{"id":8100,"date":"2020-10-11T08:36:21","date_gmt":"2020-10-11T08:36:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=8100"},"modified":"2020-10-07T03:49:10","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T03:49:10","slug":"should-apple-be-forced-to-loosen-its-grip-on-app-store-policies-a-coalition-has-formed-to-take-down-apples-monopolistic-control-over-mobile-apps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/should-apple-be-forced-to-loosen-its-grip-on-app-store-policies-a-coalition-has-formed-to-take-down-apples-monopolistic-control-over-mobile-apps\/","title":{"rendered":"Should Apple Be Forced to Loosen Its Grip on App Store Policies? A Coalition Has Formed to Take Down Apple\u2019s \u201cMonopolistic Control\u201d Over Mobile Apps"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Apple is no stranger to controversy seeing as it has been at the center of countless disputes including ones over anti-competition practices<\/a>, patents<\/a>, employee working conditions<\/a>, and many more over the years. So, what is the latest controversy Apple finds itself entrenched in? Accusations of monopolistic management of its mobile app store and unfair treatment of developers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A coalition of thirteen companies, including Epic Games, Spotify, Tile, and Match Group has banded together to fight for \u201cfair treatment [of developers] by\u2026app stores and the platform owners who operate them.\u201d The broad language in the Coalition\u2019s vision statement points to a desire for change across the industry, but the rest of its website takes aim specifically at Apple\u2019s \u201canti-competitive behaviors.\u201d The Coalition for App Fairness<\/a> claims that Apple \u201chas near total control over the mobile ecosystem\u201d and that it has been \u201ctax[ing] consumers and crush[ing] innovation.\u201d The Coalition has identified three main issues<\/a> it has with Apple\u2019s app store: carefully crafted anti-competitive policies, the 30% \u201capp tax\u201d on creators and consumers, and no consumer freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Google\u2019s Play store implements similar policies to those the Coalition is attacking Apple for, including imposing a 30% app tax and engaging in allegedly anti-competitive practices. The similarities between the two companies\u2019 policies may leave some questioning the Coalition\u2019s choice to single Apple out. Google\u2019s name is notably left off of the Coalition\u2019s website, perhaps due to one key difference between the two app stores: unlike Apple, Google allows users to download apps from outside the Play store. While downloading apps from outside the Play store has been criticized for being a difficult process, it remains an option. Giving users this choice pushes Google one step closer to meeting the Coalition\u2019s call for platforms to offer a \u201clevel playing field\u201d for developers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This comes in the midst of Apple\u2019s antitrust legal battle<\/a> with Epic Games over Apple\u2019s removal of Epic Games\u2019 app, Fortnite, after Epic\u2019s failure to comply with Apple\u2019s app store policies. The Coalition is adamant that \u201cafter nearly a decade with no oversight, regulation, or fair competition, it\u2019s time for Apple to be held accountable.\u201d How exactly does the Coalition seek to enforce this accountability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With all of these unhappy developers coming together to demand fair, developer-friendly practices, if Apple wasn\u2019t feeling the pressure to rethink its policies before, it certainly should be now.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Coalition has set out 10 Principles<\/a> it hopes Apple will implement in its app store. These principles include not competing with developers through the use of a developer\u2019s own data, not requiring developers to use an app store\u2019s \u201cancillary services\u2026including payment systems,\u201d allowing direct communication between app users and the developers \u201cfor legitimate business purposes,\u201d and not \u201cself-preferencing\u201d or \u201cinterfer[ing] with users\u2019 choices,\u201d among others. With all of these unhappy developers coming together to demand fair, developer-friendly practices, if Apple wasn\u2019t feeling the pressure to rethink its policies before, it certainly should be now. Despite this pressure, it is unlikely that Apple will implement these policies without a court order or similar action that will force Apple\u2019s compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the face of similar accusations in the past, Apple has maintained that its stringent policies are a necessity for \u201cprivacy, security, and quality\u201d purposes \u2013 vital considerations in the digital marketplace. Apple even created its own webpage<\/a> dedicated to showing its dedication to a secure marketplace in which \u201cprivacy and security [is] built into everything [they] do.\u201d As \u201cfear and distrust [are] flooding the marketplace,\u201d privacy concerns are surging<\/a> and will continue to do so as consumers become more aware of how companies use their seemingly innocuous practices to store data and learn all about them. Lawmakers and regulators are put in the tough position of having to strike a balance between consumers\u2019 privacy concerns and companies\u2019 monopoly concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the Coalition still in its early stages and Apple remaining silent as of yet, there are many unknowns and it remains to be seen how this will unfold \u2013 will Apple voluntarily change the way it runs its app store? What steps will the Coalition be willing to take if Apple refuses? If this leads to litigation, where will the courts fall? What we do know is if Apple does make changes to how it runs its app store, by choice or by requirement, it will \u201cfundamentally alter [this] multibillion-dollar industry.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amy E. Jones<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Apple is no stranger to controversy seeing as it has been at the center of countless disputes including ones over anti-competition practices, patents, employee working conditions, and many more over the years. So, what is the latest controversy Apple finds itself entrenched in? Accusations of monopolistic management of its mobile app store and unfair treatment …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":8101,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8100"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8104,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100\/revisions\/8104"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}