Apple's UK users deserve app price compensation, claim says

[Albi368]

Summary

 A case has been filed with the UK's Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), alleging Apple's 30% commission on app sales is an abuse of dominance and unlawful.

 

Quotes

Quote

 Millions of Apple's UK customers should be compensated for breaches of competition law, a legal action claims.

The case, filed with the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), alleges Apple's 30% commission on app sales is an abuse of dominance and unlawful...

It alleges:

 

• Apple deliberately shuts out potential competition
• it requires ordinary users to use Apple's own payment-processing system
• doing so generates "unlawfully excessive levels of profit"
• the charges are "an unlawful raid on Apple's customers' purses"

 

My thoughts

 It'll be interesting to see essentially the same case as Epic vs Apple but being brought from the viewpoint of the customer. Will be keeping an eye on it to see whether it gets past the first hurdle as class action lawsuits don't exist in the UK and it needs to pass a tribunal first. I wonder if something similar will happen elsewhere and whether Google will become the focus of similar cases

 

Sources

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57062139

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

google also takes 30% lol

[Helpful Tech Witch]

6 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

google also takes 30% lol

but they dont have a dominant position in andrid. apple has one in ios.

[AndreiArgeanu]

1 hour ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

google also takes 30% lol

But last I checked google doesn't lock down the platform they're on so it's extremely difficult to download an application from a third party source

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

But last I checked google doesn't lock down the platform they're so it's extremely difficult to download an application from a third party source

Or force payments to go through their own payment processing system (people need to remember that's another problem with Apple's store)

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

2 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

but they dont have a dominant position in andrid. apple has one in ios.

how so? what alternative app store has everything int he play store without a 30% cut?

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 hour ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

But last I checked google doesn't lock down the platform they're on so it's extremely difficult to download an application from a third party source

but from where can you get all the apps on the play store without the 30% fee?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

11 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

how so? what alternative app store has everything int he play store without a 30% cut?

the point is, google doesnt have a..... imma go with monopoly here...... monopoly on android, meaning that they cant force people to use the google play store. You may not be able to find a app store that doesnt have teh 30% fee, but thats not the problem. Since google has no complete control over androids market, they cant excersize power like apple can.

 

its never been abot the amount of the cut (for the idea, not the reason the idea is being pushed, which is about the amount of the cut), its the fact that the compnay has no other choice.

for example fortnite was hosted as a apk for android for like 2 years before it went to google play. Thats what epic did instead of paying the google fees. Developers have that option on android. You.... technically do on ios, but apple makes it apparent that they dont like users doing that (see the fee to not have to reinstall sideloaded apps once a week)

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Or force payments to go through their own payment processing system (people need to remember that's another problem with Apple's store)

Google requires that all Play Store apps use its payment system. It gave Epic the boot precisely because it was trying the same end-run that it did with Apple.

 

Also, can you show evidence that the Play Store doesn't dominate Android app downloads? The evidence I've seen suggests it does outside of China. App sideloading isn't a "get out of antitrust free" card for Google.

[Spindel]

And I should get compensation from Apple Records for all the beatles music I have bought because I can't get Beatles music anywhere else with out Apple Records getting a cut. 

 

Let's say Apple keeps AppStore and allow other app stores to be side loaded what will be the next thing.

 

Well the next thing will be that AppStore won't be allowed to come preinstalled on iOS devices and you will need to chose one at first set up. 

 

After that (and a lot of biting and moaning) other actors still won't be satisfied because, gasp, people will still almost only use AppStore because it is convenient and safe and there will be further regulations. 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Albi368 said:

It'll be interesting to see essentially the same case as Epic vs Apple but being brought from the viewpoint of the customer

I don't think they have much to stand on.  Hypothetically if the 30% was "too much", then it is hurting the developers more...otherwise you would be hearing about the developer selling at different prices across things like Android and Apple more often.

 

27 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Google requires that all Play Store apps use its payment system. It gave Epic the boot precisely because it was trying the same end-run that it did with Apple.

