Apple Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU [Updated]

[surferfb]

Quite the contrary!


Have they "dropped" them by now? No!
Why not, when they've fined to the tune of hundreds of millions - allegedly for them?
...and continued infringement risks incurring additional, even higher fines?

👉 It all doesn't make sense.

Why won’t you answer my question? If the EU tells Apple to hold off on implementing a fix to the law, should Apple hold off or implement it?

The article says the EU told them to hold off, and Gruber noted in his article that has not changed even after the fine. Should Apple hold off or not?

And if the answer is no, then why do you go around saying Apple has to do what the Eu says?

 

[AppliedMicro]

I was asking a hypothetical question. If what Gruber/Politico is true, do you find that concerning?

I am:

I was asking a hypothetical question. If what Gruber/Politico is true, do you find that concerning?

Yes, of course I'd find it troubling.

But it also lacks credibility.
And common sense as well as business sense in keeping them up - after having been fined.


Don't get me wrong: I would absolutely believe that Vestager and her department (whatever it's called) were "keen" on fining Apple. But Apple absolutely provided them with good reason.

PS: I already said it two days ago: Given Apple's history of responding to regulatory (and fighting legal) action, the "default" assumption should be that they're lying and trying to gaslight people and the public.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I am:


Yes, of course I'd find it troubling.

But it also lacks credibility.
And common sense as well as business sense in keeping them up - after having been fined.


Don't get me wrong: I would absolutely believe that Vestager and her department (whatever it's called) were "keen" on fining Apple. But Apple absolutely provided them with good reason.

PS: I already said it two days ago: Given Apple's history of responding to regulatory (and fighting legal) action, the "default" assumption should be that they're lying and trying to gaslight people and the public.

Agree with this.

Up to Apple to prove that they were explicitly told not to implement any changes. I think given that the they had already been told that they were not compliant it's quite hard to believe.

Seems clear Meta were more proactive in rolling out product changes thus got a smaller fine, Apple talked a bit about it then did nothing.

Either way, the Politico article says

'According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers.

They would likely have already been non compliant at that stage, the DMA became legally binding in March 2024

 

[AppliedMicro]

@surferfb:

I'd consider Apple's tactics a ploy to (maybe) soften the financial blow of the fines.
And give them some sort of public sympathy and/or advantage in fighting the decision on appeal.

"Oh but, we were ready to just drop the rules" does not sound credible at all.
Not in light of how they're still in force today.
Not in light of their tactics in "complying" with the order from the Epic trial.
And, well obviously, that they've fined for violation.


I also found this bit on the subject:

"Apple’s 2024 compliance report was mute on the subject. The 2025 version of the compliance report was not much better, despite that the gatekeeper had de facto in August 2024, proposed changes to the ability of developers to perform steering."

...which only further supports my opinion that Apple did not play fair and square on the subject.

 

[AppliedMicro]

@surferfb: While these compliance reports don't offer much concrete insight, I'd highlight one point.

But first, we go back to Politico.
Note the timing (emphasis mine):

"According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers."

By late September and following a round of consultations with Apple critics like Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, executives at the U.S.-based firm began worrying that a lack of feedback from the Commission meant it was teeing up a potential fine and noncompliance decision."

...and now on, to Apple's compliance reports on the same subject:
Of which summaries are publicly accessible. (emphasis, again, mine):


Item 1: Apple's compliance report (summary) from October/November 1, 2024:

"On August 8, 2024, Apple announced changes to the ability of developers to communicate and promote offers available outside of the app from within the app for digital goods or services. Apple is engaged in ongoing constructive conversations with the European Commission about those changes."


And, very similarly, their...

Item 2: Apple's compliance report (summary) from March 7, 2025:

"On August 8, 2024, Apple announced proposed changes to the ability of developers to communicate and promote offers available outside of the app from within the app for digital goods or services. Apple has not yet implemented any changes as it is engaged in ongoing constructive conversations with the EU about those proposed changes."


👉 Again, note the timing:
1. Apple to Politico: Began worrying about lack of feedback from the Commission in late September 2024.
2. Apple in both their November 2024 and March 2025 compliance report: "engaged in ongoing constructive conversations with the EU"

 

[surferfb]

@surferfb: While these compliance reports don't offer much concrete insight, I'd highlight one point.

But first, we go back to Politico.
Note the timing (emphasis mine):

"According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers."

By late September and following a round of consultations with Apple critics like Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, executives at the U.S.-based firm began worrying that a lack of feedback from the Commission meant it was teeing up a potential fine and noncompliance decision."
...and now on, to Apple's compliance reports on the same subject:
Of which summaries are publicly accessible. (emphasis, again, mine):


Item 1: Apple's compliance report (summary) from October/November 1, 2024:

"On August 8, 2024, Apple announced changes to the ability of developers to communicate and promote offers available outside of the app from within the app for digital goods or services. Apple is engaged in ongoing constructive conversations with the European Commission about those changes."


And, very similarly, their...

Item 2: Apple's compliance report (summary) from March 7, 2025:

"On August 8, 2024, Apple announced proposed changes to the ability of developers to communicate and promote offers available outside of the app from within the app for digital goods or services. Apple has not yet implemented any changes as it is engaged in ongoing constructive conversations with the EU about those proposed changes."

Nothing in there changes my thoughts on the matter. Again seems like the EU told Apple not to implement it and then slammed them for not doing so.

Banana Republic stuff out of the EU. When you can’t innovate, regulate!

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Nothing in there changes my thoughts on the matter. Again seems like the EU told Apple not to implement it and then slammed them for not doing so.

Banana Republic stuff out of the EU. When you can’t innovate, regulate!

If they did they did so in summer 2024.

The DMU became law in March 2024, the time for Apple to be negotiating their compliance would've been 2023.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nothing in there changes my thoughts on the matter. Again seems like the EU told Apple not to implement it and then slammed them for not doing so.

👉 So what are you telling me to believe?

That they made factually wrong statements, basically lied in their compliance reports?
I mean... September 2024 and October/November - not that much time in between. I get - and could believe it.
But reiterating - on official record - the "engaged in ongoing constructive conversions" in their next report months after?

We agree that it doesn't change my thoughts on the matter either. 🙂

 

[surferfb]

👉 So what are you telling me to believe?

That they made factually wrong statements, basically lied in their compliance reports?
I mean... September 2024 and October/November - not that much time in between. I get - and could believe it.
But reiterating - on official record - the "engaged in ongoing constructive conversions" in their next report months after?

I am sure it is better to write “engaged in ongoing constructive conversations” than “getting stonewalled by bureaucrats who are clearly out to get us” 🤣

We agree that it doesn't change my thoughts on the matter either. 🙂

As usual, we will agree to disagree! Heading out with the family, so enjoy the rest of your afternoon/evening and see you in the next thread! 🙂

 

[AppliedMicro]

I am sure it is better to write “engaged in ongoing constructive conversations” than “getting stonewalled by bureaucrats who are clearly out to get us”

Obviously.

I'd totally agree they may have phrased it diplomatically in their late 2024 report.
But more than 6 months later - with the impending and obvious risk of being found non-compliant? No
Keep in mind that Apple's compliance doesn't depend on the EU being cooperative (rather than stonewalling them).

Enjoy your afternoon!

 

[I7guy]

The protectionism argument is very weak.

It’s also seemingly relevant.

Nearly every company investigated under the DMA is also being looked at by regulators in the US.

Huge multinational corporations are always being looked at. That doesn’t mean guilty on all fronts.

it's almost as if they've got some sketchy business practices.

Almost is the relevant word.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

It’s also seemingly relevant.

Huge multinational corporations are always being looked at. That doesn’t mean guilty on all fronts.

Almost is the relevant word.

You're right, so i'm not sure why you think the DMA is a conspiracy against Apple.

 

[germanbeer007]

None of this is true. Let’s not forget that without developers Apple doesn’t really have much of a business at all.

Without Apple, developers doesn't really have much a of a business at all
"Yes they do, they can develop for Android"

Then why don't they?
"Because Apple has access to the highest paying customers"

Then developers don't have much of a business at all if they switched to Android otherwise they would have done so already.

 

[I7guy]

You're right, so i'm not sure why you think the DMA is a conspiracy against Apple.

Seems like that is was it was created for, imo.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Seems like that is was it was created for, imo.

Did they fine Meta just to keep up the charade? 🥸

 

[I7guy]

Did they fine Meta just to keep up the charade? 🥸

The DMA is the EU piggy bank. Badly written legislation with arbitrary enforcement.

 

[Ctrlos]

Without Apple, developers doesn't really have much a of a business at all
"Yes they do, they can develop for Android"

Then why don't they?
"Because Apple has access to the highest paying customers"

Then developers don't have much of a business at all if they switched to Android otherwise they would have done so already.

Catch22: Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple. Makes sense to make each other happy.

If Apple turned off the App Store you can be sure as hell most users wouldn’t accept web apps as a substitute (despite most apps just being a wrapper for a website)

There might be more people than you’d think who would be happy with just first party apps and services but a lot of people would definitely not.

 

[Piggie]

Thanks to the posters that answered my query regards the "Scary Sign" and the EU/US legal differences.

I suppose from my viewpoint I'm struggling to fully understand the mental aspects of the higher up in Apple.
Whilst they live in a VERY different world than us, I must assume they are not stupid individuals.
They must be clever people in their own right.

Now, I'm fully aware Clever and Common Sense are totally different things, and you can be a Amazing clever in one field and vet still unable to fix a shelf to a wall 🙂

Hence if why I'm struggling.
They MUST understand they need to change, and if they don't they will be forced to change.
They are grown adults, and should grasp that they can't run a company like little children who get upset and moody at others.

They must understand, that scare tactics in todays world are not going to be tolerated.
The world has moved on since the 1970's / 80's

Personal beef's with others and digging heels in, should be confined to when you are children at school, not running the largest company in the world, when all eyes are on you and you need to set example of how to behave.

It's starting to feel like it's all the "Old boys" have just been there too long, as they simply cannot mentally move on in their mindsets.
We saw how thing never changed whilst Jonny Ive was there, he left and things got better in many ways.
Perhaps the rest of them need to go, get fresh minds in their positions and breath fresh life into the now overweight and monolithic mindsets still running the place?

 

[germanbeer007]

Catch22: Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple.

Mutually beneficial, of course

If Apple turned off the App Store you can be sure as hell most users wouldn’t accept web apps as a substitute (despite most apps just being a wrapper for a website)

apple would easily create their own versions or purchase companies that left ios. not all but plenty enough to keep the boat floating

There might be more people than you’d think who would be happy with just first party apps and services but a lot of people would definitely not.

There might be more developers than you'd think who are happy with the current state of the app store.

 

[Ctrlos]

There might be more developers than you'd think who are happy with the current state of the app store.

Never said there wasn't 🙂

I'm sure many are happy with the status quo. Developers that post external links are asking the user to place their trust in something outside the Apple process if they are small developers. They may find most will not.

But it is a little silly that companies like Netflix, Microsoft and Amazon cannot sell their own digital wares or subscriptions externally. Like I can't rent a movie from Amazon without going to their website instead. Apple taking a commission on a rivals equivalent offering, forcing them to block it is clearly anti-competitive and designed to force people towards Apple Movie rentals instead.

I don't want to retread old ground but Apple only charge free and ad-supported apps $100/y for hosting and have done since day one. Their commission is, on the balance sheet based on payment processing and profit. If devs want to use Stripe etc instead of Apple, the same rules should therefore apply because they already apply elsewhere.

Competition in the payment processing space therefore forces Apple to improve its own offering to developers which will have knock-on dividends for customers. When the EU forced Apple to open up to rival app portals they relaxed their rules and we got apps like emulators worldwide. We all benefitted.

 

[germanbeer007]

But it is a little silly that companies like Netflix, Microsoft and Amazon cannot sell their own digital wares or subscriptions externally. Like I can't rent a movie from Amazon without going to their website instead.

they can and have always could. users sign up before they download the app

Apple taking a commission on a rivals equivalent offering, forcing them to block it is clearly anti-competitive and designed to force people towards Apple Movie rentals instead.

if users downloaded the app and then signed up inside the app, apple played a part in converting a new user for the developer. they deserve a cut.

if a user already was a paying member, apple makes nothing from serving a free app to the member

I don't want to retread old ground but Apple only charge free and ad-supported apps $100/y for hosting and have done since day one. Their commission is, on the balance sheet based on payment processing and profit. If devs want to use Stripe etc instead of Apple, the same rules should therefore apply because they already apply elsewhere.

Competition in the payment processing space therefore forces Apple to improve its own offering to developers which will have knock-on dividends for customers. When the EU forced Apple to open up to rival app portals they relaxed their rules and we got apps like emulators worldwide. We all benefitted.

Apple loses money on most developers who only pays apple for $99/year. developers can submit 100 updates a month and Apple pays employees to review every single app in some way. it could be a 5 min review or 5 hour review. $99/year hardly covers this alone. then there are developer tools and services that Apple provides for the developer

we all benefit before the whole fortnite fiasco. developers benefit from apple's services which in turn benefits the user by providing a much higher quality app

 

[wbeasley]

Mutually beneficial, of course


apple would easily create their own versions or purchase companies that left ios. not all but plenty enough to keep the boat floating




There might be more developers than you'd think who are happy with the current state of the app store.

i would argue with a million apps in existence, Apple probably doesnt need more apps anymore. there's pretty much an app for everything you want to do. and often 5 or 10 similar ones.

and Apple could indeed fill in the gaps based on popular apps if they wanted.

from the lack of comments on here over years of reading posts I would say 99% of app devs seem quite happy with the current AppStore and what it does for them...

 

[AppliedMicro]

if users downloaded the app and then signed up inside the app, apple played a part in converting a new user for the developer. they deserve a cut.

"Hey bro... have you heard of that 'Netflix' app? Tons of cool movies you can watch for a small monthly fee".
Proceeds to download the App on his device and registers an account, helped by his friend to sign up.

👉 No, Apple did not provide a crucial part in "converting a new user".

The user just happened to own an iOS device and signed up on the recommendation of a friend. On the device he happened to carry with him at the moment.

Apple loses money on most developers who only pays apple for $99/year. developers can submit 100 updates a month and Apple pays employees to review every single app in some way. it could be a 5 min review or 5 hour review. $99/year hardly covers this alone. then there are developer tools and services that Apple provides for the developer

...and they make up for it in device sales.

Otherwise, they should charge a fair non-discriminatory fee - rather than anticompetitively discriminating certain types of apps.

 

[Ctrlos]

Apple loses money on most developers who only pays apple for $99/year. developers can submit 100 updates a month and Apple pays employees to review every single app in some way. it could be a 5 min review or 5 hour review. $99/year hardly covers this alone. then there are developer tools and services that Apple provides for the developer.

The App Store is but one cog in a large machine. Apple isn't 'losing' money because they definitely sold that developer a Mac and an iPhone. Assuming they make some income from their app then they will likely keep upgrading that hardware and using it for things beyond coding. They probably need hefty cloud storage to back up all those binaries. They probably bought or subscribe to other apps to build other parts of their apps.

That developer has now become a constant stream of income for Apple far beyond the $100/y developer fee.

 

[PlayUltimate]

I could still see Apple, one day, closing down the relatively open App Store and converting it to subscription-based offering, something like Apple Arcade or SetApp. The store then becomes relatively closed to most developers. Not sure how that would fly with the current legal system. But when you have stores such as Costco, Trader Joe's et al. that sell both limited selection and proprietary items, I'm not sure what the legal system would say.