Apple Ordered to Change App Store in Europe Again

[surferfb]

I love you man, but this is not a great analogy.

I actually don't think there are good ones out there.

Smartphones, and the role they play in our lives now, and the importance of them ... to me places this situation somewhat in a class of its own.

It's one of several reasons that all the store, console, car, you name it, comparisons just are not very apt.

I disagree, but will just leave it at that because I need to actually get some work done and my arguments have convinced approximately 0 people in the past year+ that I've been making them

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You specifically said that they are not allowed to charge for the value of their platform when charging fees on steered transactions:

Indeed on the steered transaction. They can charge this value in other ways as long as it’s unrelated to the steering mechanism because it becomes quite anti competitive when the price for alternative payments are equal or higher than using the standard IAP

There’s a very simple definition of rent seeking. Is increased profits due to legislation? It’s that simple. Apple is allowed to profit seek. And rent seeking is not illegal but doesn’t add value.

Well the legal definition disagrees 🤷‍♂️.
perhaps that’s what it means in the U.S., it’s not what it means here in EU.

Rent seeking isn’t defacto illegal, but can be in antitrust cases as it’s outlined with more context.

 

[BaldiMac]

Indeed on the steered transaction. They can charge this value in other ways as long as it’s unrelated to the steering mechanism because it becomes quite anti competitive when the price for alternative payments are equal or higher than using the standard IAP

You're just choosing loaded language here. What you are really saying is that you want steered transactions to be able to undercut Apple by not compensating them for the value of their platform. Something that you agree they are entitled to be compensated for.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Well the legal definition disagrees 🤷‍♂️.
perhaps that’s what it means in the U.S., it’s not what it means here in EU.

Rent seeking isn’t defacto illegal, but can be in antitrust cases as it’s outlined with more context.

That is the legal definition in the US. Rent seeking is not illegal - however it doesn’t add any corporate value. The EU crafted its own definition in order ensnare Apple within the regulations.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You're just choosing loaded language here. What you are really saying is that you want steered transactions to be able to undercut Apple by not compensating them for the value of their platform. Something that you agree they are entitled to be compensated for.

I want alternative transactions to compete with apples IAP service on cost, functions, UX, service quality etc. No difference than how ApplePay competes with other payment processors.

Apple deserves the exact same compensation as the Amazon app, uber or any other apps pay to Apples services.

If a Amazon store can function with the compensation they pay apple, then so can a game or a streaming service or apps who you pay to remove adds from.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That is the legal definition in the US. Rent seeking is not illegal - however it doesn’t add any corporate value. The EU crafted its own definition in order ensnare Apple within the regulations.

Eu have had their definition of rent seeking since at least the 60s.

I’m fairly certain Apple didn’t exist back then.

 

[I7guy]

Eu have had their definition of rent seeking since at least the 60s.

I’m fairly certain Apple didn’t exist back then.

I’m fairly certain Apple doesn’t rent seek anywhere. Charging the going rate is not rent seeking.

Now hypothetically if android was outlawing the eu and apple increased its fees, that would be rent seeking.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I’m fairly certain Apple doesn’t rent seek anywhere. Charging the going rate is not rent seeking.

Now hypothetically if android was outlawing the eu and apple increased its fees, that would be rent seeking.

You have repeatedly stated that how is Apple to maintain its profit margins instead of lopcodt for users or developers.

And in your hypothetical it wouldn’t change much outside of most Of apples actions would likely automatically become illegal if goes against antitrust rules( but more likely nothing would change that i can think of)

If the measure is aimed at preserving Apple’s margins rather than delivering new value exactly the hallmark of “rent‑seeking expenditure.”

They are conducting rent seeking in many avenues ( notice this isn’t illegal per say)

The 30 % IAP App Store Commission

• Barrier erection? Yes. No developer may even show users a cheaper price on their website. You must pay Apple 30 %, period.
• Value creation? Not really. Apple’s justification is “app safety,” but sideloading or external payments could be secured via standard cryptographic signatures or standard disclaimers (lots of noniOS platforms manage thirdparty apps safely).
• Who pays? Developers either absorb the 30 % hit or raise prices, so consumers end up paying more.
• Contestability? Virtually none. no rival payment or distribution channel can compete.
• Conclusion: Rent seeking. Apple extracts extra profit by blocking any alternative.

 

[I7guy]

You have repeatedly stated that how is Apple to maintain its profit margins instead of lopcodt for users or developers.

And in your hypothetical it wouldn’t change much outside of most Of apples actions would likely automatically become illegal if goes against antitrust rules( but more likely nothing would change that i can think of)

If the measure is aimed at preserving Apple’s margins rather than delivering new value exactly the hallmark of “rent‑seeking expenditure.”

They are conducting rent seeking in many avenues ( notice this isn’t illegal per say)

The 30 % IAP App Store Commission

• Barrier erection? Yes. No developer may even show users a cheaper price on their website. You must pay Apple 30 %, period.
• Value creation? Not really. Apple’s justification is “app safety,” but sideloading or external payments could be secured via standard cryptographic signatures or standard disclaimers (lots of noniOS platforms manage thirdparty apps safely).
• Who pays? Developers either absorb the 30 % hit or raise prices, so consumers end up paying more.
• Contestability? Virtually none. no rival payment or distribution channel can compete.
• Conclusion: Rent seeking. Apple extracts extra profit by blocking any alternative.

making a profit is not rent seeking no matter how much that is obfuscated. Apple is well within its rights, as every other for profit company, to charge within the law. The consumers are free to walk away if they don’t like the fees and commissions.

 

[BaldiMac]

I want alternative transactions to compete with apples IAP service on cost, functions, UX, service quality etc. No difference than how ApplePay competes with other payment processors.

It's not fair competition if you are removing costs for alternative providers. To use simplified numbers, developers pay 3% for payment processing and 27% for platform access. Why should they get to avoid paying for platform access because they choose to use a different payment processor?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's not fair competition if you are removing costs for alternative providers. To use simplified numbers, developers pay 3% for payment processing and 27% for platform access. Why should they get to avoid paying for platform access because they choose to use a different payment processor?

How isn’t it fair competition? If Apple puts in every technical and financial roadblock to make an alternative payment system competitive? Especially when it’s a lifetime extraction of value.

A 2-10€ purchase becomes unviable.
Apples IAP
15% commission 0.30-1.5€ cost
30% commission 0.6-3€

Alternative purchase ( PayPal has 0.5€)
0.12%+ 0.5CTF+ stripe 2.9% +0.30€
1.98-2.29€
0.27%+ 0.5CTF+ stripe 2.9% +0.30€
1.40-3.78€


Apple would have had a stronger case that this isn’t rent seeking or malicious with just the CTF
why isn’t the developer fee the platform access fee? Why not a single fee over a repeating fee for every transaction for eternity?

 

[BaldiMac]

How isn’t it fair competition?

Maybe if you don't ignore the explanation in my post. Again, how is it fair that developers using IAP pay for platform access and developers using an alternative payment processor do not? Payment processing is less than 5% of a transaction.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Maybe if you don't ignore the explanation in my post. Again, how is it fair that developers using IAP pay for platform access and developers using an alternative payment processor do not? Payment processing is less than 5% of a transaction.

Because both have already paid for platform access. The developer fees as far as we can desert from any public data is the platform fee. For all existing apps currently.

If developers want to pay 30% for lifetime value to Apple they should because they prefer the IAp service. And those who don’t want to pay 30% for ever should as well have the ability to pick a better service without being outpriced.

 

[surferfb]

Because both have already paid for platform access. The developer fees as far as we can desert from any public data is the platform fee. For all existing apps currently.

You can’t just decide “the developer fee is the platform fee” because you want it to be.

If developers want to pay 30% for lifetime value to Apple they should because they prefer the IAp service. And those who don’t want to pay 30% for ever should as well have the ability to pick a better service without being outpriced.

