Apple Fined Another 5 Million Euros by Dutch Competition Regulator Over Dating App Payment Requirements

[Mr.PT]

Nope. It just means the next set of fines is likely to be a hell of a lot bigger.

It’ll be considered aggravated from repeated behaviour…and so on…it sounds to me Apple is buying time maybe to implement a solution that would solve this ongoing issue once for all…but maybe Apple just has grown so much it’s becoming a dinosaur: very big body; very small brain…

 

[Mr.PT]

********. Apple is free not to do business. Whether this would withstand court challenges and lawsuits and/or loss of revenue is another thing.

But apple is one company that can go up against draconian and socialist regulation.

Next will see Apple advocating for human rights, and abandon some other more profitable markets…no?

 

[Phaseangle]

Simple. No Dating apps allowed on dutch app store

 

[pauloregan]

Apple's greed has created this situation.

 

[laptech]

The Netherlands' Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) are seeing through all of Apple's attempts to make sure they still get their 30% 27% or what ever commision on transactions, even when those transactions are completly out of Apple's control. Apple still want to control it and the ACM are bulking at Apple's attempts to keep control. The ACM have made it very clear what Apple is to do but Apple is doing all it can to make sure it does not lose it's commission.

Myself and others have stated before that Apple will do whatever it takes to protect it's commission and these fines by the ACM prove just that, Apple are not prepared to let go of it's commission by adhering to the instructions of the ACM.

 

[AndiG]

Simple. No Dating apps allowed on dutch app store

Apple got so big just because of Apps. No one would buy a $1000 phone if there wouldn't be apps. Instagram, TikTok, Messengers, Games and so on.
I know it is crazy, but people buy a $1000 phone just to post a Selfie on Instagram, or to send some Twitter posts.

When the AppStore was presented, Apple told the audience that the 30% cut was just enough to cover the cost of the AppStore. And everything was ok. But over the years the AppStore turned into a cash cow and Tims greed kicked in. Loosing the profit share of IAP would cost Apple billions of dollars and Apples stock would nearly crash.

But only Apps made Apple that big - but Apple believes that beside driving the hardware sales, Apps do have to pay for living in Apples ecosystem. This is just wrong.

Apple will loose. Platform owner, gatekeeper and competitor ins't a possible combination in a free market.

 

[Juraj22]

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.

You are paying extra when purchasing via any retailer online or not, not just Apple. Only thing that really changes is how much you pay. It really doesn't matter if it is Amazon, Walmart, Kaufland, Google, Microsoft, Steam, Epic store...etc. you always pay extra for privilege of using their store. If you pay by credit card for anything, you pay extra. Some retailers are not accepting credit cards because of that. Same goes for Apple Pay. You pay extra. Prices are already higher for you as a customer, so you may not realise that the price you pay is not going fully to the seller who made the goods.

When Apple store in 2008 was created it was god send for mobile developers. 70/30 split was very good deal. Not many people realize that situation was much worse for developers before appstore. As developer you were lucky if you got 30%. For example: Nokia OVI store, payment made with premium SMS, for 1$, developer could get 30 cents, Nokia took 30%, network operator took 30+% depending on country, for example in Turkey it was 50% and you still have to pay taxes. Fun, right?

There is still option for "dating apps" to go Netflix route, where you have to pay on their web site, and app is just for using it, but you are not doing any transactions there. But they want a cake and eat it too. Not going to fly. Especially in Europe where Apple is in many countries under 20% of market share.

 

[PC_tech]

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.

Expect, again, something you and the rest of the Apple defense KEEP forgetting, they already PAID ????

 

[threesixty360]

Apple got so big just because of Apps. No one would buy a $1000 phone if there wouldn't be apps. Instagram, TikTok, Messengers, Games and so on.
.

but they kind of did. The original phone didn’t have apps. Apps store came later. They sold tons of iPods without third party apps too. In this “chicken and egg” game its actually apple that did the hard work that allowed app developers to make crazy money and distrbute these apps all over the world with minimal fuss.

this is what the story is really about. People are rewriting history and pretending that this scenario always existed therefore apple shouldnt be compensated for creating the platform for which everyone is making money on.

it’s pretty much a shakedown as if it was the mob or something.

the reality is nokia, Microsoft , blackberry etc all had phones that sold millions and had the ability to install apps etc.. but none of them created anything like the east to use and develop for App Store On iPhone. I remember those days well. People have forgotten and just expect things to exist.

also, the IAP 30% was designed to circumvent devs who were putting their apps up for free and then using IAP’s to get their money instead of an upfront sale. Therefore undercutting other games and services (which is why it’s hard to sell apps anymore if people are enticing you for free) and then not paying anything to apple to host the product / create the platform on which your making money. That’s also why the original ban on links to outside the store as again, your using apples platform to get access to the billions of users yet re fusing to pay for that access.

it’s business, not charity.

 

[I7guy]

Next will see Apple advocating for human rights, and abandon some other more profitable markets…no?

Ummm. Oh wait…

 

[PC_tech]

You realize that EPIC does not have monopoly/duopoly, nor anticompetitively blocks you from developing with Unity3D, and even supports other GameEngines like Goddot.

They do understand that, they don’t care though, that’s the issue.

 

[PC_tech]

"a small and pathetic country"

Is that really how you feel?

I would sure hope Apple doesn't feel that way about a modern sovereign first world nation they operate in and have many customers in.

I think ksec is being sarcastic, I could be wrong though?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

For digital downloads, there’s no difference between the App Store and console stores. Is there anyone that WANTS physical media for smartphone apps? I guess that “could” be a thing, but most folks don’t want to have a bunch of dongles they swap back and forth for when they want to use one app or another.

Grandpa: Jimmy, I want you to have this, these are the apps I loved when I was a kid. Now, they’re yours.
Jimmy: Thanks, but, those don’t even work on the newest phones. Is there something else to bequeath to me?

You understand there is no difference between digital and physical purchases right? EU don’t have a single law treating them differently

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

I’m sorry but nope. Show me the law saying apple have this right.

There is many things a regulator can do to prevent apple from earning anything on the App Store

 

[I7guy]

I’m sorry but nope. Show me the law saying apple have this right.

There is many things a regulator can do to prevent apple from earning anything on the App Store

Show me a law that prevents a company from earning revenue on its ip on its App Store.

 

[svish]

Fines will quickly add up. Already $15 million. Still 7 weeks left to reach maximum of $50 million. Apple might do something before that.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

There is no documentation. It’s just counted as failure to comply and counted as a new illegal act. Dutch law is subjected to EU ruling. And the Dutch court would effectively ask the EUCJ of their opinion in relation to EU law and not Dutch law, because EU law always supersedes local law

 

[ender78]

Well I certainly wouldn’t fall in love with someone from outside us, especially Netherlands. I’m not that dumb or desperate So no. Not a concern.

# SARCASM #
What a great attitude. The single people of the earth have been done a great injustice my keeping you out of the dating pool.
# SARCASM #

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Show me a law that prevents a company from earning revenue on its ip on its App Store.

Sure thing.
APIs aren’t covered under copyright and cant therefore be monetized or licensed.

the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250 EEC or 2009/24/EC)
And it was ruled in 2012 that according to the law APIs

EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”​

From the case C-406/10
WPL did not have access to the source code or object code of the SAS system. Instead it lawfully acquired copies from SAS and copied the functionality by writing its own code. WPL argued that these activities were not copyright infringement. The CJEU agreed, finding that there was no copyright to infringe: “neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program”.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Even if the fine was 5x what they make from IAP on dating apps in the Netherlands, paying the fine would still be worth it for Apple. It's not about the money from this specific market. It's about the precedent it would set if they didn't charge them a commission.

Well they just opened up the commission for legal scrutiny the second they said they would take 27%

 

[draugminaion]

Sure thing.
APIs aren’t covered under copyright and cant therefore be monetized or licensed.

the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250 EEC or 2009/24/EC)
And it was ruled in 2012 that according to the law APIs

EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”​

From the case C-406/10
WPL did not have access to the source code or object code of the SAS system. Instead it lawfully acquired copies from SAS and copied the functionality by writing its own code. WPL argued that these activities were not copyright infringement. The CJEU agreed, finding that there was no copyright to infringe: “neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program”.

IP is more than API's. API means application program *interface*, it is just the "outside" of some functionality that an application can use.

Anyone can make an API that looks like this
func setImage(_ image: CGImage!, imageProperties metaData: [AnyHashable : Any]!)
It cannot be copyrighted, it is meant to be public.

But they are not free to copy the code that performs that function, and the one who wrote that code it is free to set the terms for its use. Including charging money for it.

 

[I7guy]

Sure thing.
APIs aren’t covered under copyright and cant therefore be monetized or licensed.

the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250 EEC or 2009/24/EC)
And it was ruled in 2012 that according to the law APIs

EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”​

From the case C-406/10
WPL did not have access to the source code or object code of the SAS system. Instead it lawfully acquired copies from SAS and copied the functionality by writing its own code. WPL argued that these activities were not copyright infringement. The CJEU agreed, finding that there was no copyright to infringe: “neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program”.

Right, but the underlying code is copyrighted and as long as iOS executed something in an apps behalf it is using copyrighted code and therefore subject to a fee.

 

[draugminaion]

Apple's greed success has created this situation.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

IP is more than API's. API means application program *interface*, it is just the "outside" of some functionality that an application can use.

Anyone can make an API that looks like this
func setImage(_ image: CGImage!, imageProperties metaData: [AnyHashable : Any]!)
It cannot be copyrighted, it is meant to be public.

But they are not free to copy the code that performs that function, and the one who wrote that code it is free to set the terms for its use. Including charging money for it.

Right, but the underlying code is copyrighted and as long as iOS executed something in an apps behalf it is using copyrighted code and therefore subject to a fee.

And until the day any developers copy this code inside their app you might have a case.

No court agrees with this statement. You can read the ruling, they rejected this argument as irrelevant.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

In the security world you test, retest, and train. What Apple is doing is fostering a generation of people who are ignorant to internet security by blocking it behind their walls.

And before this becomes an all out war, understand that I don't really disagree with this -- protections are a good thing in some contexts. There will always be ignorant people. But there should be also be choices and flexibility. They can coexist.

There IS choice and flexibility. If you want different payment processors or stuff the App Store doesn't allow as a user, you can get an android phone. If you want different payment processors or stuff the App Store doesn't allow as a developer you can make a web app. They just want everything: an App Store app without the App Store rules.