Yes and no, the Google terms is actually quite a bit looser than Apple's.  Epic got booted because they crossed the line by selling in-app content, using their own store.  In Google Store though you could in theory handle subscriptions via third parties.  Strictly speaking, you on Apple you aren't even allowed to limit access via subscriptions if they didn't purchase it through the IAP.

 

30 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Also, can you show evidence that the Play Store doesn't dominate Android app downloads? The evidence I've seen suggests it does outside of China. App sideloading isn't a "get out of antitrust free" card for Google.

Well by a rough estimate Samsung sold roughly 59.6% of Android phones (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america) [Calculated by taking out Apple's share, to get Android numbers).

10.6% for LG

 

Both Samsung and LG have their own App stores built into their Android phones (as alternatives).  So there are alternative app stores on over 70% of Android devices. (Albeit, they do take the 30% as well).

 

[Commodus]

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes and no, the Google terms is actually quite a bit looser than Apple's.  Epic got booted because they crossed the line by selling in-app content, using their own store.  In Google Store though you could in theory handle subscriptions via third parties.  Strictly speaking, you on Apple you aren't even allowed to limit access via subscriptions if they didn't purchase it through the IAP.

That's fair — I'd just say the core point stands. People like to pretend Google is a bastion of fairness and competitive freedom, but it's only slightly better in practice — it very much wants to have control over most app distribution.

 

17 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well by a rough estimate Samsung sold roughly 59.6% of Android phones (https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america) [Calculated by taking out Apple's share, to get Android numbers).

10.6% for LG

 

Both Samsung and LG have their own App stores built into their Android phones (as alternatives).  So there are alternative app stores on over 70% of Android devices. (Albeit, they do take the 30% as well).

Keep in mind that merely including in-house stores doesn't mean people use them, as you likely know. Samsung includes Bixby with its phones, but it's still safe to presume Google Assistant dominates.

[Granular]

Software distribution on iOS is a monopoly and monopolies are bad.

More news at 11.

[Granular]

6 hours ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

google also takes 30% lol

Google is also a terrible company, yes.

At least they don't require you to buy a computer from them and pay a yearly subscription fee for the privilege of writing software for your own phone.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

5 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

the point is, google doesnt have a..... imma go with monopoly here...... monopoly on android, meaning that they cant force people to use the google play store. You may not be able to find a app store that doesnt have teh 30% fee, but thats not the problem. Since google has no complete control over androids market, they cant excersize power like apple can.

 

its never been abot the amount of the cut (for the idea, not the reason the idea is being pushed, which is about the amount of the cut), its the fact that the compnay has no other choice.

for example fortnite was hosted as a apk for android for like 2 years before it went to google play. Thats what epic did instead of paying the google fees. Developers have that option on android. You.... technically do on ios, but apple makes it apparent that they dont like users doing that (see the fee to not have to reinstall sideloaded apps once a week)

so the only thing google does better is allow you to install apk's which only was a thing that one billion dollar corporation did out of greed, subjecting their customers to the gigantic security risk that is installing apk's. that's your argument. 

[AnonymousGuy]

Quote

doing so generates "unlawfully excessive levels of profit"

LOL.  This case is already sunk.

 

And how is it "abuse of dominance" if they've been doing it since day 1?  If anything that just proves the point that what they're doing is what consumers want.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

.o the only thing google does better is allow you to install apk's which only was a thing that one billion dollar corporation did out of greed, subjecting their customers to the gigantic security risk that is installing apk's. that's your argument. 

and Microsoft is gracing windows users to the gigantic security risk that is running unsigned apps?

 

and you could use the "they use sideloading a self hosted app out of greed argument" for any company. I was just giving an example.

also, google does a lot better with android and the google play store than apple with ios and the appstore.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

6 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

LOL.  This case is already sunk.

 

And how is it "abuse of dominance" if they've been doing it since day 1?  If anything that just proves the point that what they're doing is what consumers want.

its bassically the same case thjat epic has against apple in the us.

its apple abusing their domanant position on ios, which they have total control over. and android the end user can do whatever teh hell they want. google doesnt lock it down. you want to sideload an app? sure (and for free too). You want to install a custom version of the os? sure. 

