Apple wants antitrust case in India to be dismissed, says it’s not a dominant player
Apple’s tightly controlled App Store and its proprietary in-app purchase system have come under fire in recent times, with the company facing antitrust probes in multiple countries, including the US, Europe, and South Korea. The Cupertino-based giant is facing a similar antitrust case in India over allegedly abusing its dominant position in the apps market and hurting small developers. In its official response, Apple has now asked the Indian antitrust watchdog to close the case, stating that it’s not a dominant player in India.
In a filing submitted to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Apple has denied the allegations of hurting app developers, saying that it’s way too small of a player in the Indian market, reports Reuters.
“Apple is not dominant in the Indian market … Without dominance, there can be no abuse,” said Apple in the filing submitted on Nov 16.
Apple also pointed out in its filing that its market share in India was “an insignificant 0-5%,” while its competitor Google commanded between 90-100% of the market. “It has already been established that Google is the dominant player in India,” Apple added.
Further, Apple says that the commissions it charges for the in-app purchases are “not unfair or excessive” adding that small developers aren’t subject to the 30% commission rate.
“Only a small number of large developers, many of which are multi-billion-dollar conglomerates, pay the headline rate of 30%,” Apple said.
The antitrust case against Apple was filed by a non-profit group called “Together We Fight Society” back in September. It argues that Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases hurts app developers and acts as a barrier to market entry.
“The existence of the 30% commission means that some app developers will never make it to the market … This could also result in consumer harm,” said the group in their filing against Apple.
According to Reuters, the CCI will review Apple’s arguments in the coming weeks and could order a wider investigation.