EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[bcortens]

I can see the annual developer fee going up a lot for those selling outside the App Store then.

Which has the potential to violate anti-steering measures of the laws because this is Apple trying to force people to use their services again. There is no reason, that after the customer buys the iPhone, that apple deserves to meddle in the relationship between developer and potential customer... and as I pointed out with many examples you ignored, Apple is perfectly willing to be a hypocrite on this topic. They are doing whatever they can to extract the most possible money out of the App Store and out of developers but will back off on monetary extraction if the company they are trying to extort has too much power (Netflix, Amazon). This demonstrates hypocrisy and sets precedent that they don't actually need the money but rather are rent seeking from developers that don't have the power of companies like amazon.

 

[webkit]

For sure apple has popular models like the iPhone XR, but there are over a thousand cel phone manufacturers making apple a bit player in the smartphone cell phone space.

There are only two major players in the mobile OS space: Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android).

a certain amount of regulation is needed and good for society but apple is entitled to control its assets and business model. And indeed in the US they are doing exactly that.

Apple is entitled to control its assets and business model as long as they don't violate antitrust or any other laws.

The EU had to thread the needle to ensare apple in some regulations that ultimately will be a lose-lose all around imo.

Antitrust laws are largely about regulating dominance and anticompetitive behavior. What the EU is doing here is more specifically/clearly defining what they consider a "dominance" and "anticompetitive behavior."

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

EU is going to EU

This helps EU surveil their subjects and also helps low level unoriginal companies steal original ideas from Apple


Apple should just take a note from the UK and tell the EU to kick rocks

These types of state mandates are very very seldom actually for “the people”

 

[mcnallym]

No. iPhones are smartphones but Android is a mobile operating system like iOS.

Go read the question I asked where I said ANDROID PHONES.

then think about this.

when I go out and buy a smartphone, then I buy the phone, with the features it has.

I don’t go and buy a mobile OS as a CONSUMER and for the consumer there is no market for buying a mobile OS.

 

[mrochester]

Go read the question I asked where I said ANDROID PHONES.

then think about this.

when I go out and buy a smartphone, then I buy the phone, with the features it has.

I don’t go and buy a mobile OS as a CONSUMER and for the consumer there is no market for buying a mobile OS.

You are effectively buying the mobile OS as part of buying the phone; the 2 are inseparable in that regard, like a console or a TV.

 

[BaldiMac]

Competition does not exist in the OS market, you cannot get iOS on Samsung phones and you cannot get Android on iPhones.

Of course competition exists. Consumers choose their OS when they choose their phones. Manufacturers choose their OS when the design their phones. Developers choose which OS they develop for. These are all examples of competition.

This is because the phones and the OS are tied together

Yes, because the OS is part of the device. Just like the screen or the buttons.

- these regulations are aimed at reducing the power of gatekeepers. The goal is to make it easier to compete with Apple's own apps and to release apps on iOS that Apple would refuse to allow on the App Store (replacements for Springboard come to mind). If Apple's built in App Store starts loosing out to Google Play then they obviously built a worse App Store and they deserve to lose out. I however doubt Google will put much effort into an App Store for iOS, I am more expectant of something like Epic Store or Valve Steam to launch stores on the platform.

I understand the goal. As I explained in my post, the way they are trying to achieve that goal is flawed.

The Chrome competition issue is one I somewhat agree with, however, I am not sure how its power can be broken with regulation.

Address the elephant in the room. End Google's anticompetitive agreements with their competitors across 70% of the market in the EU to install Google's apps and services on Android devices.

The goal of the EU is not to subsidize the creation of new companies

Why not?

but to level the playing field and prevent market abuse. Since both Apple and Google are abusing their position they deserve regulations. The idea that they will subsidize a new OS is ridiculous and ignores the reality of the difficulties of launching a new OS as I've described in previous posts.

How do regulations that focus specifically on the only alternative to Google's market dominance "level the playing field and prevent market abuse"? I suppose that start with a definition of abuse, instead of just general feelings that something doesn't feel fair.

 

[I7guy]

There are only two major players in the mobile OS space: Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android).

There are over a thousand players in the mobile market.

Apple is entitled to control its assets and business model as long as they don't violate antitrust or any other laws.

Just like you are entitled to speed as long as you don’t get caught.

Antitrust laws are largely about regulating dominance and anticompetitive behavior. What the EU is doing here is more specifically/clearly defining what they consider a "dominance" and "anticompetitive behavior."

Antitrust is about abuse in the market place. The beau threaded a needle to enact laws that capture apple in its sights.

 

[mcnallym]

But if the OS market were competitive none of that would matter.

And how would you make it competitive.
Apple isn’t even in that market as they don’t make iOS available.

in terms of the the Mobile OS then phone companies have a simple choice

1.). Make use of Android and tart it up a bit to give some differentiation, or some other mobile OS.
2.). Make your own OS and find the resources, money and people to develop own OS. Huawei went this route and even they ended up with a fork of AOSP so basically Android underneath. Apple being main example.

outside of Apple then the other’s are choosing to use predominantly android as they cannot see on the balance sheet a return on investment of the resources required.

pretty much other alternatives tend to be community developed however there are restrictions regarding what devices they support, presumably devices the community developers want to use.

Beebom published a alternative to android and published 12 OS As alternative to Android.

so there are 11 alternatives already, and then android and iOS. So basically 13 players.

Google and Apple don’t do anything to stop any of these other 11 alternatives being used or developed. No reason why a company could not snap up a community project as a starting point and put resources into polishing etc other then that they do the maths and figure cheaper to just use Android.

regulation won’t make developers and resources required to develop an OS, any smaller.

 

[bcortens]

Of course competition exists. Consumers choose their OS when they choose their phones. Manufacturers choose their OS when the design their phones. Developers choose which OS they develop for. These are all examples of competition.

Consumers choose the phone and the OS together as a package, there is indeed competition in this space, but that isn't what the EU DMA is addressing so this is irrelevant.

Developers can choose any OS they want but they are then subject to the whims of Apple or Google which the EU is arguing they should not be subject to. People talk as if Phones don't dominate modern life in a way that no other product has before and that these products aren't nearly essential to proper functioning in a modern society. In this world the inability to develop a product for one half of the duopoly that controls the mobile phone market (because your app doesn't conform to one of Apple's arbitrary rules) is a barrier to entry that the EU has deemed is too high and should be removed.

Yes, because the OS is part of the device. Just like the screen or the buttons.


I understand the goal. As I explained in my post, the way they are trying to achieve that goal is flawed.

You did nothing of the sort - you claimed (without evidence) that allowing third party app stores and side loading would only increase Google Play's dominance - which isn't necessarily true as I believe it is more likely that places like Valve and Epic will be among the first third party stores.

Address the elephant in the room. End Google's anticompetitive agreements with their competitors across 70% of the market in the EU to install Google's apps and services on Android devices.

They should do this, but this isn't the goal of the DMA - write to your representative and ask them to push for this. This is mostly a red herring.

Why not?

The EU wants to have a healthy, regulated, market economy, it doesn't want to be responsible for artificially creating companies that will require permanent subsidization when they can achieve their aims without doing so.

How do regulations that focus specifically on the only alternative to Google's market dominance "level the playing field and prevent market abuse"? I suppose that start with a definition of abuse, instead of just general feelings that something doesn't feel fair.

I don't like Google's search or browser dominance, but that is a separate issue. Laws cannot grow forever to tackle every possible problem in the tech industry at once and Google's browser dominance and the way it abuses search dominance are separate to the DMA (As far as I am aware).

Market Abuse - Preventing competing apps and technologies from gaining a foothold on the platform by imposing arbitrary rules. Preventing companies from competing fairly by extracting large percentages of corporate revenue so that your own services can be offered to consumers at a lower price... etc...

 

[mcnallym]

because developers are complaining that they have to pay a commission to Google and Apple and they have to do that because Google and Apple have a duopoly in the mobile os market. If consumers were spread amongst a greater number of OSes then developers could more easily choose to ignore Android and iOS and just make their app compatable with whatever other OSes are out there, which in turn puts competitive pressure on Google and Apple to do more to woo those developers.

as it stands, the DMA will not do anything to loosen Google and apples duopoly on either the OS market or the App Store market. We need more OSes to achieve that.

You keep saying need more mobile OS but don’t have any way of providing them.

there are 13 mobile OS available in 2022 (Google alternatives to android and read the article on beebom) yet developers who are looking to make a return on there time and effort focus on 2.

