Policy

App makers went to Washington and spilled all their tea on Apple

Apple finally got the Big Tech treatment at Wednesday's hearing on app stores.

Person wearing a mask walks in front of Apple logo

Apple is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers.

Photo: Bloomberg via Getty

A few years ago, the dating app giant Match Group wanted to institute new identity verification rules for an app it was running in Taiwan. But when Match went to submit those updates to the Apple App Store, they were rejected. When Jared Sine, Match's chief legal officer, contacted a lawyer for the App Store to ask why, Sine said the lawyer told him, "We should just be glad that Apple is not taking all of Match's revenue."

"'You owe us every dime you've made,'" Sine recalled the lawyer saying.

This was just one of many charges of backroom bullying by Apple that app developers made Wednesday, during a Senate hearing on antitrust violations in app stores. While Google was also there to testify, Apple was undoubtedly the primary target, giving the Cupertino company a taste of the kind of tongue lashing about alleged monopolistic tendencies that other Big Tech juggernauts have come to routinely face.

In a rare show of bipartisan cooperation, senators on the antitrust subcommittee gave representatives from Match, Tile and Spotify ample space to air their grievances against Apple, from veiled threats like the one Sine said he received to accusations of price gouging and technological preferencing.

The developers did not hold back.

Sine, for one, told another story of the time that Tinder developed a new safety feature for LGBTQ+ users traveling in countries with discriminatory laws. When it came time to push the update to users, Sine said Apple blocked the new feature for two months, arguing that it violated the "spirit" of a company policy, but not offering Tinder ways to address Apple's concerns.

"In order to get that launched, we had to go all the way up to talking to the chief executives, through our chief executive … in order to actually get that app unblocked two months later," Sine said.

Spotify's chief legal officer, Horacio Gutierrez, zeroed in on the 30% commission fees that Apple began charging apps like Spotify that sell digital goods, even as Apple was planning to launch its own competitor, Apple Music. Gutierrez said the new fees forced Spotify to raise its prices from $9.99 to $12.99. Shortly after, Gutierrez said, "Apple launched Apple Music at $9.99, which meant they were now undercutting us on price."

He, too, told stories of app updates and bug fixes being tied up for months in Apple's approval process. "They've basically thrown the book at us in a number of ways to make it hard for us to continue to sustain our decision to speak up," Gutierrez said.

Tile's general counsel, Kirsten Daru, meanwhile, focused on technical hurdles that Apple has put in the company's way at the same time Apple was developing its own competitive tools with the Find My app and its newly announced AirTags. Daru accused Apple of serving prompts encouraging users to turn Tile off, revoking a "critical permission" that now requires users to go "deep, deep, deep into their settings to turn Tile on" and refusing to give Tile access to chips that would enable Tile to give its users more precise information about the location of their belongings. "Apple refused our requests, and therefore we cannot bring that innovation to the market for the benefit of our customers," Daru said, noting that Apple is reserving that technology for its own tools.

With each charge, the senators turned to Apple's chief compliance officer, Kyle Andeer, for explanation and appeared to find his answers lacking. Why, for instance, does Apple need to take a 30% commission fee, asked committee chair Amy Klobuchar, citing a House antitrust subcommittee report that suggested while Apple makes $18 billion a year on the App Store, it spends less than $100 million a year running the App Store.

"Those look like monopoly profits," Klobuchar said.

But Andeer was unable to counter those figures with any concrete numbers, saying simply, "Apple's invested significant sums in technologies, resources, tools, to allow developers to build their apps, far in excess of this $100 million figure."

Andeer left ranking member Mike Lee similarly dissatisfied with his answer to questions about why some apps like Tinder have to fork over commission fees while other apps like Uber don't. Andeer argued that there was a fundamental difference between using an app to book a ride and using an app to plan a date. "When I'm using Uber or Lyft, I am calling a car to my house to physically get in it and drive somewhere. When I'm using — I don't use these — a dating service to meet someone, I'm not using it to pay that person to come to my house and to go on a date," Andeer said. "That's called something else."

To Lee, Andeer's distinction between "meeting a stranger for transportation and meeting a stranger to go to dinner," was strained. "I feel like unfrozen caveman lawyer as portrayed by Phil Hartman on 'Saturday Night Live,'" Lee said. "I'm not grasping it."

Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, meanwhile, poked holes in Apple's claims that its review processes are meant to ensure security in the App Store, asking why it's "trivially easy" to find scams, fake reviews and abusive billing practices in the store today. "Apple is making a cut on those abusive billing practices, are you not?" Ossoff asked. Andeer said the company doesn't take a cut "if we find fraud."

