Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Defends App Store Changes in the Netherlands as Fines Reach €30 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not equivalent. The products would still be completely separate, they would just be sold together. How does one use iOS without an iPhone?
Not even related as it’s completely different legal system with incompatible legal terms. Literally apple and oranges
Apple appealed the decision, which remains to be subject to a full judicial review by a Dutch administrative court.
In addition to the appeal, Apple also initiated a preliminary relief proceeding in order to delay the implementation of the remedies imposed by the ACM until the appeal proceedings are finalized. In order to do so, Apple was required to show (among other things) that there is a realistic probability that the ACM decision on abuse will be annulled in the main appeal proceedings, which it failed to do and the decision of the Dutch court of 24 December 2021 was delivered in favor of the ACM. As we all know
In the preliminary relief procedure, the court found that most of the ACM’s findings in the abuse procedure appeared to be sound and well-motivated. The findings of dominance as well as abuse with respect to dating apps were, according to the court well-substantiated and likely to withstand the judicial review stage during the main appeal proceedings.
It’s leave apple to implement the ruling as the court wasn’t convinced it’s likely for apple to win. And if it would happen, then ACM would have to pay back the fines.
But They are likely extremely screwed, as their actions as so far will harm them in the argument as contempt of Court
The ACM have deemed their method insufficient but it's likely head back to the court to decide if the method that Apple implemented to give these dating apps an alternative payment mechanism is indeed sufficient. I doubt they will be held in contempt of Court because Apple has undertaken good faith actions to comply with the Court even if the ACM believe them to be insufficient and to continue fining them. Ultimately the question is if a judge will rule that Apple providing a mechanism to do it is sufficient or if it needs to make it a completely seamless process for developers that the ACM seem to be wanting to push.
Well doe’s it matter? You can’t run iphone or iPad apps without iOS.
And android or Samsung(random android phone apps can’t run on iPhone or iPads
It’s already decided. ACM is the authority as the courts already judged it as legitimate. Apple have had the ability to communicate and provide solutions for review, but chose to break the ruling as they implement it.
There are two basic criteria apple are ordered to fulfill.
1: allow 3d party payment solutions
2: stop using anti competitive practices
You can’t allow 3d party payment solutions by using even more anti competitive practices to discourage its adoption and claim to follow the law.
You can’t simply refuse to do something because you have a different opinion, you are legally required to implement the changes and proceed to file an appeal.
Apple is currently waiting for the appeals process, on this the court have already provided an early ruling (that’s is why they order apple to do what the ACM said) that apples appeal is not realistic.
In EU regulators have a polar opposite procedure to the US it seems.
In EU, regulations are guidelines for companies to fulfill and and interpret, they later provide this information to the regulators to literally grade your work as pass or fail.
The USA it seems they hold your hand until the finish line like children unable to do anything independently.
The conversation never was about the US. People just continue to refer to the EPIC case and judge’s opinions and interpretations in the USA, trying to draw parallels to a case with zero relevance.
It’s as relevant as talking about how airplanes aviation rules are related to traffic laws for cars and how you behave in an intersection.
Unfortunately, you don't control what other people talk about in the thread. There was a side conversation about antitrust laws in the US.
Last edited:
My reading was that Apple did implement it with the requirement that the apps that want this entitlement have a different app ID. I guess I fail to see how requiring a different app ID is complicated given that many apps already do this for region specific implementations already today.
Ok. We will see. My money is in this will not end the way you believe. Just like the epic vs apple lawsuit was imo, quite an upset to those wanting apple to get their hat handed to them.
Last edited:
Google/Microsoft license their OS as a product. OEMs can buy it.
It has already been established that Apple CHOOSES to sell/license iOS differently than some other OS makers. My point was that doesn't therefore mean iOS isn't a mobile OS software product or that it doesn't compete in the mobile OS market because in the end, consumers are still buying iOS (license) to use with a device just as they do for Android and others.
Your response about one being unable to use iOS without an iPhone doesn't change anything since one also can't use Android, Windows, etc. without a device.
But I can buy a Windows license without a device. Apple can't be a monopolist in a market they don't participate in. In the "mobile OS to license" market, consumers don't participate- OEMs do. And they have one option- Google's Android (well they could also use de-Googled Android but that's impractical). They do customize it to differentiate themselves. Consumers participate in the phone market- they choose a device based on the features they care about. If you care about iOS, buy on iPhone. If you want a foldable, buy a Galaxy or something else.
The fact that Apple sells/licenses iOS to consumers shows that they do participate/compete in that market. How they may specifically choose to sell/license it (i.e., with or without a device or other product, etc.) doesn't really matter. That's why I used a hypothetical iMac/iPhone bundle example with my point being that just because a company chooses to exclusively sell products together, doesn't mean the individual products also don't compete in their respective product categories. iMacs and iPhones being exclusively sold together doesn't mean they aren’t desktop computer and smartphone products or don't compete in those markets just as iOS and iPhones being sold together doesn't mean they aren't mobile OS and smartphone products or don't compete in those markets.
Well buying a windows license without hardware that runs it will be meaningless. Just like I can download iOS from apple will be meaningless without a device to install it on.
There are actually some android versions you can install on some iPhone models.
Still need hardware for it to be used.
The hardware isn’t an indicator for the market, only interest is how many system can run the same software. Different iPhones, iPods and iPads running difrent iOS iterations on vastly different hardware
can mostly run the same software applications.
Samsung, HTC, huawei, Sony, Motorola etc etc with different hardware iterations and vast array of custom android versions of different releases can run the same software applications. But non of the groups have interchangeable apps.
The is zero android play store apps than can be installed on an iOS device irrespective of the jailbreak ability.
And there is zero iOS AppStore apps than can install on any android iterations.
Both groups need custom apps for both systems
Noshit, and completely not relevant. I have followed the thread, and epic vs apple always gets quoted even tho it doesn’t ad anything
Well the odds are forever stacked against apple considering laws aren’t Americanized.
My bet it will absolutely not end like you think. Just as Microsoft vs commission, google vs commission etc. EU have a history of ruling against companies where US courts don’t do anything
Well it’s not a question of complicated but not defendable to force it. If apps can load different languages depending on location and system settings without the need for a separate app, then it’s hard to justify this requirement as a mandate compared to developers who chose to do so.
If I download tinder in Sweden, travel to USA I can use the same app, if I then travel to the Netherlands, I suddenly need a separate app instead of localization providing the extra features if I have a Dutch credit card.
And apple wants to force apps to use only one payment system. One app with apple IAP and separate app with 3d party option.
Apple implement new artificial limitations they can’t justify outside it makes it harder to implement for no defendable explanation
Well we will see what the final judgements are when they are issued and what is Apples' response.
From the OP:
Apple emphasized in the letter that the practice of employing an additional app binary is not complicated or costly for developers to do. "Dating apps are familiar with this process and in fact engage in it voluntarily," Apple noted. To prove its point that the practice is not an out of the ordinary requirement for it to enforce, Apple highlighted several apps made by Match Group, a developer which led the ACM to investigate Apple's App Store, that have different app binaries for different storefronts, including "Our Time" and "Match."