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

[wbeasley]

not one answer from anyone on why the EU can level fines on global sales rather than EU sales???

i fail to see why my Apple purchase in Australia should result in EU being compensated...

 

[Ctrlos]

you could build your own phone too... or write your own OS or modify Android...

no of which means Apple need to do anything.

There is quite the gulf between buying an Evercade instead of a Nintendo Switch say, and building your own phone operating system from scratch rather than using iOS.

A games console is nothing but a fun distraction.

But as a civilisaiton we have spent the last 20 years building a society that revolves around smartphones. They are a neccessity for everything. The reason teenagers stare at their phones all day is because they are the window through which they, and by extension us view the world.

 

[Ctrlos]

but is you steal an app binary, you can copy and share it and install...

how exactly are you proposing to ensure people pay for the apps they install?

and back to the other question, what apps cant you find or install on iOS devices that require dismantling the AppStore?

I'll leave this here but You don't know what you're missing.

There are loads of great benefits to the security of a walled garden approach, but sometimes you really want to hike in the mountains instead and take in the view.

 

[okkibs]

This is objectively incorrect.

It doesn't matter in this thread. I already disagreed with that form factor and other such nonsense yet all that comes back is more disagreement that makes for an endless loop. People here seem to be salivating from their fingers at the chance to type some weird reply so they can defend Apple in their spare time or tell us why the EU's regulations are so horrible as if it wasn't worse here.

I especially love the argument that Apple's own code to even allow third party app stores would make every iPhone "unsafe" even for those people who never install such a store in the first place. Just because it's additional code that wasn't there before. By that argument Apple shouldn't introduce any new features ever as all these additional lines of code make iPhones "unsafe" for everyone.

 

[wbeasley]

There is quite the gulf between buying an Evercade instead of a Nintendo Switch say, and building your own phone operating system from scratch rather than using iOS.

A games console is nothing but a fun distraction.

But as a civilisaiton we have spent the last 20 years building a society that revolves around smartphones. They are a neccessity for everything. The reason teenagers stare at their phones all day is because they are the window through which they, and by extension us view the world.

of course there is a gulf... but if you are so unhappy with what Apple offer as a product and you know what you want (and saying you are doing Android stuff indicates you tinker) then building your own OS is always a possibility.

trouble is, you build something and show it to someone else and they will find faults in it.

life is compromise.
the compromise with iOS is what it's always been: controlled app installs.
nothing new.

originally came with apps and that was all.
then along came the AppStore.
and changed the face of phones on both major platforms.

game consoles (especially handheld ones) have just as much computing power in them and wifi.
they could easily add a 5G chip and add a phone app.
or even wifi calling.

but lets face it, fewer and fewer people talk on a phone these days.
i could certainly do without it except a few family and older friends still phone.
two even have ... landlines and prefer that to their mobiles...

everyone walks around because handheld devices are addictive.
the apps push notifications to you to keep you engaged.

so again i will ask you, as you continually dont answer and go off on tangents:

what apps do you need on your iOS device that you cant install now?

 

[wbeasley]

It doesn't matter in this thread. I already disagreed with that form factor and other such nonsense yet all that comes back is more disagreement that makes for an endless loop. People here seem to be salivating from their fingers at the chance to type some weird reply so they can defend Apple in their spare time or tell us why the EU's regulations are so horrible as if it wasn't worse here.

I especially love the argument that Apple's own code to even allow third party app stores would make every iPhone "unsafe" even for those people who never install such a store in the first place. Just because it's additional code that wasn't there before. By that argument Apple shouldn't introduce any new features ever as all these additional lines of code make iPhones "unsafe" for everyone.

you clearly miss the point about adding code creating potential security issues.

Apple adding features in the OS could also create issues. that's what testing is for. you can bet the dev team only get access to the bits of the OS they need and not everything.

the added code to send users outside the app store or to external payments opens the OS to external third parties even for those who never use them. a doorway that didnt exist. to a world full of hackers who salivate (using your visual) for new exploit vectors.

allowing the phone user to install something like an APK from anywhere requires code changes as well.
another potential exploit site.
and then the app that could contain virus or access phone data... you want your photos uploaded without permission?

that is why these forced changes are different and increase the risk for everyone

 

[I7guy]

[…]

But as a civilisaiton we have spent the last 20 years building a society that revolves around smartphones. They are a neccessity for everything. The reason teenagers stare at their phones all day is because they are the window through which they, and by extension us view the world.

No, as a civilization we have built a society that revolves around online communication. Of which smartphones are just one part of this.

The way you misrepresent this is why your argument falls flat.

