Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[Sophisticatednut]

I hope this hubris goes south. They deserve it to run their business legally. Let’s be honest…different strokes for different folks.

The ECJ held that where the customer downloads a copy of Oracle's software and enters into a licence agreement under which it receives the right to use that copy for an unlimited period in return for a one-off fee, such transaction amounts to a "sale" for the purposes of Article 4(2) and involves a transfer of the right of ownership in that copy. The copies could therefore be sold on even if Oracle's licence agreement prohibited further transfer.

 

[Ethosik]

Yeah, strictly speaking you merely put it in their thoughts rather than words:



Goes both ways, with the court rulings that have been partly in favour of Apple.

When the argument is "30% is too much" or "when Apple changes to reasonable terms" or "Apple charges too much" and people are advocating for this bill DUE to those "too much" arguments....yes that leads to the valid conclusion that companies shouldn't be able to charge the amount they do. Apple can charge a 90% markup for all I care. They are entitled to make that decision.

Now there is NO CONNECTION at ALL with what I said and the following, that is different and definitely shoving words in my mouth.

"Since Apple created iOS, every app running on their phones and OS belongs to them"

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So again, apple already threatened to leave the U.K. once. Telling Apple, guess what you are no longer entitled to your commission could provoke a severe response from apple. Who knows?

I’m sorry but this is related to EU AND UK.

It doesn’t matter if apple leaves Uk, the law still applies in EU single market.
And Uk courts have already dismissed apple’s threats as not relevant, and have given them two options.
import ban and pay the fine.
Or stay and pay the fine.

If apple leave or not is irrelevant when they already broke the copyright laws

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So again, apple already threatened to leave the U.K. once. Telling Apple, guess what you are no longer entitled to your commission could provoke a severe response from apple. Who knows?

And you do understand if apple leaves Uk or EU it will have little to no impact whatsoever? This is not USA with millions of employees and billions of tax revenue as one of the biggest companies in your nation. Apple have little to no political impact, and threats will not go down well.

Only income apple bring is through VAT that will just be covered by other products. And some sales peoples salary in random stores around the union that also will be covered by competing businesses that will take their place and other jobs.

And these regulators and the Supreme Court of EU aren’t elected and as untouchable as US supreme courts of justice.

But we both know apple won’t kill 50% of their revenue for not even a rounding error in EUs economy,

 

[turbineseaplane]

And you do understand if apple leaves Uk or EU it will have little to no impact whatsoever? This is not USA with millions of employees and billions of tax revenue as one of the biggest companies in your nation. Apple have little to no political impact, and threats will not go down well.

You have to understand that most of us Americans are as myopic and egocentric as the day is long.

Huge swaths of Americans think everything, even worldwide, is about America and American interests.

 

[Maximara]

The Apple App Store™

...where phishing Apps get right through "App Review" and that also give Apple AD money to ensure they are the top spot!

yep!
Nothing beats the safety and security of the Apple App Store™

I don't think anybody, even Apple, says it's perfect.

"Apple has limited ability to prevent “Jekyll and Hyde” apps that change their behavior after review, and allows some malware to slip through." Supposedly there was a 15% error rate in 2015. However despite this the court also said that Apple's closed store increased security by both "Narrow" (Malware) and “Broad” (Privacy, Quality, Trustworthiness) standards.

No computer is totally safe or secure no matter what the OS. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or delusional.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

When the argument is "30% is too much" or "when Apple changes to reasonable terms" or "Apple charges too much" and people are advocating for this bill DUE to those "too much" arguments....yes that leads to the valid conclusion that companies shouldn't be able to charge the amount they do. Apple can charge a 90% markup for all I care. They are entitled to make that decision.

Now there is NO CONNECTION at ALL with what I said and the following, that is different and definitely shoving words in my mouth.

"Since Apple created iOS, every app running on their phones and OS belongs to them"

Since Apple created iOS, every app running on their store belongs to them.

But every app running and downloaded to OUR iphones and iOS belongs to The person who purchased it.

I can’t understand how this can be so hard to understand

 

[Maximara]

You have to understand that most of us Americans are as myopic and egocentric as the day is long.

Only if the day is in Antartica during its Summer (Land of the Midnight sun with 24 hour long days)

The United States "is the greatest power on God's footstool that has been permitted to exist. A power for good, among ourselves, and in all the world. And he--this great Lincoln--was the one who did so much to give us the opportunity to live at a time when that would be so. When America's leadership in the world is necessary to the preservation of freedom and of liberty in that world, just as his presence in the sixties was necessary to the preservation of liberty and freedom and union of this Nation." - President Eisenhower

Our ego hasn't shrunk any since then.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The Apple App Store™

...where phishing Apps get right through "App Review" and that also give Apple AD money to ensure they are the top spot!

yep!
Nothing beats the safety and security of the Apple App Store™

Source for above:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1490005085715271680

Just another mail in apple’s narrative as the sole provider of safety and nobody can save us but them

 

[turbineseaplane]

I can’t understand how this can be so hard to understand

It's only hard to understand if you don't want to understand it and/or wish it wasn't true

Reminds me of that Upton Sinclair quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

 

[AppliedMicro]

So again, apple already threatened to leave the U.K. once. Telling Apple, guess what you are no longer entitled to your commission could provoke a severe response from apple.

That was about a patent infringement case though, wasn't it?

The word choice of "threatening" (rather than merely "saying" or "announcing") is quite telling.
Are they in a position where there withdrawal from a market would be a "threat" - and why?

Now there is NO CONNECTION at ALL with what I said and the following, that is different and definitely shoving words in my mouth.

OK.

Since you said, "in order to distribute your game, the store can take whatever you want" and "Storefronts have markup for any product you sell on them" I will be rephrasing my earlier statement:

? Your statements really lead me to believe the core of what you think is "Since Apple created iOS, they can treat every in-app transaction on their phones and OS as if it were distributed/sold by them".

My take: In-app purchases such as music and video streaming subscriptions or even in-app coins, character armour/enhancements etc. are not created, sold, distributed or delivered by Apple. Neither does the act of "flipping a switch" sell, distribute or deliver anything from Apple to the end user. If anything, that's merely a legal fiction created by Apple's developer terms and conditions.

So, what I am - kind of - saying is this:
Apple shouldn't (be allowed) to arbitrarily charge for things they didn't and don't deliver.

 

[Ethosik]

That was about a patent infringement case though, wasn't it?

The word choice of "threatening" (rather than merely "saying" or "announcing") is quite telling.
Are they in a position where there withdrawal from a market would be a "threat" - and why?

OK.

Since you said, "in order to distribute your game, the store can take whatever you want" and "Storefronts have markup for any product you sell on them" I will be rephrasing my earlier statement:

? You statements really lead me to believe the core of what you think is "Since Apple created iOS, they can treat every in-app running on their phones and OS as if it were distributed/sold by them".

My take: In-app purchases such as music and video streaming subscriptions or even in-app coins, character armour/enhancements etc. are not created, sold, distributed or delivered by Apple. Neither does the act of "flipping a switch" sell, distribute or deliver anything from Apple to the end user. If anything, that's merely a legal fiction created by Apple's developer terms and conditions.

Apple shouldn't (be allowed) to arbitrarily charge for things they did not and do not deliver.

Thank you for clarifying. That is a bit better. Yes, they are SOLD by Apple. I have contacted Apple many times to dispute IAP charges before. So yes, it goes through iTunes Billing so it is sold and THEY are the ones that I contact if there are any issues. Therefore, I think it is perfectly valid to take a cut on those sales in order to provide salaries for the support staff and infrastructure of iTunes Billing. Apple has refunded purchases many times for me, without me needing to contact the developer at all.

Now, if Apple didn't do this, I would agree with you. But they need to pay their support staff and iTunes Billing infrastructure some way.

 

[Ethosik]

Since Apple created iOS, every app running on their store belongs to them.

Define "belong"? Does Apple now own the Mario IP and artwork and assets that make up Mario games? Just because there is a Mario game doesn't mean Nintendo still doesn't own Mario franchise. I think you need to define this "belong" better for me to understand what you mean.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't think anybody, even Apple, says it's perfect.

"Apple has limited ability to prevent “Jekyll and Hyde” apps that change their behavior after review, and allows some malware to slip through." Supposedly there was a 15% error rate in 2015. However despite this the court also said that Apple's closed store increased security by both "Narrow" (Malware) and “Broad” (Privacy, Quality, Trustworthiness) standards.

No computer is totally safe or secure no matter what the OS. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or delusional.

Remember that ruling only applies to USA market not to 95% of the rest of the world.
It’s all in relative terms it would be great if we was given real numbers of malware and scams on iOS devices and on the iOS App Store so we could compare like to like with google play store.

It would be devastating to apple if the numbers are close to equal, but be a sting argument for their side if it was night and day difference. So I suspect the first considering they don’t want to show the numbers

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Thank you for clarifying. That is a bit better. Yes, they are SOLD by Apple. I have contacted Apple many times to dispute IAP charges before. So yes, it goes through iTunes Billing so it is sold and THEY are the ones that I contact if there are any issues. Therefore, I think it is perfectly valid to take a cut on those sales in order to provide salaries for the support staff and infrastructure of iTunes Billing. Apple has refunded purchases many times for me, without me needing to contact the developer at all.

Now, if Apple didn't do this, I would agree with you. But they need to pay their support staff and iTunes Billing infrastructure some way.

Well then should you not then have the choice to not go through iTunes billing then? The whole problem everyone have is the fact you MUST by apple decree use their billing system.

I can say almost nobody have a problem with apple taking a cut of IAP. It could be 99%. But only as long as you can opt out with a competing solution with 0% cut

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Define "belong"? Does Apple now own the Mario IP and artwork and assets that make up Mario games? Just because there is a Mario game doesn't mean Nintendo still doesn't own Mario franchise. I think you need to define this "belong" better for me to understand what you mean.

Belong as in the same way a TV at target belongs to target until you purchase it. Or a copy of a Mario game.

And target lose ownership of that TV and Mario game when you purchase it.

 

[falainber]

No, that is not the actual cost. That's just payment processing. Apple needs about 8 billion to run the App Store, that needs to come from somewhere. Are the authorities going to outlaw profit?

