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

[Ctrlos]

notice how EU dont care about opening up console machines that are equally controlled as Apple - in fact, more controlled.

could it be that if they tried to enforce that, residents would just buy devices and games online and the EU wouldnt know how to identify them and couldnt get a cut of hardware sales as tax?

it's plain double standards.

if hardware should be open then ALL hardware should play by the same rules.
they can dictate a $10 rechargeable light has to have USB C then they can do consoles as well.

It's time to kill this arguement dead.

The games industry is a fairly open one, where a small developer like Panic can make a reasonable business out of a niche device like the Playdate alongside established brands like a Nintendo and Sony. Neither of those big companies have a monopoly on software distribution. You can buy discs, carts and voucher codes from innumerable 3rd party retailers.

The smartphone market has a duopoly of two companies. A startup in Prague or Singapore that wants to develop it's own handset that runs a different OS has no chance against them because they're in cahoots with each other. Google pays Apple for search privileges; Apple buys Samsung circuit boards; Samsung get Google to build their AI and round and round the go.

The EU are not asking for iOS on 3rd party devices but rather a level playing field for software distribution which on the iPhone Apple is the sole gatekeeper for.

 

[Supermallet]

I purchase Apple products for their walled garden ecosystem. Vetted software and all that. If I wanted third party software, I would've bought an android. Simple as that. iOS is a walled garden since 2007 and Android is third party friendly since 2008. The market knows this and makes choices based on these facts. EU is just trying to hurt Apple and in extension the U.S because their only chance at the smartphone and broader technology industry, Nokia, was gutted by Microsoft, a US company.

By the way, If you want to run 3rd party software on Apple products, then no one is stopping you from buying a mac.

2nd hand m1 mac mini: 250
New m4 mac mini 499-599
New m4 macbook air 850-1000
as you can see, the bar of entry for 3rd party software on apple platforms is pretty low.

Allowing alternate app stores and links to alternate places to get apps or services outside of the App Store doesn’t stop you from choosing to exclusively use the App Store. You can wall your own garden without demanding everyone be stuck with it as well.

 

[Ctrlos]

But, but, but.... aren't your Mac and PCs all full of malware now?!

😱😬🫣

The fact Apple sell an open platform like the Mac and trust the customer to do with it as they please but seal off the iPhone because they think the general public are all idiots is hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[I7guy]

The status quo is it's many people's livelihoods already. They can't unionise so it's up to the/a state to stand up for them. There is still no reason why Apple don't run the App Store at cost.

There is no reason Apple should run anything at cost; it’s not a charity. Nor is being a dev like an auto manufacturing plant.

Apple will fight tooth and nail because the only way they can go now is down.

Correct. The DMA is trying to wrest control of the App Store from Apple but the disingenuous way it is about it.

Rather than accepting defeat and using it as a business opportunity or a chance to innovate (like they did with USBC)

There is no defeat except in court. And Apple is innovating. This isn’t about innovation it’s about control.

they instead look desperate to hold on to every dollar they can and frankly it's not a great look.

Frankly the look is a company standing up to bad regulations and bad government.

 

[DocMultimedia]

C'mon ... can't we at least keep this topic in the realm of reality?

This level of cynical sarcasm isn't funny or helpful.

Most everything the EU wants these days is outside the realm of reality and just lead to more lawsuits.

 

[Chrisp1234]

Why do Americans care how european union want to have their phones? No one forces Apple to make any of those changes on their home market. So it has zero impact on Jim in Omaha….

 

[TheHeron]

Except that would have first required inventing usb-c given that lightning was introduced in 2012 - a full 2 years before the usb c spec was published.

Guess who already knew USB C was coming? Yeah, that's right, Apple did.

They could have held onto the dock connector for 2 years. They could have released a couple phones with micro-USB.

They did not have to release a decade of phones with yet another idiotic proprietary connector. Lightning is inexcusable.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Guess who already knew USB C was coming? Yeah, that's right, Apple did.

They could have held onto the dock connector for 2 years. They could have released a couple phones with micro-USB.

They did not have to release a decade of phones with yet another idiotic proprietary connector. Lightning is inexcusable.

Prepare to get flooded with "Lightning is better and more innovative" comments.

 

[iPadified]

Why do Americans care how european union want to have their phones? No one forces Apple to make any of those changes on their home market. So it has zero impact on Jim in Omaha….

Money, money, money...

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU has made a classic mistake here. They decided to tell an individual business, from another country, how it must run its business. The people the already hated Apple, still hate it, and the people who loved Apple still love it, but now hate the EU. Good job.

👉 I highlighted the part where you may be mistaken.

Europeans do not have a patriotic 🇺🇸 affection for Apple. And neither do they have the same kind of distrust towards government (complaining here and there or about migration policy doesn't change that). Nor is Apple considered the particularly likeable small underdog company anymore, that they were 15 years ago.

Their association with "Facebook" (Meta) in being fined doesn't help either. When the average laymen that doesn't know much about technology - but has seen Apple's premium pricing and, maybe, even Apple's limitations on installation of apps - reads about Apple being fined for abuse of a dominant position, they won't jump to defend Apple. Many will, quietly, accept the EU's narrative.

But more importantly than that, Apple's obstinate noncompliance with the law and their increasingly convoluted schemes to circumvent it only lay bare that it's just about the money. And this - together with other "stores" that allow for less expensive distribution/licensing of apps - will affect their developer relations. Slowly but surely lowering goodwill from developers. In fact, I'd argue it already has (just look at the Vision Pro, with some high-profile developers not even allowing their iPad apps to run, let alone spending money on developing native apps).

It also has affected my perception of Apple: Where I used to love their products and - kind of - "disliked" much 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 (in many ways).

 

[ApAx]

Why do Americans care how european union want to have their phones? No one forces Apple to make any of those changes on their home market. So it has zero impact on Jim in Omaha….

It's just such an unfathomable concept to us as Americans that goes against the very core of who we are as a nation.

The idea that a company engaged in free market enterprise is required by law to provide free advertising on behalf their competitors to steer customers away from themselves and drive them toward their competition just doesn't reconcile in our minds as a concept of acceptable means of conducting commerce.

American free market capitalism relies on each company that competes in a market to make themselves competitive and make their own to efforts increase awareness of their products and services to the consumers through public advertising, such as radio, tv, newspaper, internet, etc. and not through government forcing every company to play nice and advertise each other within their own platforms.

 

[djphat2000]

EU still smarting over the failing of Nokia it seems...

All was well when they ruled the closed, locked phone market.

But a new player came in and connected better with customers.
Then Nokia did some dodgy deal with Microsoft.
And then disappeared until the brand re-emerged as a badged Android device. Ouch.

100% All was fine when they ruled the world. But, then came competition. Whatever happened to SonyEricsson? I owned one or two of their phones back in the day. A few Nokia's as well.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's just such an unfathomable concept to us as Americans that goes against the very core of who we are as a nation.

I'm still trying to reconcile the difference between "who we think we are" and "who we actually are", as a nation.

We Americans have a lot of textbook and media infused ideology about how "free" and "competitive" our markets are, when the reality is anything but.

It's mostly a feel good narrative.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's time to kill this arguement dead.

The games industry is a fairly open one, where a small developer like Panic can make a reasonable business out of a niche device like the Playdate alongside established brands like a Nintendo and Sony. Neither of those big companies have a monopoly on software distribution. You can buy discs, carts and voucher codes from innumerable 3rd party retailers.

The smartphone market has a duopoly of two companies. A startup in Prague or Singapore that wants to develop it's own handset that runs a different OS has no chance against them because they're in cahoots with each other. Google pays Apple for search privileges; Apple buys Samsung circuit boards; Samsung get Google to build their AI and round and round the go.

The EU are not asking for iOS on 3rd party devices but rather a level playing field for software distribution which on the iPhone Apple is the sole gatekeeper for.

1. There are dozens of manufactures each own and control their own fork of the android open source project, so the claim that there is a duopoly for smartphones or mobile OSs is nonsense.
2. The DMA does not consider whether there is a duopoly or thriving competition. Only size.
3. Why should Apple be punished because Google has anti-competitive agreements with its horizontal competitors?

 

[ApAx]

I'm still trying to reconcile the difference between "who we think we are" and "who we actually are", as a nation.

We Americans have a lot of textbook and media infused ideology about how "free" and "competitive" our markets are, when the reality is anything but.

It's mostly a feel good narrative.

We are inching towards another gilded age for sure. It is increasingly harder to compete against mega companies like Apple. But the markets are still demand driven for now. I can go buy an Android phone if I want to buy/subscribe to apps outside of the Apple App Store.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I can go buy an Android phone if I want to buy/subscribe to apps outside of the Apple App Store.

Having one single other option really doesn't lend itself to an actually demand driven market that consumers can meaningfully influence.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Guess who already knew USB C was coming? Yeah, that's right, Apple did.
They could have held onto the dock connector for 2 years. They could have released a couple phones with micro-USB.
They did not have to release a decade of phones with yet another idiotic proprietary connector. Lightning is inexcusable.

I mean, micro-USB wasn't great, to be fair. USB-C... maybe a bit new and "unproven" as a connector for the mass market, being subject to harsher handling from consumers on phones than computers.

But selling "latest model" Mac accessories like keyboards, trackpads and mice with only Lightning through September 2024 - that's ridiculous.

The idea that a company engaged in free market enterprise is required by law to provide free advertising on behalf their competitors to steer customers away from themselves and drive them toward their competition just doesn't reconcile in our minds

It's not as if Apple were required to provide the App Store for free (they don't).
Or have third-party companies advertised and steer consumers away in-store.

Maybe "you" should think about it more like the product box analogy: Once you buy a printer, a microwave or whatever from Best Buy and load the box in your vehicle to drive home, the store where you bought it from doesn't receive commission on accessories sales.

I believe that Netflix' app is their turf (same for Tinder, Spotify or Fortnite). Once I've downloaded, installed and opened up their apps, my customer relationship (with)in those apps belongs to Netflix, Match.com, Spotify or Epic. I should be free to deal with them, without a third party involved.

The idea that all of my transactions and customers relationships on a (general-purpose computing) device "belong" to that device's manufacturer (Apple) and be subject to their review, regulations and control, does not reconcile in my mind. Except with the worst kinds of totalitarianism.

 

[ApAx]

I mean, micro-USB wasn't great, to be fair. USB-C... maybe a bit new and "unproven" as a connector for the mass market, being subject to harsher handling from consumers on phones than computers.


It's not as if Apple were required to provide the App Store for free (they don't).
Or have third-party companies advertised and steer consumers away in-store.

Maybe "you" should think about it more like the product box analogy: Once you buy a printer, a microwave or whatever from Best Buy and load the box in your vehicle to drive home, the store where you bought it from doesn't receive commission on accessories sales.

I believe that Netflix' app is their turf (same for Tinder, Spotify or Fortnite). Once I've downloaded, installed and opened up their apps, my customer relationship (with)in those apps belongs to Netflix, Match.com, Spotify or Epic. I should be free to deal with them, without a third party involved.

The idea that all of my transactions and customers relationships on a (general-purpose computing) device "belong" to that device's manufacturer (Apple) and be subject to their review, regulations and control, does not reconcile in my mind. Except with the worst kinds of totalitarianism.

It's seems Apple runs the App Store like a consignment shop. If you want to sell through the App Store, Apple gets a cut for being the resource that made that sale happen. But again, my local consignment store isn't required by the government to tell me about the store across town that has the same item, and I can already access that store on my own if I choose.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's seems Apple runs the App Store like a consignment shop. If you want to sell through the App Store, Apple gets a cut for being the resource that made that sale happen. But again, my local consignment store isn't required by the government to tell me about the store across town that has the same item, and I can already access that store on my own if I choose.