You cannot make the developers develop for those other 11 OS as they will only do so if they will make money from there efforts, or someone gives them money to develop on those other platforms and cover the costs.

 

[webkit]

Go read the question I asked where I said ANDROID PHONES.

I read what you said and my point was that there is no such thing as an "Andorid Phone" as a brand/model like iPhone; there are Android-based phones just as there are iOS-based phones.

The smartphone market includes Apple iPhone, Google Pixel, Samsung Galaxy, Motorola Edge, etc.
The mobile OS market includes just two major players, iOS and Android.

That's the distinction.

when I go out and buy a smartphone, then I buy the phone, with the features it has.

I don’t go and buy a mobile OS as a CONSUMER and for the consumer there is no market for buying a mobile OS.

As a consumer, you buy a mobile OS (license) as part of your purchase of the smartphone.

 

[webkit]

There are over a thousand players in the mobile market.

The point is that there are only two major players in the mobile OS market and it's within that market where apps, browsers, etc. are downloaded/exist.

Just like you are entitled to speed as long as you don’t get caught.

Yes, Apple and/or other companies can continue to violate laws until they are caught, charged, litigated, etc. That doesn't make what they are doing fair or right.

Antitrust is about abuse in the market place. The beau threaded a needle to enact laws that capture apple in its sights.

They are defining dominance and anticompetitive behavior which is what antitrust regulators are supposed to do.

 

[I7guy]

The point is that there are only two major players in the mobile OS market and it's within that market where apps, browsers, etc. are downloaded/exist.





Yes, Apple and/or other companies can continue to violate laws until they are caught, charged, litigated, etc. That doesn't make what they are doing fair or right.





They are defining dominance and anticompetitive behavior which is what antitrust regulators are supposed to do.

There are over a thousand smartphone manufacturers each with their own nuance.

People act as if cell phones smartphones are as necessary as food air and water. What is a part of modern life is a good cell tower infrastructure, the ability to execute work remotely and connected, etc. an iPhone is not really needed for that goal. If devs don’t like apples business model they can develop for any other smartphone manufacturer.

Many smartphone manufacturers choose to use android but there are others. Apple uses it’s in house developed operating system.

 

[BaldiMac]

Consumers choose the phone and the OS together as a package, there is indeed competition in this space, but that isn't what the EU DMA is addressing so this is irrelevant.

That's exactly my point. The fact that the DMA isn't addressing it doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Developers can choose any OS they want but they are then subject to the whims of Apple or Google which the EU is arguing they should not be subject to. People talk as if Phones don't dominate modern life in a way that no other product has before and that these products aren't nearly essential to proper functioning in a modern society. In this world the inability to develop a product for one half of the duopoly that controls the mobile phone market (because your app doesn't conform to one of Apple's arbitrary rules) is a barrier to entry that the EU has deemed is too high and should be removed.

That's how business relationships work. You agree to work together or not under certain terms. Those aren't "whims".

And, of course, 30% of the EU market isn't half. And there is only a duopoly, because the EU continues to allow Google to enter into anticompetive agreements with their competitors to

You did nothing of the sort - you claimed (without evidence) that allowing third party app stores and side loading would only increase Google Play's dominance - which isn't necessarily true

I didn't say it was necessarily true. I predicted that it was most likely. Consumers have shown on Android that they prefer to get their apps from a single source. I expect that continue if third party app stores catch on.

as I believe it is more likely that places like Valve and Epic will be among the first third party stores.

Why have these stores had no success with access to 80% of the global mobile market?

They should do this, but this isn't the goal of the DMA - write to your representative and ask them to push for this. This is mostly a red herring.

That's my point. The goal of the DMA is wrong.

The EU wants to have a healthy, regulated, market economy, it doesn't want to be responsible for artificially creating companies that will require permanent subsidization when they can achieve their aims without doing so.

They already have a healthy, regulated, market economy. The problem for the EU is that this healthy, regulated, market economy has chosen foreign corporations to be the big winners.

I don't like Google's search or browser dominance, but that is a separate issue. Laws cannot grow forever to tackle every possible problem in the tech industry at once and Google's browser dominance and the way it abuses search dominance are separate to the DMA (As far as I am aware).

You keep trying to limit the discussion to the goals of the DMA, when my whole argument is that the DMA is focused on the wrong things.

