Yes poor bullied little Apple. And I will certainly respond to someone who quotes me out of the blue with nonsense.
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 Tweaks New EU App Store Business Terms After Developer Feedback
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And you would obviously just pay it without question if Apple told you too?
Why are people suing Google/Android for monopoly ?
i don't understand, and Google lost.
Finally. Someone who actually understands. The more Apple fights something, the more likely it’s a big revenue source. Almost every time
Just open up app installs like desktop operating systems and stop playing these games to protect your revenue, Apple.
They could even just copy how they already do it on their OWN desktop OS (macOS)
We'll know shortly who needs to be careful, right? Once Apple is swamped with fines, I think they will suddenly grow a conscience.
They told hardware developers when lighting came out that they would not change the charging port again for about a decade.
Duh! It’s easier to castigate, but question is, would you have done any differently if you were in Apple’s position?
i would personally but that’s why businesses prefer sociopaths to make the tough decisions to cause harm for shareholder benefit
it takes a certain kind
Well if you distribute your app for free, no reason to have to pay the CTF, just stay in the existing developer terms and only pay Apple your $99 developer account fee. If you are making money from your app, then $.50 per device per year is nothing in the scheme of things, and certainly less money than having to pay Apple 15/30% commission. They have given developers alternatives. No one said that had to give away their IP for free, including the DMA.
If developers are giving their app away for free then no reason to have to pay the CTF, just stay on the existing terms and continue to pay Apple nothing except the $99 developer account fee each year.
For all these people complaining about Apple's new fee structure in the EU, are you even a developer? I am not based in the EU and do not sell many apps in the EU, so the new terms don't really apply to me, but I calculated that I would be paying Apple $400 per month LESS than I do now if I was based in the EU selling to mostly EU customers. And that is with staying with Apple for in app sales/in app purchase. If I was to go to alternative App store and alternative payment processor, I would be paying Apple around $800 less per month. I really have not seen any small to medium developers complaining to be honest, only trolls and massive companies that would complain if they had to pay Apple $1 per year in total.
I wonder if those defending Apple were defending them when they were fined for throttling iPhones behind our backs to force people to buy new iPhones or batteries.
Short memory on a few members here right?
Apple is not the angel their marketing pretends to be.
This is another scum move by Tim’s Apple.
Short memory on a few members here right?
Apple is not the angel their marketing pretends to be.
This is another scum move by Tim’s Apple.
Here's an interview with Vestager who leads all the anti-apple stuff from the EU. It's not obvious to me that she has a good grasp of her subject! (The video is not paywalled - click on it.) Historically the courts have tended to agree and her fines are cancelled.
www.bloomberg.com
Big Tech App Stores Focus of EU Digital Crackdown, Vestager Says
The European Union’s sweeping new law to rein in potential market abuse from the world’s biggest tech firms will first focus on sorting out app stores, the bloc’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager said.
www.bloomberg.com
That doesn’t mean they were going to a standard connector after a decade. Lightening was proprietary and the dock connector before was proprietary. Also the cane connector between Vision Pro and its battery is proprietary as is the Apple Watch connector. Apple uses proprietary connectors every time it can, and everything indicates it would have done the same if allowed, so if the eu didn’t force it otherwise probably lightening would have been replaced with some other non standard thing.
The DMA seeks to give EU businesses a leg up and whingers like Epic Games. This is the EU doing exactly what it is accusing Apple and other US companies of doing. Protecting their interests and trying to make money off it in return through dodgy fines.
Apple is not the bad actor. Spotify is and so is Epic Games. They had to lay off people due to legal fees. Not to mention companies like Epic Games nickel and diming children.
Apple is not a charity. They are a public traded company. And the changes that the EU is meddling with can cause loss of profit to the company and shareholders alike. Would love the shareholders to start a class action against the EU and Spotify.
Yes but could also be looked at as the EU money grabbing due to global economic downturn. Plus the verging war in Europe.
Watch the interview with Vestager I posted above. Even those that believe Technocracy is a good thing, that it could work, do so on the premise that the Technocrats are highly competent, that they have a degree of mastery of their subject. In addition there is the tacit and positivist presumption that the "subject" is knowable to a human mind.
The actual point of the EU is to do exactly that: protect the free market within. I’m not sure why you’re using it as a gotcha, and I’m not sure why you think no other country or bloc protects their own interests.
As far as I know the EU have not yet formally responded to Apple's plans, so we don't actually know whether Apple's new terms will survive contact with the enemy.
I'm not an EU lawyer, or a competition lawyer for that matter, but the core technology fee at least seems like a clear anti-competitive measure to me and I find it difficult to believe that it would be compliant with either the DMA or other competition legislation.
It's a fee that's only levied on apps using competitors' stores or payment services, but not its own offerings. The EU will likely argue that if Apple thought app developers should pay for using their core technology, they should do so consistently. Why should a free app, and some very large ones at that like Amazon that clearly drive traffic to a store, be completely free to distribute on the App Store but be 'taxed' by Apple elsewhere. It's clearly a deterrent for competition and an attempt to benefit its own store.
I'm not an EU lawyer, or a competition lawyer for that matter, but the core technology fee at least seems like a clear anti-competitive measure to me and I find it difficult to believe that it would be compliant with either the DMA or other competition legislation.
It's a fee that's only levied on apps using competitors' stores or payment services, but not its own offerings. The EU will likely argue that if Apple thought app developers should pay for using their core technology, they should do so consistently. Why should a free app, and some very large ones at that like Amazon that clearly drive traffic to a store, be completely free to distribute on the App Store but be 'taxed' by Apple elsewhere. It's clearly a deterrent for competition and an attempt to benefit its own store.
On what grounds? There is no entitlement to profit. Complying with the law is just the cost of doing business.