On the App Store, Apple is legislator, judge, jury, and executioner. Apple makes the rules. It has the final say about which apps you can officially purchase, download, and use on your iPhone or iPad. And importantly, Apple can change its mind at any time and make an app disappear — even to promote Apple’s own apps at the expense of a competitor and even if that competitor is a small business that relies on the App Store for its very existence.
As the world takes a closer look at the power Silicon Valley wields, that status quo is facing new scrutiny. Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) actually believes Apple should be broken up: “Either they run the platform or they play in the store,” she told The Verge in March. The Supreme Court recently let an antitrust lawsuit proceed against Apple. And one recent scandal, in particular, has raised the question yet again: does Apple moderate the App Store fairly?
Apple is fully aware that it’s in the crosshairs: just this week, the company published a new webpage titled “App Store - Principles and Practices” defending the company’s stewardship over the store. The App Store offers “equal opportunities to developers,” Apple argues, going so far as to list all of the apps that compete with its own services (including Google Maps, Facebook Messenger, and Amazon Music) that are freely available on the App Store.
But Apple’s defense is full of holes. Yes, Apple has its guidelines for the App Store and a review process, but after a decade, it’s clear that the company doesn’t consistently enforce them or often chooses to enforce them when it profits Apple. Even for the apps that are allowed on the store, developers still have to fight an uphill battle against Apple’s own services. Spotify — as the company’s EU antitrust lawsuit makes clear — can’t ever be the default music app on an iPhone. Plus, Apple’s 30 percent cut means that if Spotify sells subscriptions through the App Store, it has to charge customers more just to break even. Apple’s rules also prevent Spotify from directing customers in the app to its website so they can subscribe without paying Apple those fees.
The most recent example of these issues is Apple’s seemingly conveniently timed ban of apps that let parents control and monitor what their kids can do on a phone. On April 27th, The New York Times reported that Apple had coincidentally started banning or restricting “at least 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps” right around the same time Apple debuted its own version of that idea in iOS 12. “Apple has approved our software for over five years 37 times,” an OurPact representative told The Verge. “So right now what they’re doing is retroactively enforcing these restrictions that haven’t really been in place.”
According to Apple, the removal of these apps was simply business as usual: the company responded to the Times article by explaining that those apps had simply broken the rules. Apple updated its App Store policies back in 2017 to outlaw consumer-grade apps from using an extremely powerful feature, known as mobile device management (MDM), to enable those parental controls. MDM is generally used by IT departments at companies and schools to manage employees’ devices, and Apple argued that it would be “incredibly risky… for a private, consumer-focused app business to install MDM control over a customer’s device” due to privacy concerns if a bad actor found their way into a kid’s iPhone.
Apple isn’t entirely off base here. In 2010, a company called EchoMetrix, which offered parental control software for parents to monitor their children’s internet traffic, was caught passing that data over to the other side of its business: Pulse, the company’s market research arm.
But if Apple is so concerned about the privacy risks of MDM software, why did it offer that feature in the first place, approve these banned parental control apps for years before it changed the policy in 2017, and still fail to remove them even after that change was enacted? As OurPact — one of the now-banned apps — documented, Apple approved its MDM-using apps dozens of times over the years, including 10 updates in 2018. “From day one, the very first version of OutPact that we submitted to the App Store for review has MDM in it. We’ve clarified questions for the App Review team about our use of MDM,” notes Dustin Dailey, a senior product manager at OurPact. Other apps, like Kidslox and Qustodio, also saw their updates rejected starting in the summer of 2018 when — again, coincidentally — Apple’s Screen Time feature was first announced. (The two companies have since filed an antitrust complaint against Apple.)
Meanwhile, the developers of these apps have banded together to demand an API from Apple that would allow them to offer those services again in an Apple-approved format, even going as far as proposing actual specifications for what that might entail. After all, they argue, if Apple is really committed to a “competitive, innovative app ecosystem,” the company should put its money where its mouth is and let these services compete. This seems unlikely to work, though: according to Dailey, the company was told by Apple that even if they found another approved method to make the app work, the function of blocking apps itself was fundamentally problematic to Apple.
The timing of Apple’s enforcement just isn’t a good look for Apple, even if the company insists that it’s a coincidence, as an Apple spokesperson told The New York Times. (When The Verge reached out to clarify some of these inconsistent policies, Apple declined to comment further.)
Meanwhile, Apple still allows plenty of MDM apps on the App Store, like the business-focused Jamf Now or any number of MDM solutions available on an academic level for managing iOS devices for students. Why does Apple allow employers to leave their customers data vulnerable or schools to put their students’ data at risk, but not allow parents to make similar decisions with devices they’ve purchased for their kids?
The most charitable explanation is that Apple really believes that using these APIs is an unacceptable risk for consumers, and that it allows businesses and schools to use them simply because there’s no other recourse or because those larger institutions are better equipped to handle the risk.
