App Store May Violate Japanese Antitrust Law

[JamesHolden]

“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 agree that it's a very complicated situation. I also agree that smartphones have become necessary and therefore deserve a higher level of scrutiny. When billions of people rely on your platform every day, you should be held to a higher standard.

I have several problems with the closed App Store model. First and foremost, I don't think we should allow any one company to be a gatekeeper over a platform that billions of people use, even if that company created the platform. There are many potential downsides, from the user's point of view, to the gatekeeper model. An obvious example of this is when China tells Apple to pull thousands of apps from the App Store and Apple dutifully acts as enforcer for a totalitarian regime because it's the cost of doing business in that country. Without a gatekeeper, there'd be no one to pressure and those apps could still be obtained somehow. This is especially important in places that enjoy far less freedom than we do in the west.

Apple is also incredibly hypocritical. Taking a 30% cut of a developer's intellectual property and a 0% cut of an Amazon sale is indefensible. It makes absolutely no sense. Allowing Amazon to use its own payment processing platform but denying Epic the right to do so for V-Bucks is the height of hypocrisy. Neither buying a product on Amazon nor buying a virtual fistful of V-Bucks has anything to do with Apple, yet Apple forces Epic to use Apple's payment platform and allows Amazon to use its own. There's no justification for this sort of hyprocisy other than "because Apple says so".

I also have a big issue with Apple telling developers what kind of apps they may develop. It's not Apple's business to censor and control what sort of apps grown adults use. Porn is an obvious example, but I think the vape app fiasco is a better example. Vape companies spent millions of dollars developing products and companion apps only to one day have Apple unilaterally decide that vaping apps aren't allowed because of a silly media frenzy over vaping. Apple wanted to score some good press and didn't care if those vape companies were collateral damage. And it had nothing to do with health because, let's be honest, if Apple cared about health they wouldn't allow social media or sex hookup apps.

The data is very clear when it comes to teen suicide. Rates have skyrocketed since the introduction of social media apps, especially Instagram, but Apple isn't protecting those kids. I guarantee far more kids die every year from suicide because of Instagram than the few who died or had health issues caused by bad vape cartridges. Likewise, the rate of STIs has skyrocketed since hookup apps have become a thing but, again, Apple does nothing about that.

Gatekeeping is morally wrong. Apple has no right to tell me, a grown man, what kind of apps I can use on my phone. Platforms should be open and developers shouldn't be at the mercy of Apple's reactionary whims. I'm tired of Apple's gross hypocrisy when it comes to how they run the App Store.

 

[ian87w]

Gatekeeping is morally wrong. Apple has no right to tell me, a grown man, what kind of apps I can use on my phone. Platforms should be open and developers shouldn't be at the mercy of Apple's reactionary whims. I'm tired of Apple's gross hypocrisy when it comes to how they run the App Store.

That argument is valid if Apple is the only mobile platform available. But they're not. If you don't like gatekeeping, you can use Android. The choice is yours. You went with Apple knowing it's walled garden. A grown man wouldn't be whining after making a wrong choice and wanting government to babysit you. Drop Apple, switch, and move on.

 

[JamesHolden]

That argument is valid if Apple is the only mobile platform available. But they're not. If you don't like gatekeeping, you can use Android. The choice is yours. You went with Apple knowing it's walled garden. A grown man wouldn't be whining after making a wrong choice and wanting government to babysit you. Drop Apple, switch, and move on.

No. Morally wrong is morally wrong. It's not platform dependent. As I said in the beginning of my comment, when billions of people rely on your platform, the rules change. Apple might have created it but at this point the public has a vested interest in how ACCESS to the platform is governed. It's no different than the way we regulate energy companies and telecoms. These are private companies too, but their behavior is monitored and regulated by the government because it's in the public's best interest.

The writing is on the wall. There's too much scrutiny worldwide at this point. Your garden walls are coming down, one way or another, and rightly so.

P.S. I like how you ignored all the points I made too! Why don't you tell me why it's okay for Apple to take a cut of Epic's revenue and not Amazon's? Can't wait for those mental gymnastics! Or perhaps explain to me why Apple gets to pull vape apps that essentially harm no one but doesn't remove Instagram and all the sex hook up apps that are having a very real negative impact on public health. More mental gymnastics I'm sure. But most likely you won't respond at all. You'll just line up to defend the status quo.