The $8B should come from hardware sales. In case you did not know, Apple makes way more profits than that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yes, they are SOLD by Apple

Undoubtedly.

I think it is perfectly valid to take a cut on those sales

As long they sold the item in question, yes.

The issue - upon which we may disagree - is Apple forcing developers to have all sales going through their own IAP mechanism and prohibiting any outside sales (and then, giving tailor-made concessions to the so-called "reader" apps whose developers actually have some leverage against Apple).

Yes, it's their platform based on their IP. But since there's so few mobile OS and so few relevant mobile app stores and an apparent lack of competition, it should IMO be regulated or opened up.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Belong as in the same way a TV at target belongs to target until you purchase it. Or a copy of a Mario game.

And target lose ownership of that TV and Mario game when you purchase it.

Good points about the ownership piece in retail

Those aren't consignment shops and the retailers usually have fully paid (or at least agreed to pay) the manufacturers for their products before customers ever even get in the mix. Lots of different models of operation in that world. Almost none of it bears much relation to sales of digital goods - let alone things like IAP.

The comparisons between digital app stores and traditional retail are fraught with incongruities

 

[Ethosik]

I can say almost nobody have a problem with apple taking a cut of IAP. It could be 99%. But only as long as you can opt out with a competing solution with 0% cut

Again, my stance is similar to side loading. As long as I can stick to my "walled garden" and will continue to have iTunes Billing as an option (hopefully Apple can be allowed to enforce this), then I have no issues with alternatives. The only point where I start to disagree is when options start getting removed - as in the option of all apps are on the App Store and app IAP will have iTunes Billing available. ADDITIONS of options are fine, REPLACEMENT/REMOVAL of options are where I start having issues.

If Apple is allowed to enforce both IAP and App Distribution in a way where, it can be on 20 different stores but also MUST be on the App Store and similarly with IAP, I do not have ANY concerns with both issues at hand.

Perfect example is my attitude to right to repair. I never do it and never will, but I am fine advocating those of you that WANT to repair yourself. As long as my option still exist in a guaranteed way, bring on the side loading and alternate payment options.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Undoubtedly.

As long they sold the item in question, yes.

The issue - upon which we may disagree - is Apple forcing developers to have all sales going through their own IAP mechanism and prohibiting any outside sales (and then, giving tailor-made concessions to the so-called "reader" apps whose developers actually have some leverage against Apple).

Yes, it's their platform based on their IP. But since there's so few mobile OS and so few relevant mobile app stores and an apparent lack of competition, it should be regulated or opened up.

I think it should just be a matter of first sale exhaustion. Apple and anyone should not have the ability to dictate things that they do not own.

They can sell their services for developers to use their IAP framework with a 30% cut or use their own framework independent from apple

As the chap elegantly said

In-app purchases such as music and video streaming subscriptions or even in-app coins, character armour/enhancements etc. are not created, sold, distributed or delivered by Apple. Neither does the act of "flipping a switch" sell, distribute or deliver anything from Apple to the end user.

Hence they should have no legal right to any revenue unless developers actively chose their solution instead of a competing one

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Good points about the ownership piece in retail

Those aren't consignment shops and the retailers usually have fully paid (or at least agreed to pay) the manufacturers for their products before customers ever even get in the mix. Lots of different models of operation in that world. Almost none of it bears much relation to sales of digital goods - let alone things like IAP.

The comparisons between digital app stores and traditional retail are fraught with incongruities

Absolutely, but fortunately EU courts have already said digital goods are inseparable from physical goods. And covered by first sale exhaustion ( for some reason doesn’t cover software in USA)

The act of sending software from retailer on disk to consumer by mail is not different to it being sent by cable from their server to your hardware.

and the real question why should it even be treated differently just because the transportation medium is different?

 

[hans1972]

This is mostly all Apple's fault

If they'd adjust to reasonable terms, at least for game apps, very little if any regulatory heat would be coming down on them.

They have no business dipping into IAP revenue (as one example)

The store is old and things have changed so much from first conception
Apple needs to also change (or will be forced to)

But this very article is about dating apps!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Absolutely, but fortunately EU courts have already said digital goods are inseparable from physical goods.

Interesting
In some ways I can see the argument there, but it sure falls down on the realities of it (in certain parts of the chain)

and the real question why should it even be treated differently just because the transportation medium is different?

The transportation medium does tremendously change the timelines, costs and risks that are borne -- among many things we could probably single out as important differences.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Interesting
In some ways I can see the argument there, but it sure falls down on the realities of it (in certain parts of the chain)



The transportation medium does tremendously change the timelines, costs and risks that are borne -- among many things we could probably single out as important differences.

Please provide in the ways you think it breaks down
The CJEU reached four main conclusions:

(i) when the copy of a software program is supplied through a perpetual license at a price, there is a transfer of ownership of that copy that is equivalent to a “sale”; (ii) irrespective of the sale of the program being physical or by a download; (iii) once the software is sold, the owner’s right of distribution is exhausted, and the buyer can resell it; and (iv) the subsequent buyers of the software are legitimate.

Source