It isn't regulators' job to find a business model for Apple. They inserted themselves as a middleman, and now that's being put into question.
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 Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It isn't regulators' job to find a business model for Apple. They inserted themselves as a middleman, and now that's being put into question.
Well... Apple is also the firstman since they provide the platform. There wouldn't be an iOS App Store if Apple hadn't made it.
Or iOS period.
So getting back to my earlier question... if Apple refuses to change their business model enough to suit the regulators... will the regulators force Apple to change?
But before they do that... can the regulators fix the cable industry? I'm paying far too much for cable and internet.
Well... Apple is also the firstman since they provide the platform. There wouldn't be an iOS App Store if Apple hadn't made it.
Or iOS period.
macOS didn't need an App Store for the majority of its existence.
And, again, there are benefits to having an App Store. But if Apple creates one, they need to defend it. They need to explain not only why this is a better model than simply downloading an app from the web, then running it (which for many people is a model that works just fine), but also why it's better the consumer not to even have that option.
Yes, of course.
The App Store works exactly how Apple wants it to.
It seems weird for outside entities to come in and demand that they do something different.
If Apple taking a commission is so wrong... why wasn't it snuffed out in 2008-2009?
Seems kinda Johnny Come Lately to say "yeah we don't like what you're doing... change it..."
And what do you think the regulators will make Apple do?
Drop their commission altogether?
Maximum of 10%?
But it doesn't work how regulators want it to.
No, it seems like what antitrust is designed to do.
Because the smartphone market was nowhere near as massive and essential at the time.
This is a very weird take.
But it doesn't work how regulators want it to.
How. Do. They. Want. It. To. Work?
Make a guess.
No commissions? Higher yearly developer application fees? Sideloading? Anything?
Not really... the App Store worked one way for 13 years.
And now it's suddenly "do it differently"
I don't care. They don't care. That's for Apple to figure out. Or not.
An antitrust agency's job isn't to propose an alternative business model.
Not really... the App Store worked one way for 13 years.
And now it's suddenly "do it differently"
"We successfully trafficked drugs for years… and now, all of the sudden, the state comes in? Come on."
Seems you need to find other apps then. I mean, the curated walled garden (App Store) exists on your MacBook, and it has apps for many things.
Or… You may need to find another operating system for your MacBook. A one stop shop, where you can get all the apps you want, safely and securely, from one source.
It‘s not as if there‘s no choice. Regarding the operating system for your computer, you even have about as much choice as a mobile app developer has in deciding on which OS or app marketplace he distribute his apps.
Who is arguing not having a commission over software program sale, payment and distribution?
I think there is a distinction between this and charging a commission over a dating arrangement or movie or tv show view … don’t you think?
Apple is using the power it has to control the first option to control the second. While the App Store does nothing to promote or sell date arrangement if not for the mandatory in app payment by policy. Dating is of course a metaphor to a wider gaslighting practice called mandatory in-app-purchase / cash register … just using it considering the recent Dutch Gov vs Apple event.
I mean, is the App Store promoting dates or selling dating arrangements? If not, what is the common sense basis for such a charge? What about selling music or TV shows, tutoring lessons, remote gym sessions? There is no common sense reasoning to this practice but the fact it controls what goes in 50% of Americans pockets … iPockets. Now that is power … leverage … to even be able to impose charges for things that one does not deliver.
Last edited:
Gently is indeed the keyword
Who is gaslighting who?
That's your opinion.
You're entire argument is a strawman based on the above.
We differ in opinion on the above.
Sure, there should always be some regulation for physical and digital stores selling assets they didn't create. But not what you propose.
If you buy a 'Vette and you mod the vette with specific parts and you go to sell the 'vette and buy a Honda Accord, those parts you bought for the 'vette will no longer fit. Is that what you are getting to?If such thing was standard it would be illegal … akin to price fixing. Now the reality is there are digital retail App stores that take as much as 5% .. or even less ... TODAY ... just not in iOS down to the policy maker. Oh, and that don’t charge date arrangements
Maybe you aren’t familiar with the concept. But usually is applied when there is a no minor cost to change suppliers.
