They have a grudge against successful companies. ;-)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am serious, because it’s true.
Average product pricing doesn’t inherently make two businesses’ business model different… It just means that they price their products differently…
And you err in concluding that “the cost of delivering/distributing them” is “free”. Because it isn’t. Many apps decide to take a “voucher” tact when distributing in the App Store. Most app purchases are for services that can’t be delivered within the App Store directly. So in a physical store, this would be like the store setting up a rack for cardboard voucher cards for a service, say Target sets up a voucher card rack for Spotify’s music streaming service. And when they set this up, Spotify agrees by contract to pay Target a commission for sales made via this voucher program. So people who shop in target see a big sign advertising Spotify’s service, and a rack of cardboard voucher cards they can grab and take home, hence Target adding additional advertising. What the EU is trying to do is arbitrarily argue that Spotify can cheat Target out of the agreed upon commission by bypassing the system.
And I’ve actually seen such a voucher program used in stores in the US. Generally for movie streaming services and such. You get a cardboard card with a code on it, it’s scanned at checkout and you don’t pay for it then, and you take it home and use the code to access the service and then the store collects their commission from the product vendor rather than from the customer due to the nature of the purchase.
It is hilarious that apple would say anything could be more arbitrary, capricious, opaque, and down right mean spirited than their pre-existing developer rules.
It is mostly random crap-shoot to get your app approved. You never know what the rules are or how you may have violated them.
To me Apple lost ever moral argument when they decided to police thought on the apps: "Censor what people can say with your app or we will kick you out of the store". The very first time they did that they should have been required to allow as many stores and side loading as the owner of the device wanted.
To be clear I don't begrudge them even the 30% tax for access to their customers. It is a known thing and universally applied. But when you start making moral judgements about what people can and cannot say -- that is the sort of corporate oversight of human expression that lead to labor unions 150 years ago.
It is mostly random crap-shoot to get your app approved. You never know what the rules are or how you may have violated them.
To me Apple lost ever moral argument when they decided to police thought on the apps: "Censor what people can say with your app or we will kick you out of the store". The very first time they did that they should have been required to allow as many stores and side loading as the owner of the device wanted.
To be clear I don't begrudge them even the 30% tax for access to their customers. It is a known thing and universally applied. But when you start making moral judgements about what people can and cannot say -- that is the sort of corporate oversight of human expression that lead to labor unions 150 years ago.
But I was talking about having a completely open standard of app file that works on everything and grants customers ownership, like an MP3 works on any device.
Their first "attempts" a compliance were very obviously malicious.
So where their actions in the case that Gonzalez-Rogers ultimately ruled against them.
Maliciousness should be the default assumption in anything Apple ever says or does with regards to their App Store monopoly since the DMA and the Epic trial came to be.
This is an additional excellent argument for why sideloading and third-party App Store stores should be a thing worldwide.
More of the same circular reasoning. At least you acknowledge it!
But I was told open platforms are great in that you can sideload any app that you want and you don't have to rely on one store!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apps almost always distribute for a free initial download, but paid for content/services. This doesn’t mean the business model of the App Store is completely different from any other store, just the kind of product on offer is provided in a bit different of a way, more akin to the voucher system I have previously talked about.
Some do things that way, collecting their commissions upfront at checkout on the voucher, but others can also do it internally between the vendor and the store directly. The end result isn’t much different, only in the ladder case of the commissions being handled between the vendor and the store, the customer has less hassle and confusion of having to make two separate purchases for their service. And arguably, it’s going to make more people more likely to take a voucher for their service vendor’s service for free than for an upfront payment, which is better for the vendor.
Again, product being sold and/or average pricing of products in stores doesn’t inherently mean their business models are completely different. Take, for example, Kohls and PetsMart. Two very different product types, but the same underlying business model…
Not circular as in "they're malicious because they're malicious".
But judging from their previous actions of actions of being malicious.
It was more than obvious that their initially adopted scheme would not satisfy the DMA's requirements, and even less to its intent.
What a truly awful idea. Electron apps have already infected Mac development. I want efficient apps built to support the features and design of my chosen platform.
Sure, you assume that their lack of compliance was malicious, and therefore assume any future motivations are malicious. And around and around we go.
Because it makes Apple’s users less safe and secure.
Tiny minority of freeloading devs asked for it, everyone else gets fewer features as a result.
Well, it's free for consumers - and most developers, isn't it?
It certainly doesn't come free to Apple.
The issue is this: Most of the app downloads provided by Apple are free. And they remain free from commission, even for further in-app purchases. Uber or others don't pay further commission to Apple.
That is what has enabled Apple to obtain and maintain its dominant position for app distribution - and the iPhone itself as a successful product.
And Apple is only, selectively, charging commission from a subset of developers - many of which they are directly competitors to (gaming, streaming). That makes for unfair competition on the market for much digital goods and services.
👉 This is harmful to competition and business as well as consumer choice
👉 As does the idea that anyone, everyone controlling a resource or infrastructure should be allowed to charge any rate (share) of another one's business.
It notably does not prevent Apple from charging - as many other
See above, makes everyone less safe and secure so big developers don’t pay their fair share.
I’m sure stores in the mall hate paying their landlord too. But use someone’s property, and you should have to pay up in the way that person/company asks.
But Spotify and Epic wanted a handout, and convinced a bunch of free market hating bureaucrats that Apple’s property belongs to everyone, so here we are.
Apple will pay the fine after complaining about it along with the next dozen or more fines that will come out of the EU. Most of the fines will be passed onto the price of their product in the EU.
In the long run, Apple will probably have to have a separate developer program for the EU. Any new MacOS features will also probably never appear in the EU.
In the long run, Apple will probably have to have a separate developer program for the EU. Any new MacOS features will also probably never appear in the EU.
At least I have possible alternatives, when the Play Store is not an acceptable venue of business, yes.
So did judge Gonzalez-Rogers, yes. I consider myself in good and well-educated company in doing so.
Also, the EU warned Apple about their DMA noncompliance a good while ago - without Apple changing anything before being fined.
That's a minor factor and mere pretext in this.
It's simply about money. First and foremost.
If it was all about safety and security, they would have never opened their enterprise program.
They also wouldn't have allowed known violators so quickly back into business.
The analogy fails the basic test of
- similar market power
- similar market concentration
- similar market entry barriers
- similar barriers to switching for consumers
Other than the mall, they have lots of options to set up business elsewhere.
Lots.
Not just "oh, but there's at least this one other" ("...that does have a slightly higher market share - which is why Mall 1 shouldn't be regulated, even if they're in a duopoly with Mall 2").
Last edited:
When a dominant firm - and direct competitor - is able to either a) charge a sizeable share of your business and turnover or b) prevent you from marketing and selling to consumers at their preferred point of interaction (in the app they're using), the market isn't free.
Cool. So back to my original point: get an Android.
I just told you that the Play Store isn't an acceptable venue of business.
But the only one where I could legally get some (paid) apps for functionality I require.
Which is why I don't accept the argument that I should be "forced" to buy Android (if I don't like Apple's policies regarding app installation).
No, she determined that an Apple executive lied about how and when they calculated their commission on steered transactions.
Again, you assumed that the reason for the non-compliance was malicious. Round and round again.
That wasn't all. It wasn't just "one guy" not telling the truth.
She also found that "Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option".
👉 That, by definition, is malicious.
You are creating a false equivalence here. Uber is selling a physical service, not a digital one. That isn’t an “in-app purchase”, it’s a purchase via an app, two very different things… Apple doesn’t collect a commission on such transactions because they are not truly “in-app purchases”, like paying to unlock a feature or functionality of the app.
In-App Purchases, however, are when apps require a purchase to unlock in-app features and/or content. And that is something that Apple does collect commissions on, and fairly so, because they also provided promotion and hosting services to the app in the first place, and the developer agreed to those terms via contract when they requested Apple’s app hosting and promotional services…
This is not “discriminatory”, as Apple collects such commissions on all apps that actually provide “in-app purchases”… And developers agreed to these terms when they requested Apple’s services, if they didn’t like those terms, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it…
Last edited: