While I think Apple's rules are ridiculous, it is pretty standard in the industry. AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange alternative payment. Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to potential customers. Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do anyway). Etc, etc. I think this should be a more general rule, no "platform" or "aggregator" should be allowed to prevent the free communication of users of their platform from arranging their deal elsewhere. Just because they met on the platform doesn't give the right to the platform to strong-arm their users into using them. The platform must compete with alternative payment methods on its own merits, such as convenience, security, etc., not by forcing people to use them just because they happen to be the matchmaker. Because this policy cements monopolies and rewards the largest incumbents.
Gotta start somewhere, going for the Trillion dollar behemoth is a good first step, in my opinion.
And let's not forget that this standard is a de facto standard, not a regulatory one. Just because things have been done in this way, it doesn't mean they should remain like this forever.
The EU is one of the few parties which can actually bring some change.
Then it should do so broadly and inclusive of actual technical expertise. It’s nitpicking fluff because Epic and Spotify are mad, and not addressing root causes.
It’s easy (and often deserved) to dunk on the trillion-dollar corporation. And regulation is good, actually. But the DMA isn’t good regulation.
I’m not sure how they could have gone broader. The EU is saying that Apple payments offering need to compete on level playing field with other payment options. I don’t really see what being “inclusive of technical expertise” would bring to the table, beyond what’s already there.
What they didn’t allow previously was adding a surcharge to credit transactions. But regulation forced them to allow that as well. So not the best example overall.
The State of MN stopped accepting certain credit cards for many DMV type activities, and now only accept ones that allow an explicit surcharge (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex).
The difference (or at least what would be argued as a difference) is that you have no other choice with Apple (Amazon maybe in a similar situation).
If I didn't like AirBNB I could use VRBO/whatever else, or I could use both even.
I can understand Apple's cut for app developers who solely create apps and distribute them through Apple.
Where it becomes a problem is a large number of apps are just a way for the iPhone to connect to a larger product (Spotify, Basecamp, most SaaS companies), and I don't know why Apple should feel entitled to own the relationship with a businesses customers because they also use an iPhone when it's an ancillary part of the product.
> The difference (or at least what would be argued as a difference) is that you have no other choice with Apple (Amazon maybe in a similar situation).
> If I didn't like AirBNB I could use VRBO/whatever else, or I could use both even.
Read what you wrote again, and think about it. If you don't like AirBnB you can use one of the competitors, but there are no competitors to Apple? Would you consider that you might have a blind spot to something very obvious?
For AirBnB (temporary lodging), if you don't like it, typically you're only stuck with it for a few days and you can make a different choice afterwards.
Phones, for many people, are something they will use for years so they're essentially locked in a lot of the time. It's more like long term rentals, where the renter usually gets stronger protections too.
I think we're defining markets differently which is where this is debatable.
If you say that the App Store is an extension of the iPhone and you're buying into that when you buy a phone, sure I can see the argument that the App Store by default has no competitors on the iPhone and people are agreeing to that when they buy an iPhone/develop for the iPhone, and so the competition is Google (and by extension the Play store.
I just don't think we should accept the tight coupling of hardware and software distribution by default though.
Even then if you do, the strongest argument for Apple gives us a duopoly that both exhibit strong anti-competitive behaviours.
I do have some sympathy for Apple here though. When Nintendo takes tight control over distribution on the switch is that also a monopoly? When your product essentially becomes a utility though I think some form of regulation ends up being good for society as a whole.
> If you don't like AirBnB you can use one of the competitors, but there are no competitors to Apple?
There isn't enough competition. Apple is in a monopolistic market position. AirBNB isn't, at least not yet. That's a contingent fact about the current state of affairs, but I think it's true - there's a lot of pressure to be on Apple, whereas there's not much pressure to be on AirBNB.
> The effect of AirBnB on everyday life of people and the economy is in my opinion at least a thousand times larger than any effect that Apple has.
How do you figure? I'd say the effect of AirBnB is pretty much zero; they're an interchangeable provider in what's fundamentally a commoditised business. If you can't or don't want to go to an AirBnB then you go to OwnersDirect or Booking or Agoda or worst case someone's individual website, and you have a virtually identical experience. And if you're a property owner you also don't care and probably list your place on a bunch of different sites.
There are thousands of cities and towns all over the world, where short term rentals – accelerated by AirBnB – has made it impossible for young workers to afford to live where they were born. Real estate prices and rent prices are much more important in the everyday life for all of us, than all information technology combined. Unless you are a multimillionaire in tech stocks. But there aren't so many of them around.
A normal worker today in the US or Europe could if they want afford to buy all top Apple devices or equivalent PC devices, as well as every paid app on the App store. That same normal worker in the US or Europe today can never afford to buy a home, unless he/she goes into lifelong debt, or gets help from family that owns real estate.
> There are thousands of cities and towns all over the world, where short term rentals – accelerated by AirBnB – has made it impossible for young workers to afford to live where they were born.
That has very little to do with short term rentals, and even less to do with AirBnB specifically. Much like "foreign investors", it's just a convenient scapegoat when the real problem is basic supply and demand: there simply isn't enough housing to go around.
> A normal worker today in the US or Europe could if they want afford to buy all top Apple devices or equivalent PC devices, as well as every paid app on the App store. That same normal worker in the US or Europe today can never afford to buy a home, unless he/she goes into lifelong debt, or gets help from family that owns real estate.
And yet Apple's annual revenue is about 30x AirBnB's, and the numbers are similar for profit. That should tell you something about how much of the device/app market Apple controls compared to how much of the housing market AirBnB controls.
I think it has a lot to do with short term rentals, and this is how it works: When a homeowner dies, usually the heirs would go live in that home or sell it on the open market. Maybe using that money to pay off another mortgage.
Today, the heirs will instead keep the inherited home, rent it out seasonally on AirBnB to earn a little money, keep any mortgage they have on the place they live, and reap the value increase of their AirBnB unit every year. That value increase can be used as collateral for many things. In the industrialized world, your yearly salary (value increase) is much higher from earning real estate and doing nothing, than it would be from working any skilled job. AirBnB is an important piece of that whole equation, because it makes it much easier for people to hold onto extra property instead of selling it to somebody who needs a place to live. There is no shortage of housing.
> And yet Apple's annual revenue is about 30x AirBnB's
This has nothing to do with it. Real estate prices and values are much more important in the daily life of people than any consumer product such as Apple. AirBnB does not own the properties, but if you add up the value of all properties listed on AirBnB, that amount would dwarf not only Apple, but the entire stock market.
> Today, the heirs will instead keep the inherited home, rent it out seasonally on AirBnB to earn a little money, keep any mortgage they have on the place they live, and reap the value increase of their AirBnB unit every year. That value increase can be used as collateral for many things.
Money is fungible, finance people can do this kind of transformation with anything and do, all the time. Ever heard of a company or rich individual doing a sale-and-leaseback transaction? That's the same thing in reverse.
> In the industrialized world, your yearly salary (value increase) is much higher from earning real estate and doing nothing... There is no shortage of housing.
On the contrary, the shortage of housing is the underlying reality that makes all the flashy transactions on top work. Why does the value of housing keep going up? Because demand is going up and supply is staying approximately constant, or even going down. Everything else is window dressing.
> if you add up the value of all properties listed on AirBnB, that amount would dwarf not only Apple, but the entire stock market.
Maybe, but those properties are listed on a bunch of AirBnB competitors at the same time. AirBnB has very little market power over them; if they try to hike up the rates or anything they'll lose their customers. The real estate market is important. AirBnB isn't.
Difference is that AirBnB hosts can put their properties on multiple short let services, and access broadly the same market.
