Apple Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says

[Sophisticatednut]

That's just spin.

it's an important distinction. or do you think the government is taking your revenue when you are speeding? you get a fine to stop doing something illegal

True, the may acquiesce, but then make up the revenue in other ways, for example charge 100 euros per download. I'm all for following local laws, but this amounts to no less than extortion.

The government is telling apple to stop extorting smaller companies by giving them an alternative and let them choose the payment system without the apple tax. Apple doesn't have a right to be in the Netherlands, it's a privilege they are granted, apple can leave at any time if they don't like it.

Extorting companies will ensure the EU in the future gets what it deserves. Business will not want to invest in a venture that will appropriate future earnings on a whim.

if companies wont leve china for literary confiscation revenue and factories, it won't be for EU telling companies not to be dicks and abuse their market position.

This amounts to socialism.

how is it socialism to regulate what a company can or can't do to other companies and customers? is banning lead in food socialism? is regulating misleading advertisement socialism? is forcing companies to follow safety standard's or be banned socialism?

I don't think so. On one hand government can't come in an force companies to give up revenues and then to not expect companies to want to invest. The EU will be a second class technological citizen. What you are supporting is high taxes and socialistic practices.

Governments do this all the time to stop abusive business practices, even if it's profitable. Just like when the US government stopped ISPs from intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content.

Anti-trust is fine, reducing revenue via new regulations not so much.

that would cover practically 100% of all regulations. We don't live in unregulated markets where companies can do what they want according to customer demands.

 

[I7guy]

it's an important distinction. or do you think the government is taking your revenue when you are speeding? you get a fine to stop doing something illegal

Apple's business practices as it relates to the app store are not illegal. Using your example a cop could give you a speeding ticket doing 55 in a 55 zone. Just make up some law of your own.

The government is telling apple to stop extorting smaller companies by giving them an alternative and let them choose the payment system without the apple tax. Apple doesn't have a right to be in the Netherlands, it's a privilege they are granted, apple can leave at any time if they don't like it.

Apple is actually giving companies a chance to sell their wares for $99. That's not extortion by any means, but keep thinking it is. The Apple tax allows a dev to get into making potentially millions of dollars for $99 and sweat equity. Apple has been doing business in the Netherlands for 9/10 years, this amounts to nothing less than socialism.

if companies wont leve china for literary confiscation revenue and factories, it won't be for EU telling companies not to be dicks and abuse their market position.

What?

how is it socialism to regulate what a company can or can't do to other companies and customers? is banning lead in food socialism? is regulating misleading advertisement socialism? is forcing companies to follow safety standard's or be banned socialism?

The government steps in and tells you employer you can't pay sophisticatednut more than 1 euro an hour after you've been making 100 euros an hours for 9/10 years. Would you be okay with that?

Governments do this all the time to stop abusive business practices, even if it's profitable. Just like when the US government stopped ISPs from intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content.

It's not abuse, devs want free access to Apple's infrastructure and customers. That is not going to happen.

that would cover practically 100% of all regulations. We don't live in unregulated markets where companies can do what they want according to customer demands.

Using the example above...would you be happy with the government limiting your earning potential?

 

[GMShadow]

Thats how China and Russia do things.

A private enterprise deciding not to offer a service in a country is different from a totalitarian government restricting its availability. I assume people in the Netherlands voted for their authorities, therefore they should abide by their decisions.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Thats how China and Russia do things.

lmfao

This bears no resemblance whatsoever to "how China and Russia do things"

 

[LeadingHeat]

That’s right whenever I see a court ruling that’s not to my liking it must be a corrupt judge.

It just seems like such a narrow restriction. Why would it be that narrow?

 

[ericwn]

It just seems like such a narrow restriction. Why would it be that narrow?

I think we all ask ourselves the very same question but the author couldn’t be bothered to investigate as the original source article that this was based on was equally dubious at best. But in order to make a headline asap nobody bothered to put any research into this and just parroted what was written elsewhere.

