App Store May Violate Japanese Antitrust Law

[Jensend]

I am more confident, that Apple will open this and other things up and after they do, 97.657% of their hardware users will still just the Apple app store for apps and payments.

Let me put it this way. If I want an app and it is not in the Apple app store and I cant pay for it in that store, without opening up another account with a vendor.....I will never use it.

I ditched PC gaming for console gaming in 2022 for a various reasons. I game less these days, current gen consoles have reached good enough for my needs, I pretty much HATE what Windows has become and I absolutely loathe having 5, 6, 7, 8 different gaming clients, each with a different account and different client software.

Steam means that I have nearly 20 years of my gaming collection available from one source, and compatible with Mac, Windows, and Linux computers. Yes, I also have a few other gaming clients, but that's mostly just because they have free or incredibly inexpensive games—not because of exclusivity. Yes, there are a handful of store-exclusive games.... but that's true of consoles as well, and I'd rather have to install another software store than buy a whole new console to play exclusives. Steam by itself has a bigger library of games than any one console, even if you don't include lower quality titles.
There are a few PlayStation and Nintendo exclusives I want to play, but if I had to choose only one store on one platform, Steam is an easy win.

If iOS/iPadOS were opened up, perhaps I could even install Steam there and play many of my games on my iPad without having to repurchase them, and my cloud saves would be available as well. (though I don't begrudge a developer selling a separate version for mobile devices, as it may require significant resources to port and maintain).

PC gaming can take more work, so I understand someone choosing a console for ease of use.

 

[dredlew]

Just remember that I wear my winter coat so you won't be cold. So not.

Don't want Malware infested apps, hacks and glitches, then just use the App Store and don't side load. Simple to understand for most people.

And it has worked on macOS for eons.

“Don’t side load” is such a stupid argument and I’m sick & tired of it.

If developers of my favorite apps decide to move to a third-party App Store because they can circumvent Apple’s rules and fees, how am I as a user not being forced to side load my apps?

There’s no comparison to the macOS AppStore, “side loading” existed way before a store was launched. And guess what, I prefer to have my apps from that store if available, rather than downloading it from some website. On the store, I’m confident payments are secure, support is available and I can easily setup a new machine & just press a button to redownload my apps. But for most of the desktop apps I don’t get to choose because some website is the only place to get it from. It sucks. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen with the iOS AppStore.

So stop repeating that nonsense that third party app stores don’t affect you if you don’t want it. They absolutely will!

 

[subjonas]

Don't want Malware infested apps, hacks and glitches, then just use the App Store and don't side load. Simple to understand for most people.

But you’re over-simplifying. If someone needs a service (eg. bank) and that service only offers their app through a third party store, then they are forced to use the third party app store.
One could be somewhat obtuse and then argue that the person should switch banks, but then if all major banks choose to offer their apps only through third party stores, then even switching banks wouldn’t really be an option. If there is sufficient motivation for the banks, this could easily happen.

Once a closed ecosystem is opened, it’s no longer closed. There is no half open or open+closed.

 

[subjonas]

Exactly. And why a more controlled/closed ecosystem is proving the smarter/healthier longterm approach than systems that are wide open. 😜

And forcing Apple to open up does in a very real way hurt consumer choice between an open and closed ecosystem.
People who argue that the consumer can choose to use the closed or open version of Apple’s ecosystem, assume that developers will always give consumers the choice. They aren’t taking into account that the consumer can only choose between the choices that developers give them. And there is no guarantee that developers will always give them a first party App Store option.

 

[JamesHolden]

When 10s of millions of users loose everything because a bad actor who was given the right to be an App Store or manage a payment system or just hacks the right one because they didn’t protect the user data properly, they will want to run investigations as to what Apple did wrong instead of asking what they did wrong.

What nonsense. This doesn’t happen now and never has on MacOS or Windows. The FUD coming from the App Store apologists is really quite laughable these days. All these absurd histrionic scenarios. It’s ridiculous.

If side loading and third party app stores bother you, don’t use them. Your security won’t (potentially maybe) be compromised (in some ridiculous fantastic imaginary way).

