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 Ordered to Change App Store in Europe Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple can and do charge for the underlying intellectual property that makes apps function.
And I haven't heard for the EU restricting them from doing it in a fair, nondiscriminatory way.
They're charging consumers at hardware prices they determine - whereas the hardware comes bundled with the OS.
They're also charging developers for the functionality that makes their apps function.
But since you mentioned it explicitly:
An in-app link-out to an external purchase decision has not nothing to do with "making apps function".
Plain illegal.
I have. That's literally what Apple advertised it for - and what I paid for, with my device purchase.
👉 That premise - that Apple implemented it at a loss - is exactly what many detractors of the DMA have been arguing:
"But, but, but... the $99 developer subscription doesn't pay (isn't fair compensation) for all of Apple's investment, hard work blablabla."
Yes - that's exactly what Apple has been doing successfully (with the exception of Google Play/Android):
Crowd everyone else out from the market in mobile OS and application stores.
And yet you’re fervently advocating for Apple being forced to choose between being fairly compensated for their hard work or letting small and hobbyist developers to participate for a reasonable price.
The EU is literally doing that with the DMA. Any developer can make an app, charge for it and not pay Apple one cent for said IP.
If I buy a Blu Ray that doesn’t allow me to charge people to come watch the movie in a theater. You need a different license for that. Same deal here.
Said link out is being used to avoid properly compensating Apple for its IP that makes developers’ apps function.
Literally not.
They can not.
They have to have a paid developer subscription to have their app signed by Apple (in order to distribute it to third parties).
Which, as we’ve stated repeatedly, is not compensation for Apple’s IP even if you wish it was.
As you clearly stated, that's the value for initial acquisition. That's not what I asked.
Here you are applying a test for initial acquisition fees for steered transactions to CTF and alternate payments. Neither of which applies.
I think this is nonsense. Acquisition, platform access, and transaction fees are self-evidently for three different services.
Desired compensation is proper when it's fair and adequate for services or product provided.
Merely allowing a link within a third-party app that's not made by Apple isn't product or service provided. Let alone "proper" to charge 27% of all revenue for months. Also, given that many developers can and do integrate their own in-app purchasing options into their apps (e.g. Uber), fleecing a certain subset of developers isn't proper either.
That's what I've just said above.
They have been "giving it away" to obtain their duopoly (with Google).
That's why and justification to have governments regulate them from abusing their power.
When Uber are making dozens, hundreds of millions on billions of revenue of dollars through their iOS app (including depending on Apple's push notification service)...
👉 Is Uber paying a $99 developer subscription to Apple "proper compensation"?
No, it's not.
Though I respect(ed so far) Apple's right to price it at a lower level, if they so desire.
As long as they're not abusing their market power obtained to fleece other customers in a discriminatory manner.
Apple's whole "we care about the best interests of our customers" is such BS. Greed and anticompetitive activity is getting so bad in America. Honestly, I think Europe is overreaching and I don't care at this point.
In The Edge (1997), Anthony Hopkins tells Alec Baldwin "Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane." Don't feel sorry for publicly traded, trillion-dollar corporations, either.
That exactly what they did. Because they are not a monopoly their rates are fair and reasonable.
Just because I don’t feel sorry for publicly traded trillion dollar corporations doesn’t make the eu right or doesn’t mean Apple wasn’t targeted.
No but the fact that several others have been sanctioned probably does.
A free and open market allows for consumers and developers to choose their preferred service for app distribution.
That is what Apple has been undermining.
Europe has a fundamental flaw in all their digital legislation and regulations: they start with the assumption that all hardware, OSs and platforms are inherently generic and interchangeable. But then this is the same body who levy a massive fine against Apple "on behalf of Ireland" when even the Irish said they are owed nothing. The EU is going to destroy themselves on many fronts, but one would think they could look at digital functions and at least demonstrate some competence.
Apple has not undermined any of that. Anyone can have a web app or page. Anyone can also choose another platform riddled with security and privacy issues if they choose. People choose Apple BECAUSE of the "walled garden," interoperability and security. The EU wants to destroy all that.
You think that Apple should shoulder all the cost of app distribution? Or are you just wanting p*rn apps?
I don't really know how to asses the assumption that "a walled garden" is specifically something folks choose an iPhone for. I'm sure some do, but I'm positive there's also a large faction for which that whole situation never even enters their mind.
If we were drafting a list of reasons folks choose iPhones, it would be very long and highly subjective.
Last edited:
Right. But we didn’t know the terms of the agreement. It came out in court that Apple gets 36% of the revenue from the Safari deal.
They're undermining the emergence of alternative App Stores and alternative purchasing/payment options.
I don't - and they don't.
It's a total straw man argument, given how Apple do charge for access to the App Store.
They're literally making billions every year from app distribution.
Whether I do is besides the point.
A free and open market exists. Just because you refuse to use other options doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
No, they haven’t been undermining it. Apple does not prevent any developer or consumer from selecting one of the other options. They merely say “if you’re using our platform, you need to play by our rules, which we think are best for our customers.” And millions upon millions of users prefer that Apple do so.
But you’re advocating for that preferred option to be taken away from them so you’re not inconvenienced. So you can have your cake and eat it to. Even though you bought an iPhone knowing full well the restrictions that Apple put in place.
There is no justifiable reason that your preference for iOS to be open should outweigh Apple’s (and the majority of its customers’) preference that iOS be closed, particularly when Android is open and has over 70% market share in the EU. None. Everyone who wants an open ecosystem can choose that option.
This is just the same “Apple has to open up” zealots who have consistently opposed the closed nature of iOS since its inception on the App Store teaming up with a bunch of large developers who want to freeload. They successfully bamboozled regulators, whose actions have clearly show lack understanding of the industry they are overseeing, that the same practices said zealots once confidently predicted would obviously lead to Apple’s irrelevance are now suddenly so blatantly uncompetitive that they must be prohibited despite Apple only having 28% of the market.
Not for iOS applications.
No - I'm disputing that it's taking away anything.
Because the option of downloading apps exclusively from Apple remains.
Which by the way, isn't even limited to Apple: Consumers can just as well opt for a closed experience using only a Google operating system and software application store on Android.
Whether it's the majority's is (very) questionable.
Apple command considerably more than 28% of the market in terms of its revenue.
But there is for mobile applications, which is actually the relevant market.
Apple’s customer satisfaction, particularly around safety and security, highly suggests it is.
Well then Apple must be doing something right, and access to its customers might be worth paying 15-30% for.
I humbly suggest that the reason Apple has a larger portion of revenue than their market share is because the safety and security of the App Store model leads to customers feeling comfortable paying for digital goods and services on the platform because they know they’re not going to get fleeced.
Or maybe rampant piracy is artificially reducing the profitability of Android apps. In which case, again, maybe Apple’s rules are worth it.