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 Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who are they to dictate what software can be made and executed on a consumer's device?
I know the spiel about licensing the OS and whatever, and I want be upfront in that I view that entire line of reasoning as patently absurd.
We would be outraged if this kind of hand-holdy moral policing came to the Mac - why is it ok on iPhone and iPad?
If Apple mealy objected to claims that the app was "Apple approved", saying that that was mispleading, and that they neither condemn nor condone the availability of porn apps on non-Apple app sores: That would be a very diffident matter! I wound not be mocking Apple.
Sorry, but one app is enough to remove the "safety entirely"? Omg, it is very weak your os...
They are not willing to pay a fair price to the app store owner and want access to apples customers for free.
Yes if it were really antitrust. So far nowhere in a court of law has there been a finding.
Apple isn’t a monopolist so based on your rightful interpretation they can charge what they want.
Yes. Apple is pretty smart.
Why don’t you volunteer to make up the difference?
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s okay because that is apples terms of service. We keep saying those who don’t like apples TOS, thankfully there is more than blackberry for competition.
No, it is not mine... I have it on the corporate phone just to read some emails in the morning... for my life I use another phone (without that logo on it...)
Similar statements to yours in this thread, and this was my response:
Again, copy pasting my response to similar statements:
Actually the EU messed up Apple’s bed.
I actually wouldn't be outraged if Apple applied the iOS model to the Mac. But I do understand I'm the minority there, and that retroactively doing so would be changing the terms under which many people bought their Macs, which obviously presents issues. Kind of like how the EU is unilaterally changing the terms under which many people bought their iOS devices.
Simple: A price that's determined by market forces under competition.
Competition between different stores - that are able to compete on a level playing field (i.e. free from a "Core Technology Fee" that the incumbent monopoly store charges).
...not in a monopoly.
And not as long as Apple gives their IP and services (basically) for free to big ones like Amazon, Uber etc. to maintain their monopoly power.
👉 There is nothing good in hugely profitable companies with monopoly power being able to charge "rent" for access to customers.
Nothing.
Yes - but we should not let companies with monopoly power abusing that and unilaterally charge what they want.
(...if it was only 15%...)
So does my monopoly internet service provider.
The one that owns the physical cable to my house.
Are they justified to charge Apple a 15% or 30% of revenue for mere access to me as a customer.
👉 No!
Monopolisation (of customer relationship) is bad.
It's bad for competition, it's bad for consumers, and it's bad for their choice.
Uber and Amazon make money via their apps.
You literally order and pay in their (Uber's) app. In-app.
...and what if Microsoft did the same?
Or your internet service provider applied Apple's business model to your internet connection.
Charge 30% for any "software" purchases made through it?
What do you mean by “should”? Do you mean legally or morally? Or you simply wish it was that way? Wishing is of course valid, but should a business be legally or morally obligated to sell something they don’t want to sell in their store simply because some consumers would like it in their store? Doesn’t that impose on the business owner’s rights?
Apple does not have a monopoly no matter how many times you repeat the lie that they do.
Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android exists. The Play store charges the exact same commissions despite being open to competitors like Amazon on Samsung. When Apple reduced commissions on subscriptions, Google followed suit, suggesting that the two are competing against each other. Web apps exist. Free apps IN THE APP STORE with subscriptions on the web to unlock functionality exist.
The ISP, at least in the US is actually a monopoly, unlike Apple, and so should be regulated differently.
Yes! They built and maintain the ecosystem and software that allows many of these developers to exist. You're arguing stores shouldn't have to pay rent to the mall because they deserve access to the mall's customers, even though there is an open air market across the street where anyone can set up a booth and sell anything they want.
Good thing Apple isn't a monopoly then.
Apple is well within their rights to charge different prices to different customers. Especially when there is a valid reason (digital goods/services vs. physical goods/services) for the difference. Just because you don't think that is a valid difference doesn't mean there isn't - or that Apple needs a valid reason to charge different prices at all.
