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.
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
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.
The Dutch Regulators are not the only ones who would like to know.
Google, who would never favor its own apps, and Microsoft who would never favor its own apps, would like to investigate whether Apple is favoring its own apps.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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
google play is not locked in unlike apple.
You can side load around it.
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.
I think you'll find that your government is a violent monopoly that needs to be busted up.
No, I actually prefer it that way.
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
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?
How many car dealerships are available in the world versus app stores?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
... "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.
Would that be illegal in your eyes?
I'm not the EU. I'm not even in EU citizen. I don't get to make the rules.
What if they started only advertising their house brands in TV commercials and mailing flyers?
I'd argue there is some corruption going on in the EU. Lidl is a huge chain of stores in the EU. They not only have their own house brands they have sucked up over €500m in public grants.
Why would one of the largest retail companies need a bunch of tax payer money. It's total bullshit that the EU is ready to slam US companies and fine them, but actively support and promote anti-competitive practices of EU businesses.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire