Apple has turned down statements by the competitors watchdog that it operates a person of Australia’s dominant application marketplaces, indicating that it faces “significant aggressive constraints” from other current market players.

It has also criticised the Australian Competitors and Client Commission’s (ACCC) probe, which it stated tends to make an assumption that “there is a appropriate current market failure arising from Apple’s purported current market power”.

“Apple does not consider that, correctly examined, that assumption is suitable in the broader online context… and is anxious that this sort of an assumption suggests that the commission’s examination might not be inspecting whether or not that assumption is properly launched as a starting off point,” it stated.

In its submission [pdf] to the most current iteration of the digital platforms inquiry, Apple stated it faces competitors equally in the iOS ecosystem and from external sources this sort of as Google Engage in and, as this sort of, does not have a “substantial degree of power”.

“Apple perceives and treats other distributors of apps, for platforms other than iOS, as significant competitors whose pricing and procedures constrain Apple’s capability to training electricity more than builders,” it stated.

“Apple is not in a posture to disregard the atmosphere in which its application marketplace operates and does not acknowledge the commission’s characterisation of the Apple App Retail outlet as ‘the most dominant application marketplace by a big margin’.”

Apple stated that “even if a consumer only owns iOS-dependent equipment, distribution is considerably from minimal to the Apple App Retail outlet mainly because builders have various different channels to reach” customers this sort of as by a traditional web site.

It stated a web site could operate as equally a distribution portal or as progressive net programs (PWAs), a style of software – crafted using prevalent net technological innovation like HTML5 – with the similar appear and feel as a standalone application that is sent by the net.

Apple also pointed to instances had been “developers might provide iOS customers obtain to digital media material in the iOS application that the consumer ordered from the developer outdoors the application, on a website” this sort of as Spotify.

“In these cases, builders receive all of the revenue they deliver from bringing the clients to their application. Apple gets no fee from supporting, web hosting and distributing these apps,” it stated.

Even outdoors of the iOS ecosystem, Apple stated it “competes directly” with other application suppliers like Google Engage in, as properly as net-dependent application suppliers this sort of as Steam, as individuals frequently possess other non-Apple equipment.

These types of “cross-system competition… enhances intra-system competitors for distribution of apps in the platform”, with “customers switching between equipment with different operation systems… a continual threat”.

“For all functional uses, this suggests the Apple App Retail outlet competes for distribution, as properly as for commissions linked with client acquisition, subscriptions, memberships, or in-application buys, with the myriad platforms on which other equipment as dependent,” Apple stated.

“If Apple noticeably alterations its distribution pricing or conditions, builders have – and importantly, essentially use – many possibilities for finding their apps to customers.

“The demonstrated genuine-planet interchangeability of the available distribution possibilities strongly implies that they all occupy a one appropriate current market.

“Therefore, there is potent evidence that the appropriate current market for application distribution is not iOS-precise.”

Apple stated that “if the appropriate current market encompasses the distribution of equally iOS and non-iOS apps, it is difficult to acknowledge the commission’s characterisation of the Apple App Retail outlet as a ‘dominant application marketplace’ or as a person of ‘the two big application marketplaces”.

“In Apple’s see, there is no evidence which implies that Apple has current market electricity in that it has an capability to act persistently in a fashion materially different from the behaviour that would be noticed for a firm in a ‘workably competitive’ current market.”

In reaction to ideas that the costs gathered by in-application buys stymy competitors for application builders, Apple stated that none of its App Retail outlet or in-application order procedures “reflect current market electricity or manifest exclusionary intent or any other component or attribute exclusive to Apple”.

“Those procedures are not exclusive to Apple. Certainly, all of the App Retail outlet policies – which includes equally its fee levels and its procedures about use of Apple’s in-application order system and absolutely free-riding (anti-circumvention) – are commonplace in the sector throughout other digital platforms,” it stated.

Apple also mentioned that the “requirement to use in-application buys for sales of digital material by the App Retail outlet does not mean that builders are paying out Apple to “use” in-application purchases”.

Relatively, “developers pay for the use of the App Retail outlet when they promote digital material in iOS apps,” it argued.

Apple generally will take a thirty per cent slash of in-application order revenue, however earlier this 12 months reduced its fee to 15 per cent for software builders that make US$one million or fewer every single calendar 12 months.