Microsoft is actually a monopoly in the desktopOS market, and therefore should be regulated more stringently. If Apple was actually a monopoly in the mobileOS market, the EU would be on much firmer ground to regulated them. The fact that they had to concoct a ridiculously broad and overreaching law rather than using existing antitrust law (like they did for Microsoft) is strong evidence Apple isn't actually a monopoly.
Again, ISPs are often actual monopolies. In places they aren't, the free market will work its magic if one tried to implement something like this.
The “walled garden” refers to the entire device ecosystem being completely closed. If there are official alternative stores not managed by Apple, then it’s officially no longer a walled garden. Apple’s App Store is just another app store in an open ecosystem.
I specifically said a monopoly "actively trying to destroy new car companies from trying to compete". That is 100% illegal.
They do have one for distribution of iOS apps to consumers.
iOS apps that are tailor-made for iOS and do not run on other OS.
No, quite the contrary.
It suggests collusion.
Prices do not stay constant for 13 years in competitive markets with burgeoning economies of scale.
Android - or the Play Store - is no competition to the Apple App Store.
I just pointed that out elsewhere. Because people buy into and commit to an underlying platform - for usually years.
They don't go shopping in the Play Store tomorrow, if they're unhappy with Apple's App Store today - as they would in competitive markets.
I'm arguing they should not have pay unregulated rent - when a duopoly of two mall operators control 98% of all retail space and access to consumers in the whole market.
That's not a valid reason - let alone a justified one.
It's only a convenient one.
Cause seller of digital goods just have a much higher dependence on native apps (and Apple).
It's just a convenient discriminator for Apple to engage in price discrimination and maintain a monopoly:
To charge companies that depend on their platform through the roof - while maintaining their platform and monopoly by giving away IP and services to everyone else for free.
Would you "not be outraged" if your internet service provider applied Apple's business model to your internet connection. And charged 30% on any "software" purchases made through their line
👉 ...if there are two providers having laid a cable to their home. That "mysteriously" maintain identical pricing over a period of more than 15 years?
Is that "competition" and not monopoly power to you?
"Free market" and "competition working its magic" is not
- no pricing pressure
- no pricing changes for over a decade (despite the market having grown in scale basically exponentially)
- no economies of scale being passed on (in pricing) to biggest customers
Last edited:
They could've avoided this debacle by saying Apple-notarized instead of Apple-approved. Now they're just doubling-down on the use of the Apple-approved language which isn't a good idea and does nothing to defuse this drama.
I want to see alternative app stores in more countries, and instead they've just given Apple the right to say "well if we allow that, they'll claim we approve of porn apps, and it'll damage our reputation". Shame on AltStore for undermining their own mission, one which I fully support.
Last edited:
My only real issue is people here using mental gymnastics to justify thinking they have some sort of legal or moral grounds to tell a business what to sell in their store. The only valid stance I’ve seen here so far is simply “I want it”. That itself is fine, but it’s the attempts to claim moral/legal grounds that I won’t accept without proper support.
There are false statements and there are misleading statements. True they did not make a false statement, but they made a very misleading one. It’s possible unintentionally but it’s very difficult for me to believe they didn’t have the awareness to know the message could easily be interpreted using the very common use of the word “approved”.
In any case, they obviously know now as they took the time to clarify, but they still don’t admit to any wrongdoing or offer a rewording. They’re essentially just doubling down. So it’s a pointless post that doesn’t fix anything unless it’s somehow attached to their first post, which is dumber than just slightly amending the first post.
No one will be misled into thinking Apple had begun approving porn or something.
Everyone knows that Apple does not approve of pornographic content distributed through apps.
They’re merely taking up Apple on their own wording and poking fun at them - or illustrating the absurdity that an operating system developer requires approval for every app to be run and distributed on its consumer OS (well… unless they don’t. If good “enterprise revenue” is to be made from that).