EU Opens Non-Compliance Investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google

[wbeasley]

Apple said (according to DOJ) that they charge 30% tax for listing and discovery, but they again charge the app developers for selling keywords to surface their apps. Double dipping. That is their entire business practice. Gouge developers to the extent possible.

Listing and discovery covers things like promotion with in category searches. Weekly product spotlights. New apps. That’s not keyword searches at all.

 

[Beautyspin]

Listing and discovery covers things like promotion with in category searches. Weekly product spotlights. New apps. That’s not keyword searches at all.

The suit never says that keyword searches are all that Apple sells.

"Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world."

It says, for example, (Emphasis is mine) which means they are others. In any case, they say that they are charging 30% for listing in the Appstore that will help the users find their app but then they charge for making the users find the apps.

 

[wbeasley]

The suit never says that keyword searches are all that Apple sells.

"Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app. Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world."

It says, for example, (Emphasis is mine) which means they are others. In any case, they say that they are charging 30% for listing in the Appstore that will help the users find their app but then they charge for making the users find the apps.

Give us hard examples of this.
At the moment it is all words and no facts.

Commanding a fee still doesn’t say it is mandatory.
If it didn’t work, people wouldn’t use it.
Like advertising… lots of time it’s just a waste of dollars.
Turning a link into a sale is one of life’s mysteries …

 

[Odan]

The eu is not on a good path… constantly inventing useless regulations, all they do these days. Of course no one has a europhone because they all went extinct 20 years ago and they didn’t even make any androids, it’s all Asian… they sound like bitter people the euro lawyers commission. The web was better without them and their BS cookie notifications wasting our time and Apple was just fine without their requirements of adding fake app stores I don’t need. I like to stay in the Apple system because it is the safest with good quality control, the eu is degrading my safety, not improving it. overregulation is a definite sign of a late stage civilisation... what goes up, must come down. If you look at France‘s budget and social problems and Sweden crime rates, you should wonder if euro socialist big government regulation is truly that great… it’s always good to reevaluate if a certain ideology actually works in practice after a while.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple takes 15% for lots of things. Not 30%.

I doubt as a dev you would really be happier on the Epic store.
Less visitors. A small drop in fees. Having to handle all payments and refunds and complaints and marketing.

So many devs come on here and say even at 30% they are happy because the old physical store model used to chew up to 90% of the ticket price off them.

If you dont like the phone store you can always code for desktop and avoid app stores altogether...

Perhaps you should look up what you’re criticizing? Epic have a lot of excepoand allow to Brendan’s Not sure what I was typing.

I don’t see users actually benefitting from these new rules. The market will be fractioned with apps only available in certain stores but not in others. Prices will most likely not drop, because apps are unique to every store, so actual competition doesn’t take place except between stores and developers.

Security might decrease—there is no saying yet, but multiple browser engines mean multiple points of failure and whether scrutiny in alternate app stores is as vigilant as in Apple’s (and even Apple misses malware occasionally) is questionable.

What exactly are end users gaining from these new rules?

Direct competitors to the AppStore, better apps.

I do not think the intent was that clear. I’ll ask you one thing: under the DMA, is Apple still allowed to earn money with their platform, i.e. can the require a share of revenue for every sold app, regardless of the store it was bought in?

If not, how will they recoup their investment in iOS development?

Apple is allowed to earn money as long as it’s a voluntary investment by the company.

Apple can sell a more expensive iPhones if they want.

just so long as you arent expecting non iOS versions to access things like FaceID. use the front facing cam to unlock or verify you instead. and no locate my device using any special Apple chips...

i still think Apple could just close stores for a week and see what the reaction is by EU customers and then decide what to do...

I would love to see just what would happen, most likely they will just lose market shares , Apple is legally speaking an irrelevant part of the EU as they don’t employ that many people in EU.

Now I see the reason for the investigation. The DMA was just released, and I am sure there will be hiccups along the way. This first time around I would not pass any fines (unless it is found the new processes are totally not inline).