Why are developers entitled to use Apple’s property? Honest question. Is it that you truly think that once Apple sells the phone it has no rights whatsoever to what happens on the device? That iOS is no longer Apple’s property? Or if they let one third party developer make an app they have to let anyone?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You can’t just decide “the developer fee is the platform fee” because you want it to be.

I can only use what Apple have provided. These things are legally defined. You can’t use platform fee, commission, developer fee, platform access fee etc just change the. And and apply it as you wish.

Just how sale, purchase or rent is defined and can never legally be defined as renting or licensing. So when Apple say they aren’t taking payment for the facilitation of payment it’s defacto this by criteria.

Same how when steam have argued they are renting game access is always refuted by the court as incorrect because they use the words sale and purchase etc.

Why are developers entitled to use Apple’s property?

Legally, they aren't using Apple's property they're using their own.
1. Device Ownership

• When you buy an iPhone, you own the hardware Rome I Regulation 593/2008
• iOS is legally "sold," not licensed (absent pre-purchase EULA disclosure).

2. Developers' Rights:

• Developers write original code (their property) and seek to run it on hardware they own.
• Apple holds copyrights/trademarks, but not a veto over device use post sale.

Honest question. Is it that you truly think that once Apple sells the phone it has no rights whatsoever to what happens on the device? That iOS is no longer Apple’s property? Or if they let one third party developer make an app they have to let anyone?

It’s what they legally have put themselves in. It’s not what I think, but what the case law as well as existing regulations proclaim. I can argue if it’s good or bad, but it’s still grounded in sound legal code.

The moment Apple sells the device and fails to provide the EULA before money changes hands they lose all say regarding the device as the software is recognized as sold as well. The transfer of ownership has happened. Effectively a no restrictions indefinite license agreement. Because the principal of shrink-wrap agreements aren’t legally binding. Apple is simply very sloppy about their contracts.

Only services that is of device like iCloud, the AppStore, iMessage ( if it’s server based) etc aren’t included .

Apple have copyright protection such as I or any developer can’t make a copy of iOS/the iPhone and sell it. We can’t reuse Apple copyrighted logos or trademarks.

But Apple have no legal recourse against any jailbreaking or any software on cydia or other modifications irrespective if its payed for or free.

You can decompile it and figure out API interoperability as long as you don’t use source code.

Because in EU the legal principle of fair use is non existent.

If Apple for example didn’t have any third party apps in the AppStore they wouldn’t likely have to do anything at all.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because both have already paid for platform access. The developer fees as far as we can desert from any public data is the platform fee. For all existing apps currently.

We've had this conversation so many times. If Apple says you can access the platform for $100 plus commission when applicable, you can't continue to access the platform without paying the commission when applicable.

 

[bn-7bc]

You mean a centimeter.

well 2.54 cm if you want the same distance lol

 

[bn-7bc]

I truly hope Russia piss slams the EU when WW3 happens.

yea that'll happen, ok the eu (or more correctly it's member states as the EU does not, corevt me if I'm wrong, have an army) might not have as many soldiers or pieces of equipment as Russia, but in general their personnel and equipment is better trained/more modern then what russia can filed (esp post ukraine, ok russia have more nukes but can they actually lamch them without the silos blowing up)

 

[bn-7bc]

It’s time for Apple to read the room and to realise that want they want for the App Store is now not au fait with how many governments and trading blocs view fair competition.

They can’t keep on skimming in this way - and that’s what it is - forever more.

I think they’re being very foolish in persisting in this as they’re burning a huge amount of bridges - both with govts and with developers.

Particularly as the smartphone era is starting to wane as we enter the AI era and Apple are more strategically weak than they have been since the 00s - even if this is not yet apparent.

I feel duty bound to point out that the EU is Apple’s second biggest market after North America - and a very stable and rich one.

If they leave the EU, Tim Cook wouldn’t be in his job for too long.

