Apple's "Apple Tax": The Deep Game Behind the Antitrust Lawsuit and Court Decision

Tech 2024-09-02 18:22:51 Source: Network

Apple's "Apple Tax": The Deep Game Behind the Antitrust Lawsuit and Court DecisionIn September 2021, after winning China's first antitrust lawsuit in court, Apple unexpectedly objected and requested the court to modify the content of the verdict. This move sparked widespread attention in the industry, with people speculating about the underlying reasons behind Apple's actions

Apple's "Apple Tax": The Deep Game Behind the Antitrust Lawsuit and Court Decision

In September 2021, after winning China's first antitrust lawsuit in court, Apple unexpectedly objected and requested the court to modify the content of the verdict. This move sparked widespread attention in the industry, with people speculating about the underlying reasons behind Apple's actions. This article will delve into this antitrust lawsuit focusing on Apple's 30% commission fee model, analyzing the "game" played between Apple and the Chinese court, and the deep motivations behind Apple's objections.

Antitrust Lawsuit Triggered by the "Apple Tax"

Apple

The term "Apple Tax" originates from the 30% commission Apple charges third-party companies for their payment platforms in the App Store. This model is unanimously referred to as the "Apple Tax" by industry insiders and users, as it signifies a significant cost burden for developers. Traditionally, platforms like Alipay, WeChat Pay, and UnionPay charge around 0.1% of transaction fees to third-party payment platforms. However, Apple demands that third-party platforms using Apple Pay for in-app purchases pay a 30% profit, and provides developers with software development guidelines that directly charge Apple and ban payment transactions.

This harsh policy ultimately led to a lawsuit from American electronic payment giant Sean Stibbe. Stibbe argued that Apple's payment fee policies were a deliberate attempt to suppress competitors, hence requesting the court to judge and enforce a decision, forcing Apple to relinquish its right to charge a 30% commission from third-party payment platforms.

Apple

On September 14th, 2021, this highly anticipated antitrust lawsuit was heard in court. Stibbe emphasized during the session that Apple's fee policies violated antitrust laws and requested the court to force Apple to make concessions, allowing more payment platforms to enter the market and bring benefits to consumers and businesses.

Ultimately, the court issued a verdict in favor of Apple, requiring the company to change its exclusive model within 90 days and reduce the fee burden on third-party payment platforms. This verdict is considered a landmark in Apple's first antitrust lawsuit in the Chinese market.

Apple

Controversy Surrounding Apple's Position and Court Judgment

However, this victory did not satisfy Apple. In the verdict drafted by the court, the determination of Apple's market position stated: "It cannot be separated from Apple's position." This wording caused discontent among Apple, leading them to object and request the court to change the phrase to "mutually dependent on Apple."

Apple

So how does the court's verdict reflect Apple's market position? Why did Apple raise objections to it?

The close relationship between Apple phones and the App Store is undeniable. A phone without an App Store is practically useless in the market, as the App Store is the preferred platform for downloading apps and entertainment software. The majority of third-party apps choose to be listed on the Apple App Store, and the App Store can only be used on Apple phones. This closed-loop ecosystem gives Apple a unique advantage in the Chinese market.

Apple

The court's verdict, "It cannot be separated from Apple's position," was made based on this reality. It reflects Apple's dominant position in the App Store sector and the value the App Store brings to Apple phones.

However, Apple believes that the court's verdict overemphasizes Apple's market dominance and could negatively impact its partners. They hope to change the verdict to "mutually dependent on Apple," emphasizing that the market is a two-way balance. Apple cannot exist without third-party apps, and third-party apps cannot exist without Apple's platform.

Apple

Apple's "Sentiment" and Brand Image

Behind Apple's request to modify the verdict, there may also be considerations about its brand image.

Apple

In 2020, Apple consistently maintained that its App Store fees were fair and reasonable. However, after months of controversy, Apple held a global press conference on September 17, 2020. During the conference, Apple announced adjustments to its global App Store developer fee policy, providing a 30% discount on commission fees for small-scale developers. Additionally, Apple launched the world's first 5G iPhone 12 and provided extra iCloud storage space for 5G users.

This move is considered Apple's "sentimental" action to maintain its brand image amidst the backdrop of a looming defeat in the antitrust lawsuit.

Apple's focus on its brand image is evident. They believe that any statement that could potentially damage their image will be refuted, even at the cost of sacrificing certain benefits to protect their image.

Conclusion: Corporate Responsibility in the Age of Globalization

This antitrust lawsuit and Apple's objections reveal the complex situation Apple faces in the age of globalization. As a global leading tech company, Apple needs to maintain its own interests while adhering to local laws and regulations, balancing the interests between global markets.

It remains uncertain whether the Chinese court will modify the verdict due to Apple's objections. However, it's worth pondering that in the age of globalization, companies facing global markets should adhere to local regulations and act responsibly. This is in the company's best interest and demonstrates its responsibility. Only by possessing adaptability and a sense of responsibility can a company achieve more sustainable development in the global market.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is sourced from the internet. The copyright of the text, images, and other materials belongs to the original author. The platform reprints the materials for the purpose of conveying more information. The content of the article is for reference and learning only, and should not be used for commercial purposes. If it infringes on your legitimate rights and interests, please contact us promptly and we will handle it as soon as possible! We respect copyright and are committed to protecting it. Thank you for sharing.(Email:[email protected])

Mobile advertising space rental

Tag: Apple Tax The Deep Game Behind the Antitrust Lawsuit