Directly from the ACM website: "The new conditions stipulate that dating-app providers must develop a completely new app if they wish to use an alternative payment system."
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
I wouldn't call them a bit player. The ACM say Apple has 30-40% of the market IIRC. But that is awfully low to be called a dominant market power.
That's what I said. Though the ACM is either hyperbolizing or ignorant by calling it a "completely new app". It's just a separate binary with third-party payment support.
Well as the famous meme goes: o boy I’m bad at math. Considering such actions make it worse
Oh it will, and the ball already started in 2021 as EU commission launched anti competitive probe
Absolutely. Google tried that as well and holds the record for highest fine so far and have enacted changes.
Oh not at all. This is not common law where you need to interpret case laws and interpret text from long dead people. This is civil law where intent matters a lot and have been provided for easy interpretation. This is a shockingly common mistake us companies make trying to play hardball or interpret rulings in the narrowest way possible
This has nothing to do with protectionism as we have 27 nations with their own economy and industry. EU just have vastly superior and efficient legislative body and cross talk over the political lines to achieve different interests. Compared to the US designed to be slow.
I recommend you actually read the text provided by the courts in 2021. They are squarely in the same spot. Apples anti competitive actions harming the developers.
Standard practice is not a legal defense any EU court ever accepted as an excuse to break the law. Google have tried it, Microsoft have tried it etc etc. it’s always rejected as irrelevant as not a defense.
Not at all. This is about anti trust, and ruled by case by case basis
It's been pointed out a number of times - I don't know if it is actually a driver of what we're seeing here - that prostitution is legal in The Netherlands, and there is likely money from that flowing through these apps (or maybe there would be, if the Dutch dating apps could get away from Apple's commission). It would seem to provide an answer to the constant questions of, "but why dating apps?"
In the future all the European Apple users will be complaining that the best iOS features don't launch in Europe because Margarethe Vestager has banned them in the name of competition. Have fun with your 20+ choice screens.
I've seen that claim multiple times. But Apple doesn't require IAP for services offered outside the app. So I don't know why this would be an issue.
It looks a lot like Apple complied with what the commission stated, and now the commission is saying, "but you didn't do it in the way that we had in mind" - which indicates a failure on the commission's part, not on Apple's part.
Many lawmakers would make terrible software developers, because they can't write pseudocode that actually does the thing that they want. They write code that doesn't do what they want, and then complain at the world when it fails, rather than seeing the problem in themselves.
Oh they can see it, and this playbook have been tried before. It never ends well, as this is not something that will drag out in court if history is a guide for other EU cases. The act of not complying with the court ruling is another violation, and a grievous one when intentional.
Businesses don’t have the right to do business. EU have extremely strong anti competitive laws. Why do you think Microsoft was forced to supply competing browsers? Google was forced to provide their software to manufacturers without mandating their software is included or preventing them from installing competitive solutions.
Won’t happen as a judge already reaffirmed what apple must do and is available to read. They can go to a higher court, but ACM is guaranteed to bring it to The Supreme Court EUCJ
Oh absolutely. That is why in mainland EU it’s very common with income based fines.
Go and actually read the ruling. They have failed on the basic thing. Stop using anti competitive practices to harm developers.
What did apple do? Allow 3d party payment but with guidelines designed to disincentivize 3d party solutions from brushed. Also know as more anti competitive actions explicitly instructed not to do.
You said they just have to add third party payment methods, the ACM said they have to create a new, separate app. Those aren’t the same thing. What more is there to explain?
Lol, they have been found to breach anti competitive laws that comes from 2009
Monopoly isn’t illegal so completely irrelevant. Apple could have 100% of the market and they would still be judged by how they dominate the market and influence other businesses and consumers. And it will be seen if it’s anti competitive.
Apple violates Section 24 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mw) and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
Yeah, I mean, I KNOW what ACM is trying to do… what they wrote was written loosely because ACM doesn’t have the authority to define what a company should charge for their service. If they don’t like it, it’s because of the obvious loophole they left. They can try to overstep their bounds and define what Apple should charge for their service, but that likely runs against a broader EU rule that says they don’t have that power.
Again, how is that different from what I said? Apple wants developers to create a separate binary that is only available in the Netherlands.
Considering this isn’t a problem for 100% of the rest of the market and 99.9999% don’t blame the manufacturer when they act dumb. Why would we expect apple to be the exception?
Scams= already illegal
Porn= is legal, and get over it you prudes.
Apple shouldn’t be the moral arbiter.
Steam allows porn games and nobody lost their minds.
Steam allows VERY SPECIFICALLY defined porn games, don’t present it like it’s some free for all.
They may be more permissive, but they are in no way open to any and all porn games. They have the authority to draw the line where they see fit, and they do. If THEY have the authority to draw their line where they see fit, then any other company is just as free to do so.
1:You obviously haven’t read the ruling.
2: this is standard procedure in EU. Regulators aren’t your mom who does the job for you. They provide with the criteria and the rules you need to fulfill with the solution you come up with.
If I tell you to build a colorful treehouse with hand tools.
But you end up building a big grey storage box on the ground above a tree sapling and friends using electric tools for you. You still failed to comply, you just tried to be clever.
Clearly different words being used, but the issue seems to be that the ACM is either deliberately being obtuse, or is simply incapable of understanding what a new, separate app actually entails.
Re-compiling an existing app into a new binary is not difficult, and it would in fact be a new, separate app from the previous one if there were changes to the code base. The suggestions that developers could include a flag to include separate IAP options and maintain a single app, compiled with and without the flag set, would suffice to create a new, separate app.
But if I did in fact build a colorful treehouse with hand tools, but what you really wanted was for me to build a colorful treehouse with a specific brand of hand tools, then you should have said that.
Effectively anything legal is allowed if what I can find is used as a measuring stick. But that’s besides the point.Steam allows VERY SPECIFICALLY defined porn games, don’t present it like it’s some free for all.
Their reputation is still smooth and near perfect as always unaffected by porn.
Perhaps Margrethe Vestager has not heard of the gigantic ongoing cyber scams centered on data apps? But sure, put in those alternate payment scams oops I mean schemes??