Apple Makes Further Adjustments to Dating App Rules to Satisfy Dutch Regulatory Requirements

[Unregistered 4U]

Well nobody would allow anything, EU doesn’t grant anyone a right to business, it’s free for everyone, and as with normal laws, if you break them you pay the price.

Sure they grant rights to business. They explicitly forbid companies that trade in specific endangered species. Submit the paperwork for it, and it will get rejected. They could just as quickly forbid companies that tie the OS and App Store to the hardware, there’s nothing preventing them from doing so. If they were to, Apple would of course abide by those rules and end operations in the EU. There would be a financial hit, but Apple could continue to operate outside the EU.

Why would EU dictate what companies create to be competitive? That’s not the government business to make An Eu phone, only to make sure the market is fair

The market has been fair. Users buy the products they want, some old standards have fallen by the wayside as new comers have raised the bar. The EU is now attempting to hand over the smartphone market to Apple and Google (under their terms) making those the government sponsored choices. Which is completely within the EU’s right to do, they just have to assume that those companies will accept those terms. (Were this the 80’s, the EU would be handing over the computer market to Sinclair and BBC Micro )

That would just fracture the market and encourage even more lock-ins. This has explicitly been banned, hence why google no longer can prevent phone manufacturers to only use their OS and no other competitive choices.

And this is the value of interoperability as it breaks the lock-in effect.

SO, you’re saying that Google’s stranglehold on the EU market is a GOOD thing. Alright.

They already can do this. That is why we have android flavored systems as it’s extremely expensive and risky to make a new OS

They CAN do this, but it’s not required. Without a requirement, you get a lot of Android phones which make up the majority of the EU market. Having it as a requirement would effectively end what some people have been terming as a duopoly. It wouldn’t be just iOS and Android, it would be iOS, Android, and a number of other OS’s, some of which are bound to be more popular than iOS or Android leading to real competition… not only in hardware and operating system features, but application distribution. Make it worth the effort for a company to take a risk, and they will.

Unfortunately, there’s so much focus on propping up Apple and Google as the only viable games in town, this low hanging fruit gets ignored.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The EU is not going to force Apple to end operations in Europe. 100% not going to happen. I don't understand why you're even entertaining this as a possibility.

Just because you want to see Apple continue to operate in the EU doesn’t mean it’s a certainty. The only thing that’s certain is the rules that existed when Apple set up shop, opened retail stores and became a way for developers to make money in the EU are going away in favor of new rules. Beyond that, every eventuality, even where the EU’s rules makes it untenable for Apple to continue to operate, is possible.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As a reminder, developers of dating apps who want to continue using Apple's in-app purchase system -- which we believe is the safest and most secure way for users to purchase digital goods and services -- may do so and no further action is needed.

We don't believe some of these changes are in the best interests of our users' privacy or data security. Because Apple is committed to constructive engagement with regulators, we're making the additional changes at the ACM's request. As we've previously said, we disagree with the ACM's original order and are appealing it.

Then why not allow developers to use Apple Pay?

Is it not just as safe? Seems to be a bad excuse not to implement as it works with your Apple wallet that’s totes your credit cards securely

 

[nebojsak]

That "70% is more than enough for Apple and therefore they should/will pull out of EU" is complete and utter BS, of course. We are talking company that charges $19 for ****ing <$1 polishing cloth. ±$1 is matter of life and death for Timmy, they're just a big bully who is not used to being regulated in any way, and will fight for that, and will surrender eventually. Because 30%.

 

[boss.king]

Just because you want to see Apple continue to operate in the EU doesn’t mean it’s a certainty. The only thing that’s certain is the rules that existed when Apple set up shop, opened retail stores and became a way for developers to make money in the EU are going away in favor of new rules. Beyond that, every eventuality, even where the EU’s rules makes it untenable for Apple to continue to operate, is possible.

