It’s a legal business model in the US. Epic attempted to disrupt that, but failed. We’ll see where this goes, if anywhere substantial.
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
/sigh
With most "apps", paid with a CC, you need to provide name, address, phone, email, cc number, etc.
As a consumer, I value the iOS app store for one stop shopping, I give Apple my payment info and no one else. Not saying Apple is perfect but what day passes that you don't read about some CC processor being hacked? Millions of CC numbers, along with customer info, etc which basically forces some to
This is well known information available on EUs consumer rights page.
A contract must be clear and not ambiguous. Contracts presented after exchange of goods have happened aren’t valid.
Example I purchase a phone or a program, and when I get home it prevents me with a contract I need to agree with I order to use it. This contract isn’t legal as it wasn’t precented in written form when purchased.
Such as point 9:
Unfair contract terms - Your Europe
Think you've been a victim of unfair contract terms? Check out your consumer rights.
Ok, I thought you did not. Now I also agree with this remark … totally.
What we differ in opinion is that the practice of charging for things that one does not deliver or promote, forcing one as a mediator/middle men for anything one fancies, in any shape or form, through a technical artífice or otherwise, is in my opinion an abusive market practice and should be regulated. At its extreme is akin to extortion. In virus terms we would call it a institutionalized Men-In-The-Middle attack.
Just because one can do one thing according to the law due some technical development it does not mean it should allowed. Now your opinion is different … they should be able to do whatever forever, case in case regulators should not be even looking at this practice and block it if necessary …
At which point you would argue that … “well people are buying iPhones, voting through their wallet” At which point I would “yes people are buying iPhones, a smartphone. But that action does not mean they are choosing their digital services providers, banks … so on and so forth. None of that is in the agreement. And the ad momentum changes to it, the so called ‘clarifications’ are at least fishy towards enforcing the practice just described”
I think we already established our differences in opinion.
PS: I believe that any company that is systematically “swamped” in lawsuits … means that there is at least some smoke. I know of many sucessfull companies that is not the case … I wonder why. As they say … “where there is smoke … there is fire”
Last edited:
Somehow I find it not plausible that apple paying their attorneys billions would write a Eula that’s totally invalid in the EU. But as I said I can’t argue that point.This is well known information available on EUs consumer rights page.
A contract must be clear and not ambiguous. Contracts presented after exchange of goods have happened aren’t valid.
Example I purchase a phone or a program, and when I get home it prevents me with a contract I need to agree with I order to use it. This contract isn’t legal as it wasn’t precented in written form when purchased.
Such as point 9:
Unfair contract terms - Your Europe
Think you've been a victim of unfair contract terms? Check out your consumer rights.europa.eu
They aren't. the EULA is the same everywhere. There is no point to write a unique EULA for every jurisdiction. That's why it's so broad.
It just happens to be a Eu requirement that in order for a contract to be valid it must be:
1: easy to understand
2: presented before money change hands. You can't agree to at term you haven't been told about
Ok, the Eula in the EU is not valid. But this still has little to do with Apples response to what happens in the Netherlands.
What's the point of having a discussion thread if one side keeps saying "well, Apple knows what they're doing"? Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe they do but we're not happy with it. Maybe they don't and we're not happy with that.
I can’t answer about EU law. But somewhere I have to assume Apple knows what it is doing is the point. And if you (the royal "you") are not happy with Apple; I’ll refrain from the tag line.
Last edited:
True... I don't think Apple should get a commission fee for dating arrangements or TV show views.
I was speaking broadly about Apple's cut on IAP in general. Sorry for the confusion.
All these cases are getting mixed up in my head.
Epic not wanting to pay a commission on VBucks
Spotify not wanting to pay a commission on monthly subscriptions
etc
Again... sorry for the confusion.
Companies including apple have been shown not to know what they are doing in millions of lawsuits and regulatory inquiries time and time again.
They just try to get away with it.
Just like when apple sued Qualcomm for allegedly too high royalties( ironic I would say)
Yes, I'm sure one could point to something or another. But a company that is continually on the wrong side of bad decision making and faulty thinking ends up like Enron and/or Bernie Madoff.
I think this decision just gets so much wrong. Is the Dutch gov't going to step in and insist each electronic device that enables electronic purchases to accept multiple payment methods i.e. cash, checks (disappearing quickly), credit/debit cards, electronic payments, bank transfers, multiple cryptocurrencies, multiple pay systems (Apple/Amazon/Alpha), etc. etc. etc.? The only place Apple has control over the payment method is on the devices they make and payments conducted on the services they offer on their devices. There are frequently other options if people want different choices. The bottom line is, no one is forced to purchase an Apple device, or subscribe to an Apple service, or create apps for use on an Apple device. Having decided to buy a particular device, or develop a business out of creating apps on a platform, shouldn't make the platform beholding to the customer's or app developer's demands after the fact. And no, I don't think it matters what the payment method purchases: hardware or software or food or TV episodes or movies or dating referrals/arrangments. These lawsuits and court cases seem awfully parasitic to me.
