It’s different from a developer choosing to do so and being forced by another company to do so against their will.
And yes the second is true as well. It’s anti competitive and apple haven’t been able to justify their requirements.
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 Would Rather Pay Up to €50 Million in Fines Than Address 'Gatekeeper' App Store Behavior, Says EU Chief
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And yes the second is true as well. It’s anti competitive and apple haven’t been able to justify their requirements.
Apple is all about playing gatekeeper and locking us in. Everyone knows it. And they're gonna get slapped for it eventually.
No, it's not. The ACM was clear as to why they are against a separate Dutch-only version. It had nothing to do with what you said.
Locking who in? Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase Apple products. There are several alternatives. If you don't like the way Apple does business, then don't do business with Apple. I deleted my FB and Insta accounts, and am disentangling myself from Google because I don't like the way they do business, and no longer want to be part of their product.
Already EU consumers are largely voting with their wallets. Apple has some sales there, but don't have near the marketshare they do in the US and elsewhere.
Already EU consumers are largely voting with their wallets. Apple has some sales there, but don't have near the marketshare they do in the US and elsewhere.
Last edited:
Any developer with more than one app is already managing multiple apps. Managing a second binary of an app for a specific geographic region is not a burden.
You are misunderstanding, I think. Developers need to submit a separate binary that includes support for the external payment methods. This -replaces- the one that they would have originally submitted to that region.
Consumers would not see two separate copies of the same app in the store. Just the new one that supports the additional payment methods. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You definitely don't understand the true costs of running the app ecosystem. Who pays for the bandwidth when a customer downloads the app from the app store? Yes, bandwidth costs money. Apple pays for that.
And the revenue from the 30% pays for the enhancements we get from Apple each year. You're proposing that Apple should not have any revenue. So how do they finance continued development?
Sounds like you'd be happier on the Android side of the fence.
For reference, this was the initial ruling: (emphasis added)
ACM seems to have changed the goal posts, because this isn't about dating apps, and this isn't about the NL.
Two things are quite apparent -- first, ACM is ruling for the Dutch App Store, not the entire EU. Second, the requirements are very straightforward: allow dutch apps to choose which IAP options are available, and provide a choice to refer to an outside payment. Apple complied with both of those requirements, for the Dutch App Store.
ACM seems to have changed the goal posts, because this isn't about dating apps, and this isn't about the NL.
Here’s some more food for thought.…This sounds like the sanctions western states are going to use to put Russia back into the stone age. That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to impose that on your own citizens.….and do you really think that the people who actually use Apple products (you know, the wealthy) in these member states will sit back and take Apple being banned from operating? Have a think how that’ll work….does Apple still have to provide support and updates to all those wealthy customers despite being “banned from operating”?
Yep, that’s not going to happen. It’s a threat with zero substance.
I was just thinking about "lock in" the other day. I realized that it would be trivial for me to leave the Apple ecosystem if I needed to. The only thing that I couldn't easily transfer to another service is a couple TV shows that I bought. Movies, music, apps, calendar, contacts, etc. Could all be moved with minimal cost and a little effort.
Let's look at it another way.
You work for a company. That company gives you a salary of $100/hour. Your cost of living is only $25/hour, so you are accumulating a lot of extra money in your bank account.
Would you go to your employer and say "hey, you're paying me too much. You can lower my wage."... or "hey, I've been paid enough. I'll work for free for a portion of my shift".
No, you wouldn't, so why do you expect Apple to work for free, or for a lower "wage"?
“I’m deliberately breaking the law”. What an idi*t, putting your “fun” before other peoples lives. As someone who knows a person who lost his life to a speeding mor*n, I find your view shocking and absolutely disgusting.
For your knowledge, you are also breaking MacRumors ToS by encouraging/inciting illigal activity. Have fun with that report.
Anyway, here’s some food for thought before you accidentally kill someone on the road:
100 years ago there was no 60mph limits. Todays limits are a little outdated with newer brakes etc, sure.. but to use an analogy which insinuates the current speed limits were made in 1920s.. is ridiculous.
Have you considered cars have also become far quicker, and are able to accelerate much faster than 100 years ago? This makes them more dangerous.
The momentum of a moving car is amplified by velocity and the mass of the vehicle.. this makes modern cars FAR more dangerous to anything it hits. Dont know of any production road cars back in 1920 which weighed nearly 2 tonnes and could go 200mph.
P=mv - for your physics reference.
TLDR; Todays cars are FAR more dangerous to other vehicles and pedestrians than they have ever been before in history.
And for the safety of others. stay off the road.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Because the big companies who rely/prey on impulse micro purchases (not subscriptions) are the loudest.
What??? What kind of logic this? Apple made a market for apps, that's it. If it takes a cut for every transaction in the app that's taking advantage of the situation. The "situation" is most consumers have only 2 choices, Apple or Android-Google. Because choice is limited it becomes a monopolistic scenario.
