FROM EPIC TO SPOTIFY, A COALITION AGAINST THE POLICIES OF THE APPLE STORE
All against Apple. The recent controversy over the fees applied by the American company for the apps in its store have raised the protests and anger of many companies around the world. Hence the birth of a real non-profit organization to sensitize the world on the issue and lead Apple to a radical change in its policies.
The "Coalition for app fairness", with Epic Games and fashionbeautypalace Spotify at the head of the large group, aims to support legal changes that force Apple to review much of its commercial policiesand his way of approaching external developers. The organization has created a rather large document with ten principles that should be applied not only to the apple store but also to all other app stores.

Unity is strength
The coalition, already widespread globally, techgeeksblogger will have two offices, one in Washington and the other in Brussels and includes names of a certain weight in the tech industry: in addition to the aforementioned Epic and Spotify, note the presentation of Match , but also from Blockchain, Deezer, Basecamp, Blix, Tile and the developers of the European Publisher Council, News Media Europe and Protonmail . The group aims to broaden its range of action, so that things can change and bring as many companies as possible to join the cause.
In the first place, it is the commission between triotechdigital 15% and 30% that Apple imposes on all apps that use its payment system.and the rather strict set of rules that developers must comply with in order to be present in the portal. The organization considers these conditions too restrictive, specifically created to place Apple itself in a dominant position on the fees to be applied to user purchases.
Unfair competition
The coalition believes that this taxation has brought computertechreviews the coffers of Cupertino revenues of over 15 billion dollars , reducing the income of developers, forced to pay part of their revenues to Apple and, consequently, also the purchasing power of consumers.
According to the organization, taxation would become gethealthandbeauty particularly unfair because it is imposed on apps that compete directly with Apple, putting them at a clear disadvantage and forcing developers to implement higher prices than those of Tim Cook and associates, creating less competitiveness and spending. on average higher for users.
Principles
"We believe that every app developer has a right to
fair treatment and that every consumer should have complete control over their
device. Our App Store principles will ensure a level playing field for
platforms like Apple and a consistent standard of conduct throughout the world.
ecosystem of apps " . This is the manifesto of intent of the organization,
from which the ten principles specially designed for Apple but applicable to
all the stores on the market are then developed.
1) The first point criticizes the obligation for developers
to use only one exclusive app store and the auxiliary services of those who
manage it, such as payment systems;
2) The second wants to go against those who force developers
to be blocked on a single platform and accept pre-established business models;
3) The third point wants to lead developers to have access
to the same interfaces and technical information that the store owner makes
available to his developers;
4) The fourth says that every developer should always have
access to a store if their app meets the security, privacy and quality
requirements;
5) The fifth obliges not to use the data of a developer to
compete against him.
6) The sixth point speaks of the right of a developer to be
able to communicate directly with their usersthrough your app without having to
go through the store anytime and anywhere;
7) The seventh would like a commitment by store owners not
to give more prominence to proprietary apps and services by directly
interfering with user preferences;
8) The eighth request speaks of the commissions that
developers are required to pay and which must never be unfair , unreasonable
and discriminatory;
9) Principle 9 focuses on inter-store competition, with online
store owners not supposed to prohibit or discourage the use of competing
stores;
10) The last principle, finally, proposes a transparency of
rules, policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing, which must be
clearly visible to all and applied consistently and objectively, with notices
of any changes and quick and easy procedures to manage disputes.
In short, the reason for the dispute is that 30% of
commissions applied on in-app purchases from Apple, the same that has sparked
the recent grievances of Epic Games and Spotify . Companies are asking for the
possibility of bypassing the system and communicating directly with their
users, independently managing transactions and without necessarily having to go
through the apple filter.
Cupertino's answer
For its part, Apple does not seem to want to give up its
policy and its closed and tightly controlled ecosystem too easily.
Hence the birth of a marketing campaign to explain one's
choices and policies: the various articles edited by Apple itself underline how
the system, albeit restrictive, leads to having only the best and safest apps
in your hands, with a catalog rich and easily navigable global, a great
attention to privacy and security and quick and easy refund procedures.
Apple talks about developers who have earned over $ 155
billion from the Apple Store , a platform that employs over 2.1 million people.
Time for change?
The company's practices have been under the eye of
international regulators for years. The ban on Fortnite, the complaints of
Spotify and the birth of this coalition on a global level are doing nothing but
increase the dose and put everything more and more in the spotlight. Apple has
always made its closed and controlled system a strength , boasting of its
restrictive rules and its highly customized and controlled operating system. It
limits the freedom of users and developers, but offers an ecosystem that does
not want to have any gaps or interference.
A policy that users have always accepted quite willingly,
but which over time has come up against the requests of developers and the
greater freedom offered by competing systems. iOS has always been fine as it
was intended but users have never been offered any kind of real alternative.
A possible compromise?
It is normal for Apple to try to privilege itself and its
world, thanks to the image it has built and policies that are often
questionable but that have made it what it is and transformed into the global
technological shredder it is today. At the same time it makes senses that
developers would like to receive the same treatment on every system and on
every platform.
These are the two sides of a coin on which it is right to
make more than a reflection, both on the part of Apple, which inevitably will
have to try to open up to a technological world that has always asked for
fairness and freedom.and to which more say should be given, both by the
developers themselves, who thanks to the Stores gain space and visibility and
cannot expect to do good and bad weather on closed operating systems and
specially designed to travel only on proprietary devices and nothing else.
iOS is not Android and those who use it know that it will
have less freedom and possibilities from it, as it should be for developers. As
always, it will be necessary to find the right compromise to please everyone,
the meeting point that does not distort the very philosophy at the base of the
Apple world and that does not transform developers into servants of much larger
companies, preserving freedom and possibilities, fundamental in a technological
world dominated by giants but which needs like the bread of small businesses
and their far-sighted ambitions.