The same simply doesn’t apply to App on iPhone. AirBnB would only be equivalent if it was impossible for hosts to list their properties in multiple places and AirBnB customers where effective tied into the AirBnB platform where they would have do something ridiculous like change their electricity supplier to use an AirBnB competitor (because for some reason AirBnb have figured how to build a tightly integrated ecosystem of utilities and services that effectively force you to use them all together to get the most benefit).
And I say this as someone who’s fallen a long way down the Apple rabbit hole, and quite likes it down here. If multiple options for app stores and payment mechanisms existed, I would probably stick with Apple and happily pay a premium, because I value the convenience and peace of mind that comes from only having to trust Apple with my data. But that doesn’t mean that I think Apples behaviour is any reasonable or acceptable.
> I don't know why Apple should feel entitled to own the relationship with a businesses customers because they also use an iPhone when it's an ancillary part of the product.
Apple provides a custom operating system (frameworks, drivers, security updates, backwards compatibility, etc) to make that business's app function, and continue to function, at all.
You can write and maintain a website instead of an app to avoid that.
Your electricity company and your internet provider are also making your use of that app possible. In fact, they've invested trillions to accomplish that. Shouldn't they be entitled to extract a percentage from each transaction?
Because if these companies would think there's even a remote chance of this being legal, I'm sure they'd not shy away from investing even more trillions in making some sort of digital enforcement system.
Would be fun. Your power outlet only providing power to certified devices! All in the name of protecting consumers of course.
Landlords provide infrastructure (wall, roofs, electrical systems, plumbing, fire systems) needed for shops to function, or continue to function at all.
Shops could just build their own market stands to avoid their landlords owning the relationship with their customers.
Huh, that argument doesn’t seem as reasonable when applied to landlords and buildings.
And yes, many app developers don’t pay much or anything to Apple, and shops always pay rent. But here’s the thing, as an Apple customer I pay Apple when I buy my phone. Why should Apple be allowed to double dip? It never seems reasonable when ISP want to charge their customers and content providers for bandwidth, so why is it reasonable for Apple to do something similar with Apps?
I tried that route. You need an Apple developer account to get your web features only partially crippled, and the "sell your soul" part of the exchange doesn't happen till _after_ money has left your account (which is on a screen promising that you're done, and the payment is the final hurdle, not that it would make it much better if you _knew_ you were paying for the opportunity to perhaps complete the transaction if Apple deems you worthy and accepts your additional offerings).
Maybe that's fine in your world, but the status quo isn't as simple as "just write a website instead."
You don’t have to pay Apple a penny to run a website. I’m talking plain HTML5 / JavaScript and a URL.
Perhaps you’re assuming I mean a PWA, Apple sign-in, or Apple Pay? I believe those are non-standard integrations with the OS provided by Apple, for the convenience of developers.
It would be great if everything was standardized from the start, but standardization can also hinder technological progress and creativity. It’s a trade-off.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I don’t bemoan paying for development tools. I pay about $60/year for a JetBrains IDE because it makes my life easier and that’s how I make money. Devs pay for APIs and SaaS to make their lives easier too.
Apple locks decade-old web features (say, e.g., web notifications) behind a contract wall and handles that contract wall exceptionally poorly, taking your money in exchange for goods and services only to later add additional terms and requirements and not refund your money without two court orders.
It leaves an especially sour taste in your mouth when you note that users paid a premium for devices which, at a minimum, ought to be able to do decade-old web things. Developers are paying for the privilege of maintaining that facade.
Separately, yu're not paying for development tools; you're signing a highly imbalanced contract (with a well-funded entity with a history of enforcing those imbalanced terms) and paying to give iPhone owners the sort of software they were implicitly promised when buying a top-of-the-line phone. "Apple Pay" is even worse since that same contract forbids you from using other options; it's not for your convenience, it's just obfuscated pricing with some legalese in the mix.