Let me try and make a drawing. If want to buy an apple (the fruit) you can get it from Joe in the corner, in the local market, supermarket, heck you can even to the producer tree and get one. Meaning the cost of changing suppliers if there is one is negligible. You don’t like one, change to another … and you still get the fruit you want .. no cost of change. So supplier compete for quality of service ... that includes pricing.
Now, if you move out of iOS to change App Stores … means selling all your devices, leaving your game / App licenses behind, … and many more losses. Meaning there are significant short term costs. This for customers. For digital suppliers means leaving 50% of their customers behind ready to be grabbed by competitors ... maybe even Apple
Hey, lock in is not illegal … in fact I don’t mind … successfull ecosystems naturally create gravity. It’s not particular to Apple / iOS … happens with Windows …
Just making sure you understand the term when used.
It's a distinction that has so far not been challenged and won in a court of law.
We will see.
In the same way Costco is a “middleman?” In the US it was validated by the court that apple is entitled to collect on use of its ip. So you are correct in that it’s not the regulators job to determine how apple will collect. But I don’t know if that notion is valid here. We will see.
Why would apple need come up with a new business model. They might need to just be allowed to take commission on first sales like 100% of physical stores do it and not be allowed to collect commission on out of store sales.
Why do you always bring us court cases when they have no impact or relevance?
And it can be argued it’s not apples IP after first sale is completed.
If apple can’t take a cut of advertising profits on free apps and target can’t take a cut of apples profits selling iCloud subscription on sold iPhones, then why should apple be allowed to do it?
Because it’s relevant in the US and I suspect in other countries as well.
Sure, you can try to argue it, but the app is execution in apples servers using apples ip.
Seems like splitting hairs to make a use case.
Well fortunately they aren’t relevant in other jurisdictions. Difrent regulatory mindset, goals and legal systems. That is why EU forced Microsoft to separate internet explorer from windows installations, but USA didn’t.
That’s only when the user buys it for the first time. Netflix doesn’t execute on apple servers when you steam movies. Angry birds doesn’t need apple servers or IP to play. Angry birds could have their own website where you buy addons or skins for the game just like Netflix have a webpage for you to subscribe.
Apple is the one splitting hares, and still target can’t demand a cut but apple can for some arbitrary reason.
We’ll see. We don’t yet know the ending.
In your opinion. Netflix is a reader app anyway. As far as angry birds, it’s true if you are playing from a website, but if the game is launched from an iPhone, it’s not true.
It’s apples iOS store, their creation. As long as they are not running afoul of the law, they are as free to split the electron as you are.
That is not an opinion. It is actually common practice in a matured context. It’s time for App Store like businesses maturity and stop with comparing with physical retail to pump the pricing of the digital up …
Apple now even offers digital typewriters for free … Pages. That is how much the digital medium shaped things entirely differently to the physical medium. An example of digital scaling compared to the physical shaping the value of things entirely differently.
If the business of retailing typewriters were comparable to retailing Pages … an app, giving out the second for free would never have any sort of business feasibility … yet it has. So logic would say that using physical retail practices to justify App Store practices is nothing but an elusive logic if not nonsensical.
Last edited:
You doubt that Apple pays anyone at all to provide marketing for the app store? Seriously?
So on one hand you argue that Apple shouldn't subsidize hardware with app store $$ but in the next breath you say Apple should subsidize the store via hardware $$, besides being hypocritical isn't it 6 of one, half dozen of the other?
I agree, but that doesn’t mean it should be run to anyones specs except apples (keeping within the law of course)
Yes it is. Apps aren't streamed from the App Store. They get downloaded once, then don't need the App Store again, unless you use Apple's APIs to fetch additional content from there.
Even so, if discussing recurring commissions on IAP, in the US it is still legal.
It’s already been judged that the iPhone and all its content is owned by the private customer who payed for it, not apple. So it’s actually launched from a users device. Whatever apple writes in their EULA is null and void under EU jurisdiction.
Well not for long as EU regulators is coming for them for running afoul of the law.
Even new laws are drafted.
Why do I have a feeling apples legal staff has a better handle on this than MR posters? I can’t argue for or against, only discuss what I know that’s been made public it’s respect to the US.
Sure, we’ll see. I’ll wait for your post saying these new laws are here.
It’s on these reoccurring commissions the Netherlands and EU have a problem with. And that apple should allow developers collect payments without their involvement.