Microsoft’s Smith Spoke to Congressional Committee About Apple

Microsoft president Brad Smith reportedly told a U.S. Congressional committee about his firm’s concerns about Apple’s Apple Store ahead of an antitrust hearing.

News of this meeting comes via Bloomberg, which cites a single source.

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

As you may recall, Smith publicly complained about Apple’s illegal business practices back in June, noting that the firm was abusing its role as gatekeeper to a large percentage of its customers on mobile and the incredible fees and non-transparent rules that it imposes on app makers.

“They create a very high price per toll, in some cases 30 percent of your revenue has to go to the toll keeper,” Mr. Smith wrote at the time. “The time has come—whether we are talking about D.C. or Brussels—for a much more focused conversation about the nature of app stores, the rules that are being put in place, the prices and the tolls that are being extracted and whether there is really a justification in antitrust law for everything that has been created.”

Microsoft isn’t alone in complaining about Apple’s App Store policies, far from it. But it is the biggest voice, and so it’s not surprising that the software giant had been invited to discuss its concerns ahead of a House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee hearing scheduled for next week. The CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will all be present at the hearing. It’s not clear if Microsoft is attending.

Apple is also under investigation by the EU for very similar illegal business practices.

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 39 comments

  • madthinus

    Premium Member
    21 July, 2020 - 8:29 am

    <p>Strange, 30% is the same toll Microsoft extracts from it's store. Looking forward to the reduction. </p>

    • ryguy

      Premium Member
      21 July, 2020 - 9:10 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555353">In reply to madthinus:</a></em></blockquote><p>The issue isn't the 30%, the issue is the lack of side-loading. Microsoft doesn't force developers to distribute all apps through the Windows Store (thank God).</p>

      • christianwilson

        Premium Member
        21 July, 2020 - 11:01 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#555361">In reply to ryguy:</a></em></blockquote><p>They did in the past with Windows RT and, later, S Mode. Granted S Mode is an easy disable but didn't they charge to migrate from Windows 10 S to Windows 10 Home/Pro initially? </p><p><br></p><p>I know neither one ever made much headway and they have always offered other versions of Windows that fully supported installing from any source but it's worth mentioning that Microsoft has tried to go down this path with some of their platforms. </p>

        • eric_rasmussen

          Premium Member
          21 July, 2020 - 12:47 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#555393">In reply to christianwilson:</a></em></blockquote><p>They are trying again with Windows 10 X, except this time you can't upgrade 10 X to normal Windows 10. If you're running 10 X you can only use Store apps. If you need to run a normal Windows application, you may end up needing to subscribe to Microsoft 365 to do so. That scheme stinks more than the Apple store they're complaining about.</p>

      • Paul Thurrott

        Premium Member
        22 July, 2020 - 9:21 am

        They are both issues, actually. But yes, the fact that iOS users HAVE to go through Apple’s store is of course a big problem.

    • darkgrayknight

      Premium Member
      21 July, 2020 - 1:44 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555353">In reply to madthinus:</a></em></blockquote><p>For Microsoft, while the initial toll is 30%, it is reduced over time depending on how well it performs.</p><p>The real issue is that Apple charges 30% on everything. Subscriptions: 30% every time it renews. In-App purchases: 30% for every purchase. </p>

    • Paul Thurrott

      Premium Member
      22 July, 2020 - 9:23 am

      The Microsoft Store isn’t the sole gatekeeper to app makers on Windows. Basically 100 percent of apps are acquired from outside the Store, so this is not an issue.

    • ronh

      Premium Member
      22 July, 2020 - 12:48 pm

      • Paul Thurrott

        Premium Member
        23 July, 2020 - 8:35 am

        What’s 5 to 30 percent of zero?

  • tpiselli

    Premium Member
    21 July, 2020 - 8:42 am

    <p>Smells like jealously; MS got caught with their pants down with the iPhone release then steamrolled by Google with Android. The fact of the matter is that Apple invested in their platform and came up with an ecosystem that they feel is best for their users. If a user or developer doesn't like the rules then go elsewhere; it's not like Apple is the dominant platform. What is Brad asking for? The government to dictate how a publicly held company should write their software and support their users. </p>

    • Vladimir Carli

      Premium Member
      21 July, 2020 - 9:05 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555354">In reply to tpiselli:</a></em></blockquote><p> From my point of view they could ask for 70% but they should be forced to allow to side load apps</p>

      • lvthunder

        Premium Member
        21 July, 2020 - 11:09 am

        <blockquote><em><a href="#555358">In reply to Vladimir:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why? Everyone knows before they buy that you can't do that.</p>

    • Paul Thurrott

      Premium Member
      22 July, 2020 - 9:23 am

      This is such immature thinking. Microsoft doesn’t care which clients people use. They just want to have fair access to their own customers. Apple will be changing its business practices because of these investigations. It already has started to do so, in fact.

