Clash between Titans: A Breach in Apple’s Unbreachable Platform Flow

24

September

2025

5/5 (1)

As defined by MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research (CISR), a “mono-home” is a digital platform strategy that aims to keep users within its ecosystem (Woerner & Weill, 2025). The most famous company to have built and relied on that method has been Apple. This blog post aims to exhibit the unique case where Epic Games broke Apple’s tightly regulated platform flow breaching outside its ecosystem. Thereby, I will be focusing specifically on Apple’s value loss, the company’s response strategy and which steps it could have taken to prevent the status quo.

Apple’s Unmatched Mono-Home Ecosystem
Through a dense ecosystem and a close product tie, Apple has been able to achieve unmatched customer loyalty and an extraordinary value stream. New research now shows how this effect has been amplified with each additional Apple purchase by the consumer. With a growing product tie come increased transition costs in case users wish to exit Apple’s platforms and increased sunk costs, as previous Apple purchases lose their value (Chang, 2025).

One of Apple’s largest platform-integrated services has always been its app store. To leverage network effects and stay competitive to platforms such as Google’s play store or the Microsoft Store, Apple allows external app developers to publicly provide their applications (Lindenmayr & Foerderer, 2022). Nevertheless, the tech giant has established guidelines and arguably anti-competitive practices to keep not only users, but also developers from operating on competing platforms.

Keeping this so-called “walled garden” – meaning the practice of tightly controlling a closed platform ecosystem – ensures that Apple has control over everything which could constitute a leak in its platform flow. Such practices have included limiting developers to their Swift coding language or a limited pool of pre-approved third-party coding frameworks, and prohibiting the sideloading of apps (the process of installing apps from outside of Apple’s official app store) (Yun, 2021).

Epic Games’ Breach on Platform Flow & Apple’s Counter Strategy
In 2022, Epic Games first used a process called “steering” by leading users outside of the app store and allow them to make purchases, which excluded Apple’s 30% commission and thereby effectively circumvented Apple’s In-App Purchasing (IAP) system. The impact was significant. Other apps like Spotify followed suit shortly after and Bloomberg has estimated that the loss over the platform flow could result in Apple losing around $4,1 billion in revenue to app developers (D’Anastasio, 2025).

Apple, realizing the thread to one of their core income cash flows, went ahead and removed Epic’s most popular app Fortnite from their app store. Epic Games then subsequently suit Apple over anti-competitive practices. According to Epic, Apple ended up spending a total of $100 million on the lawsuit proceedings (Owen, 2025) to set the tone for other (smaller) developer through a landmark legal case.

 This strategy follows the playbook for digital leaders as outlined in “How platform leaders win”. Through the lawsuit, Apple aims to act as an enforcing orchestrator that set the “rules of the game” (Hidding et al., 2011), not only for Epic Games, but for similar developers thereafter.

In addition, Apple adjusted to the threat by changing the way transactions outside of the app store work. After the settlement concluded that Apple had to allow apps to offer payment outside the store’s ecosystem, they implemented a mandatory 27% commission on all of such purchases on the web and banned any kind of marketing within apps to encourage users to exit the app before paying. Notwithstanding the new disclosure screen that must be shown before leaving the app, warning the user about potentially unsafe websites.

All in all, Apple succeeded in mitigating the threat by leaving developers the freedom to “steer”, whilst enforcing its legacy monetarization system practically rendering the method useless. However, its practices left a mark on all app store providers in the industry and have gotten the beloved brand under unprecedented scrutiny.

Conclusion and Revision of Apple’s Strategy
In hindsight of this and the respective lawsuits fought against Apple’s competitor platforms; it can be said that Apple risked nearly being labelled a “monopoly” in the US case and decreased overall value in the market as developers have been uniquely exposed to the predatory practices that have been quietly utilized by platforms for a long time. This outrage therefore directly pressured Apple into the creation of the small business program for instance, where apps with revenue under $1 million must only pay 15% commission (Apple Inc, n.d.).

Thus, Apple would have been wise to value feedback and transparency early on and negotiate a lowered commission rate with Epic Games instead of going so far as to ban its apps outright. This would have avoided a public lawsuit and the risk of hurting its overall customer loyalty. Lastly, the platform could have implemented security measures such as the disclosure screen and out-of-app commissions on its own terms, ensuring to future-proof its “walled garden”.

References

Apple Inc. (n.d.). App Store Small Business Program. Apple Developer. Retrieved September 24, 2025, from https://developer.apple.com/app-store/small-business-program/

Chang, J.-H. (2025). Secret power of the product ecosystem: A network perspective from the case of Apple. Journal of Business Research, 200, 115641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115641

D’Anastasio, C. (2025, May 29). Mobile-Game Makers Poised for Windfall Following Win Over Apple. Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-29/mobile-game-makers-poised-for-windfall-following-win-over-apple

Hidding, G. J., Williams, J., & Sviokla, J. J. (2011). How platform leaders win. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(2), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661111109752

Lindenmayr, M., & Foerderer, J. (2022). Qualitätssicherung in Digitalen Plattform-Ökosystemen: Implementierung von Kontrollsystemen am Beispiel von Apple iOS. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 59(5), 1312–1322. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-022-00904-6

Owen, M. (2025, July 5). Billion dollar battle: Picking an App Store fight with Apple cost Epic Games greatly. AppleInsider. https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/05/07/billion-dollar-battle-picking-an-app-store-fight-with-apple-cost-epic-games-greatly

Woerner, S., & Weill, P. (2025, May 12). Top-Performing Companies Reuse Four Digital Platform Designs | MIT CISR. https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/2025_0501_DigitalPlatformDesigns_WoernerWeill Yun, J. M. (2021). App Stores, Aftermarkets, & Antitrust. Arizona State Law Journal, 53(4), 1283–1328.

Please rate this

Will Apple Kill Language Learning?

18

September

2025

5/5 (3)

At Apple’s recent event, one feature stood out: Live Translation. With the newest iPhone and AirPods Pro 3, you can hold real-time conversations across languages (Apple, 2025). No app switching, no typing into Google Translate – just talking. It feels like a big step toward removing everyday barriers.

But this is also about strategy. Apple isn’t only adding a feature; it’s strengthening its platform. Every new function makes the iPhone–AirPods ecosystem more valuable and harder to leave. Translation becomes not just a tool but another reason to stay inside Apple’s world (Tiwana, 2014).

The rollout also shows how regulation matters. Because of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, Live Translation won’t even be available in many European countries at first (TechRadar, 2025). A technology built to connect people is itself limited by borders.

What interests me most, though, is the cultural impact. In countries like the Netherlands, where I study, English already dominates. Many people never feel the need to learn Dutch because they can get by in English everywhere. With real-time translation, this trend could spread even further. It might make life easier for internationals, but it could also weaken motivation to learn local languages and reduce cultural exchange.

And then there’s a practical side: what about all the moments when you don’t have your phone or headphones with you? Do we really want to depend so heavily on technology that we can’t order food, ask for directions, or start a conversation without it?

I see both sides. For international students, travelers, and businesses, Live Translation could be transformative. At the same time, there’s something valuable in struggling through a new language, in the misunderstandings and small victories along the way.

So what do you think? Will tools like this enrich communication, or will they take something important away?

References

Apple. (2025, September 9). New Apple Intelligence features are available today. Apple Newsroom. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/new-apple-intelligence-features-are-available-today/

TechRadar. (2025, September 11). AirPods’ new Live Translation feature won’t be available in much of Europe at launch. https://www.techradar.com/audio/earbuds-airpods/airpods-new-live-translation-feature-might-be-full-of-european-languages-but-the-feature-wont-be-available-in-much-of-europe

Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Morgan Kaufmann.

Please rate this

From TV to Tech: Who owns the future of sports?

11

September

2025

5/5 (1)

For decades, live sports were the backbone of traditional television. Broadcasters like ESPN, Sky, or Ziggo Sport built their business models around exclusive rights, with fans tied to whichever package carried their favourite league. That setup is being disrupted. Tech platforms such as Amazon and Apple are now competing aggressively for the same rights, changing not only how sports are delivered but also why they are valuable.

Amazon has already secured NFL Thursday Night Football and is finalising an NBA deal worth an eye-watering $77 billion over 11 years (Reuters, 2024). Apple took a different path with Major League Soccer: every match is streamed exclusively on Apple TV+ through a ten-year global deal (Apple, 2022). In Europe, the trend is clear too. Ziggo Sport recently extended its hold on UEFA competitions, while Viaplay locked Formula 1 into a long-term agreement for the Dutch market (Formula One World Championship Limited, 2024; VodafoneZiggo, 2022). Fans may have more digital options, but access is increasingly fragmented.

The real shift is in the business model. Traditional broadcasters had to make sports profitable on their own, through advertising and subscriptions. Platforms like Amazon and Apple see sports as part of something bigger. For Amazon, live rights add value to Prime, encouraging shopping and ad spending. For Apple, the strengthening its ecosystem of devices and services (Zhao, 2024). In this logic, sports are not just content – they are tools to keep customers locked into digital platforms.

Still, disruption brings headaches. Rights are extremely expensive, and even big tech faces pressure to justify the costs. A recent survey of Apple’s MLS deal highlighted widespread dissatisfaction among fans over pricing and accessibility (McCain, 2025). And as Hutchins et al. (2019) pointed out years ago, streaming risks repeating television’s old patterns: higher costs, multiple subscriptions, and shrinking reach.

So where does this leave us? Personally, I enjoy the convenience of streaming, but I find it frustrating to need three different subscriptions to follow a single season. What about you – do you see tech platforms as the future of sports, or are they simply creating the new version of cable TV?

References:
Apple. (2022). Apple and Major League Soccer to present all MLS matches around the world for 10 years, beginning in 2023. Apple Newsroom. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/06/apple-and-mls-to-present-all-mls-matches-for-10-years-beginning-in-2023/

Formula One World Championship Limited. (2024). Formula 1® and Viaplay Group agree long-term partnership to exclusively broadcast F1 in the Netherlands and Nordic countries. https://corp.formula1.com/formula-1-and-viaplay-group-agree-long-term-partnership-to-exclusively-broadcast-f1-in-the-netherlands-and-nordic-countries/

Hutchins, B., Li, B., & Rowe, D. (2019). Over-the-top sport: live streaming services, changing coverage rights markets and the growth of media sport portals. Media Culture & Society, 41(7), 975–994.

McCain, R. (2025, August 8). Study Reveals Growing Discontent with MLS & Apple TV Deal. Cord Cutters News. https://cordcuttersnews.com/study-reveals-growing-discontent-with-mls-apple-tv-deal

Reuters. (2024). NBA signs broadcasting deal with Disney, Amazon, Comcast worth $77 billion. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/nba-signs-broadcasting-deal-with-disney-amazon-comcast-2024-07-24/

VodafoneZiggo. (2022, November 10). Ziggo Sport acquires exclusive rights to UEFA club football. VodafoneZiggo. https://www.vodafoneziggo.nl/en/nieuws/ziggo-sport-acquires-exclusive-rights-uefa-club-football/

Zhao, S. (2024). Research on pricing and business models of sports event broadcasting. SHS Web of Conferences, 207, 03012.

Please rate this

Bridging the Gap Between AR, AI and the Real World: A Glimpse Into the Future of Smart Technology

12

September

2024

5/5 (3)

Apple’s recent keynote showcased new products, including the iPhone’s groundbreaking AI integration. However, when you break it down, what Apple has really done is combine several existing technologies and seamlessly integrate them, presenting it as a revolutionary technology. This sparked my imagination of what could already be possible with existing technologies and what our future might look like. This sparked my imagination about what could already be possible with today’s technology—and what our future might look like.

Apple introduced advanced visual intelligence, allowing users to take a picture of a restaurant, shop, or even a dog, and instantly access a wealth of information. Whether it’s reviews, operating hours, event details, or identifying objects like vehicles or pets, this technology uses AI to analyze visual data and provide real-time insights, bridging the gap between the physical and digital worlds. Tools like Google Image Search and ChatGPT have been available for some time, but Apple has taken these capabilities and seamlessly integrated them into its ecosystem, making them easily accessible and more user-friendly [1]. The Apple Vision Pro merges AR and VR, controlled by moving your eyes and pinching your fingers [2]. I’ve tried it myself, and it was incredibly easy to navigate, with digital content perfectly overlaying the physical world. Now imagine the possibilities if Apple integrated the iPhone’s visual intelligence into the Vision Pro. This headset wouldn’t just be for entertainment or increasing work productivity; it could become an everyday wearable, a powerful tool for real-time interaction with your surroundings.

Picture walking through a city wearing the Vision Pro. By simply looking at a restaurant and pinching your fingers, you could instantly pull up reviews, check the menu, or even make a reservation. Or, if you see someone wearing a piece of clothing you like, you could instantly check online where to buy it, without needing to stop. With these capabilities, the Vision Pro could bring the physical and digital worlds closer together than ever before, allowing users to interact with their environment in ways we’re only beginning to imagine.

Do you think the existing technologies can already do this? Do you think this is what the future would look like? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Sources:

[0] All images generate by DALL-E, a GPT made by ChatGPT.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uarNiSl_uh4&t=1744s

[2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-vision-pro-available-in-the-us-on-february-2/

Please rate this

How the EU’s recent USB-C standardisation regulation impacts Apple

13

October

2022

5/5 (2)

On October 4, 2022, The European Parliament voted in an overwhelming majority in favour of forcing USB-C as the universal charging port across a broad range of consumer electronics, including Apple’s iPhone which still uses its own Lightning connector technology apart from other smartphones. According to the European Union, the legislation is part of the wider European Union’s efforts to make products within the EU more environmentally friendly, to reduce electronics waste, and to simplify consumers lives (Guarascio, 2022).

By 2024, all devices covered by the legislation and sold in the 27 European countries will be required to use the universal USB-C port to enable charging over a cable. Under the new rules, manufacturers will be forced to include USB-C ports in all smartphones, laptops, tablets, headphones, and other electronics. The charging speeds are also being harmonised for devices with faster charging capabilities, which would enable users to charge their devices with the same speeds using any compatible charger (Guarascio, 2022).

Apple and USB-C

Currently, only the newer generation Apple MacBooks (2015 or newer), iMacs (2016 or newer), and iPad Pros and Airs (2018 or newer) have USB-C ports. Other Apple products, such as the AirPods, Apple Watch, and Mac accessories like the Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard do not have a USB-C port and still rely on the Lightning connector. The new EU regulation will require newer generations of these products to be changed as well.

Prediction

While the EU’s new laws would apply only in European countries, the latest changes would only force Apple to move towards USB-C worldwide, as it would be illogical for Apple to solely sell iPhones with a USB-C connector in Europe. However, many analysts think that Apple will temporarily switch to USB-C in its iPhone line-up for one year before going all wireless, and thus, ditch the wired charging connector at all (Gurman, 2022). This would be a risky and crucial decision, since quite some electronic devices still require a wired connection to phones to transfer data, such as many basic car infotainment systems which only support a wired version of Apple CarPlay and/or Android Auto.

References

Guarascio, F., 2022. Apple forced to change charger in Europe as EU approves overhaul. [online] Reuters. Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-parliament-adopts-rules-common-charger-electronic-devices-2022-10-04/> [Accessed 12 October 2022].

Gurman, M., 2022. Apple’s Move to USB-C Is Just a Stopgap Before Its Wireless Future. [online] Bloomberg. Available at: <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-10-09/will-the-iphone-15-get-usb-c-port-will-apple-aapl-release-a-wireless-iphone-l91edtxt>

Please rate this

Apple’s Anti-Tracking Disruption

11

October

2022

No ratings yet.

“Privacy. That’s Apple. Privacy is a fundamental human right. It’s also one of our core values. Which is why we design our products and services to protect it. That’s the kind of innovation we believe in.” (Apple Inc., 2022). Every Apple user has probably heard something in line with this before and it is not necessarily a lie: with the release of iOS 14.5 in April 2021, Apple launched a new privacy feature called “App Tracking Transparency”. With this feature, Apple forces app developers to ask users for permission to “track” them, that is share your data with third parties for ad-targeting purposes. Since the release of this feature, it has proven to be a major disruptor on the global ad market – in May 2022 only 25% of users agreed with apps tracking them (Lukovitz, 2022). This disruption is causing a major impact on revenue for big players: it is estimated that in 2022 Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature will cost Facebook $16 billion, YouTube $2.2 billion, Snap $546 million, and Twitter $323 million (O’Flaherty, 2022). In addition, the disruption is also impacting smaller businesses and start-ups that rely on personalized marketing to acquire new customers. Because of ATT, they have seen the cost of acquiring new customers rise and have had to cut back on marketing spending (McGee, 2022). This disruption caused by Apple has required big organizations like Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (owner of Facebook) to reevaluate their business model and find a way to get the lost revenue back and keep their shareholders happy. 

Disruptive innovations are known to displace current market leaders, Google and Meta, and to see one or more new market-leading firms arise. Apple will say that the one benefitting from its anti-tracking crusade is you, the user, and, as we mentioned something similar before: this is not necessarily a lie. However, one with a business mindset and a critical view has probably seen it coming from miles away: the major benefiter is Apple itself. Appsumer reports that between the second quarter of 2021 (after the release of ATT) and the second quarter of 2022, Apple Search Ads (ASA) – Apple’s platform for selling advertisement space to advertisers – has experienced a major boost. Advertisers’ adoption of ASA grew by 4% to 94.8%, while that of Meta and Google decreased by respectively 3% and 1.7% to 82.8% and 94.8% (McCartney, 2022). Perhaps more interesting, are the changes that occurred in advertisers’ share-of-wallet (SOW). ASA’s SOW increased by 5% to 15%, while Meta’s SOW dropped by 4% to 28% and Google’s stayed the same at 34% (McCartney, 2022).

Apple has used the ATT feature very cleverly as a first hit in challenging the duopoly Google and Meta in the advertising market. While Apple is expected to make an almost negligible $5 billion in ad revenue in 2022 compared to Google ($209 billion) and Meta ($115 billion) (Kachalova, 2022), this difference is most definitely to slink in the coming years. Google and Meta are slowly adjusting to the reality because they know: Apple wants a share and will go to extreme measures to get it and with Apple’s strong ecosystem and large userbase, there is very little they can do about it.

Apple Inc. (2022). Privacy. Accessed on October 2022, van Apple.com: https://www.apple.com/privacy/

Kachalova, E. (2022, October 3). Big Tech owes you money. Find out how much. Accessed on October 2022, van AdGuard: https://adguard.com/en/blog/personal-data-cost-money.html

Lukovitz, K. (2022, May 5). Privacy Update: ATT IDFA Opt-In Rate At 25% Overall, But Varies By Vertical. Accessed on October 11, 2022, van Mediapost: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/373613/privacy-update-att-idfa-opt-in-rate-at-25-overal.html

McCartney, J. (2022, September 6). Appsumer Report: Apple Privacy Measures Provides a Boost for Apple Search Ads and Favors Large Advertisers. Accessed on October 2022, van Business Wire: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220906005427/en/Appsumer-Report-Apple-Privacy-Measures-Provides-a-Boost-for-Apple-Search-Ads-and-Favors-Large-Advertisers

McGee, P. (2022, August 9). Small businesses count cost of Apple’s privacy changes. Accessed on October 2022, van Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/small-businesses-count-cost-of-apples-privacy-changes/

O’Flaherty, K. (2022, April 23). Apple’s Privacy Features Will Cost Facebook $12 Billion. Accessed on October 2022, van Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/apple-just-issued-stunning-12-billion-blow-to-facebook/?sh=58eb37031907

Please rate this

Planned obsolescence in the digital age and the Coase Conjecture

2

October

2022

5/5 (1)

Is the idea of planned obsolescence still relevant in the digital age? Does the Coase Conjecture cause firms to engage in planned obsolescence?

During the time at Erasmus University, students of BIM were introduced to the Coase conjecture in the context of Information Strategy and pricing in monopolies. How firms decide the price for their digital information goods, what factors influence upward and downward pricing pressure and how are information goods substantially different than physical products were topics that were confronted during the course.

The Coase Conjecture

In economic theory, the Coase Conjecture is an argument that states that a monopolist firm selling a durable (digital, in this context) good that can not be re-sold is competing against its future self by having to price their good lower than they would wish for. This is possible because the customers anticipate that the firm will eventually have to lower the price of the product.

The mechanism works as follows: first, having sold the monopoly quantity at the monopoly price, the seller would like to sell a bit more, since she does not need to cut prices on the units she already sold. Second, consumers will rationally anticipates such price cuts, and thus will hold on buying until the future, lower, price is implemented by the monopolist. Lastly, provided that the seller can change prices sufficiently fast, the price must lean towards marginal cost rather quickly, that is, the price will be the marginal cost (Coase, 1972). Due to the nature of digital goods, the marginal costs tend to be zero: the digital goods have high fixed costs for development, very low marginal costs for distribution.

This argument has implications for firms in the digital goods market that behave almost like monopolists.

What are some ways companies deal with this effect in order to generate more value for their shareholders? Are these methods unethical?

Planned obsolescence

A common mechanism firms adopt to moderating the Coase Conjecture effect is Planned Obsolescence.
Planned Obsolescence is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the practice of making or designing something (such as a car) in such a way that it will only be usable for a short time so that people will have to buy another one”. Such practice has often been seen as highly unethical and sometimes illegal, to the point at which governments are considering enforcing stronger policy against it (Moore, 2021).

The idea of “planned obsolescence” has been around for about 100 years. It is said to have begun in the automobile industry, when GM decided that, to increase flagging sales, the company would make new models every year. Another example is in the fashion industry, where designers decide what people wear each year, and new designs tempt people to buy clothes they don’t need. This concept has spread to many industries, especially consumer goods, and most notably computing devices (McElhearn & Long, 2022).

Planned obsolescence in the digital world

In a digital context, planned obsolescence refers to, for example, firms deliberately releasing updates into their devices, think about Apple and its iOS, or Microsoft with Window, which over time make the devices much slower and provide virtually no benefit or features to end users. The users are then virtually coerced into buying new devices from the firms that can handle the new operating systems more efficiently. The issue with planned obsolescence in digital goods is closely connected to the technological advancements. Faster chips, new protocols, novel technologies are valid reasons for upgrading new devices, but to whom is it beneficial to release a new iPhone every year that is fairly similar to the previous year’s one?

Over time, firms like Apple or Microsoft discontinue supporting older operating systems and remove compatibility for new software on devices which are not very old, opening the company to criticism. The meme shared via Instagram by Steve Jobs’ daughter following Apple’s release of the new iPhone 14 says it all. On one hand, the company makes very small upgrades to sell new devices, and on the other quickly renders older devices obsolete. Tech giants like Apple were not spared several lawsuits, complaints and investigations about planned obsolescence, particularly over iPhones (McElhearn & Long, 2022).

Is there anything wrong with a company making a better device than the old one frequently?

Is it different if this is done deliberately or for the sake of offering a better product?

Should firms be encouraged to design products with a strong life cycle?

Are there more ethical choices than planned obsolescence a firm can make when it comes to countering the Coase Conjecture effect?

Let me know the answer in the comments!

References

Coase, R.H. (1972) “Durability and monopoly,” The Journal of Law and Economics, 15(1), pp. 143–149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/466731.

Fabbrocino, R. (2022) Planned obsolescence – the obsolescence of a product is planned, designed, and built into it by its manufacturer, Lampoon Magazine. Available at: https://www.lampoonmagazine.com/article/2022/03/17/planned-obsolescence/ (Accessed: October 2, 2022).

McElhearn, K. and Long, J. (2022) Apple’s planned obsolescence: IOS 16, macos Ventura drop support for many models, The Mac Security Blog. Available at: https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obsolescence/ (Accessed: October 2, 2022).

Moore, D. (2021) UK government to tackle planned obsolescence with ‘tough new rules’, Circular Online. Circular Online. Available at: https://www.circularonline.co.uk/news/uk-government-to-tackle-planned-obsolescence-with-tough-new-rules/ (Accessed: October 2, 2022).

Please rate this

Is Apple Allowed To Scan Its ‘Rotten’ Part?

9

October

2021

No ratings yet.

At what point does it become acceptable to violate someone’s privacy? For some people, the answer may be never. They will argue that privacy is a human right and point to article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights. Here It is stated that no person should have their privacy arbitrarily interfered with (United Nations, n.d.). Most people, however, will agree that it is ok to breach someone’s privacy if they are a big enough threat to society. This would explain why there is no public outcry every time the police listen to phone calls of suspected criminals or terrorists. But would it still be ok if everybody’s privacy would be violated to increase safety and stop criminals?

For Apple, the biggest company in the world, the answer to this question is yes. Their reasoning: to make their products safer for children. In August, they revealed plans to scan the files in everybody’s iCloud storage to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) (Whittaker, 2021).

This decision led to a lot of backlash against Apple. Everyone agrees that this is a serious topic and companies should make their products and services safe for children. But some experts see this decision as a pandora’s box and are scared that governments will use this technology one day as a surveillance tool. Other people are afraid of the possibility of false positives, where innocent people will be flagged as predators (Barrett & Hay Newman, 2021).

In September, Apple came with the announcement that the project was being paused. They will take the coming months to improve the system but are not abandoning it (Barrett & Hay Newman, 2021). I would love to hear what you think about this topic in the comments! Should Apple be able scan everybody’s files to detect CSAM or is this violation of privacy too big? Is the threat of this being used as a surveillance tool a real threat, given Apple’s track record of not cooperating with governments?

References

Barrett, B., & Hay Newman, L. (2021, September 3). Apple Backs Down on Its Controversial Photo-Scanning Plans. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-icloud-photo-scan-csam-pause-backlash/

United Nations. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations; United Nations. Retrieved October 9, 2021, from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Whittaker, Z. (2021, August 5). Apple confirms it will begin scanning iCloud Photos for child abuse images. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/05/apple-icloud-photos-scanning/

Please rate this

Epic Games vs. Apple – the court has spoken

15

September

2021

No ratings yet.

A little over a year ago, Fortnite uploaded a video to YouTube making their ‘fight’ against Apple known to the public (Fortnite, 2020). In short, the developer of Fortnite, Epic Games, does not agree with the 30% cut that Apple takes from in-app purchases, claiming that it is unnecessarily high. Secretly, Epic Games implemented an option to make in-app purchases directly via Epic instead of Apple, offering customers a reduced price for using this option. Since this violated the App Store’s guidelines, Apple removed Fortnite from its App Store (Leswing, 2021).   

As you can guess, lawsuits followed, and on the 10th of September 2021, a verdict was reached. 

Epic Games, who sued Apple for monopolistic behavior and breach of antitrust laws, were judged to be mostly in the wrong. Apple owns a market share of 55% in the mobile gaming market, and though that is high, it does not make you a monopoly, it simply makes you successful, is essentially what the judge ruled (Leswing, 2021).

Apple, who sued Epic Games for violating the App store’s guidelines, was judged to be in the right. Epic Games had been able to earn revenue through its direct purchasing system in Fortnite, even after Apple had removed the game from their App store, because customers could still play the game if it was already installed. The judge ruled that Epic Games needed to pay Apple the 30% commission over those earnings, which amounted to about 6 million dollars (Clover, 2021).

Epic Games’ CEO making public that they paid Apple the ordered amount.

The only small victory for App developers comes in the form of a ruling that implies that Apple should allow App developers to be able to link to an external ‘storefront’, for example the company’s website, for purchases. However, direct in-app purchases will still not be allowed (Leswing, 2021). 

Understandably, Epic Games disagrees with the court’s ruling, and has appealed the decision.

I can’t say I can pick a side. The platform that Apple has created with the App store brings tremendous value to developers, with millions of users getting immediate access to your product once you put it in the App store, allowing you to create revenue. It is only fair that Apple takes a cut of that revenue.

However, for small developers, 30% does seem like a lot, and could make it difficult to become profitable. Fortunately for them, Apple decided to cut the commission rate to 15% for developers that do not have annual sales of more than 1 million dollars on the App store (Leswing, 2020).

See, that’s the thing for me. Epic Games earns billions with Fortnite over all the different platforms on which it is offered (Gilbert, 2021). Its removal from the App store likely only caused a very small dent in its profitability. This ‘fight’ that Epic Games is picking with Apple, even insinuating that Apple’s practices are ‘1984’-like in the earlier referenced video, just sounds greedy to me. 

What do you think? Is Epic Games’ fight justified, or is it a case of gold fever? 

Sources

Clover, J. (2021, September 13). Epic Games Pays Apple $6 Million as Ordered by Court. Retrieved on 14-09-2021 from:  https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/

Fortnite (2020, August 13). Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4

Leswing, K. (2020, November 18). Apple will cut App Store commissions by half to 15% for small app makers. Retrieved on 14-09-2021 from: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/18/apple-will-cut-app-store-fees-by-half-to-15percent-for-small-developers.html

Leswing, K. (2021, September 10). Apple can no longer force developers to use in-app purchasing, judge rules in Epic Games case. Retrieved on 14-09-2021 from:  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-v-apple-judge-reaches-decision-.html

Gilber, B. (2021, May 8). Apple and Epic Games are revealing a ton of industry secrets in court filings – form untold ‘billions’ in Fortnite profits to private email exchanges, these are the 5 juiciest bits. Retrieved on 14-09-2021 from: https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-fortnite-epic-games-lawsuit-secrets-revealed-2021-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Please rate this

Big tech in big trouble?

10

October

2020

No ratings yet. The American house of representatives has concluded that big tech companies such as Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon have misused their dominant position on a big scale. Hence, that is the reason that the American commission advocated for the split of Big Tech companies alike. However, what exactly did these tech giants do wrong?

The digital business model of tech giants

With regard to digital business models, the observation can be made that these big tech companies (Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook) are ecosystem drivers as they provide a platform to conduct business (Weil & Woerner, 2020). Furthermore, they have complete knowledge about their customer by the amounts of data they generated about their customers. It is interesting to see that certain of these technology companies (such as Amazon) gained significance by disrupting the market while pursuing a long-tail strategy (Hillesund, 2007).

The problem

The commission deems to prove that Google (regarding search engines) and Facebook (concerning Social Media) became monopolists through unauthorized practices. Furthermore, researchers claim that Amazon and Apple have “lasting and significant market power” that they partly forced by locking out competition through their platforms (De Tijd, 2020). The logical consequence is that competitors are discouraged to innovate. Thereafter, the privacy position of consumers is jeopardized by the dominant position of a handful of tech companies.  It also becomes more difficult to find truthful news if only a few big companies are the spreaders of it.

Examples of wrongdoings

The report claims that Amazon frequently uses third-party sellers to assist in improving and selling their own products. Apple uses its presiding market position to benefit its own applications and hamper those made by rivals. Facebook preserved its monopoly through a chain of anti-competitive business practices. Specifically, it bought up potential rivals such as Instagram. The report states that Google had demanded smartphone manufacturers using its Android operating system should install Google’s chrome as its standard web browser (www.ft.com, 2020).

It can be concluded that Big tech companies did not always use the right means to obtain their market position. Obviously, the big tech companies have responded in a disapproving manner (RTL Nieuws, 2020). This raises some questions for me to you, the reader.

 

Do you think the report was fair and just? Do you think it is beneficial to society that these tech companies have so much market power? If sanctions are imposed, do you think these tech companies should be split up or do you think other sanctions must come into place? Which other sanctions should come into place?

—

De Tijd. (2020). Amerikaanse commissie pleit voor opsplitsing Big Tech. [online] Available at: https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/technologie/amerikaanse-commissie-pleit-voor-opsplitsing-big-tech/10256341.html [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020].

Hillesund, T. (2007). Reading Books in the Digital Age subsequent to Amazon, Google and the long tail. First Monday. [online] Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/184283 [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020].

RTL Nieuws. (2020). Commissie VS wil techreuzen opsplitsen: Big Tech is te machtig. [online] Available at: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/tech/artikel/5188715/commissie-vs-pleit-voor-opsplitsen-big-tech [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020].

Weil, P. Woerner, S.L. (2015). Thriving in an Increasingly Digital Ecosystem. [online] MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at: http://mitsmr.com/1BkdvAq [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020].

www.ft.com. (2020). Subscribe to read | Financial Times. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/ccf00858-30a2-49d3-9ae9-7db3f58773b0 [Accessed 10 Oct. 2020].

 

Please rate this