 

[Xtir]

I'm failing to see the downside here.

there’s no downside, the Dutch will hardly notice, apple has hardly any marketshare..

 

[I7guy]

there’s no downside, the Dutch will hardly notice, apple has hardly any marketshare..

So Apple is not really a dominant presence as alleged by the Dutch?

 

[123]

Anti-trust is fine, reducing revenue via new regulations not so much

What was that about cognitive dissonance? Hahahahahaaaaaaaaa

 

[I7guy]

What was that about cognitive dissonance? Hahahahahaaaaaaaaa

Yup! Pretty widespread in this thread it seems. A hot button topic from posters who are licking their chops to get government to play monday morning quarterbacks and introduce new regulations aimed squarely at Apple that is anti-business and probably won't help the consumer.

 

[ericwn]

there’s no downside, the Dutch will hardly notice, apple has hardly any marketshare..

iOS market share is just at 40% ish - number 2 in a 2 system world. Hardly anything, right?

Market share of mobile operating systems 2010-2023| Statista

Android's market share of mobile operating systems in the Netherlands increased constantly since 2010 until 2019, when it started decreasing, and as of 2023 it stood at ***** percent.

www.statista.com

 

[Cartaphilus]

It's difficult to understand why those who provide the technology to offer dating apps feel compelled to use Apple as their intermediary, unless of course the developer believes that its end user will have a better impression of its application if the financial transaction and the quality of the application is processed by Apple. Apparently, there are other intermediaries which do a poorer job relative to Apple's standards. Presumably, Apple has developed, at its expense, people and processes that are superior to its competitors. Obviously Apple is entitled to require compensation for its efforts and investments commensurate with its value in the eyes of the developer. The Dutch entity appears to insist that all developers deliver to their end user the applications they have spent their time and treasure upon to an intermediary that doesn't match the value that Apple provides. It is obvious that the Dutch entity does not care about the end user, the developer of the application, or the most sophisticated intermediary. It is only the second-rate, third-rate and worse intermediaries that benefit while the entrepreneurs and their end-customers suffer.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

The District Court of Rotterdam has partially suspended the order subject to periodic penalty payments that ACM had imposed on Apple. As a result, Apple does not need to comply with those suspended parts of the order for the time being.

Summary of decision: abuse of dominant position Apple | ACM

The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The court has partially suspended the order subject to a penalty imposed by ACM on Apple. Apple does not have to comply with that part of the cease and desist order for the time being

www.acm.nl

 

[LonestarOne]

You have one awesome understanding of monopoly, says my wife who by your logic is the female monopoly power in the marriage. MR comedy Gold. Can’t make this up myself.

You don’t think the government is a monopoly?

Try setting up your own government, collecting taxes from your neighbors, creating your own courts and prisons, etc. See what happens to you.

Try coming up with a legitimate argument instead of namecalling.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Apple is a shareholder value driven company that seeks to grow not shrink. It won’t behave like a turned down teenager and stop its business there.

That's what another publicly-traded company Google is threatening in Australia in response to the link tax. It says that they won't put up with nonsense, in hopes that other countries don't follow suit. They could've also stayed in China in ~2008 but wouldn't compromise their service to abide by the laws there.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Deleted

 

[123]

You don’t think the government is a monopoly?

Not in a democracy, no.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

Anti-trust is fine, reducing revenue via new regulations not so much.

But all anti-trust regulation reduces the revenue of the company it targets. Whatever, even assuming it's ok to artificially limit a company's influence within its own product, it's suspicious how this is particularly for dating apps. Smells exactly like taxi drivers complaining that Uber "unfairly competes" with them.

 

[macdos]

You and I are free to spend our $$$ the way we want.

No, you are not. Your gubmint has prohibited you from buying Cuban cigars, Chinese cotton, and Russian vodka, and half a million other items in the assets control regulations. This is the so called "rules based world order", where America uses sanctions as economic coercion to disrupt free trade and stifle competition.

 

[ericwn]

You don’t think the government is a monopoly?

Try setting up your own government, collecting taxes from your neighbors, creating your own courts and prisons, etc. See what happens to you.