  • nbplopes

    21 July, 2020 - 8:59 am

    <p>Apple practices have not yet been found illegal. This is important. Neither seams to be the stance of MS.</p><p><br></p><p>Still I believe they are charging customers for value that they would not be able to deliver if there were other options to get in. So it’s a value driven by policy, not market.</p><p><br></p><p>Especially they driving value out for themselves from services and innovations for which they don’t contribute in any way. The App Store is just a component of an App.</p><p><br></p><p>I remember Apple complaining about Qualcomm the same way.</p><p><br></p><p>The counter argument of Qualcomm was the same as Apple. They also required Apple to follow a licensing model based on revenue share, I think lower than 30% actually. They argued that their tech enabled deepest the value of the iPhone and the iPad. Any reasonable person would say … bulshit … Apple was right. Well Apple argument is just the same as Qualcomm … bulshit.</p>

    • Andi

      21 July, 2020 - 12:20 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555356">In reply to nbplopes:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apple already broke anti-trust laws twice. Wage fixing cartel, strike one, pay to settle. Price fixing ebooks, strike two, pay to settle. Pending 1 billion $ fine in France for anti-competitive policies. </p><p><br></p><p>We can infer from history that using platform dominance in one area – say ios – to prop up new business against other players – say Apple Music vs Spotify – is pretty anti-competitive. Both MS and Google ended up on the receiving end of massive fines from the EU. Expect the same for Apple. They will still be richer than God and with their reserves they can afford to coast for the next century. </p>

      • SvenJ

        21 July, 2020 - 1:48 pm

        <blockquote><a href="#555429"><em>In reply to Andi:</em></a><em> </em>Everything is illegal in France if they can make money off it. </blockquote><p><br></p>

  • red.radar

    Premium Member
    21 July, 2020 - 9:11 am

    <p>Any actions that a company makes to limit access to your customers is anti-competitive.</p><p><br></p><p>this is very similar issue to net neutrality. </p>

    • skolvikings

      21 July, 2020 - 5:51 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555362">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ah yes, net neutrality. And when the FCC rescinded net neutrality, the sky was going to fall. Magically, it didn't.</p>

  • Pungkuss

    21 July, 2020 - 10:46 am

    <p>I would love this to come back and bite MS in the butt. Promoting government action is never a good thing. Would love for the EU to force MS to implement more open standards for Word/Excel/PowerPoint. Would be easier to convert office to whatever other productivity suite a company wants to use. Companies can more easily move away from decades of being held hostage by Office. </p>

    • lvthunder

      Premium Member
      21 July, 2020 - 11:08 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555392">In reply to Pungkuss:</a></em></blockquote><p>What are you talking about? I don't remember about Excel, but a Word (docx) and Powerpoint (pptx) file is just a zip file with images and plain text in them. How much more open can they be?</p>

      • darkgrayknight

        Premium Member
        21 July, 2020 - 1:37 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#555396">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Excel is also a zip file, though the structure is complicated.</p>

        • proftheory

          Premium Member
          21 July, 2020 - 3:00 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#555468">In reply to darkgrayknight:</a></em></blockquote><p>No more complicated than an XML file could be. That is why they call it an "open" standard.</p><p><br></p>

    • Paul Thurrott

      Premium Member
      22 July, 2020 - 9:17 am

      You would love for this to … harm Microsoft? Why? Because of document formats? Seriously?

      Microsoft is complaining to the appropriate regulatory bodies about what it (correctly) feels could be illegal behavior. This should be applauded, not condemned.

      And has zero to do with document formats.

