That’s fair enough. Although I have a hard time believing they haven’t
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's Fines in Dutch Antitrust Case Hit 50 Million Euros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, they can charge for their development SDK or membership.
We‘ll see about that. With new legislation, if needed.
My electricity company sure doesn’t get a cut for facilitating my cable internet/TV subscription. And my internet subscription doesn’t receive commission from Amazon for the Amazon purchases they’re facilitating.
Time to stomp out that spreading cancer before every gatekeeping „facilitator“ feels entitled to charge a share of the pie. Let’s return to paying for actual products and services rendered!
When I‘m subscribing to Netflix, Spotify or valuable dating service, does Apple provide that service themselves - or a 30% or 15% share in added value that’ll justify such commission rate? They don’t. Their argument for charging such commission can mainly be reduced to „you‘re doing it on our turf, kinda“. Pretty similar to how the Mob and the Mafia are doing it. Or the government).
When 90% or more of all smartphone apps are sold and downloaded through only two US-based trillion dollar companies (you know who), the more I‘m reading of their „being entitled to charge what they want“, the more I‘ll be convinced and applaud EU lawmakers to do something about it and impose restrictions on them.
Well isn’t that good? And can you tell me where in this bill it caps a business earnings? Because I’m 99.99% sure no such point existThen, my mistake. They've done a bang up job here.
Any government body that wishes to cap how much a business can make should also anonce they are no longer capitalist. And as Kevin O'Leary would say, "It's un-American".
Think of it this way. If it all goes ahead you will have your chance to sit safe in your bubble while laughing at people who use their freedom to take advantage of the other methods.
Well duh, if I am going to trust the Facebook App in the first place, then obviously I am going to trust it downloaded from Facebook. Your question is actually nonsensical, and preloaded with emotional judgement of facebook.
Let me rephrase your question to put it into context:
"Serious Question. Would you trust a DaVinci Resolve App downloaded from Blackmagic Design?"
"Serious Question. Would you trust a Lightroom App downloaded from Adobe?"
"Serious Question. Would you trust an IntellijIDEA App downloaded from Jetbrains?"
"Serious Question. Would you trust a banking App downloaded from your bank?"
"Serious Question. Would you trust a macOS update downloaded from Apple?"
A agree on the exit. I believe I stated that as well.
Since Apple is NOT doing that it’s still a legal waste of funds. Taking a stand continuously loosing and being fined due to inaction is still an action.
Products at supermarkets pay slotting fees for being on the shelves. Do you think supermarkets sell shelf space and products for free?
If you don't like some tech, use something else.
And rightly so.
I use the messenger App currently as its been neutered by the vetting process. If the vetting process did not exist, you can bet your life that they, and many other "Free" applications are going to mine the living crap out of your life, and do so with no oversight.
Even if you are How about the next "big social app", are you going to blindly trust them too?
How about a single store, the store mgmt decides what's "good" for consumers or not, a single payment system without competition and arrogant loyal customers who tell visitors to "just go somewhere else" if they ask why they can't have a choice.
Ecosystem, what is that, the new code word for monopoly? Your jedi mind tricks don't work hereWow, I see what you did there with the "Muricans" thing... so witty.
Explain for us all please why the free market cannot contain two distinctly different examples of app markets? One where everything is contained in a "one stop shop" and one where you have all the freedom you want? Why should governments get involved in this and regulate one ecosystem out of existence? Why not let the free market decide which it likes better? If one ecosystem loses too many users because of their practices they will either adapt or fail. Or perhaps, just perhaps, both can exist, then users have real choice.
Yes, "muricans". Because as ironic as it is the actual judicial move to de-monopolize that fruit company comes from Europe and not USA. Very surprising, since USA touts itself as some mythical beacon of freedom (financial, political etc).
In reality of course free competition does apply for Joe the carpenter but not for one of the biggest tech companies.
And yes, as far as if and how govt should get involved: they should most definitely involve themselves if a gigantic company has set up an anti-competitive monopoly designed to funnel profits and keep a tight grip on everything and everyone. That is actually THE textbook example when govt should act.
