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
What opinion? Apple has paid out billions to developers since the App Store began, and $60B in 2021 alone.
Classifieds are not where the money is for newspapers.
I used to work for advertisement agencies, when papers and tv were still the two main pillars of advertisement. It was standard that the ad agency received a large cut of the price of each ad. I would not be surprised if it were often more than 30%. Meanwhile, the costs were almost entirely for the paper (material, printing, distribution). This in addition to the profit the ad agency already made on a campaign.
Exactly, and they keep repeating it as it’s it’s some fact.
If money is collected inside the app even through a link, from iOS , apple is entitled to a cut. If money is collected from a website without iOS as the intermediary apple is not entitled to a cut …as I understand it.
Wait... I thought classifieds were a big revenue stream for newspapers.
And then online services like Craigslist took away their business...
How Craigslist killed the newspapers’ golden goose - MinnPost
Sites like Craigslist delivered a blow to newspaper classified advertising that the industry probably will never recover from.
www.minnpost.com
How newspapers could have stopped Craigslist
Earlier this month, the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism announced that Craig Newmark, he of Craigslist fame, had donated $20 million to…
That's what I always heard.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"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."
Seems to me Apple did exactly what it needed to do to solve the issue. Nothing at all complicated for the developer to do in order for this to work exactly as intended by the law.
Like I said many times in other posts. These gov't are dumb.
Linux is full percentages away from getting 15% of the server market. It might be premature to say it destroyed anything. Meanwhile, Windows never had a majority of the mobile market share, even pre-2007. Apple didn't destroy Windows Mobile. That was all Microsoft.
And the idea is for Apple to open up seems crazy given that more than 85% of mobile devices run an OS that allows sideloading of apps. Anyone pro-choice needs to support at least one platform, even if it's just a small one like iOS, to be a walled garden. Because if Apple gives in then consumers will have no options.
They are allowed to collect commission. It's still coming from the AppStore. Just not the transaction/credit swipe/etc. That can be done outside the store now for "this" app (type app).
The only body that should decide on those cases are the courts. Governments have shortsighted political agenda and usually have very little knowledge of how technology actual works and what’s best for customers. Apple was fighting for years with EU in terms of taxes, finally they won in court and every case that forces Apple to implement anti customer changes or to force them to act against their business model should be decided by the court. Apple won the court case against Epic in US, they should keep fighting in every country if it’s necessary.
You cited "knowing how the technology actually works" and "what's best for customers"
We are going to get that from court cases and decisions?
They did not made off millions or billions off what Apple created. All that Apple built is credited to Apple as it should. Nothing of plagiarised, stole or taken has theirs. They, devs created and innovated whatever on top of it as well as on top of other stuff, ... as much as Apple did too ... credit to all of them.
How do you explain that a company that made "trillions" ... are then complaining that aren't making enough if policies have to change to give consumers options to who to pay for their digital services of choice ... to the point of preferring to pay fines and proceed with illegal conducts?
I do not think that what is a stake can be explained by the tenths, hundreds, millions, billions or trillions either side made by themselves. Once again, logical relationships were aren't any.
Last edited:
I don't follow. That doesn't seem to change what I said. They certainly shipped iPhones that you could use to purchase music.
I don't see the relevance of your made up motivations of Apple and "people".
No, it was a simplified description of the issue to make it easier to discuss.
Why do you need to create stawmen?
Yes, many developers have made a ton of money building apps for a platform Apple created, using a store model that Apple created. Prior to the App Store, publishing apps for mobile phones was a lot more complicated, and a lot less profitable. Now some developers want free and unfettered access to the platform without contributing anything back. Apple has opened a lot of doors for small and independent developers.
Not sure about the EU, but in the US, being fined is not the end of the process. Every individual, or company, has the right to contest the fine in court. They have been found to be violating a recent decision, with legal questions that need to be decided in a court of law, under the due process to which Apple is entitled.
Naturally. But did they also created the iPhone to play maths lessons or dating arrangements? No, don't think they even thought of that. They made a device to run/play apps, people bought the device because of it. Charge then for distributing Apps and selling Apps if that is what is for sale, say case in case games.
Made up as much as yours. Haven't crossed someone living the Apple Store saying ... look I bought an App Store. Have you?
Maybe too simplified.
I guess straw man is you equating a music player and music with everything else that the App Store applies its commercial policies to.
Last edited:
... and Apple made billions in return with such enrichments. Honestly do not get what you are reaching at. Does anyone owes anything to any one in the game? I think that some developers are stating that some policies are unfair and anti competitive that is all. Don't see any of them arguing that Apple owes part of their success to them ... does Apple honestly think that the opposite direction is not also truthful? If they believe that others success is down to them, then totally lost the entrepreneur DNA in their culture and may be consuming oligarchic behaviours too fast.
In the EU fines are not the end of the process either.
Last edited:
If go into details of Apple vs Epic case, judge Gonzales was brilliant in technical field. She grilled Tim Cook with relevant, on point technical questions. The problem here is that perception and law are not the same thing. ‘It’s not fair for Apple to take a cut from Apps sales’, ok but is it legal ? In what scope ? If they want to force the private company to change their whole business model and flagship product it must have rock solid legal basis. Gonzales gave very detailed and precise explanation in her ruling why Apple can’t be forced to do it. Apple will have to go this route probably in every country, according to the article it’s very likely in Netherlands as well: ‘Andeer admitted in the letter that Apple and the ACM "have a difference of opinion" that may eventually need to be resolved by a court.’
Sure, some developers are complaining, you will always have someone who complains. The problem is that government bureaucrats with little grasp of technology are listening to them and creating bad policy as a result.
That’s the same rationale as saying that if you want to use macOS and iOS there isn’t a lot of choice. Obviously if you wanted to use software exclusively compiled for IBM systems you were limited but there were plenty other mainframe and mini frame computers available from different manufacturers at the time. As far as home use computers there were a lot more viable competing platforms in 1984 than there are now.
Well not everyone get those complaints to court and get to be heard by regulators. Not everyone get similar lawsuits in multiple points on the planet.
Look, all its down to the policies. If Apple adopted more flexible / optional layers policies such as pay for what businesses need to use to reach their customers. Even in such finely controlled ecosystems. Say: app distribution; listing; marketing; payment & billing ... instead of forcing the all bundle / composite where no one understand where the value of one ends and the other one starts ... Do not think this would be a problem at least for a long time.
I find it weird that Apple is not ahead of this. Makes the motives even more sinister ... the App economy is in effect simply Economy. Everything now and even more in the future have Apps has the basis of commerce and service. From speakers and glasses to cars and homes. Whoever can create and build incredible devices will reach quadrillions ... the problem of Apple is that it only came up the iPhone of great relevance ... the iPad looked revolutionary but somehow looks kind of stuck in its own design dogmas ... Mac adoption has not grown considerably ... HomePods ... well. So it all comes down to the iPhone ... that is a problem ... but hey ... what a nice problem to have. Still the solution I think is to come back to great innovation in the device scene ... not in taxing the digital economy.
PS: With SJ 3 incredible years from 2008 to 2011. Incredible new incredible laptop designs, MBA, and the MBP that paved the way for more than a decade. Incredible new smartphone like the world has never seen ... the iPhone. On top, the first viable commercial tablet, that people could actually usevery well ... the iPad ... after that ... improvements over improvements ... some of the very very very questionable ... save the Apple Watch yet kind of minor. I miss this Apple ... don't you? Now we have movie stars in TV series and we talk about App Store policies and lawsuits ... innovative.
Last edited:
This is a truly cringe comment. Certainly, “innovation” is slow on phones anymore. No doubt. But you need to look at this company with a wider lens. The Apple Watch, Apple Silicon, re-visiting redesign of their entire computer line, new software working across all devices, and complete overhaul of the entire headphone industry, and rumors of completely new product lines for apple including glasses and VR. This is a massive company. The ability it has shown to bob and weave while still looking ahead is remarkable.
Just because you want a different port, or you’re pushing “pro” software onto iPads when I feel apple is waiting for a larger set of iPad devices to be capable of handling that software to minimize confusion and frustration, for users, doesn’t mean they have “lost their way” - so to speak.
You can look at ice cream and make a list of reasons it’s the worst thing on the planet. But only a fool would be ignorant enough to simply write ice cream off for those reasons alone.
If those are the first and worst things you can imagine about a $3 trillion company, I’d argue that means they’re doing pretty well.
Humm. Have you noticed that when using Intel chips the MBA and the MBP got thinner and thiner. That was the way. Came the M1 and came thicker designs? Remember the Macbook, the thinnest laptop I ever seen ... a flop ... I think the first Mac with a membrane keyboard? What? They needed to develop their own silicon to realize that there are indeed greater thermal constrains the thiner the thing gets ... oh and keyboard get more fragile?
Look. I really like my M1 Pro, the battery life is a revelation ... but they have been putting the Intel hardware through the thin is always better design hell
Don't want to go to far astray here, but it's not the same. In 1984 there wasn't this concept of an interconnected world so a business in 1984 would make an investment in a vendor. Today businesses make investments in platform technology distributing their wares through multiple vendors. Today, many businesses are platform agnostic, which wasn't really the case in 1984, which is why it wasn't the same rationale.
There's enough credit to go around. Apple's ios app store is just one way of getting 3rd party wares into customers hands, nothing more, nothing less. But that is why Apple gets a cut.
The other difference is generally if you're advertising a product or service in the newspaper, you're not also leveraging said newspapers IP to make said product or service to begin with. It's impossible to build a native application in the iOS ecosystem without leveraging Apple's IP to make it happen and the license to leverage said intellectual property is the revenue sharing agreement that each developer enters into. There is an alternative to create a web app that can work on multiple platforms and works around this limit that presumably for dating apps should work reasonable well (dating apps used to be all web based anyway) which leads to the other question that being an app brings them additional value.