Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Regulators Want To Know Whether Apple is Favoring Its Own Apps (cnn.com)
Apple has another antitrust problem in Europe. Dutch regulators said Thursday that they have opened an investigation into whether Apple has abused its market position by giving preferential treatment to its own apps. From a report: The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets said in a statement that app providers have submitted evidence "which seem to indicate that Apple abuses its position in the App Store." The regulator said it had been studying the issue for 10 months. It said the probe would initially focus on Apple, but it also called on app providers to report any issues with Google's Play Store. "Apps have increasingly become important parts of our daily lives," said the regulator, which added that it "expects Apple and Google to exhibit fair and transparent behavior."
Apple said in a statement that it is "confident" the review "will confirm all developers have an equal opportunity to succeed in the App Store." The move comes after Spotify launched a similar complaint against Apple last month with the European Commission.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets said in a statement that oceanographers have submitted evidence "which seem to indicate that Ocean is wet." The regulator said it had been studying the issue for 10 months. It said the probe would initially focus on bottled water, but it also called on oceanographers to report any issues with wetness to the authorities.
Dutch regulators want to know if the sky is blue. They also want to know if the story of the boy with his finger in the dike is a national myth.
There's an inherent advantage with some apps shipping with the phone, but beyond that I'm not sure I see what the advantages would be... Apple has been even moving to make more system apps deletable!
Apple apps use the same system frameworks to operate as consumer apps, and are limited by the same access controls to things like photos or location that any other app is. Searching the App Store I've not seen Apple apps like Pages given preference or unwanted appearance in search results.
It would be really interesting to know what advantages they are looking for... Apple doesn't have an inherent benefit from you using Apple apps or not, because whatever app you end up using you are paying Apple for the hardware to run it. That is inertly different than Google with Android apps, where the real money is made by you using Google products and contributing data feeds to Google.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course they are favoring their own apps, since they've literally banned any app producing functionality apple apps bring. Literally
stop asking stupid questions and hand out the fines they deserve. Also, make them pay their taxes, for once.
Our world will only begin to improve again when you fools quit trying to take resources from people against their will.
You cannot grow virtue from the barrel of a gun.
Duh!!! Yes, and is that a real problem?
Are there no other smartphone brands/appstores???
If there are, then Apple is NOT a monopoly & can make any rules in its own appstore!!!
It is Apple's app store. What the hell do you think it is? What the hell is wrong with Europe? News at 11: Mcdonalds favors its own burgers on its own menu!@#! Holly crap. I'm thinking Burger King does too. The horror and the shame. Maybe governments should be spending 100% of their time and money on actual crime prevention via poverty reduction and education before they start screwing around with FB, Apple, Google, etc. I just smell gov subsidy through fines all over these regulatory efforts. Also NIH syndrome/anti USA.
they do have the "Made By Apple" section on the right side within the App Store.
Opening the App Store right now:
iPhone/iPad: No "Made by Apple" section or tab, not on Today tab, not on Apps tab.
App categories: No "Made by Apple" section.
App Store on Mac: No "Made by Apple" section.
Maybe once they did, but not for some time.
So again, where the the Apple advantage in anything presented by the App Store app? I don't see anything, I see Apple promoting a TON of third party apps. Heck I just went into a travel app for a city I'm visiting, and they promoted a number of alternative transit and mapping apps even though you can just use transit in maps.app.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think you'll find that your government is a violent monopoly that needs to be busted up.
google play is not locked in unlike apple.
You can side load around it.
Ford dealers favor selling Ford cars. Sure they carry used Chevys, but you can't order a new one from them. How is software different , really?
It feels like we're removing all incentive to do anything new or unique.
do state lottery app on ios give apple an 30% cut? or are they limited by law to some other payout system?
This is simply algorithmic bias. The stores prioritize apps which have the largest install base and vendors with the overall largest install base. Many of these apps come bundled with the phones and tablets already. These numbers count in their respective stores, increasing not only the individual app's rating, but their vendor's rating as well. Therefor any other app released by the vendor will have a head start over any other apps from another vendor in the respective stores.
If you can purchase something through an iOS app, you have to give Apple a 30% cut, so they must. They may figure it's worth it if it gets people to buy more lottery tickets.
Under iOS, mmap() and mprotect() disallow regular applications to set both +w and +x flags on the same segment.
Interesting point, that I had forgotten about... it seems like a pretty decent security precaution though, and of limited use to most categories of apps...
Mobile Safari, however, has the "dynamic-codesigning" entitlement which enables MAP_JIT to do that. This has allowed Safari to perform just-in-time - compilation to run Javascript faster than third-party web browsers.
Only if the third party web browsers are not using embedded Safari views, which they can.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Depends, are they running a school and funneling every possible benefit to their kid? Recall that anti-trust law is about abusing your market power.
When iPhone first came out in 2007, it was a completely closed computing eco-system with nothing but a handful of Apple apps.
It wasn't til more than 3 years later that Apple announced availability of 3rd party developer apps, tightly quality controlled by Apple.
Now Apple is going to be regulated in this market that they are entirely responsible for creating in the first place.
Not sure what I think of this. Is it regulatory overreach?
In theory, there's nothing except network effect stopping new company X from creating new mobile device line and OS X1 with completely new market for apps Y with arbitrarily different rules for participation in that market. Oh wait, that already happened. X1 = Android. X1b = Windows Phone (oh never mind),....
So how is this abuse of a monopoly.
When the first real AR platform comes out, it might eventually overtake screen-phones. And it will have its own controlled app market. Isn't that a new competitor in the wider definition of the ubiquitous mobile apps market? Innovative disruption defeats potential monopoly, as far as I know. Isn't it fine to leave these markets to do what they will?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I was going to write an answer assuming you were honestly asking,
I am honestly asking, if only I could get an honest response... judging by how much I have to correct here I'm not sure this is one. Note I will not sink to your Cleveland claim you are paid by Google to post negative and misleading Apple content.
The bottom line is that Apple absolutely abuses their control of the App Store to punish third parties trying to compete with them. Maps is a simple example
Not very simple, since Apple heavily promotes other third party apps - including mapping apps. In the Tokyo City apps guide in the App Store for example, they promote a number of non-Apple transit and mapping apps even though you could use the built in Maps.app to do much the same thing.
anywhere iOS detects an address, that address will always open in Apple Maps
From Apple apps yes, however third parties can (and do) give you a choice which mapping app to open up directions for - and you can also easily copy an address from an app like Contacts which pastes cleanly into Google Maps for searching. Again, not so clear...
I have an app called CardHop to manage contacts, it lets you specify if address should open in Apple Maps, Google Maps, Waze, City Mapper, etc. It has as full access to contact data as the built in Apple App. So if not opening an address in Google Maps is an issue to you, move away from Apple apps presenting address links.
For example, if you plug your phone into a car equipped with CarPlay and turn the car's audio on, this will always launch Apple Music,
Maybe that happens with CarPlay (I cannot verify) but my experience with cars is that plugging the phone in via USB with a third party app playing music continues to play that music.
Again, why is it a surprise if you use Apple applications they would favor using things like Apple Music? If that is an issue move to other apps, no penalty to do so.
There are various ways that Apple hooks their apps into iOS that third parties simply cannot do. As an example, they recently released a "Shortcuts" app that allows you to automate various tasks in iOS. However, this only works on Apple apps and a very limited selection of third party "partners."
From iOS 12 ANY app has been able to add shortcut support, It relies on Siri Shortcut support which any app can add.
From the link:
"Your shortcuts will be available in the new Shortcuts app"
SiriKit is also heavily limited. You can't use SiriKit to replace Apple's default services.
It is limited, though not "heavily", they are just slowly rolling out what they call "intents" as to the kinds of things it can support. Note in that link it says a SiriKit intent for CarPlay can change the car's audio source, for example...
even if you don't use Apple as the payment processor, you're required to send them 30% of all revenue.
What an utter load of crap, you are claiming Amazon sends 30% of purchases made in my Amazon app to Apple? If you don't purchase it through an Apple app, you owe Apple nothing. Your claim is madness.
Apple, of course, doesn't have to pay the Apple Tax, because they would only be paying themselves.
What iOS apps does Apple charge for again? I'm waiting... oh that's right, the answer is zero. So they have only expense, but no revenue, from iOS apps (Apple does have some expensive pro apps on the Mac).
It would be great to see the EU slap Apple down on this
You don't seem to have read the summary correctly about who is investigating, it would appear to be just the Dutch government.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ah but have you ever asked yourself where all the Android apps are on the Apple store? I've never seen even one there so clearly there is a bias against apps for non-Apple devices. Don't worry though, I'm sure they will be going after Google for similarly a similar bias in their store that refuses to stock iOS apps.
If I were more cynical I might wonder if this is the EU's new funding model to make up for the hole that Brexit may end up creating.
If you can purchase something through an iOS app, you have to give Apple a 30% cut, so they must. They may figure it's worth it if it gets people to buy more lottery tickets.
Not correct an app can have its own payment system it doesn't need to use Apples. Apples system is good for a small developer or someone who wants to make it easy for a user to do an in-app purchase Lotteries need the payment pool for prizes and jackpots TMK they don't use apples pavements system
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
I've pulled my hair out trying to replicate a simple Alarm type of functionality on iOS. Apple explicitly does not allow equal access to the OS and the API's that they themselves use.
Whilst I am a great admirer of Apple, in this case I am hoping theses sorts of actions will force them to level the playing field.
Not sure what I think of this. Is it regulatory overreach?
You're free to create and run a walled garden as you see fit. But you're not free to operate as a business in EU jurisdiction. Once you start accepting money in exchange for goods and services you get regulated by local governments nearly anywhere in the world except Somalia.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Your scenario is only a problem if the school is government (that is, if parents are forced at the point of a gun to send their children and/or resources to that school).
they don't use apples pavements system.
and apple stopped netflix from doing that. But the lotto by law can't give them 30% did they work out an deal to give the same winners cut that any other store gets?
It's sort of their turf, their store, they can do whatever the hell they want. When it first launched, the iPhone didn't even support 3rd party apps, you only had the Apple ones!
It's sillier than what the EU did with Windows. I want my fucking OS to come with everything, yes, including a media player and a browser. I know they are crappy, but if I want to I can get better replacements. Why is it OK to ship windows with MS Paint and not Windows Media Player, where do you draw the line exactly?
I guess I'll have to take back what I said; no way are you this ignorant by choice, you are indeed obviously paid by Google to undermine competitors.
First off, you'll only be "promoted" them if you go looking for them
False, I found them because I opened the App Store, and in the Apple created (by Apple editors) "Today" page it showed a section for Tokyo apps, which contained the third party nav/transit apps mentioned - I didn't have to look, Apple was promoting them to me!
(On idiotic claim Apple gets cut from Amazon app) : Unless they have some special deal with Apple, then yes, they do.
Yep, outright liar as I suspected. You seem to get close to the truth at times but just miss it, and other times try to bury it under 10 feet of compost... with the first post I could as I said maybe see that you just didn't understand some things, but now it's plain you indeed to categorically deceive in every way.
The rest of what you said is very obviously twisting the truth at this point, I don't have any further time to waste on correcting an endless cascade of lies. Not one thing you said is undistorted, I'll let people figure out the rest from here as my initial corrections stand undisputed by facts.
P.S. Spotify exists.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You think you know what's best for everyone else, and you're willing to force people at the point of a gun to fund your stupid ideas.
anyone else remember when Apple and Netscape were the high-profile complainants against Microsoft for insisting that the MS browser MUST come with Windows? I mean, that's SUCH an unfair advantage in favor of MS when it comes to software choice. So unfair... sheesh.
Somalia is a failed Communist state; it operated according to "Scientific Communism", which inevitably imploded into chaos.
It's not surprising that warlords arose from this authoritarian dung pile; nevertheless the failure of Communism in Somalia has, as always, greatly benefited the people: By falling back on quasi-capitalist tribal rules of commerce, there has been an enormous boom in the quality of life, such that Somalians have experienced greater gains in some areas (such as mobile communications) than seen by the peoples of the surrounding, more "stable" governments.
The competition that has existed between the warlords (a kind of separation of powers) has allowed space for peaceful market activity to develop; this mirrors the fact that there has never been One World Government—at the level of nations, there has always existed total anarchy, such that the separation of powers inherent in the competition of nations has kept an impressive peace, and an inexorable movement towards Capitalism, the only philosophy that embraces and therefore exploits self-interest for the betterment of everyone.
tldr: Unsurprisingly, Somalia is a leftist, communist mess.
If you have a completely open-entry apps market, it will turn into a cesspool of malware, misleading fraudware. i.e. like the total set of websites on WWW.
If user choice of what app does every key function is not only allowed but required by regulators, the complexity of the user experience will rise beyond many peoples' comprehension. The utility they get out of the ecosystem will decline.
Quality-control (and avoidance of technical debt on a platform) is a legitimate GOOD that should be seriously weighed by market regulators.
User-experience complexity-creep prevention (and prevention of increase of choice-knowledge requirements of users) is a legitimate GOOD that should be seriously weighed by market regulators.
If I had any faith that market regulators could be that enlightened when balancing their decisions, I would say, sure, regulate to ensure competition in that market. Right now, I have no faith that anyone other than software architects would know what the hell I'm talking about.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Somalia is a failed Communist state; it operated according to "Scientific Communism", which inevitably imploded into chaos.
Lack of enforced laws due to corruption contributed more to that than any particular ideology. As experiments go, Somalia isn't great because it doesn't conclusively tell us much.
