'Sham' settlement offer not appeasing Coalition for App Fairness
Developer consortium Coalition for App Fairness calls Apple's new App Store changes a "sham," and says it "does nothing" to address its members' concerns.
The Coalition for App Fairness believes Apple's new settlement is a "sham"
Apple has now settled an App Store lawsuit by creating a $100 million fund for developers, and allowing companies more direct access to their users. However, the Coalition for App Fairness says that the move is not the concession its members need.
"Apple's sham settlement offer is nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid the judgment of courts, regulators, and legislators worldwide," said the organization in a statement emailed to AppleInsider.
"This offer does nothing to address the structural, foundational problems facing all developers, large and small, undermining innovation and competition in the app ecosystem," it continues. "Allowing developers to communicate with their customers about lower prices outside of their apps is not a concession and further highlights Apple's total control over the app marketplace."
"If this settlement is approved, app makers will still be barred from communicating about lower prices or offering competing payment options within their apps," says the statement. "We will not be appeased by empty gestures and will continue our fight for fair and open digital platforms."
The issue of direct communication between app developer and user has long been an issue in part because it means software makers get only limited information about who is buying their apps. It has also meant that developers could not use their apps to inform a user of offers or alternative ways to use the app outside the app store.
Now as part of the settlement, Apple has agreed to allow developers to email customers to discuss alternative payment methods. They are still not allowed to promote such offers within their apps, however.
The Coalition for App Fairness was started in September 2020 by companies including Epic Games. but now claims to have in excess of 60 member firms.
Separately, the Coalition has been fighting three subpoenas from Apple, which requested access to internal communications within those members.
Read on AppleInsider
The Coalition for App Fairness believes Apple's new settlement is a "sham"
Apple has now settled an App Store lawsuit by creating a $100 million fund for developers, and allowing companies more direct access to their users. However, the Coalition for App Fairness says that the move is not the concession its members need.
"Apple's sham settlement offer is nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid the judgment of courts, regulators, and legislators worldwide," said the organization in a statement emailed to AppleInsider.
"This offer does nothing to address the structural, foundational problems facing all developers, large and small, undermining innovation and competition in the app ecosystem," it continues. "Allowing developers to communicate with their customers about lower prices outside of their apps is not a concession and further highlights Apple's total control over the app marketplace."
"If this settlement is approved, app makers will still be barred from communicating about lower prices or offering competing payment options within their apps," says the statement. "We will not be appeased by empty gestures and will continue our fight for fair and open digital platforms."
The issue of direct communication between app developer and user has long been an issue in part because it means software makers get only limited information about who is buying their apps. It has also meant that developers could not use their apps to inform a user of offers or alternative ways to use the app outside the app store.
Now as part of the settlement, Apple has agreed to allow developers to email customers to discuss alternative payment methods. They are still not allowed to promote such offers within their apps, however.
The Coalition for App Fairness was started in September 2020 by companies including Epic Games. but now claims to have in excess of 60 member firms.
Separately, the Coalition has been fighting three subpoenas from Apple, which requested access to internal communications within those members.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
We will have to wait and see which way regulators ultimately swing but if Apple is making concessions in the face of all the complaints, I'd say even Apple itself isn't quite so sure of its case.
Walmart has no place in any reasonable analogy. For that to be, Walmart would have to be the only store that existed and be able to prevent other stores from existing/ competing.
If as it appears this is Epic's attempt to foment bad press among those who believe they have an absolute right to Apple's playground at no cost, that should be part of the public record. That the member organizations sneak around and use this umbrella organization to snipe from cover is pretty cowardly and reprehensible.
https://500ish.com/thank-you-apple-may-we-have-another-115b91ad1773
"It would be great if Apple would just tell it like it is. Not the watered-down PR-speak that exactly zero people are fooled by. We’re all adults here. We get that there’s nuance. That every story has two sides. Sometimes more. Just give it to us straight..."Instead, we get this.
and Philip Elmer-Dewitt's
https://www.ped30.com/2021/08/27/apple-lifts-gag-order/
"Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? My take: Apple drives a hard bargain. It has to get dragged into court — kicking and screaming — to do the right thing. As Ben Thompson wrote last May…
The fact that apps [couldn’t] even tell you that they have a website is what prompted Senator Blumenthal’s observation that Apple and Google were in Congress to “defend the patently indefensible.”
Some long-time hardcore Apple promoters and fans somewhat agree with Epic's comments.
If they are playing by those rules, they won't have anything to worry about, will they?
How are you reading between the lines of recent Apple moves?
From my perspective, it looks like Apple isn't completely convinced about how things will play out, hence these 'concessions'.
As for fans, I'd like to see a Coalition for Consumer Fairness. I bet this group would have a whole lot more people in it than "some" long-time hardcore Apple promoters and fans. Consumers are the ones who pay for apps, not developers or promoters (yes, both buy apps but there are far more consumers than developers and promoters). Anyone who's had to work on a family member's computer (of any kind) knows the simpler the better. Make everything as easy as possible so there's fewer ways to mess things up (for you and me). Too many choices has always been a problem for the majority of consumers. Adding more payment possibilities only causes more problems, it doesn't help consumers but of course why help the people buying things actually buy them. We've got to pacify the companies with deep pockets and big mouths.
When I go into a store that only takes cash, I pay cash. Is anyone demanding they take credit cards? Why not? That's restricting our ability to use whatever payment process we want to use. This is the same as Apple only allowing payments through their payment method. If we're going to go after Apple then we need to go after every place of commerce who restricts the type of payment we want to use. Yes, that's silly and stupid but it is the same thing. Costco only allows MasterCard not Visa (plus cash) and I'm not seeing any politician go after them. Apple should be able to run their business the same way these comanies are running theirs.
As for legal things, rarely have consumers benefitted from laws meant to protect them. Even the joke Microsoft monopoly trial didn't really change anything. The only people who benefit from most of these legal moves are lawyers, stock holders and politicians by way of legal bribes/donations.
AI, why don't you hold a poll on whether we feel Apple should be allowed to keep the App Store as is? Of course it will be slanted towards more technical people because AI is not a silly website but it could show how more or less technical people feel about the subject.
At the end of the day nothing is going to stop the back and forth bickering about this any more than any of the other topics that have entrenched and immovable opinions on both sides.
If the platform were completely encapsulated this probably wouldn't be a problem. That isn't the case though. The platform absolutely depends on outside trade to exist. The second you stick a toe outside the realm of your platform and interact with the outside world for trade, new rules and regulations come into play. What we may see here is a leveling of the playing field which allows for greater competition.
The existence of other platforms is unlikely to play in Apple's favour as there are some major differences in play.
First. Although everyone is free to purchase an iDevice if they choose to do so, access to the commercial app market on the device almost aways involves a price of entry. The cost of the device itself. No one pays to enter a shopping centre or Walmart
Second. At purchase time, the user is provided with no clear, upfront notification that purchasing the device means effectively signing over any competition rights or claims. Put crudely, it is akin to the user agreeing that Apple will take a piece of every app store transaction, Apple Pay transaction, will control which apps and which content will be made available to them. This would not be an issue if it weren't for my first point.
Third. 'competition' via other hardware platforms necessarily comes via giving up an iDevice which was bought at a cost. That alone is reason enough for many to stay with the platform until its time to upgrade. Shopping centres and Walmarts have nowhere near the same levels of stickiness and fidelity programs have zero impact on the user's freedom to choose a competitor without financial penalty. They may walk out and go back at no extra cost.
Fourth. App store usage normally implies a level of 'stickiness' on other levels, be it file format issues, app availability, data transfer etc.
My personal opinion is that Apple will be required to make some major changes at some point (especially with the EU investigations) but I believe lobbying efforts (especially within the US) will lessen the severity of the changes.
I also believe that Apple could avoid any scrutiny at all by requiring purchasers to sign over competition claims at purchase time.
Of course this would be a massive shock to purchasers, the media would relish reminding us of what we are giving up and no amount of Apple marketing would be able to turn things around.
So, what is Apple left with?
It had the option of sticking to its guns and weathering the storm in the hope of escaping regulatory changes.
Deep down, Apple surely knows it doesn't have a leg to stand on but perhaps a combination of lobbying and 'concessions' might be able to reduce the impact of any changes. I think that's the path they've chosen.