 

[JamesHolden]

And forcing Apple to open up does in a very real way hurt consumer choice between an open and closed ecosystem.
People who argue that the consumer can choose to use the closed or open version of Apple’s ecosystem, assume that developers will always give consumers the choice. They aren’t taking into account that the consumer can only choose between the choices that developers give them. And there is no guarantee that developers will always give them a first party App Store option.

And why shouldn’t develops have a choice? They’re just supposed to take whatever Apple dishes out?

 

[Michael Scrip]

But you’re over-simplifying. If someone needs a service (eg. bank) and that service only offers their app through a third party store, then they are forced to use the third party app store. One could be somewhat obtuse and then argue that the person should switch banks, but then if all major banks choose to offer their apps only through third party stores, then even switching banks wouldn’t really be an option. If there is sufficient motivation for the banks, this could easily happen.

Once a closed ecosystem is opened, it’s no longer closed. There is no half open or open+closed.

Bank probably aren't best example.

Banking apps are free... so banks probably wouldn't have much to gain by offering their app in some 3rd-party app store or downloaded from their website.

Banks want people to use the most friction-free way of installing their app. And that's gonna be the default Apple App Store and Google Play Store that people have used for years.

A better example would be a game developer (cough, Epic, cough) that isn't allowed to be in the App Store. Or a service like Spotify who has issues with Apple's current billing procedures.

But yes... I agree with your assessment that once Apple's platform is opened... it's gonna be a different world.

However, we don't yet know what Apple will require of developers in this new world.

If Apple still demands a developer pay a commission even if their app is sold somewhere else... then what's the point of a developer making it more difficult for someone to install their app?

In other words... if a developer still has to pay Apple 27% plus the 3% to a 3rd-party payment processor... then they're just making the process of installing apps more difficult and more complicated with nothing really to show for it.

It's gonna be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Who knows... it might be that developers stick with the official Apple App Store.

Look at Android. Google has allowed 3rd-party app stores and downloaded apps since the beginning.

And yet... 97% of Android apps come from the official Google Play Store (with Google billing and commissions!)

So there must be something to be said for the ease and simplicity of the default app store.

 

[JamesHolden]

But you’re over-simplifying. If someone needs a service (eg. bank) and that service only offers their app through a third party store, then they are forced to use the third party app store.
One could be somewhat obtuse and then argue that the person should switch banks, but then if all major banks choose to offer their apps only through third party stores, then even switching banks wouldn’t really be an option. If there is sufficient motivation for the banks, this could easily happen.

Once a closed ecosystem is opened, it’s no longer closed. There is no half open or open+closed.

Banks apps are free. Do you really think banks are going to leave first party app stores? What’s the motivation?

All of these “what if” scenarios are tiresome. If a developer decides to use a third party store instead of the App Store, you may also decide not to use that app. The entitlement from the walled garden crowd never ceases to amaze me.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If developers of my favorite apps decide to move to a third-party App Store because they can circumvent Apple’s rules and fees, how am I as a user not being forced to side load my apps?

So you agree it‘s bad to be „forced“ to use certain stores to obtain your favourite app? I understand that.

But I‘d rather have more than one competing store than only a single one- one that can unilaterally set its commission rates and terms to prohibit innovative apps and self-preference its own competing products (you know, demanding to pre-approve streaming gaming titles, for instance, just cause people may prefer it over their own gaming subscription service).

 

[bsolar]

They aren’t taking into account that the consumer can only choose between the choices that developers give them. And there is no guarantee that developers will always give them a first party App Store option.

This is true, but it also implies that with competing services being allowed on the platform, the App Store would not be the solution of choice of the developers that decide to use something else.

That's actually the point of competition, as it would push Apple to provide an even better App Store in itself instead of relying on the popularity of their devices to tie it in.

It would also mean that some applications can become better than they are now: I would definitely switch to a Kindle App provided by Amazon directly if it's more integrated with Amazon's ebook store and allows direct purchase, a feature which is not available on the Apple App Store application due to the hefty cut Apple would collect for doing basically nothing.

 

[subjonas]

Banks apps are free. Do you really think banks are going to leave first party app stores? What’s the motivation?

All of these “what if” scenarios are tiresome. If a developer decides to use a third party store instead of the App Store, you may also decide not to use that app. The entitlement from the walled garden crowd never ceases to amaze me.