Yet, why did these companies and the EU commission not discuss these changes before they went live. Like hello. You make new rules, you give time for companies to make adjustments and then when you find their adjustments don’t meet your laws you fine them - that’s money grubbing pure and simple. If it wasn’t, money grubbing, they would have had a lot more public discussion between the affected companies and the commission.

… they had 2+ years to comply, and EU regulators aren’t your dad, they won’t tell you what to do, but they will show you when you have done wrong.

Intent of the law vs letter of the law. Apple believe they found a way to comply that completely ignores the spirit of the law. I suspect the wording of the law will change. It was futile evading the spirit of the law.

There is no such thing as the spirit of the law. There is only the letter of the law.

Letter of the law is a meaningless statement when you have one law written in 24 different languages that are equally applicable and valid to the court.

Apple fails by being a required gatekeeper who enforces a commission and walking in to every legal trap in the book effectively

That doesn’t answer my question. I welcomed the switch to USB-C, although I am still uneasy about requiring it without alternatives. Who will build a better connector if they have to include USB-C anyway? There’s so space for two connectors.

The market, I record you read the legislation, it’s not that hard for the Required cable to be updated for something better.

As for my original question: what do you expect to gain as a customer and user from these new rules? And how were you fooled?

How about a superior AppStore to use for games and other apps? Perhaps steam being launched on iOS.

The store is PART of the iOS experience. It allows you to load apps.

Being part of an “experience” doesn’t make it a mandatory part of the device

Apple doesn't own what you put on the app screens BUT these screens do need to exist within the rules of the app store. They provide all the code for consistent looking buttons and presentation components. So users immediately feel comfortable using apps. You can argue all you like, but devs sign up acknowledging what they can and cant do. Linking outside isnt allowed as Epic found out.

So if Apple made the words on the Dev link at the top of the page or clearer what it will do, doesnt that solve your issue? People say the app has no way to find out how to pay. It does. They can code their webpage to inform users.
I'd be happy if Apple changed the wording and made the link a button or more prominent if directed by EU.

Doesnt matter when the link was added. It's there now. Laws and arguments are being made about the current app store not the past. Time to move on from that argument.

iOS is not a captive market. Noone is forcing devs to write an app for it.
Devs having a desire to reach 2 billion iOS users is enough incentive.
Set the price higher than outside the store if you want. Apple let you set the price.

You are conjecturing for all iOS users saying "the main reason".
If you aren't going to give up a platform because of one issue, then accept it is the way it is and stop complaining about something that has been this way for a long time and most people arent asking for.

There's a huge difference between suggesting features you would like and DEMANDING which is what is happening.

Vendors are open to suggestions.
Cook has often said they get few requests for things like RCS.
But they sometimes agree to add them at some stage.
So add your voice and use those feedback forms all you want. And get your friends to as well.
But with 2 billion voices, it's going to take a considerable effort to make enough noise to be heard when the inference is everyone else is happy as it is.

Are they forced? No but they are heavily coerced. If you can’t understand why Apple thinks iMessage acts as a locking mechanism that makes it harder for users to leave, then you will likely never understand.

And unfortunately for Apple a small market have less strict rules than a strong market.

The trouble with the DMA is that it isn't THAT specific. Yes, there are guidelines. If companies go along with the spirit of the legislation, they won't introduce new fees or harass companies trying to create app stores or those just wanting alternative payments.

However, spirit is not legally binding.

I would say it’s very clearcut, English is just not a very precise language with a lot of vagueness. Luckily 23 other legal languages exist, and the legal language used in the judicial system is French.

And there close to a list of 100 points that explain what goals the legislation have while referring to hundreds of other laws and existing definitions.

As well as existing court of justice legal rulings. We can also just read the primary laws of EU that everything is built upon.

 

[deevey]

Apple said (according to DOJ) that they charge 30% tax for listing and discovery, but they again charge the app developers for selling keywords to surface their apps. Double dipping. That is their entire business practice. Gouge developers to the extent possible.

It's not double dipping, it's smart business.

