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

[theluggage]

My source says: the proposed design for a universal charger uses a Micro USB connector—already used by many mobile manufacturers, including Samsung and Nokia." I don't know how much more clear I can be than that. The EU, in 2014, wanted to make everyone use a connector based on MicroUSB.

Proposed (adj.): offered or suggested for consideration, acceptance, or action
Make (v): to cause, induce, or compel.

Not the same thing.

The EU do actually consult with industry on these proposals before implementing them. Whatever you may speculate that they "wanted" they never "made" the industry adopt MicroUSB.

Again, the point is there is no incentive for anyone to develop a better port for the US or China or Japan.

Apart from 300 million potential customers in the US, a billion or so in China, and 100 million+ steriotypically gadget-loving Japanese. Any one of those is a viable market for a new product.

1. Google-free android existed before these complaints. See China.

...and Google tried to drive them out, hence the complaints.

 

[breenmask]

...and Google tried to drive them out, hence the complaints.

Drive out China via Android? Makes no sense.

 

[djphat2000]

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

Explain how it has prevented anyone else from succeeding? It literally brought about new businesses.

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).

As crystal clear as a magic 8 ball. They made a deliberate attempt at keeping the platform as secure as possible while doing what the law asked.

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

Because the law only applies to the EU. It doesn't apply to anyone else outside of the EU. It was meant as a means of punishment. The only way to shift and erode the law is to not sell within the EU. Then you would have nothing to fine. And all the citizens can buy an Android phone and carry on. If I was in charge of Apple (and I'm not). I would have immediately closed half the stores within the EU. And provided half the expected amount of devices to sell within the boarders. And if they said I'm still a "gatekeeper". I would halve it again, and again until I was under their targets.

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.

And neither did Apple's plan to work within the DMA. Wasn't the EU president at Apple Campus to discuss this ahead of the official plans release? Pretty sure I remember that. In any event, doesn't matter now. Apple will fight it in their courts. And come up with plan S.

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

So they are a not-for-profit organization that gets to write rules for all member countries?

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).

That's not the fault of Apple. And if anything proves the point even further. Used to be a time you purchase something and that was it. Maybe you paid a small fee for an upgraded version. Now everything is a subscription in perpetuity. Which means you can artificially raise the price as you spread it out over the course of a year. What was once a $60 game is now $120 a year. While Apple's 30% cut has come down over time. And it was always Free for those that didn't charge directly for the app. This is developer greed to get out from paying Apple anything, and claiming it will be cheaper for the end user. Then a year later. The price goes up. Like it was going to anyway..

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.

The cut did come down, and never went up. Prices for developers applications only went up, and to make more money. They moved to a IAP model or subscriptions to try and make more money. Which would have happened with our without Apple's 30% cut. This is all about developers doing what they can to get more out of what they sell. And that's fine. But they seem to want to bite the hand that feed them in the first place.

Just think of the loss these developers had to deal with on a PC/Mac platform. Stolen or reused license keys/files. Hacked keys/files. None of that exists on iOS. Because you can't get the app any other way. You have to pay for it if it's a pay for app. Your welcome developers.

 

[cjsuk]

"I paid £50k for this EV, when it was clear ahead of time that it only runs on electricity. Just let me power it with gasoline, like all the other cars I've had - what is so unreasonable about that?"

That’s possibly the worst straw man argument I’ve ever heard and I’ve been around a long time.

More let me charge it with my own electricity not the vetted supply by the car manufacturer. That’s a crap straw man as well. But less crap.

 

[djphat2000]

That’s possibly the worst straw man argument I’ve ever heard and I’ve been around a long time.

More let me charge it with my own electricity not the vetted supply by the car manufacturer. That’s a crap straw man as well. But less crap.

Not really. As on its face if you are shopping for an EV, and they told you "you have to purchase your electricity from one of our approved resellers." You most likely would not purchase the EV. But what people are doing is complaining after purchasing the EV that they can't use any electricity they want. When they were told/informed before purchase.

Apple has millions of people purchasing their products without complaining about where they get apps from. Only some are complaining about it, fully knowing how the device works AND PURCHASE IT ANYWAY?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Explain how it has prevented anyone else from succeeding?

Being restricted in communicating/marketing to your customers and/or having to fork over a substantial part of your revenue to one of your biggest competitors (i.e. music/video streaming services to Apple) disadvantages them substantially and has the potential to prevent them from succeeding.

