Microsoft Says Antitrust Regulators Need To Review App Stores (bloomberg.com) 74
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Microsoft Corp. President Brad Smith said it's time for antitrust regulators in the U.S. and Europe to discuss tactics that app stores use to take advantage of those who want to distribute their software. Some app stores create a far higher barrier to fair competition and access than Microsoft's Windows did when it was found guilty of antitrust violations 20 years ago, Smith said Thursday at an event sponsored by Politico. He didn't specify which app stores he was referring to, but Apple and Alphabet's Google operate popular ones for their devices.
"They impose requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created," Smith said. "In some cases they create a very high price per toll -- in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper." "The time has come -- whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels -- for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created," Smith said.
"They impose requirements that increasingly say there is only one way to get on to our platform and that is to go through the gate that we ourselves have created," Smith said. "In some cases they create a very high price per toll -- in some cases 30% of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper." "The time has come -- whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels -- for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created," Smith said.
Kindof a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft calling foul while admitting to their own past misbehavior is unprecedented...
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking the claim is a lie. When a retail store purchases and product and puts a sixty percent markup on it, did that take that sixty percent from the producer or from the customers. How much of that percentage is for the cost of the sales resource, buildings et al and staff as well as sales assistance and after sales service and support.
Long after M$ paid for the cost of the software, they charge way more than that, the limit the market will bear. In the same light when Apple is the retailer,
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it won't do anything. Even basic functions such as calls and texts are apps nowadays.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Microsoft calling foul while admitting to their own past misbehavior is unprecedented...
The Microsoft of 2020 doesn't care if you hate them. Hate them all you want. Go ahead, let it out, it's okay. And while you're at it, love Linux. Hate Microsoft and love Linux all the way to your monthly Azure bill.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
$125 billion in revenue is "passing by"? Who knew?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the "Store" is required for the auto-update mechanisms. That includes Microsoft's store, Steam, Epic Games, Uplay, Sony (PS4) , Nintendo, etc.
And when you have competing stores, you have competing stomping on other stores installations. So let's say I buy the same game on two stores (for some damn reason) , I need to install it twice to appease the damn store, but I don't want to waste the space twice. How do I install a game to a device that will be updated by the device (not the store.
Re:Kindof a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft calling foul while admitting to their own past misbehavior is unprecedented...
This also makes me think their motivation is that their app store (Microsoft Store) isn't well received and/or isn't doing (as) well, so the "remedy" is to have governments investigate other app stores. It's make it easier to climb up if you drag everyone else down first. Microsoft has embraced the app-store concept, only two more steps to go in their usual game plan [wikipedia.org].
Re: Kindof a big deal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Past? Like they're not still trying to jam the Microsoft Store and Microsoft accounts down our throats???
Re:Kindof a big deal. (Score:4, Informative)
Like they're not still trying to jam the Microsoft Store and Microsoft accounts down our throats???
The Microsoft Store is optional though. Plus they also give developers 85-95% of the revenue [windowscentral.com] which is way higher than other app stores. I don't think that you can really count that as misbehavior.
And in defense of the use of Microsoft Accounts.... um... fuck 'em!
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Just as with the built-in spyware and forced downgrades, you cannot disable or remove the Microsoft Store from Windows 10 without manually hacking it out.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant that you are not forced to install your programs from it. You can live your life without ever having to open the store on Windows 10. The fact that there is an unused icon on my computer doesnâ(TM)t bother me at all.
Re: (Score:1)
certainly no shame
None of government's business (Score:3, Insightful)
That's quite rich coming from Microsoft, but let's us ad hominem.
The complain may be valid, but it is not actionable for the government — not until there is a monopoly. Which there currently is not [statcounter.com].
Re:None of government's business (Score:5, Informative)
The complain may be valid, but it is not actionable for the government â" not until there is a monopoly.
That is not true. If the only two players in town are doing the same antitrust behavior then they can be treated as a monopoly. Here is a discussion on monopolies [ftc.gov] using the first link I found for it:
So Android alone has more than 50% market share (according to your own link), and if both Android and iOS App Stores exclude competitors then they could be said to be acting in concert.
Re: (Score:1)
I think, it would be quite a challenge to prove, that Google and Apple are "acting in concert", because they aren't, they are at each other's throat. Nor are they "excluding competitors" — they are competing with each other, but Chrome, Google Maps, and GMail are all available in Apple Store.
Re: (Score:3)
I think, it would be quite a challenge to prove, that Google and Apple are "acting in concert", because they aren't, they are at each other's throat. Nor are they "excluding competitors" - they are competing with each other, but Chrome, Google Maps, and GMail are all available in Apple Store.
They can still compete with each other while acting in concert about app stores. And you can't really say that Apple doesn't exclude competitors. Yes, Chrome is available on the App Store, but it is only a UI layer over the built-in Safari browser (WKWebView). This is because Apple does not allow any competing web browser on their store. That's even worse than what Microsoft - Netscape Navigator was not forced to be just an ActiveX container for Internet Explorer.
And while you can fork Android, if you want
Re: (Score:2)
Google's app store is less vulnerable to anti-trust because they allow other app stores. Amazon has one, and there is the F-Droid store for free software. Also Google allows apps to make sales in your app without paying them.
On iOS you have no choice, it's Apple's app store or nothing and if your iOS app accepts any form of payment then Apple must get their cut.
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft's share of the desktop was much higher at the time, than even Android's is now. Apple — with its measly 16% can do whatever it pleases entirely.
Besides, Microsoft's active sabotage of competitors was a lot more disgusting, than Apple simply asking for (more) money.
Government acting against this would constitute price controls... And not even of some vital items (like food or medicine), but of
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's share of the desktop was much higher at the time, than even Android's is now.
Who cares? They both meet the criteria for being a monopoly according to the link that I posted previously.
Apple - with its measly 16% can do whatever it pleases entirely.
That is unless they are deemed to be in concert with Google, as I stated in my previous post.
Besides, Microsoft's active sabotage of competitors was a lot more disgusting, than Apple simply asking for (more) money.
No, Apple block all browser competitors. That is something that Microsoft never did and is much worse than just asking for money like you try to portray it. Since it this not just about money, it renders your assertion that this is about price control wrong too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're already at duopoly... iOS v Android. iOS's Apple App Store is charging rent of 30% for all business done on the iPhone... which seems like it's a little high.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is not a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that's not how monopoly law works.
"Monopoly Law" is the second least fun Monopoly variant [wikipedia.org], only surpassed by "Ghettopoly" (actually not making this last one up).
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong in two ways: (1) Market dominance is sufficient for antitrust measures if it is abused. The threshold for that varies but is usually around 50% give or take. (2) You have to define the relevant market correctly. There is not one single market for "app store for mobile phones". Android users can't install apps from Apple's App Store, and iOS users can't inst
Re: (Score:2)
While being a monopoly certainly triggers additional regulatory scrutiny, you don't need to be a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive practices. Apple was ruled to be engaging in anticompetitive behavior a few years back in the eBooks market when they colluded with publishers to disrupt Amazon, despite having less than 10% of the market. Nvidia was ruled to be engaging in anticompetitive behavior a few years back when they forced sellers to drop AMD products, despite holding quite a bit less than a mono
I've been saying this for years (Score:1)
he has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
How quaint. That particular bar is obviously now 10,000 feet higher. I'm torn because I really like Apple's walled garden. It saves me a lot of time and headaches. It lets me be more productive. But yeah it's pretty clearly anti-competitive. However, if we force Apple to become another Microsoft, we'll wind up an iOS that has all the klunky issues as Windows. I dunno what to do on this one.
Re:he has a point (Score:5, Informative)
Could you imagine if Microsoft not only bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, but said any alternative browser had to use its Trident engine?
Re: (Score:2)
That was the case in the days of IE6... it was too easy to use VB6 to make your own IE-like browser. When FireFox first came out, it also had an ActiveX object too. These things have since been discontinued.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the case in the days of IE6... it was too easy to use VB6 to make your own IE-like browser. When FireFox first came out, it also had an ActiveX object too. These things have since been discontinued.
Was it the case because it was "easy" to make your own IE-like browser, or because Microsoft made it a requirement that it was an IE-like browser?
Re: (Score:2)
It was easy and common, but it was not required. Windows back then didn't do anything to block third-party browsers using whatever engine they wished, and allowed them to be set as default browsers - just like Android (but not iOS) does today.
Re: (Score:2)
I find Apple's app store behaviour to be egregious, but there are good reasons to demand that everyone use webkit, mostly for security and uniformity. It's not a bad engine, and Chromium shares roots with it, so it's not that horrible. The real issue is more that you can't set Chrome or Firefox as your default browser, because most of the value of those browsers—even on the desktop—is in the interface, not the rendering. We're no longer in a time where there are huge disparities in whether any g
and when mac arm goes app store only then? (Score:2)
and when mac arm goes app store only then?
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you don't clearly recollect the MS antitrust case. While IE was the heart of the case, they were charged with abusing their monopoly position not just because it was bundled, but because they used their monopoly position to try to impose Microsoft-only technologies throughout the whole internet. They weren't just crushing Netscape—they used their position in the browser market to try and eliminate Java, non-Microsoft media codecs, and force turn the web into an ActiveX hellscape that was inc
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget how they added delay code in the Apple version of their own software to make it look like it ran slower on Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare what Microsoft did 20-25 years ago to the dirty pool that's going on right now. Android vs. iOS comes to mind... the fight for user data.... the general adoption of "we allow anything in order to sell m
Re:he has a point (Score:5, Interesting)
What a lot of people seem to have forgotten (Intentionally and with an ulterior motive in the case of Microsoft, no doubt.) is what it took, and how much it cost, for independent devs to sell apps before the App Store.
30% too much they say? Well, what do you get for that 30%? It's not just the billing, though you do get that, and Apple handles PCI compliance for you... no small convenience. They also take care of hosting and distribution. If your app is good, you'll get promotion and advertising out of the deal. You get copy-protection... say what you want about it, but some developers do like to get paid for their work. You get access to notification services. And you get Xcode and the rest of Apple's development toolset.
That's all just off the top of my head. There's surely more that I don't recall. But I *DO* remember what it was like (For an independent, not a big shop like EA.) to sell software before the App Store. If you're not an EA or Activision and you don't have the resources to roll all of that on your own you could go one of three routes:
1). Shareware, and place your hope in the honesty of random strangers.
2). Catch the attention of an EA or MS or Activision and sell out. Unless you're big but not THAT big, you'll get a one-time lump sum, no royalties. And if you're moderately sized, you become EA's bitch, while most of your coworkers/partners get shown the door. And if you're a smaller indie or hobbiest, you probably don't want to work for EA anyway.
3). Or, you could find and contract with 3rd-party vendors to provide all of those services that the 30% gets you. But if you're not an EA or Activision or et cetera; you were NOT going to get good rates. By the time you add up all of those services; you'd be lucky... DAMN lucky... if you net even 50%. More likely, you'd get 35%, or maybe 40%.
I'm long out of that game at this point. But I can still do math. And in every numbering system I know of, 30% is still less than 65%, 60%, and even 50%.
Re: (Score:3)
That stuff is all well and good but you're talking about ancient history at this point (> 10 years ago). It's no longer innovative. There are many app stores across many platforms. If Apple didn't exclude other app stores on their platform you might have competitors pop up which would put downward pressure on Apple to lower the cut they take. As we've seen happen with Epic and Steam app stores the past couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but not everyone needs those services. For an app like Hey, they've got the back-end, they're doing all the services. I'm sure they'd rather pay a flat distribution fee to Apple rather than a cut of their subscription revenue.
Apple's argument used to make more sense than it does now. Combined with the race to the bottom that is app pricing, eking out a profit while paying a 30% cut to Apple is getting harder and harder. On top of that, Apple sells app store ads so that someone can search for your exac
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft didn't face anti-trust charges because they bundled a web browser with their OS. The faced charges because they were abusing their near-monopoly in one market (OSes) to try to gain market share in a different market (web browsers) where they initially had zero presence. For those who weren't around at the time, Netscape was selling
Re: (Score:2)
Anticompetitive or just plain old business competition? I'm not claiming that MS was angelic. They played dirty. But by todays standards, it was fairly tame. At this point, we're neck-deep in the mud in so many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's cut of Xbox game sales (Score:3)
Microsoft charged 30 percent for the Xbox Live Indie Games program in the Xbox 360 era, and I see no reason to believe that the current Xbox developer program is any different.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, this sounds like sour grapes to me. Microsoft failed to lock Windows users into using their app store with the "S" version (The S stands for sucks!) or ARM versions of Windows 10, so now they'll go complain to the government about Apple. Unlike basically everyone else, Apple is one company who successfully pulled off having a monopoly when it comes to application distribution on a platform. Even Google and Amazon haven't been as successful in locking down their devices to outside Android applications.
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody has to tell Microsoft that they got app store too. :)
Maybe stores you wouldn't think of (Score:1)
Steam charges 30%, that's exhorbant
Credit Card Rates? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the rate for processing a credit card transaction on the WWW these days? Is this a big part of the 30% most stores want?
Re: Credit Card Rates? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The credit card processing fees are probably > 2%. So your last rule is probably a money-loser for the store.
Aw, boo hoo (Score:1)
Maybe if Microsquish spent more time on security and polishing user interface design, they wouldn't have time to complain about this.
Wasnâ(TM)t aware.... (Score:1)
Hey Kettle, your Black! (Score:1)
so microsoft has a store, Google and Apple have stores too. Users are not buying the microsoft product because it is just not good enough. Times have changed. Do you think IBM should have got the governments involved when mainframe units shipped per quarter were in a decline while PC sales were on the rise?
If you make something users don't want you need to find out how to make something the users want...
So that is like Ford cars and trucks suck and are junk, break down every day, constantly at the dealer fo
Same as MSFT calling for AI regulation (Score:3)
Dysfunctional FTC (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, why did we need to wait for Microsoft to raise this issue? Exclusive app stores like Apple's are anti-competitive as hell. There are no similar anti-competitive issues with Microsoft's or Google's app stores because the user is still able to install an alternative app store, or not using app store at all by side-loading apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, why did we need to wait for Microsoft to raise this issue? Exclusive app stores like Apple's are anti-competitive as hell. There are no similar anti-competitive issues with Microsoft's or Google's app stores because the user is still able to install an alternative app store, or not using app store at all by side-loading apps.
OK, so how do I install an alternate app store on my Xbox One? Or side-load apps that are not Microsoft approved? And no, disc doesn't count. MS takes a cut of those at first sale as well, and we are talking about the software companies getting screwed here, so used doesn't count either.
Does that include the Xbox store? (Score:2)
Sour grapes, Microsoft (Score:2)