[ad_1]
Apple and Google representatives recently found themselves facing an antitrust hearing in the Senate about their app store practices. Apple in particular caught fire because it has turned developers into such a valuable platform and consumers are paying the price. For example, Match dating app company has proven that App Store fees are its biggest expense. Spotify shared how Apple’s rates were forcing consumers to raise prices when Apple launched its streaming service for the Apple Music competition. And Tile argued that Apple has used its platform to disadvantage Tile’s products and pave the way for Apple’s competing AirTags.
Parliamentarians and regulators around the world are noticing. The European Commission has recently announced that it considers App Store policies to be competitive and intends to take regulatory action. Australian regulators had similar conclusions in an interim report presented last month. And Apple has looked at the distribution of behavioral apps in the market in a test with Epic Games.
These policies are aimed not only at developers trying to distribute their applications 1.65 billion users of iOS mobile devices all over the world. When Apple demands 30% of developers ’revenue, it restricts their freedom to offer innovative and innovative customer experiences. And by forbidding developers from communicating with customers through their apps, consumers end up with an ecosystem of apps that don’t prioritize interests.
Apple’s commitment to privacy and security benefits users, but Apple often says that its App Store policies are necessary when they are not for those priorities. On Mac computers – which are safe and secure by Apple’s approval – there are no restrictions on third-party app stores or payments. Even if apps are installed on an iPhone outside the App Store, they still can’t track location or access the camera without permission. The phone’s operating system protects users more than the App Store, and apps installed in alternative app stores may be cheaper or more functional, but they would take advantage of those security protections. In fact, despite Apple’s problem, there are plenty of iOS app stores scams and frauds.
Meanwhile, legitimate apps and services are held to the limits of Apple, causing real problems for people. Earlier in the Covid-19 pandemic, Apple made it difficult to pay users and coaches who forced users to move their classes online, demanding a new 30 percent reduction in the fees they collect before granting a temporary repeal.
Last year, the popular fitness app (and member of the Coalition for App Fairness) Down Dog tried to offer customers the ability to download the app for free trial before committing to a subscription plan. The company did not want to charge users automatically at the end of the test, forcing them to go through a frustrating cancellation process or trying to get a refund because they forgot to cancel. Apple has declined to allow app updates until the company has agreed to automatically charge users.
And many users of music, dating, or other subscription services don’t realize they pay more for membership because they sign up directly with the company through an iPhone app. Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t allow these service providers to communicate directly with their customers through their app, which can help millions of consumers save money every month and get better service.
The biggest loss has nothing to do with developers and users who have to work around Apple’s restrictions; it is these applications and services that do not exist at all because the rules of the app store make it impossible.
Some larger developers, such as those who testified in the Senate last month, may speak out. But there are many more who are afraid to do so, for fear of Apple’s revenge. This is even more pronounced when smaller developers are forced to talk anyway, as the threat to the business can be existential.
Clear steps must be taken to end this anti-competitive behavior and ultimately make it a priority for users and developers. No app should be distributed locked because it wants to offer users a better way to make payments or because it competes with the platform’s own apps. Apple-like piece offerings, for example back doors for individual applications, are not enough.
Customers should be allowed to access their apps from any store that best suits their needs. These things are possible without putting users at risk, and if they had to compete, Apple, Google, and other platforms would be an incentive to make their app stores better for both consumers. and developers.
[ad_2]
Source link