 

[Ctrlos]

of course there is a gulf... but if you are so unhappy with what Apple offer as a product and you know what you want (and saying you are doing Android stuff indicates you tinker) then building your own OS is always a possibility.

trouble is, you build something and show it to someone else and they will find faults in it.

life is compromise.
the compromise with iOS is what it's always been: controlled app installs.
nothing new.

originally came with apps and that was all.
then along came the AppStore.
and changed the face of phones on both major platforms.

game consoles (especially handheld ones) have just as much computing power in them and wifi.
they could easily add a 5G chip and add a phone app.
or even wifi calling.

but lets face it, fewer and fewer people talk on a phone these days.
i could certainly do without it except a few family and older friends still phone.
two even have ... landlines and prefer that to their mobiles...

everyone walks around because handheld devices are addictive.
the apps push notifications to you to keep you engaged.

so again i will ask you, as you continually dont answer and go off on tangents:

what apps do you need on your iOS device that you cant install now?

I mentioned it in the other reply but here goes.

 

[Ctrlos]

No, as a civilization we have built a society that revolves around online communication. Of which smartphones are just one part of this.

The way you misrepresent this is why your argument falls flat.

I see where you're coming from. The internet is comparable to electricity or running water as a neccessity, with the phone being just one way of accessing it.

 

[wbeasley]

I mentioned it in the other reply but here goes.

no i asked what YOU need not some generic jailbreak stuff... LOL

 

[wbeasley]

I see where you're coming from. The internet is comparable to electricity or running water as a neccessity, with the phone being just one way of accessing it.

thats just twisting his words. nothing like the intent.

a phone is NOT a necessity.
there are kids (admittedly fewer and fewer) who dont have phones and old people (i know a few) who survive without having one.

so they arent essential to life.

we had a cyclone recently. power off for a week. and people survived without phones.

wasnt much fun but survived nonetheless.

 

[Ctrlos]

no i asked what YOU need not some generic jailbreak stuff... LOL

As I mentioned several pages ago, I couldn't care less what Apple do. I was merely making an observation that giving the iPhone parity with the Mac would end all of their litigation issues. They market the Mac to iPhone owners so clearly trust the judgement of general customers in managing a more open device.

I was also pointing out all the cool tweaks people make to their devices when they give the iPhone parity with the Mac themselves.

 

[Kal Madda]

But could the reverse not be said? It's not what I want but rather what makes Apple's litigators happy. Letting the iPbone grow up and bringing it into parity with the Mac, a product Apple sells and markets already to the same users (even if they don't buy it) would make all their problems vanish overnight. That was (I think?) the original article on this thread.

Apple keep adding layers of bureaucracy and flouting the letter of the law and then wondering why they keep getting fined. Although this thread is centred on EU law there was that judge in the USA who took them to town for not meeting the demands of the Epic case, purposefully and willfully adding regressive external payment warnings, sending an employee to commit perjury on their behalf and then asking for 3% less in commission on external payments.

Now you could say Apple was just protecting their users, but the corporate emails that came out showed that it was the bottom line (and shareholders) they were protecting. Mac parity here would have ended that problem too.

The Apple of old would have used this as an excuse to innovate somehow, improving the development experience to they never jump ship and other things I can't think of. Instead they choose to keep making their problems worse and then complaining about it in public.

To get things back on track it's not what anyone here wants but rather the most obvious solution to end the legal woes. Ignorance on Apple's part is making it worse. Bringing the iPhone up to Mac parity is but one solution but it's my best suggestion.

This last sentence comes across as sarcastic but I mean it with sincerity: I would genuinely love to hear what others have to say on how Apple can solve it's problems 🥰 The ball is for better or worse in their court.

I doubt that would make these problems “vanish”. Where you err is assuming that the EU commission is being reasonable, and acting in good faith. But their actions demonstrate otherwise. The EU commission is seemingly purposefully making things as vague as possible, and providing contradictory feedback about whether or not proposed changes would comply or not. They’ve even tried to claim that they can’t guarantee that proposed changes would actually comply with the “law” that they wrote into “law” and are in charge of applying! That’s essentially impossible to comply with, if even the people enforcing the “law” don’t know what it is or what complies and what wouldn’t… I have no reason to buy that the EU commission is acting in good faith here, and many to believe they aren’t…. They’re essentially just trying to penalize successful US tech companies as part of a geopolitical feud…