It literally brought about new businesses.

No, it did not.

We're talking about Apple's anti-steering rules and that's what Apple were fined for. These rules do not bring about new business to the affected third-party developers - or anyone, for that matter.

Apple were not fined for offering (and bundling) a first-party store.

That's not the fault of Apple

Apple introduced subscriptions when the store initially (when I "signed up for" the iOS platform) did not have them.
And they really pushed those to developers.

While Apple's 30% cut has come down over time

It hasn't. It has been 30% and it it still. Particularly if you're talking $60 games (which do not come from small developers).

 

[AppliedMicro]

And yes, the Draghi report praised the DMA, because presumably he thought not doing so would bite the hand that feeds him

Contrary to other country (such as, maybe, the U.S.), we don't assume every politician's actions and words are only motivated by their own gain. Draghi is independent enough, rich enough and quite frankly old enough to care about that but freely speak his mind.

I notice you left out the part of the Report that warns that the DMA’s implementation “must not become an administrative and compliance burden”

Sadly, it will come to just that and become and administrative burden, given the level of malicious compliance exhibited Apple. They have to be administered like a petulant child

Apple has not taken away any developers rights. Because developers don’t have an inherent right to make or distribute an iPhone app.

And Apple has no inherent right to abuse their dominant position in software application stores/operating systems.

What’s Orwellian is government trying to strip away a business’s basic rights…

Businesses with dominant market positions and control over entire markets are restricted in their rights to "operate as the please". By law and regulation.

Apple are free to keep operating their App Store business and make tons of money, so their rights are not "stripped away". They're just curtailed in anticompetitively leveraging it against others.

That’s pure speculation and irrelevant.

Nonsense. It can be reasonably deducted from facts, namely:

• Apple operated the App Store for more than 15 years without allowing emulator type apps that could load nun-bundled games
• There were previous instances of Apple sanctioning such emulator apps that did make it past their app review
• One of the most high-profile "alternative stores" (in terms of media recognition) has been Riley Testut's AltStore, which he begun "to work on AltStore after Apple declined to allow his Nintendo emulator Delta on the App Store" (Wikipedia). A retro gaming emulator was the main draw for this alternative store
• The European Digital Markets Act came into force in 2023, with Apple having a deadline in March 2024 to implement compliance.
• They updated their app review guidelines to allow such emulators on the very same day that the AltStore offically launched in the EU (without jailbreaking/developer certificate installation, that is).

👉 Again: The most anticipated and publicised reason for alternative stores was retro emulators - and on the very same day the first such marketplace launched to regular consumers, Apple updated their rules to allow them on their own.

Draw your own conclusions - or feel free to keep being in denial about it (and brand it as mere "speculation").

There are not only two options. There are many options.

These other options have negligibly small market share - and lack "coverage" of essential apps.

But even assuming your argument here, whose fault would it be that they “don’t carry all the apps a normal consumer requires”? That would fall on developers.

They've just converged - along with consumers - on these two ecosystems and stores.
Which benefits both. Cause no one wants to have ten operating systems (or stores, for that matter).

 

[wbeasley]

Not really. As on its face if you are shopping for an EV, and they told you "you have to purchase your electricity from one of our approved resellers." You most likely would not purchase the EV. But what people are doing is complaining after purchasing the EV that they can't use any electricity they want. When they were told/informed before purchase.

Apple has millions of people purchasing their products without complaining about where they get apps from. Only some are complaining about it, fully knowing how the device works AND PURCHASE IT ANYWAY?

you summed that up in a nutshell.

if Apple wasnt selling what customers wanted, then they would have died off ages ago.
but iPhones and iPads sell in their millions. still. even with the appstore and payments as is.

this isnt customers driving feature changes.
it's a few noisy companies using governments to do their dirty work.
backed by a very small minority of online protesters who bought the device knowing the limitations...

the EU fines arent going to customers... Apple will now probably increases prices to recoup their fine loss...
the exact opposite action the EU mandates were meant to do.

 

[AppliedMicro]

if Apple wasnt selling what customers wanted, then they would have died off ages ago.
but iPhones and iPads sell in their millions. still. even with the appstore and payments as is.

There are zero customers that said: "Downloading a streaming service app that lets me sign up - but not pay or manage my subscription in-app - is exactly what I wanted."

