Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules

[one more]

I purchase Apple products for their walled garden ecosystem. Vetted software and all that. If I wanted third party software, I would've bought an android. Simple as that. iOS is a walled garden since 2007 and Android is third party friendly since 2008. The market knows this and makes choices based on these facts. EU is just trying to hurt Apple and in extension the U.S because their only chance at the smartphone and broader technology industry, Nokia, was gutted by Microsoft, a US company.

By the way, If you want to run 3rd party software on Apple products, then no one is stopping you from buying a mac.

2nd hand m1 mac mini: 250
New m4 mac mini 499-599
New m4 macbook air 850-1000
as you can see, the bar of entry for 3rd party software on apple platforms is pretty low.

I understand your point, yet it is biased in Apple’s walled garden favour.

Right now nothing is stopping you from continuing using Apple’s own walled App Store exclusively, as you like it, so your bases are covered. Yet there are people who would like to install their apps from other stores/devs at their own risk, so why deprive them of this choice?

And some of them do not want to use Android (else they would already), nor can they fit a Mac in their pockets. 😉

 

[I7guy]

They have been the "sole provider of an App Store where developers can distribute their apps to iOS users" and "abused its dominant position on (that) market", which "is illegal under EU antitrust rules."

Apple does not have an illegal monopoly in the App Store. The same nuanced anti steering provisions.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ga/ip_24_1161


The catch: They can only fine noncompliant companies.
Companies have a choice to comply or not.

 

[AppliedMicro]

This is not the fault or for either company to fix. This happened naturally.

Agree.

The EU rules don't encourage choice or create more choice

No on operating systems per se.
But for related applications and services and the stores/payment options through which they're sold.

If Apple perfectly followed whatever rule the EU came up with. They WILL LOSE MONEY.

No. They will EARN LESS MONEY. Not lose.
They're very profitable and given the advantages their own store enjoys, will continue to make lots of money.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does not have an illegal monopoly in the App Store. The DMA made it illegal but they don’t.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal (didn't you say something to that effect yourself, recently?).
Abuse of one is.

 

[Michaelhuisman]

You chose to purchase it knowing exactly what you were getting. If you don’t like the walled garden, don’t buy into it.

but this isn't about side-loading anymore.

This is among other things, EU (which has done a zillion other things great (pun very much intended), we're getting this wrong.

If developers want to set up a whole other store, since iPhones are a major market force (does not have to a be monopoly under EU law), there is some accommodations that EU is requiring of Apple and others, but it's gone way, way, way, way, way overboard here and it's good that Apple appeal and make their case.

EU is requiring Apple to not only innovate for itself, but also for others using Apple's resources. It's not just "opening", but actually going so far as to even code and test architecture layers its own 3rd party developers might need, but what if they don't like how Apple designed how their products *might* ever work on Apple? Preemptively.

This is just way too far now.

Full disclosure: I used to work for Microsoft and ended up in a hotel bar where the team that "took down" Microsoft then, forcing of all things, a version of Windows *without Windows Media Player* as a way to repair market access for companies like Winamp... and they were celebrating. My GF was a lawyer as well and knew them. I oh-so-much wanted to just walk over there and say "WTF are you guys thinking?", but I think my bosses would have killed me if I did...

EU has done a lot of things truly great, but this sure isn't one of them.

 

[Michaelhuisman]

Having a monopoly isn't illegal (didn't you say something to that effect yourself, recently?).
Abuse of one is.

The DMA does not require any service to be a monopoly for it to be "in play" - iOS, iPadOS are *not* monopolies. EU thought they were doing a good thing to prevent monopolies from forming this way - but this is way out of hand now and I will be letting my EU representatives know what I think.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple’s App Store is built on the exact same kind of model as any other store, just on a digital platform. So

Are you bloody serious? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀

👉 Which "any other" store gives away most of its products - and the cost of delivering/distributing them - for free?

(...or a $99 yearly flat fee for third-party manufacturers, regardless of turnover)

 

[djphat2000]

There's no actual "need" for them to have stores at all!
They are making a fantastic and healthy margin on selling the hardware.
(just like with Macs)

There is a need. When your product is sold as a safe/reliable/trusted platform that "just works". Apple has a vested interest in making sure it continues to do so. And that any third party anythings fully comply with the direction Apple has laid out. You're not the arbiter on what a healthy margin is. When you have no idea what that margin goes to. Sony used to be a giant company that Apple looked up to. They aren't so much now.