Furthermore, it isn’t as simple as “change iOS to be like macOS”. They have very different security structures and platforms. And have for many years. Undoing all the security protections that iOS has in place to make it be like macOS would compromise the whole system, and lead to major security issues and risks. Furthermore, beyond the technical differences that would make that bad, many customers have bought iPhones because of that extra security and protection the iPhone provides. Essentially you’re wanting a government to force a private business to sell a different product and retroactively replace the product other customers bought for reasons…. It’s tantamount to “I don’t like the Nintendo Switch 2, so instead of buying the Steam Deck that I do like, I’m going to have government force the Nintendo Switch to replace their software with SteamOS, and turn it into a Steam Deck retroactively for everyone who bought a Switch 2”…. That’s just wrong. But that’s in essence what’s happening here. Many customers (even many in the EU) bought iPhones specifically because they were closed and more secure, and now, they no longer have that choice, they’re essentially stuck with a system that is arguably possibly even less secure than Android in some areas, because iOS was never designed to function that way, and has had to make these changes in a rushed manner to try to meet deadlines…

It is not “flouting the letter of the law”. Apple has spent a lot of time and resources trying to work directly with the EU commission to make changes that will comply. The EU commission is being near impossible to deal with. They provide contradictory feedback, they fail to provide timely feedback, and they even claim that they don’t know whether proposed changes will comply with the “law” they’re enforcing! That’s seriously messed up. And when the commission is apparently making things up at a whim, it makes it essentially impossible to comply.

As to the Epic Games thing, the judge is trying to bolster her career by playing hardball with one of the most successful companies in the country. She’s trying to act outside her proper scope of authority (a consistent theme here). Judges are to interpret existing law, not create new law… There is zero US law requiring Apple to provide developers on their platform to use external payment systems, nor are there any laws that state Apple can’t put up a warning screen warning customers that they’re leaving the App Store to do such a thing. She is acting well outside the proper scope of her authority… And she merely alleges that an Apple spokesperson committed purgery, it’s not fact, it’s an accusation from a judge that’s clearly off the rails…

They aren’t Apple’s problems. The problem is that other outside entities are essentially trying to penalize them for success. They’re burdening them with silly edicts that are outside the proper scope of government authority, and are essentially designed to be impossible to comply with. The problem is with governments trying to take away Apple’s right to manage their platform as they see fit. Not with Apple…

 

[Ctrlos]

thats just twisting his words. nothing like the intent.

I thought it was the intent! My bad.

There was, a decade ago moves made to classify the internet as a utility in the USA and the UK. In fact the FCC voted it in as a utility only last year. Estonia added internet access to its list of basic human rights and they have one of the most forward-thinking, innovative digital societies on the planet. I can't speak for all countries but successive UK governments have commited to getting gigbit internet rolled out to the entire country by 2032 due to its central importance in society and the economy. In fact denying people access to the internet at a state level is now seen as a blow to the rights of citizens and a way for bad actors to block access to information. I'd say that most of the world sees the internet as a neccessity for modern life even if people disagree on a personal level.

With regards to phones as a medium to access the web, there is plenty of commentary on why refugees bring only the clothes on their backs and their phones with them and there has been plenty of articles and research on how indespensible they are. Whether they are a neccessity will largely depend on how digital a society has become but one of the first things authorities seek to get back up after a natural disaster are mobile networks.

Most countries don't seem to recognise just how much of a ubiquity they are to modern life. It would make more sense for example to have high school classes on proper phone use to encourage more personal responsibility rather than outright banning them and making them a forbidden fruit. Lawmakers might then be more inclined to regulate app markets to ensure proper age gating of features.

 

[I7guy]

I thought it was the intent! My bad.

There was, a decade ago moves made to classify the internet as a utility in the USA and the UK. In fact the FCC voted it in as a utility only last year. Estonia added internet access to its list of basic human rights and they have one of the most forward-thinking, innovative digital societies on the planet. I can't speak for all countries but successive UK governments have commited to getting gigbit internet rolled out to the entire country by 2032 due to its central importance in society and the economy. In fact denying people access to the internet at a state level is now seen as a blow to the rights of citizens and a way for bad actors to block access to information. I'd say that most of the world sees the internet as a neccessity for modern life even if people disagree on a personal level.

With regards to phones as a medium to access the web, there is plenty of commentary on why refugees bring only the clothes on their backs and their phones with them and there has been plenty of articles and research on how indespensible they are. Whether they are a neccessity will largely depend on how digital a society has become but one of the first things authorities seek to get back up after a natural disaster are mobile networks.

Most countries don't seem to recognise just how much of a ubiquity they are to modern life. It would make more sense for example to have high school classes on proper phone use to encourage more personal responsibility rather than outright banning them and making them a forbidden fruit. Lawmakers might then be more inclined to regulate app markets to ensure proper age gating of features.

It’s true. Cell phones are very important and that was never a disagreement point.

 

[Kal Madda]

"supposed to be" is doing a helluva lot of work in that sentence.

Meanwhile, in the Land of the Free (where pretty much the same arguments are going on, but via private lawsuits rather than government bodies), Epic Games v. Apple (on a not unrelated topic) took 3 weeks of arguments at trial, an appeal to the ninth circuit, an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court and a subsequent legal dispute over Apple's compliance with the ruling.

Yup, commercial laws and regulations are all as clear as crystal. /s

Nope, it’s true, and no extra work required…

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no law on the books saying Apple must allow developers to use external payment systems in the US. This isn’t a matter of complying with a “law”, it’s settling a court case, a completely different type of matter. And presently, one judge is trying to act outside the scope of her authority handing out edicts to Apple that aren’t required or supported by US law. Judges don’t have the authority to create new law, they are merely tasked with enforcing existing law, and there is zero existing law to back up her edicts…

Commercial laws aren’t necessarily crystal clear to laymen, but when the people who literally are enforcing the law can’t tell you how they’ll decide to enforce it when you’re trying to work with them to comply, and they even contradict themselves, that’s a serious issue…

Also, it’s a logical fallacy to claim “it happened/happens in the US, so it must be good”. Many wrong things happen in the US as well. Regulators try to work outside of the proper scope of their authority here as well. That doesn’t make it a good thing. And at least here, it still seems to meet greater pushback than in Europe, and we have more checks and balances in place with our Constitution…

 

[theluggage]

not one answer from anyone on why the EU can level fines on global sales rather than EU sales???

Why shouldn't they (once you accept that they have the right to fine)? It's a punishment for breaking the EU rules, not a tax, and that's the formula they put in the rules. It's supposed to punish the company, and so it's scaled according to the size of the company. They could have gone with market cap, N times the CEOs last bonus, the cube of the Scrabble score from the company name... they went with global sales.

Plus, some of the "gatekeepers" have form for being very creative about where online "sales" for services actually happen - but that's a whole other can of worms.

But, hey, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The EU doesn't have a monopoly/duopoly on people who buy phone apps - Apple and Google have the freedom of choice to do business in a country where they prefer the way fines are calculated. Maybe the EU would then beg them to come back, maybe they wouldn't. Fun finding out.

 

[breenmask]

The Games Industry =/= The Mobile Industry

Not really the point I'm making.

I could buy an emulator console. Or an actual retro console. Or a Playdate. Or play on my Phone. Or an Evercade. Or a mini retro console. Or build my own with a raspberry pi. Or play on a Mac. Or a PC.

Android is open source and you can strip all the google services away, which plenty have already done.

Or buy a Meta Quest

It's funny that you mention Meta Quest considering it's built on Android. lol

 

[Kal Madda]

The Games Industry =/= The Mobile Industry

I could buy an emulator console. Or an actual retro console. Or a Playdate. Or play on my Phone. Or an Evercade. Or a mini retro console. Or build my own with a raspberry pi. Or play on a Mac. Or a PC. Or buy a Meta Quest. Or a handheld PC etc.

For one, they aren’t all that different. They’re both tech platforms. They’re both companies that provide a novel hardware tech platform, and license access to this platform to third-party devs when they agree to and abide by terms laid out by the owner of the platform. Second, even if you argue they’re different industries (which is true), the problem is that they are not different in principle. Essentially your discriminating against some companies rights in one area, while acknowledging them in another. That isn’t how law is supposed to work. You’re not supposed to be applying law to some but not to others. That would be unjust. So if this were a true “law”, then it should be applied evenly to all. But it is not, probably because it isn’t true law, but rather edicts and rule at a whim…

And if you want a more “open” system, there are many other smartphone options out there, just like with gaming. You could buy a number of Android phones with dramatically different software offerings that appeal to a wide variety of users, you could go with another OS like HarmonyOS, or you could even buy Linux phones that can emulate Android apps. There are many other options on the market, and if governments were truly concerned about this, they could deregulate the sector, and remove excess legislative bloat and red tape that makes it harder for newcomers to the market, rather than adding to that excess bloat…

 

[wbeasley]

I thought it was the intent! My bad.

