Apple Intelligence Features Not Coming to European Union at Launch Due to DMA

[Philip_S]

It amazes me that those of you distrust Apple so much, but also love their products so much that you'd rather make the products worse than switch to a competitor.

Just because Apple is less harmful than Google doesn’t make Apple not harmful, and for the most part it will be easier to verify that Apple’s kind of evil has been stopped than Google’s.

Unfortunately neither the DMA nor the recent Japanese law actually solves the problem.

 

[chmania]

Just because Apple is less harmful than Google doesn’t make Apple not harmful,

None of them are harmful, only business entities, looking for more profit.

Unfortunately neither the DMA nor the recent Japanese law actually solves the problem.

Don't know much about Japanese laws, but the EU is quite successful in curbing the only-for-profit foreign businesses, and the EU is a union of 27 different countries.

 

[AppliedMicro]

App Store change requirement was specifically directed at Apple and Apple complied with every single line of it. And now EC is not happy? The problem is EC can't directly state Apple can't make money from SDKs. But they worded the regulations hoping that Apple won't have a way to make money. But Apple found a way while following every single word in it

No, they didn't:

"For software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision, gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. (...) In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation.

Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper."

Examples:
Having to pay commission at all for selling a physical book in-app while paying 30% for sale of an ebook can be considered differentiation.
And not charging the Core Technology Fee on their own store on "legacy" terms confers an unfair advantage to the gatekeeper.

Furthermore:

"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

They don't. Obviously not.

 

[m4mario]

No, they didn't:

"For software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision, gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. (...) In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation.

Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper."

Examples:
Having to pay commission at all for selling a physical book in-app while paying 30% for sale of an ebook can be considered differentiation.
And not charging the Core Technology Fee on their own store on "legacy" terms confers an unfair advantage to the gatekeeper.

Furthermore:

"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

They don't. Obviously not.

The core technology fee is 15-30% cut on all digital sales if distributed through App Store.
For outside App Store, it's Euro .50 for downloads greater than 1 million per year.

It's actually disadvantageous to distribute through the App Store. Most developers wont have to pay Apple anything If distributed outside the App Store. And still you argue it's unfair. Guess there is no convincing someone whose core goal is to simply target Apple for each and everything they do.

I need to learn more about the communication part to respond to that.

 

[chmania]

Apple is first company charged with violating EU’s DMA rules

 

[AppliedMicro]

The core technology fee is 15-30% cut on all digital sales if distributed through App Store.

It‘s not. That’s just what Apple has pivoted towards claiming as a means of justifying it. it’s just making stuff up as they go along, to continue justifying charging it. A fee that most, the majority of apps (free!) don‘t pay isn’t a „core“ fee. Example: Uber raking in billions in in-app transactions without paying it.

It’s merely a „tax“ on digital content - because those developers can be forced to pay it and have virtually not alternative without continuing to target iOS users. Opportunistic charging the weak while letting off the ones that have alternatives

Either way, there’s no point in arguing about it, since it’s unjustified differentiation.

Most developers wont have to pay Apple anything If distributed outside the App Store. And still you argue it's unfair

The most downloaded apps and the developers offering the apps most downloaded can‘t escape it.
In other words: the most popular and most downloaded apps are steered towards Apple‘s App Store.

 

[ender78]

That's what Apple pivoted to saying as justification for their commissions.
Whereas in reality it's covered by the yearly developer subscription.
Apple has no issue whatsoever with reviewing and hosting all of the many free apps on the App Store - for free.

$100/year pays for Diddly Squat (TM). One of the reasons that Apple can afford to host many apps for free is due to the payments of those that pay 15/30%. You have no idea as to what it really costs to run the App Store and neither does the EC, yet you say it's "too much". What is the "correct amount" and who decides what it should be? These duopolies will exist as long as its costs tens of billions of dollars every year to create these platforms. It's about revenue recovery first.

Either way, large players like Spotify, Netflix or Epic Games, don't require hosting, download traffic, the review system or support really - they can do it themselves. And neither do they require Apple's promotion.

So what should they pay for the user base that Apple has curated and whose trust Apple has earned with blood sweat and tears of Apple's own developers.

For these developers, it amounts to an in-app "revenue tax" of sorts.

It's called a commission.

...yet much more than processors for other software payments charge. Either way...

It's not about payment processing and has never been.

