contador web Skip to content

Apple Responds to App Store Monopoly Charges on New Page

If you haven't been in the last few weeks, the sea is not for Apple as regards App store. Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that users sued Ma for monopoly charges with its app store; In the following weeks, the company was already hit by the first such process and others will certainly emerge in the future.

In addition, the company has been criticized by many people and corporations for its allegedly abusive practices on the App Store: in addition to the very public war with Spotify, Apple has received similar accusations from Yahoo's Kaspersky Lab, a Dutch antitrust agency and US Senator (and presidential candidate) Elizabeth Warren, to name a few.

To (try) appease possible high spirits and expose their side of the story in a friendlier way, Apple today posted a new section on the App Store page on its official website. Titled Principles and Practices (“Principles and Practices”), the English-only page for now provides a snapshot of the company's goals with the store, noting its priorities in stimulating competition and protecting consumers.

The company highlights the encouragement it gives developers to persevere with their creations by talking about how the Apple Developer Program offers partners “a range of tools, compilers, languages, APIs and SDKs so that everyone has an opportunity to create innovative apps. ” Recent App Store initiatives such as the Today tab and personalized recommendations are also highlighted as ways to boost the success of third-party apps.

A section of the page illustrates Apple's open competitiveness by listing a number of apps that compete directly with Apple's native iOS apps: Apple Music, for example, is cited by Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and YouTube. Music; Maps, in turn, has Citymapper, Google Maps, MAPS.ME, and Waze. Apple does not mention at any time that these apps cannot be set as defaults in the system.

The company also uses the page to describe the eight categories of apps on the App Store in terms of how they make (or don't make) money. Four of them do not generate any revenue for Ma:

  • Free: Apps that have zero cost and have no internal purchases or advertising, like Wikipedia.
  • Free with ads: zero-cost apps that developers profit from advertising with, such as Twitter or Instagram.
  • Free in conjunction with products or services: Free apps linked to external services and products, such as Airbnb or Target.
  • Reader: apps in which the displayed content purchased exclusively outside the app, such as Netflix or Amazon Kindle.

Four other categories generate revenue for Ma:

  • Paid out: paid apps to download, such as Facetune or Dark Sky Weather. Apple gets 30% of the money from each sale.
  • Free with subscription: Free apps that have their content unlocked with an in-app subscription such as Hulu or Bumble. Apple gets 30% of a given user's revenue in the first year; if a user remains subscribing to the service, Apple will keep 15% of his revenue from the second year.
  • Free with internal purchases: free apps with extra features that can be purchased from In-App Purchaseslike Candy Crush Saga or TikTok. Apple gets 30% of the revenue from these internal purchases.
  • Multiplataform: apps that represent services present on various platforms, such as Dropbox or Minecraft. In this case, Apple gets 30% of the revenue generated from in-app purchases made on its own in-app purchases on other platforms are not taxed by Ma, of course.

While presenting all the arguments for claiming that your store is a fruitful territory for free competition, Apple reserves a section of the page to remind you that her store and she needs to be responsible for its contents which means that in some cases The company will have to take action to curb illegal practices, unsafe or content apps that go against its guidelines (which include a total ban on pornography or gambling, for example).

If Ma's initiative gives any practical result in this unlucky day, we still don't know. But the company's argument and presentation is mostly quite convincing. What do you guys think?

via 9to5Mac