Apple Fined €5 Million for Ninth Time in the Netherlands Over Third-Party In-App Payment Systems

[Abazigal]

"Apple", and "standing on principle", wow what an oxymoron.

The issue, I feel, is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the legislation being passed, and what the government is actually trying to achieve. Apple is no fool. They know very well that developers want to be able to use third party payment options precisely to avoid paying their revenue cut (it was never about freedom of choice), but because the legislation doesn’t expressly state this, it gives Apple to leeway to implement the ruling in manner which results in the least impact for them.

Until the government steps in personally and tells Apple straight in the face that they are not allowed to charge them a single cent, I don’t think anything is going to change.

And the government will never do such a thing, because then they will have to do the same for other app stores like google and maybe even Sony or Nintendo.

And for what it’s worth, I do believe that Apple does genuinely believe, with every ounce of their corporate fiber, that they are entitled to this 15/30% cut for the value the App Store provides for the developer.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Now switch the drawing of the iPhone with a Mac (which allows sideloading, and always has), and oh, ok, these arguments are all pure FUD (MicroSoft's favourite tactic for maintaining dominance back in the day, and what made Bill Gates so rich).

I'm not actually anti-sideloading (though there are downsides), I'm anti the DMA. Currently Apple is allowed to self-preference on the Mac, and ban apps from MAS if they use private APIs or alternative payment systems, so the DMA would in some ways make the iPhone more "open". in fact, that is the crux of my whole issue with DMA. I would support a bill that simply mandated sideloading, but DMA does so much more.

 

[Powerbooky]

But don't Microsoft and Sony get a commission even from physical sales?

Yes, of course. No store runs for free, although some people think that selling software online doesn't cost a thing.

 

[tobybrut]

The reason is it’s limiting the developers freedoms to chose for no defendable reason. And it prevents consumers from choosing between the payment systems for no reason.

And of course they care about the process, the end result isn’t very important. Because the point is more freedom for developers and the ability for payment providers to compete against apples IAP system. If apple still ends up with 99% of the shares because users actually like their IAP solution more, then that’s completely legal. Monopolies aren’t illegal, it’s only against the law to abuse a dominating market position. That’s all

Apple has quite a defensible position since they are trying to prevent other countries from circumventing their rules. If developers have a binary that provides both Apple's and an alternative system and it's distributed throughout the world, someone WILL figure out a way to reverse engineer it. Developers can also be mischievous by simply adding a small configuration in a .plist file to deliberately make it easy to circumvent. They might even publish how to do it and there's not much Apple can do about it since it's out in the world and they'd be fined again in the NL if they tried to disable the app. Flip a config file bit from 0 to 1 and suddenly everyone has access to the alternative worldwide. That's a hill Apple will die on, which is probably why they're taking the full 50 million Euro fine. I suspect this is non-negotiable. They would sooner be banned in the country than set a precedent for the rest of the world. If they give in even once, Apple's business model is wrecked worldwide. Apple wants to make sure it can't happen because the code would not be present in the binary that goes to the rest of the world. You can't reverse engineer what isn't there.

It seems to me the NL are deliberately trying to sabotage Apple's market position by making it easy to circumvent their rules. If the NL asked for an alternate and Apple provides it, the government shouldn't care how it happens, just that it does happen. Besides, how would they know how easy or hard it would be for a developer to supply two apps? As a developer myself for nearly 30 years, it's really not that hard. Two labels in a software header file and two separate make files and voila! Two different apps in the same source code.

 

[jdavid_rp]

The app should not need location services enabled to "know where you are" in order to function. It should default to asking where you'd like to search if you choose not to enable location services.

Yeah, but why would they do that for free when they can charge for being able to choose your location? ?
Also it would make easier to make a fake profile and move around the world. This way you can ensure that the majority of users are showing a location close to the real one.