 

[icolove]

And? The point is that the EU’s actions extended beyond the DMA edicts. Apple complied with the edicts, and the EU still is trying to penalize them, and doing so beyond what was actually defined by their own edicts…

Furthermore, of course the rest of the world isn’t America. But the EU is clearly trying to target American tech companies. And the EU doesn’t really have a single successful tech company of their own, I wonder why…?

And the analogy perfectly mirrors the way this works. Apple’s App Store is built on the exact same kind of model as any other store, just on a digital platform. So this same kind of crap the EU is trying to arbitrarily foist on Apple’s store could also be foisted on any other store…

Well, that's certainly the way to go (not sure where that is, I don't want to go there though)

The FTC wants to do the same, but then January happened. America vs America, except one has funding.

You'd rather defend who's screwing you. Love that

 

[AppliedMicro]

The DMA does not require any service to be a monopoly for it to be "in play" - iOS, iPadOS are *not* monopolies.

The DMA doesn't. But Apple were fined for pre-DMA antitrust rules.

 

[turbineseaplane]

When your product is sold as a safe/reliable/trusted platform that "just works".

That's accomplished via the system & security model design .. just like on macOS

A monopoly on third party App distribution is not required to accomplish these goals.

People continue to conflate Apple business objectives with "safety, security, reliability, etc"
It's understandable as Apple is working HARD to muddy the waters since it benefits them financially to do so.

 

[breenmask]

I’m done.

Just let me side load. I paid £1000 for this phone.

Or pay less for an Android phone that lets you do want you want.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Or pay less for an Android phone that lets you do want you want.

...but then, I'd have to use Google's Play store to get some apps that provide functionality I need?!

 

[BaldiMac]

I understand your point, yet it is biased in Apple’s walled garden favour.

Right now nothing is stopping you from continuing using Apple’s own walled App Store exclusively, as you like it, so your bases are covered. Yet there are people who would like to install their apps from other stores/devs at their own risk, so why deprive them of this choice?

And some of them do not want to use Android (else they would already), nor can they fit a Mac in their pockets. 😉

The same argument gets made in every thread on this topic. The people that want to install their apps from other stores already have the choice of dozens of competing phones. However, you are arguing for eliminating the choice of those people that prefer a closed platform were every app is available from one trusted store.

"It doesn't affect you" only lasts until the first app decides to leave the App Store for a third party store or the first feature is delayed because of the engineering resources that Apple has to dedicate to supporting third-party stores.

 

[Kal Madda]

The checkout isn't circumvented. Even if I want to download my Spotify or Netflix app for the first time, I have to check it out through Apple, as a purchase with my Apple Account.

👉 Maybe Apple should check, why they are checking out so many products for free. Unlike Target, where very few products are free.

PS: ...from what I've heard. I've never been to a Target store. Can any 🇺🇸 American confirm for me whether Target charges (a non-zero amount) for most of the products they carry?

It absolutely is circumvented. The EU is trying to argue that Apple has to allow developers to route customers to their own payment systems, bypassing the commission due to Apple.

It’s like if a store were to offer a product voucher for products they can’t physically stock in their store and require additional services outside of the store. Like vouchers for streaming services, or other such things. They give you a free piece of cardboard with a code on it. And when you use that code on the back of the cardboard slip to purchase the product, the store collects a commission on that sale, so they’re still compensated for the store space used to host the vouchers, and the provided visibility and advertising value they’ve added to the product. What the EU is trying to force is for product vendors to take advantage of that system, but cheat the store out of their commission. So in this case, Apple provides far greater visibility and advertising to apps, as well as the app hosting using space on their servers, but the EU is trying to force it so that developers can just not pay the commission due Apple for those services in the transaction…

 

[I7guy]

Are you bloody serious? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀

👉 Which "any other" store gives away most of its products - and the cost of delivering/distributing them - for free?

(...or a $99 yearly flat fee for third-party manufacturers, regardless of turnover)

The concept of shareware existed for decades. This is all a derivative of that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

"It doesn't affect you" only lasts until the first app decides to leave the App Store for a third party store or the first feature is delayed

So does it affect me when Apple does not allow certain features, apps or functionality on their store.

the engineering resources that Apple has to dedicate to supporting third-party stores.

Bogus claims, considering the essential infrastructure (app signing etc.) has been available for a long time.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It absolutely is circumvented. The EU is trying to argue that Apple has to allow developers to route customers to their own payment systems, bypassing the commission due to Apple.

...after I completed the purchasing, having checked out the App from Apple's App Store at the price Apple decided to charge the developer (and me).