I don't care whether they operate in the EU or not, I just recognise that the scenario you're proposing is ridiculous. It's about as likely as it is for the EU to pass a law saying it's okay to hunt Apple employees with bows — technically could happen, but we all know that it's not going to.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sure they grant rights to business. They explicitly forbid companies that trade in specific endangered species. Submit the paperwork for it, and it will get rejected. They could just as quickly forbid companies that tie the OS and App Store to the hardware, there’s nothing preventing them from doing so. If they were to, Apple would of course abide by those rules and end operations in the EU. There would be a financial hit, but Apple could continue to operate outside the EU.

Not at all the forbid the goods, not the company. They can’t trade in monkey brains for all they care as long as these goods doesn’t enter EU.

The market has been fair. Users buy the products they want, some old standards have fallen by the wayside as new comers have raised the bar. The EU is now attempting to hand over the smartphone market to Apple and Google (under their terms) making those the government sponsored choices. Which is completely within the EU’s right to do, they just have to assume that those companies will accept those terms. (Were this the 80’s, the EU would be handing over the computer market to Sinclair and BBC Micro )

Please provide the regulations that will do this considering the gate keeper monicker doesn’t cover small companies. The DMA and DSA only cover bigger companies. Samsung wouldn’t for example wouldn’t be covered under it

SO, you’re saying that Google’s stranglehold on the EU market is a GOOD thing. Alright.

Nobody is saying it’s good. Just as long as it’s under fair terms it’s okey as that’s what consumers have chosen. Android is dominant because google used anti competitive practices that demented it’s dominance. Interoperability make sit easy for small companies to compete with bigger players as they don’t need to create their own gated community and other can’t stop them at the gates.

They CAN do this, but it’s not required. Without a requirement, you get a lot of Android phones which make up the majority of the EU market. Having it as a requirement would effectively end what some people have been terming as a duopoly. It wouldn’t be just iOS and Android, it would be iOS, Android, and a number of other OS’s, some of which are bound to be more popular than iOS or Android leading to real competition… not only in hardware and operating system features, but application distribution. Make it worth the effort for a company to take a risk, and they will.

That’s up to the market. Duopolies and monopoly isn’t an illegal thing and not considered bad as long as no anti competitive activity is happening.

Unfortunately, there’s so much focus on propping up Apple and Google as the only viable games in town, this low hanging fruit gets ignored.

Can you prove this? Considering it prevents big players walled garden approach. Epic store can replace the iOS AppStore, signal can replace iMessage etc etc as they can compete on function instead of user base etc.

Making it forbidden for gatekeepers from giving their programs an unfair advantage. Must share any user data or functionality they themselves uses. Essentially, ether everyone can use it or nobody. Etc etc

 

[visualseed]

Apparently the ACM are finally happy with the changes Apple are proposing which brings them in compliance.

Interestingly, despite what some people said about the ‘spirit of the ruling’, the ACM has no issue with Apple taking a 13% and 27% cut of transaction fees.

I think part of the problem is they put Apple's proposed solution out for review to the complainants that did take exception to the commission and they voiced their objection. I would almost assume there was a course correction after the "Apple is greedy" drum got beat publicly and somebody pointed out that it was not in ACM's purview.

 

[visualseed]

There is quite literally the most one sided fight in the history of fights. EU have made zero mandates on developers, and they are free to do business with Apple ID they want. Way consumers would jus have a legkac

If Apple hypothetically decided to cease doing business in the EU they would not being business with EU-based developers as that would still be doing business in the EU if they did. The EU's position on that would be irrelevant as it would be for Apple to decide that they did not want to create a business nexus in the EU and be subject to EU laws and regulations by processing payment though the AppStore for EU citizens and developers.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

Making it forbidden for gatekeepers from giving their programs an unfair advantage. Must share any user data or functionality they themselves uses. Essentially, ether everyone can use it or nobody. Etc etc

Gadzooks! Apple should have an advantage…it’s their system. I have no issue with replacing default apps. Zei gazeunt. These over bearing refs are going to cost the eu in the long run. Forcibly ripping apples ip from them and giving it away will not end well for apple customers in the eu. Let them buy android.