There's also no one that ever said he wanted a phone platform that doesn't allow retro game emulators (or other emulators, for that matter).

Neither do I know anyone that said "I want only one store in town". Cause it's more secure or what not. It's convenient if you can get everything from one single store, say a Walmart. That doesn't that Walmart should be the only store in town.

 

[surferfb]

There are zero customers that said: "Downloading a streaming service app that lets me sign up - but not pay or manage my subscription in-app - is exactly what I wanted."

I actually did. Have with several subscriptions, even paying more through Apple than I would have had I signed up online. I don’t want to manage multiple accounts, have random developers have access to my data so it can get leaked due to shoddy security practices.

There's also no one that ever said he wanted a phone platform that doesn't allow retro game emulators (or other emulators, for that matter).

I don’t think Apple should allow piracy enablers on the phone. And that’s what emulation is. And there is a valid security argument for not allowing emulators.

Neither do I know anyone that said "I want only one store in town". Cause it's more secure or what not. It's convenient if you can get everything from one single store - that doesn't that store should be the only accessible one.

Millions of people have said that on iPhone. Way more than who have said “open it up.” You’re the minority forcing your views on the majority.

People already had an option for an open model and a closed model, the EU is just upset a small but profitable subset of the market prefer the closed one, so they’re taking it away from millions who prefer it because Big Brother knows best.

“Less choice is more choice!”, “Discouraging innovation will result in more innovation!”, and “Interfering in the free market is pro free market!” Orwell would be proud!

 

[Kal Madda]

And Apple has no inherent right to abuse their dominant position in software application stores/operating systems.


Businesses with dominant market positions and control over entire markets are restricted in their rights to "operate as the please". By law and regulation.

Apple are free to keep operating their App Store business and make tons of money, so their rights are not "stripped away". They're just curtailed in anticompetitively leveraging it against others.


Nonsense. It can be reasonably deducted from facts, namely:

• Apple operated the App Store for more than 15 years without allowing emulator type apps that could load nun-bundled games
• There were previous instances of Apple sanctioning such emulator apps that did make it past their app review
• One of the most high-profile "alternative stores" (in terms of media recognition) has been Riley Testut's AltStore, which he begun "to work on AltStore after Apple declined to allow his Nintendo emulator Delta on the App Store" (Wikipedia). A retro gaming emulator was the main draw for this alternative store
• The European Digital Markets Act came into force in 2023, with Apple having a deadline in March 2024 to implement compliance.
• They updated their app review guidelines to allow such emulators on the very same day that the AltStore offically launched in the EU (without jailbreaking/developer certificate installation, that is).

👉 Again: The most anticipated and publicised reason for alternative stores was retro emulators - and on the very same day the first such marketplace launched to regular consumers, Apple updated their rules to allow them on their own.

Draw your own conclusions - or feel free to keep being in denial about it (and brand it as mere "speculation").


These other options have negligibly small market share - and lack "coverage" of essential apps.


They've just converged - along with consumers - on these two ecosystems and stores.
Which benefits both. Cause no one wants to have ten operating systems (or stores, for that matter).

A. Apple hasn’t abused anything. They have set terms for access to their property, which they have fairly and consistently applied for many years…

B. Apple doesn’t have control over any “entire market”. They have control over their own product and platform, as they should…

C. No, the government is trying to tell Apple how they can or can’t run their own store. And the government is trying to enforce loopholes that would allow some developers to be able to cheat Apple out of the commissions due them. Apple’s rights to manage their platform is absolutely stripped away, and government is trying to force Apple to provide access to their property/platform without being able to implement the rules developers agreed to for accessing their own platform…

D. Emulators existed in the App Store years before the DMA, such as iSH. And Apple was not forced to allow retro emulators in the App Store by the DMA, Apple chose to. So the EU DMA didn’t force that change by a long shot… You just seem to want to paint Apple as the villain at every turn… And again, not the result of EU regulation, and whether or not it is purely speculation and irrelevant to the topic at hand…

E. Other options exist, and are perfectly viable for many. Many people can use a Linux computer as their primary desktop, so I see zero reason they couldn’t use a Linux phone that can run everything their desktop can, plus emulate Android apps…

F. Oh, so basically everything is always Apple’s fault, and nothing rests on developers. So other platforms don’t lack common apps because developers haven’t made the apps for those platforms, Apple just made a platform that was too enticing…. Got it…