Buying keywords is basic advertising and should be included in the cost of doing (any) business.

The suit never says that keyword searches are all that Apple sells.

"Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place. For example, Apple will sell keyword searches for an app to someone other than the owner of the app.

This is how every search engine works for sponsored ADS and to blow your mind a little these keywords are usually auctioned to the highest bidder. So yes, the person with the biggest budget gets the most clicks / installs based on a competitor's name.

It's a pay to play market, just like the real world where you buy the biggest billboard you can and stick it next to a competitors business.

Apple is able to command these rents from companies of all sizes, including some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world."

Should the largest and most sophisticated get a free ride ? - I'm really confused by this statement.

It says, for example, (Emphasis is mine) which means they are others. In any case, they say that they are charging 30% for listing in the Appstore that will help the users find their app but then they charge for making the users find the apps.

There's a huge difference between a searchable directory (App Store) and PPC / Advertising (Keywords).

A user can search/find an app just fine when listed with a relevant description and title - making it rise to the top in every search costs money.

Just because your app is listed on an App Store, doesn't mean you upload it and it's going to get high ranking visibility.

Everyone in business knows you don't just build a product and hope that it's going to rank #1 in a search engine when it's competing against hundreds of other products in a similar vein.

If you are a developer you should have some kind of SEO and Marketing budget, no matter how small, if your intention is to actually make money unless it's an extremely niche app.

 

[Beautyspin]

Give us hard examples of this.
At the moment it is all words and no facts.

Commanding a fee still doesn’t say it is mandatory.
If it didn’t work, people wouldn’t use it.
Like advertising… lots of time it’s just a waste of dollars.
Turning a link into a sale is one of life’s mysteries …

They are current practices in the store. What hard examples do you want? Apple charges 30% for what from the developers? Why does Apple again charge the developers for surfacing their apps? That is the point that the lawsuit makes.

 

[Beautyspin]

It's not double dipping, it's smart business.

Well, the DOJ seems to disagree

Buying keywords is basic advertising and should be included in the cost of doing (any) business.

This is how every search engine works for sponsored ADS and to blow your mind a little these keywords are usually auctioned to the highest bidder. So yes, the person with the biggest budget gets the most clicks / installs based on a competitor's name.

It's a pay to play market, just like the real world where you buy the biggest billboard you can and stick it next to a competitors business.

Should the largest and most sophisticated get a free ride ? - I'm really confused by this statement.

There's a huge difference between a searchable directory (App Store) and PPC / Advertising (Keywords).

A user can search/find an app just fine when listed with a relevant description and title - making it rise to the top in every search costs money.

Just because your app is listed on an App Store, doesn't mean you upload it and it's going to get high ranking visibility.

Everyone in business knows you don't just build a product and hope that it's going to rank #1 in a search engine when it's competing against hundreds of other products in a similar vein.

If you are a developer you should have some kind of SEO and Marketing budget, no matter how small, if your intention is to actually make money unless it's an extremely niche app.

Don't argue with me. Argue with the DOJ. They do not think that 30% is reasonable because of the reasons stated. I will let the DOJ argue my case.

 

[wbeasley]

Perhaps you should look up what you’re criticizing? Epic have a lot of excepoand allow to Brendan’s

...

And there close to a list of 100 points that explain what goals the legislation have while referring to hundreds of other laws and existing definitions.

As well as existing court of justice legal rulings. We can also just read the primary laws of EU that everything is built upon.

What did you mean to type? It means nothing to me as it stands...

 

[wbeasley]

They are current practices in the store. What hard examples do you want? Apple charges 30% for what from the developers? Why does Apple again charge the developers for surfacing their apps? That is the point that the lawsuit makes.

Read above answer... from @deevey

I wanted links or examples where caompanies pay for ads, how much, and what their contract terms say they get extra.

 

[wbeasley]

Well, the DOJ seems to disagree

Don't argue with me. Argue with the DOJ. They do not think that 30% is reasonable because of the reasons stated. I will let the DOJ argue my case.

its a forum where people can ... ARGUE ... different opinions.