Hmm thinking about it, maybe they should leave the EU then!

nore would the rest of the board, the big investors would see to that

 

[bn-7bc]

"the law". 😂 From the people who legislated the curvature of cucumbers. Apple should've told these id10ts to pound sand.

while on the surface this steams idiotic "what does it mater if a cucumber is straight or bent", actually has a boint when you ship billions of them a year, the reduction in space required for shipping means several thousand truck loads less, think of the CO2 (I'm talking of the trip from farm tie the wholesaler not trips to individual shops although there might be a slight reduction there as well). There are plenty of idiotic regulations but this one might jus not be one of them

 

[Sophisticatednut]

yea that'll happen, ok the eu (or more correctly it's member states as the EU does not, corevt me if I'm wrong, have an army) might not have as many soldiers or pieces of equipment as Russia, but in general their personnel and equipment is better trained/more modern then what russia can filed (esp post ukraine, ok russia have more nukes but can they actually lamch them without the silos blowing up)

EU technically have battlegroups and Frontex as the border agency.

But the military personnel of EU( as of its member states) outnumber the US, and both outnumber AND outclasses Russia in every category except nuclear and dumb artillery/ rocket barrages ( exceptionally horrible accuracy in the multiple km/mile range)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"the law". 😂 From the people who legislated the curvature of cucumbers. Apple should've told these id10ts to pound sand.

Ever heard of food standards? You can sell it, you just can’t label it as category A/1

while on the surface this steams idiotic "what does it mater if a cucumber is straight or bent", actually has a boint when you ship billions of them a year, the reduction in space required for shipping means several thousand truck loads less, think of the CO2 (I'm talking of the trip from farm tie the wholesaler not trips to individual shops although there might be a slight reduction there as well). There are plenty of idiotic regulations but this one might jus not be one of them

Well that’s what you do when you regulate what standards and quality young’s advertise something as. If a cucumber has a 90 degree bend then you can’t really sell it as premium quality.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

We've had this conversation so many times. If Apple says you can access the platform for $100 plus commission when applicable, you can't continue to access the platform without paying the commission when applicable.

I guess the difference here is I draw the line for the platform as the AppStore, while you include everything that is sold by Apple.


And we are finding out what the boundaries of the law is

 

[surferfb]

Ever heard of food standards? You can sell it, you just can’t label it as category A/1

Well that’s what you do when you regulate what standards and quality young’s advertise something as. If a cucumber has a 90 degree bend then you can’t really sell it as premium quality.

I promise I'm not trying to debate another topic with you , but I generally don't understand this.

When it comes to "premium quality" for food, shouldn't the only things that matters be freshness/taste? Like, I don't care if a cucumber is a square, cylinder, hexagon, or bent if it is fresh and tastes good. Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I promise I'm not trying to debate another topic with you , but I generally don't understand this.

When it comes to "premium quality" for food, shouldn't the only things that matters be freshness/taste? Like, I don't care if a cucumber is a square, cylinder, hexagon, or bent if it is fresh and tastes good. Or am I misunderstanding something?

No worries as I do my best to express how EU works to those who don’t know.

Well it’s more the intent to make sure that if you’re purchasing something from other members it’s classified the same way. I wouldn’t be suprised it’s because some grocery stores ordered ”premium ” cucumber but disagreed with the sellers definition of premium or something similar.

In the EU, cucumbers are classified primarily by their shape, size, and overall quality to ensure consistent product standards and facilitate trade. These classifications, outlined in regulations like Regulation No. 1677 of 1988, are intended to provide consumers with a consistent product profile. You can sell unclassified goods if they fall outside the three primary categories 🤷‍♂️.

• Minimum Requirements:
All cucumbers must be sound, clean, and free from pests or damage, ensuring they are fit for consumption and can withstand transportation.
• Non-classified cucumbers:
It is not illegal to sell cucumbers that do not meet the classification criteria. However, Member States may allow the sale of "wonky" produce (which doesn't meet the standards) as long as they are labeled to distinguish them from the classified grades

So if you’re selling square, horseshoe shaped or other odd shapes you can often get a good price if they are unique enough above the market rates.

It’s no different than the U.S. meat classification such as prime and choice etc. 🤷‍♂️
Obviously it states other related qualifications. So the left picturenof normal cucumber and the right curly ones are all legal to sell.