When I buy something from the consignment shop and get it home, the shop isn't still taking a cut of further actions between myself and the product manufacturer.

 

[Chrisp1234]

I hear what you saying, but again how and why does Tim in colorado springs care? If Red Bull, SAP, BMW has to do this or that to compete in the US not a single european cares about that…

 

[Doug_in_the_UK]

Apple is appealing the 500 million euro ($570 million) fine that it is facing in the European Union for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act.

In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that the fine is unprecedented, and goes beyond what the law requires.

Apple was fined in April for restricting app developers from informing users about purchase options available outside of the App Store. The European Commission said that developers should have the ability to direct customers to outside of the App Store.

"App developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases," said the EC in its ruling.

Besides fining Apple 500 million euros, the EC also ordered Apple to change its App Store rules around steering or face further fines. Apple made the required changes in late June to prevent being further penalized during the appeals process. Apps that are distributed through EU storefronts can now freely link to deals available outside of the App Store, and can even provide alternate purchase options that don't use Apple's in-app purchase system.

Apple also updated its fee structure in the European Union, and by January 1, 2026, all EU developers will pay a Core Technology Commission, an initial acquisition fee, and a store services fee. Fees will vary based on the level of App Store service that developers opt to use, and Small Business Program participants will pay lower fees. The maximum fee under the new system for App Store app distribution with Apple's full suite of services is 20 percent, 10 percent lower than the prior 30 percent fee.

There is a tiered system for App Store services to lower fees. Developers that want to pay less can choose tier 1, and Apple will not provide automatic app updates, ratings, reviews, search suggestions, App Store features and marketing, and analytics. Tier 2 provides all of the current App Store services. Tier 1 is mandatory, and tier 2 is optional.

Apple says that the European Commission required it to offer different tiers that would let developers pay less for fewer services, which is why there is a new, more complex system. The EC also instructed Apple on which services developers should be able to opt out of, resulting in Apple moving search discovery and browse options out of its mandatory tier.

Apple plans to argue that the EC is telling it how to operate its business, and that the commission has expanded the definition of steering beyond what the law requires.

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

Somebody in here has written following comment...
'EU trying to ripoff Apple is a tradition at this point.'
So, Apple has never ripped off those that buy its computers, with
extortionate pricing?
There are some who will defend Apple for anything it does, or doesn't, do. I
am not one.

 

[I7guy]

The freedom of tens of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers trumps your desire be locked in.
That’s the political decision EU legislators have made.

The consumers suffer. Damn the consumers.

You can continue to limit your app downloads and purchases to Apple’s App Store - just as before.

iOS has a lot of code added to it to support these regulations. The added bloat affects all.

…but many do not want to.
But they should still be allowed to have the choice afforded to users of “the other” system.

Yes if Apple gave them that choice.

“But think about the children!” 😇
It’s not a problem desktop PCs, so it’s manageable on mobiles as well.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Doesn’t apply. It was like this from the beginning.

 

[turbineseaplane]

So, Apple has never ripped off those that buy its computers, with
extortionate pricing?

You don't like the $800 surcharge* to go from 256GB to 2TB of storage?
/s

(* which should be about $200 max)

 

[I7guy]

Millions of people are sideloading on Windows PC and Macs all the time.
Without having contracted malware.

That’s why the last patch Tuesday had the most patches for vulnerabilities ever.

👉 Imprisoning yourself is not the solution to your personal security concerns at all.

It’s up to the vendor and not the government.

 

[ApAx]

Having one single other option really doesn't lend itself to an actually demand driven market that consumers can meaningfully influence.

True, but other aspects of the U.S. function that way today, so it makes it difficult for me here to compare to Europe in my mind.

If I want fiber broadband in my home, I only have two companies with the infrastructure to choose to receive it, the second only just became available last year. But I have many options for slower services if I want.

Even in areas where we do have lots of choice, the grocery store near me is not forced by the government to advertise or offer ability for me to buy products from the competing store across the street. This is where I struggle most with understanding the EU law as fundamentally different from the U.S. where do not force competing businesses to cater to each other.