Telegram rails against 'colossal' App Store cut in EU antitrust complaint
Secure messaging platform Telegram has become the third big developer to file an antitrust complaint against Apple in the European Union, railing against Apple's control and fees on the App Store.
Filed on Thursday morning, Telegram's complaint with the European Commission is mostly focused on Apple's fees and rules it implements in the App Store. Specifically cited were Telegram's attempt to open a gaming platform in 2016, that Apple shut down, claiming it violated app store rules.
Telegram says that because of Apple's rejection, the company as a whole "risked being deleted from the App Store." It isn't clear why the company believes this is the case, as apps can be rejected during the App Store review process, without impacting other apps that a company has developed. At present, no supporting documents are publicly available to validate this claim.
In the complaint, spotted by the Financial Times, Telegram also alleges that the rejection is a prime example of Apple's power in the marketplace, and the ability it may have to "curb innovation thanks to its 'monopolistic power' on the app market."
Telegram's complaint follows an open letter, published on July 27 by the company. In the letter, Telegram rails against Apple's App Store fees, and cites "7 myths" about it, commonly used to defend the fee.
Specifically, Telegram decries arguments that the fee is used to maintain the app store, it allows Apple to reinvest in building better iPhones, and the argument that the 30% fee is in-line with what other platforms are charging. Other points include a debate about if there is actual competition offered from other platforms.
Beyond Telegram's questionable claim in the note that "Apple has been trying to catch up with Android phones in features and hardware," it also isn't clear where the some of the seven points are sourced from. For instance, Apple also doesn't claim that the 30% commission allows Apple to reinvest in building better phones. Additionally, in regards to the first argument that Telegram makes, It isn't a requirement in any country that the App Store be financially run at the break-even point.
Apple did publish a study showing the 30% fee is in line with other paid stores, but the study only briefly touched on alternatives, sometimes free, to Android app distribution. Neither the report nor Telegram's open letter mention that Xcode users can load apps on a phone that have to be re-signed once a week for free users, and once a year for paid developer account.
Telegram's complaint with the European Commission follows Spotify and Rakuten complaints, over similar matters. It also comes less than 24 hours after Tim Cook testified in front of a US Congressional panel, intended to get to the bottom of anti-trust issues that big tech companies face.
Filed on Thursday morning, Telegram's complaint with the European Commission is mostly focused on Apple's fees and rules it implements in the App Store. Specifically cited were Telegram's attempt to open a gaming platform in 2016, that Apple shut down, claiming it violated app store rules.
Telegram says that because of Apple's rejection, the company as a whole "risked being deleted from the App Store." It isn't clear why the company believes this is the case, as apps can be rejected during the App Store review process, without impacting other apps that a company has developed. At present, no supporting documents are publicly available to validate this claim.
In the complaint, spotted by the Financial Times, Telegram also alleges that the rejection is a prime example of Apple's power in the marketplace, and the ability it may have to "curb innovation thanks to its 'monopolistic power' on the app market."
Telegram's complaint follows an open letter, published on July 27 by the company. In the letter, Telegram rails against Apple's App Store fees, and cites "7 myths" about it, commonly used to defend the fee.
Specifically, Telegram decries arguments that the fee is used to maintain the app store, it allows Apple to reinvest in building better iPhones, and the argument that the 30% fee is in-line with what other platforms are charging. Other points include a debate about if there is actual competition offered from other platforms.
Beyond Telegram's questionable claim in the note that "Apple has been trying to catch up with Android phones in features and hardware," it also isn't clear where the some of the seven points are sourced from. For instance, Apple also doesn't claim that the 30% commission allows Apple to reinvest in building better phones. Additionally, in regards to the first argument that Telegram makes, It isn't a requirement in any country that the App Store be financially run at the break-even point.
Apple did publish a study showing the 30% fee is in line with other paid stores, but the study only briefly touched on alternatives, sometimes free, to Android app distribution. Neither the report nor Telegram's open letter mention that Xcode users can load apps on a phone that have to be re-signed once a week for free users, and once a year for paid developer account.
Telegram's complaint with the European Commission follows Spotify and Rakuten complaints, over similar matters. It also comes less than 24 hours after Tim Cook testified in front of a US Congressional panel, intended to get to the bottom of anti-trust issues that big tech companies face.
Comments
"But you honor, we know Apple didn't actually say and do these things, but we were thinking that they did, so we still think that Apple should compensate us for how hurt we got by our own thoughts."
There's never a "fair" rate because no matter how low you set the bar, someone else is going to complain about that number being "unfair". Music CD's at $16 ea. were "unfair" Digital albums at $9.99 ea. were "unfair".
In business what matters is whether or not people judge your product as being worth the asking price. For a consumer, if product A is judged to provide X amount of value, someone will buy it. If not, they won't, and the company may need to adjust its price.
Manuafacturers and, in this case, developers also do the same math. If can charge X I'll make Y. Is it worth it?
Millions of developers and millions of apps would argue that most consider the exchange to be a "fair" one.
Personally, I'd argue that developers are hurt more by the fact that too many consumers are cheapskates. "You want $5 for this game that Im going to play non-stop for the next 36 hours??? Screw that."
27% means Apple is not selling smart phones because there are no other alternatives out there. It means that people buying the iPhone are choosing it because it presents the best value for them, not because they have no other choice.
Apple is making money on the iPhone the old fashioned way (by selling the best product) not the Amazon-Google-Facebook way (selling the only product available).
When you start punishing companies for being successful by selling the highest quality products, you might as well abandon the free enterprise system because you're turning the very essence of that system into an illegal act.
https://telegra.ph/7-Myths-Apple-Is-Using-to-Justify-Their-30-Tax-on-Apps-07-27
This narrative is great for long term Apple investors
OF COURSE Apple has a “monopoly” over apps which use their low-cost distribution platform and free tools to develop those apps. The programming language they use today (Swift) for app development is open source, so the apps themselves could easily be ported to other platforms, despite all the work Apple has contributed.
I can’t select an alternative search engine from the Google home page
You can’t redefine “monopoly” just because a company becomes too successful. This is why this hearing was always going to be a waste of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
Apparently Laurene Jobs invested in his company:
https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/83454/steve-jobs-widow-invested-least-5m-telegram-ico
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/telegram-fined-185-million-by-the-sec-and-must-return-12-billion-raised-in-an-ico-2020-06-26
The complaints from Telegram and Epic seem to be more about the control than the fee, although they go together. Telegram apps are mostly free but they want to have their own platform on Apple's platform to do anything they want like on Desktop systems.
I think they keep pushing the 30% issue because it's a talking point people would get on board with. Epic originally used Google's method of bypassing the store for Fortnite and switched back to Google Play, complaining about the security warnings:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/21229943/epic-games-fortnite-google-play-store-available-third-party-software
"After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization," reads Epic’s statement. "Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store."
If someone has the option to install software externally, they can do whatever they want, including bypassing fees but they want to be treated with the same level of trust as the platform provider. Some companies justify that level trust, many don't. In iOS 14, companies have been seen misusing the clipboard and nobody knew. It's easier to hide really personal tracking on mobile devices due to the UI and that's what advertising-driven companies want - to know where you are and what you are doing at all times.
There are game companies that want to install low-level system software on devices to prevent cheating and piracy:
https://www.osnews.com/story/131665/riot-games-maker-of-league-of-legends-installs-rootkit-with-their-new-hit-game-valorant/
It's possible to keep a desktop system secure but people don't install new desktop software nearly as often as mobile apps. The security risk is much higher when it concerns such personal data like biometrics, location data, personal communications and banking:
https://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/blackrock-android-trojan-malware-can-steal-banking-credentials-says-cert-in-2271408
Mobile devices have the ability to capture someone's attention and data 24/7 at a far bigger scale than any platform. It's a huge opportunity for companies that want to be a platform and they'll keep trying to get as much control over it as they can. They all claim to be victims of unfairness yet are sitting with billions made from the success of their companies on mobile.
in my store... And if somebody would like to use my infrastructure to sell his own products, af course he has to pay me then commission.