Indeed. But ACM haven’t mentioned the commission. Could be related to a separate investigation
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
How is this any different to how other apps do things? Eg my UK bus ticketing app can use Apple Pay or I can put my credit card/s in and use them instead. I am not aware this is an IAP because the traditional pop-up asking to use the card I have attached to iTunes doesn't appear. The same applies for Uber rides or takeaways.
How do those companies not pay Apple 30% on those sales?
How do those companies not pay Apple 30% on those sales?
Arbitrary decision by apple because such services would probably never use it otherwise.
I undersand that but it still leaves the question open: why build something new when multipayment design already exists and is in use?
What is wrong with Apple’s revised conditions?
In its revised conditions, Apple imposes a considerable number of conditions on dating-app providers that wish to use an alternative method of payment. For example, dating-app providers must develop a new app, and submit that new app to the Apple App Store. ACM is of the opinion that this condition hurts dating-app providers. Dating-app providers that opt for an alternative payment system are thus forced to incur additional costs. And consumers that currently use the app have to switch to the new app before they are able to use the alternative method of payment. It will cost app providers a lot of time and effort to inform consumers properly about such a change.So?
Never said that it was.
Of course it is. You can't dominate the phone market if you only sell one single unit.
Have you ever heard of settlements?
What is this "deserve"? It's a contract. You deserve what you signed up for. Spotify offers IAP. They obviously find that worth the cost or they wouldn't offer it.
And how does one obtain a dominant position without significant market share or size? I’m not saying you need to be a literal monopoly, but I don’t see how a firm can dominate a market without- y’know- being a significant player in that market. Which implies sone level of significant market share.
Literally doing what ACM said they should stop doing. Using anti competitive practices to disincentivize developers from using alternative solutions. Read their ruling from 2021
That means Samsung or HTC are still in the sample market of android software to developers there is iOS and android. To consumers there is android and iOS. To manufactures there is apple, Samsung, google,htc etc etc
Then why mention it
You can sell 100% of phones and still break no law. The legal definition don’t take in to consideration market share. As I have provided. USA and EU have completely polar opposite definitions.
You can’t do settlements after the investigation started. This is EU legal practice. That is why pre trial exist in EU as part of the lawsuitHave you ever heard of settlements?
Contracts are regulated to contain fair clauses
So, you were wrong. Instead of admitting that, you're changing the topic.
Your perception doesn't change the reality that each manufacturer ships their own version of android.
Because I replied to someone who said Apple and Google dominating the market was a monopoly scenario. It's not.
You're wrong. Again, you can't dominate the phone market if you only sell one single phone no matter what your policies are.
You're just making stuff up.
eu settles antitrust at DuckDuckGo
Butterflies aren't made of butter.
I agree 200% that government should protect the consumer. Govt should make sure The water is safe, the food is safe, utilities aren’t ripping off consumers.
But when it comes to app stores if people and government want iOS to turn into android, then just buy an android phone and leave the iOS App Store to those who want to use it.
Let the EU do what they feel they must. Apple doesn't have to be there. Is it a financial hit? Sure.
Maybe, Apple makes an EU version of their iOS/iPad OS devices. And makes developers re-write all their apps over again anyway to support it. One that complies with whatever BS laws they come up with. Charges more for the device, and more for the software to develop "IN" the EU. It totally removes all Apple "PAY" features, and collects 27.5% (Cause why not!) for commissions. ALL transactions are not handled by Apple. So the Dev either provides theirs and or they can use existing CC/Banks that sign up to be usable in the AppStore. But, all transactions are monitored by those CC/Banks/3rd-Party services. And Apple gets those paid transactions, and takes their commission of the sale after reconciling them each month. They remove the 15% cut from the under $1 million in sales companies and just bumps everyone back up to the 27.5% All devs pay a yearly fee to Apple to have their Apps hosted on the store "RENT". Even if it's not purchased or if it is FREE/Ad Supported.
Looking forward to MR posters reactions when things don’t go as they think they will go.
The ACM seems to be making stuff up on the fly and see what will stick.
Last edited:
What will happen is that Apple will need to leave out features from iOS in the name of "competition". Then the European iPhone users can complain on this forum, why are the best new features from WWDC not launching in Europe?
What exactly did they specify not to do that Apple specifically failed to do?
I'm not sure what your point is here. They currently offer IAP in the Spotify app according to their App Store listing.
Spotify: Music and Podcasts
With the Spotify app, you can explore an extensive library of music and podcasts for free. Curate the best playlists and stream millions of free songs, albums, and original podcasts on your phone or tablet. Subscribe to Spotify Premium to download and listen offline wherever you are, and unlock...
apps.apple.com
It seemed pretty clear from the article. In-app purchases are no longer offered in the current app. It only has legacy support for recurring payments for those that subscribed when it was offered. A minuscule amount of research shows that they removed new IAP back in August of 2018. And here is the current app:
No I didn’t, this is the exact same ruling. ACM haven’t changed their requirements since December 2021. They must stop anti competitive practices and allow developers to use competitive payment systems.
Apple can’t provide 3d party payment systems without stopping anti competitive actions as well, as dictated in the ruling.
And it doesn’t change that developers still developers for ONlY android or iOS. Manufacturers aren’t relevant
Sure, it’s still not relevant. Having 1% market share or 100% market share isn’t relevant. Read the definitions EU uses for dominating markets
That’s all done in pre trial( pre trial doesn’t exist in USA) after a lawsuit is launched.You're just making stuff up.
eu settles antitrust at DuckDuckGo
duckduckgo.com
And writing things doesn’t make it binding
Hmm, I can see this going either way. O1H, Apple is giga rich. OTOH, any corporation doesn't like paying money when they don't need to
I'm pretty sure that's just because Apple keeps the prices of all IAPs on App Store listings, regardless of whether they're actually available any more or not. There is definitely no IAP in the Spotify app.I'm not sure what your point is here. They currently offer IAP in the Spotify app according to their App Store listing.
Spotify: Music and Podcasts
With the Spotify app, you can explore an extensive library of music and podcasts for free. Curate the best playlists and stream millions of free songs, albums, and original podcasts on your phone or tablet. Subscribe to Spotify Premium to download and listen offline wherever you are, and unlock...
Thanks for the info. But the question still stands. What's your point in posting it?
You're not following our conversation again. You claimed that the ACM was requiring Apple to use one app because of EU law making it a single market and because there was no technical reason not to. That's not true. I posted the quote from the ACM with their actual reasons.
Which has nothing to do with the conversation that I was having.
Sign. It's like the word "dominant" is meaningless to you. They don't throw that word in for fun. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of antitrust/competition law.
And your last post claimed it was done pre-investigation. At least you're getting closer.
“Almost” is the longest word in English with all the letters in alphabetical order.
Last edited:
They know exactly what they want. They do not want to say exactly what it is in black and white as it may supply ammo if this goes to a higher court.
It's not an IAP. They supply a physical product/service. Not just more swipes left or fancy costumes in a game.
If they know exactly what they want, and they don’t communicate this to Apple, how are they supposed to provide a solution? How is it fair to them if they don’t know what is being sought?