Tinder sues Apple in India for 'anti-competitive' practices. What does it mean?
The tech world is screaming that Apple equals monopoly. It's no secret that the US-based company loves to keep non-Apple products and systems far away from its products. And this practice has not gone down well with many.
Apple is in trouble again for 'anti-competitive' practices. Dating app Tinder's owner Match Group (which also owns OkCupid) has sued Apple in India over anti-trust issue accusing it of 'monopolistic conduct', Reuters reported.
This is the third such case against Apple in India and the first by a major foreign company.
The Apple tax: The case largely pertains to Apple's practice of charging app-makers a 30% fee on subscriptions on in-app purchases and forcing app-makers to use its in-app purchase system.
What is Match's argument? Match Group argues that the 30% fee hurts app developers. It also questioned why Apple gets to take the call on who has to pay the fee and be forced to use its purchasing system and who can use alternative payment systems.
For this, Match gave ride-hailing apps Uber and Ola examples. If you use Uber or Ola, on android or iOS, you will know that you can either pay by cash to the driver or pay using UPI or credit and debit cards.
However, say you want to buy something on Tinder - which will be a subscription for premium services - then you will not be able to easily pay through UPI or card. You will first need to add funds to your Apple ID using UPI or any other method, and then you will be able to link your Tinder subscription to Apple ID funds.
Match says this is discrimination.
What does Apple say? While Apple has not commented on the Match lawsuit yet, it has always argued in anti-trust cases that the apps are paying for services provided by it on App Store. For India specifically, Apple tried to quash a previous anti-trust case against it arguing that it doesn't have a significant market share and that 87% of apps in India are not charged the 30% fee.
1. The case in the Netherlands
A similar case of a dating app was filed in the Netherlands. And Apple lost. Earlier this year, regulators in the Netherlands fined Apple $55 million for failing to abide by its orders of letting dating apps use alternate payment modes. Apple only relented to allowing apps to offer different payment methods, but only on the condition that they develop a separate app for the Netherlands and also pay a reduced 27% of the fee.
2. The Epic battle against Apple
Epic Games had sued Apple for anti-trust issues in the US. The battle was waged after Epic Games deliberately violated App Store rules by including an alternate payments system. As a result, Apple deleted Epic Games from its App Store. Apple was able to win a stay on the injunction order in this case. But that doesn't guarantee Apple that their trouble with Epic Games is over.
3. The alternate app store sues Apple
A now-defunct app Cydia took Apple to court in June 2022 alleging anti-competitive practices. Cydia is an alternate app store providing all the apps that App Store has banned. Cydia claimed that Apple's unlawful monopoly over iOS app distribution hurt its business.
4. The war with Spotify in the EU
Music streaming app Spotify sued Apple in the European Union for favouring Apple Music on App Store rather than letting the app function naturally in the competitive market. Spotify says that the commission fees for apps other than that of Apple help boost Apple's own music streaming service over rivals.
5. The South Korean case
South Korea went a step further to prevent the alleged 'monopolistic practices' by tech giants. It approved a bill that bans major app store operators, including Apple, from forcing app makers to use their payment systems.
Do you think it is fair for Apple to take 30% of an app's subscription revenue?