Apple's App Store Subscription Policies Raise Antitrust Issues as Content Providers Fume
![]()
The Wall Street Journal explores possible antitrust issues, with experts noting that any such case would hinge on the definition of the market, as that would determine how dominant Apple's position is in it.
"My inclination is to be suspect" about Apple's new service, said Shubha Ghosh, an antitrust professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Two key questions in Mr. Ghosh's mind: Whether Apple owns enough of a dominant position in the market to keep competitors out, and whether it is exerting "anticompetitive pressures on price."
Experts note that publishers might be able to argue that tablet devices constitute the market for their offerings, and Apple's dominance in that market could subject it to antitrust investigation. But a broader market encompassing the entire App Store ecosystem and thus smartphones and tablets in their entirety would likely not raise red flags due to Apple's much smaller share of that larger market."Millions will be spent litigating how broad the market is," said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust professor at the University of Iowa College of Law.
Mr. Hovenkamp said digital media is the most plausible market. He said he doubted that Apple, currently, has a sufficiently dominant position in that market to warrant antitrust scrutiny.
While many content providers have yet to respond publicly to Apple's announcement as they weigh their options, music streaming service Rhapsody spoke out yesterday, noting that it will be talking with other companies in its same position in "determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development."
Our philosophy is simple too - an Apple-imposed arrangement that requires us to pay 30 percent of our revenue to Apple, in addition to content fees that we pay to the music labels, publishers and artists, is economically untenable. The bottom line is we would not be able to offer our service through the iTunes store if subjected to Apple's 30 percent monthly fee vs. a typical 2.5 percent credit card fee.
Publishers of existing App Store applications have until June 30th to comply with Apple's new policies.Top Rated Comments
(View all)But if this touches providers like Netflix and Hulu+, then I have concerns.
Publisher take 100% revenue if publisher already has the subscriber. Publishers are also free to charge whatever they want, but if they want access to paying customers using iOS, then why shouldn't they go by Apple's rules?
PS. The psystar morons already tried the same argument. Verdict: argument FAILED.
Obviously they did not read the part:
Publisher take 100% revenue if publisher already has the subscriber.
Publishers are also free to charge whatever they want, but if they want access to paying customers using iOS, then why shouldn't they go by Apple's rules?
A lot of people are comparing the iOS App Store to Disney World. Maybe that analogy works.
They are unfortunately focusing on the small 20-30% of SW and content sales as a profit source, instead of making a minimal profit here and expanding the eco-system.
I agreed with the curated nature of the App Store initially, because it was a completely new concept users had never been exposed to before. However, most users are comfortable with the idea of buying apps for their phone, and Apple needs to loosen its restrictions. A great start would be allowing the installation of 3rd party app stores, which may not have the restrictions Apple's does.
The arguments which are made supporting Apple's move all seem to ignore key issues including that by combining (a) the unavailability of other methods of distribution onto i-devices (banning Flash and preventing other browers which could implement Flash) (b) a requirement that apps offer subsriptions in-app and (c) a restriction of linking-out to other methods of purchasing from in-app Apple are giving developers no middle-ground. They can either be on the i-devices and give 30% of revenue to Apple or not have access to that market at all. For many operators both options are likely to be un-economic and likely lead to close-downs (think Spotify, for whom the paid mobile app on the iPhone has been a major source of profit).
The results would either be (1) the competitor to Apple goes out of business or (2) the competitor raises prices available via ALL sources to cover the 30% it must give to Apple via i-device sales.
In either case - if Apple drives the likes of Spotify out of business OR the competitor has to raise all prices - if Apple then enters the subscription music market, then there actually could be anti-trust issues (as Apple certainly does have market power in that market - a key difference from the Psystar case, for example).
Obviously they did not read the part:
Publisher take 100% revenue if publisher already has the subscriber. Publishers are also free to charge whatever they want, but if they want access to paying customers using iOS, then why shouldn't they go by Apple's rules?
PS. The psystar morons already tried the same argument. Verdict: argument FAILED.
Fail. 30% of ones revenue is significant for anybody.
Don't bend over so deep for Apple.
[ Read All Comments ]

As noted by ifoAppleStore, Apple is continuing its trickle of retail store openings this week with a new location opening on Friday, May 25 in Paris. The new Les Quatre Temps store will be...
TiVo owners can control their devices via an iOS app on the iPhone and iPad, but -- for the moment -- can only watch shows on their television.
But that's all going to change in a few months....
Binary Nights has dropped the price of its file-transfer app ForkLift to $0.99, down from $29.99, for a limited time.
ForkLift is a well-reviewed file management app that offers FTP, SFTP,...
Our sister-site TouchArcade notes that Chillingo's excellent physics puzzler Feed Me Oil is free today for both the iPhone and iPad. It's normally $0.99 for iPhone and $1.99 for iPad....