But the combination of
1. charging 30% to very popular third-party apps and their in-app sales while
2. not passing on any economies of scale in more than 15 years and

Apps have gotten larger, by a significant margin. Code review has become more complex. Prices staying the same throughout inflation that has skyrocketed worldwide is passing along economies of scale.

4. Apple beginning to compete for most major categories of digital content with its own services

Netflix/Spotify did not "invent" digital content distribution. No one has to purchase AppleTV or AppleMusic, those of us that choose to do so, should be able to vote with our wallets.

5. That they're advertising aggressively to device purchasers with dark design patterns

strikes me as being anticompetitive. For which they've been fined by the EU under antitrust law in effect before the DMA.

What is a "Dark Design Pattern"?

 

[ender78]

It‘s not. That’s just what Apple has pivoted towards claiming as a means of justifying it. it’s just making stuff up as they go along, to continue justifying charging it. A fee that most, the majority of apps (free!) don‘t pay isn’t a „core“ fee. Example: Uber raking in billions in in-app transactions without paying it.

Uber is not selling a digital good.

It’s merely a „tax“ on digital content - because those developers can be forced to pay it and have virtually not alternative without continuing to target iOS users. Opportunistic charging the weak while letting off the ones that have alternatives

Are you saying that Netflix and Spotify are struggling due to the App Store revenue share? The Spotify business model is charge uses a lot, pay artists nothing. I'd be OK with changes the to fee structure if 100% of the commission that Spotify pays would go to artists, somehow I don't see that happening.

Either way, there’s no point in arguing about it, since it’s unjustified differentiation.

The most downloaded apps and the developers offering the apps most downloaded can‘t escape it.
In other words: the most popular and most downloaded apps are steered towards Apple‘s App Store.

Maybee they are the most popular because of the App Store. Why is it that Apple has a greater revenue share despite having a smaller market share on headsets? Because they have curated a user base that trusts them to keep their data secure. While far from perfect, those with bigger pocket books and therefore more to loose have chosen Apple as their platform of choice.

 

[dredlew]

What are you talking about? The DMA doesn't require Apple to pay anything to the EU.

I mean, have you been living under a rock for the past couple of years?

EU Accuses Apple's App Store Steering Rules of Violating DMA and Opens Investigation into Developer Fees

The European Commission has formally announced its preliminary view that Apple's App Store policies are in breach of the Digital Markets Act...

www.macrumors.com

How is a 10% of income fine, worldwide, not Europe, not extortion? Who in the world thinks they’re so entitled to levy fines based on income that’s not generated in the EU? It’s absolutely absurd and I hope the EC gets their behind handed to them in court justifying that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

$100/year pays for Diddly Squat (TM). One of the reasons that Apple can afford to host many apps for free is due to the payments of those that pay 15/30%

Hosting isn‘t expensive. Particularly at (per app) at the scale Apple is doing it.

So what should they pay for the user base that Apple has curated and whose trust Apple has earned with blood sweat and tears of Apple's own developers.

The same fee as any other app on Apple‘s App Store.
Say… the same or similar to what Facebook or Uber are paying (only the yearly fee, basically).

Apple is free develop the OS, APIs abd to provide developer services below cost, if it supports their hardware sales.

Apps have gotten larger, by a significant margin. Code review has become more complex

Yeah… Apple are spending entire minutes (!) on it.

Netflix/Spotify did not "invent" digital content distribution

Didn‘t say they did.

those of us that choose to do so, should be able to vote with our wallets.

Absolutely. 👍🏻 Undistorted from Apple undercutting them by not paying commissions or prohibiting them from communicating to customers.

 

[m4mario]

It‘s not. That’s just what Apple has pivoted towards claiming as a means of justifying it. it’s just making stuff up as they go along, to continue justifying charging it. A fee that most, the majority of apps (free!) don‘t pay isn’t a „core“ fee. Example: Uber raking in billions in in-app transactions without paying it.

It’s merely a „tax“ on digital content - because those developers can be forced to pay it and have virtually not alternative without continuing to target iOS users. Opportunistic charging the weak while letting off the ones that have alternatives

Either way, there’s no point in arguing about it, since it’s unjustified differentiation.

The most downloaded apps and the developers offering the apps most downloaded can‘t escape it.
In other words: the most popular and most downloaded apps are steered towards Apple‘s App Store.

You are right. Uber needs to pay something to Apple. But there isn't a proper way to monetise that. But one way they benefit Apple is by brining traffic to the App Store.

