Reuters: EU to sue Apple for violating antitrust rules with App Store – Sound and Vision – News

If all apps in those new store (s) are suddenly a lot cheaper because they have to pay less than 30 percent from Apple there, or if they are allowed to choose their own payment providers for in-app purchases, I would not be surprised if is very much in demand from both developers and users.

Which developer can afford not to sell on the Apple store?

Why should one rule out the other? Do you want to buy app X from the Apple Store? Fine, it will cost you € 13. Do you want it via store Y? Fine, it will cost you € 10 (for example). I don’t know why apps cannot be offered through different stores, and even at different prices. Then as a user you can easily choose whether you think that higher price is worth using the Apple App Store, or rather buy from a competitor.

Let me put it this way, when I enthusiastically tell my wife that there is going to be a new place where she can buy her apps and services, she will look at me, ask ‘why?’ and let me be further enthusiastic.

And if you explain that this could potentially save you a lot of money (completely depending on your purchases of course) and the new store (s) may get better / more useful functions, she will probably be enthusiastic. Maybe your wife isn’t the right audience for this, but check out Epic. When Fortnite was pulled from the App Store, second-hand iPhones with Fortnite still installed became one several thousand dollars sold. If Epic launches its own store, there is certainly a group that will use it, if only because of Fortnite. And I can imagine that more (game) developers will offer their apps there, depending on the conditions that Epic will set, of course. I wouldn’t be surprised if Epic is already creating a store so they can release it as soon as possible. If everything is cheaper in that store, and it turns out to work with the same (or more) ease, there will certainly be a large group that is interested in it.

Everyone thinks that creating a store is easy. Until it comes to games stores on Windows and then everyone really hates that there is not ONE platform. Same with movies and music. Consumers do not want choice in shops, but choice in supply. And at the moment all iPhone apps can be found in a store. Good luck with your own store. The shareholders have already cast their votes. They are not overjoyed.

I am happy that there are different game stores on Windows. Not necessarily because I like to install many different stores, but because it creates competition. That means that Steam cannot suddenly increase prices just like that, because then you just switch to the competitor. Or if platform A has an enormously useful function, platform B cannot really be left behind. In the App Store you now have none of that. If Apple decides to remodel the App Store next week and makes it a horror, you have to live with that. If Apple increases the rates from 30% to 40%, you have to live with that (unless you meet a well-meaning developer who will take the difference for his own account and therefore earn less money, but then as a developer you must also be crazy) .

If the EU decides that Apple is breaking the law and then says it is a shame but that the EU is blocking the sale of apps in Europe, what do you think will happen?

I think Apple will then (in addition to the fine of 10% of the annual turnover according to the article) see a large part of their customers / revenues disappear, which Apple shareholders will not be happy about, which is an even bigger bill for Apple will be. In addition, if there is such a large company active in the EU that does not want to comply with the rules, we would rather lose it than get rich. Fine if you want to trade in the EU, but then you just have to stick to the rules like any other company.

Brave judge who wants to go against this current.

That has nothing to do with being brave. A slightly honest judge will act according to the law, not whether the government can still watch Netflix or not. What you are doing here seems to imply that the judge is corrupt from the start, which is of course nonsense. In the past there have been very far-reaching statements before, for example, look at the statement about the privacy shield last year.

–