Apple Fined Another €5 Million Over Dating Apps as Dutch Regulators Say Apple Has 'Refused to Put Forward Any Serious Proposals'

[genovelle]

They don't just get to keep violating laws after the fine is paid, that will just trigger more substantial action (bigger penalties, etc).

They will legislate these Apps off the App Store or the App Store out of the Dutch market all together. Apple needs to send a strong signal that the App Store exists only because it is profitable. If it ceases to be so anywhere in the world it will be closed just like Apple Stores that become unprofitable or residing in regions that are no longer good for Apple’s business goals. Look at that district in Texas that was getting hundreds of cases filed against Apple because they were super friendly to Non-practicing entitles. Apple closed their store in that district and the cases have slowed dramatically.

They are not a government agency and have no obligation to provide services or continue participate in partnerships that are no longer profitable because local politicians decided to change the terms of the agreement.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Are these "known" before becoming/having a dominant position? I mean, if you don't know that sometime in the future your product will become "dominant" and you build a product that is legal at the time. Punishing success.

They always negotiate or talk before any fines are provided. Same happened with google. They wanted to talk and investigate some shady things google did. Google didn’t want to talk and EU commission launched their probe ending in 5 billion dollar fine.

Apple had over 1 year to do something. Then 2 month extra after the ruling before any fines would be used by ACM

BS! No substitutes? You don't have a dating website in the Netherlands? How is that possible?

Not equal.

BS! How is that Apple's fault? The people choose what they want, and Apple has to deal with the courts because of it? They have Google to pick from, and that somehow still isn't enough. The developers "have" to develop for both? That's ruff man. They state "must be present". So, are they forcing dating apps to be made on both platforms? Sounds like it.

LOLOLOLOL I CAN'T! LOLOLOL. Well, that answers my above question. Forced..... remind me to not visit this place.

Again, BS. They are not forced. If mobile phones didn't exist, would the government force there existence to devs and make apps for them? This shouldn't even be written...

OH BS to the 10th. They must have some serious hookups going on in the Netherlands. Can't meet up without that mobile app? WOW! How did we survive the early 2000's and the before times...

You are free to read the whole ruling supporting the points, considering I just provided the end points. Otherwise

Ahhh, yeah. They made the darn thing. Does Goodyear maintain a dominate position on tires made with it's secret sauce of ingredients? Only they know the formula so must be a dominate position. And before you say it's not the same thing as you can pick from many tire makers. It's contradictory to state Apple is a dominate position since they make the whole thing. As if people couldn't choose another product AND that is somehow Apple's fault. And at no point am I seeing where Apple is abusing it's "position" in any of this. The rules where there before being dominant. People purchase their goods and made Apple "dominant", and now Apple has to change what they are doing, that was legal for these new rules that make zero sense.

Good year can be used on any car and compete with other manufacturers. Come back when they dominate the market. It’s not apples fault they dominate the market but the laws are clearly defined and easy to read. Probably all laws and regulations in EU is less than half the pages needed for one random state in USA.

Ahhhhhhhhh, yeah they take into consideration they want the darn phone. And developers having no realistic alternative? Prove it! Xbox streaming on my iPad, no payments to Apple. They can't develop something like this? Really?? Full blown game streaming with input controls, audio, and graphics are not easier to do than a dating app?

Apparently not, ACM had a private hearing with apple. And no details have been released as apple requested it to be confidential.

So they have some sense in this BS law.

Well this is standard. When you lose a lawsuit you automatically must pay damages and related fees

Fair enough, but I have yet to see ANY proof of abuse. Being dominant seems to be all the proof one needs. Almost as if it was by default. "Hey you make some nice stuff, would be a shame if you're too successful at it. I mean, it's not illegal or anything, but you know. You will have to change your ways when you get "too" successful. We will let you know when that happens. But for now carry on, love the phone and what you've done with this appstore thing. Fabulous stuff!"

Read the documents I linked. I can’t just post 20 paket or more of text in a comment

Again, love to know when one crosses that line. Cause if I'm a business in the EU. The last thing I want to be is too successful. I guess when that happens. I'll have to invent another business to compete with so I can't be too successful. Or completely change my business that was successful so it's not so successful.

It’s clearly stated in anti competitive regulations. This isn’t complicated common law with case laws scattered everywhere. and negotiations is always offered before serious investigations are launched.

I hope every republican government official in the US reads this ruling. I'm not republican, but I do hope they read this. I'm almost 100% sure each of them. Their blood will boil at this ruling. It is so anti EVERYTHING they believe.
Corporate Democrats too will mostly feel the same way. Why would any company want to be successful in the EU? It's not worth it. You would only want to be successful enough.

They have multiple times, and EU haven’t cared for the last decade. Trump even had a trade war over it. EU law isn’t of US concern, if US companies wants to do business here they will follow the local regulations. That includes privacy, warranty and anticompetitive behavior

Make an app that has the 3rd party link built in is unreasonable? They get what they want, with little work. Unreasonable? So it's reasonable for Apple to completely break their way of doing things, but not the developer?

It was unreasonable to force developers to offer ONE solution.
1: apple IAP
2: 3d party payment
3: link outside
And each one must be a separate app

U1 Chip is hardware. I'm failing to see the linkage on this.

Apple used geotagging to prevent it from being used in jurisdiction that apple hadn’t secured regulatory approval.

I've explained my opinion on this App change in a previous post. However, I don't believe it's a simple as they describe. If they wanted to "link" out. Just inform they're users to go to a webpage whenever they want to purchase something. It's not as convenient but, it will work. Just like I can purchase Netflix directly from Netflix's website. Or is that just "too" much of an obstacle?

Absolutely it would be reasonable if they actually could offer this with standard IAP solution. Same way Netflix will soon be allowed to link inside the app as a “reader app”

Again, someone in that government has some sense.

As I said before. This is standard court procedure. The losing side pays for damages and court fees. No need to file for it

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple just wants to keep paying the fines and get this into court. Why acquiesce to a little fish? Get it in front of people who can actually make a binding decision, and at least have to pretend to be impartial. The only way to get any sort of decisive action in Europe is to force the issue.

That’s only to a higher court. The courts have already maintained the ruling of the ACM. Worst case it gets to EUCJ making it a EU wide decision.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

They will legislate these Apps off the App Store or the App Store out of the Dutch market all together. Apple needs to send a strong signal that the App Store exists only because it is profitable. If it ceases to be so anywhere in the world it will be closed just like Apple Stores that become unprofitable or residing in regions that are no longer good for Apple’s business goals.

They are not a government agency and have no obligation to provide services or continue participate in partnerships that are no longer profitable because local politicians decided to change the terms of the agreement.

Good. Good riddance. Do you honestly this will reverse the legislations? It would more likely result in apple being kicked out of EU instead with an import ban. Or that iPhones can’t be sold with AppStore available untill it follows the law.

Apple isn’t a big revenue bringer or employer in EU.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Are digital/non-digital goods protected characteristics that Apple can’t discriminate against?

Well that’s is an interesting observation. In EU law they are the same thing and is the reason why their discrimination doesn’t make sense and is arbitrary.

 

[Thebrochure]

This is very naive, The Netherlands is part of the EU single market. European treaties do not permit such geoblocking based on country of residence [1]. Both for physical goods and online purchases. This is probably also the reason why e.g. if you are in NL, you can just create a German Apple account and purchase from the German iTunes/App store.

If Apple would attempt to remove their products from the Dutch market, this would trigger EU-level action. And those fines would definitely not be pocket (or ash tray) money for Apple.

Besides that, as a result of the Apple/Google App Store duopoly (among other things), the EU is preparing legislation that would require platforms to support side loading and alternative app stores. I would definitely not like that from a security perspective, but the Apple/Google platforms have becomes utilities [2], so either they start acting like utilities (meaning ending the greedy/absurd 30% commissions) or they will be regulated. In the long term, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot, but it seems that current management is blind to this issue.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R0302

[2] It doesn't matter that the basis of Android is open source, or that there are multiple vendors, Google effectively regulates the whole platform, since an Android phone is pretty worthless without the proprietary Google Play Services and Google App Store.

There is no law that I am aware of which states that, as a business (and that's still what they are; they are not a utility), you must sell goods. Apple should just remove their products from any country (or all of Europe for that matter) that is hellbent on extorting them for their own purposes. I have a feeling the tide would turn rather quickly when their citizens could no longer purchase Apple's products.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No technical reason? They don't need a technical reason.

The court says they do. Just because isn’t a justification.

Separate binary for the Netherlands? Makes sense, since these requirements only apply to the Netherlands.

Considering it would need to make every user download a separate app, it’s not considering easier solutions exist.

Economically nonviable? The ACM is NOT complaining about the commission.

It’s still anti competitive by imposing unreasonable restrictions.

Correct. That is certainly the ACM's opinion. However, we are discussing whether their opinion is reasonable.

The court have verified their ruling. So it’s lawful as apple lost its appeal.

