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 Fined Another 5 Million Euros by Dutch Competition Regulator Over Dating App Payment Requirements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are "general purpose computer" or "multipurpose device" legal terms in the EU. Do the laws depend on how a device is classified? It's a meaningless distinction in the US. Likewise, have mobile phones, or more specifically, smartphones, been declared an indispensable utility (like landline, water, electricity, etc.) in the EU as well?
In any case, I don't see why I should be allowed to download apps from other app stores on my phone, but I can't access my Steam library from my Xbox and Switch.
Dutch aside I’ve been paying through the nose for cable, because my cable provider has a monopoly on my street. IMO, that is what congress should be working on, not this crap.
Or you do it even simpler considering every app have equal cost irrespective of content.
Moving to a traditional retail/wholesale model is one option for Apple. Pay a per-user price to the developer and allow them to pick their price. No reason for apple to pick a price
Nope. Software and hardware doesn’t have a legal distinction. This is why it was ruled you have the right to sell any software you purchased irrespective of its license
At some point Apple just needs to appeal it to a court and get it out of this regulatory bureaucracy. If the Dutch courts seem to not be willing to hear it, there are always the EC courts.
They don’t charge them to have a store inside windows store tho.
Xbox and PlayStation don’t have a store outside their store. An important difference everything you purchase is a DLC you download from an Microsoft/Sony server.
Everything you purchase is inside the store.
You can purchase Sony/xbox/Nintendo game keys on G2A with no commission charge and register it on the console
iOS takes a commission on every sale outside the store, you aren’t allowed to purchase anything outside the store will not be allowed to be registered on the iOS device
And epic charge a commission on first sale but allow developers the freedom to use their own payment solution with 0% cost
Devs can have the agency model, set the price, and let Apple take a cut. Or they can sell to Apple for a fixed price, but then let Apple set the final sales price. Devs can set an MSRP, just like other manufacturers do, but then the retailer gets to set the final price. It wouldn't be fair for developers to dictate both their wholesale price, along with the final retail price.
In a market economy, prices aren't a fixed amount, or a fixed percentage above cost. The price is what the consumer is willing to pay.
Congress can do anything. Will they end up doing anything is a different story due to many factors that are all political.
I haven’t read that anywhere but in these forums. Is there a document somewhere that describes this “feature” of Dutch regulatory agencies and that it applies in this case? And, if they don’t want to not be taken seriously, they probably shouldn’t be requiring a change that, even if Apple wanted to, couldn’t be implemented three weeks ago anyway.
I'm not seeing the difference between Sony/Xbox/Nintendo and Apple/iOS. They all take a cut of sales no matter where it comes from because they designed/created/manage the device and system the App/Games run on.
These terms are all clearly listed out in whatever contract they signed in order to develop for the platform to begin with. Being a developer isn't a right, and if you can't afford to live as one because you didn't research the costs maybe you should have chosen a different job/business.
I did some quick calculations from Apple's recent earnings report. That $5M amounts to about five minutes worth of revenue from their Q1. This is about like getting pulled over for speeding and your ticket costs 60¢ with a lifetime max payout of $5. What's the dis-incentive?
I'm starting to think that's Apple's plans. I suspect the Dutch courts won't let it rest at that though.just give them 50m. case closed
It's more like the "Monkey's Paw". Nothing a regulator is empowered to do will change the fact that Apple is allowed to operate a closed platform and is allowed to charge money for access.
Eventually someone will say that apple must allow companies to host apps themselves, side-load, and provide third-party in-app purchasing - and Apple will say that companies who want those options have to pay 30% of their gross corporate revenue, that the apps have to go through App Store review before they will be signed for side loading, etc.
In the US it is quite arguable that it is a right. The 9th and 10th amendments grant all rights not reserved to the fed nor apportioned to the states for the people.
The issue is that many people confuse rights and obligations.
You have a right to free speech. I have no obligation to provide you platform nor audience for your speech and I have the right to ignore you.
So everyone has the right to be a developer but Apple is not obliged to allow it or submit to their ideal terms.
Apple also provides all that stuff for free on macOS.
The other platforms charging 30% will fall next. Chasing Apple is the thin edge of the wedge. You've gotta start with the biggest player, or everyone will cry out that you're chasing the little guy while the big guys like Apple do the same. And you don't want to chase them all at once, you only need one to fall, and the rest will fall like dominos.
They are doing everything they did before other than payment processing, and have gained an auditing and compliance requirement in its stead.
A regulator is not able to say 'you charge too much'. And apple isn't going to back down from getting their $$$ because of nonsense like this.
Your protection depends on your payment method. When I buy something with my Visa card provided by my local bank, no matter who or where I buy it from, if I don't get what I paid for, and can't get a refund off the place I bought it from, I ring my bank, and they reverse the charges. There's nothing new or extraordinary here.
What I don't want to be doing, is paying an extra 30% on top of things I buy, just to send Apple stock prices to the moon. As a consumer, I am absolutely sick of these whopping 30% fees. I can't wait for this to fall. Apple will be first, and all the others will follow.
No, that’s just a distinction that some people believe will hold up in court.
The fact that it hasn’t been presented in any court so far gives an idea of how legally strong the lawyers believe the distinction to be. It’s based on the idea that iOS is indispensable, and it’s not. The closest thing to being indispensable on the iPhone in some countries is WhatsApp and that can be had without iOS. There’s nothing anyone can do on an iPhone that can’t be done on some other device (other than accessing some non-essential Apple developed applications).“Multipurpose” is nebulous when you can play games, record video, and stream audio on consoles… that’s pretty “multi” already. And, that’s not to mention the video streaming options available. So, multipurpose is not a valid unless what someone means by multi purpose is not, literally “multi-purpose”.
Neither is “general purpose computer” as what runs on those devices is what developers publish (hoping to make money) and the service allows (again, with the goal of making money). That a calculator doesn’t exist on Xbox or Playstation isn’t because the system as a whole can’t handle it, it’s because no one thinks they’ll make money on the effort. And, one reason why not, is that the Xbox and Playstation both come with browsers, so they can access any calculator via the web. The Nintendo Switch actually has a calculator, one more “multi” There’s really no way to describe smartphones such that smartphones and computers as a group are “one thing” and consoles, which are allowed to use the same digital distribution model, are functionally different.
Want to know a funny thing? The same laws EU is using would fix your cable problems
It's more than fair considering payment processing costs most small merchants just under 3%. The developer will still be using every other component of the App Store. You do not get to display your products for free.