Banks may or may not have been a good example. We can replace that with any paid app, or maybe there are other reasons besides Apple tax that devs might not want to be in the App Store, such as tracking restrictions. Banks may want to know more about their customers than Apple allows.

Huh? How can we not ask what if? That’s exactly what decision-making requires. Not asking what if and just making decisions isn't wise.

The argument “just don’t use the app” is exactly what I addressed in my post that you responded to. If you have a counter argument, I’m very open to hearing it.

One could say consumers are acting entitled, but on the flip side of the same coin, one could say developers are acting entitled. Who’s right? But I argue it’s not about entitlement, it’s just two conflicting interests.

 

[subjonas]

Bank probably aren't best example.

Banking apps are free... so banks probably wouldn't have much to gain by offering their app in some 3rd-party app store or downloaded from their website.

Banks want people to use the most friction-free way of installing their app. And that's gonna be the default Apple App Store and Google Play Store that people have used for years.

A better example would be a game developer (cough, Epic, cough) that isn't allowed to be in the App Store. Or a service like Spotify who has issues with Apple's current billing procedures.

But yes... I agree with your assessment that once Apple's platform is opened... it's gonna be a different world.

However, we don't yet know what Apple will require of developers in this new world.

If Apple still demands a developer pay a commission even if their app is sold somewhere else... then what's the point of a developer making it more difficult for someone to install their app?

In other words... if a developer still has to pay Apple 27% plus the 3% to a 3rd-party payment processor... then they're just making the process of installing apps more difficult and more complicated with nothing really to show for it.

It's gonna be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Who knows... it might be that developers stick with the official Apple App Store.

Look at Android. Google has allowed 3rd-party app stores and downloaded apps since the beginning.

And yet... 97% of Android apps come from the official Google Play Store (with Google billing and commissions!)

So there must be something to be said for the ease and simplicity of the default app store.

Games are a good example too. But banks may for example want to track their users more than Apple allows.

Can Apple make demands on apps downloaded from other stores? I thought Apple only has power over apps in the App Store because they can ban the app from the store, which they wouldn’t be able to do with another store.

I don’t know much about the Google Play Store. A comparison could be fair, or there might be some important differences. Not sure, I’d have to look more into that.

 

[Jensend]

“Don’t side load” is such a stupid argument and I’m sick & tired of it.

If developers of my favorite apps decide to move to a third-party App Store because they can circumvent Apple’s rules and fees, how am I as a user not being forced to side load my apps?

There’s no comparison to the macOS AppStore, “side loading” existed way before a store was launched. And guess what, I prefer to have my apps from that store if available, rather than downloading it from some website. On the store, I’m confident payments are secure, support is available and I can easily setup a new machine & just press a button to redownload my apps. But for most of the desktop apps I don’t get to choose because some website is the only place to get it from. It sucks. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen with the iOS AppStore.

So stop repeating that nonsense that third party app stores don’t affect you if you don’t want it. They absolutely will!

Games are a good example too. But banks may for example want to track their users more than Apple allows.

Can Apple make demands on apps downloaded from other stores? I thought Apple only has power over apps in the App Store because they can ban the app from the store, which they wouldn’t be able to do with another store.

I don’t know much about the Google Play Store. A comparison could be fair, or there might be some important differences. Not sure, I’d have to look more into that.

I follow(ed) many indie game developers on Twitter. Some complained that their games were removed from the App Store because they hadn't been updated recently enough. It wasn't even because the app was using old API's or anything like that.

Apple running the store isn't a guarantee that your favorite app will stay there.

 

[subjonas]

And why shouldn’t develops have a choice? They’re just supposed to take whatever Apple dishes out?

“Should” is complicated. I think developers/businesses will do whatever they see fit. Just like consumers will do whatever they see fit. I see both more as instinctual forces of nature than decision-making entities. So it falls on the government to decide the best course of action or inaction regarding what should be allowed. So we just have to hope they are wise enough to truly understand the situation and all the consequences of each option.

If you’re asking what I’d do if I was the government, there was a time when I’d say the government should stay out of it, but the fact is smartphones have become necessary, and there is a duopoly of platforms. So the government does have a role to play of at least watch dog and possibly more. I don’t know ultimately, I would need to do a lot of research on this of course, but my idea would be to allow iOS to stay closed, and do some combination of close monitoring (to make sure Apple isn’t making unreasonable demands on developers) and trying to promote more competition by incentivizing other platforms, as well as requiring a certain level of interoperability/convenience between platforms. Again, I’d need to do a lot of research. But I do think allowing both open and closed ecosystems for consumers is valuable.

 

[JapanApple]

No news is old news........... or no news at all.

"iOS 17 and side-loading can't come soon enough.
For any other industry, if there were only two competitors, it would almost certainly violate anti-competition laws."

Good Grief, so you want hackers to harm people? Competition is good, but not when it harms the overall health of a given industry Hence "Sideloaders" hackers love this to happen. Those that have used them in the past know the risks of using them. Unless apple can control them there is no way this will happen.

 

[Jensend]

“Should” is complicated. I think developers/businesses will do whatever they see fit. Just like consumers will do whatever they see fit. I see both more as instinctual forces of nature than decision-making entities. So it falls on the government to decide the best course of action or inaction regarding what should be allowed. So we just have to hope they are wise enough to truly understand the situation and all the consequences of each option.

If you’re asking what I’d do if I was the government, there was a time when I’d say the government should stay out of it, but the fact is smartphones have become necessary, and there is a duopoly of platforms. So the government does have a role to play of at least watch dog and possibly more. I don’t know ultimately, I would need to do a lot of research on this of course, but my idea would be to allow iOS to stay closed, and do some combination of close monitoring (to make sure Apple isn’t making unreasonable demands on developers) and trying to promote more competition by incentivizing other platforms, as well as requiring a certain level of interoperability/convenience between platforms. Again, I’d need to do a lot of research. But I do think allowing both open and closed ecosystems for consumers is valuable.

I just don’t see it as very likely there would be many popular apps that would be pulled from the App Store if an alternative installation method were available. And for many categories of apps, other developers would fill the gaps left behind from any app that left the official App Store.

And if I’m wrong, it’s because Apple isn’t providing enough value for their 30% cut.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Once a closed ecosystem is opened, it’s no longer closed. There is no half open or open+closed.

iOS and its ecosystem of apps is not "closed" today either.
You can sideload apps today. You don't need to go through the App Store.

The required enterprise certificate have been used not only by the likes of Google and Facebook to collect data - but also shady alternative app stores. It's just that Apple doesn't allow honest developers to publish their apps to end users using them - while they haven't been very prompt to crack down on them either.

Apple tax that devs might not want to be in the App Store, such as tracking restrictions.

If Apple were so honestly concerned about tracking, they wouldn't allow the shitton of third-party trackers and analytics that developers include in their apps today.

Oh yeah, and if they were so concerned about privacy (rather than just selling privacy), they better verified their App Store privacy labels - rather than just relying on self-declarations by the developers that submitted them to the store.

But banks may for example want to track their users more than Apple allows.

Someone will want to. Even Facebook and Meta have been caught at it. The thing is: Apple is never going to successfully police hundreds of thousands of apps from collection data on their users - especially when some of them are crafty at that. The only sensible way is to allow restrict what apps can do and which data they are allowed to access...

Can Apple make demands on apps downloaded from other stores?

They can sandbox apps and restrict their access permissions - without apps having to be sold or downloaded from Apple's App Store. As they're doing on macOS today.

Good Grief, so you want hackers to harm people? Competition is good, but not when it harms the overall health of a given industry Hence "Sideloaders" hackers love this to happen

Good grief, that's the old "but what about the criminals?!" argument to justify totalitarian control.
Why don't you throw in a few more terrorists and "Think of the children!"s to underscore the point?

 

[ian87w]

It’s funny how just now, countries are complaining. They were fine with it the last 15 years.

Covid and lockdowns have drained so many countries’ coffers. Every government are looking for more sources of revenues, and big tech is an easy target while they (the government) pretend they’re doing it for the people.

 

[JapanApple]

i

Good grief, that's the old "but what about the criminals?!" argument to justify totalitarian control.
Why don't you throw in a few more terrorists and "Think of the children!"s to underscore the point?

and your point is? the world is a violent place or why did the chicken cross the road?

 

[webkit]

Covid and lockdowns have drained so many countries’ coffers. Every government are looking for more sources of revenues, and big tech is an easy target while they (the government) pretend they’re doing it for the people.