For the record, paying for development tools is fine. JetBrains offers actual benefits instead of abusing the courts for rent-seeking. Plus, their contracts are (comparatively) very reasonable (and also rarely enforced, so terms you don't like are less important). You could probably put together a financial argument against Apple's behavior here, but that's not their worst offense by a long shot.
> I believe those are non-standard integrations with the OS provided by Apple, for the convenience of developers.
Other developers would love to provide these integrations (as they could on any of the more open platforms), but that option has been cut of by Apple as well.
And what does 'non-standard' mean here? We're talking about web standards that are about a decade old at this point.
It's not really standard and I think the comparisons don't quite work. In Airbnb's case, Apple's policy is comparable to forbidding hosts from offering extra services (not related to lodging) to users off-platform once they begin their stay. In Amazon's case, it's like if Amazon banned manufacturers from including coupons for future direct purchases in the product packaging. In Visa and Mastercard's case, it's like banning merchants from mentioning other payment methods at all.
I think it's abuse and I agree it should be forbidden as a class of behaviors. I would love to see Apple fined enough to deter anyone from trying what they did with Epic ever again.
Would you consider an Airbnb property that offered $0.99 per night rates for max 1 night and then asked you arrange alternative payment for additional nights to be in violation of Airbnb policy?
> Would you consider an Airbnb property that offered $0.99 per night rates for max 1 night and then asked you arrange alternative payment for additional nights to be in violation of Airbnb policy?
No, just a sucker. They would get bankrupted so fast Airbnb wouldn't have to do anything.
> AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange alternative payment.
Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
> Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to potential customers.
Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
> Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do anyway). Etc, etc.
Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
In fact in every single case you listed a free platform that makes its money by charging fees per use. This is radically different from Apple's model.
Apple makes computers. Apple iDevices are some of the most expensive computers on the market. Apple cloud services are some of the most expensive cloud services on the market. Apple's operating systems hardcode the software to the hardware, meaning neither phone nor laptop can be upgraded. In every single case these are expensive devices and services that people already own. They should be free to download whatever software they want without a monopolizer telling them what's allowed to run on them.
I mostly agree but I think iOS/Android/Windows (and maybe MacOS) are so important to our economy that they represent a difference in kind and should be regulated more stringently. I don't really care if vacation rentals are more expensive or worse than they should be, I do care if the software that mediates our lives is.
I think it’s just the difference of having something run on your hardware. If Apple allowed you to install a different OS on your iPhone (and there was a viable alternative) it wouldn’t be nearly as bad.
> I do care if the software that mediates our lives is
If you DO care about this, implementing this regulation as is will only make the software worse, not better. Apple did a good job so far keeping developers in check.
"only" is a really strong statement. Off the top of my head, here's a few situations where Apple makes things worse for the end-consumer:
- Any case where Apple builds a competing product and charges a cut to the competitor that makes them structurally unable to compete is blatantly anti-competitive, i.e. Spotify vs Apple Music
- Any case where the margins of the business do not support Apple's 30%, i.e. Kindle (let me buy my damn books in the app)
- Any case where Apple has prohibited something for seemingly no reason, i.e. game emulators till about a month ago under regulatory pressure
- Any case where Apple's unilateral control of pricing meant that certain business models couldn't be tried, i.e. subscriptions for a long part of the App Store's history, upgrade pricing today etc
- Any case where Apple has prohibited anyone from competing with it. iOS Safari is bad and Apple has insulated it from competition by prohibited third-party browser engines. Note this hurts both users who'd rather use Chrome or Firefox and users who use Safari who don't benefit from Apple having to compete.
I don't disagree that there are benefits to Apple's approach. I just think that they should be heavily scrutinized because of iOS's import.
Allowing engines while sounds good, in today's reality will result in absolute Chrome (Google) domination. They will be setting web standards unopposed. And they are an Ad company. So again, this is good for me.
Nope, still consumer. It is simple. Google (Chrome) is an Ad company, Apple (Safari) is not. And any consumer knows that web standards define user's privacy and security.
