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

[Ctrlos]

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?

It's probably based on the amount of change down the back of Tim Cook's sofa!

It is silly that they fine them based on worldwide sales when the issues are/have been localised by Apple.

Apple's response takes the biscuit somewhat though:
“As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users.”

Er, Apple are the one laying out the business terms for collecting commission on external payments which bypass its own systems and cost them nothing to process. They could do what they did in the USA and get rid of all fees on external payments and avoid the fine altogether but once again choose to dig themselves a hole then complain the EU sold them a dodgy spade.

Apple have every right to charge a commission on their own systems (even if it is too high) but payments taken outside its walls they have no right to any percentage of. Devs are already paying Stripe fees on them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

By the same line of reasoning, getting rid of all meat in diets would clearly benefit consumers and the country. Should we have the country ban meat?

And yet we don’t ban meat.
Because a bit of meat is part of a healthy, diversified diet.

Keeping with your analogy, it's not the government that banned meat.

It's Apple that has been acting as the banisher of meat.
They're claiming to ban links, mentions of alternative offers and purchases as being "unhealthy".

If a company that had 30% to 50% of market share in meat (on basis of kilograms and revenue, respectively) in a duopoly were to ban meat, there'd be an uproar in society. (I've already seen it in small scale with school canteens or politicians trying to enact veggie days).

 

[AppliedMicro]

A. I don’t buy into the “duopoly” argument. Other options do exist, and just because two options are the most popular of a variety of options doesn’t mean it’s a “duopoly”.

Yes, it means that. It's a de facto duopoly. Laws and regulators do not define duopolies as literally only two. Other alternatives may exist - but are disregarded if they have little to no impact on the overall market, when that is otherwise sufficiently concentrated.

Developers are able to distribute their apps via sideloading in the EU. They are not forced to use the App Store. As to developers paying commissions for sideloaded apps, the only commissions I’m aware of is a small Core Technology Fee, for notarization and anti-malware screening services that Apple provides.

You seem to be unaware of Apple plans to transition everyone to a "commission":

"By January 1, 2026, Apple plans to move to a single business model in the EU for all developers. Under this single business model, Apple will transition from the Core Technology Fee (CTF) to the CTC on digital goods or services. The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces."

Update on apps distributed in the European Union - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

Because Spotify signed a contract

When the government outlaws certain clauses in that contract, the relevant party can't enforce them anymore.

They don’t even have to allow any third parties to distribute on their platform if they don’t want to in the first place.

They have to provide nondiscriminatory conditions of access.

And before you try to argue “but Spotify wouldn’t make money without Apple’s platforms so they have to use them”, A. They would make less money, not zero money.

That's exactly what would happen. Let's not forget that Apple has become Spotify's biggest competitor - and it's of course a business of scale. Government has decided to allow for fair competition in their market - even it that means Apple has to provide something to them at the same terms to allow others.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They are removing the choice to have a platform that supports app installs from one secure platform

Software installs from one secure platform are still possible - nothing removed there.
Besides, the platform has also allowed sideloading of (non-reviewed enterprise) applications for a long time, and it wasn't an issue.

No actual consumer choice is removed (And any definition of "only one App Store for consumers, but if it's enterprise apps, I'm going to ignore it (to make my point)" is too narrow - and contradictory, since it undermines the "security" aspect of it).

“Lockdown Mode” just provides extra layers of protection that make it even more difficult for the very few and expensive types of attacks that are usually focused towards important targets like journalists or government officials to be effective. It doesn’t mean that iOS without “lockdown mode” enabled isn’t locked down enough for the majority of people…

...and by the same line of reasoning, an operating system with a first-party application store that's bundled with the OS is locked down and secure enough for the people that prefer to have everything from one source (i.e. only install applications obtained and reviewd through Apple).

Especially since Apple still reserves the right to review all applications that are distributed to consumers.

That's why consumer choice for a "closed ecosystem" (regarding installation of apps) remains. It's just not the only choice going forward.

The market just becomes more free for the consumers that want to buy elsewhere. And the ones that only want to buy everything from Apple can continue to do so.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But this punishes success which is why Apple isn't trying to hear it.

It prevents Apple from preventing others succeeding (in related markets).

The choice was made to comply with it. Then the EU said "not good enough".

