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

[AppliedMicro]

It's really nuts when one thinks about it.

It's even more nuts when you accept their arguments ("but Apple provides the platform and makes it happen") but then ask:

👉 Why doesn't Apple charge a 30% commission on all sales conducted in their web browsers?

Books, plane tickets, your new cable or newspaper subscription, Zalando clothing, etc. etc.
What would be stopping them, if you accept the argument?

Yes if Apple gave them that choice.

Well, now they have to. As required by law.

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.

Uber does it the same way as Spotify or Epic would like to do it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

True, but other aspects of the U.S. functions that way today, so it makes it difficult for us here to compare to Europe in our minds.

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.

Oh, I agree fully!

That's what I'm saying though ... We Americans are too often acting like the way we have been doing it domestically is somehow indicative of "the right way" which leads to a utopia of consumer preference driven competitive markets.

...when it simply isn't true.

 

[djphat2000]

👉 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'm not outright hating their business conduct.

It is all about the money for the EU as well. Hence the fines.
Developers are the only ones complaining about anything. They want more for themselves. And I am not knocking them for wanting that. But, I am knocking them and the EU governments for extorting it from Apple. As it has been the same rules since the AppStore came out. Only things that changed was Apple was more successful than the domestic brands in the EU (Nokia/Ericsson, and whomever else). So, time to tax the players that are left. Either make it the way we say, or else we fine you out of business? And the proof of that is they fine 10% global turnover. GTFOH. Why would it not be about the money if they want what Apple makes globally? Just make it about what is made in the EU. But no! Places they have no jurisdiction or care for what Apple does in other countries. They don't have any rights to Apple's global profits. Who does this? But, they base the fine on what Apple makes globally?

The EU is the problem.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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

Vulnerabilities in software exist, especially if they're internet-enabled.
Most of them have little to nothing to do with how third-party software is monetised.

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

Well, not in the EU.

 

[TheHeron]

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.

Weird, you're absolutely right about something.

Consoles absolutely SHOULD be force to open up too. ALL computing hardware absolutely SHOULD be forced to play by the same rules.

There's no reason for the double standard.

iPhone, iPad, or Playstation, doesn't matter, they should ALL be forced to allow normal software installation or banned from being sold.

 

[I7guy]

[…]


Well, now they have to. As required by law.


[…]

And not one core issue is addressed. No real competition, no real innovation. Lots of moving goalposts. It’s going to be a race to the bottom eventually.

 

[I7guy]

Vulnerabilities in software exist, especially if they're internet-enabled.

Statement still holds though.

Most of them have little to nothing to do with how third-party software is monetised.

Well, not in the EU.

And that the issue with maybe lack of innovation in the eu.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It is all about the money for the EU as well. Hence the fines.

...except: Apple has had a choice to comply with the law.

And it would have been really easy, with regards to the App Store.
They chose not to - and they chose poorly.

And the proof of that is they fine 10% global turnover. GTFOH. Why would it not be about the money if they want what Apple makes globally?

Because such big companies are quite adept at shifting business, money, revenue and profit internationally.
Just as Apple about their tax structures in Ireland.

Places they have no jurisdiction or care for what Apple does in other countries

The United States of America (Washington) and - by extension - its citizens and companies should be the very last to complain - or demand this principle be upheld.

They're probably the worst offenders in overextending jurisdiction interfering in other countries' affairs - and believing their laws (should or do) apply everywhere.

 

[10anta]

When I encounter situations like this I try to pause and ask myself 'What would fair look like?'

Given Apple has incurred costs to provide software development tools; and that it incurs further costs for application checking, hosting and distribution; it feels reasonable that they can recover and potentially profit from these where the application provider chooses to use them.

It's also in customer interests that they can have a secure phone that restricts unchecked and potentially unsafe software from running.

The reasonable way for this to be resolved is for Apple to be able to decline to do business with others who want to take advantage of them, but also for businesses to be able to distribute their own applications, and for customers who want to install software from other potentially unsafe sources that they are able to do so.