 

[ian87w]

No. Morally wrong is morally wrong. It's not platform dependent. As I said in the beginning of my comment, when billions of people rely on your platform, the rules change. Apple might have created it but at this point the public has a vested interest in how ACCESS to the platform is governed. It's no different than the way we regulate energy companies and telecoms. These are private companies too, but their behavior is monitored and regulated by the government because it's in the public's best interest.

The writing is on the wall. There's too much scrutiny worldwide at this point. Your garden walls are coming down, one way or another, and rightly so.

P.S. I like how you ignored all the points I made too! Why don't you tell me why it's okay for Apple to take a cut of Epic's revenue and not Amazon's? Can't wait for those mental gymnastics! Or perhaps explain to me why Apple gets to pull vape apps that essentially harm no one but doesn't remove Instagram and all the sex hook up apps that are having a very real negative impact on public health. More mental gymnastics I'm sure. But most likely you won't respond at all. You'll just line up to defend the status quo.

A grown man wouldn't be whining and groaning and pointing fingers at others being "wrong." Open platforms exist, and it's up to you, a grown man, to make the choice. Instead, you would rather have a government void all the choices so everything will be the same.

And yeah, keep pulling up straws with vape, health, etc.

Besides, the Japanese regulators were only looking at 3rd party payments, and I agree with them, that Apple might be violating some anti-competitive regulations in that regards. That's about it. All these other talk about sideloading etc are simply red herring and irrelevant to what the article was informing.

 

[JamesHolden]

A grown man wouldn't be whining and groaning and pointing fingers at others being "wrong." Open platforms exist, and it's up to you, a grown man, to make the choice. Instead, you would rather have a government void all the choices so everything will be the same.

And yeah, keep pulling up straws with vape, health, etc.

Besides, the Japanese regulators were only looking at 3rd party payments, and I agree with them, that Apple might be violating some anti-competitive regulations in that regards. That's about it. All these other talk about sideloading etc are simply red herring and irrelevant to what the article was informing.

Way to go. Keep cherry picking your responses.

I'm not pulling at straws with vapes. I'm bringing up very real issues. First, there's the naked hypocrisy of pulling vape apps but letting social media and sex apps flourish. Obviously, I'm in favor of no restrictions on what kind of apps are allowed on the platform, but if Apple is going to get on a moral high horse, the least they could do is not be so pathetically hypocritical.

Second, the arbitrary platform tax they charge some people and not others is absurd. If Epic should have to fork over 30% of V-Bucks sales just because, then so should Amazon, Uber, every food delivery services, etc. All of these companies use their own infrastructure to handle sales, yet Apple forces software developers like Epic to pay 30% despite the fact that V-Bucks have nothing to do with the App Store infrastructure at all.

By all means, keep defending these morally bankrupt positions. I'll be laughing when the EU and the US government finally put an end to Apple's nannying and playing favorites.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Besides, the Japanese regulators were only looking at 3rd party payments, and I agree with them

Oh, were they? 🤡

Let‘s take a quick look at their proposals then, shall we?
„Proposals from the Competition Policy (2)
…
„Not restricting other app developers from indicating different terms of sale and payment within their apps, and not restricting the conclusion of contracts with or the receipt of service fee from users outside the app stores“

„Proposals from the Competition Policy (3)
…
If there is no problem in terms of security assurance and privacy protection, regarding smartphone devices equipped with the Google’s/Apple’s mobile OS, making it possible to download apps including app store apps regardless of whether or not the Google’s/Apple’s app store is used“

https://www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2023/February/230209EN02.pdf

👉 Yeah, I agree with them, too.

(Side note: while someone seems to have had colourful fun in layouting that summary presentation, I have to commend them for presenting the key facts in such a concise and easily understandable way)

 

[mrochester]

Way to go. Keep cherry picking your responses.

I'm not pulling at straws with vapes. I'm bringing up very real issues. First, there's the naked hypocrisy of pulling vape apps but letting social media and sex apps flourish. Obviously, I'm in favor of no restrictions on what kind of apps are allowed on the platform, but if Apple is going to get on a moral high horse, the least they could do is not be so pathetically hypocritical.

Second, the arbitrary platform tax they charge some people and not others is absurd. If Epic should have to fork over 30% of V-Bucks sales just because, then so should Amazon, Uber, every food delivery services, etc. All of these companies use their own infrastructure to handle sales, yet Apple forces software developers like Epic to pay 30% despite the fact that V-Bucks have nothing to do with the App Store infrastructure at all.

By all means, keep defending these morally bankrupt positions. I'll be laughing when the EU and the US government finally put an end to Apple's nannying and playing favorites.

What charging model do you think Apple should adopt? It would need to be as profitable, or more profitable, than the current model.

 

[webkit]

That argument is valid if Apple is the only mobile platform available. But they're not. If you don't like gatekeeping, you can use Android. The choice is yours. You went with Apple knowing it's walled garden. A grown man wouldn't be whining after making a wrong choice and wanting government to babysit you. Drop Apple, switch, and move on.

Just because Android exists doesn't mean Apple should be allowed to violate antitrust regulations and do whatever they want with iOS (and vice versa). If Google/Android is required to follow regulations when it comes to sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, etc. then Apple/iOS should be required as well.

 

[webkit]

Besides, the Japanese regulators were only looking at 3rd party payments, and I agree with them, that Apple might be violating some anti-competitive regulations in that regards. That's about it.

That's not true. I even mentioned in a previous reply to you (#129) that the Japanese Fair Trade Commission report went beyond just third party payment systems.

 

[I7guy]

Just because Android exists doesn't mean Apple should be allowed to violate antitrust regulations and do whatever they want with iOS (and vice versa). If Google/Android is required to follow regulations when it comes to sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, etc. then Apple/iOS should be required as well.

There’s a good reason apple hasn’t had an antritrust lawsuit in the US regarding the anpp stire and why the government is making laws to change the app store. And why the epic case is dragging on forever. That should give one some blues clues.

 

[webkit]

There’s a good reason apple hasn’t had an antritrust lawsuit in the US regarding the anpp stire and why the government is making laws to change the app store. And why the epic case is dragging on forever. That should give one some blues clues.

Antitrust laws regarding dominant companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior (which is what this is about) have been around for ages. That's not at all new. The governments are just finally getting around to applying the laws to today's technologies, markets, etc.

 

[mrochester]

Just because Android exists doesn't mean Apple should be allowed to violate antitrust regulations and do whatever they want with iOS (and vice versa). If Google/Android is required to follow regulations when it comes to sideloading, alternative app stores, alternative payment systems, etc. then Apple/iOS should be required as well.

I think the point is that the regulation is bogus because competition already exists. None of this regulation will create the competition that is *actually* needed (i.e., more operating systems and ecosystems).

The outcome of the regulation is that consumers *don’t* get the additional competition they deserve, and iOS gets spoilt. That’s not an outcome that any consumer should support (unless of course you're a supporter of trump style politics where you cut off your own nose to spite your face).

 

[I7guy]

Antitrust laws regarding dominant companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior (which is what this is about) have been around for ages. That's not at all new. The governments are just finally getting around to applying the laws to today's technologies, markets, etc.

Yes, they are creating new laws to curb the apparent power of app stores because under the old laws at least in the US the justice department may not win a case like this (or maybe they can but at the expense of other more important cases)

 

[JamesHolden]

What charging model do you think Apple should adopt? It would need to be as profitable, or more profitable, than the current model.

I'm not bothered by Apple charging a percentage. I'm bothered by the arbitrary way in which they do so. If they're taking 30% of a developer's sale, they should take 30% of an Amazon sale. If Epic has to pay Apple 30% of a V-Bucks sale (which has absolutely nothing to do with Apple or the App Store infrastructure), then Uber should pay 30% of the ride share cost. Both transactions happen on iOS devices, yet Epic has to pay and Uber does not.

It's blatantly obvious that Apple is not treating all developers and businesses equally. I absolutely believe that Apple should be compensated for its hard work in building and further developing the iOS platform. I just think they need to treat their developers and partners fairly.

My biggest criticism of the App Store, however, has nothing to do with fees and everything to do with access. I don't believe in gatekeeping. It's bad for society. I don't think Apple should have the right to restrict what kind of apps get written for the platform. Grown adults should be able to make their own decisions about what kind of software they want to develop or purchase. Apple inserting itself into that relationship and trying to nanny its customers is offensive.

I've been an Apple customer for 40 years, but I really don't care for them as a company at all these days. I still prefer the products, but the company is rotten, greedy, controlling, hypocritical, nannying, anti-free speech, and the Chinese government's *****.

 

[JamesHolden]

Yes, they are creating new laws to curb the apparent power of app stores because under the old laws at least in the US the justice department may not win a case like this (or maybe they can but at the expense of other more important cases)

Wow, amazing. New laws are being created to deal with new developments in society! Who would have thought government would ever do such a thing?! Must be the first time that's happened since 1776!

Sheesh.

 

[I7guy]

Wow, amazing. New laws are being created to deal with new developments in society!

Yes, it’s amazing that it seems to be. Few lawmakers of the same side that are bent on dismantling big tech.

Who would have thought government would ever do such a thing?!

Yes every action the government has made in the last 400 years is stellar.

Must be the first time that's happened since 1776!

Sheesh.

Yep it’s all Good government never makes
Mistakes.

 

[JamesHolden]

Yes, it’s amazing that it seems to be. Few lawmakers of the same side that are bent on dismantling big tech.

Yes every action the government has made in the last 400 years is stellar.

Yep it’s all Good government never makes
Mistakes.

Lol. Sounds like you'd rather live in the era of 1920s coal mining in Appalachia where you get paid in company scrip, see the company doctor and send your kids to company school. Or maybe you long for the days when women couldn't vote or people of color could be owned?

There's a very long line of people throughout history just like you who didn't care one bit about the public's well-being and instead defended morally bankrupt ideas and corporate greed. Nothing new to see here.

 

[I7guy]

Lol. Sounds like you'd rather live in the era of 1920s coal mining in Appalachia where you get paid in company scrip, see the company doctor and send your kids to company school. Or maybe you long for the days when women couldn't vote or people of color could be owned?

There's a very long line of people throughout history just like you who didn't care one bit about the public's well-being and instead defended morally bankrupt ideas and corporate greed. Nothing new to see here.

lol. sounds like the post above isn’t worth the cost of the bits used to transmit this to MR servers. And shocker of shockers I am not in favor of 100% of the way out government operates. If the government was concerned about the public’s well being there is a bunch more they could be doing. But there is an agenda by a few people.

 

[JamesHolden]

lol. sounds like the post above isn’t worth the cost of the bits used to transmit this to MR servers.

Lol. Having read a few of your comments in various threads, I'd say you know a lot about that.

And shocker of shockers I am not in favor of 100% of the way out government operates. If the government was concerned about the public’s well being there is a bunch more they could be doing.

On that we can agree.

But there is an agenda by a few people.

Of course. It's a conspiracy! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[I7guy]

Lol. Having read a few of your comments in various threads, I'd say you know a lot about that.

Yes they are low quality posts with some lol or other emojis that have no substance.

On that we can agree.

Ok.

Of course. It's a conspiracy! 🤣🤣🤣

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. I used the word agenda, which is not a conspiracy.

 

[JamesHolden]

Nobody said it was a conspiracy. I used the word agenda, which is not a conspiracy.

"an agenda by a few people" = conspiracy, but whatever.

Frankly, you and other App Store defenders basically repeat the same tired talking points:

1. Apple built it so they can do whatever they want.
2. If you don't like it, buy Android.
3. Government is out to get poor Apple.

Yawn. I have yet to see you or anyone else respond to my points about regulating other industries and why that's okay, but it's not okay to regulate big tech. Why shouldn't your electric company be able to charge you 5x what they charge your neighbor? If you don't like it, you can buy solar!

I see many very valid points made about why iOS and the App Store deserve scrutiny and regulation, but you and others just ignore them and keep parroting the same tired talking points. The reality is, anyone who isn't a delusional fanboy sees that big tech needs regulation. It's no different than energy and telecom. At some point industries become so big and the public becomes so dependent upon them that regulation and oversight is in the public's best interest. We're there with tech.

 

[_Spinn_]

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

My thoughts exactly. App stores and smartphones have been very important in people’s lives for most of that time. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

 

[mrochester]

"an agenda by a few people" = conspiracy, but whatever.

Frankly, you and other App Store defenders basically repeat the same tired talking points:

1. Apple built it so they can do whatever they want.
2. If you don't like it, buy Android.
3. Government is out to get poor Apple.

Yawn. I have yet to see you or anyone else respond to my points about regulating other industries and why that's okay, but it's not okay to regulate big tech. Why shouldn't your electric company be able to charge you 5x what they charge your neighbor? If you don't like it, you can buy solar!