No. It was crystal clear from the beginning that Apple's implementation wasn't compliant.
The made a deliberate attempt at malicious compliance (much like in the US, in response to the "EPIC" decision).

Still has nothing to do with what they make globally. They could have said 30% fine on all profits within the EU. But, they raised the bar to profits globally. THAT tells you all you need to know of the motivations of the EU

Why should they limit themselves to EU revenue, when Apple are masters in shifting and eroding EU revenue and profit?

It's not designed as a "choice" of "comply or pay". It's designed as a means of enforcing compliance - which the EU gave Apple more than enough forewarning. The DMA fine did not come out of the blue.

Which is my gripe with the EU. In the US, States tax however they see fit. So long as they pay up to the FED whatever they owe

The US - to my knowledge - charges a federal income tax - unlike the European Union.

But the real complaint would be due to increase costs of that one thing. Which has not been the case for the AppStore. Outside of inflation, prices have remained pretty darn low for a LONG time.

Not true - they've considerably become more expensive. Much of it is just somehow concealed by developers moving from one-time purchases to subscription pricing (which is the most expensive pricing for consumers over the long run).

Also, in competitive markets, transaction costs should decrease with increased economies of scale and efficiency - especially for the bigger consumers (developer). They never did for the App Store.

 

[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.

so issue the fine based on the amount sold in these member states...

this is over reach. by a very large mile. or kilometer...

 

[wbeasley]

It's probably based on the amount of change down the back of Tim Cook's sofa!

It is silly that they fine them based on worldwide sales when the issues are/have been localised by Apple.

Apple's response takes the biscuit somewhat though:
“As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users.”

Er, Apple are the one laying out the business terms for collecting commission on external payments which bypass its own systems and cost them nothing to process. They could do what they did in the USA and get rid of all fees on external payments and avoid the fine altogether but once again choose to dig themselves a hole then complain the EU sold them a dodgy spade.

Apple have every right to charge a commission on their own systems (even if it is too high) but payments taken outside its walls they have no right to any percentage of. Devs are already paying Stripe fees on them.

what a trite answer.

basically you cant justify using global sales..

and show me exactly where there is a law saying Apple cant charge fees for redirecting...

 

[wbeasley]

It's probably based on the amount of change down the back of Tim Cook's sofa!

It is silly that they fine them based on worldwide sales when the issues are/have been localised by Apple.

Apple's response takes the biscuit somewhat though:
“As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users.”

Er, Apple are the one laying out the business terms for collecting commission on external payments which bypass its own systems and cost them nothing to process. They could do what they did in the USA and get rid of all fees on external payments and avoid the fine altogether but once again choose to dig themselves a hole then complain the EU sold them a dodgy spade.

Apple have every right to charge a commission on their own systems (even if it is too high) but payments taken outside its walls they have no right to any percentage of. Devs are already paying Stripe fees on them.

off topic but related...

i recently booked a car for a holiday in Australia, in Australian dollars.
all the screen amounts and invoice said Australian dollars.

but booking.com car hire is based in UK and doesnt bother to have an Australian bank account so when the charge was made, the bank issued an international txn fee and conversion fee. about $20. far in excess of the actual cost of doing so.

when companies blatantly rip off consumers with hidden fees that needs to be challenged.

Apple are very upfront about what they are charging, whether you like the amount or not.
The EU cannot dictate what business charge unless it is a regulated industry (we used to have government set petrol and electricity prices for a long time until someone decided free market competition would lower prices - which it didnt).

there is no way a consumer of apps is routinely going to save money using an external store and payment method.

this is purely a money grab from a few whingers who already can avoid payment fees (and still can) by letting Apple host and distribute their apps for free and user subscribe outside on the app website and log in.

that's worked well for a long time.
but a few are greedy and want more. and more. and more.

if an app decides to force me outside to another payment option, i wont be buying that app.
i'm extremely happy that Apple handle my payments and subscriptions in one place without third parties knowing my card details. same way i use ApplePay at supermarkets and shops. i know they arent getting anything but a "yes it's paid" response. far more secure given a petrol station twice swiped my card once with a dodgy employee.

so end of day, that's my reasoning why i want Apple to keep apps inside and paid there.
it has worked very well for me over the years.

finally, external payments are going to let your Apple ID install on multiple devices with family members?
how is that going to be administered externally?

i like that feature as well...