 

[code-m]

I still don’t understand why Dutch authorities are so focussed on dating apps.

I suspect this can be related to privacy. The AppStore is flawed in this regard. Apple knows what apps, games and other media you purchase and subscribe too and creates a profile to “better serve” interested future media to you within the store. As Apple also knows what credit card or other payment method is linked to the AppStore to make said purchases it can expand if not already on this front. One can debate that Apple is doing this for the consumer benefit to protect them or it can be used by Apple to do the very thing it claims to protect. Even if a third-party payment system is used Apple still knows if a purchase has been made.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If Apple hypothetically decided to cease doing business in the EU they would not being business with EU-based developers as that would still be doing business in the EU if they did. The EU's position on that would be irrelevant as it would be for Apple to decide that they did not want to create a business nexus in the EU and be subject to EU laws and regulations by processing payment though the AppStore for EU citizens and developers.

no, as They are an EU company would be doning business outsider of EU in foreign markets With Apple. EU rules only apply to EU markets. and would therefore not care as it’s not their jurisdiction or their consumers.

just like how Apple follow eu law when doing business in EU and US law when doing business in USA. Business protection and consumer protection aren’t the same

Gadzooks! Apple should have an advantage…it’s their system. I have no issue with replacing default apps. Zei gazeunt. These over bearing refs are going to cost the eu in the long run. Forcibly ripping apples ip from them and giving it away will not end well for apple customers in the eu. Let them buy android.

Indeed, they should have a right, and they did have this right until they became too influential.
no iP is stolen or given away.

the DMA states any “private API” apple uses, the competing apps should have equal aces to it.
and as USA and eu have seemingly agreed upon, APIs aren’t copyrighted. You can’t copyright the ability to interact with something. The underlying code is protected, but making a system call isn’t.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I think part of the problem is they put Apple's proposed solution out for review to the complainants that did take exception to the commission and they voiced their objection. I would almost assume there was a course correction after the "Apple is greedy" drum got beat publicly and somebody pointed out that it was not in ACM's purview.

The EU commission pointed out in October it’s not in ACMs purview as it’s under a separate investigation on EU level by a higher court. Normally the ACM investigation would have been suspended until the EU commission investigation is finished, depending on the complaint.

 

[I7guy]

[…]
Indeed, they should have a right, and they did have this right until they became too influential.
no iP is stolen or given away.

Incorrect. Forcing sideloading is giving away apples ip.

the DMA states any “private API” apple uses, the competing apps should have equal aces to it.
and as USA and eu have seemingly agreed upon, APIs aren’t copyrighted. You can’t copyright the ability to interact with something. The underlying code is protected, but making a system call isn’t.

The dma is a **** price of legislation that will cost the eu in the long run.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Incorrect. Forcing sideloading is giving away apples ip.

sideloading on your private property isn’t violating any intelect property rights. Otherwise jailbreaking would be illegal, as Apple have tried,and it’s clearly still not illegal, as apples case was thrown out.

The dma is a **** price of legislation that will cost the eu in the long run.

Or it will gain them in the long run.

 

[I7guy]

sideloading on your private property isn’t violating any intelect property rights. Otherwise jailbreaking would be illegal, as Apple have tried,and it’s clearly still not illegal, as apples case was thrown out.

Or it will gain them in the long run.

I understand this is your opinion and I have a different opinion. No amount of discussion, debate or arguing is going to change our respective positions on this matter.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I understand this is your opinion and I have a different opinion. No amount of discussion, debate or arguing is going to change our respective positions on this matter.

Well I can at least point to your Supreme Court backing my opinion as well as my EU Supreme Court.

but I would agree it’s your opinion it should be differen, and your opinion seems to be in the minority

 

[turbineseaplane]

Incorrect. Forcing sideloading is giving away apples ip.