Most devices do accept multiple forms of payment.
Of those who don't, the question is: are they as essential to life as a smartphone? For example, if a game console is limited to a single payment provider, that's far less relevant than if a smartphone does.
But there are really only two options: Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Yes, you can also get other phones (phones not running Android at all, or ones that have different stores, or multiple stores), but they are few and far between.
Hey... it's not Google's and Apple's fault that there are only two mobile platforms today.
We had Symbian, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, Palm, WebOS, Blackberry... but consumers overwhelmingly chose Android and iOS.
So it kinda sucks that regulators keep saying "there are only two platforms... they are too powerful... etc..."
Well... if those other platforms were actually appealing... maybe there would be more than just two platforms today...
At least we have two choices for mobile platforms. I'm still waiting for regulators to look into the "one cable company per market" problem.
I can tell you that there are 100 million cable customers that could benefit from this... versus the 2 million developers in these mobile app stores.
We had Symbian, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, Palm, WebOS, Blackberry... but consumers overwhelmingly chose Android and iOS.
So it kinda sucks that regulators keep saying "there are only two platforms... they are too powerful... etc..."
Well... if those other platforms were actually appealing... maybe there would be more than just two platforms today...
At least we have two choices for mobile platforms. I'm still waiting for regulators to look into the "one cable company per market" problem.
I can tell you that there are 100 million cable customers that could benefit from this... versus the 2 million developers in these mobile app stores.
Competition law and its application isn't really about punishing those whose "fault" it is.
It rather assesses where there is a lack of competition in a market and tries to remedy or mitigate that.
Yes, someone is. App developers are forced to subscribe to Apple's "App Store" service, its in-app purchase service, commissions and payment processing, if they want to offer mobile apps (and digital purchases therein) one/for Apple devices.
It is strictly true that no one is "forced" to buy an Apple device. It's also de facto true that there is a lack of choices beyond Google & Apple (App Store & Play Store) when it comes to app "marketplaces" to sell and buy apps from.
And that's when competition law comes into play: When there's a lack of choice and competition and someone leverages that to behave or charge in anti-competitive ways.
The European Union has in fact quite extensive rules on choice and nondiscrimination of payment methods and to prevent anticompetitive practices in the market for electronic payments.
While EU and Dutch law doesn't mandate specific payment methods on electronic devices, they mandate merchant and consumer choice and quite extensively prohibits payment schemes and service providers from forcing or "bundling" payment methods on merchants or consumers. EU rules instead promote competition among payment methods and, yes, they've also set some caps on payment (notably interchange) fees.
As for your remark about checks, you clearly don't live in or anywhere the Netherlands.
Last edited:
True... I don't think Apple should get a commission fee for dating arrangements or TV show views.
I was speaking broadly about Apple's cut on IAP in general. Sorry for the confusion.
All these cases are getting mixed up in my head.
Epic not wanting to pay a commission on VBucks
Spotify not wanting to pay a commission on monthly subscriptions
etc
Again... sorry for the confusion.
Yes. That is precisely were in my head the issues are. Not so much to software program sales … but the fact that it’s policy institution charges for things the App Store does not sell or even distribute. Its akin to say Best Buy charging App Store for sales on iPhone that Best Buy sold … crazy. Apple is applying transitive value relationships without any basis to do so beside fully controlling users properties to their own benefit.
It’s a bit like … “I made and supply the OS /SDK, the Spotify made an app for my OS, therefore the value of Spotify subscriptions is down 30% to my efforts” … a fallacy … insane. Yet it is able to enforce it as it can remotely fully control their users properties, what user can install or not.
Another logical fallacy people use is that If it was not for Apple tech, say Spotify would not exist … which makes no sense. A may imply B … but not A does not imply not B or B … its unknown.
Last edited:
It it is a truism that apple tech is an enabler for new startup businesses. Not a lot of $$$ for entry, yes a computer is needed. In general, Apple is getting paid for the $$$ the dev is making.
Last edited:
One thing to be aware of in this discussion is that the majority of apps have switched to subscription models or in-app purchases that are also more or less just subscriptions. Nowadays, apps initially given away for free is the default model. It is thus quite hard to define what "the App Store sells or distributes". It seems to be nothing, but can well be everything.