Ultimately, if Apple’s terms were so bad and so restrictive on developers, then developers could simply choose to not do business with Apple, and take that business elsewhere. You cannot claim on one hand that the only reasons the platforms are popular is because of the apps, and then try to argue that the developers (who control the apps) are forced to do business with those platforms. If what you claim is true, and the appeal of those platforms is the apps, then developers (who create and control the apps) hold all of the cards. If Apple’s terms were so bad for developers, they could pull up stakes and move to another platform, and since the draw to users is “common apps”, the users would likely follow. But that isn’t what’s happened, likely because Apple’s terms are actually great for most developers, and there are only a handful of multimillion dollar apps (like Spotify and Epic games) trying to have their cake and eat it too, access Apple’s platform, but not pay the commissions due Apple for that access…

Besides, “nobody wants 10 different OSes”, doesn’t make any sense. People are okay with 100 plus different smartphone hardware brands, what’s the downside of alternative smartphone OSes that exist? There is none, and it’s easier than ever to write one app for many OS platforms…. Again, app developers could easily support other platforms if they wished, and enhance the popularity of alternatives if they felt Apple’s terms were so bad for them. They hold all the cards, since they control the apps that draw people to said platforms….

 

[AppliedMicro]

I actually did. Have with several subscriptions, even paying more through Apple

...and you did so in-app? That's the point I was making: Users want to be able to do it in-app.

I don’t think Apple should allow piracy enablers on the phone.

I don't believe it was ever really about piracy - rather than about Apple's own gaming revenue.

Why did they begin allowing them on their own store at the same time that competing stores could do - if they were truly concerned about piracy?

the EU is just upset a small but profitable subset of the market prefer the closed one

Not at all - why would they care? If anything, they're upset about that provider abusing their market position to the detriment of other, smaller (and often European) companies.

“Less choice is more choice!”

Big Brother would be proud of how no choice is somehow misconstrued true choice.

The concept of the EU and its Digital Markets Act is simple:

• Consumers and businesses deserve a choice which smartphone they buy and operating system use (develop for)
• And they also should have choice where to offer, download and install from their software applications.
• And these choices not be strictly tied to each other by dominant firms.

Interfering in the free market is pro free market!

Software applications should be a (reasonably) free market - and Apple is massively interfering in it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A. Apple hasn’t abused anything.

A. According to the EU's findings, they have. That's why they've been fined.

B. Apple used to have control over the entire market for iOS applications.

C. Of course they are. Just how traffic laws "dictate" how you operate your vehicle. They impose specific restrictions.

D. Apple chose to allow retro gaming emulators exactly when they EU allowed competing stores to distribute them. After not allowing them for 15 years. Now, coincidence does not imply causation. But the facts I outlined above strongly suggest that causation.

E. ...emulating Android applications. So we're back to square one with regards to software applications and where to obtain them from.

F. It's no one's fault alone. It's a natural process that developer support the most popular platforms and vice versa. An so do consumers.

You just seem to want to paint Apple as the villain at every turn…

That about perfectly sums up their history of "complying" with laws and court orders 👍
(that would restrict their ability to anticompetitively leverage their App Store and its rules)

"Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option."

 

[Kal Madda]

A. According to the EU's findings, they have. That's why they've been fined.

B. Apple used to have control over the entire market for iOS applications.

C. Of course they are. Just how traffic laws "dictate" how you operate your vehicle. They impose specific restrictions.

D. Apple chose to allow retro gaming emulators exactly when they EU allowed competing stores to distribute them. After not allowing them for 15 years. Now, coincidence does not imply causation. But the facts I outlined above strongly suggest that causation.

E. ...emulating Android applications. So we're back to square one with regards to software applications and where to obtain them from.

F. It's no one's fault alone. It's a natural process that developer support the most popular platforms and vice versa. An so do consumers.


That about perfectly sums up their history of "complying" with laws and court orders 👍
(that would restrict their ability to anticompetitively leverage their App Store and its rules)

"Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option."