But it’s a view that’s oddly restrictive toward this one type of app, and it doesn’t take into account that nearly every app and service we use comes with a risk of bad actors. After all, Facebook is allowed to stay on the app store, despite its numerous security breaches that have compromised user data, and Amazon can ask for your credit card number without concerns that Jeff Bezos will steal it. So for Apple to say that these parental control apps are too much of a risk feels like an arbitrary line in the sand, and it’s not clear why we should trust big enterprise companies to not steal customer data any more than these now-banned small ones.
At best, Apple’s stewardship here is inconsistent; at worst, it’s biased in favor of its own services. Neither of those reasons says anything positive about Apple’s ability to successfully run or moderate the App Store in a fair manner. (Apple’s former app approval chief says he’s “really worried” about its behavior.) It all highlights the biggest problems with Apple’s walled garden, which is that you live or die by Apple’s whim. Even if you’re a developer who’s been building an app for years, the whole thing can be yanked out from under you in an instant simply because Apple changed the rules of the game.
Apple is well aware that its leadership of the App Store is under fire, and it already seems to be making moves to appear less anti-competitive. Take Valve’s Steam Link app, which finally made its surprise debut nearly a whole year after Apple mysteriously blocked it for “business conflicts with app guidelines” (despite the fact that it worked similarly to other LAN-based remote desktop apps that you could already download from the store). The approval came just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling that Apple would have to face an antitrust case about monopolistic practices on the App Store.
Next week, the company will have its biggest opportunity yet to convince developers that it will treat them fairly. Monday marks the beginning of the company’s Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) where Apple makes its annual pitch to developers on why they should create apps for Apple’s platform and where Apple is expected to come with new software and hardware in tow.
For many, the most important feature in iOS 13 might not be a new Dark Mode or undo gesture. Instead, it’ll be a promise that Apple will let you build a business without fear that some new rule will suddenly bring it crumbling down.
Comments
Apple doesn’t need to be broken up.
Don’t like the App Store, don’t develop apps for it and don’t buy iPhones.
Customers often know (or if they don’t they don’t care) that iPhones are a walled garden. People who do care probably use an Android phone where there’s choice.
If developers stopped developing for the App Store, either Apple would have to start making more apps as replacements, or change their practices to draw developers back.
By Louvre Nimbus on 05.31.19 11:25am
this is a dumb thing to say.
I mean you’re saying spotify, netflix, etc shouldn’t have iOS apps? Because they sure all hate the app store! But a lot of users want iOS apps for these services. There’s little ways in which users and developers can meet in the middle mainly because of opaque and inconsistent Apple policies and their not flexible pricing. They can’t even tell users this in their apps.
By omo on 05.31.19 12:16pm
What I’m saying is this, if big app developers (like Netflix or Spotify) stopped developing iPhone apps, then consumers would be unhappy and may not purchase another iPhone. Apple would probably start to see a drop in iPhone sales and definitely a drop in App store revenue because they would no longer be getting the 30% cut from those apps.
Apple would either have to make their alternatives more attractive to their customers losing out on Spotify and Netflix, or would have to make conditions more favorable to those developers.
I’m sure some percentage of Spotify and Netflix’s customer base would unsubscribe, but Spotify and Netflix have an advantage over Apple in that almost every device on the planet is capable of running those services. Apple has locked itself out of a lot of market share by being so exclusive. I don’t use don’t really use any Apple services (like Apple TV) because they are often limited to Apple devices.
The App store, for the most part, is where Apple chooses to compete. It’s kinda like a store brand product at the grocery store competing with other products.
If it’s really a problem for any party they are free to stop doing things the same way and let the chips fall where they may.
By Louvre Nimbus on 05.31.19 12:39pm
Then tell them to make their own platform to show their devices on. Business is business you gotta pay your dues. Cereal companies need retail stores, or else no one would just order cereal straight from kelloggs, Movies need movie theaters, since studios don’t have their own theaters, I don’t see what the major App Store problem is. Apple isn’t stiffling competition at all.
You have full ability to use spotify instead of Apple Music, you won’t get the same features as apple music but guess what, that’s because you’re on an Apple Phone, using Apple Software, of course theres benefits.
It’s like saying I’m upset my No name random Smart Bulbs don’t work with the Phillips Hue hub, and then lobbying against it. If people didn’t like apple they wouldn’t support it or buy into it. If it really was unfair and that bad Developers never would have done these deals in the beginning. And if Apple Didn’t have apps, then… Guess what no one would buy iPhones.
By king loxx on 05.31.19 12:44pm
I agree.
The article states:
"Spotify — as the company’s EU antitrust lawsuit makes clear — can’t ever be the default music app on an iPhone."
I have used both Spotify and Apple Music on iPhones and the only time I’ve ever seen another app call for a music app is Shazam (owned 100% by Apple), and in that app you can set Spotify as the default music app.
Siri will open Spotify if asked. And I’ve read that if you delete Apple Music Spotify will act as the default music app, but again I don’t know where this applies.
By JFitzgerald on 05.31.19 1:14pm
None of what you’re saying shows that Spotify can be made the default music app. Hint: it absolutely and objectively cannot be made the default one, because Apple purposefully blocks that from happening.
By KidAKidB on 05.31.19 6:36pm
Apple are not obligated to give users that option.
By Wizerud on 05.31.19 8:39pm
I didn’t say they were, but they should. They won’t though because they’re too afraid of making it too easy for people to not use Apple services.
By KidAKidB on 06.01.19 3:18am
Companies should not be obligated to do anything. Why?
Because then you remove the ability for an OS to feel individual, you’ll just have a bunch of vanilla systems that just allow you to do anything. Apple owns Siri and Apple Music, is it a crime for them to make it work better by default for an iPhone? No. People are acting like this is a crime.
The reason people DONT say this about Android is because there is no identity for android, it’s the wild wild west, do whatever you want, some people like that, even I like it sometimes for certain devices.
My point still stands, if people / developers don’t like the structure of the app store they should just pull the app I guess, Honestly no one is getting screwed over. It’s all business. People don’t even wanna pay 99 cents for an App. I don’t have much sympathy for most people.
By king loxx on 06.03.19 11:04am
Microsoft was obligated to give users the option to set their default browser, so why shouldn’t Apple? They’re a "walled garden" and yet 90% of what’s on your Apple device comes from third party companies… Literally the only difference between iOS and, say, Windows, is that iOS requires Apple’s approval to install an application. They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, which can’t be right.
Either Apple develops 100% of their software, or they’re subject to marketplace rules.
By RealmRPGer on 06.04.19 12:50pm
It’s totally the standard argument against vertical monopolies. Ultimately consumers benefit with more choices and companies/capitalism works because there are is competition. Apple denies this and hosts a marketplace that says they are neutral but in reality isn’t. Just because they own also the platform doesn’t mean they can just do whatever they want. Amazon can choose not to sell Google products, but they can’t force Google to modify their products to be sold on their stores because there are laws governing retail and Amazon can run afoul of it.
There are no similar laws yet for app stores, but I guess this is why some politicians are raising this issue.
By omo on 05.31.19 2:26pm
Tge app devs set the price of their apps, not Apple. So tge pricing is totally flexible.
And app devs, like Spotify and Netflix, do go around the 30/15% fee Apple charges by charging users directly through their websites. Apple gets zero percent of those sales. Which is pretty dang tolerant and flexible of Apple.
By JFitzgerald on 05.31.19 12:59pm
In exchange for not having any sign up mechanisms in app or even being allowed to tell users about the website. Meanwhile Apple Music gets to have in app sign up without higher prices.
By Zecharixs on 05.31.19 7:00pm
Yeah Apple Music signup is the part of Apple ID features and should be reached from all of the system built-in apps. If not it’d be crazy to login elsewhere, be bad UX.
So let’s force Apple to charge additional 30% upon signup via Music app? That have no sense at all ‘cause Apple going to get that money anyway, so they could drop the price of subscription.
‘Nother way round is to force split of default music player and streaming service. Remember the time when iTunes Store and Videos were the part of iTunes app on iPhone?
By Illabo on 06.01.19 4:05am
God, I wouldn’t want to have you as a president with such an attitude… There’d be crime through the roof, everyone doing whatever they want and you’d be OK with it.
By splus on 05.31.19 12:28pm
That is absolutely ridiculous of you to say. So basically, if devs don’t like Apple’s way, they should just go elsewhere? That is the epitome of what anti-trust is for.
By KidAKidB on 05.31.19 6:34pm
Such a bad argument, it’s like saying: Don’t like the Earth? Then don’t live there.
You have to go everywhere you can to make money for your business and without the App Store you simply have less potential than the competition, less chance to make money etc. There’s no choice. It’s forced because of Apple’s sheer market size. However, I do not believe the solution is to break Apple up.
By trabuki on 06.01.19 5:41am
Can Sony be trusted with the PlayStation store? Can Microsoft be trusted with the Xbox Store?
By mguniverse on 05.31.19 11:26am
Someone needs to be the judge. Apple, Sony and MS can be trusted because they need to sell their platforms to customers. Apple users are happy with Apple’s judgement, and they value being in a safe ecosystem over having all the options in a scary jungle of malware and spying. Those who don’t share that sentiment move to Android. It’s really that simple.
By I am not Spartacus on 05.31.19 11:39am
Please, read the article first.
By splus on 05.31.19 12:31pm
The article doesn’t address these even though they’re very similar.
By Louvre Nimbus on 05.31.19 1:01pm
They really aren’t. I can buy games from outside the PS store. I can’t buy apps from outside the app store.
By mrkite on 05.31.19 2:23pm
The article does address this indirectly, in that those are not similar at all.
By omo on 05.31.19 2:30pm
Nope, video game consoles are absolutely not similar in any way to an iPhone or iPad/iOS.
By KidAKidB on 05.31.19 6:36pm
Your ignorance is hanging out.
By Wizerud on 05.31.19 8:48pm