In your Best Buy analogy, you would buy a computer for $1 (Best Buy makes half of that), but in order to use it you must buy an unlock key online directly from the manufacturer for $2000 (Best Buy makes nothing).
Hi. The freemium model has been here before the App Store for at least a decade. As I remember the practice started on the web.
It has been applied in many different ways … here are some:
- Pay to unlock features
- Ad Supported … pay to remove ads
- Ad Supported (not really freemium)
Amongst many reasons, but also keeping with the idea of not charging for things that one does not deliver, platform level service provides have adopted hosting plans as standard. Wether it’s hosting a web site, web app, databases … so and so forth. Extremely complex hosting scheme are are now commonly referred as Cloud Platform providers, examples AWS and Azure … adopting a pay per use model.
In fact many app developers, iOS or otherwise, build their apps and services on them. The iOS app is what users use to interact with … but with exception of client only apps, examplified by many games, most modern apps / services are built on top these platforms / technologies. The App Store it self, has I understand it … partícula uses the Google Cloud for instance.
Applying the same principles to model an App Store business model around its a trivial exercise. All to avoid charging for things / value one does not deliver to the end user. For instance, it would be a hard exercise to reason around the idea that say Google Cloud, an infrastructure as I’ve said the App Store uses, would be entitled to 30% of the App Store value … very hard. Yet, when we get into the Apple reality distortion field, it’s is reasonable to think say Netflix or Spotify kind of services are due that value to the App Store … it’s crazy. This works because of Apple stronghold on 50% of American pockets.
The only places such things happens are in government citizen relationships, company / employer relationships, investir / business relationships. This of course in a democracy. Mafia style businesses also try to do that … usually end up badly.
The idea that one businesses gets payed over other independent businesses success … only at App Store … a virus practice headed by Apple and followed by Google … two Big Tech and that some attempting to stop. The idea that Apple investiment in the App Store or it’s platform is an investment in dev businesses is as absurd has say a dev making an App for iOS is investing on Apple.
All technological platforms are enablers of abstract things … not concrete things. There were platforms before Apple and there will be with and after. Apple it’s just a particular case of the truism … not even that special compared to day the Web / Internet that Apple relied heavily on as many other businesses.
This is to say that such a truism is common that is mostly non revealing.
For instance, I can say that the Web enables many businesses … hard to say that Google Search success is 30% down to the web tech. Same with dating apps, hard to say that the value of enabling a date is down 30% to Apple tech. In fact we can easily say that Apple tech enables no such thing per si at any rate of percentage.
That is why this kind of reasoning is not applied by no platforms maker but … Apple supporters.
I think the feeling that one’s platform contributes to enabling so many businesses, so many ideas … Not so humble is to think that is deserved 30% of a date arrangement because it hosts the app … this value on the relationship is as thin as a hair … if not for the stronghold on 50% of Americans ipockets. Don’t think Americans buying iPhones buy into such practice.
Last edited:
The Mafia one doesn't have a choice. Enrolling in the developer program, accepting the T&C and moving forward seems to be completely voluntary. (I say "seems to be" because it has been argued that an iphone and the apps are life essential and should be regulated as a utility)
Someone is free to invent their own business model...right? The model was a success. Developers pay virtually nothing up front to start a business, in exchange for future revenue. Developers with deep pockets seemingly just want access to Apple's customers wallets all the while bypassing the fees and commissions.
Money is concrete. I can hold it in my hand.
Sure there are all manners of platforms and thus there is competition to the ios app store.
So then dating apps can just build a website, problem resolved for all parties. That the Dutch government is forcing Apple to accept other payment methods shows there is an enabling factor for dating apps in apple tech.
Yes you do. Change neighborhood, change country’s, change business, close shop.
I think you fail to see how abnormal is your idea of pushing for the right to charge for things one does not deliver. The right of one business to charge over other businesses and peoples success by simply providing an app hosting platform to reach 50% of Americans smartphones in relatively equal terms. Privacy and security sounds like an all too familiar rationale. There are even movies over such themes.
It’s a virus Big tech want to install as opposed to self publishing / marketeer. I remember when people got excited with the Internet because of the potential of self marketeers … now look at the thing now. People pushing for middleman for way less say Bet Buy does to sell iPhones. Heck even dating arrangements or remote music classes … just two examples.
Have a great year.
Last edited:
You're suggesting the choice is akin to: "heads I win, tails you lose." That's not the way it is. There are different platforms to develop and distribute applications with the world-wide web being one of them.
I'm pushing for the right of big tech to run their platforms as they see fit. (within the law of course). Especially those that have been running successfully for over a decade whereby no laws have been broken.
Happy and healthy New Year! Looking forward to 2022 with more insights and witty repartee.
Last edited: