Apple and Google’s App Stores Aren’t Abusing Market Power Yet

Both the App Store and Google Play Store charge app developers who use these features to host apps for users to download, 30% of any fees paid, and prohibit in-app purchases. that circumvent this commission to the operating system provider. Google and Apple have offered huge discounts to smaller players after challenges in their home market, the US and India. Have there been allegations of abuse of market power?

Let’s say you really like a neighborhood store, appreciate its look and feel, the display on store shelves, and be assured you’ll get authentic goods, no knocks. You buy your groceries there regularly. Then you may find that it’s charging you a little more than another store down the road whose overall surroundings you don’t really care about. How strong is your case for insisting that the owner of your favorite store sells you his wares at a price competitive with your competitor on the street?

If you went to the Consumer Court or the Competition Commission of India with your demand, would you be entertained? Of course not, you will be asked to shop from other stores whose prices suit you. It’s straight. Is the case similar to Apple’s App Store or Google’s Play Store?

Not completely. If you use a mobile phone, your choice essentially depends on the Android operating system or Apple’s i-operating system. Once you choose one of these, you are bound to limit your in-app purchases from their respective stores. You are a captive consumer. You are entitled to protection from abuse.

It is as if you are in a deserted city, far away from other places of civilization. There is only one shop in your city. You have no option but to buy your produce from that store. The situation is ripe for the shop to run away from you. You need regulatory protection against abuse of market dominance by stores.

Again, App Store and Play Store are not completely the same. These are not just stores but also a market for users, huge armies of users that app developers may find difficult to reach, but can be hosted on App Store/Play Store.

In the case of Google’s Android, the system allows apps to be downloaded from non-Play Store marketplaces. But there is no guarantee that these apps are free from malware, as this happens when an app is hosted on the Play Store.

Apple and Google charge app developers their 30% commission in exchange for one, giving them access to vast armies of consumers and, two, ensuring that the apps hosted on these stores are free of malware. This has worked fine so far and has allowed thousands of app developers to build a business that would have been born still but for the consumers who gathered at these stores.

However, this does not testify to the institutional objectivity of the system. Let’s say Apple and Google decide to increase their commission from 30% to 70% or 90%. Certainly, requiring a regulator to step in and cap prices would be beyond dispute.

Those who campaign against Big Tech because they see big businesses undervalued with trillions of dollars and a huge influence on the way people live and think, and are alienated from the power of Big Tech, they are at this point. miss out on. So far, Big Tech has done more good than harm to society. If they break down, many of the good things they have done will be nullified. But there is a case for monitoring how they use their market power.

As far as Google and Facebook grabbing the vast share in online advertising, serving as aggregators of content developed by others without sharing revenue with content developers, this is really an abuse of dominance. There should be regulatory action to fix this.

Witch hunts against the likes of Google and Apple are wrong, but competition and fair trade practice is a case for regulators to keep their eyes open and take steps to implement correctives, as and when they are needed.