 

[laptech]

lol, do you have actual examples? Brussels won't ever design anything, just say what you can't do.
Example the USB c regulation was worked on by a work group apple is a member of and agreed on. This group is the one who EU talked with to come to an industry standard.
And it's the USB-C port. Not the USB protocol.

Everything is just an exaggeration when it comes to security risks and the use of multiple stores
View attachment 1978851

I can now see as to one of the reasons the ACM could be pushing Apple in the manner they are doing because in that court document you can see it is clearly worded '....effective use' and '...effictive use and interoperability'. Apple has not made using third party payment systems very effective, on the contary, they have made the process very awkward and cumbersome, the app devs must do this, it must be done this specific way, it cannot be done that way. This is not 'effictive use' and I think if it goes to court, Apple could be in trouble here. Seeing this document changes may stance on that Apple could win if they take it to court.

 

[cmcbhi]

one solution.
Take all Tinder Apps out of the App Store.Let them go Android.

 

[svish]

Hopefully the dispute can come to an end with the new proposal sent by Apple.

 

[I7guy]

I can now see as to one of the reasons the ACM could be pushing Apple in the manner they are doing because in that court document you can see it is clearly worded '....effective use' and '...effictive use and interoperability'. Apple has not made using third party payment systems very effective, on the contary, they have made the process very awkward and cumbersome, the app devs must do this, it must be done this specific way, it cannot be done that way. This is not 'effictive use' and I think if it goes to court, Apple could be in trouble here. Seeing this document changes may stance on that Apple could win if they take it to court.

Effective is an opinion. Having a separate app seems to be very effective and then there absolutely no confusion from the customer end.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Effective is an opinion. Having a separate app seems to be very effective and then there absolutely no confusion from the customer end.

Everything is an opinion so it’s an irrelevant observation. What really matters is the reasoning behind the opinion. It’s not a separate App, it’s the same App. There goes the effective communication out the window … where one version the user pays to Apple and the other the to the digital service. How will the user understand the difference unequivocally so far from actually being asked to pay for anything? How do you explain that to the user?

 

[I7guy]

Everything is an opinion so it’s an irrelevant observation. What really matters is the reasoning behind the opinion. It’s not a separate App, it’s the same App where one version pay to Apple and the other the pay to the digital service. How will the user understand the difference unequivocally so far from actually being asked to pay for anything?

Sure. I don't see an issue. We know this type of discussion will be based heavily on personal opinion. Pay with Apple or Pay with Paypal. I guess if the potential customer doesn't understand that, they won't understand how to use the checkbox that comes up asking for which payment method to use while trying to complete an IAP purchase.

 

[BaldiMac]

Everything is an opinion so it’s an irrelevant observation. What really matters is the reasoning behind the opinion. It’s not a separate App, it’s the same App. There goes the effectiveness … where one version the user pays to Apple and the other the to the digital service. How will the user understand the difference unequivocally so far from actually being asked to pay for anything?

Sounds like a decision for the developer to make. The simplest being to only release one app with the payment provider they prefer to use.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sounds like a decision for the developer to make. The simplest being to only release one app with the payment provider they prefer to use.

So basically Apple is indeed promoting a solution that is not that effective considering the options. Thank you for confirming what’s obvious.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sure. I don't see an issue. We know this type of discussion will be based heavily on personal opinion. Pay with Apple or Pay with Paypal.

Choosing between App versions that look and behave the same for such a purpose is simply a none effective solution …

It’s a fact not an opinion. Easily demonstrated.

I can also have the opinion that in order to change a lamp on a chandelier one should rotate the house rather then the lamp … heavily based on opinion. It’s a worthless way to be …

 

[BaldiMac]

So basically Apple is indeed promoting a solution that is not that effective. Thank you for confirming what’s obvious.

Apple isn't "promoting a solution" where multiple versions of the app are released in the Dutch App Store. There's nothing ineffective about what I said.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple isn't "promoting a solution" where multiple versions of the app are released in the Dutch App Store.

No, it’s promoting a sepafate version of the App for the purpose. Take it as the corollary.

 

[I7guy]

Choosing between App versions that look and behave the same for such a purpose is simply a none effective solution …

Yes, in your opinion. To me it's easier than at the moment deciding what to do.

It’s a fact not an opinion. Easily demonstrated.

Okay, go for it.

I can also have the opinion that in order to change a lamp on a chandelier one should rotate the house rather then the lamp … heavily based on opinion. It’s a worthless way to be …

Sure you can have any opinion you want nobody is denying your right to YOUR opinion. And you are within reason to diminish my opinion, just like it's apropos for me when warranted to diminish your opinion. So what's your point with the above?

 

[BaldiMac]

No, it’s promoting a sepafate version of the App for the purpose. Take it as the corollary.

Not a separate version. Developers only need to release one version in the Netherlands. Same as any other country where an app needs to be modified to meet local laws. As Apple pointed out, the Match Group already does this in other jurisdictions.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Not a separate version. Developers only need to release one version in the Netherlands.

It is a separate version as far as I've read. Yes developers need to release either version or both if they ever so which. Choice per choice they might even wish to release none. The issues does not seam to be about choice, but about effectiveness.

The question is, why not just one version and then depending on the store the app behaves differently? What is wrong with that? Is there anything to gain from maintaining separate versions for Apple, users or digital services?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Not on the digital only one. But that might be a way around it. You use the App Store as the download source.

It gives developers/publishers choice, though. If they want to be digital only, they can do that.

If they want to be physical only, they can do that.

There's even the third choice of offering physical sales of download codes (that I think you alluded to in your last sentence.)

Or they can offer any mix of the three.

Customers then can choose which stores they want to shop at.

This keeps those stores in check - if they're hostile towards customers or developers, customers/developers can easily switch to another store. In contrast, Apple's iOS App Store has nothing keeping it in check. Everyone has to either use it, or switch devices entirely.

And for anyone who wants to say iOS and the App Store are just so awesome, take a look at the Mac and the Mac App Store. The Mac App Store treats customers and developers the same as the iOS App Store. But it's not a huge success - most Mac Apps are acquired elsewhere, because apps can come from other places, and because Apple's App Store model sucks, for everyone.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sure you can have any opinion you want nobody is denying your right to YOUR opinion. And you are within reason to diminish my opinion, just like it's apropos for me when warranted to diminish your opinion. So what's your point with the above?

The pointlessness of discussing what is an opinion when none of that regards the discussion at hand. Nice distraction as usual.

PS: Im not denying your opinion either. How is that even in regard to the subject at hand?

 

[BaldiMac]

It is a separate version as far as I've read. Yes developers need to release either version or both if they ever so which. Choice per choice they might even wish to release none it

Exactly. Developers' choice. Nothing ineffective about it.

The question is, why not just one version and then depending on the store the app behaves differently? What is wrong with that? Is there anything to gain from using a separate version for Apple, users to digital services?

Because Apple doesn't want to ship code that doesn't meet App Store guidelines everywhere in the world just because it is required in one country. Seems pretty reasonable.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Exactly. Developers' choice. Nothing ineffective about it.

No, not exactly. You are equating developers choice or lack of as one with effectiveness .... when it does not equate to effectiveness. Effectiveness is contextual.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Because Apple doesn't want to ship code that doesn't meet App Store guidelines everywhere in the world just because it is required in one country. Seems pretty reasonable.

Is that an opinion, a matter of fact or speculation? Who knows what Apple wants but Apple? All we can discuss is what Apple does ... like the recent non detachable Apple Studio stands and powercords ...

So I would argue that what Apples wants is more money, and more money does not equate to more effective solutions for customers (customers being people and digital services) ... once you get to a certain market position less effective quite often gets you more cash.

 

[BaldiMac]

No, not exactly. You are equating less choice as effectiveness .... when more or less choice does not equate to effectiveness. Effectiveness is contextual.

What? Effectiveness of the change is about whether or not third-party IAP and outside links are allowed. They are.