Try coming up with a legitimate argument instead of namecalling.

I suggest you look up definitions before comparing Apples and oranges. My monopoly brain hurts.

 

[hagar]

I don’t believe any country or any people are insignificant. However, I agree that no country should make threats to get another country or company to change its policy.

That latter is literally the job of a government: to make sure companies follow the law and make sure they change their policies when they violate them ?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple's business practices as it relates to the app store are not illegal. Using your example a cop could give you a speeding ticket doing 55 in a 55 zone. Just make up some law of your own.

Obviously you thought you drove 55 in a 44 zone, but actually drove in a 20 zone...
But yes countries make up laws of their own independent to the USA.

Apple is actually giving companies a chance to sell their wares for $99. That's not extortion by any means, but keep thinking it is. The Apple tax allows a dev to get into making potentially millions of dollars for $99 and sweat equity. Apple has been doing business in the Netherlands for 9/10 years, this amounts to nothing less than socialism.

no, apple gives companies the chance to give away 30% of their income or be locket out of a major market. And I'm sorry, but the government isn't interested in equity, but equality of the market. Apple prohibiting companies from linking to their own website and alternative payment options to circumvent the In-app purchase is starting to be seen as anti competetive.

What?

if apple wont leave china, they wont leave EU etc. the money is too good.

The government steps in and tells you employer you can't pay sophisticatednut more than 1 euro an hour after you've been making 100 euros an hours for 9/10 years. Would you be okay with that?

That's not what's happening. The government tells my employee can't force me to give away part of my salary to them. And the market 10 years ago is not the same today. then iOS and Android wasn't dominating or important. today you can barely do a business without access to these markets

It's not abuse, devs want free access to Apple's infrastructure and customers. That is not going to happen.

No problem, apple can take a fee for that. For example, you give away 30% of revenue for the privilege of apple taking care for refunds, taxes and provide advertisement etc, or lose it for the privelige to collect 100% of the earnings excluding the 99$ yearly fee.

the government doesn't think it's wrong for apple to take a 30% cut on the store, but it's wrong to take a cut when the app is on the user's private phone after it's already left the store without providing the ability to use their own payment system.

Using the example above...would you be happy with the government limiting your earning potential?

why would i be happy for the government limiting my earnings potential? The interest of the government is the health of the market and customer protection, not to maximize earnings potential over everything else.

 

[strawbale]

Well, personally, I always think on a date the dude should pay. But I don’t know if this counts as an alternate method?

I prefer going Dutch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You don’t think the government is a monopoly?

Try setting up your own government, collecting taxes from your neighbors, creating your own courts and prisons, etc. See what happens to you.

Try coming up with a legitimate argument instead of namecalling.

we do that all the time, it's know as starting a political party and winning the election and changing laws to suit your idea.. this is democracy

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's difficult to understand why those who provide the technology to offer dating apps feel compelled to use Apple as their intermediary,

They aren't compelled, they are forced as the market only have two actors dominating the market.

unless of course the developer believes that its end user will have a better impression of its application if the financial transaction and the quality of the application is processed by Apple. Apparently, there are other intermediaries which do a poorer job relative to Apple's standards. Presumably, Apple has developed, at its expense, people and processes that are superior to its competitors.

We don't know this because apple doesn't allow any competing system in their In-app purchase

Obviously Apple is entitled to require compensation for its efforts and investments commensurate with its value in the eyes of the developer.

Absolutely, this is known as the 99$ developer member's fee. If it's insufficient, then they should increase it. 30% fee on the store is okay, but 30% outside the store is what's anticompetitive

The Dutch entity appears to insist that all developers deliver to their end user the applications they have spent their time and treasure upon to an intermediary that doesn't match the value that Apple provides. It is obvious that the Dutch entity does not care about the end user, the developer of the application, or the most sophisticated intermediary. It is only the second-rate, third-rate and worse intermediaries that benefit while the entrepreneurs and their end-customers suffer.

they absolutely care, that is why options must be available to customers and developers.