If your company pays $100/hr you have a good job. Extra money is good times.
A good marker as to why Apple could be pushing this so it ends up in court and having a Judge rule over everything is the recent win in Apple's favour over the tax they were told to pay the EU to the tune of $13 billion because the EU said that the tax rebate they got from the Irish government was tantamount to state sponsorship with is against EU law. Apple waited and waited until everything was settled between the Irish government and the EU all the whilst Apple was receiving immense pressure from other EU countries to pay up. Apple waited and waited for the right opportunity and then boom, they went into court with their team of lawyers, told the court they had a legitimate contract with the Irish government, regardless of how immensely favourable it was to Apple. The court said the contract is valid, case closed Apple doesn't have to pay but I believe the EU has appealed so it's not over yet.
But you can see why Apple is waiting because if they allowed the decisions of regulators to stand, even if the regulators are 100% right, Apple would be making tremendous losses in fines and tax bills but court Judges only deal with facts of law which is why Apple always want to take everything to court because they know they stand a good chance of winning based of facts of law.
But you can see why Apple is waiting because if they allowed the decisions of regulators to stand, even if the regulators are 100% right, Apple would be making tremendous losses in fines and tax bills but court Judges only deal with facts of law which is why Apple always want to take everything to court because they know they stand a good chance of winning based of facts of law.
I'd like to see the Dutch authorities celebrate Apple's non-compliance, and citing all of the different helpful ways they can spend Apple's money to help Dutch institutions in need of it
Technically, they didn't just create it and sit back to collect (which they would be entitled to in a free market, anyway) --- they also maintain it, improve it, and have to pay for costs of doing business on it.
Also, monopolistic requires exclusivity --- there are choices, therefore not monopolistic.
Which is why the method of delivery is going to be the subject of a court challenge.
They haven’t mentioned it. Multiple places are redacted in the ruling tho and could be related to EU commission broader investigation, and might be mentioned but prevented by the EU commission to not interfere in an ongoing investigation. But that’s just speculation.
Every law and regulation is translated to every members original language. Unless it’s a vague legal term( they have legal terms relevant definitions provided in the text) it would be the equivalent of needing to specify what common speech is because you can technically interpret it in absurd ways.
If you don’t legitimately understand common words and what they mean it can be explicitly described if you say so.
No, it's normal, contractual business. Malls are the obvious physical analogy.
Android isn't a single OS. Every manufacturer releases their own version.
IMO, Google is actually the one engaging in anti-competitive actions by contractually requiring its competitors to support Google Play and other Google services. Apple's not interfering with any of it's competitors.
Nope. A "monopolistic scenario" is where one company dominates a market. According to the ACM, Apple only has 30-40% of the market IIRC.
I think she’s telling Apple will pay, one way or the other…
YeahThe App Store search is as bad as Google.
By the way, after exhaustive searching and trials, I will recommend:
PCalc Lite
PCalc is the powerful choice for scientists, engineers, students, programmers, or indeed anybody looking for a feature rich calculator. It includes an optional RPN mode and multi-line display, a choice of button layouts, an extensive set of unit conversions and constants, a paper tape, multiple...
apps.apple.com
While not a solution for on-demand app needs, AGF is an overall great portal for discovering the actually free apps (and premium feature discounts).
Apps Gone Free & Daily Tips
Get high quality paid apps for FREE & personal answers to any iOS questions YOU ask! Everyday we show you the best paid apps that you can download for free AND we write in-depth answers to questions that our users submit to the app. Don’t know the best way to share a large number of photos...
apps.apple.com
It has adjusted over the years, including some promoted apps. However, one of the core inclusion requirements remains ”The free version of your app must not include ads.”
That wasn’t the ruling. The only ruling made was on the anti-steering provisions. The ruling stated that developers can “direct users to third party payment processing”. There is nothing in the ruling forcing Apple to allow 3rd party in app payments.
Likely it’s 15%, no? Ok so follow along with me here. Let’s say you are (or get to be large enough) to reach 1 million dollars in revenue per year and goes up to 30%. Still worth it?
Ok, now let’s imagine that your breakout app is for meditation. Most of your costs are in the backend. You pay to produce relaxation soundtracks/videos. You host them on servers that you rent. You pay for the bandwidth to serve your growing user base. What does Apple have to do with any of that? You offer a subscription and set pricing based on your costs, and Apple is getting 30% of your revenue so that your users can watch videos off of someone else’s servers (that you’re already paying for)? Still worth it?
Now imagine that you are Spotify with $10 billion in revenue. In Apple’s fantasy world they are entitled to $3 billion for hosting an app?
Or…
Maybe Apple could just charge developers for app distribution based on the operating costs of the App Store - just like you do with your product.
You do realize there are a whole bunch of service apps that exist currently and don't pay that 30% or even 27%.