The two things they called out Apple's proposal for is 1) the requirement for separate binaries in the Netherlands. And 2) Apple's choice to not allow their own IAP alongside third party payments.

1) Why does the ACM feel that they should force Apple to distribute an app in only required in the Netherlands outside the Netherlands?
2) Why would they force Apple to include their own IAP if the point is to stop Apple from abusing it's dominant position to promote it's own payment system?

Read the ruling.

Absolutely. Theirs - not necessarily a judge's/court's (yet).

Courts already approved it. After apple made an appeal to a court, they dismissed apple and judged it as lawful. Apple can only appeal to a higher court.

More like reinterpreting existing law to fit their agendas. Need to pass new stuff.

We already have case laws supporting this. You can even read the current laws

What? I would say the same applies here. Microsoft has a monopoly on licensable OSes for OEMs (well there is Chrome OS and Linux) and Apple is not in that market. Apple competes with HP, Dell, etc.

Monopoly isn’t illegal. And apple is still competing against windows. Apple AppStore doesn’t compete against HP but steam and other similar offerings on the same platform. HP isn’t the relevant market because the software runs on windows, not HP software

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There is no law that I am aware of which states that, as a business (and that's still what they are; they are not a utility), you must sell goods. Apple should just remove their products from any country (or all of Europe for that matter) that is hellbent on extorting them for their own purposes. I have a feeling the tide would turn rather quickly when their citizens could no longer purchase Apple's products.

Absolutely. But it’s a question how it will make EU regulators and national governments to react. It would be seen as apple trying to force act above the law and enforce changes they don’t like with economic pressure. And that’s seen as extremely hostile.

 

[robco74]

That’s only to a higher court. The courts have already maintained the ruling of the ACM. Worst case it gets to EUCJ making it a EU wide decision.

Not worse, better. A decision with rules that apply across the EU is a far better outcome than trying to deal with uncertainty and a patchwork of different rules in each country.

Accommodating the EU might be worth it. Making accommodations just for Le Pays-Bas likely isn't.

 

[MacBH928]

May I ask why is this payment issue is just with dating apps? Why not for games or office apps?

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

May I ask why is this payment issue is just with dating apps? Why not for games or office apps?

Because Match Group, the company that owns most dating apps, brought up the case.

 

[boss.king]

They will legislate these Apps off the App Store or the App Store out of the Dutch market all together. Apple needs to send a strong signal that the App Store exists only because it is profitable. If it ceases to be so anywhere in the world it will be closed just like Apple Stores that become unprofitable or residing in regions that are no longer good for Apple’s business goals. Look at that district in Texas that was getting hundreds of cases filed against Apple because they were super friendly to Non-practicing entitles. Apple closed their store in that district and the cases have slowed dramatically.

They are not a government agency and have no obligation to provide services or continue participate in partnerships that are no longer profitable because local politicians decided to change the terms of the agreement.

This is a pretty ridiculous take. They're not going to pull the App Store from an EU country just because some of their profits are reduced. They still make money on the devices, accessories, etc. The App store is just icing on the cake.

 

[I7guy]

This is a pretty ridiculous take. They're not going to pull the App Store from an EU country just because some of their profits are reduced. They still make money on the devices, accessories, etc. The App store is just icing on the cake.

You believe the app store is just "icing on the cake?" It's a core part of the ios experience.

 

[Admiralbison]

MacOS doesn’t have this problem because it’s not gateway‘d by a single monopoly App Store.

Fighting Apple to change their App Store policies, monetary model etc is pointless endeavor and a waste of time.


Instead continue to push for allowance of other App stores and ”sideloading“ - which to PC and Max users is called downloading.

Apple will be forced to compete with their App Store.

Then it should allow the ”free market” to decide right?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple should just remove their products from any country (or all of Europe for that matter) that is hellbent on extorting them for their own purposes

Ensuring other companies can offer their products and services on a fair, level playing field is not extortion.

I have a feeling the tide would turn rather quickly when their citizens could no longer purchase Apple's products.

A big, billion dollar company like Apple should be above the law - is that what‘re saying or proposing? It should forgo making lawful profits and boycott entire nations, to force their regulator’s and legislator’s hands? I mean, your „tide would turn“ comment suggests it‘s not just about withdrawing from markets that you don‘t like operating in - but rather about „molding“ law and regulation to your own fit and purpose.

Side note: Apple sure didn‘t withdraw from China. They gave China their own, country-specific iCloud service operated by a local company.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You believe the app store is just "icing on the cake?" It's a core part of the ios experience.

If apple ran the store for free it would still be a core part of the iOS experience. Thanks for proving that the money isn’t the important part.

 

[I7guy]

If apple ran the store for free it would still be a core part of the iOS experience. Thanks for proving that the money isn’t the important part.

Correct. It’s a core part of the experience. Apple doesn’t require that apps charge a fee. But that doesn’t mean that those that do can skirt the rules.

 

[BaldiMac]

Ensuring other companies can offer their products and services on a fair, level playing field is not extortion.

Except the playing field was fair and level. All dating apps operated under the same rules on iOS.

 

[Maximara]

Apple will be forced to compete with their App Store.

That very same argument could be made for consoles. I think the Devil and his demons would be making snow angels before those got opened up (ie no more exclusives).

 

[prime17569]

I'm going to repeat something I said in an earlier thread because this might be what Apple is doing.

My hypothesis is that Apple is going to announce some changes at their upcoming Spring event rumored to be on March 8, and wants to delay any discussion about the App Store until then, even if it means paying a fine to the ACM every week until then.

If this were not the case, Apple most likely would have announced a solution as soon as they possibly could to avoid further legal action. Apple's lawyers are very likely to be cognizant of the potential negative side effects of delaying a response.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple needs to send a strong signal that the App Store exists only because it is profitable

Even if it were unprofitable, they'd keep it around.
Cause they wouldn't make billions of dollars of iOS device sales.

Except the playing field was fair and level.

It's not fair compared to apps offering physical goods.
Neither is it fair compared to the value Apple is providing with payment processing.

All dating apps operated under the same rules on iOS.

Even if all black slaves once operated and lived under the same rules and laws in the U.S., that didn't make it a fair and equal society.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not fair compared to apps offering physical goods.

The playing field is level between any type of app. Obviously, an app that sells real pizza isn't competing with an app that sells digital pizza.

Neither is it fair compared to the value Apple is providing with payment processing.

The commission they charge isn't only for payment processing and never has been. Steve Jobs introduced it as being for a number of different things including hosting, marketing, transaction fees, etc. It's also fair enough that it's allowed the App Store to grow dynamically over the years.

Again, 98% of developers pay 15% or less. Considering 5-6% would be a reasonable payment processing fee, then 9-10% for the rest of the benefits of being on the App Store is certainly reasonable.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The playing field is level between any type of app. Obviously, an app that sells real pizza isn't competing with an app that sells digital pizza.

Who says digital dating apps aren't competing with other, more dating services?

Considering 5-6% would be a reasonable payment processing fee

Even Apple themselves just publicly admitted that it's only half that (3%).

then 9-10% for the rest of the benefits of being on the App Store is certainly reasonable.

"Being on the App Store" is free.
Free is the price Apple has set.

Except the 99 USD/year (flat) developer membership fee, of course.
Amazon, Netflix, Uber, even Microsoft are all "on the App Store" for that developer fee but otherwise for free.

 

[BaldiMac]

Who says digital dating apps aren't competing with other dating services?

Nobody.

Even Apple just admitted themselves that it's only half that (3%).

Nope. Go check prices. Transactions are usually around 3% plus $0.30 or so. On a 4.99 app, that's 8.9%

"Being on the App Store" is free.
Free is the price Apple has set.

Except the 99 USD/year (flat) developer membership fee, of course.
Amazon, Netflix, Uber, even Microsoft are all "on the App Store" for that developer fee.

The cost of being on the App Store is agreeing to Apple's contract terms.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nope. Go check prices.

Yeah, how about I do?

Transactions are usually around 3% plus $0.30 or so. On a 4.99 app, that's 8.9%

1. Having to break it to you, the Netherlands are not part of the United States of America. And they don't usually deal in dollars (well... most of them anyways. Some of their small Carribean islands actually do, I believe).

Now, if we actually look at the Dutch pricing, it's considerably lower even for Stripe:

The reason why? Thanks to EU interchange regulation keeping payment processing costs down. A case of regulation that both merchants and consumers are benefitting from.

And I'm sure big dating app developers could also get the special deals and pricing schemes Stripe is advertising.

2. Stripe isn't the only payment processor in the world, or the Netherlands.
There are others than can offer 2.5% without base fee even to small mom-and-pop operations:

I have little doubt that Apple pays less than that though for payment processing. They'll certainly enjoy an even lower rate.

3. Apple said it themselves:

"Apple will charge a 27% commission on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities"

The cost of being on the App Store is agreeing to Apple's contract terms.

Exactly. Which the ACM regulator found unreasonable.