We last month learned that Epic Games had won its antitrust case against Apple in Australia, with the court ruling that the iPhone maker must permit side-loading and third-party payments.
The full reasoning for that decision has now been published – all 900 pages of it – and Apple has accused the judge of underestimating the privacy and security risks to users …
The case hinged on the usual question: What defines the dominance of the App Store?
Apple argues that it does not have a monopoly, as it considers the relevant market to be either “smartphones” or “apps.” Since the company holds a minority share of the smartphone market in most of the countries in which it operates, it believes it cannot be considered to have a dominant position.
Regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution. Edge cases aside, there is no way for a developer to bring an iOS app to market without selling it through the App Store.
The judge in this case took the latter view, which Apple disputed. The company told us:
“Apple does not have a monopoly position in Australia or in any market around the world. We strongly disagree with many decisions in this case, including an improper market definition that has been rejected by other courts. We will continue to seek an outcome that respects our intellectual property and protects the safe, secure experience that consumers and developers have come to expect from the App Store.”
While the judge didn’t impose any specific order on Apple – effectively, only telling it what it must not do – the iPhone maker tells us that the implications raise both privacy and security concerns.
It wasn’t all bad news for the company. The court did agree that Apple has a right to charge for its intellectual property, and that the company’s prohibition of third-party app stores is justified.
The Court cites the EU’s Digital Markets Act as support for the idea that it’s both feasible and reasonable for Apple to permit sideloading of apps onto an iPhone. In response, Apple argues that the app review process is essential to protect users from sketchy apps.
That argument that is of course weakened by the sheer number of fraudulent apps that have made it into the official App Store. A study back in 2021 revealed that scam apps make up almost 2% of the top-grossing apps in this store and have cost iPhone owners around $50 million. Just a couple of months ago, the company accepted into the App Store a dating app found to have exposed the private chats and personal data of tens of thousands of women.
All the same, the company says it rejected almost 2 million apps last year alone, and argues that this is good reason for it to continue to act as a gatekeeper even if its track record is far from perfect.
What’s your take? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Highlighted accessories
Photo: Sasun Bughdaryan/Unsplash
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
