or millions of dollars depending on how popular your app is. That
actually makes a material difference.

~~~
t-writescode
But isn't 30% approximately the same you'll see portioned out from you if you
put your game on Steam?

~~~
foepys
But Valve let's all developers generate as much free keys as they want to sell
on other platforms and doesn't require devs to route all in-game transactions
through Steam.

------
buboard
What really needs to be done, without "planning the market": Require browser
engine competition. This can be legally valid considering that the web itself
is an essential utility, since a lot of government functions go through it.
App stores are not essential (and i hope they ll never be). Therefore, access
to the web should be high priority and high quality, therefore browser engine
freedom is sine qua non. This could lead to a virtuous cycle of finally making
web apps work well on iOS, which will also break the chains of many
developers.

The web is our common , open platform that nobody owns. We should be
protecting it in the mobile market

Let apple own their app store, but not to the detriment of the web

------
justapassenger
Personally I’m happy to pay 30% higher prices for better integration, comfort
and security. But at the same time this shouldn’t be forced on everyone.
There’s tons of people that prefer worse experience to save money.

~~~
coronadisaster
How is having a choice a worst experience? Can you even use Firefox on iOS? I
don't know how Apple gets away with so much... maybe because of all the
politicians that they are legally allowed to buy?

------
enitihas
I think this is a very good start. The iOS ecosystem is a lot more
monopolistic compared to android. And before someone says iOS is not a
majority of the market, it easily is in several countries. In iOS, you can't
even make your own browser, and neither set your webkit wrapper as default.

------
ocdtrekkie
This continues to be a complete embarrassment for the United States. We
should've regulated Google, and we should've regulated Apple. But our federal
government is so corrupt that an outside entity is having to do it for us.

Epic Games has already stated they'd like to be able to launch an app store on
iOS just as they intend to do on Android, so competitors will be lining up if
Apple is forced to tear down the walls.

And after switching from other platforms, I always found it a bit of a shock
when I'd be on an app like Vudu, and find myself unable to buy things, unless
I popped over to the website.

~~~
rahkiin
The Epic Games that gives free distribution when you use their other product,
UE4? The Epic Games that buys exclusives away from other markets by pushing a
boatload of money into some games, money they got from a third product:
Fortnite.

Sounds they will do great as a phone app distributor.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Every single avenue is open: Developers can decide whether or not to use
Unreal Engine, and still use the Epic Store. Developers can decide whether or
not to use the Epic Store, and still release on any other platform. They also
let you use any payment provider you want. You can take Unreal games and sell
them on Steam. You can take Unreal games and pile Steam's services layer into
them.

I get that Epic has earned a bunch of butthurt from gamers because they...
offered developers money... but this is fundamentally opposite to the
behaviors of Apple and Google, where their 30% app tax is compulsory, and use
of their services is mandatory.

------
corkmask
I only want Apple to stop forcing IAP down my throat as a developer of an app
the has zero benefit from the app store.

------
ecmascript
As a European I just feel "finally". It's time for this kind of monopolistic
behaviors to stop.

------
greatgib
Finally!

------
dariosalvi78
finally!

------
greenhatglack
Nice to see EU going corporations errands instead of the looming homelessness,
bombings and income inequality.

Maybe Spotify could spend of their billions to make their own device and
platform instead of going through a "criminal" organization pretending to care
about people but just caring about business interests because their consumer
tech startup just amount to tiny square but slightly rounded cornered icons on
devices made in Japan, Korea, China and the U.S.

