That is a new one. Share holding much?
Has CEO, the main difference between them is that SJ was an entrepreneur.
Last edited:
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 to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is a new one. Share holding much?
Has CEO, the main difference between them is that SJ was an entrepreneur.
In what time frame do you see this happening? I don't see this happen before tech has moved on and nobody uses messaging apps any more, because they have become obsolete. RCS is carrier sponsored is junk. The carriers hope to regain some control by linking messaging to phone numbers again like the good old days of SMS.
Last edited:
It's easy for Microsoft. This is just a side hustle for them.
Yeah so what, I said what is missing???, what you've quoted is in the T&C's so it's not 'missing' is it. Please be extremely clear on what you are trying to point out to me because in all honesty it is not clear the point you are try to make.
I'm still a little confused about this whole dating thing. Are the Dutch dating apps arranging offline meetups?
If so... then I think it should be like Uber or Lyft... where Apple doesn't get a cut of those arrangements.
But for regular IAP like buying in-game currency or whatever... Apple is entitled to a commission.
Which raises the eternal question - just which is it for Apple? Are they losing their way because they are supposedly prioritising profits over everything else, are is Apple’s phenomenal profits simply the result of making great products that people are willing to pay a premium for?
Yes, people can point to the myriad of flaws with Apple products, but if we want to argue along that line, which company can really claim to have successfully shipped products without any flaws whatsoever, much less managed to sustain that over an extended period of time?
You look at how Google cancels products left and right, flitting from one product concept to the next like a butterfly with ADHD. In contrast, Apple continues to build and iterate on their products year after year without fail, from iMessage to the Apple Watch, and consumers vote with their wallets, and is it any surprise why they continue to dominate their respective product categories?
I really don’t understand why people seem surprised that Apple continues to keep reporting stellar quarterly results. To me, Apple makes great products, and as long as they continue to put out great products, there is no reason to be surprised by their performance in the marketplace.
I think several irrelevant subject matter are being conflated into this topics.
In my opinion:
There are in my opinion certain “clarifications” if not changes in the the policies where good faith does not look like its being honoured by Apple. Its quite clear to me that Apple not allowing third party charge for things that aren’t provided by the the App Store in their software programs violates good faith, opening a pandora box … where the company believes that anything and everything dealt by the software programs, even if not technically software are fundamentally App Store assets for them to trade and no one else, including the property owners … some just might happen to have a fee of 0.
One thing is a car dealer selling a Car, or a license to use. Another is after all that … than charge for its use. Why? Because the use can be many. One get can use the Car to say for its Uber business … another to out to the races and win prizes, another go back and forth to work … None of this value is specifically created by the Car, much less the Car Shop … its very situational … The Car just takes people from point A to point B.
The same happens with App Store. It sells and distributes software programs at different princes … nothing more. After that, than charge say for a specific package of dating arrangements, or say a video stream … its like charging for its use … a particular application of the features of a software program.
In my opinion:
- Apple creates and markets still exceptional devices composed by hardware and software, in particular mobile devices and PCs. It is being rewarded proportionally by people and organisations for those efforts. Consumers are buying these products, companies are also buying these products recognising their value. It also markets device that aren’t so go great, like the HomePod or the Apple Watch bands … like any other company.
- Apple creates competitive consumer oriented digital services. Case in case Apple Music, iBooks, Apple TV+, the new Apple Fitness. Apple Pay is also a compelling service. According to reports are also market successes, albeit some more than others.
- The idea where people single place where they can go and download and update their apps, as well as manage their app portfolio is also great.
There are in my opinion certain “clarifications” if not changes in the the policies where good faith does not look like its being honoured by Apple. Its quite clear to me that Apple not allowing third party charge for things that aren’t provided by the the App Store in their software programs violates good faith, opening a pandora box … where the company believes that anything and everything dealt by the software programs, even if not technically software are fundamentally App Store assets for them to trade and no one else, including the property owners … some just might happen to have a fee of 0.
One thing is a car dealer selling a Car, or a license to use. Another is after all that … than charge for its use. Why? Because the use can be many. One get can use the Car to say for its Uber business … another to out to the races and win prizes, another go back and forth to work … None of this value is specifically created by the Car, much less the Car Shop … its very situational … The Car just takes people from point A to point B.
The same happens with App Store. It sells and distributes software programs at different princes … nothing more. After that, than charge say for a specific package of dating arrangements, or say a video stream … its like charging for its use … a particular application of the features of a software program.
Last edited:
The IAP are for things to get yourself noticed better. Like moving yourself towards the top of the list, sending more fancy messages. These things all happen on the device. The line between physical and digital goods is in places a bit blurry.
The complaints from the Tinder conglomerate (about 20 dating apps see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group) to the ACM is not about Apple's commission (at least not officially), but about letting the app's users pay in a way that is easier to hide from their spouse. They consider Apple's excuse that letting them do that would not be safe to be invalid because they allow the same thing for payments for physical goods.
As an example, Tinder are selling something via IAP called ‘Tinder Plus’. This could include almost any feature that Tinder wants.
There’s no reason one way or another that Tinder can’t let free user arrange dates.
Profits come from sales. Consumers buy Apple products because they think they are good products. The numbers don't lie. You must believe the consumers are stupid or Apple has them all fooled.
IAP is the only way to sell things in App. Even things that the App Store that does not distribute, sell or provide support for. That is for what it is.
Being exempt of its use does not mean one is not required to use it.
The narrative goes like this:
You are not allowed to sell a thing in App.
Exception: If not through us, IAP, unless stated otherwise.
Last edited:
I think Apple's strategy is this (or maybe I think they think it is this):
Make great products and sell them for what people think they are worth. If you execute competently you will make money.
I think Jony Ive said something like this in an interview.
If people are buying you have guessed what people think it's worth correctly.
The API's to Apples OSes are not products, and they are not for sale, developers are not customers.
True. As far as the App Store goes would be reasonable to think that they are suppliers of software programs in the relationship. After all, that is all the App Store can effectively sell and distribute
But this notion is challenged as it seams that through IAP policies Apple is aiming to charge not only for that but ”groceries”, example dating arrangements, telco arrangements, tutoring, video streams, plane tickets, avatar costumes, wallpapers, game streams, why not even NFTs traded in App, … some if not most things might be exempted though … their own discretion of course … the exemptions might change at any time. None of this sold, distributed ot supported by the App Store, just IAPified. There is nothing regulating this kind of business practice. Only good faith.
Last edited:
Of a membership program. There is no transfer of ownership. They are not buying products.
Like a gym membership, you get to use stuff, conditions apply.
Part of the problem is that categories like producer, merchant, store, customer and supplier that used to be quite neat have become messy and outdated in the digital age.
Using rules that were made when these categories were neater causes problems.
What do you mean? Developers are Apple customers. Users are Apple and Developer customers. Apple aren’t a customer to either developers or users.
No ****, but I didn’t apply oracle vs google as that’s a US case.
Nope the things relates to programs, and OS is a a program and have no other legal definition. And must be ether classified as goods or services
Perpetual license counts as a sale. Embedded software is provided on tangible medium is also a sale.
Goods Directive, supra note 45 at 30, which states that “[d]igital content that is incorporated in or inter-connected with a good can be any data which is produced and supplied in digital form, such as operating systems, applications and any other software”, makes us presume that ‘goods with embedded software’ and ‘goods with digital element’ are synonyms.
It doesn’t matter. Eu law supersede any apple demand.
Every store have a clause that say if you break the seal you agree to lose the right to return phones as well as software sold on disk.
Whatever the license agreement might say is irrelevant
The courts haven’t cared about what the dating apps sell as irrelevant. And as I don’t use their apps I can’t say.
But the courts said apple must allow them to use their own payment system next to apples IAP system. This apple responded with:
If you use IAP you pay 30%
If you use 3d party IAP you pay 27% and must provide data of your books every month and pay a fine and any cost associated with checking their books if it’s wrong
Apple’s customers are the people who buy their products. I buy AirPods or an iPhone or Apple Watch, I am an Apple customer. Apple caters to me first and foremost.
A developer may be an Apple customer insofar that he purchases Apple products (be it for personal use or work), but this is separate from actually releasing an app on the App Store. Apple will support a developer who uses Apple products in the form of apple care warranty, but it doesn’t grant that developer any special treatment in the App Store. These are two complete separate matters.
From Apple’s standpoint, what they offer developers is access to Apple’s user base in order to sell apps to, but as far as Apple (and I) am concerned, I remain a customer of Apple’s first and foremost, not the developer’s.
That’s how I see it, at least.
Spotify already dominates music streaming. They are the largest player in the market right now. They're just not profitable. Hence the pivot to podcasting and trying to become a platform. Music streaming isn't a profitable standalone business. It's taken years for Dropbox to finally turn a profit. I'm not sure how much Valve makes from Steam, or how long it took for that to become profitable. Apple Music was the next logical step for Apple after the iTunes Store. The only reason the iTunes Store came to be is because most digital music stores at the time were pretty awful. It's telling that artists however prefer Apple Music over Spotify because Apple provides more compensation for streaming their work.
Many of the services provided by the App Store are low margin. With low margins, the only way to be profitable is though volume. If too many developers migrate to other offerings, it doesn't make sense to continue, especially since the pricing of Apple's offerings will be under intense scrutiny. It may not be worth the cost to provide the services and deal with the headaches. There have been certain technologies or business areas that Apple has avoided in the past because they are "a big bag of hurt".
But make no mistake, competition may, but is not guaranteed to, lead to better margins for app developers. But it will likely lead to less convenience and potentially higher prices for consumers. Competition is a stage of the game, not the endgame. The goal of a competition is to win. What you are asking for are collaborative markets, where players carve out certain niches, don't encroach on each other's territory, and are content with whatever profits they receive and aren't trying to one-up each other.
I really don't think that smaller companies will be able to offer the services Apple offers developers at a greatly reduced cost. The other major players can, but they can afford to operate at a loss for years if necessary. For an example of this, see Amazon.