We won’t be joining the Coalition for App Fairness, not because they’re wrong, but because Devs and App Stores need each other.
Our purpose is to advocate for the developer community. We take this obligation seriously. When we see problems we highlight them and try to convene the parties that can best make things better. Sometimes this means intervening between members and working inside our industry. Sometimes it means talking to regulators either to promote or to condemn some pending rule. Seldom do we resort to telling our ecosystem parties how to run their businesses for our benefit. While it would be nice if the app stores worked for us, and did it for free, that’s not the reality the industry was built on. It’s also not a viable path forward for any of us.
We fully acknowledge that Apple is a hard-charging company that is constantly looking for ways to extend and protect their franchise. Without them, or without Google or Microsoft, there would be nothing for any of us to bicker over. They’re each amazing businesses, and along the way they’ve made millionaires out of many-a-startup that took advantage of what they’d built. They’ve also abused members of our community, however, so we don’t feel sorry for them when groups like the Coalition for App Fairness emerge to amplify the stories of those that feel wronged. The issues that the group is pushing are valid, and the app stores have much to account for. A little publicity in this regard could be valuable, though we might prefer five or six more focused principles than the ten they advocate (more on that below).
We do have a fundamental problem, however, with asking mom to wade in when the kids are fighting. Spoiler alert: both sides lose. The fact that these companies feel their best recourse is to press their fight in public is one thing, but it’s clear that the timing and the approach is designed to reach government policymakers at the exact time when they’re looking for ways to break big tech. The Coalition’s principles are less about what’s best for our industry as a whole, and more about what will help them extract their pound of flesh – damn the consequences for anyone else. They’re in this for themselves, not for devs, which is totally fine. I feel stupid having to even say that – it’s obvious in the principles they’re advocating even though they say they’re “for developers and consumers.” We’re all for “fairness,” but this coalition doesn’t get to unilaterally define that term for the rest of us. The ten principles they’re advocating hold both good and bad ideas for the developer community beyond the 13 companies involved.
Their first principle, that no dev should be required to use an app store exclusively, skips the one role we rely on when we reach out to consumers through someone like Apple: the brand behind the store. The service obligations they impose are for two purposes: quality/brand control, and to fund their ongoing business case. It’s hard to launch an unknown app from an unknown website. We rely on the Apple/Sony/Microsoft/Google/Sony brand to give consumers the confidence to try our app, to proffer a credit card, or to trust our privacy policy. This one isn’t so cut and dried – unless you’ve already built a million dollar brand. App stores need the latitude to protect the ecosystem. We agree that this could be less draconian however, but disagree that startups and giants like Epic are in the same situation here.
Their second principle suffers from a similar flaw. We all know there are bad actors out there, and as a community, we rely on the app stores to enforce the law in the wild, wild west. There’s a nugget in there that we do agree with: how an app competes with a native platform app should *never* be factored into the approval and promotion process. The coalition is blending the good with the bad here, and that weakens the argument, unfortunately. We’d prefer they broke out the native platform app challenges.
Asking an independent company to treat everyone that knocks on the door as an insider is also a stretch. There will always be a gap between what platform R&D knows and what the dev community knows. There likely *should* be a gap in what insiders can access, and what an outsider can reach. It’s their platform, after all. They built it, and it’s their brand. So while it would be great to have these insights, it’s probably not realistic. There will always be an advantage to the guy that builds and shares the tools. That’s not new, and it’s not something we want the government to outlaw. Devs generally understand that platform owners will have an advantage at the leading edge of OS and hardware development.
Their fourth principle talks to transparency, which we are strongly in favor of. I think words like “always” and “every developer” make for contentious talking points, but we do need transparent policies for what is allowed and an objective and transparent process that assesses whether an app meets the standard. Beyond that, app stores should be free to differentiate on what exactly is allowed inside their house. It’s theirs after all. We’ve advocated on this issue for a while, and I’m seeing some indications that the app stores are listening.
On fair data access and use, we’d simply observe that the bright line between an app store’s data and an app’s data is neither bright nor a straight line. App stores should be clear on what data rights developers have, what’s permitted on either side, and there should be mechanisms to audit and sanction misuse by each player. Data ownership is a thorny problem I’ve studied in depth, and I think if we focus on the relative data rights between partners like apps and platforms we can get to a workable solution.
Principle six (despite the “every-and-always problem) seems spot on. Again, mechanisms to audit and sanction should exist. Even more so, their seventh principle on self-preferencing and user defaults is something the entire community has demanded for a while. Our members love competition, and are happy to compete against default apps, but they want a level playing field and an objective referee.
Principle eight is likely the crux of the Coalition’s purpose, and as-written it makes good sense. Our concern is how and who will make the decisions about “unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory” fees and revenue sharing. On the conditions of app store access, we’d prefer that all arrangements be allowed, but that fees and revenue sharing be adjusted based on how the two parties split the duties of app control and delivery.
Finally, principles nine and ten are contrasts in how the coalition views Apple. We’d say that free speech rules should allow an app to advertise its own app store, provided they’re clear that Apple doesn’t endorse their service (its Apple’s brand). We’d say there are grounds for agreement, but that a blanket obligation is extreme. On transparent rules and policies and fair dispute resolution we’re all in. The app stores have taken too long to recognize that the developer community are customers as well as partners and that a failure to treat them as such is why groups like the coalition have emerged in the first place.
