Consumers are able to decide for themselves.
If they desire the safety of only purchasing first-party products/services through Apple, they can do so.
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 Hit With €500M Fine as EU Enforces Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they desire the safety of only purchasing first-party products/services through Apple, they can do so.
The EU is making it easier for scammers. Prove otherwise.
PS: you can read more about it here. Notably:
“Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice.
Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app.”
No they can't if a developer decides to not offer iApp payment. The law does not require developers to also offer iApp payments. If it were in addition to platform holder's payment processing I'd agree. But it's not.
It is not about User choice.
It never was about User choice.
And it will never be about User choice.
The EU has consumer protection rules and law place.
Consumer protection should not be out-sourced to for-profit operators.
And even less so companies that charge “premium” pricing that many can’t of won’t afford.
I disagree, but totally understand your position on this one.
I’d argue that it’s different because the apps are free on the App Store. You buy a printer from a store and the store gets its cut of that sale. Here, apps are using Apple’s services for free and not paying anything.
Particularly in an environment where Apps don’t have to be in the App Store in the EU, Apple should get a commission if a user downloads an app from the App Store, and the same user clicks on a link to subscribe to that app, Apple should be able to get a commission. If they don’t like that, they don’t have to be listed in the App Store.
But they want to be listed in the App Store, because the App Store provides significant value to the developers. Value Apple should be compensated for.
Last edited:
You made the statement, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is making it easier.
The EU understands tarrifs unlike Trump and his cronies. If it benefits the EU it will be applied, if it hurts our consumers it wont. But for show and giggles we can apply it on goods nobody would want anyway like US Cars and Food...
They will not agree, Trump is a bully, and brings in irrelevant matters into his deal. The days of the USA being at the center are over, the last few months have shown that it can't be trusted diplomatically nor in trade. We respect the choice, but don't expect us to go along with it.
Apple is free to charge a handling fee (or simply: a “price”) for downloads.
They’ve decided to make them “free”, though they didn’t have to.
It benefitted them greatly in device sales, I’m sure.
And that’s exactly how Google and Apple established their duopoly and dominant positions over distribution of mobile apps: By making things “free”. That’s why there’s lack of competition in App Markets.
That’s not an option given their market share and control over distribution to consumers.
What? I don‘t want to buy a Harley nor a Levis Jeans, so I‘m not affected to the tariffs, the EU imposed against Trump.
We in the EU are not directly affected by the trade war between Trump and China, how do you come up with such nonsense?
On the contrary, since the € has gained significantly against the $, Apple should actually lower its prices, which of course they won't do.
Rest assured that the US companies will be using the US tariffs to raise the prices in other parts of the world, including the EU, as well.
Sony already used that excuse to higher the price for the PlayStation 5 in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
That probably applies better to Trumpistan.
The water bill itself goes through the government. The payment itself likely goes through a payment system that has been implemented and is maintained by a third party.
See "water bill"
See "pizza delivery"
If in cash, you are absolutely right, if paying by card, see "monthly Netflix subscription."
Most likely one of the same few dozen payment systems that are used by your Government office, Netflix, your local coffee shop, and your local pizza shop. Nobody builds payment systems in-house. It is a lot of work to get compliance right, and it is a lot of risk to store payment details of your customers. That is why in almost every case of a data breach that we've seen in the past 15 years, the data stolen has been customer information, addresses, e-mails, etc., but almost never payment details.
But I do see your other point - the company initiating the payment within those systems in my other examples is a known company to you (presumably), while the ones you are supposedly buying niche software or small apps and games from online isn't. This would not be the case for larger companies like Microsoft, Adobe, EA, Apple, Steam, etc., but certainly would be the case for smaller developers. But in the case of those apps, you can certainly still buy them on the Apple app store or some other known store, since they probably aren't going to be setting up with a payments service on their own.
Then Apple is providing a service that they are entitled to be compensated for.
If they do that, they will lose market share.
Partly because of the higher cost relative to non-US companies, but also because there are a LOT of people who would be annoyed by the principle of it.
I don't think people in the US understand how annoyed people around the world are - their livelihoods are being threatened by an imbecile who happens to hold way too much power.
They raised their prices for cameras by 10% here in the EU. Was actually planning on buying a Sony camera soon, but I probably won't, let them see how they recoup their losses from Trump's idiocy, but certainly not from me!
OK, another semi useless story that should be muted.
I would be less opposed to Apple charging commissions if Apple did only that.
If they were just a non-partisan service provider and arbiter for their own ecosystem.
But they aren’t. And they should not be allowed to anticompetitively restrict others access to customers particularly in an environment where Apple competes with them their own apps/services. They should not be able to leverage their control of the App Store to unfairly compete on related products/services.
Example: charging music streaming providers for in-app subscriptions - as long as Apple are competing with them with their own streaming service.
The law ensures fair competition among music streaming services. On the market for streaming services. A separate (though obviously related) market from application stores.
What a ridiculously ignorant statement, from somebody who clearly knows and understands nothing of European history since WW2.
And it really doesn't make it any less ridiculous or well informed by adding RANDOM words in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Might be but that was just an assumption a tech blogger made but not based on any factual information. Unless Sony by now has confirmed this, might have missed that.
Well, aside from passenger jets that don't randomly fall apart in the air.. and more than a few other things, including the software that most Fortune 100 companies (including Apple) use to run their entire businesses.
So others get to freeload. Not fair at all.
Spotify isn’t required to pay Apple anything, and is competing just fine. All laws line the DMA will do is further entrench Spotify by allowing them to freeload off of their largest competitor, thereby reducing the competition the law claims to promote.
I’ll agree with you that the intent of the law is promote fair competition. It doesn’t do anything to ensure it though - in fact it does the opposite.
You must really want Apple to bring back that lightning cable then?
Regions have policies. Like it or not. Thats the cost of being a global company. China has pretty nutty rules for Apple to sell there and yet they bend the knee with ease.
Not forgetting the lithography machines from ASML and the optical glasses from Zeiss, which no one else can produce in the required quality. I hope even the biggest Apple fanboy in the US understands that US tech companies need these things.
At least the EU gives Apple an avenue to disagree with a policy and argue their side of why a policy is stupid and should be revised (ie, a properly functioning court system). China, on the other hand, take a decidedly more "my way or the highway" approach.