Essentially, charge a fair price for software development tools/licences, and make it a system toggle (with a bit of a potential safety risk warning) to be able to install from third party sources.

 

[TheHeron]

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….

Because we want normal software installation here too.

 

[Ctrlos]

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

This clearly isn't true. It's about having a level playing field for other retailers to open.

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

What innovation? They're choosing bureaucracy over competition, making it harder for other players rather than better for themselves. It is about control, which ultimately lives and dies with Apple.

They need to decide where they stand: lock down the Mac or open up the iPhone? In the beginning when the iPhone was a satellite to the Mac it didn't matter but now it's the core platform the game has changed.

 

[iPadified]

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.

As long as it is a free market according to EU rules, EU will do nothing. According to EU, Apple misuse their market position.

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.

Nokia and Ericsson are Finish and Swedish companies and the rest of the EU could not care less that their phone business tanked decades ago. Revenge is certainly not the reason. As far as I know, Nokia and Ericsson produces telecommunication solutions. I wonder how profitable the phone business was in the end for Nokia and Ericsson. I mean, you got a phone nearly for free those days, unlike today...

 

[turbineseaplane]

Essentially, charge a fair price for software development tools/licences, and make it a system toggle (with a bit of a potential safety risk warning) to be able to install from third party sources.

Sounds fine to me!

The problem is that Apple got hooked on the financial "drug" of taking totally unjust cuts of ALL the financial action happening through the third party Apps on the phone.

The ones who've clawed their way out of it have tended to be those with the size and clout to get special carve outs.
It's exactly how we should not want things to operate.

One would think we Americans could understand how bad this type of "system" is given what's currently taking place in the same way over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[djphat2000]

Exactly.

But subsequently, they can’t choose where to download and install their apps from.

Since when does anyone get everything they want? If you make a device and create the infrastructure for which it works. At what point do you say "I think it's time for people to do whatever they want with the thing I made. I know I made it work a certain way, and it's doing just fine. I have lots of customers, and they enjoy it as I made it. But, it's time I let it go. And let the world do with it what it wants AND.... AND... I will support that effort. At my own expense!!!". Or, they could just use my competitors device and software. Do whatever they want with that, and I'll just keep making it the way I, and my customers like it... Decisions decisions.

Choice is good - be it for phones or software.

For the bizillionth time.. We have choices. This will actually take that away.

 

[delsoul]

EU must be low on money since they can’t stop sniffing for it at the biggest companies out there who have the most to ‘give’. Hope Apple beats the EU and makes them beg for mercy. EU just needs to build their own phone company so there’s zero moaning about anything. There’s Ericsson, Nokia, etc…oh, wait… 🧐 😂

 

[Ctrlos]

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?

1. Their forks are merely skin deep. Consumers still use the Play Store regardless. It's like Dell and Lenovo licencing Windows. They do not compete with Apple at an OS level.

2. The DMA requires a level playing field.

3. Google are just as anti-competitive as Apple, requiring OEMs to install Play Services in return for access to the Play Store. It's a massive data collection racket. But this isn't AndroidRumors and so beside the point.

 

[delsoul]

No. They are intentionally punishing Apple, Google, Meta and other U.S companies because they literally cannot innovate.

This is true. EU can’t innovate and cannot compete. So they punish others who do better.

 

[Ctrlos]

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.

If Apple were a country at this point they'd be the biggest nanny state on the planet, with totalitarian control over everything. Saying 'live somewhere else' shows ignorance of the level of lock-in Apple enjoy. Ever tried reading your iBook purchases on a PC? Tip of the iceberg.

I can take or leave Apple if I'm honest. What I cannot get my head around are those that defend their business practices like they're locked in some sort of 1992 playground re-enactment of Sega Vs Nintendo. No corporation of any sort are our friends and do not deserve such a staunch defence.

 

[knappeduivel]

I paid quite a lot for this specialty motorized Jacoby Farnethstonworth tractor plough

Off topic!

 

[Ctrlos]

This is true. EU can’t innovate and cannot compete. So they punish others who do better.

Pushing open market and level playing field regulation on totalitarian companies is 100% in favour of consumers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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.