Market Abuse - Preventing competing apps and technologies from gaining a foothold on the platform by imposing arbitrary rules. Preventing companies from competing fairly by extracting large percentages of corporate revenue so that your own services can be offered to consumers at a lower price... etc...

What competing apps and technologies are prevented from gaining a foothold in the market (not the platform) because of the policies addressed in the DMA as a result of "arbitrary" rules by Apple?

 

[mcnallym]

The point is that there are only two major players in the mobile OS market and it's within that market where apps, browsers, etc. are downloaded/exist.





Yes, Apple and/or other companies can continue to violate laws until they are caught, charged, litigated, etc. That doesn't make what they are doing fair or right.





They are defining dominance and anticompetitive behavior which is what antitrust regulators are supposed to do.

Really so how does Apple stop other people developing there own mobile OS and bringing it to market whether for just there own handsets like Apple does with iOS or making it available to other smartphone vendoes.


how is Apple preventing /e/OS from gaining traction in the market. How does Apple stop say Motorola using that as their mobile OS as the handsets, or any other handset. you can buy smartphones preloaded with /e/OS from the company’s website.

 

[bcortens]

They already have a healthy, regulated, market economy. The problem for the EU is that this healthy, regulated, market economy has chosen foreign corporations to be the big winners.


You keep trying to limit the discussion to the goals of the DMA, when my whole argument is that the DMA is focused on the wrong things.


What competing apps and technologies are prevented from gaining a foothold in the market (not the platform) because of the policies addressed in the DMA as a result of "arbitrary" rules by Apple?

The fact that there is a monetarily important App economy doesn't mean that it is healthy or well regulated, or that the platform creators aren't acting as gatekeepers. You can argue that they created the platform and should be allowed to do so but the EU (and I) disagree. When a single company controls access to 30% of one of the most important modern technological markets any actions that private gatekeeper takes are subject to scrutiny. If that gatekeeper (Apple) had behaved ethically and had consistent rules that apply fairly to everyone and those rules didn't disadvantage Apple's competitors to Apples benefit then they probably could have continued without regulation. Apple's greed is what got them into this mess.

The Hey email app was subject to Apple's arbitrary whims and was unable to properly enter the market, it is unable to offer an in app sign up because of Apple's arbitrary rules (reader app exemption rules are arbitrary).
Emulator apps are barred by arbitrary rules.
Spotify has to either charge more than Apple or give less money as royalties to the artists (Spotify existed well before Apple Music) since Apple is able to compete without the 30% overhead and as such can either make more profit or give more to the creators. Either way it has been deemed an illegal practice (given this new law) and steps are being taken to rectify it.

 

[mcnallym]

As a consumer, you buy a mobile OS (license) as part of your purchase of the smartphone.

precisely, you BUY the smartphone which is then bundled with the mobile OS that the phone company ie Apple or Motorola chooses.

you do not as a consumer choose which OS the phone runs. You buy the smartphone.

consumers don’t go I want to buy a copy of CalyxOS

enjoy tap dancing on needle much.

 

[BaldiMac]

The fact that there is a monetarily important App economy doesn't mean that it is healthy or well regulated, or that the platform creators aren't acting as gatekeepers. You can argue that they created the platform and should be allowed to do so but the EU (and I) disagree. When a single company controls access to 30% of one of the most important modern technological markets any actions that private gatekeeper takes are subject to scrutiny. If that gatekeeper (Apple) had behaved ethically and had consistent rules that apply fairly to everyone and those rules didn't disadvantage Apple's competitors to Apples benefit then they probably could have continued without regulation. Apple's greed is what got them into this mess.

I understand you disagree, but your argument is filled with loaded statements. Charging for access to your platform isn't inherently unethical or anticompetitive. Especially when you have only 30% of the market. And calling a company greedy is one of the laziest arguments in this forum.

The Hey email app was subject to Apple's arbitrary whims and was unable to properly enter the market, it is unable to offer an in app sign up because of Apple's arbitrary rules (reader app exemption rules are arbitrary).
Emulator apps are barred by arbitrary rules.
Spotify has to either charge more than Apple or give less money as royalties to the artists (Spotify existed well before Apple Music) since Apple is able to compete without the 30% overhead and as such can either make more profit or give more to the creators. Either way it has been deemed an illegal practice (given this new law) and steps are being taken to rectify it.