Just because the DoJ say something does not mean that Apple is going to accept it.
There will be highly paid lawyers pulling each word and inference apart as we speak.

The word "reasonable" is enough to argue over.
What Apple and DoJ consider reasonable could differ widely.

 

[henkie]

The eu is not on a good path… constantly inventing useless regulations, all they do these days. Of course no one has a europhone because they all went extinct 20 years ago and they didn’t even make any androids, it’s all Asian… they sound like bitter people the euro lawyers commission. The web was better without them and their BS cookie notifications wasting our time and Apple was just fine without their requirements of adding fake app stores I don’t need. I like to stay in the Apple system because it is the safest with good quality control, the eu is degrading my safety, not improving it. overregulation is a definite sign of a late stage civilisation... what goes up, must come down. If you look at France‘s budget and social problems and Sweden crime rates, you should wonder if euro socialist big government regulation is truly that great… it’s always good to reevaluate if a certain ideology actually works in practice after a while.

Ok man. I will just keep enjoying my easy travelling to Germany, France, Spain etc. and enjoy the best things of each country. Thank CERN for the web. Fairphone is still alive.
And Apple's stuff is not always that safe: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-m-chip-flaw-leak-encryption-keys/ and see the latest string of necessary iPhone updates (17.4.1). And Apple's App store is not the safe haven you would think it is: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apples-app-store-approved-these-crypto-scam-apps-how-to-stay-safe
Always love how "socialist" and "communist" is being thrown around on internet forums. But somehow massive amounts of subsidies to, for example, US farmers are not communist.

 

[svish]

With the changes implemented recently, Apple will be hoping to avoid the fines.

 

[Beautyspin]

Read above answer... from @deevey

I wanted links or examples where caompanies pay for ads, how much, and what their contract terms say they get extra.

Is there a doubt that developers pay for the ads? Then why are the ads there?

Your guide to Apple Search Ads: Tips & best practices | Adjust

Apple Search Ads is an important acquisition channel. Learn what is apple search ads, why ASA is important, and get our top Apple Search Ads best practices.

www.adjust.com

 

[NagasakiGG]

Apple is not a monopoly.

Why don't you try to convince the DoJ and the EU? I'm not the one deciding. I am just the one telling my opinion.

 

[DaPhox]

Why don't you try to convince the DoJ and the EU? I'm not the one deciding. I am just the one telling my opinion.

Well mono = 1 or single which makes the case moot & proves that words dont mean anything, people are too easily manipulated, & the whole case is dismissed/made up. In a corrupt world of course above arguments/facts dont hold any water…

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What did you mean to type? It means nothing to me as it stands...

Well the red part… I can’t say must have been some autocorrect…

But I’m referring to what Epic actually provides to developers for their 12% fee. You can actually read their terms and conditions along with the services they provide.

You don’t need to handle all payments and refunds and complaints and marketing. There exists a wide spectrum of different services that does that for you

The epic store isn’t that small considering it’s cross platform functionality is one of their main feature.

And developers will list their apps in multiple stores…. What makes you think stores will only have different apps?

Why wouldn’t a developer list the same app in the AppStore and Epic store

 

[Samplasion]

What? Apple's proposed "solutions" are non-compliant with the DMA? Color. me. surprised.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well mono = 1 or single which makes the case moot & proves that words dont mean anything, people are too easily manipulated, & the whole case is dismissed/made up. In a corrupt world of course above arguments/facts dont hold any water…

on iOS there’s only 1 store currently unless we count the 0.01% users who use Cydia.

EU already ruled against Google as they failed yo show iOS and android are actually competing within the same market.

And that the play store and apples AppStore is completely separate from each other.

Just how Wal-Mart in USA doesn’t compete with ICA in Sweden, even tho they sell similar goods.

ICA customers would need to travel all the way to the U.S.

 

[DaPhox]

on iOS there’s only 1 store currently unless we count the 0.01% users who use Cydia.

EU already ruled against Google as they failed yo show iOS and android are actually competing within the same market.

