Apple settles antitrust case with developers, but it's far from an Epic resolution to App Store monopoly concerns

Apple has announced the settlement of an anti-trust case brought by a group of developers – and while Cupertino has made concessions, the result will not be huge changes in the way the App Store operates or the company's practices. The case that Apple proposes to settle is Cameron et al v. Apple Inc. [PDF], which was filed in …

[big_D]

A start...

Well, it is a start and covers a lot of the criticisms, if not all of them.

But, as long as it is just US based, it is just Apple buying their way out of a court case and not actually taking the whole situation seriously.

If this was applied world-wide, I'd be happier.

At least being inform over alternative payment methods in the app is a good start - although I'd still like to be able to actually use the Amazon, Kindle and Audible apps on my iPad to buy ebooks and audio books, like I can on my Android smartphone. It is then up to the user to decide, whether they want to go through the hassle of an external sign-up or use the convenience of the Apple Store and Apple Pay, at an associated premium price...

[gnasher729]

Re: A start...

"At least being inform over alternative payment methods in the app is a good start "

Didn't happen. You are allowed to send customers emails if they agree to that.

Look, you were always allowed to offer items outside the app, and to pay for them outside the app. Netflix does it. Amazon prime does it. Some companies refuse. Epic of course refused and intentionally broke their contract, with legal action already prepared.

[big_D]

Re: A start...

"permit developers to communicate outside the app (eg, by email) with customers regarding alternative purchase options, and will eliminate the Guidelines restriction that currently prevents developers from using information from within the app for this purpose."

I read that as allowing it in the app as well, just not alternative payment method directly in the app, just the notification of an alternative method.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: A start...

"buying their way out of a court case"

I think that's biggest takeaway point from the article, as usual :-(

Companies seem to be prepared to do almost anything other than go to court over their Ts&Cs.

[DS999]

I get why change is necessary

But it is pretty obvious this is going to end in a race to the bottom for quality. If developers can collect payments from users directly without paying anything to Apple, all apps will become "free" on the App Store, with further payment / subscription required for them to actually become useful. The days of paying a few bucks for an app that does something useful, doesn't show you a bunch of ads, and doesn't hit you up for further payment are going to be at an end.

This might be better for developers, but it'll suck for consumers. We'll see if it actually is better for developers, they seem to think getting that missing 30% will solve all their problems but we'll just see a lot more scam type apps that exist basically to trick people into downloading them and pay to "upgrade" that turn out to be crap, and you'll have no way of refunding if it turns out to be a scam other than reversing charges on the card you used for payment. The quality apps are going to be harder to find when everything is priced at "free".

I think Apple and its customers will wish they'd just given in on alternate app stores, to allow all the shit to collect there so Apple could continue with the (imperfect, but better than nothing) approval process and collecting 30% for placement on the official store. The developers who want to collect 100% can go to one of the alternate app stores, and take the risk that customers will be willing to trust those apps - or like Epic get big enough that they can run their own app store that carries only their own products.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: I get why change is necessary

The 30% fee (effectively a revenue tax paid to Apple, while Apple themselves are being shy of paying taxes) is a result of no competition.

Once Apple is forced to enable people to side load apps and use different app stores, I am sure there will be ones that will charge a fraction of current cost and still provide good quality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I get why change is necessary

@elsergiovolador

"I am sure there will be ones that will charge a fraction of current cost and still provide good quality".

Of course there will (rolls eyes)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I get why change is necessary

Tax? No. Developer sets price knowing the store adds a 50% markup. Developer therefore selects the price knowing this. It is no different to a bricks and mortar shop which add a similar markup.

[doublelayer]

Re: I get why change is necessary

It's a little different, namely that you can choose which stores to sell to based on those prices, sell directly using your own online or retail, or do both simultaneously. And of course because the stores frequently provide benefits and take on some risks, depending on the item and the relationship. Apple doesn't do either of those.

[skwdenyer]

Re: I get why change is necessary

How is that otherwise-intelligent people post this stuff?

Do you seriously think Apple would keep supporting phones for as many years as they do, if they weren't making app store revenue to pay for that? The app store model is a huge win for consumers, and has revolutionised the devices in our hands.