So should the broadband company be allowed to demand 30% commission on all sales conducted by Apple through their connection? I mean... they are in a position to block that traffic, aren't they?

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

Imagine the "other" grocery store across the street didn't exist.
Neither does any other grocery store in your neighbourhood or town.
No competing grocery store within a radius that you're comfortable driving to when shopping for groceries.
In other words there may not be a nationwide monopoly on grocery sales - but there's a local one. Where you live.
And that grocery store has the power to keep it that way and maintain that monopoly.

(Maybe they're controlling the logistics infrastructure, too. Maybe the the roads nearby. Allowing you, your bank and your local public transit company to drive on them for free. Only other food companies have to pay commission. The analogy is admittedly straining - but so mobile operating systems with signing certificates aren't like sales of groceries)

👉 So what do you think?

"Oh, of course the store should be allowed to operate as they please."
"Government should not regulate their pricing or the availability of products sold"
"Well, you decided to live in that neighbourhood - if you don't like it, move across the country and live somewhere else"

 

[knappeduivel]

This is true. EU can’t innovate and cannot compete. So they punish others who do better.

Like... with tariffs?

 

[BaldiMac]

1. Their forks are merely skin deep. Consumers still use the Play Store regardless. It's like Dell and Lenovo licencing Windows. They do not compete with Apple at an OS level.

it's not like licensing Windows, because Microsoft owns and controls Windows. Each manufacturer owns and controls there own fork of android. Legally, they are different entities. Just like Chrome and Brave. Being compatible or based on the same the same open source project doesn't mean you don't compete.

2. The DMA requires a level playing field.

What does that have to do with what I said? You claimed duopoly. I claimed that the DMA doesn't consider a duopoly.

And the DMA certainly doesn't require a level playing field since it only applies to a few companies.

3. Google are just as anti-competitive as Apple, requiring OEMs to install Play Services in return for access to the Play Store. It's a massive data collection racket. But this isn't AndroidRumors and so beside the point.

Except you used Google's anti-competitive agreements with their competitors to justify punishing Apple when you claimed that the problem was a duopoly. Do you not stand by your claim?

 

[AppliedMicro]

When I encounter situations like this I try to pause and ask myself 'What would fair look like?'

When I do that, the first that springs to mind is very simple:

👉 "Charge everyone the same for in-app transactions. Apply the same, nondiscriminatory rules."

No unjustified differentiation between physical books and ebooks.
Between physical CD/DVDs and and electronic downloads.
Same for the Uber ride as for the Fortnite digital item of same value.

Also:

👉 "Competition should happen on a level playing field. Imposing a 30% "tax" (charge) on the same music/video/gaming subscription services that you compete with, isn't".

Operating systems should compete on their own merits. And so should media services.

For the bizillionth time.. We have choices. This will actually take that away.

Note enough choice. A duopoly isn't choice - particularly where on duopolist does not directly compete with the other.

 

[djphat2000]

Nokia and Ericsson are Finish and Swedish companies and the rest of the EU could not care less that their phone business tanked decades ago. Revenge is certainly not the reason. As far as I know, Nokia and Ericsson produces telecommunication solutions. I wonder how profitable the phone business was in the end for Nokia and Ericsson. I mean, you got a phone nearly for free those days, unlike today...

Because the money was not in the devices. They were basically extra cool walkie-talkies once the tech was common. But, in the service. You paid for a monthly minutes plan to a small group of telecoms. Those telecoms owned the IP on how that service (1G,2G,3G and so on) worked for their region or market etc. The towers the radio frequencies. There was money made in service, the device was cheap. It wasn't considered to be something you can continuously make money from. Software upgrades practically didn't exist. And getting anything new on the device to make it do more or work better. Really didn't exist. You had to buy a new phone to do something new. You don't now. At least not like before. Hence the need for Apple/Google to charge for their respective stores. The money does go back into keeping that phone up to date and working with a variety of applications and 1st/3rd party external devices. Enhancements and features for later products, etc. People don't all buy phones every single year. Many wait 2-5 years.