I think your examples go exactly to my point. You call them arbitrary simply because you disagree with them.

The Hey app clearly tried to bypass Apple's fee structure. It still exists on both iOS and Android. And certainly wasn't prevented from getting a foothold in the market.

Emulators are banned for a number of obvious and reasonable reasons. Nothing arbitrary about that.

And Spotify leads the market and pays Apple nothing more than $99/year to be on the App Store. How in the world could you possibly consider this to be an example of an app that is "prevented from gaining a foothold in the market."

 

[bcortens]

I understand you disagree, but your argument is filled with loaded statements. Charging for access to your platform isn't inherently unethical or anticompetitive. Especially when you have only 30% of the market. And calling a company greedy is one of the laziest arguments in this forum.


I think your examples go exactly to my point. You call them arbitrary simply because you disagree with them.

The Hey app clearly tried to bypass Apple's fee structure. It still exists on both iOS and Android. And certainly wasn't prevented from getting a foothold in the market.

Emulators are banned for a number of obvious and reasonable reasons. Nothing arbitrary about that.

And Spotify leads the market and pays Apple nothing more than $99/year to be on the App Store. How in the world could you possibly consider this to be an example of an app that is "prevented from gaining a foothold in the market."

They have the most lucrative 30% of the market, I call them arbitrary because they are, there is no clear distinction as to why "reader" apps include books and movies but exclude video games... it is an arbitrary category created to keep Netflix and Amazon happy. Netflix is even abusing their exemption (and Apple is ignoring it) via the Netflix games system that no one else is allowed to do.

Hey tried to bypass the fee structure because the fee structure is arbitrarily applied (see reader app categories being arbitrary and inconsistently enforced)

Emulators are banned because they could be used illegally, however emulators themselves are usually legal if you own the game you are emulating - why aren't consumers allowed to get emulators for their iOS devices from outside of Apple's App Store? Apple would not have any liability if they were but since the App Store is a gatekeeper it prevents this use case. Suppose I want to customize springboard, again not allowed because of the GateKeeper.

Spotify used to offer users the opportunity to sign up in app but they had to pull that functionality because it was unsustainable. Additionally, if Apple had their way, Spotify wouldn't even be allowed to link to a signup page on their website, and you still think Apple is behaving ethically in this?

 

[webkit]

There are over a thousand smartphone manufacturers each with their own nuance.

So? There are (and were) also many computer makers offering various Windows-based machines with their own nuances but that doesn't mean they aren't or shouldn't be counted as part of Microsoft's share of the desktop OS market just as they were in the 1990s during the DOJ investigation/case against MS.

Once again, there are only two major players in the mobile OS market (iOS and Android).

People act as if cell phones smartphones are as necessary as food air and water. What is a part of modern life is a good cell tower infrastructure, the ability to execute work remotely and connected, etc. an iPhone is not really needed for that goal.

So? From a business ownership standpoint, employment standpoint, usage standpoint, etc, it is practically food, air and water for some people. Regardless, antitrust laws are about regulating industries of a wide variety of "necessity" levels.

If devs don’t like apples business model they can develop for any other smartphone manufacturer.

Many smartphone manufacturers choose to use android but there are others. Apple uses it’s in house developed operating system.

As I've said here many times, simply having options does not negate antitrust laws and mobile OS options are limited to just two major players.

 

[webkit]

Really so how does Apple stop other people developing there own mobile OS and bringing it to market whether for just there own handsets like Apple does with iOS or making it available to other smartphone vendoes.

how is Apple preventing /e/OS from gaining traction in the market. How does Apple stop say Motorola using that as their mobile OS as the handsets, or any other handset. you can buy smartphones preloaded with /e/OS from the company’s website.

This is about using dominance in OS to control related OS markets/activities including app access, app store alternatives, browser engine alternatives, etc. Similar to how the DOJ case against Microsoft in the 1990s was about how they used their dominance in Windows to try to control markets likes browsers.

precisely, you BUY the smartphone which is then bundled with the mobile OS that the phone company ie Apple or Motorola chooses.

you do not as a consumer choose which OS the phone runs. You buy the smartphone.

consumers don’t go I want to buy a copy of CalyxOS

enjoy tap dancing on needle much.

By choosing a smartphone, you are choosing the OS and the OS significantly controls the functionality of that smartphone whether it be related to app access, app store alternatives, browser engine alternatives, etc. Because there are only two major players (Apple and Google) controlling mobile OS, it is a regulatory matter. There were many computer makers in the 1990s but that didn’t mean Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS wasn’t a regulatory matter.

 

[BaldiMac]

They have the most lucrative 30% of the market, I call them arbitrary because they are, there is no clear distinction as to why "reader" apps include books and movies but exclude video games... it is an arbitrary category created to keep Netflix and Amazon happy. Netflix is even abusing their exemption (and Apple is ignoring it) via the Netflix games system that no one else is allowed to do.

Being created for a reason isn't arbitrary. Netflix and Amazon (or whoever) made an argument, and Apple agreed to change their terms and apply them equally other apps that meet the definition. That's how things are supposed to work.

As far as the Netflix games, I absolutely agree that Apple is giving Netflix a special exemption that is unfair.

Hey tried to bypass the fee structure because the fee structure is arbitrarily applied (see reader app categories being arbitrary and inconsistently enforced)

Not really. I discussed the reader apps already. You seem to be arguing that its unfair for a company to charge for yogurt and give ice cream away for free. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Emulators are banned because they could be used illegally, however emulators themselves are usually legal if you own the game you are emulating - why aren't consumers allowed to get emulators for their iOS devices from outside of Apple's App Store? Apple would not have any liability if they were but since the App Store is a gatekeeper it prevents this use case. Suppose I want to customize springboard, again not allowed because of the GateKeeper.

You seem to be focused on one reason that they may be banned, when there are many. Emulators could allow arbitrary code execution on the platform. They would enable piracy. They would allow developers to bypass the App Store. They would also encourage the developers to ditch native apps in favor of lowest common denominator cross platform frameworks.

Apple certainly has a reasonable interest in preventing those things on its platforms. And there is certainly consumer and developer interest in doing so as well.

Spotify used to offer users the opportunity to sign up in app but they had to pull that functionality because it was unsustainable. Additionally, if Apple had their way, Spotify wouldn't even be allowed to link to a signup page on their website, and you still think Apple is behaving ethically in this?

What's unethical about any of that? Expecting to be compensated for the value that they created and Spotify benefits from??!?

But you shifted the goalposts here. How are any of these apps an example of a company that was prevented from getting a foothold in the market?

 

[I7guy]

So? There are (and were) also many computer makers offering various Windows-based machines with their own nuances but that doesn't mean they aren't or shouldn't be counted as part of Microsoft's share of the desktop OS market just as they were in the 1990s during the DOJ investigation/case against MS.

Once again, there are only two major players in the mobile OS market (iOS and Android).

Well yes it does. This is 2023 not 1990.

So? From a business ownership standpoint, employment standpoint, usage standpoint, etc, it is practically food, air and water for some people. Regardless, antitrust laws are about regulating industries of a wide variety of "necessity" levels.

Regardless, there are little to no anti trust violations to be found.

As I've said here many times, simply having options does not negate antitrust laws and mobile OS options are limited to just two major players.

There has to be a finding, not some general “anti-trust” is good.

 

[mcnallym]

because developers are complaining that they have to pay a commission to Google and Apple and they have to do that because Google and Apple have a duopoly in the mobile os market. If consumers were spread amongst a greater number of OSes then developers could more easily choose to ignore Android and iOS and just make their app compatable with whatever other OSes are out there, which in turn puts competitive pressure on Google and Apple to do more to woo those developers.

as it stands, the DMA will not do anything to loosen Google and apples duopoly on either the OS market or the App Store market. We need more OSes to achieve that.

And what is stopping someone distributing the app for ”free” in the App Store and then setting up a web based payment outside of the store.

I will give you an example

silicondust distribute the HDHomeRun Apps in the AppStores.
this allows to use the HDHomeRun Tuners to watch TV on your iPhone, iPad, AppleTV.

the App is free so no commission to Apple.

if however want to do recordings then have to buy a license which is done from the silicondust website who last time used have a 3rd Party payment system, (to whom they will pay a slice or commission for handling the transaction)

however Apple don’t see any money for this directly other then that I bought the iPad, iPhone, AppleTV.

works the same way on mobile devices running Android.

so now exactly why do developers HAVE to pay Apple commission. Silicondust aren’t and they don’t seem to have any issues with Apple on the AppStore of Google with it’s AppStore.

make a ”free” product that limited and put in AppStore. Unlock by going to website and buying.

they can simply setup own transaction payment system outside of the store and still comply with the AppStore requirements and don’t have to pay Apple any commission.

Silicon Dust didn’t need any regulation there either to do so and been using for years.

there are 13 mobile OS at the moment of which only really two have traction. If those other 11 are not making traction when Apple doesn’t do anything to stop them (give me an example where Apple or Google stops someone using CalyxOS other then Apple won’t bundle it on an iPhone, but don’t stop Samsung or Motorola bundling with theres) then how will adding a 14th be any different.

amazon, Samsung, Microsoft all given it a go and not got people to buy the products. Even with Microsoft’s dominance on desktop and familiarity then couldn’t sell them in the numbers needed. So unless you pass regulations that stipulate say 10% of the population have to buy a mobile phone that runs this 14th mobile OS that seem so desperate to create how do you expect someone to startup from scratch and do a new OS. Regulation’s won’t make the money for a new OS any lower the they are In terms of developing and marketing the final product

and good luck telling people in Europe (outside Russia or Belarus) that they have to buy a certain phone.

 

[bcortens]

Being created for a reason isn't arbitrary. Netflix and Amazon (or whoever) made an argument, and Apple agreed to change their terms and apply them equally other apps that meet the definition. That's how things are supposed to work.

As far as the Netflix games, I absolutely agree that Apple is giving Netflix a special exemption that is unfair.

Arbitrary meaning that the categories are chosen not based on Apple's need to control the platform or based on the needs to fund API research and development. The categories are arbitrary in the sense that they exist only for business reasons and not for technological reasons. This is unfair to all app developers that do not have Amazon or Netflix's power.

Not really. I discussed the reader apps already. You seem to be arguing that its unfair for a company to charge for yogurt and give ice cream away for free. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

This isn't the same thing at all. Apple is running a stand that sells other people's food, people who sell ice cream get to keep all revenue they make selling through to their customers while those that sell yoghurt have to pay Apple a percent fee for no other reason that Apple cannot afford to annoy the ice cream companies but they yogurt companies are too small to do anything about it.

You seem to be focused on one reason that they may be banned, when there are many. Emulators could allow arbitrary code execution on the platform. They would enable piracy. They would allow developers to bypass the App Store. They would also encourage the developers to ditch native apps in favor of lowest common denominator cross platform frameworks.


Apple certainly has a reasonable interest in preventing those things on its platforms. And there is certainly consumer and developer interest in doing so as well.

No, Apple has a reasonable interest in preventing those things from appearing in the App Store for some of those reasons.
Arbitrary code execution can already happen with Apple's approval and review.
Bypassing the App Store is fine as I have repeatedly said, I (and the EU agrees) believe that Apple should not be able to act as the sole gatekeeper to the software the EU citizens run on their phones.
Game developers are never going to target emulators.
Facebook already tried to ditch native frameworks but ended up rewriting their app to use the native frameworks as that provided a better user experience. Furthermore React Native exists already but it isn't widely embraced because it is worse .

What's unethical about any of that? Expecting to be compensated for the value that they created and Spotify benefits from??!?

As I made a large post about it previously I won't go over it too much here, but, the short version. iPhone without Apps is worth less than iPhone with Apps. While it is true Apple creates value for Spotify, Spotify also creates value for Apple, this is a two way street. The lack of apps on Blackberry OS and Windows Phone are a big part of why they failed. By the logic of value added and compensation, what percentage of iPhone revenue should be redistributed to App developers as compensation for helping make the iPhone so popular?

Also, if this was about compensation for value created then the reader app exemption would not exist. Apple can't have it both ways, they can't simultaneously claim that they need to be compensated for the API development by pulling money from small developers without Netflix's clout and simultaneously give away your API to Netflix and others because you can't afford to lose them.

It is a clear example of market dominance being giving some companies different and unfair competitive edge over others.

But you shifted the goalposts here. How are any of these apps an example of a company that was prevented from getting a foothold in the market?

I never claimed (or don't believe I claimed) it was solely about gaining a footholds but rather that their gatekeeper status creates an unequal playing field and prevents some categories of app from existing or adds unnecessary obstruction (Hey app).