This is not about countries looking for new sources of revenue. If it were, we likely would've been hearing about antitrust charges against wealthy Apple's physical Apple Stores for things like not selling HP, Samsung, Dell, etc. products but we're not. The reason we're not is because Apple doesn't have near the dominance in the brick and mortar retail store market that they have in mobile OS and that's the key here as this is about antitrust issues.

The bottom line is that a dominant company (in this case, Apple currently has around 67% share of mobile OS in Japan) is engaging in anticompetitive behavior (restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, etc.) which is a violation of typical antitrust laws and regulation. Why should they be allowed to get away with that?

 

[ian87w]

This is not about countries looking for new sources of revenue. If it were, we likely would've been hearing about antitrust charges against wealthy Apple's physical Apple Stores for things like not selling HP, Samsung, Dell, etc. products but we're not. The reason we're not is because Apple doesn't have near the dominance in the brick and mortar retail store market that they have in mobile OS and that's the key here as this is about antitrust issues.

The bottom line is that a dominant company (in this case, Apple currently has around 67% share of mobile OS in Japan) is engaging in anticompetitive behavior (restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, etc.) which is a violation of typical antitrust laws and regulation. Why should they be allowed to get away with that?

The only issue might be the payment system. And that’s exactly what the Japanese regulators were talking about.

Japanese regulators want Apple and Google to allow users to choose third-party payment methods for apps and services, rather than forcing them to use the built-in purchase options in the App Store and Play Store.

But sideloading? Alternative App Store? Walled garden is not illegal. Take Nintendo Switch (or Sony PlayStation). They are the dominant companies in the console market, especially in Japan. Yet you cannot buy an Xbox game and play it on a PlayStation. Nintendo uses its own proprietary cartridge. No sideloading or alternative digital stores allowed on each consoles. And those are fine.

 

[MVMNT]

How old is the App Store vs this law?

Chicken vs Egg.

 

[webkit]

The only issue might be the payment system. And that’s exactly what the Japanese regulators were talking about.


But sideloading? Alternative App Store? Walled garden is not illegal. Take Nintendo Switch (or Sony PlayStation). They are the dominant companies in the console market, especially in Japan. Yet you cannot buy an Xbox game and play it on a PlayStation. Nintendo uses its own proprietary cartridge. No sideloading or alternative digital stores allowed on each consoles. And those are fine.

A company with a dominant position in a market (like Apple has in mobile OS in Japan) engaging in anticompetitive behavior (restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.) can be a violation of antitrust laws and regulations.

It's not about the dominant position and/or duopoly necessarily being illegal.
It's not about restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. necessarily being illegal.

Antitrust issues arise from the combination of both.

As far as PlayStation and Xbox, you can buy games for those devices from numerous stores, websites, etc. Whether or not game developers make the same game available for both or just one or the other is more up to the developer just as app developers can similarly choose to make their apps available for just iOS, just Android or both. As far as Apple's own apps, no one is saying here that Apple must make Safari. Pages, Numbers, etc. available for Android.

 

[webkit]

How old is the App Store vs this law?

Chicken vs Egg.

Antitrust laws regarding dominant companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior (which is what this is about) have been around for ages, far longer than any app store.

 

[ian87w]

A company with a dominant position in a market (like Apple has in mobile OS in Japan) engaging in anticompetitive behavior (restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.) can be a violation of antitrust laws and regulations.

It's not about the dominant position and/or duopoly necessarily being illegal.
It's not about restricting sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. necessarily being illegal.

Antitrust issues arise from the combination of both.

As far as PlayStation and Xbox, you can buy games for those devices from numerous stores, websites, etc. Whether or not game developers make the same game available for both or just one or the other is more up to the developer just as app developers can similarly choose to make their apps available for just iOS, just Android or both. As far as Apple's own apps, no one is saying here that Apple must make Safari. Pages, Numbers, etc. available for Android.

Hmm, again, the point that the Japanese regulators are looking at is the payment system.

You mentioned sideloading, and alternative app stores. Those things are not possible either on gaming consoles. You cannot have an alternative digital App Store on your Playstation, and you cannot sideload your own homebrew app. And those are not even the issue here.