For Apple, the pile-on was relatively new, if not entirely unexpected. For years now, the company has skirted the scrutiny that social networking giants have faced around content moderation and privacy, mainly butting heads with lawmakers when it comes to debates over encryption. But the pressure that has been mounting on Apple to defend its App Store practices for years now is finally coming to a head. Next month, the company will have to further defend those practices in court in a lawsuit filed by Epic Games.

While Apple bore the brunt of the accusations Wednesday, the witnesses did aim at least some of their ire at Google, as well. Sine said both Apple and Google had made it hard for Match to filter out users who are under 18 and to cross check users with registered sex offender lists. But by far his most damning allegation came in response to a question from Sen. Klobuchar about whether Match had ever experienced retaliation from any company for speaking out.

Sine replied that in fact, the night before the hearing, Match Group received a phone call from a Google executive, asking why Sine's testimony differed from comments the company had made during an earlier earnings call. Wilson White, Google's director of public policy, dismissed the charge as an "honest question" from Google's business development team, not a threat.

But Sine wouldn't let Google off the hook so easily. "When you receive something like that from a company that can turn you off overnight," he said, "you're always a little intimidated."

Fintech

Binance’s co-founder could remake its crypto deal-making

Yi He is overseeing a $7.5 billion portfolio, with more investments to come, making her one of the most powerful investors in the industry.

Binance co-founder Yi He will oversee $7.5 billion in assets.

Photo: Binance

Binance co-founder Yi He isn’t as well known as the crypto giant’s colorful and controversial CEO, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao.

That could soon change. The 35-year-old executive is taking on a new, higher-profile role at the world’s largest crypto exchange as head of Binance Labs, the company’s venture capital arm. With $7.5 billion in assets to oversee, that instantly makes her one of the most powerful VC investors in crypto.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Sponsored Content

How cybercrime is going small time

Blockbuster hacks are no longer the norm – causing problems for companies trying to track down small-scale crime

Cybercrime is often thought of on a relatively large scale. Massive breaches lead to painful financial losses, bankrupting companies and causing untold embarrassment, splashed across the front pages of news websites worldwide. That’s unsurprising: cyber events typically cost businesses around $200,000, according to cybersecurity firm the Cyentia Institute. One in 10 of those victims suffer losses of more than $20 million, with some reaching $100 million or more.

That’s big money – but there’s plenty of loot out there for cybercriminals willing to aim lower. In 2021, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received 847,376 complaints – reports by cybercrime victims – totaling losses of $6.9 billion. Averaged out, each victim lost $8,143.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.

Policy

Trump ordered social media visa screening. Biden's defending it.

The Knight First Amendment Institute just lost a battle to force the Biden administration to provide a report on the collection of social media handles from millions of visa applicants every year.

Visa applicants have to give up any of their social media handles from the past five years.

Photo: belterz/Getty Images

Would you feel comfortable if a U.S. immigration official reviewed all that you post on Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter or even YouTube? Would it change what you decide to post or whom you talk to online? Perhaps you’ve said something critical of the U.S. government. Perhaps you’ve jokingly threatened to whack someone.

If you’ve applied for a U.S. visa, there’s a chance your online missives have been subjected to this kind of scrutiny, all in the name of keeping America safe. But three years after the Trump administration ordered enhanced vetting of visa applications, the Biden White House has not only continued the program, but is defending it — despite refusing to say if it’s had any impact.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Policy

The US plans to block sales of older chipmaking tech to China

The Biden administration will attempt to roll back China’s chipmaking abilities by blocking tools that make a widely used type of transistor other chipmakers have employed for years.

By using a specific, fundamental building block of chip design as the basis for the overall policy, the White House hopes to both tighten existing controls and avoid the pitfalls around trying to block a generation of manufacturing technology.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

The Biden administration has for several months been working to tighten its grip on U.S. exports of technology that China needs to make advanced chips, with the goals of both hurting China’s current manufacturing ability and also blocking its future access to next-generation capabilities.

According to two people familiar with the administration’s plans, President Joe Biden’s approach is based around choking off access to the tools, software and support mechanisms necessary to manufacture a specific type of technology that is one of the fundamental building blocks of modern microchips: the transistor.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a senior reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.

Entertainment

Netflix Games had its best month yet. Here's what's next.

A closer look at the company’s nascent gaming initiative suggests big plans that could involve cloud gaming and more.

Netflix’s acquisitions in the gaming space, and clues found in a number of job listings, suggest it has big plans.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Netflix’s foray into gaming is dead on arrival — at least according to the latest headlines about the company’s first few mobile games.

“Less than 1 percent of Netflix’s subscribers are playing its games,” declared Engadget recently. The article was referencing data from app analytics company Apptopia, which estimated that on any given day, only around 1.7 million people were playing Netflix’s mobile games on average.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Latest Stories
Bulletins