There was, a decade ago moves made to classify the internet as a utility in the USA and the UK. In fact the FCC voted it in as a utility only last year. Estonia added internet access to its list of basic human rights and they have one of the most forward-thinking, innovative digital societies on the planet. I can't speak for all countries but successive UK governments have commited to getting gigbit internet rolled out to the entire country by 2032 due to its central importance in society and the economy. In fact denying people access to the internet at a state level is now seen as a blow to the rights of citizens and a way for bad actors to block access to information. I'd say that most of the world sees the internet as a neccessity for modern life even if people disagree on a personal level.

With regards to phones as a medium to access the web, there is plenty of commentary on why refugees bring only the clothes on their backs and their phones with them and there has been plenty of articles and research on how indespensible they are. Whether they are a neccessity will largely depend on how digital a society has become but one of the first things authorities seek to get back up after a natural disaster are mobile networks.

Most countries don't seem to recognise just how much of a ubiquity they are to modern life. It would make more sense for example to have high school classes on proper phone use to encourage more personal responsibility rather than outright banning them and making them a forbidden fruit. Lawmakers might then be more inclined to regulate app markets to ensure proper age gating of features.

whether internet is essential is a different tangent to this anyway...

and it doesnt have to be by phone, as others have pointed out.

and public libraries offering free access addresses some on the access needs as well.

but none of this gets back to the core topic (please, let's try to do that) and explain why the EU are fining global sales values and forcing OS changes on all users worldwide with system code changes.

i do not see why the EU get to say how code is implemented or features taken away on my phone.
"forbidden fruit", "Most countries don't seem to recognise"?
oh please, that's vague and emotional language with subtle Apple-bashing overtones.

the system is as it has been for over 15 years.
customers would abandon Apple devices is they didnt like it or Apple would be forced by customers to change the OS.
there is so little customer demand to change this. even on here it's a few squeaky wheels making all the noise who still cannot say what apps they "need" to install on iOS devices.

 

[wbeasley]

are posts now getting pre-approved laugh responses from one member?
never any comments or arguments to support the response.

i'd block seeing their posts but the profile is locked.
perhaps something site admin could look into?

 

[wbeasley]

Why shouldn't they (once you accept that they have the right to fine)? It's a punishment for breaking the EU rules, not a tax, and that's the formula they put in the rules. It's supposed to punish the company, and so it's scaled according to the size of the company. They could have gone with market cap, N times the CEOs last bonus, the cube of the Scrabble score from the company name... they went with global sales.

Plus, some of the "gatekeepers" have form for being very creative about where online "sales" for services actually happen - but that's a whole other can of worms.

But, hey, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The EU doesn't have a monopoly/duopoly on people who buy phone apps - Apple and Google have the freedom of choice to do business in a country where they prefer the way fines are calculated. Maybe the EU would then beg them to come back, maybe they wouldn't. Fun finding out.

i could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

EU laws apply to member states.
not external ones.

if it is such a good idea, others will make similar laws and use legal process to fine Apple.

as it stands, it's a tax grab.

EU should levy fines based on EU sales. i have no issue with that.
but we all know they would just pick a higher number to get to the 500m Euro... and that percent might show them up as just a greedy tax grab

 

[theluggage]

EU laws apply to member states.

Apple are selling products and services in EU member states. The amount of the fine may be calculated on global sales but the reason for the fine is that they're breaking the law in EU member states.

 

[wbeasley]

Nope, it’s true, and no extra work required…

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no law on the books saying Apple must allow developers to use external payment systems in the US. This isn’t a matter of complying with a “law”, it’s settling a court case, a completely different type of matter. And presently, one judge is trying to act outside the scope of her authority handing out edicts to Apple that aren’t required or supported by US law. Judges don’t have the authority to create new law, they are merely tasked with enforcing existing law, and there is zero existing law to back up her edicts…

Commercial laws aren’t necessarily crystal clear to laymen, but when the people who literally are enforcing the law can’t tell you how they’ll decide to enforce it when you’re trying to work with them to comply, and they even contradict themselves, that’s a serious issue…

Also, it’s a logical fallacy to claim “it happened/happens in the US, so it must be good”. Many wrong things happen in the US as well. Regulators try to work outside of the proper scope of their authority here as well. That doesn’t make it a good thing. And at least here, it still seems to meet greater pushback than in Europe, and we have more checks and balances in place with our Constitution…

someone who only ever responds with laughs really doesnt understand the law much... thanks for posting this and hopefully educating them (sadly i doubt it - wish there was a way to ignore their responses altogether as the trite reply are just noise now).

 

[wbeasley]

Apple are selling products and services in EU member states. The amount of the fine may be calculated on global sales but the reason for the fine is that they're breaking the law in EU member states.

i am not disputing they can issue a fine as they see fit or the amount BUT the global sales they base it on.

why? how do you justify that number being used?