Otherwise, they need to increase handset churn significantly - which means fewer updates, shorter support, and so on. Just, in fact, like the major Android vendors who have no skin in the game of long tail consumer revenues.

And never mind device stability - we really don't want Windows on our phones. Who's going to support those?

Developers love to moan, but, really, where was the revenue model before the Apple app store came along? And where would it be without a well-supported base of phones with a current OS?

iOS was responsible for 63% of total app revenue in 2021, despite only 15% of the installed base. That's what the ecosytem delivers for developers - a huge addressable market of well-supported devices with a stable development target.

The only logical result of this idiotic destruction in the name of principle is a race to the bottom - worse phones, worse software, worse support, shorter lifetimes, and so on. 5-6 years of support with the latest OS is great (not just patches to an old OS).

Customers already have plenty of free choice. They can choose not to buy an Apple device. They can choose not to buy an Android device from a major manufacturer (with customise software and few updates). They can side-load apps onto Android devices. There's just no evidence to support the idea that customers are genuinely harmed - as opposed to a few zealots wanting something Apple don't want to sell to them (their company, their rules).

Surely nobody seriously believes there'd still be $83bn to share out for iOS developers if we fragment to a dozen competing app stores, do they? Has nobody got a proper long-run view of history?

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Re: I get why change is necessary

"If developers can collect payments from users directly without paying anything to Apple, all apps will become "free" on the App Store, with further payment / subscription required for them to actually become useful."

You can do that now. Apple are fine with it. You just have to use Apple's payment mechanisms.

[DS999]

Re: I get why change is necessary

They CAN do that now, but some choose not to. I personally ignore the "free with in app purchases" category when I'm looking for apps because I've learned through experience that 95% of them suck. I'd rather pay a few bucks for something that promises no ads. Occasionally you find a crappy app that way, but most of the time they are good, and I waste a lot less time by ignoring the shitty freemium category.

I'm just worried that this will push all developers to the freemium model, and then the one method I've found to work when evaluating which apps to try will be gone.

[Pseu Donyme]

App stores are monopolies

... whether absolute or de-facto ones* and ought to be run as regulated utilities; a mutual non-profit company / co-op owned and controlled by app developers might do the trick.

* e.g. Google Play is nominally outside the dictionary definition of a monopoly** but it still is a de-facto one due to the network effect***; in general "monopoly" is used in economics and competition law in a less strict sense for a good reason: a controlling market position has much of the disadvantage of an absolute monopoly; Google Play's position in its respective market is so overwhelmingly dominating that it is really indistinguishable from an absolute monopoly (like Apple's App store).

** a particular product or service has only one provider

*** developers and users attract more of each other which results in one store ending up in an overwhelmingly strong market position from which it is virtually impossible to dislodge; the end result is a natural monopoly of a sort (in the sense of being due to the nature of the beast)

[Irongut]

Huh?

> Apple's insistence on a floor price of $0.99 disadvantaged developers who wanted to compete with free apps

I have 3 free apps on the App Store so free apps are definitely allowed. I fail to see how a minimum price of 99c (which is a lie since free is possible) is disadvantaging developers of free apps. What I do see is someone who wrote a shitty app (baby names ffs) trying to get some money from the big corporate bad guy du jour.

[General Purpose]

Re: Huh?

I think "compete with free apps" here means "compete against free apps", not "compete using free apps". The argument is that some developers would like to sell for lower prices.

But I don't know why you think a baby-name app is shitty. Babies are, obviously, but people still want to give them names.

[IGotOut]

Re: Huh?

Free isn't a price, it's free. I guess they want to sell for say 49c.

[DS999]

Re: Huh?

Yeah I didn't get that either. Why is Apple forcing you to price at 99 cents instead of 49 cents or 23 cents hurting you? Does anyone really think people are saying "this app really isn't worth 99 cents, if only it was cheaper but not free".

Maybe such people exist, but they aren't buying iPhones.

[Brian 3]

Apple are paying pennies on the dollar and admitting no wrong, what a great deal for them