An Xbox is a physical good, software doesn't have the same constraints. There's no need to force these to be separate apps.
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
If you get enough of those, you end up losing your license.
There is no need, just criminally charge Apple’s executives for contempt of court.
I dunno what they will do next, but reaching $50 mil is not the end of the story, the law permits to continue fining, probably higher.
Last edited:
Above what law? A law that was changed specifically to target them? That isn’t law in the classic sense, one based on morality or the idea of right and wrong. That is law based on “they are popular, get them!”
Apple is not a monopoly. Not by any stretch. If everyone tomorrow decided never to buy another iPhone again, it would have NO impact on worldwide or country specific access to the internet, phone system or any other aspect of smart phone technology.
It's the opposite: there's no need to force a single SKU. Tinder's lawsuit had nothing to do with SKUs. It had to do with allowing 3rd party payment processing.
This is actually a tough one..
The Authority has reasonable grounds on which to request those changes and Apple is being a little sook about it, maybe because of the precedent it would set in other countries.
On the other hand, it’s Apples App Store. If it wasnt for Apple themselves, the App store wouldnt even exist and instead of those dating apps making an income (70%).. they would have been making 100%.. of zero.
Overall I say all power to Apple.
Heck, I’d ban dating apps in that country all together if they want to complain about Apples app store.. ain't noone holding them there.
Good riddance
The Authority has reasonable grounds on which to request those changes and Apple is being a little sook about it, maybe because of the precedent it would set in other countries.
On the other hand, it’s Apples App Store. If it wasnt for Apple themselves, the App store wouldnt even exist and instead of those dating apps making an income (70%).. they would have been making 100%.. of zero.
Overall I say all power to Apple.
Heck, I’d ban dating apps in that country all together if they want to complain about Apples app store.. ain't noone holding them there.
Good riddance
Last edited:
LOL.
But I still don't get this fuss about Apple. There is an alternative. Nobody is forced to use their products.
I am using iPhone since 4, and I have had some Android/WP phones, but Apple managed to get my attention and their product/service line is right for me.
But once again, the EU solves problems that don't even exist/don't need solving. ?
When he was CEO, Steve Jobs instilled deep in Apple's executive culture that the iPhone was Apple's gift to developers and therefore those developers owed Apple for it and therefore Apple would collect from every App Store sale.
30% was set as the original fee because at the time, the credit card companies collected 30 cents on a $1 transaction (that percentage dropped as the transaction amount increased) and very quickly Apple was seeing that 99 cents was going to be the default price for most apps (who would then use IAP to generate more revenue).
So it became ingrained into Apple's Executive team that every developer was going to pay a fee to Apple for the privilege of being allowed in the App Store. When Steve passed on, that culture remained and now Cook "carries the flag" on that. I will note that Phil Shiller apparently felt at one time that Apple could reduce that fee as the App Store revenues rose, and perhaps he is the one who led the change to drop fees for under $1 million to 15% as well as the 15% per year for continuing subscriptions (after the first year).
This is why Apple is continuing to go to the wall on every attempt to regulate the App Store. It is not as simple as "Tim Cook is a greedy c**k". It is a core part of Apple's culture. And it likely will take significant government regulation in major markets (US, EU, China) before that culture fundamentally changes on this issue.
Multi-national corporations have been "above" governments for some time because they have the money and the power to directly influence them.
I find that having alternative stores is a catch-22: if you don't allow them, then Apple may ban many legitimate apps (educational apps, service apps, etc.). If Apple allowed other stores, then there could be a lot of illegitimate apps (scams, illegal porn apps, etc.). To add insult to injury, I wouldn't be surprised if some dumbass person would download one of these illegitimate apps, and blame Apple for making them available.
I mean, it's obviously just being done to make it a more burdensome process for the developers, which seem like a pretty good reason to me for at least enforcing having the option to keep it all in one app. Not to mention that it would make for a better user experience (the thing Apple loves to pretend they prioritise).
This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for.
The stories come out every week and there’s a chorus of “this is pocket change for Apple, lolol” but more powerful people are taking note and planning accordingly.
The stories come out every week and there’s a chorus of “this is pocket change for Apple, lolol” but more powerful people are taking note and planning accordingly.
To be fair, there are tens of thousands of successful app developers but only two successful smartphone operating system developers. The phone/OS part is a vastly more difficult problem to solve commercially.
Yeah, that is what I wonder about in a case like this. I am not a lawyer and certainly not a Dutch one, but I know in several European countries you can lose the driving license even over parking fines that you paid on time - because if you do this on a regular basis, that means you willfully flout the law, and that means you do not have the proper mindset/character to be allowed to drive. I hope something similar applies in this case with Apple.
Not quite.
Most people will speed if they deem it's safe to do so and they don't see a cop that's going to pull them over.
What Apple is doing is more like speeding, seeing the cop, and deciding to accelerate. Then when the cop turns on their light and comes to pull Apple over, Apple decides to just keep speeding.
Next up in this analogy is when the cop decides to call ahead and have a spike trap laid out. When they're caught, they'll be facing jail time, not just a fine.
There's no calculated risk here. Apple thinks the laws don't apply to them. I think the regulators should do the same thing here. Apple behaves like the Mafia and should be treated as such. They think of paying these fees as like paying a bribe, and they should be handled accordingly. Bribing (or attempting to bribe) an official lands executives in jail - people from Apple should be facing jail time now.
Actually sending people to jail kind of sucks. The regulators should signal that's the direction they're thinking about moving in and hopefully people at Apple realize how much danger they're in and promptly correct course.
So... you're openly admitting to potentially endangering people's lives by speeding "just for fun", thus increasing the chance of causing an accident? Why are you so proud of that?
Where's the burden? You submit the exact same app with different payment processing. Like I've been saying, multiple SKUs are not unusual in the software industry at all. Why does the ACM want to make this about SKUs? That isn't what Tinder or Epic or Spotify or anyone else has complained about.
The App Store isn't going anywhere. You'll still be able to do everything as you did before even if alternative methods are allowed. And it's been proven multiple times that Apple's "safety" and "curation" argument is nonsense, considering how many copycat and scam apps get past App Review using decades old tricks every day.
Wow, this is a truly horrific take, parroted a lot. Since when are corporations above the rule of law? Spoiler: They aren't. Corporations aren't our friends. Regardless if it's 'dating apps' or something silly one isn't personally invested in. Just because you like Apple doesn't excuse the behavior. If X company impacted your life by poisoning you but just paid the fine because it wasn't worth dealing with, you might have a different opinion. Both are equally troubling.
You also might want to look a what the definition of corporate and state unified power is actually called...
Yep. Because for last 100 years, cars have become better, tires, driving aids, roads, everything basically (death rates also) and we still have ****** limits.
And yes I'm deliberately breaking the law because fines are reasonable and I have a bit more money.
And as long as I can pay for it, I will do it.
Not to pit pick, but it depends on what language you are using. ?
Where's the burden in doing things twice that could be done once? Is that seriously what you're asking?
Here's the correct analogy: Tinder complained to the ACM that Apple was speeding. ACM pulled Apple over and said they needed to adhere to the speed limit and gave them a ticket. Apple discontinued speeding and paid the ticket. ACM pulled Apple over again and told them that although they weren't speeding anymore, they were driving more than one car and that driving more than one car was now a problem too.