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

[AppliedMicro]

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

Yes it has.

They're contrasting Apples "reasonable" commissions on some sales (Amazon, Booking, Uber) with their "unreasonable" conditions on others (dating apps).

Apple's proposal meets these requirements.

Only be the narrowest interpretation of the words.

While making actual use of third-party payment providers economically unviable.

Therefore, Apple's new rules don't address their abuse of a dominant position in any way.

Again, this isn't kindergarten where companies are - or should be - rewarded for only complying with the narrowest sense of a ruling.

 

[robco74]

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.

 

[BaldiMac]

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

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.

So? Apple should be forced to offer a service that they don't want to offer because dating apps will lose customers? That seems wrong to me.

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.

Where does it say they can only offer one payment option? They just have to choose between Apple's IAP, third-party IAP, or link to outside payment. Nothing limits them to 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"


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%?

That has nothing to do with the ACM ruling. There is nothing unreasonable about charging differently for different types of goods. (As for the 30%, almost all developers only pay 15%.)

 

[mrochester]

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

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"


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%?

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

 

[AppliedMicro]

Side note:

These are in-app screens from the "Uber" app on my iPhone:




It Apple's App Store and its rules are so much about "protecting customers from scams and billing issues"...

...how come I can add my payment cards directly in-app - and then use it for payments that aren't processed by Apple?

I mean, it's note like Apple make sure that my Uber driver will actually arrive at my place and take me to the correct destination, is it?

 

[robco74]

I mean, it's note like Apple make sure that my Uber driver will actually arrive at my place and take me to the correct destination, is it?

That is the reason why Apple only requires IAP and their payment systems only for products that are delivered digitally.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So? Apple should be forced to offer a service that they don't want to offer because dating apps will lose customers? That seems wrong to me.

Yes. Happens all the time to companies that have a dominant position in markets. They are regulated.

Where does it say they can only offer one payment option? They just have to choose between Apple's IAP, third-party IAP, or link to outside payment. Nothing limits them to one payment option.

First paragraph here.

That has nothing to do with the ACM ruling. There is nothing unreasonable about charging differently for different types of goods. (As for the 30%, almost all developers only pay 15%.)

The ACM says that Apple does impose "additional conditions" only on some types of services - and that these additional conditions are unreasonable. That implies that their current way of discriminating between the two 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. [suspended]* This situation applies to slightly over 15 percent of all app providers. [suspended]*

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."

? Specifically the additional conditions imposed on providers of in-app services has been found unreasonable.
(And why not, if there's none such on other types of goods/services?)

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

Well, at least they want to, don't they?

 

[AppliedMicro]

That is the reason why Apple only requires IAP and their payment systems only for products that are delivered digitally.

Sure - but the discrimination between these two is one of the arguments raised by the ACM.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes it has.

They're contrasting Apples "reasonable" commissions on some sales (Amazon, Booking, Uber) with their "unreasonable" conditions on others (dating apps).

Calling no commission a "reasonable" commission seems disingenuous on your part.

Only be the narrowest interpretation of the words.

Seems like a pretty clear interpretation to me. Nothing narrow about it.

While making actual use of third-party payment providers economically unviable.

Therefore, Apple's new rules don't address their abuse of a dominant position in any way.

Again, this isn't kindergarten where companies are - or should be - rewarded for only complying with the narrowest sense of a ruling.

Again, the ACM's reply to Apple's proposal says nothing about Apple's commission. You're putting your own pet peeves into the ACM's mouth. Neither did the original order.

 

[I7guy]

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

They provided what was asked of them. If the acm wanted something specific they should have spelled it out.

„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“

Privacy.

 

[robco74]

Sure - but the discrimination between these two is one of the arguments raised by the ACM.

Right, but this distinction was made at the beginning. It's been a policy for over a decade. Now suddenly, it's not OK anymore. This is why Apple needs to get this in front of several judges, instead of wasting time with small time government bureaucrats.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, the ACM's reply to Apple's proposal says nothing about Apple's commission. You're putting your own pet peeves into the ACM's mouth. Neither did the original order.

"Apple restricts the dating-app provider's freedom of choice with regard to the processing of the payments for the digital content and services they sell."

? As long as they're making usage of all other payment providers and outside purchasing systems economically unviable, Apple are continuing their violation of free choice.

Especially when you look at it from the competition law point of dominant position.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes. Happens all the time to companies that have a dominant position in markets. They are regulated.

That's entirely non-specific. Do you have any examples of a company being forced to continue to offer a service in a market where it is considered dominant? Still seems wrong to me.

First paragraph here.

The ACM says that Apple does impose "additional conditions" only on some types of services - and that these additional conditions are unreasonable. That implies that their current way of discriminating between the two 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. [suspended]* This situation applies to slightly over 15 percent of all app providers. [suspended]*

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."

Great. That's the ACM's opinion. But that's not what they ordered.

The order subject to periodic penalty payments
20. ACM orders Apple to put an end to the violation established by ACM. Apple must adjust its
conditions in such a way that, with regard to their dating apps that they offer in the Dutch App
Store, dating-app providers are able to choose themselves what market participant they want to
process the payments for digital content and services sold within the app. [suspended], and, in
addition, they must have the ability to refer within the app to other payment systems outside the
app.

https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

 

[AppliedMicro]

Right, but this distinction was made at the beginning. It's been a policy for over a decade. Now suddenly, it's not OK anymore.

Well, it's been a hitherto unregulated market and technology. With the increasing relevance of mobile apps, the markets for them will be regulated.

Did countries have road speed limits in the time of horse-drawn carriages? Probably not.

This is why Apple needs to get this in front of several judges, instead of wasting time with small time government bureaucrats.

Rather than judges with their interpretations of competition, I tend to think that legislators should provide laws first.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Apple restricts the dating-app provider's freedom of choice with regard to the processing of the payments for the digital content and services they sell."

? As long as they're making usage of all other payment providers and outside purchasing systems economically unviable, Apple are continuing their violation of free choice.

Especially when you look at it from the competition law point of dominant position.

Apple being cheaper, doesn't make other providers nonviable.

 

[robco74]

Well, it's been a hitherto unregulated market and technology. With the increasing relevance of mobile apps, the markets for them will be regulated.

Did countries have road speed limits in the time of horse-drawn carriages? Probably not.

Rather than judges with their interpretations of competition, I tend to think that legislators should provide laws first.

Until legislators provide new laws, courts are the place to determine if Apple is truly in violation of existing law.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

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

Like Boeing certifying the 737 MAX for FAA… we have such a problem of regulatory capture in this country. Apple is the least of the problem.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Until legislators provide new laws, courts are the place to determine if Apple is truly in violation of existing law.

Apple is not in violation of any laws yet. iOS is not a market. That’s why they need to pass new ones.

 

[djphat2000]

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.​

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.

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.​

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

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).​

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.

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​

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

, even more so than the average app provider, to be present in the both the App Store and the Google Play Store.​

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...

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.​

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...

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.​

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.

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.​

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?

14. Having a dominant position is not illegal in and of itself.​

So they have some sense in this BS law.

Abusing one, however, is.​

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!"

Apple’s dominant position means that Apple bears a special responsibility for preventing such abuse.​

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.

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.​

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.

Not at all as they provided unreasonable obstructions to prevent developers from using other systems. And is harmful to the developers.

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?

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.

OK

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

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

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.

www.acm.nl

Again, someone in that government has some sense.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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

I only stated apple argued they are licensing it as a service.

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.
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.

Yes this definition is objectively just your opinion, considering the relevant jurisdictions use a completely different definition for markets. US legal definitions aren’t related.

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.

I posted directly from the ruling, putting up unjustified barriers still doesn’t fix the main problem of apple abusing its position.

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

Same reason windows and macOS is the market and not the difrent manufacturer of hardware.

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.

Wel they do prevent different payment solutions to compete against apples IAP solution and have arbitrary lines such as anti steering, not allowed to link to their website or compare prices etc etc. as you can read in the documents.

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.

Google exited Spain before a new regulation was implemented. Not the same as exiting a market for breaking the law to escape fines. And rest of EU didn’t have such laws.

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

Well they did have them. Apple even had 2 months to respond as stated by the court before any fines was allowed to be levied

 

[robco74]

Apple is not in violation of any laws yet. iOS is not a market. That’s why they need to pass new ones.

Apparently they are in violation of existing law, otherwise they wouldn't be paying a fine. Unless it goes to court, and it is found that they are not in violation of existing law and the fines are dismissed. Only a judge can do that. Absent new laws, regulators have to work within, and jurists are limited to interpreting, existing law.

In this case, Apple is a victim of their own success, and the ineptitude of former competitors. And also existing competitors copying their distribution model and terms.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Apparently they are in violation of existing law, otherwise they wouldn't be paying a fine. Unless it goes to court, and it is found that they are not in violation of existing law and the fines are dismissed. Only a judge can do that. Absent new laws, regulators have to work within, and jurists are limited to interpreting, existing law.

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

In this case, Apple is a victim of their own success, and the ineptitude of former competitors. And also existing competitors copying their distribution model and terms.

Yup. Apple's real problem is that they are so far ahead of their competitors (and not because of anticompetative behavior either) that behaviors that were ignored when they were smaller are now being scrutinized. Apple's behavior never changed- but their competitors have consistently failed to execute, giving Apple more market power as a result. And it looks like Apple's lead is only widening.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Same reason windows and macOS is the market and not the difrent manufacturer of hardware.

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.

 

[JilzVT]

You really think so uh? Do you have 5 million in the bank >

Nope. I am also not a $3 trillion corporation

 

[genovelle]

Their original investigation had a broader scope at the beginning, but they reduced the scope likely to avoid their national investigation overlapping an ongoing European Commission antitrust investigation about Apple's apps and services in general.

In case of simultaneous similar antitrust investigation at national and EU level, the EU investigation takes precedence and the national antitrust investigation must be stopped. By limiting the scope to dating apps the national authority likely avoided the overlap and this allowed them to keep their national investigation going.

Yes, this means Apple will possibly have to face antitrust regulations at the EU level at a broader scope in the future unless the European Commission investigation doesn't lead to anything.

Double check my math, cause I did it in my head… but isn’t this basically: if you had $35k in the bank and the government threatened you with a 1/5th of a penny fine?

A fine of 1/5 of a penny if you don’t agree to take actions that could forfeit $35,000 a month in revenue while your costs continue.