I see many very valid points made about why iOS and the App Store deserve scrutiny and regulation, but you and others just ignore them and keep parroting the same tired talking points. The reality is, anyone who isn't a delusional fanboy sees that big tech needs regulation. It's no different than energy and telecom. At some point industries become so big and the public becomes so dependent upon them that regulation and oversight is in the public's best interest. We're there with tech.

But why aren’t governments regulating what actually needs regulating then? Leave the app stores alone, regulate to create an environment where more operating systems and ecosystems can exists.

It needs to be the right regulation, not just any regulation. The current proposed legislation isnt going to fix anything for consumers. We’ll still only have ios and android to pick from (no consumer benefit), 99% of people will still shop in the App Store and play store (no consumer benefit) and prices will not go down (no consumer benefit).

We have to consider all the consequences of enacting legislation too. If developers can bypass paying a commission to Apple, Apple has to plug that gap by adding new chargers elsewhere or altering its pricing strategy. What does that look like, who is going to end up paying more? what impact will that have on the market?

 

[Jensend]

But why aren’t governments regulating what actually needs regulating then? Leave the app stores alone, regulate to create an environment where more operating systems and ecosystems can exists.

The issue isn't that Apple and Google dominate in the mobile OS market, it's that they are using that advantage to gain an unfair advantage in other markets. There are already other app stores and individual apps that would jump right in if given the chance. On the other hand, I don't see what regulation would compel the creation of alternative OSes. It is a lot more difficult to create an OS than an app store.
What kind of regulation do you envision that would increase the number of OSes available for smartphones?

99% of people will still shop in the App Store and play store (no consumer benefit) and prices will not go down (no consumer benefit).

Although app prices would probably stay largely the same, some in-app purchases and subscriptions would be cheaper to consumers.
I watch Twitch on my iPad. If I want to subscribe or donate to a streamer, I have to pay extra through the app, or switch over to the website.
I don't use Twitter Blue, but that's another service where a subscription through the app is more expensive.
Then there are subscription services like Spotify which license third party content, so they have less margin to begin with. Apple music is an example of where Apple uses their dominance in one area to gain an advantage in another area. Even if people like Spotify a bit better, they may stick to Apple Music for convenience, strictly because Apple OS and app store policies makes it harder for Spotify to compete.

If developers can bypass paying a commission to Apple, Apple has to plug that gap by adding new chargers elsewhere or altering its pricing strategy. What does that look like, who is going to end up paying more? what impact will that have on the market?

If 99% of people will still be using the official app store, than what is this gap Apple needs to plug? And if they lose more than 1%, maybe they'll just have to live with a bit less overall profit. But maybe they'll sell more hardware to people who would be more willing to use Apple products if they were more open.

 

[mrochester]

The issue isn't that Apple and Google dominate in the mobile OS market, it's that they are using that advantage to gain an unfair advantage in other markets. There are already other app stores and individual apps that would jump right in if given the chance. On the other hand, I don't see what regulation would compel the creation of alternative OSes. It is a lot more difficult to create an OS than an app store.
What kind of regulation do you envision that would increase the number of OSes available for smartphones?


Although app prices would probably stay largely the same, some in-app purchases and subscriptions would be cheaper to consumers.
I watch Twitch on my iPad. If I want to subscribe or donate to a streamer, I have to pay extra through the app, or switch over to the website.
I don't use Twitter Blue, but that's another service where a subscription through the app is more expensive.
Then there are subscription services like Spotify which license third party content, so they have less margin to begin with. Apple music is an example of where Apple uses their dominance in one area to gain an advantage in another area. Even if people like Spotify a bit better, they may stick to Apple Music for convenience, strictly because Apple OS and app store policies makes it harder for Spotify to compete.

If 99% of people will still be using the official app store, than what is this gap Apple needs to plug? And if they lose more than 1%, maybe they'll just have to live with a bit less overall profit. But maybe they'll sell more hardware to people who would be more willing to use Apple products if they were more open.

Consumers don't buy products based on whether they are 'open' or not so Apple won't gain any new customers from that. Plus you have to consider any customers who stop buying Apple products because of the negative consequences of Apple being forced to take this action.

99% of people still using the app store doesn't mean Apple doesn't face the risk of making less revenue. If apps don't have to use Apple IAP then Apple doesn't automatically collect their commission. So they have to design another process to get that commission, which itself will come with downsides (and potentially additional cost, ironically).

I love you think they are going to be happy making less profit though. That's a tad naieve