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 Over Dating Apps as Dutch Regulators Say Apple Has 'Refused to Put Forward Any Serious Proposals'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As pointed out multiple time, iOS is not a product. It is a feature of iPhones and iPads. There is no market for mobile OSs.
Apple competes with phones and tablets running various (Google and non-Google) android OSs.
Nah I'm for a regulated market, rather than a free for all.
„Apple has failed to satisfy the requirements on several points. The most important one is that Apple has failed to adjust its conditions, as a result of which dating-app providers are still unable to use other payment systems. At the moment, dating-app providers can merely express their ‘interest’. In addition, Apple has raised several barriers for dating-app providers to the use of third-party payment systems. That, too, is at odds with ACM’s requirements.“
https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/apple-fails-satisfy-requirements-set-acm
Complying means - to most regulators - not only with the letter of the law - but also with the spirit and intent of law, rules and regulations. Which is: giving dating app developers real, viable and effective choice.
This isn‘t kindergarten where you’re outsmarting your kindergarten teachers by complying with regulation only to the letter of it - but in reality circumventing and ignoring them however you can.
Works the same for developers, when they have to comply to Apple‘s terms - only that it’s Apple themselves interpreting their own terms there.
Fines should be in proportion to damage and market.
I’m for a free market rather than a regulated one. Horses for courses.
Basically from what you posted acm doesnt like that apples solution is multiple apps, of which there never a clear requirement for one app, multiple links. Apple provided a solution but it was rejected.„Apple has failed to satisfy the requirements on several points. The most important one is that Apple has failed to adjust its conditions, as a result of which dating-app providers are still unable to use other payment systems. At the moment, dating-app providers can merely express their ‘interest’. In addition, Apple has raised several barriers for dating-app providers to the use of third-party payment systems. That, too, is at odds with ACM’s requirements.“
Apple fails to satisfy requirements set by ACM | ACM
Apple has failed to satisfy the requirements set by ACM regarding payment systems for dating-app providers. ACM has come to this conclusion following an investigation into Apple’s statements of January 15, 2022.www.acm.nl
Complying means - to most regulators - not only with the letter of the law - but also with the spirit and intent of law, rules and regulations. Which is: giving dating app developers real, viable and effective choice.
This isn‘t kindergarten where you’re outsmarting your kindergarten teachers by complying with regulation only to the letter of it - but in reality circumventing and ignoring them however you can.
Works the same for developers, when they have to comply to Apple‘s terms - only that it’s Apple themselves interpreting their own terms there.
I thought the ‘spirit of the law’ was to allow developers to choose either Apples or 3rd party payment processors? Isn’t that what Apple have provided exactly?
Im all for regulations but they must be clear and precise as to what is required. We can’t live in a world where regulators can simply decide on a whim whether something is in the ‘spirit of the law’ or not. Something is either legal or illegal, not some wishy washy ‘we don’t know what we want but we’ll certainly tell you what we don’t want when you make it’ sort of approach. That’s an untenable environment for a lot of businesses to exist in as it is effectively moving the goalposts.
That might be the case even tho they argue it’s a service.
As far as I know iOS apps can’t run on any android device.
But Samsung android and google android and Huawei android can all run android apps irrespective if it’s from google play store, galaxy store or huawei store.
So the actual market is iOS and android
the ‘spirit of the law’ was to allow developers to use a 3rd party payments in their apps
Nothing states it must be one option
Who argues what is a service?
Another one of your facts that has nothing to do with what you are responding to.
No, it's not. A market consists similar goods or services available for exchange. OSs aren't a market. You don't go down to the store and say "How much for that copy of iOS?"
The market that this thread is specifically about is the Dutch market for mobile dating apps. More generally, we are discussing the mobile app market.
What's your point? According to your own statement, Apple's proposal met the spirit of the law. They proposed to allow developers to use third-party payments.
Last edited:
This must be big business there. So if other Devs complained, we could have expected the same thing from the Netherlands gov't? Again, why stick with just 1. They should have mandated this across all apps.
If I am not mistaken, Apple currently has:
1) Apps that have IAP or to purchase the app in full, via Apple's process.
2) Apps that sell tangible goods/services (Uber, Amazon, Banking) have no purchases made via Apple.
3) Subscriptions purchased through AppStore pays Apple's 15%/30% cut, unless you signed up outside the store.
4) WebApp. Which doesn't cost the dev anything to Apple. Uses any 3rd party payment they wish.
Since this applies across the apps in those categories. We can assume Apple did this to keep it simple. So no one App has a rule that isn't followed by similar apps. So we don't end up with the Netherlands making a change to 1 type of App. I'm sure the argument is that it is a simple fix for Apple to implement, but it isn't.