Honestly, the app store is so full of crud I find it hard to believe they’re really checking. I have zero faith in any app in the app store until I’ve inspected it myself.
Airbnb is one of the many players and they don't have any practical sized lockin over consumer or vendors. While Apple is dominant force with complete lockin over all iPhone users.
Exactly, If I choose to advertise my property on AirBnB, that doesnt mean I cant also let me my mates stay round for free, or rent it out to other people privately if I want to.
And if you sell your software or services on the App Store, that doesn’t mean you can’t give it away for free to your buddies or sell it somewhere else.
How else do you give it away free? The CTF applies to anyone with business revenue who meets the install requirements, even if you're not charging for that specific app. Development apps are time limited by Apple's terms.
Furthermore, all of the limits exist solely at Apple's discretion. Apple is essentially being benevolent, not saying they have no claim to the transactions.
Same way anyone gives software away for free, put the source code up and give instructions for compiling / installing. That Apple imposes time limits on self installed applications is the user's problem, not the developer's. The user chose the platform, the consequences of that are theirs to bear. If they wanted to install arbitrary applications that weren't beholden to Apple's rules the options for that were always there. Apple's restrictions are well known and are as restrictive as they have ever been, there was no bait and switch here.
I'm sure we both understand why "put it on GitHub" is not free in any meaningful sense on a platform that charges people $99/yr to use the compiler. The point here is that Apple is insisting they own every part of the system and neither the user nor the developer can touch any of it without their permission.
I would understand that if that were true, but Apple does not "[charge] people $99/yr to use the compiler." I'd also once again point out that even were that the case, that's still the user's problem, not the developer's. At a certain point a user is responsible for the choices they have made, which includes choosing the second most popular cell phone OS, with well known heavy restrictions on applications as their platform of choice. If I chose to do all of my computing using a nintendo switch, the fact that I need to buy a dev kit to even begin to have a chance of installing something like firefox is my problem as a user, not Mozilla's, nor does it make firefox any less meaningfully free.
I'm apparently a bit out of date. The last time I did any iOS dev was before iOS 9 when free provisioning (running the compiler) became a thing. Guess that's something at least.
That just seems like a ridiculous argument… People choose to enter the Apple ecosystem and pay a premium for what are luxury goods. At the same time they hold their resale value extremely well, most iPhone users could sell their iPhone and probably buy a competing phone with cash left over if they wanted…
There’s really very little holding people captive. The real problem with the EC’s attempts at regulation is that the vast majority of users aren’t worried about it and keep freely buying into the platform despite other viable options being available in a competitive market…
The move is to create a closed-market and then collect rent. If your serfs don't like the terms, well, they can't really leave because of the collective action problem of buyers and sellers not being able to coordinate a move to a new platform.
On the other hand a mechanism of a number of online market place scams is to gain customers trading on the “security” (such as it is) of the market place, and then directing the customer out of the market place. Everyone (should) know that any eBay seller that tries to get you to complete the auction outside of eBay is likely to be a scam. Likewise I would hope anyone would be leery of placing an order on Amazon and having a seller contact you asking you to cancel that order and buy it cheaper on some other website. Reputation matters for consumers, and legitimate sellers rely on the market place’s good reputation to help smooth the sales process. Scammers do too, but their goal is to get you out of the market place ASAP where the rules and regulations are harder to get enforced. Companies like Apple and eBay have a strong incentive to have a trustable pipeline and mandate sellers to use it because even though they’re not the ones perpetuating the scam, being known as a market place where scammers hang out is damaging. Consider this, between the Apple Store, eBay and Craigslist, what order would you place those market places if ranking your level of trust for not getting scammed when providing your payment details for a recurring subscription to a random seller?
Or put another way, even though it’s free and plenty of smaller companies do, Netflix doesn’t make posts of Craigslist advertising their services. There’s obviously many reasons for that, but at least part of it I’m sure is no one should trust a random link in a Craigslist post to a Netflix sign up site.