A. The EU government is the one trying to strip away basic rights here, of course they’ve “found” that Apple applying rules for access to their platform is “unfair”…. The EU government saying it or “finding” it doesn’t make it so…

B. Yes, just as Walmart has “control over the entire market” for Walmart products…. That isn’t “control over the entire market”, it’s merely control over one’s own property/platform, which is their prerogative…

C. It is not within the proper scope of government authority to dictate what prices or commissions a company can collect for providing other enterprises with access to their property/platform… Government owns the roads, so implements rules on traffic. Government should not own private businesses, nor should government be in the business of trying to dictate what commissions a private business can collect from other businesses for access to their property/platform…

D. Apple had already allowed emulators in the App Store before, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand…

E. Other platforms exists with native apps that don’t require Android apps. And where developers have chosen to not support those alternative platforms, consumers can emulate Android apps if they need or wish to on said alternative platforms…

F. This isn’t a matter of “fault” per se, it’s a direct logical failing of your position you have yet to address. If Apple’s terms were so bad, developers are free to leave and take their popular apps with them, removing the appeal of Apple’s platform. If Apple’s terms were so bad, developers not only don’t have to distribute on Apple’s platform, they can actively draw users to other platforms. They hold all the cards. Again, you can’t on one hand say “Apple’s terms are terrible and developers have no recourse”, and then on the other try to argue “Apple has a “dominant position” in the market because consumers want popular apps that are available on the platform” (which are controlled by developers)…. That doesn’t work.

G. So basically, it seems that you essentially just vehemently dislike Apple….

 

[turbineseaplane]

I agree with this post from @Apple_Robert in another thread (it's somewhat relevant here).

I don't think Apple's narrative has changed. The problem is far too many people see the word computer and they instantly think Mac when in reality, a computer is any tool that helps you achieve any given task you need done. As such, the iPad is a computer as is the iPhone. Some people get by with using a single device to meet all their day to day needs while others, need more than one device to accomplish a task or meet a need or preference.

These devices are all just computers.

Exactly why owners of these computers should be able to install software from any sources they prefer.
😀

Well said Robert! 👏

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU government saying it or “finding” it doesn’t make it so…

Well, I concur.
So does Tim Sweeney
And Epic. Spotify. Match.com. The Coalition for App Fairness.

just as Walmart has “control over the entire market” for Walmart products

No - cause Walmart customers can easily and inexpensively substitute a Walmart product through one from some other retailer.

It is not within the proper scope of government authority to dictate what prices or commissions a company can collect for providing other enterprises with access to their property/platform

You are free to believe that.
Antitrust laws and regulators in various countries/jurisdictions (even including the US of A, sometimes) do not agree.

Apple had already allowed emulators in the App Store before, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand

It is relevant insofar as the Digital Markets Act means that consumers can get something that they want, that benefits them - yet Apple didn't allow.

Other platforms exists with native apps that don’t require Android apps

...and these platforms do not conform to customers' expectations of what they can and want to do with their phones.
Largely due to the very limited availability of third-party apps.

it seems that you essentially just vehemently dislike Apple…

As I've said before:

Where I used to love their products and "disliked" several aspects of their business conduct, my attitude has shifted: Their products have more and more become the "lesser evil" - and I've begun to outright hate their business conduct (with regards to their App Store monopoly, at least).

 

[turbineseaplane]

Where I used to love their products and "disliked" several aspects of their business conduct, my attitude has shifted: Their products have more and more become the "lesser evil" - and I've begun to outright hate their business conduct (with regards to their App Store monopoly, at least).

This is where Apple is for me these days.

They are usually the "least bad choice".

 

[Kal Madda]

Well, I concur.
So does Tim Sweeney
And Epic. Spotify. Match.com. The Coalition for App Fairness.

No - cause Walmart customers can easily and inexpensively substitute a Walmart product through one from some other retailer.

You are free to believe that.
Antitrust laws and regulators in various countries/jurisdictions (even including the US of A, sometimes) do not agree.


It is relevant insofar as the Digital Markets Act means that consumers can get something that they want, that benefits them - yet Apple didn't allow.

...and these platforms do not conform to customers' expectations of what they can and want to do with their phones.
Largely due to the very limited availability of third-party apps.


As I've said before:

Where I used to love their products and "disliked" several aspects of their business conduct, my attitude has shifted: Their products have more and more become the "lesser evil" - and I've begun to outright hate their business conduct (with regards to their App Store monopoly, at least).