Thanks for taking my offhanded remark so seriously.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's very clear what Somalia tells us:
* Central Planning is crap; evolution by variation/selection beats "intelligent design" every time.
* Communism is crap; there needs to be a price mechanism to organize society.
* Markets keep people alive.
* Tyranny is kept in check by a separation of powers.
In every shithole leftist regime, the only thing that keeps people alive is a "black" market; in every case, tyranny is kept at bay by competition between the powers. Capitalism enshrines these facts in the most robust and humane form: A free market; law by contracts between individuals, not law by decree of some authoritarian.
LOL. TellMeMore.gif
Who are these angelic bureaucrats who are going to run your regulation? Who are these people who will not abuse their centralized monopoly over the men with guns? As Bastiat asked: Are these bureaucrats made of finer clay than the rest of us? It seems like your distinction between bureaucrats and corporate executives is a religious one, born of magical thinking.
Regulation is a service; it's not magical.
Why does your skepticism of monopolies not extend to government? Why do you espouse that the service of regulation should be the domain of a monopoly? And, not just any monopoly, but the worst kind of monopoly: One that imposed at the point of a gun.
You are propose that a violently imposed monopoly should be used to save society from a voluntarily grown monopoly. That is an explicitly absurd position!
You want to know whether your food is Kosher? Well, look for one of the many competing "Kosher Certified" symbols on your boxed food; no government is necessary to achieve useful regulation. Indeed, regulation is a matter of risk management for both the business and the consumer; there is a whole industry that devoted to risk management: Insurance, and thus regulation could, for example, be the domain of the insurance industry, which would have a direct and dire financial interest in ensuring that goods and services are implemented according to decent standards, developed through actual experience in the market.
However, governments have created Corporations, which are buffered from any real reprisal for their sociopathic actions; and, government has commandeered regulation, slowly pushing out the insurance companies, and replacing them with centrally planned bureaucracies that cannot keep up with the conditions in the market, or that stifle innovations to keep the market as lame and as stupid as the bureaucrats had expected it to be.
The markets in the developing world are shit, because their economies are shit, and nobody knows any better.
The markets in the developed world are shit, because they are "regulated" by violently imposed monopolies who benefit from a poor system of property rights.
Most grocery chains have their own house brands. What if they started only advertising their house brands in TV commercials and mailing flyers? Would that be illegal in your eyes?
... "Are bears Catholic? Does the Pope..."
OK... they won't respond with that but they've likely already got a slew of canned responses designed to obscure their policies. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to be truly honest.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Regulation is a service; it's not magical.
Governments can be transparent, and are in some places to varied degrees. Corporations almost never are by their competitive nature.
Why does your skepticism of monopolies not extend to government?
Really monopolies are a consequence of bad government. Government creates the legal framework that allowed immortal organizations to exist and easily shake off liability.
You are propose that a violently imposed monopoly should be used to save society from a voluntarily grown monopoly. That is an explicitly absurd position!
At least strawmen are gluten-free, otherwise I'd have to object in stronger terms.
You want to know whether your food is Kosher? Well, look for one of the many competing "Kosher Certified" symbols on your boxed food; no government is necessary to achieve useful regulation.
It takes two strawmen to tango. How romantic.
there is a whole industry that devoted to risk management: Insurance, and thus regulation could, for example, be the domain of the insurance industry
Who watches the watchmen... The government regulates insurers already. Risk management is certainly on of many services we find useful in modern society. I'd recommend caution of treating every problem as a nail when you have an insurance industry-based hammer.
replacing them with centrally planned bureaucracies that cannot keep up with the conditions in the market
I'm not requiring the perfect solution to the world's problems. I'd like a system where I can complain and something can happen if enough of us complain about it. Putting Apple in charge of apps gets you fuck all recourse. Putting YouTube in charge of video copyright enforcement gets you the mess of demonetization policies and an opaque strikes system. Just like I'd like regulations that require everyone to offer the same standard voltage for my toaster, I'd also like some regulations that set some minimum standards for implicit commercial contracts for online services. (an update of the Universal Commercial Code would be a good start)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Only one of those is supported when evaluating Somalia. And even then it's an incomplete conclusion.
not law by decree of some authoritarian.
I fear you're confusing your right-left spectrum again.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
...Given that they explicitly prohibit 3rd party apps from duplicating functionality present in Apple's own apps, my guess is that would be a "yes".
This is much easier to hit American companies with all sorts of BS, and then give massive penalties.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If there is some way to be crooked about things; apple does it.
Dont you ever have anything intelligent to say?
He's just karma whoring and trying to push his complete incompetence about climate change further down his post history.