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes, it means that. It's a de facto duopoly. Laws and regulators do not define duopolies as literally only two. Other alternatives may exist - but are disregarded if they have little to no impact on the overall market, when that is otherwise sufficiently concentrated.


You seem to be unaware of Apple plans to transition everyone to a "commission":

"By January 1, 2026, Apple plans to move to a single business model in the EU for all developers. Under this single business model, Apple will transition from the Core Technology Fee (CTF) to the CTC on digital goods or services. The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces."

Update on apps distributed in the European Union - Support - Apple Developer

developer.apple.com

When the government outlaws certain clauses in that contract, the relevant party can't enforce them anymore.


They have to provide nondiscriminatory conditions of access.


That's exactly what would happen. Let's not forget that Apple has become Spotify's biggest competitor - and it's of course a business of scale. Government has decided to allow for fair competition in their market - even it that means Apple has to provide something to them at the same terms to allow others.

No, it does not mean that. It just means there are two popular options… They are far from the only options… Monopoly means the only option. And there is no “duopoly” on smartphones. Crappy argument that’s already been refuted many times…

Apple has the right to collect commissions from developers using Apple’s platform. iOS is Apple’s platform. They built it, they put all the effort into developing it, maintaining it, and took all of the risk to bring it to market. It is their platform and nobody else’s. Developers don’t have an inherent right to create an iOS app…

It is outside the proper scope of government authority to tell the owner of a platform that they cannot collect commissions from other businesses making use of said platform. The EU government is acting outside the proper scope of government authority here, which is the fundamental problem with this whole thing…

Because it is Apple’s platform, Apple can set terms and conditions for third parties to make use of their platform. And they have, and third parties agreed by contract to those terms. Apple has fairly and consistently applied said terms. They are not discriminatory.

Oh, so Spotify is the victim if we turn around the same “logic” you try to use against Apple…. I see. Well, the problem is, Spotify has no inherent right to develop an app for the iPhone. They didn’t put in the effort to create and maintain the platform, Apple did. So they have zero zippo none in rights to access it either… Just as I have zero inherent right to access their platform (Spotify’s publishing platform), I have to agree to their terms and conditions to do so, and pay them a commission for access to their platform. And if they want to create their own integrated hardware/software platform, that’s perfectly fine. Perhaps they could make their own smartphone/mp3 player device with a bunch of cool and innovative features if they wished. But they’re not entitled to others’ work… Also, nothing is stopping them from shipping their web app. The web is a free and open domain. So they could always decide to just use their web app for iOS users and drop their App Store app altogether if they really believe the terms are unfair…. As other developers have chosen to do…

 

[Kal Madda]

Software installs from one secure platform are still possible - nothing removed there.
Besides, the platform has also allowed sideloading of (non-reviewed enterprise) applications for a long time, and it wasn't an issue.

No actual consumer choice is removed (And any definition of "only one App Store for consumers, but if it's enterprise apps, I'm going to ignore it (to make my point)" is too narrow - and contradictory, since it undermines the "security" aspect of it).


...and by the same line of reasoning, an operating system with a first-party application store that's bundled with the OS is locked down and secure enough for the people that prefer to have everything from one source (i.e. only install applications obtained and reviewd through Apple).

Especially since Apple still reserves the right to review all applications that are distributed to consumers.

That's why consumer choice for a "closed ecosystem" (regarding installation of apps) remains. It's just not the only choice going forward.

The market just becomes more free for the consumers that want to buy elsewhere. And the ones that only want to buy everything from Apple can continue to do so.

macOS demonstrates this isn’t the case. A. The code is still in there, even if you aren’t using it, which makes your device inherently potentially more open to external threats and less safe. B. Many macOS apps have to be sideloaded. So if any critical apps decided to force users to sideload the app by removing the App Store version, many users would either be forced to sideload said apps, or try to find alternatives that are available in the App Store, which may not always be possible. So many would quite possibly be forced to sideload whether they wanted to or not…

Consumer choice absolutely is removed. Before users in the EU had a choice of iOS with a more locked down security profile with no ability to be tricked or forced into sideloading. This is no longer true. Now there are only platforms with a security footprint that can allow malware to be sideloaded…

Enterprise apps are a very tightly controlled and managed thing. You have to specifically trust your businesses’ developer profile to enable it. It’s a very secure system, and nothing like standard app sideloading apps from many different sources of varying credibility…. That’s very obviously an apples to oranges comparison…