[AnonymousGuy]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

its bassically the same case thjat epic has against apple in the us.

its apple abusing their domanant position on ios, which they have total control over. and android the end user can do whatever teh hell they want. google doesnt lock it down. you want to sideload an app? sure (and for free too). You want to install a custom version of the os? sure. 

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole again but it's the same argument: Apple's behavior has been unchanging.  You've never been able to sideload an app or change the OS and yet here we are with consumers saying they don't care and buying Apple anyways.  You can't just walk into a McDonalds and demand a Whopper be made for you.  The response should be "go to Burger King" / android.

 

It'd be a different conversation if McDolads used to make Whoppers to steal business from Burger King and then one day decides they don't need it anymore and stops making them.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

12 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole again but it's the same argument: Apple's behavior has been unchanging.  You've never been able to sideload an app or change the OS and yet here we are with consumers saying they don't care and buying Apple anyways.  You can't just walk into a McDonalds and demand a Whopper be made for you.  The response should be "go to Burger King" / android.

 

It'd be a different conversation if McDolads used to make Whoppers to steal business from Burger King and then one day decides they don't need it anymore and stops making them.

Just because its been something that happend for years doesnt make it ok.

Theres plenty of examples of things that are bad that happend for years, that doesnt make them right.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

and Microsoft is gracing windows users to the gigantic security risk that is running unsigned apps?

you claim that Windows is as secure as iOS?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, Ashley MLP Fangirl said:

you claim that Windows is as secure as iOS?

no, im claiming its as secure (if not less so) than android. And they let you do what ever the hell you want with apps.

[Bombastinator]

13 hours ago, Albi368 said:

Summary

 A case has been filed with the UK's Competition Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), alleging Apple's 30% commission on app sales is an abuse of dominance and unlawful.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

 It'll be interesting to see essentially the same case as Epic vs Apple but being brought from the viewpoint of the customer. Will be keeping an eye on it to see whether it gets past the first hurdle as class action lawsuits don't exist in the UK and it needs to pass a tribunal first. I wonder if something similar will happen elsewhere and whether Google will become the focus of similar cases

 

Sources

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57062139

That should fail hard.  Just because a company recently reduced their price doesn’t mean Apple has to present a change immediately and wouldn’t cover anything before that point at all.  This is the sort of situation that might be considered frivolous and be subject to various punishments in the US. 

[duncannah]

Why should it be the users that get compensation? If anything, it should be the developers, no? Not to mention they have to pay 99$/year to keep their apps on the store

[Bombastinator]

3 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

The problem is not the 30%, but being forced by Apple to use their store (as they actively prevent side-loading and 3rd-party stores), which translates into the supposedly 30% higher price.

 

If the device was sold for little to no profit (e.g. consoles), they could even argue, but this is not the case (profit margin >35% in the last quarter).

So it actually still is the 30% price. Just with some sophistry and assumptions to hide it. Consoles aren’t sold for zero profit en total if the attempt is to gain market share and/or make the money on their games. Shure, part of the complete package is, but a console is useless without games.  A cellphone isn’t. It is possible to have an iPhone and never pay an additional cent for apps.  A lot of people actually do that.  I’d say less than 10% of the apps on my phone were stuff I paid money for.   I can only think of 3 or 4 off hand out of the multiple pages of apps I got.  Several more are for paid devices where I bought the item outside the Apple store but the app I use to access it is free.  Netflix comes to mind.  There’s also this odd pet treat minding device where the device is fairly expensive, but it is designed to only work through an app, but the app is free.  Epic would be totally capable of selling their “v-buck” wooden nickel things on a website but having the app be free.   That’s actually common. That’s how I do Netflix.  Epic has a problem.  Kids are getting sick of fortnight.   They want to keep making mad money anyway though.  So we get to deal with all this garbage.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Bombastinator