Apple Eliminates Separate Binary Requirement for Dutch Dating Apps Accepting Alternative Payments

[Taipan]

When I read „binary requirement for Dutch dating apps“, my first thought was „not another gender discussion, please“…

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm aware. I was asking someone else why Apple was not entitled to fees for hosting, distribution, etc. That $99 fee does not cover all the costs.

well if that is true, then apple should charge more. And obviously apple believes that 99$ is good enough.

Either you are right or apple is right. And they can change the price at any time they want

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Someone on a previous article comment suggested something… upon launch offer the user the option to either continue launching iOS or make it so that the phone is wiped out and open to install any third party operating system the user sees fit.
Sounds perfect on paper, after accepting that the responsibility is 100% on the user and third parties can do absolutely whatever they want: all sort of app stores, face/touch id enhancements (i.e don’t wait for apple to go around masks and Face ID), custom GPU/Bluetooth/etc drivers, and everything in between if you will.
Heck, third parties could also offer any sort of tooling that they see fit.

Sounds easier to keep it simpler.
Allow users to uninstall apps and install verified apps that can replace the standard apps.

If the talk is about “I want to do with my phone whatever I want”, then I don’t see how maximum freedom and customizability would be met with disdain.

we already have this right to do whatever we want with our phones. Apple just limits this with software limitations.

There is no contract currently available between consumers and manufactures that legally limit consumers rights to do as they wish. Apple just needs to prove whatever the consumer did is responsible for any problems to not need to provide waranty coverage

 

[I7guy]

[...]

we already have this right to do whatever we want with our phones. Apple just limits this with software limitations.[...]

There will always be limitations on what one can do with mass produced discretionary bought consumer oriented devices. It's up to you to remove the limitations you don't like the manufacturer doesn't have to help you.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I’d argue this weakens your argument.

Here is a clip from that article, at least the verge one;

“Apple and Meta handed over user data to hackers who faked emergency data request orders typically sent by law enforcement, according to a report by Bloomberg. The slip-up happened in mid-2021, with both companies falling for the phony requests and providing information about users’ IP addresses, phone numbers, and home addresses.”

There shouldn’t be a reason for anyone to get this data even law enforcement. But because law enforcement can get this data no questions asked someone can easily do this.

Then the real question is why doesn't we use Apple Pay? The card information is stored locally. The secure enclave stores credit card info, so Apple Pay can keep customer payment information private from the retailer by replacing the customer's credit or debit card Funding Primary Account Number (FPAN) with a tokenized Device Primary Account Number (DPAN), and creates a "dynamic security code that is generated for each transaction.

So instead of getting usable Card info, it's just random garbage.
Why is apple insisting we use their archaic system that exposes consumer data instead of a system they themselves have developed, is superior in every way and are available in every iPhone?

Apple Pay have a fee less than <0.2% that the bank pays to apple

 

[AppliedMicro]

Hmmm. They caved…kind of.

They did. Pretty quickly.

I remember people claiming on the forum that there "had to be" separate binaries to allow out-of-app purchases in (only) one country.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There will always be limitations on what one can do with mass produced discretionary bought consumer oriented devices. It's up to you to remove the limitations you don't like the manufacturer doesn't have to help you.

Depends. For example, it's illegal to lock any phones to a specific carrier. Some restrictions aren't allowed to be implemented if their purpose is just to lock in customers and force them to stay or prevent them from leaving the "system"

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Who’s to say government is right? People that people in liberty and private property rights might thing government is overreaching their authority.

well, if you care about property rights, then this should be right up their interests. Unless they only care for business rights and not private citizens rights

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Both completely missing the concept of having your information in less places is more secure. Do I want to trust Apple or do I want to trust Apple, Amazon, Epic, Microsoft, Joe blow A, Joe blow B, Joe blow C.

If the whole thing is about these poor companies can't pay Apple their cut do you really think they are going to spend a ton of money standing up their own system? Or are they going to outsource to the lowest bidder that still can skid past a PCI audit?

Please continue to fight to pay for risk.

I honestly think it isn't about the 30% in the first place. It's that fact that they can't track you. They don't just want you to pay exactly what you are paying today they want you to pay and also give them all the personal information Apple anonymizes. They want you to have to deal with them directly for refunds and cancellations. They want you to "trust" them.

The best part is people will still blame Apple/iPhones when it hits the fan.

I wouldn't mind giving people choice just to stop people from complaining, but Apple should still require that their payment still be an option for all IAP for those of us who want to minimize where their payment information are stored.

 

[I7guy]

Depends. For example, it's illegal to lock any phones to a specific carrier. Some restrictions aren't allowed to be implemented if their purpose is just to lock in customers and force them to stay or prevent them from leaving the "system"

Honda for example won’t sell you an alternative ECU. You are locked in unless you purchase an after market ECU.

 

[I7guy]

They did. Pretty quickly.

I remember people claiming on the forum that there "had to be" separate binaries to allow out-of-app purchases in (only) one country.

We’ll this “system” is locked to the Netherlands.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I personally prefer the iOS App Store for the better user experience.

For example, when I upgraded to an M1 MBA from my older 2012 laptop, I had to download all my apps again. But because I had downloaded them from separate websites, this meant having to go to the websites again. And because I no longer had the cd-key for some of the apps, it meant having to purchase them all over again if I wanted to continue using them.

With iOS, all the apps are readily available in the App Store, and it’s a simple matter to going to my purchased app folder and tapping on the apps I want back on my phone.

Using iTunes on iOS also means being able to track (and revoke) my subscriptions as and when I wish. The developer never gets my payment information. Then there are measures like ATT and Sign In with Apple as well.

Likewise, Apple has the advantage of starting with the App Store on iOS right from the start, so they are able to force developers to go through it. Which is to my benefit as the end user. Conversely, Apple has no such leverage on the Mac side of things, resulting in the Mac App Store being a barren wasteland.

Which brings me back to my initial point - that attempting to distill the discussion into “choice vs no choice” is disingenuous because choice alone is not the be-all and end-all of what makes for a great user experience. There’s also ease of use, convenience and security. All of which matter just as much, if not more, to me as well.

i don't think it's disingenuous. Just look at steam. It came long after windows was open, and now it has close to 95%+ of all games available on computers also exist in steam, not even including the old arcade games and older generation games that exist in super packages.

Even on Steam they have, 14595 Mac games available. Mac Appstore have 1391 games (514 delisted+ 877 listed)
Mac appstore launched in 2011
and steam mac client in 2010

The Mac App Store failed because of apple, nothing else

After doing some research, our total comes out to 74.000. This includes 55,972 games on Steam,1108 games on Epic, 117 games on Uplay+, 5200 games on GoG. these are on PC

Current consoles 12.000 games
Xbox series x/s: 347
Xbox One: 2967
Wii U: 784
Nintendo switch: 4348
PS4, 3374
PS5: 473

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Honda for example won’t sell you an alternative ECU. You are locked in unless you purchase an after market ECU.

You can at least purchase one somewhere else, you aren't locked in, and they won't do anything to your car.
Apple doesn't allow you to purchase anything anywhere else

 

[I7guy]

You can at least purchase one somewhere else, you aren't locked in, and they won't do anything to your car.
Apple doesn't allow you to purchase anything anywhere else

You can't get another "different more performance ecu" from Honda. An aftermarket ECU can void your warranty if it causes engine damage. Just like you can jailbreak your phone to allow sideloading, apple however, may not support the hardware or software if it deems the damage to be the result of jailbreaking or some alternative app.

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

Finally the mighty Apple bows down. I hope it inspires more developers to get a fair deal.
Not the greedy mega corps but at least the good small medium dev shops.

I don’t like this. Is this supposed to allow apps to use alternate payment systems instead of apple’s or they need to allow both? I just don’t want to all the sudden need to pay outside of Apple ecosystem, I don’t like to have my payment information on many sites.

 

[bb9]

Apple today announced that developers of dating apps on the App Store in the Netherlands that use an alternative payments system no longer need to create and use a separate binary. This change allows these developers to accept alternative payments in their existing dating apps, but only in the Netherlands and on devices running iOS or iPadOS.

Apple also announced two other changes that apply to dating apps accepting alternative payments in the Netherlands:In December 2021, the Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) announced that Apple must let dating apps offer payment methods other than Apple's in-app purchase system in the App Store in the Netherlands, or else it would face fines. Apple proceeded to allow Dutch dating apps to use special entitlements that allow for alternative payments, but required developers to submit a separate app binary to do so.

In response, the ACM said that Apple had failed to satisfy the conditions of its order. Apple has incurred a fine of €5 million per week ever since, with the fines now totalling €50 million, and the ACM said the fines could potentially go even higher.

As part of its announcement today, Apple reiterated that it disagrees with the order and is appealing it. In the meantime, Apple said it believes that the changes announced today demonstrate the company's ongoing commitment to fulfill its legal obligations in the Netherlands. It is now up to the ACM to decide whether Apple's changes bring it into compliance with the order, but the ACM has yet to publicly announce its decision.

Article Link: Apple Eliminates Separate Binary Requirement for Dutch Dating Apps Accepting Alternative Payments

Why only dating apps?

 

[Abazigal]

Why only dating apps?

Because the case was brought forward by the company of a dating app.

 

[amartinez1660]

Sounds easier to keep it simpler.
Allow users to uninstall apps and install verified apps that can replace the standard apps.

we already have this right to do whatever we want with our phones. Apple just limits this with software limitations.

There is no contract currently available between consumers and manufactures that legally limit consumers rights to do as they wish. Apple just needs to prove whatever the consumer did is responsible for any problems to not need to provide waranty coverage

The idea was to have it both ways, either use iOS as is kept intact as we know it or go the full-on customization freedom land with whatever OSs pop out. With the latter you are on your own.

Using the Honda analogy mentioned before: “here’s the car we provide, it uses this ECU and Gasoline”, if the user wants it to use another ECU and Diesel, then he can go on and customize it without having to bother the rest of the ECU/Gasoline world.

I just remembered, the PS3 did something similar, you could use it as is or install Yellow Dog Linux… the Linux devs of that version had to implement most things on their own though.

I think this works because it takes care of: “I want to do with my phone whatever I want”, eliminates free riding (the custom OS has to be done on a completely separate path) and avoids bleeding unforeseen consequences from opening up iOS as we know it.

 

[Erwin-Br]

I personally prefer the iOS App Store for the better user experience.

For example, when I upgraded to an M1 MBA from my older 2012 laptop, I had to download all my apps again. But because I had downloaded them from separate websites, this meant having to go to the websites again. And because I no longer had the cd-key for some of the apps, it meant having to purchase them all over again if I wanted to continue using them.

With iOS, all the apps are readily available in the App Store, and it’s a simple matter to going to my purchased app folder and tapping on the apps I want back on my phone.

Using iTunes on iOS also means being able to track (and revoke) my subscriptions as and when I wish. The developer never gets my payment information. Then there are measures like ATT and Sign In with Apple as well.

Likewise, Apple has the advantage of starting with the App Store on iOS right from the start, so they are able to force developers to go through it. Which is to my benefit as the end user. Conversely, Apple has no such leverage on the Mac side of things, resulting in the Mac App Store being a barren wasteland.

Which brings me back to my initial point - that attempting to distill the discussion into “choice vs no choice” is disingenuous because choice alone is not the be-all and end-all of what makes for a great user experience. There’s also ease of use, convenience and security. All of which matter just as much, if not more, to me as well.

You’re relying on a single point of failure, though. I already have a plethora of apps on my iDevices that are not available in the App Store anymore because the developer decided to pull the apps, most likely because the $99 annual fee was not covering new purchases anymore. Another point is that there‘s many brilliant free, open source (foss) apps out there that will never be on the App Store. Think about Blender, Krita, Gimp, Godot, to name a few.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The idea was to have it both ways, either use iOS as is kept intact as we know it or go the full-on customization freedom land with whatever OSs pop out. With the latter you are on your own.
(…)
I think this works because it takes care of: “I want to do with my phone whatever I want”, eliminates free riding (the custom OS has to be done on a completely separate path) and avoids bleeding unforeseen consequences from opening up iOS as we know it.

Coming legislation doesn‘t state that anyone should be able to sideload on their hardware device (phone).

It targets economic platforms such as the OS and its App Store.

That‘s why the „completely separate path“ won‘t be a legal remedy.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You can't get another "different more performance ecu" from Honda.

That’s perfectly fine.

An aftermarket ECU can void your warranty if it causes engine damage. Just like you can jailbreak your phone to allow sideloading, apple however, may not support the hardware or software if it deems the damage to be the result of jailbreaking or some alternative app.

It can never void your warranty guarantees as stipulated in law. Apple/Honda. Would have to prove explicitly my software or hardware modification is related to the damage and still provide warranty to everything else not related.

Example I change by screen with a fake one or jailbreak it, then my GPS or camera or speakers stop working after a month, apple would still need to honor my warranty to fix those issues unless it’s proven responsible to what I did. They can’t refuse services ether as no legal agreement was broken or need to provide compensation.

 

[I7guy]

That’s perfectly fine.

Yes. Lock-in and exclusivity can be real and fake at the same time depending on the product.

It can never void your warranty guarantees as stipulated in law. Apple/Honda. Would have to prove explicitly my software or hardware modification is related to the damage and still provide warranty to everything else not related.

As would apple.

Example I change by screen with a fake one or jailbreak it, then my GPS or camera or speakers stop working after a month, apple would still need to honor my warranty to fix those issues unless it’s proven responsible to what I did. They can’t refuse services ether as no legal agreement was broken or need to provide compensation.

Not if they can prove that you caused the issue.

 

[nastysailboat]

Why are they so concerned

Then the real question is why doesn't we use Apple Pay? The card information is stored locally. The secure enclave stores credit card info, so Apple Pay can keep customer payment information private from the retailer by replacing the customer's credit or debit card Funding Primary Account Number (FPAN) with a tokenized Device Primary Account Number (DPAN), and creates a "dynamic security code that is generated for each transaction.

So instead of getting usable Card info, it's just random garbage.
Why is apple insisting we use their archaic system that exposes consumer data instead of a system they themselves have developed, is superior in every way and are available in every iPhone?

Apple Pay have a fee less than <0.2% that the bank pays to apple

This is definitely an interesting idea. But it’s still like using your card at a bunch of different stores. Sure it doesn’t give your card number but it’s still giving your information (granted I’m not sure what that information is besides a number, I’d imagine your name and a billing address.) to multiple companies. And I don’t think Apple Pay does reoccurring payments. So you wouldn’t be able to have a dating app subscription without manual payments. At least not as it stands. I personally would rather just pay one company and call it a day. Plus isn’t it on the App to allow Apple Pay. Every app would have to add that functionality.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes. Lock-in and exclusivity can be real and fake at the same time depending on the product.

As would apple.

Not if they can prove that you caused the issue.

So no problem then.

This is definitely an interesting idea. But it’s still like using your card at a bunch of different stores. Sure it doesn’t give your card number but it’s still giving your information (granted I’m not sure what that information is besides a number, I’d imagine your name and a billing address.) to multiple companies. And I don’t think Apple Pay does reoccurring payments. So you wouldn’t be able to have a dating app subscription without manual payments. At least not as it stands. I personally would rather just pay one company and call it a day. Plus isn’t it on the App to allow Apple Pay. Every app would have to add that functionality.

Indeed, but currently app developers can’t use Apple Pay. But there isn’t really anything preventing Apple Pay to be used for subscriptions or for normal one time payments instead of using your real info with apple

 

[I7guy]

So no problem then.

[…]

correct. You break it you pay for it.