So why not wait till that one is done? Rather than coming up with a rule for 1 type of App on the store? I'm sure the EU will not come to there senses on this, but what "if" they made a different ruling? Would Apple get their $50 million back? Was it worth the effort, or are we just messing around with rules and such for the peoples entertainment? Are you not entertained? I'm not.
So better to get something "IN", before getting zero.. Sounds like a money grab to me. Guilty until proven Guiltier!
Tesla Autopilot can't run on GM cars. GM Supercruise can, but Tesla Autopilot can't. Therefore they are completely separate markets.
There is no such thing.
They are a human made concept.
Markets are literally defined by rules of the game (regulations)
And right now, today in the United States the iOS App Store, while under general regulation (as every other business is) is regulated by the free market. Ie, one Gm like the iOS App Store, go android, go Samsung, go Microsoft…
What’s the alternative?
How else would you suggest changes happen?
We can’t “pause the world” to make changes and lay out new rules and then “resume the market”
Be clear about what is expected in the beginning and don’t fly by the seat of your government’s pants.
"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity." - Mark Twain's Autobiography; also in Mark Twain in Eruption
Someone not too happy with that
nos.nl
Gijzeling op Leidseplein Amsterdam beëindigd, dader overmeesterd
Er was een gewapende overval op de Apple Store die uitliep in een gijzeling. Aan het eind van de avond vluchtte de dader en reed de politie hem aan.
nos.nl
Attachments
Exactly
Apple does. That they only license it to consumers.
It’s absolutely relevant to determine the relevant market.
That’s your opinion, the law disagrees with you what a market is.
As you can find in the ruling.
Before being able to establish any abuse, ACM first needs to determine whether Apple has a dominant position and, as such, has the thereto-related special responsibilities.
9. For the assessment, it is important to answer the question of whether dating-app providers have any substitutes for Apple’s appstore service. The answer to that question is that such substitutes do not exist to a sufficient degree. As a result, Apple is, to a high degree, able to act independently from dating-app providers.
10. In its assessment, ACM took into account that most Dutch only have access to one mobile operating system with that system’s appstore (single-homing): Apple’s operating system iOS with the App Store or Google’s operating system Android with the Google Play Store. In order to widen the reach of the dating app, app providers must be present in both the App Store and the Google Play Store (multi-homing).
11. Multi-homing is critical to dating-app providers, because dating apps heavily rely on network effects: the greater the odds of a successful match are, the more appealing it becomes to use the app. Consumers that use dating services assume that the reach of their dating app is not limited to the mobile operating system on which the app has been downloaded. Dating-app providers are therefore forced, even more so than the average app provider, to be present in the both the App Store and the Google Play Store.
12. Apple does not allow alternative appstores on its smart mobile devices. Websites (mobile and desktop), too, are not alternatives for dating-app providers because, on those channels, the same functionalities cannot be offered as within an app.
13. That is why ACM establishes that Apple enjoys a dominant position on the relevant market for appstore services on the mobile operating system iOS for dating-app providers. On this market, Apple is, to a high degree, able to act independently from dating-app providers, and to dictate the
conditions regarding access to the App Store. After all, dating-app providers have no realistic alternative to the App Store, and consumers do not take into consideration the conditions for dating-app providers when selecting a smart mobile device.
14. Having a dominant position is not illegal in and of itself. Abusing one, however, is. Apple’s dominant position means that Apple bears a special responsibility for preventing such abuse. This special responsibility sets limits to its freedom of action with regard to the conditions it uses vis-à-vis dating-app providers. Apple must weigh the effects of its conduct on its buyers against the objectives that it pursues with that conduct.
And you can read the whole ruling at ACM Not at all as they provided unreasonable obstructions to prevent developers from using other systems. And is harmful to the developers.
From ACM this week
They chose to stay with the market related to the complaints. This investigation started before EU launched their anti trust probe.
It is a simple fix, it’s only a question of policy on apples side and it being conditional when used within the Netherlands, a solution apple already used for U1 chip
They got the permission to continue their investigation and is seen as complimentary to the EU commission. And yes apple can get their money back and sue for damages if that would be the result.
ACM can continue its investigation into the Apple App Store | ACM
The investigation of the ACM into Apple’s App Store complements the investigations of the European Commission into the App Store. All of these investigations can be conducted next to each other.
Not at all, it’s judged under current laws in Netherlands.
Not even related or relevant.
Other people have claimed duopoly between iOS and Android but you are saying there are many flavors of Android which shoots the whole "duopoly" in the foot with a 21 gun salute.