And said “review” is far less thorough than the App Store Review process by necessity. It’s basically just an automated system that tries to look for known exploits, which is pretty limited. Many things will likely slip through that wouldn’t with the much more thorough and better App Store Review process…

And that choice does not remain, for all of the aforementioned reasons. Just claiming “it’s the same for people who want it to be” doesn’t make it so. Because it absolutely is not, and the repercussions absolutely will affect people who don’t wish to sideload…

And the market doesn’t become more free, government takes away freedom from businesses to manage their products the way they see fit, and the freedom of consumers to choose a different model from one that allows malware via sideloading…

 

[AppliedMicro]

A. The code is still in there, even if you aren’t using it, which makes your device inherently potentially more open to external threats and less safe.

The "sideloading" code is in iOS today.
It has been inside of it for more than a decade.

Before users in the EU had a choice of iOS with a more locked down security profile with no ability to be tricked or forced into sideloading

The ability has been there, it still is there, and users were "tricked" into sideloading.

Just another of these instances where it's "not a problem" when it benefits Apple financially in sweet enterprise sales 💸🤑. But supposedly a huge "think about the elderly and the children!" 😬😱 issue when it threatens Apple to make less money.

No, I'm not buying the security argument (especially when Apple still reviews all apps for distribution to consumers).

Enterprise apps are a very tightly controlled and managed thing

They're not. As evidenced by the alternative stores (and Meta's / Google's apps).

You have to specifically trust your businesses’ developer profile to enable it.

Just as users will have to trust other developers' certificates going forward.

Many macOS apps have to be sideloaded. So if any critical apps decided to force users to sideload the app by removing the App Store version, many users would either be forced to sideload said apps, or try to find alternatives that are available in the App Store, which may not always be possible

👉 So being forced to download from a particular store or website is an issue? Yes, I agree.

Just like I was "forced" to download my apps through Apple.
Or consumers that could not get certain apps or functionality because Apple decided that it benefited them.

Also, apps may (and do) leave the store at any time for any reason.
There is no guarantee you can get a particular app from the App Store.
Though if Google Play is any indication, apps are unlikely to leave the first-party store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

the market doesn’t become more free, government takes away freedom from businesses to manage their products the way they see fit

...and it gives more freedom to tens of thousands of others (developers) to market their products and services the way they see fit.

• Apple: One company that loses a bit of freedom.
• Other developers of iOS applications: Tens of thousands of developers that gain more freedom.
• Consumers: Tens of millions that get more freedom where to download or make digital purchases.
• The fearful & concerned: Zero people who lose their ability to limit their digital transactions to Apple

Freedom is a balancing of interests.

 

[Kal Madda]

The "sideloading" code is in iOS today.
It has been inside of it for more than a decade.


The ability has been there, it still is there, and users were "tricked" into sideloading.

Just another of these instances where it's "not a problem" when it benefits Apple financially in sweet enterprise sales 💸🤑. But supposedly a huge "think about the elderly and the children!" 😬😱 issue when it threatens Apple to make less money.

No, I'm not buying the security argument (especially when Apple still reviews all apps for distribution to consumers).


They're not. As evidenced by the alternative stores (and Meta's / Google's apps).


Just as users will have to trust other developers' certificates going forward.


👉 So being forced to download from a particular store or website is an issue? Yes, I agree.

Just like I was "forced" to download my apps through Apple.
Or consumers that could not get certain apps or functionality because Apple decided that it benefited them.

Also, apps may (and do) leave the store at any time for any reason.
There is no guarantee you can get a particular app from the App Store.
Though if Google Play is any indication, apps are unlikely to leave the first-party store.

It is not, and has not been. Enterprise certificates is an apples to oranges comparison. It is not the same system, nor has ever been…

Very few would be tricked into the enterprise system. General sideloading is far easier to trick users into… The enterprise software system literally only exists for businesses to distribute apps internally. And Apple has added a ton of safeguards to that system, it’s far more tightly restricted and controlled by Apple then the EU is trying to allow them to do with general sideloading, which creates greater security hazards.