But circumventing App Store monetisation and also asking Apple's tech for free without any benefit to Apple, that's technology theft.

A developer having a million fresh installs every year and not even driving traffic to App Store, better pay Apple something.

And really at this rate, this is not a fight for developer rights or user rights anymore. This is simply a targeted attack at Apple that benefits no-one other than politicians who are railing the herd into a socialist, anti-capitalist narrative for the benefit of the politicians themselves. There is very little that the average Apple user in EU benefits from this, other than the loss of ecosystem, which is one of the main reasons they bought the products in the first place.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Uber is not selling a digital good.

Unjustified and discriminatory differentiation (prohibited by the DMA).
No sane reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.

Are you saying that Netflix and Spotify are struggling due to the App Store revenue share?

Both are somewhat struggling, yes. Spotify have been losing market share to Apple, and Netflix is struggling in competing with, for example, Disney and their properties.

But it doesn’t matter: the competition between streaming services isn‘t fair, when one operator (Apple) owns one of the most important underlying OS platforms, on which it can „tax or impede“ the other in competing.

Maybee they are the most popular because of the App Store.

…or vice versa, iPhones are only so popular because such third-party app ecosystem exists.

 

[NT1440]

Unjustified and discriminatory differentiation (prohibited by the DMA).
No sane reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.


Both are somewhat struggling, yes. Spotify have been losing market share to Apple, and Netflix is struggling in competing with, for example, Disney and their properties.

But it doesn’t matter: the competition between streaming services isn‘t fair, when one operator (Apple) owns one of the most important underlying OS platforms, on which it can „tax or impede“ the other in competing.


…or vice versa, iPhones are only so popular because such third-party app ecosystem exists.

Apple owns the internet itself?

Cmon now, you made some good points overall with DMA, but this one ain’t it chief.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What is a "Dark Design Pattern"?

Dark pattern - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

👉🏻 Making the System Settings app appear as if there‘s misconfiguration with red dots, for example.

Despite my steadfast refusal and many OS updates, it‘s been showing me this stuff even today:

 

[AppliedMicro]

Uber needs to pay something to Apple. But there isn't a proper way to monetise that.

Exactly! Like the mob, they’re just monetising the vulnerable, on whom they‘re getting away with.
The regulation just requires them to have terms that don’t unfairly discriminate or differentiate.

There is zero reason why they can‘t require Uber from

A developer having a million fresh installs every year and not even driving traffic to App Store, better pay Apple something.

Why not? I don‘t have issues with that.
Just don‘t make these rules unfair by charging

• only the ones that can‘t escape it (providers of digital goods / services)
• and/or with which you’re competing for your own services
• while charging nothing from the ones that have alternatives to distribute their goods
• and benefit from the traffic and platform value free apps are bringing

And really at this rate, this is not a fight for developer rights or user rights anymore. This is simply a targeted attack at Apple that benefits no-one other than politicians

It certainly benefits some other developers (particularly large third-party developers) and their rights.

 

[surferfb]

Since Apple aren’t paying “Open”AI for the chatGPT backend, and the system is designed to allow other companies to be used as the backend (eg in China) there’s no obvious good reason not to let people point it where they like, as with search engines.

This is admittedly somewhat off topic, but I think you might be misunderstanding how Apple Intelligence works. A lot of people seem to be doing this, because (in my opinion) Apple actually structured the keynote poorly, so I'll try to explain here.

Almost NOTHING Apple showed at WWDC requires ChatGPT. Almost all of it is 100% Apple-developed models. There is no OpenAI "backend". The only thing that ChatGPT handles is if you ask something that Apple's on-device/cloud models can't handle, then it will "fall back" to ChatGPT (and ask you, each and every time, if you are ok with that). That functionality is being designed so you can pick and choose which model you use as the fallback. But all the cool features shown at WWDC (Notification and email prioritization, smart reply, summarization, GenMoji, Siri being able to answer product questions etc.) are entirely built by Apple. You can't just "pick another "backend".

 

[I7guy]

Unjustified and discriminatory differentiation (prohibited by the DMA).
No sane reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.

How the heck are you going to collect a fee on some of the transactions where price is determined after the fact.

Both are somewhat struggling, yes. Spotify have been losing market share to Apple, and Netflix is struggling in competing with, for example, Disney and their properties.

Nothing g to do with the App Store and Netflix imo is not struggling.

But it doesn’t matter: the competition between streaming services isn‘t fair, when one operator (Apple) owns one of the most important underlying OS platforms, on which it can „tax or impede“ the other in competing.

Apple hasn’t impeded any competition and if Spotify fails it because their service is subpar. Not because of that App Store.

…or vice versa, iPhones are only so popular because such third-party app ecosystem exists.

Cell phones existed without third party ecosystems for years.

 

[surferfb]

Unjustified and discriminatory differentiation (prohibited by the DMA).
No sane reason why selling a physical book should cost nothing and an ebook 30%.


Both are somewhat struggling, yes. Spotify have been losing market share to Apple, and Netflix is struggling in competing with, for example, Disney and their properties.

But it doesn’t matter: the competition between streaming services isn‘t fair, when one operator (Apple) owns one of the most important underlying OS platforms, on which it can „tax or impede“ the other in competing.


…or vice versa, iPhones are only so popular because such third-party app ecosystem exists.

There is a perfectly sane reason. The digital book can be used on the device, taking advantage of the tools and services and OS Apple developed. The physical book doesn't. Same with Uber, DoorDash, Ordering things on Amazon, etc. If it is a product that can be used/enjoyed used on-device (eBook, Music, TV Show, Gems for Game) then the fee is charged, if you can't use/enjoy product on device (DVD, CD, Board Game, Food, Physical Book) then you're not charged.

 

[m4mario]

Exactly! Like the mob, they’re just monetising the vulnerable, on whom they‘re getting away with.
The regulation just requires them to have terms that don’t unfairly discriminate or differentiate.

There is zero reason why they can‘t require Uber from


Why not? I don‘t have issues with that.
Just don‘t make these rules unfair by charging

• only the ones that can‘t escape it (providers of digital goods / services)
• and/or with which you’re competing for your own services
• while charging nothing from the ones that have alternatives to distribute their goods
• and benefit from the traffic and platform value free apps are bringing

It certainly benefits some other developers (particularly large third-party developers) and their rights.

Nope. Apple is benefiting by having Uber in the App Store and Uber is selling hard services. Whereas digital goods are build once sell any number of times. It makes sense for digital services to have a platform fees where as selling real products and services can’t and should not be charged a fee.

It’s up to Apple to decide how to monetize their services. If Apple charged for Uber rides, you would have another complaint about them. This is just you trying to bully Apple no what they do, just like the EC.

 

[chmania]

It’s up to Apple to decide how to monetize their services.

Sure, Agreed!
And, it's up to the EU Commission to safeguard the EU citizens and their rights.

 

[MilaM]

Nope. Apple is benefiting by having Uber in the App Store and Uber is selling hard services. Whereas digital goods are build once sell any number of times. It makes sense for digital services to have a platform fees where as selling real products and services can’t and should not be charged a fee.

If Apple could get away with it, they would also charge Uber a hefty commission. Apple execs believe, that we the customers, belong to them.

 

[m4mario]

Sure, Agreed!
And, it's up to the EU Commission to safeguard the EU citizens and their rights.

None of EU citizens rights are affects in this. You mean the average Apple user is dying to side load apps? If anything most buy Apple products because they can’t do such nonsense with it and mess it up.
If anything, the EU is standing in the way of EU citizens buying the products and services they want, in they form they want it. If they were looking out for EU citizen’s interests, they would have looked at customer satisfaction ratings for Apple products in the EU before deciding to even touch Apple. The one company that has such high ratings and they want to change it? And that’s representing citizens? That’s ruining it for citizens.

 

[cocky jeremy]

I wouldn't give them anything. Texts/phone calls, nothing else. No app store, nothing.

 

[m4mario]

If Apple could get away with it, they would also charge Uber a hefty commission. Apple execs believe, that we the customers, belong to them.

Nope. Apple believes that both customers and share holders are happy and rewarded. And that’s their job. No company in the world has been as successful at balancing this and achieving both at such a high number as Apple. Look at customer satisfaction ratings and stock returns. This deserves applause if anything as it’s almost an impossible feat to accomplish.

 

[MilaM]

Nope. Apple believes that both customers and share holders are happy and rewarded. And that’s their job. No company in the world has been as successful at balancing this and achieving both at such a high number as Apple. Look at customer satisfaction ratings and stock returns. This deserves applause if anything as it’s almost an impossible feat to accomplish.

I used to share this opinion for many years. But I think Apple's and our interests have been diverging slowly over the years. This is what happens when two huge companies dominate a market where there is practically no hope for another competitor emerging.