Couldn’t have said it any better. 👍🏻
Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
djphat2000
macrumors 65816
They do this for nothing else. There reasoning is that you only have 2 choices in Apple or Google. Let the developer pick another way if they have it or want to use another 3rd party. I'm not totally against this. Want to advertise that you can purchase said product directly from the vendor. OK, just NOT within the App/PlayStore. Do that outside of it. Just like any other product sold in any other store.
That's not how it works. You're judged (Stocks, investors) based on doing MORE than you used to. That's how you're valued. So unless Apple can create a brand new product every year, forever (in multiple areas). They will lose money. Subscriptions are the way of the future for some time now. A constant revenue stream. Plus anything "new" that someone comes up with. You're always funded so you can take more risks. There is always a rush for a new iPhone. Then it dies down. And it's not the same sales year after year. Some are higher than others. Apple has product releases to compensate for that. New iPhone in September. New MacBooks or Minis in October/December. New iPads in April, and over and over again. Sometimes they mix it up with laptops/chips/desktops/iPads/watches/Airpods, etc. But, they have to have a cycle (not the only ones). So that money keeps coming in for new stuff. What is constant is that revenue stream. AppleTV or Music, or AppStore. Which not only funds the system, but everything else as well.
Apple and others are no longer able to live off just making an iPhone, or a computer. They have to have addition streams of revenue. And they HAVE to be more profitable. Being stagnant is just as bad, but eventually it can lead to declines. Which has its own potential spiral down to oblivion. There will never be enough. 3 Trillion today, 6 Trillion tomorrow. And the better companies like Apple will invest their profits in areas that matter as well. More clean energy, more sustainablely made products. No toxic chemicals or metals, or bad labor practices. Recycled materials, and even planting trees. All of it adds up. And you get all of that because of these other area of revenue. If they lose that revenue. They either have to spend less someplace else. Lay people off, close stores, remove a less profitable product from the line up. Cancel future products until the costs are low enough to justify it, and on and on.
Pretty sure even PC folks don't want that. Everyone benefits from what Apple does.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
The differentiation is arbitrary and unjustified.
What is the digital purchase of an MP3 file, ePub or .kfx supposed to cost when done via an app?
👉 30% commission - though it's not tied to the app through which it was purchased.
Does the Kindle app come with all of the books purchasable/readable through it, only to be "unlocked" upon such purchase?
👉 No, it does not. The books purchased in the Kindle app neither come bundled, nor are they delivered/served by Apple.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
Spotify or Netflix (and all the others) do not advertise it on Apple's Store.
That would probably violate Apple's developers - which, in this case, Apple is allowed to maintain.
They want to advertise in their own apps.
The stock price may be.
It may be negatively judged (sink) when you're making less money.
I get what you mean by expected growth - but a sinking stock price does not mean that the company is losing money.
DoctorMesmer
macrumors member
I trust that you’re using “you” in a generic sense rather than addressing me directly!
However, I may buy an iPhone in order to use a specific app such as GarageBand, that’s not available on other platforms, but still want the freedom to install apps from other sources. In this case it wouldn’t be a case of “couldn’t be bothered” but the best compromise available.
Ah well – I’m sure we can agree to differ!
Last edited:
The assumption is a new system would be more efficient. We're not talking resurrecting Java.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I think that would be good completion for people to step up to the plate and create their dream ecosystem. Don’t regulate existing companies because your region is incapable of innovation.
There is a strong arguement that ratifying a level playing field for software distribution is the very definition of a free market in action. Having one company in charge of the entire stack not so much.
We already have a dream ecosystem. The internet itself was founded on the principles of free exchange of ideas, data and knowledge. PWAs work on any platform regardless of vendor, country or device.
Big silicon valley tech companies siloing all the data and networks for themselves is what has created the problem.
ultratiem
macrumors regular
I don't really get why think this. EU has been enforcing its rules and when they do, Apple intentionally makes the change as obscure, half assed and annoying for the user as possible to get this exact rise.
Meanwhile, you can't side load, you can't install your own OS, you can't even jailbreak unless the OS is 8 years old.
Then have we forgotten lightning? And MagSafe? Proprietary connectors all owned and controlled by megacorps.
It's no wonder we are in such a pickle when there are people this lost, in-fighting with the very group they belong to. Yikes.
I don't see the argument in there. iOS opening up would result in the same thing. It sounds like you're asking for something that isn't going to happen on either platforms and you're part of a niche group.
It is not either… (And just you saying it doesn’t make it true either…)
There is a big difference between purchasing content/and or features that work within the app in question, vs purchasing a physical service that’s provided outside of the app. Those are two very distinct and separate kinds of transactions, there is nothing “arbitrary” about that.
In the one case, apps are usually distributing the app for free, but the actual core features or functionality of the app are unlocked via in-app purchases. So since these purchases are directly tied to the app and it’s functionality, it makes sense for Apple to collect a commission on these purchases, since Apple is providing promotional and hosting and other services for the app, and the app’s functionality is being unlocked via such in-app purchases. Otherwise, any developer could just distribute their app for “free” and then charge for all of the in-app functionality, cheating Apple out of the commissions rightly due them for their services…
Furthermore, developers agreed to these terms. If they didn’t like them, or thought they were unfair, they didn’t have to agree to them. Essentially, you have a handful of big developers here that agreed to a contract, but now don’t want to honor it anymore, so are lobbying for the EU to give them the means to violate the contract they agreed to, while also continuing to reap the benefits of the other party’s services anyways. And this is wrong, period…
Supermallet
macrumors 68020
It's hard to say where to apply the analogy, because in this case Apple isn't just the individual grocery store. You're right that if I go to Kroger I don't see a good reason to compel them to tell me that Costco has a better price on bananas that day. However if I want I can choose to buy some products from Kroger and some from some from Costco (and I suspect most people do exactly that). In this case, Apple is not just not telling me that there are other options, they're also not allowing each individual service to tell me I have other options, and on top of it, if that other option is only on another mobile OS then I couldn't realistically do a bit of shopping in one market and a bit of shopping in another. I struggle to think of what a good physical store analogy here would be. it would be more like before I could shop at Kroger OR Costco I had to choose only one of those stores to shop in and am subject to whatever pricing and offerings they're supplying regardless of what the other store has, because I'm locked out from accessing it.
This is a laughable argument. The coding is almost entirely on the shoulders of the app developers, who are coding with guidelines Apple sets. If the guidelines allow for links that go to alternate app stores or to other websites, then the developers for each app still have to code that in themselves. iOS barely has to make any changes at all. On top of that, you cannot possibly defend this from an anti-bloat position given how many apps on the App Store are basically addiction machines designed to get you to buy increasingly expensive in app purchases, or are littered with ads that you have to watch to continue, and/or are data mining. The vast vast vast majority of apps on the App Store are bloatware, and Apple has absolutely no problem rubber stamping them. And those apps won't bother trying to get you to go to another source because that adds friction and they want to minimize friction so you mindlessly click the buy more button. They want to utilize the ease of the built in mobile payments system so you don't have time to think about whether it makes sense to pay $100 for 30 gems in the game you downloaded for free.
Not just less safe but less secure too? Goodness gracious! I like how you throw out these words as if they mean anything without providing any context whatsoever. And how could you? Defending Apple on the internet on your free time doesn't require specifics now does it.
Do you recall car makers unsuccessfully trying to justify restricting repairs to their own certified partners because independent shops are going to spy on your car's location data and rob you or worse? There were some really unhinged ideas of what "less safe" would supposedly look like. It was comical. All so that people would get scared of independent repair shops.
I don't intend to sideload ever even if that should come to the States some day. Yet if someone else wants to be "less safe" then that's their choice with their property they paid handsomely for. As iPhones fall under the EU's gatekeeper rule Apple simply isn't permitted to stop customers from acquiring software from places other than Apple.
With any other phone manufacturer you can have it your way: Don't like the rules of said manufacturer? Buy a different phone brand! Easy. But you can't buy an iPhone from anyone else other than Apple and you can't buy a smartphone running iOS that's not an iPhone.
Not to mention the Apple iOS app store is the default store on iPhones and isn't going anywhere. Right now Apple customers can sideload already in the EU but those who don't even know what sideloading means see no difference in how they use their iPhones and acquire their apps. Sideloading is possible on Android as well. Are Pixels inherently "unsafe and unsecure" compared to iPhones? The majority of Android users get their apps from Google's Play Store and never sideload anything.
In fact most users' smartphones are made less safe by apps that are available in the official iOS and Google app store. On the one hand you have malicious apps that unfortunately sometimes make it through Apple's as well as Google's safety scanning processes and might be installed on many devices before being force-removed. On the other you have apps that remain on the stores to this day such as tiktok. These apps do make users less safe because they might collect and process your personal information and additional data derived from your use of such apps like political affiliation. And such data about you can be sold and is being sold today and you have no recourse or ability to find out how anonymized this data really is.
And such apps are willingly installed by users every day from official app stores where their personal data is being harvested without their knowledge yet you claim sideloading is the actual issue. I cannot take you seriously.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Rainbows and unicorns. Cross-platform is inherently less efficient since you are targeting different APIs that are implemented differently. Plus, you've taken away all the incentive for OS developers to add new features. Removed a revenue source from developers. Made updates more complicated. Opened more doors to malware. Unchecked piracy.
And there's little benefit. Apps are already cheap. 85% of them are free to download anyway. Most of the time, apps with subscriptions already offer access to various platforms with the single subscription.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
If I'm purchasing a book, I'm purchasing the text. That's the valuable (and copyrightable) thing. Not sheets of paper.
It's not entirely arbitrary of course - they're just charging the vulnerable developers (that can't viably market and provide their services/products to consumers otherwise).
Neither an MP3 file nor a music subscription is directly tied to the app.
...which they're doing for lots of apps that don't pay commission to them.
They're arguably providing more in "services" to Uber (GPS, push notifications) than, say, a simple random eBook store.
👉 Apple does not have to offer their App Store services for free. They just chose to (except the $99 developer fee).
Charging only a "vulnerable" subset of developers for a large share of their business - namely the ones that can't easily avoid the App Store and provide their services or product through other means (i.e. a browser) - while charging others (Uber) basically nothing is unfair. And it's also how Apple maintains its dominant position.
In addition, they've begun to compete with many of the ones charged by offering their own "Music" and "TV" subscriptions - a competition that does not take place on a level playing field.
There's little actual choice when you're facing a duopoly of gatekeepers (with their separate customer bases). With Apple accounting for about half of mobile app spending.
Spotify, Netflix, Match and Epic - they don't want to benefit from making purchases through Apple's in-app system. They just don't want to be forced to use it. They want to transact directly with consumers.
Last edited:
The_Gream
macrumors 6502
You do realize that the lighting connector came out before USB-C right?
It replaced the old 30 pin. Also, for some of us, Steve Jobs said that lightning was the connector for the next decade, which is about how long it lasted.
It is directly tied to the functionality of the app. If you’re buying an ebook you’re going to read within that app, then it makes sense to charge a commission for that. Nobody installs an eReader app without books to read in it, the ebooks are essential to the functionality of the app, they are the core functionality provided by the app…
And that’s just your negative assertions/accusations with no evidence…
They are directly tied to the app, it’s the core functionality that people install those apps for in the first place…
And Uber doesn’t sell “in-app goods” directly tied to the core functionality of the app. Others do. Again, you continue with false equivalence…
While Apple doesn’t technically have to do so, they practically have to do so… And collecting commissions from apps based on in-app sales/revenue is far more fair and balanced than charging all apps the same fees with no regard to size or profitability. Of course a multi-million dollar app benefiting from Apple’s services should pay more than an indy developers app that brings in a much smaller revenue… Apple’s commission based system is fair because it’s actually based on revenue coming in from Apple’s platform.
And again, you have still failed to address the fact that developers agreed to these terms, and if they didn’t think they were fair, they could have very easily decided to not agree to them, and also not make use of Apple’s services…. They chose to agree to these terms, and now they want to violate those agreements, and want to lobby governments to give them the ability to violate the contract and still reap the benefits of the other party’s services.
And this is entirely different from the debate over sideloading. This is trying to tell a company that they must essentially allow vendors to violate the terms of their contract, and continue to use their services. Remember that sideloading is already a thing in the EU. So if apps like Spotify don’t like the agreement, they could always withdraw their App Store app, and require users to sideload their app. Or use a web version. Because both music streaming services and ereading platforms absolutely do work as web apps. They even support “Now Playing” on iOS just like a native app. Kindle used to even allow users to download ebooks for offline reading with their web app. Web apps are quite capable anymore. And in iOS 26, any website (previously web devs had to code in this functionality) can open in it’s own separate window rather than in Safari or whatever other default browser, so web apps are even better than ever…
Last edited:
turbineseaplane
Contributor
I think they mean that Apple could have waited and gone right to USB-C.
Being in the working group, they knew the timetable (and obviously didn't want to wait).
cjsuk
macrumors 65816
I am writing this on one.
TheHeron
Suspended
Because they knew if they waited they wouldn't have been able to force yet another proprietary connector on us and get away with it.
The EU was already making noise about standardization, Apple knew that was coming too, and didn't want to lose their "made for iPhone" cash cow.
Or… they just didn’t want to wait several years to replace their antiquated and less reliable pin connector ports and make customers have to deal with port issues for several more years as a result, rather than just using the much better new port they already had ready….
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
It's not. Certainly not "directly". That particular eBook I purchased does not depend on the reader app. Neither does the reader app depend on that particular (type or instance) of book.
My book can be read with any other compatible app, even on non-Apple devices. Vice versa, my eBook app can read any book purchased elsewhere.
From Apple's perspective, it "makes sense" to charge commission on every instance they feel they can get away with (without losing hardware sales).
...and?
Nobody buys or dons a weightlifting belt without intending to lift weights. That doesn't mean the belt manufacturer deserves a share of my gym's yearly membership "subscription" fee. Or vice versa.
No, they don't.
And certainly not any less than Spotify "practically has to" agree to Apple's terms to be on the platform.
Apple are making enough money from selling iPhones to bear these costs.
They'd still be making enough money from providing their in-app payment service non-exclusely, i.e. ni competition with other means of in-app purchases.
See above.
We can agree!
👉 Yes, charge Spotify, Netflix, Fortnite and all the others the same commissions as Uber.
Same pricing.
Same purchasing options.
Same conditions and steering or not.
They can base it on revenue, yes.
Problem solved.
Discussion concluded.
We found a reasonable (and nondiscriminatory) consensus.
Particular anticompetitive prone-to-abuse terms of their service have been made (or considered) illegal.
Happens all the time.
Companies need to set their terms and conditions according to laws - which may change.
Especially when governments (or regulators) have determined a malfunctioning of free markets.
With compromised user experience.
Does it work in background tabs?
Can you play the music to your AirPlay speakers?
Does it cache a meaningful amounts of music for offline use?
Does the browser interface get in the way of music controls?
Last edited:
Yes, I agree. Never said they didn't. However European car manufactures are not funding Chinas rise to dominate the world and become a direct threat to the West, which Apple is doing by investing 50 billion US annually into the country.
Apples dealings with the EU are not the only thing to make them unethical in some ways chasing those profits.
If you buy an ebook through Kindle, you can only read Kindle ebooks within the Kindle app. You cannot read them in any other app. And you cannot read non-Kindle ebooks within the Kindle app. Kindle ebooks are tied to the Kindle app. And are a direct service provided by the app. Other generic eReader apps that read ePub files exist, but since they aren’t selling access to the core functionality of the app (a specific curated library of books) they are exempt from in-app purchases, and rightly so. Your Kindle book cannot be read in any other app.
They do for several reasons. For one, there are apps that distribute for free for educational purposes, government purposes, non-profits, etc. And consumer apps that are just entirely free. And for most subscription services, the app itself is free, but the subscription service the app provides is not. The subscription service is an in-app purchase. The app would be completely pointless without the subscription service. So it’s only fair that Apple collects their commission from such in-app purchases, since they host the app, and the in-app purchase unlocks the fundamental functionality of the app. For example, the Spotify app is completely pointless without a Spotify subscription. It’s the core functionality of the app. It’s the sole reason one would download it for. It cannot play any other MP3 files, only the music included in the Spotify subscription. I believe this commission system is perfectly reasonable. And so did the developers as well apparently at some point when they agreed to those terms and signed a contract…
And no, we don’t agree, because you are again creating false equivalency. I’ve already explained the major differences between those kinds of apps… They are not the same, and should not be managed the same way…
PS. And you just repeatedly claiming things you don’t like are “discriminatory” doesn’t make it so…