And that “review” process isn’t nearly as extensive or secure. It’s an automated system that looks for some known vulnerabilities. That’s basically it. It’s not nearly as good or thorough as Apple’s actual App Store Review process…

The enterprise app system is nothing like general sideloading, it’s a complete apples to oranges comparison, and you know it…

It’s a problem to force those who bought a system because it worked one way to have a different product that works a different way that is less secure. Basically, it’s like if you don’t like the Nintendo Switch 2, so instead of buying the Steam Deck that you do like, you want government to force Nintendo to replace their software with steamOS on the Nintendo Switch 2, forcing all Nintendo Switch 2 customers to end up with a Steam Deck…

If you don’t like the way iOS works, you can buy any number of alternative devices that you like better. Don’t have government foist your preferences onto other users…

 

[AppliedMicro]

nothing is stopping them from shipping their web app. The web is a free and open domain.

This is not a viable option against their biggest competitor.

The reasons start with not caching enough content, no (non-AirPlay) background streaming support (to speakers in a home) and increasingly lousy AirPlay background streaming support, etc.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Enterprise certificates is an apples to oranges comparison. It is not the same system, nor has ever been…

It's exactly the same:
Download app from anywhere - trust its developer certificate. Done. You can use the app.

Everything else is just Apple's contractual terms that are designed to prohibit use for distribution to consumers.
But any "sideloaded" app from a web download or alternative store works fundamentally the same.

 

[surferfb]

It is not, and has not been. Enterprise certificates is an apples to oranges comparison. It is not the same system, nor has ever been…

Very few would be tricked into the enterprise system. General sideloading is far easier to trick users into… The enterprise software system literally only exists for businesses to distribute apps internally. And Apple has added a ton of safeguards to that system, it’s far more tightly restricted and controlled by Apple then the EU is trying to allow them to do with general sideloading, which creates greater security hazards.

And that “review” process isn’t nearly as extensive or secure. It’s an automated system that looks for some known vulnerabilities. That’s basically it. It’s not nearly as good or thorough as Apple’s actual App Store Review process…

The enterprise app system is nothing like general sideloading, it’s a complete apples to oranges comparison, and you know it…

It’s a problem to force those who bought a system because it worked one way to have a different product that works a different way that is less secure. Basically, it’s like if you don’t like the Nintendo Switch 2, so instead of buying the Steam Deck that you do like, you want government to force Nintendo to replace their software with steamOS on the Nintendo Switch 2, forcing all Nintendo Switch 2 customers to end up with a Steam Deck…

If you don’t like the way iOS works, you can buy any number of alternative devices that you like better. Don’t have government foist your preferences onto other users…

I appreciate your efforts, but there’s no convincing them. It’s an article of faith. The EU can do no harm, the valid security concerns are FUD (despite the obvious example of Android malware), less choice is more choice (because they want it), property rights don’t matter if you get big enough (unless you’re an EU company), they’re entitled to have their cake and eat it too (their preferences are more important than ours or Apple’s), you shouldn’t have to pay for use of property if you “deserve” it (unless you’re Apple), clearly analogous situations are completely different (video games, aircraft manufacturing, malls), 28% of the market is clearly a monopoly (but don’t look at SAP!), etc.

 

[Kal Madda]

...and it gives more freedom to tens of thousands of others (developers) to market their products and services the way they see fit.

• Apple: One company that loses a bit of freedom.
• Other developers of iOS applications: Tens of thousands of developers that gain more freedom.
• Consumers: Tens of millions that get more freedom where to download or make digital purchases.
• The fearful & concerned: Zero people who lose their ability to limit their digital transactions to Apple

Freedom is a balancing of interests.

No it does not “give freedom” to anyone. You know how ridiculous that is? That’s like saying “the government forcing an apartment complex to hand out apartments for free gives one company (the apartment complex) a little bit less freedom, but many others (the people who get to squat in the apartment complex’s property for free) more freedom.” That’s just laughably absurd… That is stripping freedoms away, not granting any.

Developers don’t have an inherent right to distribute an iPhone app, just like I don’t have an inherent right to live rent free in an apartment… It is not their platform. It’s Apple’s. It only belongs to Apple. Apple is the one who created the platform, put the risk and effort into creating the platform, and maintains and owns the platform… Developers aren’t entitled to access that platform…

 

[AppliedMicro]

less choice is more choice

Having less choice in software, stores and purchasing options isn't "more" choice.
And enabling more choice isn't "taking away choice".

property rights don’t matter if you get big enough

They still do - but they can not be leveraged unlimitedly (and especially not anticompetitively).
But I agree that totalitarian control is not a (intellectual) property right that deserves particular protection from the government.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s like saying “the government forcing an apartment to hand out apartments for free gives one company (the apartment complex) a little bit less freedom

Apple is not forced to give away their developer program for free.

it does not “give freedom” to anyone

Whether you call it freedom or choice, I now have more of it.
So do Spotify and Netflix in marketing their subscriptions.

just like I don’t have an inherent right to live rent free in an apartment…

👉 You have a right not to be abused by your landlord.

And the government guarantees that (with its laws).
And they will, when your landlord and someone else control 95% of all rental space where you live.

 

[surferfb]

Having less choice in software, stores and purchasing options isn't "more" choice.
And enabling more choice isn't "taking away choice".

Android exists. I know it kills your argument, but it does. You’ve taken away the choice of safety and security from millions, and trampled on property rights, taking away our choice, because you didn’t want to choose Android.

They still do - but they can not be leveraged unlimitedly (and especially not anticompetitively).
But I agree that totalitarian control is not a (intellectual) property right that deserves particular protection from the government.

No one is forced to buy an iPhone or develop for it. Don’t like to, buy an Android.

 

[Kal Madda]

Apple is not forced to give away their developer program for free.


Whether you call it freedom or choice, I now have more of it.
So do Spotify and Netflix in marketing their subscriptions.

Oh, so noble of the government… 🙄😂. iOS is Apple’s platform. Developers don’t have an inherent right to make or distribute an iOS app. Government is trying to force Apple to give away access to their platforms to developers and trying to dictate what commissions Apple can collect for access to their platform, and what terms and conditions Apple can require for access to their platform. This is well outside the scope of proper government authority.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Android exists. I know it kills your argument, but it does.
No one is forced to buy an iPhone or develop for it. Don’t like to, buy an Android.

"Forcing" me to switch to Android is isn't any less "forcing" than downloading an app from another marketplace or website.

You’ve taken away the choice of safety and security from millions

They can still exercise that choice by limiting their purchases and downloads to Apple's channels. Just as before.
They're just not forced to do it based upon a hardware purchase anymore.

 

[surferfb]

Apple is not forced to give away their developer program for free.

No, but the EU wrote the law in such a way to make Apple choose between charging a negligible price for the developer program or being fairly compensated for its IP. Because had they actually banned it, it would have been struck down for the massive overreach that it is. But this way Apple is “choosing” to give it away for free, but it isn’t really a choice. Either the platform has free apps and can attract hobbyist developers, or it can get fair compensated. But not both.

Absolute disregard for the free market that would make Marx smile.

Whether you call it freedom or choice, I now have more of it.
So do Spotify and Netflix in marketing their subscriptions.

And Apple and I have less of it. Because Spotify and Netflix want a free ride.

"Forcing" me to switch to Android is isn't any less "forcing" than downloading an app from another marketplace or website.


They can still exercise that choice by limiting their purchases and downloads to Apple's channels. Just as before.

They're just not forced to do it based upon a hardware purchase anymore.

You had an option for an open system, those who want a closed system no longer do. Our choice was taken away. Falsely saying “if you don’t use it nothing has changed” doesn’t change that fact.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Government is trying to force Apple to give away access to their platforms to developers and trying to dictate what commissions Apple can collect for access to their platform

No, not really.

Apple has set their developer subscription pricing - and that hasn't been subject to regulation so far.
There's also no requirement to offer free App Store downloads or app signings.

They're just limitations imposed on them self-preferencing.

 

[Kal Madda]

Apple is not forced to give away their developer program for free.


Whether you call it freedom or choice, I now have more of it.
So do Spotify and Netflix in marketing their subscriptions.


👉 You have a right not to be abused by your landlord.

And the government guarantees that (with its laws).
And they will, when your landlord and someone else control 95% of all rental space where you live.

I recorded my podcast with my hardware, so I have a right to publish it anywhere I want for free! Why won’t Spotify let me use their platform for my podcast for free! I feel so abused and victimized having to pay Spotify a commission for revenu brought in on their platform. The government should force them to allow me to use their services for my podcast for free and not pay them any commissions on their platform revenue I get from using their platform!!! 😡

😂🤣