A. Those are all multimillion dollar apps that are trying to push for this so that they can cheat Apple out of the commissions they owe, and try to still benefit from Apple’s property. They have no grasp of what is “fair”, because their definition of “fair” is “I’m entitled to your platform without abiding by your terms”…

B. So can Apple customers. They could easily buy an Android phone instead, or any number of other alternative devices… Or they could use web apps. What consumers can’t do is substitute Walmart products on Walmart’s property, which is the same for Apple’s property…

C. I do believe that, and governments try to subvert and work outside of the proper scope of government in many different countries including the US at times, and I firmly oppose that because it’s wrong…

D. No, because Apple did allow it, not the DMA, and it’s merely speculative to claim it’s the result of the DMA, when emulators were available on the App Store before. And again, it’s off-topic, and trying to deflect from the main points at hand…

E. Which means all of the power is in the hands of app developers, not Apple. Because if developers felt Apple’s terms were bad, they could easily withdraw their iPhone apps and move to other platforms, which would draw users with them… So again, you refuse to address the glaring issue with your argument. On one hand you argue “the developers have no choice, and are being suppressed by Apple”, but then on the other hand you claim “consumers don’t go to other platforms because popular apps (controlled by said developers) aren’t available there”. So you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your argument doesn’t work, because developers actually hold all the cards, and you’ve even admitted so whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not…

In regards to your other comment in the other thread:

A. No, a few apps can cheat Apple out of due commissions, and consumers can no longer choose a system that is more closed and secure, instead they’re stuck with this.

B. No, government is trying to force Apple to allow some developers to make use of their property without abiding by the terms they agreed to, and not paying the commissions that are due…

C. It is not within the proper scope of government authority to tell private businesses what commissions they can collect from other businesses to access their property…

D. Requiring other companies to pay commissions for access to their own property is not “anticompetitive”, and it is their basic right.

E. Markets should be free, and governments should not be trying to tear some down to prop others up as the EU is attempting to do. That is outside of the proper scope of government authority… Governments trying to dictate what terms Apple’s allowed to apply on the use of their own platform is outside of the proper scope of government authority. Apple has an inherent right to control iOS (their platform and property) because they built it and it’s their property. Developers don’t have an inherent right to create an iPhone app…

 

[surferfb]

...and you did so in-app? That's the point I was making: Users want to be able to do it in-app.

Well, if they are using Apple’s APIs to do so, they should pay up. If they don’t want to, Apple provided a work around. Developers shouldn’t have a right to freeload just because they want to.

I don't believe it was ever really about piracy - rather than about Apple's own gaming revenue.

Why did they begin allowing them on their own store at the same time that competing stores could do - if they were truly concerned about piracy?

I think the number of users taking advantage of emulators is less than a rounding error in Apple’s revenue. I’d be shocked if it was more than a million people combined on iOS and Android.

I suspect they were blocked for legitimate security reasons (running code that was not reviewed by Apple), but once the EU forced alternate app stores, there was no point in keeping that restriction around anymore because it was going to happen anyway.

Not at all - why would they care? If anything, they're upset about that provider abusing their market position to the detriment of other, smaller (and often European) companies.


Big Brother would be proud of how no choice is somehow misconstrued true choice.

My choice is taken away because you don’t want to use Android. Less choice for the market so tech enthusiasts can have their cake and eat it too. Marx and Orwell would be proud!

The concept of the EU and its Digital Markets Act is simple:

• Consumers and businesses deserve a choice which smartphone they buy and operating system use (develop for)

Android exists. No need for the DMA

• And they also should have choice where to offer, download and install from their software applications.

They do, if they pick Android. Users deserve a closed option even if you and the EU are ideologically opposed to it because you don’t care about the safety and security and unsophisticated users.

• And these choices not be strictly tied to each other by dominant firms.

Software applications should be a (reasonably) free market - and Apple is massively interfering in it.

Rubbish. They control less than 30% of the market, with a significant number of users choosing it BECAUSE of what you declare interference. No one is forced to buy or develop for iOS.

 

[Kal Madda]

Rubbish. They control less than 30% of the market, with a significant number of users choosing it BECAUSE of what you declare interference. No one is forced to buy or develop for iOS.

All great points, but this last part of your post especially exposes the biggest flaw in the opposing argument. A. Apple has a minority of the market, they are nowhere near having a “monopoly”… B. Many users have specifically chosen Apple’s platform because it’s more locked down and secure, and C. Nobody is forced to develop iOS apps.

You cannot simultaneously argue that “Developers have no choice but to go with Apple’s platform, because it’s popular”, and then also proceed to argue that “consumers have no choice but to go with iOS or Android because the apps (which the developers control) make those platforms popular”. Those two things cannot coexist. They are contradictory. It proves that developers actually hold all of the cards, because they can pick up and leave to another platform, taking users with them, which proves the underlying assumption that Apple is forcing developers into anything, or customers into anything is completely false…

 

[Kal Madda]

you summed that up in a nutshell.

if Apple wasnt selling what customers wanted, then they would have died off ages ago.
but iPhones and iPads sell in their millions. still. even with the appstore and payments as is.

this isnt customers driving feature changes.
it's a few noisy companies using governments to do their dirty work.
backed by a very small minority of online protesters who bought the device knowing the limitations...

the EU fines arent going to customers... Apple will now probably increases prices to recoup their fine loss...
the exact opposite action the EU mandates were meant to do.

Couldn’t have said it much better. 👍🏻

 

[djphat2000]

There are zero customers that said: "Downloading a streaming service app that lets me sign up - but not pay or manage my subscription in-app - is exactly what I wanted."

There's also no one that ever said he wanted a phone platform that doesn't allow retro game emulators (or other emulators, for that matter).

Neither do I know anyone that said "I want only one store in town". Cause it's more secure or what not. It's convenient if you can get everything from one single store, say a Walmart. That doesn't that Walmart should be the only store in town.

And the solution to that is someone else can do it differently. And if no one else can, then the government can certainly assist.
All that is required is an alternative to Apple's current solution And you all have that in Android and the variety of handhelds that run it.

All these companies that are complaining can pool their resources together and get one done if they really wanted to. With a variety of stores running some form of Android. Amazon, Meta, EPIC, and Asus could pull this off if they wanted too. Asus could make the hardware, EPIC, Meta, and Amazon could provide the software for the stores and features. All running on a Linux Kernel. I solved it.

 

[djphat2000]

As I've said before:

Where I used to love their products and "disliked" several aspects of their business conduct, my attitude has shifted: Their products have more and more become the "lesser evil" - and I've begun to outright hate their business conduct (with regards to their App Store monopoly, at least).

It is fully within your rights to feel that way. However, there are many that feel the opposite. And are perfectly happy with Apple as they are. Of course there will always be things we do and don't like. But for the most part there are many that are fine with how Apple operates and does business. And of course the products and services they create.

Apple since forever has been one to make the whole widget. They will do it themselves if they can. A and M series chips are very much proof of that. And they are working diligently to get away from Qualcomm tech or anyone else's if they can. Being in control is central to their business. It doesn't always work out. They fail more than they would like to. And no one is coming to save them if they fail completely. So they should be able to do it as they have been. And let the markets decide. Vote with your dollars and Euro's. Unless Apple acts like a monopoly and throws their weight around to "make" others do as they want. Even then, there is Android to pick from. So there is only so much weight they could throw around to force anyone to do anything. People still don't have to buy it, and developers still don't have to develop for it.

And I would only agree with what the EU is doing IF they also forced every developer TO develop for the iPhone. AppStore and Alt/Stores equally. Every Single one. No application can NOT be on iOS/macOS/iPadOS etc. If it is on Windows. It HAS to be also on Mac. If it is on Android, IT HAS TO BE on iOS/iPadOS as well.
Then we can talk fair. Both built in stores and Alt/Stores. But the EU will never do that.

 

[djphat2000]

Being restricted in communicating/marketing to your customers and/or having to fork over a substantial part of your revenue to one of your biggest competitors (i.e. music/video streaming services to Apple) disadvantages them substantially and has the potential to prevent them from succeeding.

Ask those developers how much money they made following these rules.. I'll wait. Everyone of them has grown since the AppStore came to be. Every one of them.

No, it did not.

We're talking about Apple's anti-steering rules and that's what Apple were fined for. These rules do not bring about new business to the affected third-party developers - or anyone, for that matter.

Why should any one of them be allowed to "steer" a customer that bought it via the AppStore TO another Store? That doesn't happen in real life physical stores. Or any other digital store. Xbox doesn't let games advertise for Playstation. Nintendo doesn't advertise on Xbox. Target doesn't advertise in Walmart, and so on and so forth. There have been companies that also have their own stores that only sell their own stuff OR stuff they agree to also sell for others. And companies that don't sell their own stuff or have their own store. And only distribute it to wholesale or retail stores. We have been doing this forever.

Apple were not fined for offering (and bundling) a first-party store.

Apple introduced subscriptions when the store initially (when I "signed up for" the iOS platform) did not have them.
And they really pushed those to developers.


It hasn't. It has been 30% and it it still. Particularly if you're talking $60 games (which do not come from small developers).

• • Yearly Fee:
    .
    The $99 fee is an annual subscription, meaning it needs to be renewed each year to maintain developer access.
    
  • App Store Small Business Program:
    .
    Developers who earn less than $1 million annually can qualify for a reduced commission rate of 15% instead of the standard 30% according to the App Store Small Business Program page.
    
  • Enterprise Program:
    .
    For companies developing apps solely for internal use within their organization, there is a separate Apple Developer Enterprise Program with a $299 annual fee, according to Apple.
    
  • Free Development:
    .
    It's worth noting that developers can begin developing iOS and macOS apps for free using Xcode, but they need to enroll in the Apple Developer Program to distribute those apps on the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Those are all multimillion dollar apps that are trying to push for this so that they can cheat Apple out of the commissions they owe, and try to still benefit from Apple’s property. They have no grasp of what is “fair”, because their definition of “fair” is “I’m entitled to your platform without abiding by your terms”…

Their concepts of fairness might start with belies like this:

• A direct competitor should not leverage their market power in another market (operating systems) to demand 30% commission without providing a service.

So can Apple customers. They could easily buy an Android phone instead, or any number of other alternative devices…

It's not about devices. There's healthy competition on the market for smartphones. It's about operating systems - where customers can't just "buy any other alternative". None of the other options provide the baseline of functionality and third-party apps expected by consumers in developed markets.

No, because Apple did allow it, not the DMA, and it’s merely speculative to claim it’s the result of the DMA, when emulators were available on the App Store before.

Apple allowed it as a response to potential competition - which in turn was enabled only by the DMA.
Anything else is in my opinion a gross denial of reality and cause and effect. We could argue that "nothing has ever got do with anything, it's all just speculative - but that's not constructive. You might also provide a more reasonable explanation for Apple's sudden shift in policy but there is none. And "oh, they simply reconsidered after 15 years from the good of their hearts without the DMA being the reason isn't".

Said Bloomberg "It hardly seems coincidental that Apple would have a eureka about emulators on the eve of one rolling out in a rival app marketplace. (An Apple spokesperson did not provide an explanation for the timing of the rule change.)"

Because if developers felt Apple’s terms were bad, they could easily withdraw their iPhone apps and move to other platforms, which would draw users with them

The only "other" platform with relevant marketshare to even remotely rival Apple's (for apps and in-app transactions) is Google Play. Which has similar pricing and similar rules.

And no, it wouldn't simply draw users with them - when they are more or less firmly locked in due to their hardware purchase - and there are substitute apps or services on Apple's store (often provided by Apple themselves).

On one hand you argue “the developers have no choice, and are being suppressed by Apple”, but then on the other hand you claim “consumers don’t go to other platforms because popular apps (controlled by said developers) aren’t available there”. So you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your argument doesn’t work, because developers actually hold all the cards

They hold few to no cards at all.

All developers together - or at least a "critical mass" of developers leaving iOS together - at the same time would absolutely crater not only Apple's App Store - but their iPhone hardware business as well.

One developer on its own, or even several? No. They can be replaced, their apps be substituted. Apple can (and does) play them off against each other. Let alone the fact that the coordination required for massive developer exodus would probably be considered illegal.

It is not within the proper scope of government authority to tell private businesses what commissions they can collect from other businesses to access their property…

It absolutely is. In Europe as well as in the U.S. Monopolies are regulated or broken apart.

Requiring other companies to pay commissions for access to their own property is not “anticompetitive”

Which is way access to their property isn't free (there's a developer subscription).
And 30% commission for providing no service or otherwise restricting their capability to communicate and transact with customers is of course anticompetitive.

Markets should be free

Yes 👍

And it's a serious misconception that only government intervention makes markets unfree. When a company controls access to a market (such as the Apple/Google duopoly for operating systems/APIs), it's companies that prevent the markets from being truly free.

Insurmountable entry barriers make markets unfree.