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

[Maximara]

Non tech people want Apple to just fix it....you know its probably just a few lines of code...Be serious its so easy.

Bureaucrats and politicians - the least informed low IQ people ever- telling a business they are not being serious is a new high in hilarity.

As Mark Twain said in his Biography said "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." and "All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple does. That they only license it to consumers.

All software is licensed. Doesn't make it a service. In fact, you posted that it is considered a good earlier.

It’s absolutely relevant to determine the relevant market.

No, it's not. As you posted earlier, iOS apps and android apps are in the same market. That's why you referred to Apple and Google as a duopoly.

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

As usual, you post information that doesn't address what is being discussed. None of that changes the definition of a market that I provided. A definition isn't an opinion.

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

Again, an Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. You, yourself, posted what you consider the spirit of the law. Apple's proposal met your requirements. I don't know why you feel the need to shift the goalposts again.

Not even related or relevant.

It's directly relevant since you are trying to argue that the market is based on the OS, not the device.

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.

Correct. The "duopoly" in question is the App Store and Google Play. Some people just can't wrap their heads around the difference. The only real anti-competitive behavior in the app market is Google forcing licensing terms on android device manufacturers that prevent any real competition to Google Play. Apple isn't doing anything to prevent competition other than providing a product that people prefer.

 

[Maximara]

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.

Goggle came down on Spain which is part of the EU and Spain had to fix its laws to comply with those of...the EU! Goggle was able to hold out for seven years. Just because the Netherlands is part of the EU doesn't automatically mean what they are doing is following EU requirements.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Correct. The "duopoly" in question is the App Store and Google Play. Some people just can't wrap their heads around the difference. The only real anti-competitive behavior in the app market is Google forcing licensing terms on android device manufacturers that prevent any real competition to Google Play. Apple isn't doing anything to prevent competition other than providing a product that people prefer.

Exactly. There is no mobile OS market duopoly. There is a downstream "mobile device that includes an OS, camera, chip, apps, etc" market which Apple competes in. In the "mobile OS to license" market there is a monopoly because Apple does not compete in that market- only Google does. Saying it's a market is like saying Facebook is a competitor to Google in cloud services because Facebook has its own internal cloud. Google has acted anti-competitive to its own OEMs with Google Play. Apple having an App Store it controls is no different than Samsung having one. Now, regulators may choose to outlaw Apple from controlling app distribution on iOS devices, in which case Apple would be in violation if they don't comply. But currently Apple does not have any antitrust violations.

 

[deevey]

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”

A round table discussion on proposed industry regulation would be a start to investigate whats actually viable, before pulling fines out of thin air.

 

[turbineseaplane]

A round table discussion on proposed industry regulation would be a start.

Roundtable with who?

Industry?

Is this like getting Boeings input on how certification and testing should go?

(plane crashes thx to "industry" doing "self policing")

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple provided a solution but it was rejected.

In other words: they didn‘t provide an acceptable solution.

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?

„Moreover, since Apple does not give access to data about customers that have made purchases, app providers are also not able to contact their app users directly for customer service purposes. Dating-app providers are unable to handle any issues regarding invoicing, cancellations, and refunds directly with their customers because they do not have access to the necessary data“

 

[BaldiMac]

In other words: they didn‘t provide an acceptable solution.

„Moreover, since Apple does not give access to data about customers that have made purchases, app providers are also not able to contact their app users directly for customer service purposes. Dating-app providers are unable to handle any issues regarding invoicing, cancellations, and refunds directly with their customers because they do not have access to the necessary data“

What's your point? Apple's proposal allowed third-party payment providers, so developers would have access to this information.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

A round table discussion on proposed industry regulation would be a start to investigate whats actually viable, before pulling fines out of thin air.

It would be great if Apple had shown any ability to understand and respond to developers’ and regulators’ concerns. Unfortunately we don’t live in that reality.

 

[mrochester]

What's your point? Apple's proposal allowed third-party payment providers, so developers would have access to this information.

Yeah it’s got me confused too. i can’t see how Apple can stop the 3 rd party payment provider from sharing a users data with the app developer, no matter how undesirable that is for users.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Here‘s Apple‘s „proposal“ of requirements:

https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/

• separate App binary, only available in the Netherlands ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• separate entitlements that have to be requested from Apple ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• exclusive choice of only one payment method: Apple IAP, third-party IAP or external payment link ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• 27% commission on non-Apple-IAP purchases and audit ? a commission rate that‘s set prohibitively high (on purpose)
• and sales reporting requirements and audit rights for Apple

In short: The conditions have been deliberately designed to make any practical use of of other payment methods economically unviable.

Apple felt like giving the ACM a huge??in flouting the rules and their intent.
They absolutely had every million in fines coming.

 

[mrochester]

Here‘s Apple‘s „proposal“ of requirements:

https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/

• separate App binary, only available in the Netherlands ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• separate entitlements that have to be requested from Apple ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• exclusive choice of only one payment method: Apple IAP, third-party IAP or external payment link ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• 27% commission on non-Apple-IAP purchases and audit ? a commission rate that‘s set prohibitively high (on purpose)
• and onerous sales reporting and audit rights for Apple

In short: The conditions have been deliberately designed to make any practical use of of other payment methods economically unviable.

Apple felt like giving the ACM a huge??in flouting the rules and their intent down to the smallest loopholes. They absolutely had every million in fines coming.

So what exactly is the purpose of ACMs ruling? Is it to allow 3rd party payment options or something else?

 

[BaldiMac]

Here‘s Apple‘s „proposal“ of requirements:

https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/

• separate App binary, only available in the Netherlands ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• separate entitlements that have to be requested from Apple ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• exclusive choice of only one payment method: Apple IAP, third-party IAP or external payment link ? there‘s no technical reason or justification that this needs to be a requirement
• 27% commission on non-Apple-IAP purchases and audit ? a commission rate that‘s set prohibitively high (on purpose)
• and onerous sales reporting and audit rights for Apple

In short: The conditions have been deliberately designed to make any practical use of of other payment methods economically unviable.

Apple felt like giving the ACM a huge??in flouting the rules and their intent down to the smallest loopholes. They absolutely had every million in fines coming.

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

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

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

 

[AppliedMicro]

So what exactly is the purpose of ACMs ruling? Is it to allow 3rd party payment options or something else?

No, that‘s not the purpose. If only, it‘d be a means to achieve its purpose.

The purpose is to stop Apple from abusing its dominant position.

And Apple’s „counterproposal“ (see above) only underlines their intent to continue their ways and behaviour.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, that‘s not the purpose. If only, it‘d be a means to achieve its purpose.

The purpose is to stop Apple from abusing its dominant position.

And Apple’s „counterproposal“ (see above) only underlines their intent to continue their ways and behaviour.

It specifically allows competition in the area that the ACM declared a lack to competition. Payment processing.

 

[mrochester]

No, that‘s not the purpose. If only, it‘d be a means to achieve its purpose.

The purpose is to stop Apple from abusing its dominant position.

And Apple’s „counterproposal“ (see above) only underlines their intent to continue their ways and behaviour.

Yeah I think you’re right. I guess Apple’s view is the requirement is unjust.

 

[AppliedMicro]

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

Well... seems they do, in order to satisfy regulators.

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

The ACM is complaining about Apple setting "unreasonable conditions":

"ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service. Furthermore, the conditions are not necessary for running the App Store. That is why ACM considers these conditions to be unreasonable and in violation of competition rules."

 

[mrochester]

Well... seems they do, in order to satisfy regulators.

The ACM is complaining about Apple setting "unreasonable conditions":

"ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service. Furthermore, the conditions are not necessary for running the App Store. That is why ACM considers these conditions to be unreasonable and in violation of competition rules."

So what does the ACM think is reasonable? I seem to have missed them stating this.

 

[deevey]

Roundtable with who?

Industry?

Is this like getting Boeings input on how certification and testing should go?

(plane crashes thx to "industry" doing "self policing")

It's how it works already in many industries. Big Pharma for example is virtually self regulated.

And I'd be extremely surprised if the aerospace industry does not have similar input on potential regulations, just as car manufacturers have inputs, on certain safety features that should be allowed e.g. Headlight technology / emissions.

In any case, it's more akin to "a regulator" telling an airline how much they are allowed to profit.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It specifically allows competition in the area that the ACM declared a lack to competition. Payment processing.

They're also saying the discrimination of app developers providing digital services is unreasonable:

"App providers pay 99 US dollars each year for using the App Store. Almost 85 percent of app providers pay only this fee. These are small businesses, but also major companies such as Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions"

https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-obliges-apple-adjust-unreasonable-conditions-its-app-store

Do Amazon, Booking.com and Uber pay a 27% for in-app purchases or bookings through third-party payment methods? No they don't (and yes, I just checked my Uber app: I can add payment methods right in the app).

Do Dating service providers? Yes they have to.

I guess Apple’s view is the requirement is unjust.

Yeah, agree on that.

 

[BaldiMac]

The ACM is complaining about Apple setting "unreasonable conditions":

"ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service. Furthermore, the conditions are not necessary for running the App Store. That is why ACM considers these conditions to be unreasonable and in violation of competition rules."

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

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?

 

[mrochester]

They're also saying the discrimination of app developers providing digital services is unreasonable:

"App providers pay 99 US dollars each year for using the App Store. Almost 85 percent of app providers pay only this fee. These are small businesses, but also major companies such as Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions"

https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-obliges-apple-adjust-unreasonable-conditions-its-app-store

Do Amazon, Booking.com and Uber pay a 27% for in-app purchases or bookings through third-party payment methods? No they don't (and yes, I just checked my Uber app: I can add payment methods right in the app).

Do Dating service providers? Yes they have to.

Yeah, agree on that.

Not sure what you are getting at. Amazon would pay commission on digital content if they chose to allow customers to purchase that digital content in their iOS app.

 

[BaldiMac]

Do Amazon, Booking.com and Uber pay a 27% for in-app purchases or bookings through third-party payment methods? No they don't (and yes, I just checked my Uber app: I can add payment methods right in the app).

Do Dating service providers? Yes they have to.

Yeah, agree on that.

None of that has anything to do with the ACMs ruling.

From the link you provided:

What adjustments should Apple make?​

Apple must adjust the conditions for access to the Dutch App Store for dating-app providers. Dating-app providers must also be able to use payment systems other than Apple’s payment system in the App Store. In that context, dating-app providers must also have the ability to refer in their apps to payment options outside the app.


Apple's proposal meets these requirements. The ACM is now adding additional requirements outside of these parameters. Requirements that have nothing to do with offsetting Apple's dominant position.

I also question the ACM's finding that dating apps can only reach mobile customers through the App Store or Google Play. Dating apps can and are offered through the open web.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's how it works already in many industries. Big Pharma for example is virtually self regulated.

Yeah…that’s going really great and just “super” for the general public interest

 

[AppliedMicro]

That is certainly the ACM's opinion

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

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?

Some people - possibly most of them - prefer to make in-app purchases through Apple's in-app purchasing system.
If they can't, the dating app will lose transactions from customers.

I mean, whether you agree with the measures or not, it's quite obvious that Apple is playing "divide and conquer" here.
They want developers to lose out on paying customers by restricting them to provide only one payment option.

? Apple even restricts them from informing customers:

"Your App Store product page’s metadata cannot include information about purchasing on your website or a link to your website for purchasing"

Not sure what you are getting at. Amazon would pay commission on digital content if they chose to allow customers to purchase that digital content in their iOS app.

It's unreasonable discrimination between non-digital goods/content and digitally provided goods/services.
Why should one be free (of commission), while the other costs a whopping 30%?