Apple & # 39; s former head of app reviews says he & # 39; is really worried & # 39; about the anti-competitive behavior of the company, while criticism increases
- Philip Shoemaker, who oversees Apple's app approval, said he & # 39; is really worried & # 39;
- Apple is increasingly confronted with how it treats the competitors in the App Store
- Shoemaker called on Apple to change the App Store policy that applies to rivals
A former Apple manager admitted in a new interview that he & # 39; is really worried & # 39; about the anti-competitive tactics of the iPhone maker with regard to the App Store.
Phillip Shoemaker, who shared Apple & # 39; s third-party app reviews, told Bloomberg that the increasing shift from the company to a predominantly service-oriented company leads to competition concerns.
It comes as Apple published a blog post on Wednesday that returned to critics who say that the App Store offers an unfair advantage in pushing its own apps and services.
Scroll down for video
A former Apple CEO has admitted in a new interview that he & # 39; is really worried & # 39; about the anti-competitive tactics of the iPhone maker with regard to the App Store
Shoemaker discussed how Apple has increasingly introduced its own version of services that closely matches those of developers.
Developers often rely on the App Store as their primary form of distribution because they have to go through Apple & # 39; s app distribution platform to get their applications on users' iPhones.
& # 39; There is now a conflict as Apple enters these spaces that are ripe for competition, & # 39; Shoemaker told Bloomberg. & # 39; I am really worried about the competition. & # 39;
Apple has removed many screen time management apps from the App Store after launching its own app, Screen Time, the New York Times recently reported.
Developers believe that their apps were wrongfully removed by Apple because the company wanted to promote its own app, but Apple claimed it did so with regard to consumer privacy.
In addition, Spotify filed a complaint with the antitrust watchdog in Europe, arguing that Apple is abusing App Store policies to influence rivals such as Spotify, which competes with Apple Music.
Shoemaker's comments are because Apple published an article on Wednesday that went back to critics who say the App Store offers an unfair advantage in pushing its own apps and services
This debate is likely to intensify as Apple prepares to launch a whole range of new services later this year, including Apple TV +, the streaming subscription service, and Apple Arcade, the game subscription service.
Shoemaker acknowledged this threat in a separate blog post Medium.
& # 39; Over the years, Apple has struggled with the use of the App Store as a weapon against competitors & # 39 ;, Shoemaker explains.
& # 39; Apps such as Google Voice and Rhapsody had a hard time going through the App Store process, especially since they were the first of their kind – and Apple just didn't know how to respond. & # 39;
Shoemaker is now calling on Apple to change its App Store policy, in particular those that apply to services that can compete directly with Apple, so that they have a fair chance of competing.
Apple faces other potential headwinds, in addition to the increasing pressure from Spotify.
Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court launched a lawsuit by consumers accusing Apple of monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and forcing them to pay too much. They reject the company's bid to escape claims that its practices violate federal antitrust law.
The prosecutors said the technology company based in Cupertino, California, sold required apps through the App Store and had won an excessive 30 percent commission for purchases.
WHY ARE CONSUMERS THAT APPLY?
The Supreme Court confirmed a ruling by a lower court in Apple v. Pepper on Monday, a lawsuit initiated by iOS users.
iPhone owners say that Apple's 30 percent commission on sales via the App Store causes developers to pass on those costs to consumers.
They claim that users end up & # 39; hundreds of millions of dollars more & # 39; paid for apps than they would have paid in a competitive market. & # 39;
Apple argues that consumers should not be able to litigate with reference to a previous ruling, which states that & # 39; indirect buyers & # 39; not sue a company for antitrust damage.
Instead, it believes developers are the only & # 39; direct buyers & # 39; are entitled to sue.
Robert Pepper and other consumers filed the lawsuit-in-class trial in 2011, but it was crushed.
Their claims have since been reviewed and in 2017 a court of appeal has taken up the case.
. [TagsToTranslate] Dailymail