  • hellcatm

    21 July, 2020 - 11:48 am

    <p>apple needs to be looked at for more than their dishonest store business practices. Hopefully this is just the start.</p>

    • toukale

      21 July, 2020 - 12:08 pm

      <blockquote><em><a href="#555410">In reply to HellcatM:</a></em></blockquote><p>Why? One can make an argument about the 30% charge which I think is fair. Even that I think is questionable because iOS is at best 18% of the market therefore not a monopoly. I think a lot of competitors are just jealous of how successful the appstore has been and Apple have put a lid on a free for all for its competitors.</p><p><br></p><p>I am against having alternative stores since it will create more harm than good for the average users only to please a small but niche group of folks who wants to abuse it. This is where a platform owner should put their foot down for the benefit of the whole at the expense of the few. Everyone wants a piece of the Apple pie because the best consumers are there. Which makes the case for Apple charging a fee, if you want access to the best consumers of the most successful platform on the planet, then you must pay a fee. We can argue about what the fee is but there is no question there should be a fee.</p>

      • Andi

        21 July, 2020 - 12:16 pm

        <blockquote><em><a href="#555427">In reply to toukale:</a></em></blockquote><p>Earth to Apple fanboy. In the US Apple has 50% marketshare and 70% revenue share. It's the dominant player and it's using its dominance to stifle competition. </p><p><br></p><p>App store policies are at stake here more than the fee itself. Stop shilling for the richest corporation in the world. </p>

        • GT Tecolotecreek

          21 July, 2020 - 12:25 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#555428">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Earth to Apple hater, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">IOS had a 14% worldwide market share in 2019. </span></p><p><br></p>

          • scovious

            21 July, 2020 - 12:47 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#555431">In reply to GT_Tecolotecreek:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>Good thing US antitrust law is only concerned with what goes on within the USA; <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(17, 17, 17);">also states have antitrust statutes that govern commerce occurring solely within their state borders.</span></p>

            • GT Tecolotecreek

              21 July, 2020 - 2:20 pm

              <blockquote><em><a href="#555436">In reply to scovious:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think you missed the point. IOS has a very small share of the world wide market. The fact that Apple executes products well and is rewarded with a higher profit margin is not being monopolist. It's being an efficiently run global business. </p>

              • Andi

                21 July, 2020 - 6:10 pm

                <blockquote><em><a href="#555474">In reply to GT_Tecolotecreek:</a></em></blockquote><p>Quoting Andi Dufresne: "Why are you being so obtuse?". This is an US hearing concerning US marketplace. Worldwide numbers don't matter.</p>

        • toukale

          21 July, 2020 - 12:26 pm

          <blockquote><em><a href="#555428">In reply to Andi:</a></em></blockquote><p>Again, you are making the case for Apple if you want to use their appstore revenue as a way to go after them for monopoly. We need to be careful what precedent we set just because of our biases towards a company we don't like for some reason. Apple is not always going to be or stay where there are now. Everyone with a store have pretty much follow that model, the problem is non of them have had the success Apple has with their store so now they want to cry foul.</p>

        • Paul Thurrott

          Premium Member
          22 July, 2020 - 8:58 am

          Guys. The facts speak for themselves. Let’s leave out the personal attacks. Please.

          • nbplopes

            23 July, 2020 - 2:49 pm

            <blockquote><em><a href="#555647">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p><br></p><p>People forget that MS had its shared of punished illegal practices.</p><p><br></p><p>Around here it does seam that when it’s Apple or Google it’s because they crooks, but when it’s about MS everyone else is a Cry baby.</p><p><br></p><p>The same things happens in Macrumors.</p><p><br></p><p>Its crazy.</p><p><br></p>

            • Paul Thurrott

              Premium Member
              24 July, 2020 - 8:54 am

              That is a ludicrous assertion given that I routinely criticize Microsoft.

              And people don’t forget. If anything, people remember too much. Holding up today’s Microsoft to the company that it was in the 1990s is unfair. They are two completely different companies.

      • Paul Thurrott

        Premium Member
        22 July, 2020 - 8:59 am

        No, one can’t.

  • mrdrwest

    21 July, 2020 - 12:56 pm

    <blockquote><em><a href="#555400">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Due process is relative. The justice system is biased and temperamental.</p>

  • winner

    21 July, 2020 - 1:15 pm

    <p>Microsoft tries a store with the same toll, fails miserably.</p><p>Microsoft complains about Apple's toll to Congress.</p>

  • SvenJ

    21 July, 2020 - 1:34 pm

    <p>Snitch</p>

  • kjb434

    Premium Member
    21 July, 2020 - 8:57 pm

    <p>This is going to be fun. At least to read up on the highlights.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC