Who wins when regulators go after Apple? Maybe no one

The Titans clash. Big tech companies, including Apple, face legal challenges from government entities such as the European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The battle lines are drawn. Compromises are proposed. Hours are billed by expensive law firms.

But what does all this mean for ordinary people who live in regions ruled by these entities and use products made by these tech giants? Is this something that will change the way we use our personal technology, or will it ultimately mean nothing? What about small developers who create innovative apps but can’t afford to employ giant law firms or take out million-euro lines of credit from their local bank? ?

Who is protected?

Sometimes I wonder exactly who the European Commission is protecting: its citizens or big businesses? Fortunately, Apple has given the EC a golden opportunity to show what it stands for. Apple was recently forced by regulators – uh, I mean, received feedback developers and other stakeholders – to change its complex plans for alternative app markets in the EU and simply go ahead and offer direct app downloads. (Again, it’s 2024, and only now can Apple offer iPhone users in a region the ability to download software from the Internet, which many users in Mac in the 1990s!)

Because the EC (rightly) allowed Apple to continue to act in the interests of the security of users of its platforms, Apple did not simply agree to enable the downloading of iPhone apps in the EU . Instead, it created the concept of a “trusted developer” – and only developers who follow a set of rules can qualify. The rules require developers to spend at least two years with active Apple developer accounts and have a thriving app business with one million app installs in the EU in the past year.

Foundry

In other words, to bypass Apple as software gatekeeper, you have to spend two years inside its doors and to have Already created an app so popular that it landed on a million iPhones in the EU. In the name of security, Apple has set the bar for sideloading so high that almost no one will be able to clear it.

This is a rule that provides freedom, but only for the largest and most successful developers. Imagine if a group of brilliant developers left their employers, got funding, had an idea for a killer app, and had to be shelved due to Apple’s refusal to allow such an app in the real App Store, and got to work. They would have to wait two years And create another successful app in the meantime to be considered trustworthy.

Now is the opportunity for the European Commission to decide whether Apple is allowed to set arbitrary rules that prevent small developers from accessing opportunities open to Spotify, Epic and Meta. We’ll see what he decides.

In the same way, Apple’s “Core Technology Fee” threatens small developers by charging 0.50 dollars per application download beyond one million downloads. As developer Riley Testut testified last week, a free app he created as a teenager and gave away for free reportedly cost his parents millions of dollars. An Apple representative said the company is aware of the problem, but it’s easy to see why this bizarre set of rules exists: Apple is trying to take money from big developers. Smaller developers? This is just collateral damage.

Repercussions to whom?

Although most regulations aim to at least benefit the public in the long term, many regulatory regimes practice some sort of benefit “trickle down” approach. The theory goes that if companies can better compete with gatekeepers like Apple, the competition will create a better environment for consumers. We will all benefit from lower prices as big companies compete.

Unfortunately, many players in the DMA case seem to be arguing over which company will get the most money. Epic Games does not want to pay 30% to Apple, but not give it back to users, like Robin Hood: it wants the money for itself. After all, it’s a for-profit company. The same goes for Spotify and everything else. Their goal is to change Apple’s methods so that it is easier for them to make money without Apple getting in their way.

This isn’t about defending Apple, which has made a ton of money by getting between app developers and their customers. To me, there’s no denying that Apple has degraded many parts of the iOS experience in order to take ownership of a portion of every in-app financial transaction. How many decades have we all been buying things on the web? Still, Apple insists it’s not safe to let users use their own credit card to pay for things on the web or even visit the Web.

My point is, will all this reform really mean consumers will pay less? Or is it just a squabble over which company will get the highest average revenue per user?

Protecting ourselves from ourselves

In Europe as in the United States, some of the measures taken seem unfounded, misguided or confusing – and do not seem to directly concern the lives of ordinary people. I understand that controlling access to iOS through the App Store gives Apple an extraordinary level of control over developers, but how many iPhone users in Europe are ever going to install an alternative app market, and let alone dating one in the long term? Will in-app purchasing alternatives become very popular, or will the convenience of Apple’s simple purchasing system be enough for most users?

Governments can force companies to give users a choice, but that doesn’t mean users will choose something different.

Apple

Then there is the Department of Justice. I have said thousands of words about this case and plan to say hundreds of thousands more over the next few years. The initial filing has some strong points and plenty of weird, weak moments, but after reading the whole thing, I came away with the feeling that the Justice Department has nothing but contempt for Apple. And his clients.

The document is chock-full of the attitude that Apple has spent decades as some sort of tech crook. He makes the usual tired argument that, essentially, Apple dazzles suckers with clever marketing, tricks them into buying overpriced junk, then handcuffs them and locks them into an ecosystem from which there is no escape .

I feel like the lockdown argument is a bit overblown. I prefer to change iPhone rather than Mac, iPad or Apple TV. Next, take a look at Apple’s growing sales, increasing market share, solid user conversion rates from Android to iPhones, and extremely high customer satisfaction rates.

It seems that people… as their iPhones, actually?

Yes, Apple benefits from the lockdown and frequently encourages it. And this behavior is frustrating and should be curbed. The company has many anti-competitive policies that must be stopped. But take a step back and think: What if the end result of this whole trial is that the Justice Department unlocks the lockdown…and no one leaves?