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 €5 Million for Ninth Time in the Netherlands Over Third-Party In-App Payment Systems
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The subject at hand (in case anybody missed it) is the fine for apple for allegedly not complying with the ACM; order which was ambiguous to begin with.
And here we are discussing our opinions of whether apple complied or not, and our opinions of the degree to which apple complied and our opinions of our opinions. Seems like it’s perfectly on topic.
I think effectiveness of the change is one that leaves Apple policy out of the authority concern. Not more or less than that. The best way to go around with this is one of inter cooperation in context. The reason why this is still news is because it seams that either of the parties are missing something in that regard.
Again, why not just one App version rather than multiple? Is this even the only reason behind the ongoing fines ... or is there a series of issues that collectively leads to the on going fines?
Compliance is defined and determined by the authority, so discussing if Apple complied or not is pointless when clearly is still being fined.
Last edited:
Except the ACM isn't the final authority. The courts are.
I answered that clearly.
ACM is the Court, they have judicial power ... no fines could be deliberated without such power. Other types of Courts aren't involved unless other unlawful matters are at stake. So I guess, a distinct case is being opened ... if not, if is about compliance with the law/regulations, it will be dismissed.
Have you ever been in the Netherlands? It’s a very well organized and liberal country. It is not Nicaragua.
Last edited:
The ACM is not the court. It's an independent regulator. If a company disagrees with the ACM, the case goes to the courts.
It's very simple: https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/apple-fails-satisfy-requirements-set-acm
To exercise both options the developers need to provide two versions of the same App in the App Store and users need to decide over which to download previously. That leads to confusing users as both are fundamentally the same App as well as is not effective as per regulators requirements. Then there is the wording in the policy "expressing interest" as if the final decision over the regulation criteria is of Apple ... this is not compliance ...
Apple is just wasting our resources pretending to misread the letter. Will see if the Court dismisses or not the case referring Apple back to ACM.
Last edited:
I think in the end, the best solution is to allow multiple App Stores, but every App Store MUST comply with a single uniform set of security rules. That way, iPhone users can switch between App Stores with confidence.
The original ruling was ambiguous and Apple satisfied the original ruling. Now they are changing their tune and can't blame Apple for fighting it out, while this governmental watchdog body tries to tell Apple how to run it's business.
You've subtly switched topics. We were discussing Apple requiring a separate binary for the Dutch App Store for apps with third-party payments.
Now you've switched to discussing Apple's decision to not allow their IAP alongside third-party payment options. I can't think of a single competitive reason that Apple should be forced to include their IAP in any app. The ACM completely misses the mark here.
You're confusing the ACM letter and the actual order. The ACM is adding requirements not in the original order.
Here is the original order:
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.
1. Why do you think DMA would be suddenly open slather on an iPhone, when it isn't so on any other mass consumer device on the planet.
2. Funny that you posted that cartoon full of FUD, and it didn't mention DMA anywhere, but now suddenly DMA is your major point.
Maybe you're simply imagining the worst case scenario, and confusing it with the most likely case scenario. And also confusing it with what all the pro-sideloading people are actually wanting. Almost no one wants open slather DMA, and the few bad actors that do, certainly aren't going to get it.
Other consumer devices, even those that are more open than iPhone, aren't under DMA.
Uhh.. my cartoon was in a post where I was talking about pitfalls of DMA. If you look at all my posts on these topics, I have consistently been opposed to to bills like DMA and US Competition and Innovation Act that create new antitrust statutes only for big tech, but supportive (with caveats) of bills like the Open App Markets Act that target the App Store and IAP specifically.
You can support sideloading (which I do) and also be opposed to bills like DMA that go far beyond it. Allowing sideloading doesn't have to mean Apple must open up proprietary hardware features for third parties, allow others to integrate deep into the OS like Apple apps do, stop Apple from bundling default apps and services, make all private APIs public, or be supportive of third-party app stores- all of which could be required under DMA. Currently, iOS supports sideloading but it is a very convoluted, difficult process. I would be supportive of Apple making that process easier and accessible in settings. I would also support laws that allow users to choose all the default apps (such as Maps) and ban Apple from bundling paid services into the OS. I believe these are all pro-consumer moves. I don't think that bans on self-preferencing will help consumers, so I oppose that.
They are one and the same issue in this context ... one devoid the other. Why you end up discussing App multiple versions / binaries have no idea ... maybe its because its Apple technical solution for what you finally describe instead of the regulators concerns and not all the deflective justifications you tried before with your other posts ...? The thing is, one can keep on deflecting it does not change the result ... it just makes the entire process more painful for everyone ... that is all. Waste of time and resources ... its simply Apple flexing against governmental concerns ... Apple believes tech needs regulation as long as it does not touch their turf ... like any other company.
I think there is one other country that Apple is trying to dodge the compliance requirements,... South Korea App Store regulations or so right?
Now, one thing that always puzzled me is the reason why Netherlands is only showing its concern regarding dating Apps. My guess is that it has todo more with domestic processes of the law than anything else.
The crux of the matter is that App Stores aim to take a commission of all commerce on the planet using the parent company control over users devices and operating systems licenses as leverage. Wether one charges 30% of 0 or not .... is irrelevant ... its still a commission in an App Store driven commerce world coined as the App Economy. A few years ago, such thing would be impossible ... but as technology advances both Apple and Google found a way to do it and want to implement it and go through that path. The App Economy situation is new to regulators ... its cowboy land , but will be regulated appropriately as any other kinds of commerce.
An unregulated App Economy is bad for both consumers and developers as all the business value is eschewed to an App and its technical components, a bunch of binary files that user needs to access the digital businesses services, totally devaluing the digital businesses inventions ... a 30% devaluation of the business towards a bunch of files, binaries. This is disguised by compounding multiple concerns into a single commission scheme ... things in stack that are worth almost zilch as per the nature of the digital matter yet are fundamental, such as the users ability to install a software program ... become infinitely valuable. This is what the App Economy actually means .. charging for the users ability to install a software program.
A bit like the Apple Studio Display, suddenly the ability to move a display up and down is valued at $400 when such feature was a common, a given by the technology advances worldwide . The difference is that in the case of the Stand, users can simply opt not to buy it, the manipulation is clear water and options are many ... technically there is no Gatekeeping possibility in this context ... yet ... heck they implemented a kind of a $gate$ even to remove the power cord ... another given, a commodity of a feature, that suddenly becomes extremely expensive. This kind of attitude is not one of an innovator, a liberal spirit but a wallet driller. Now digital services, including governamental digital services cannot afford to stay out of providing their users access to their services on the devices they use every day to access the Internet. Case in case they are forced to go through the App Stores to reach their customers on their devices and compete with these tech moguls ... As I've said a 30% commission of 0 to install a an app is still a commission.
Last edited:
Because the dating app companies filed a complaint with the ACM.
No, they're not. You are just choosing to combine them.
The Match Group filed a complaint.
No, the crux of the matter in this case is competition for payment processing in the Dutch dating app market.
Seems like you are in favor of every market, such as the M&M market of being regulated.
Apple should not change their infrastructure and business model so that the CEO of Tinder can give himself more millions in bonus.
Tinder should shut up and respect the rules of the platform they are on, which the market participants clearly like. Else they would be on Android.
I did not. Apple did. It was Apple that opted to demand two versions of the same App if the developer ever so wish do use both payment models in the Dutch land.
M&M market is regulated. Our societies are regulated by law. Now within this, I'm entirely in favor of a liberal approach to regulation ... in a way where no entity may have a stronghold on the market to the point of demanding a 30% revenue share for value that does not deliver.
Last edited:
Two separate issues are involved as I explained earlier.
1. Apple requiring a separate binary for the Dutch App Store for apps with third-party payments.
2. Apple's decision to not allow their IAP alongside third-party payment options.
Last edited:
And that is where we disagree. If M&M wants to charge $10 per M&M, they should be able as the use of them is completely optional and there are other substitutes to M&M.
That is only one instance of the general objective that is manifested in the policies and the attitude of the company towards the Digital Economy.
Last edited:
Developers were willing to pay 30% long before Apple had significant market power. It was obviously a good value proposition to them.
And, of course, the vast majority of developers pay 15% or less.