Like vouchers for streaming services, or other such things. They give you a free piece of cardboard with a code on it. And when you use that code on the back of the cardboard slip to purchase the product, the store collects a commission on that sale

They collect a (very small) share of the initial transaction price upon selling that voucher/redemption code in store.
Not when I use it.

Also, again, my question: Are there "normal" stores that mostly carry free vouchers to give away?

The concept of shareware existed for decades.

It did - and I could (often) pay the developer directly, without third parties interfering.

It was a mutually beneficial business model: hardware vendors or magazine publishers could give away software with their hardware or magazine for free - and the shareware developer got sales.

Same as with Macs: Third-party apps help Apple sell Macs (even if they don't take a commission from that sale).

 

[BaldiMac]

So does it affect me when Apple does not allow certain features, apps or functionality on their store.

As does any product decision of any product ever sold.

Bogus claims, considering the essential infrastructure (app signing etc.) has been available for a long time.

Considering we've had at least two iOS updates that primarily supported the DMA, your claim is easily refuted.

 

[djphat2000]

Are you bloody serious? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀

👉 Which "any other" store gives away most of its products - and the cost of delivering/distributing them - for free?

(...or a $99 yearly flat fee for third-party manufacturers, regardless of turnover)

BJ's and Costco both charge its members a yearly fee to just shop IN the store.
You can get free samples of products within the store too.
But, more seriously. Those Free apps are not really free are they? They have Ad's that help them generate revenue. They also may come with some other form of IAP. Where as a physical store just wants you to shop there. And for doing so entice you with coupons or sales like buy one get one. They also offer membership rewards or other perks for shopping there.

There are plenty of ways to get exactly what you stated above by other means.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


It did - and I could (often) pay the developer directly, without third parties interfering.

It was a mutually beneficial business model: hardware vendors or magazine publishers could give away software with their hardware or magazine for free - and the shareware developer got sales.

Same as with Macs: Third-party apps help Apple sell Macs (even if they don't take a commission from that sale).

when you are in someone’s house you play by their rules. My guess is that Spotify had a home team advantage. iOS app store like shareware has a mutually beneficial arrangement as well.

 

[.wojtek]

f customers paid £500 for a Switch 2, should they be allowed to side load onto that

yes.

it's mind boggling that consumers are willingly allowing their own rights to be stripped just becase corporation is greedy xD

 

[AppliedMicro]

Considering we've had at least two iOS updates that primarily supported the DMA, your claim is easily refuted.

We've had many iOS updates that provided little else than security and bug fixes.
Apple has been deliberately exaggerating the number.

They've gone out of their way to make external stores and purchases as consumer-hostile as they can - that's what "compliance" and "DMA support" means to them.

Just issue third-party stores appropriate certificates (all of the tools Apple already has to do so). Make a more consumer-friendly pop-up trust third-party developers rather than hiding in Settings. And allow to set a default store.

👉 Boom, you're DMA-compliant within a week or so (regarding installation of Apps). No other changes necessary.

If, of course, you make it purposely difficult for everyone else, then your work increases.

And yes, I acknowledge that there are other ares of DMA compliance that probably aren't as simple and easy. Such as the interoperability requirements. But not that Apple hasn't been fined for them - they've been fined for not complying with the ones regard the App Store.

when you are in someone’s house you play by their rules

So how many houses are there?

 

[BaldiMac]

We've had many iOS updates that provided little else than security and bug fixes.
Apple has been deliberately exaggerating the number.

They've gone out of their way to make external stores and purchases as consumer-hostile as they can - that's what "compliance" and "DMA support" means to them.

Just issue third-party stores appropriate certificates (all of the tools Apple already has to do so). Make a more consumer-friendly pop-up trust third-party developers rather than hiding in Settings. And allow to set a default store.

👉 Boom, you're DMA-compliant within a week or so (regarding installation of Apps). No other changes necessary.

If, of course, you make it purposely difficult for everyone else, then your work increases.

As usual, you're simply begging the question here. Assuming maliciousness to "prove" maliciousness.

But none of that refutes my point.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

That’s what dealing with Apple, their App Store and their App Store review team feels like.

“Sorry, you can only buy your groceries from store X, and only pay for them using payment method Y in our neighbourhood”

Not at all. Otherwise I would have completely avoided Apple or switched to Android long time ago.
I like the fact that the Apple App Store is safe, nobody will steal my credit card or try to con me.

If I have a problem with an App that doesn’t deliver what it promises (very rare), I just send a text to Apple and they will refund me right away without holding me on the phone for 20 minutes trying to hold on to my money and don’t let go.