And that the play store and apples AppStore is completely separate from each other.

Just how Wal-Mart in USA doesn’t compete with ICA in Sweden, even tho they sell similar goods.

ICA customers would need to travel all the way to the U.S.

Sorry dont understand your point/post at all?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sorry dont understand your point/post at all?

Apple maintains a monopoly on iOS by refusing competition.

iOS and android aren’t competitors.
Apple AppStore and Google play store aren’t competitors.

Walmart and Aldi are competitors that exist in the USA.

ICA is a Swedish company that is a similar to Walmart. ICA and Walmart would be competitors.

Walmart doesn’t exist in Sweden.
Walmart(iOS AppStore) and ICA(Google play store) aren’t competitors.

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

Epic loses money charging 12% (technically they "make" money with a 12% commission until they factor in all the other costs of running a game store; this means the end result is Epic loses money with a 12% commission).

Apple charges most developers 15%. It's only the first year that is 30% or if your app is bringing in a lot of money in a year.

if they are losing money charging 12% they wouldnt be competing on desktop either, so its clearly working just enough for them to keep going like that.
All of my client apps would be charged full fat 30% all the time if we were to offer them native iOS apps.

 

[DaPhox]

Apple maintains a monopoly on iOS by refusing competition.

iOS and android aren’t competitors.
Apple AppStore and Google play store aren’t competitors.

Says who?

How can apple be a monopoly when multiple companies exist?

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

Also, it is highly likely Apple has been expecting these regulatory changes from the onset, and is milking it for as long as they can. The US is also likely to make similar changes as the EU soon. But why shouldn't they try and make the profit while they can? It would be surprising if any company voluntarily gave up billions in revenue unless they had to.

i have absolutely no problem with companies making money.. that is their sole long term goals.
i do however have a problem with big ass companies who think they are above the laws doing whatever they want complaining once laws become active.. make your money then comply with the laws.. why would you risk 35-40 Billion $ fine for dumb **** you shouldnt care much about... i estimate less than 5% of EU users will actually download alternative app stores and use apps published that way.. so why are they so hell bent on fighting it out and risking such a huge fine... apple doesnt give a **** about any fine that is like 1 or 2 B and bellow.. but these fines and EU rules have big teeth that no investor/board wants to get chewed with..

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Says who?

Says the law and the court. And seems the DOJ is taking the same approach to the market as the EU court did and refers to the EU general court’s antitrust ruling

The Judgment​

Apple and Google are not direct competitors in relation to smart mobile OS and app stores​

​

One of the most disputed aspects of the case concerned market definitions and Google's dominance in the worldwide market (excluding China) for (i) licensable mobile OS and (ii) Android app stores.​

​

Google's key argument was that the EC wrongly focused its assessment on OEMs but failed to properly consider the competitive pressure from Apple app stores and OS in relation to users and developers.​

• The General Court confirmed that Android and iOS are not in the same market since Apple does not offer to license its iOS to other OEMs. In relation to users and developers, the competition is only indirect and Apple does not exert sufficient indirect competitive pressure on Google to constrain its conduct. The General Court agreed with the EC's analysis that due to switching costs and users' loyalty to their OS, users would not switch to Apple in case of a small but significant non-transitory decrease in quality of the OS (the SSNDQ test). As users would not switch, the same is true for developers, who would not abandon Android's large user base.
• The General Court acknowledged that the SSNDQ test, which has never been used before by the EC, can be a useful tool in the analysis of zero-price markets and that the test does not require a specific or precise quantification of degradation of quality.
• The General Court also shed some light on the assessment of digital markets in general, acknowledging that parameters such as innovation, user behaviour or network effects may be more important than price. It also stated that in a digital "ecosystem" relevant markets may overlap. The markets at issue in the Android case were considered "distinct but interconnected".

The Google Android European Court Judgment and its Wider Implications | Clifford Chance

www.cliffordchance.com

How can apple be a monopoly when multiple companies exist?

What other company exist that sells apps on iOS? iOS AppStore have a 100% market share.