Sideloading is simply installing Apps not distributed through the AppStore

No Apple IP is being "given away"

Do you think installing software on a Mac is "giving away Apple IP"?

That makes no sense whatsoever

 

[I7guy]

Well I can at least point to your Supreme Court backing my opinion as well as my EU Supreme Court.

but I would agree it’s your opinion it should be differen, and your opinion seems to be in the minority

Supreme Court didn’t back anything relating to app stores, sideloading, fees/commissions, monopolies relating to apple, etc.

My opinion isn’t in the minority. Governments will do what they want.

 

[mrochester]

Sideloading is simply installing Apps not distributed through the AppStore

No Apple IP is being "given away"

Do you think installing software on a Mac is "giving away Apple IP"?

That makes no sense whatsoever

Isn’t the point that all apps on iOS have to use Apple’s APIs and Apple should be entitled to charge for that use if they so wish?

 

[turbineseaplane]

all apps on iOS have to use Apple’s APIs

All software on any platform is using various first party APIs

All software is using various tools, technologies and APIs, some first party and some third party, as well as obviously tons and tons of custom code.

I promise you guys, you really don't want to live in a universe where corporations running platfoms in a duopoloy environment can "do whatever they want". We aren't even living in a full blown "as bad as this could be" scenario right now and I promise you -- all of you, even those that I totally disagree with on many things -- you really don't want that to be a future we live in.

It is so important to get some consumer consideration and rights codified into law sooner rather than later, as more and more of the entire world will get eaten by technology and software

 

[mrochester]

All software on any platform is using various first party APIs

All software is using various tools, technologies and APIs, some first party and some third party, as well as obviously tons and tons of custom code.

I promise you guys, you really don't want to live in a universe where corporations running platfoms in a duopoloy environment can "do whatever they want". We aren't even living in a full blown "as bad as this could be" scenario right now and I promise you -- all of you, even those that I totally disagree with on many things -- you really don't want that to be a future we live in.

Absolutely, just most software developers chose not to charge a fee to license those things. That’s not to say they can’t. It’s their software after all.

The solution is to have competition, I.e, not allow there to just be 2 platforms.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Absolutely, just most software developers chose not to charge a fee to license those things. That’s not to say they can’t. It’s their software after all.

Thus my last line -- I think you quoted me while I was still typing/editing

It is so important to get some consumer consideration and rights codified into law sooner rather than later, as more and more of the entire world will get eaten by technology and software

 

[I7guy]

All software on any platform is using various first party APIs

All software is using various tools, technologies and APIs, some first party and some third party, as well as obviously tons and tons of custom code.

I promise you guys, you really don't want to live in a universe where corporations running platfoms in a duopoloy environment can "do whatever they want". We aren't even living in a full blown "as bad as this could be" scenario right now and I promise you -- all of you, even those that I totally disagree with on many things -- you really don't want that to be a future we live in.

It is so important to get some consumer consideration and rights codified into law sooner rather than later, as more and more of the entire world will get eaten by technology and software

I certainly don’t want to live in a world where lol innovation can be legislated away. I promise you that will be the death if the individual inventor. You want to live in a world where you get to control your ip if you are an inventor.

 

[I7guy]

Absolutely, just most software developers chose not to charge a fee to license those things. That’s not to say they can’t. It’s their software after all.

The solution is to have competition, I.e, not allow their to just be 2 platforms.

How does one get past popularity vs regulation. I’d like to have another cable company on my block, but that’s regulated. Nothing except for seed money is stopping me from developing the next iPhone however. The iPhone is popular though, can my invention compete?

 

[mrochester]

Thus my last line -- I think you quoted me while I was still typing/editing

It is so important to get some consumer consideration and rights codified into law sooner rather than later, as more and more of the entire world will get eaten by technology and software

Absolutely, we need to get rid of the business model where unrelated markets can be dominated by advertising companies. We also need to get rid of cross-subsidy model.