Market concentration and market entry barriers for supermarkets aren‘t nearly the same as for mobile application stores.
If you don’t like their data mining, just don’t use the app.
Also, if you are really concerned about privacy rights and data mining, we should not leave such oversight up to U.S.-American for-profit companies (Apple, Google, Amazon). Effective consumer and privacy protection won‘t result from big business regulating itself. And even less so, when they‘re from a country that doesn‘t have proper federal data protection laws (the U.S.), but is notorious for harbouring companies and agencies that are among world‘s biggest and worst offenders in surveillance and online user tracking.
The fact that Apple in particular has decided - for now - to monetise privacy as kind of a paid („paas“) service that they‘re advertising with huge campaigns doesn‘t change that.
If anything, it‘s a good argument for more regulation and government oversight.
Last edited:
I think you are missing his point. Yes, that is ANY store you go into. But in your scenario, there is only ONE store. I'll try this example. I use a cleaner called Method. It is not sold at Walmart. I don't need to argue why Walmart doesn't carry it. I can get it at Target's, Lowes, etc. If I want an app for Iphone, I have ONE choice of store. I believe that is the point he is making.
It should be. But dont worry the EU will be back to using flip phones after a while. No big tech is going to want to deploy any tech to the EU.
I can use the app currently without the mining, your suggestion is to stop using the app - ok, makes perfect sense to punish customers and not the App maker in this case
One of these companies, one does not have a vested interest in mining my data. It's also the one currently providing the oversight for Apps on my device.
And I'd agree, there should be oversight. However I do not believe there is any government currently with the budget or manpower capable of providing such a service. And of course it would need to be the government in every country that has an App Store.
Knowing the way governments operate they would probably:
- Charge App Developers $500 as a vetting fee for all new Apps on the market.
- Outsource the vetting of Apps to Apple / Google anyhow and pay them for doing what they are already doing for free, and of course pocket the rest.
And if the reason that cleaner is not carried in Walmart is that they carried out a study showing exposure causes cancer?
Lowes and Target doesn't carry out such tests but accept the manufacturers word that it's safe, so they stock it anyhow.
What's the difference? Charge higher rates for the SDK or member ship vs charging 15-30% on the download?
Yes they do, maybe not the electric company you use. As your Cable/TV provider maybe located in another providers area. However, that company needs electricity. Which costs the cable provider along with all the costs of the content they resell to you. All of that is factored into your bill. Plus profit of course, and taxes etc.
Again, not directly. However, Amazon has to pay for large data pipes into there data centers. Those costs, again are passed on to the purchase prices of everything you may buy from them. fractions of a cent here and there, but you do pay for it. For there to be some "cut" on top of that of which you or Amazon would pay makes no sense. You're both paying already. But, no different than say Ebay or Amazon, you sell a product on their site. Either company takes cut of the sale. They host the site and facilitate said process. Otherwise your free to go on the street and sell your stuff directly if your country/city/state/county/Essex/town/village/borough allows you to do so.
Most apps are free on the Appstore. They are subsidized by the apps that get charged the commission. So in many respects you are getting many services for free.
They are reselling it, then yes. You go to a store and pick something up off the shelf. It has a price on it. That price includes what the store paid for it, and the markup. Plus (maybe) any tax (state/fed/VAT), transportation costs to get it to the store, marketing costs, costs to cover the cost of the building it's in, staff/employees/etc. Plus of course any profit the store need to make.
Whatever the market will bare is generally what the end costs will be for the product. You sell the product for as much as you can, this isn't a charity. You don't low ball it and then raise prices. You set the price based on many factors, then adjust if need be to meet the market.
Yeah ok. Their argument is what the market will bare. What's the price people are willing to pay before they say "no thanks". Are you selling enough to meet demand? Are you over charging and not selling enough of your supply? Are you selling too much and can't keep up with demand? The price was always 30%, no one seemed to care much then. It's been lowered in many ways to 15%, and again FREE for the masses. Still not enough? What's the right number? Who/m gets to decide what that number is? Is it worth it at that number? An opinion that it's too much is ridiculous, you need facts and full understanding of what's going on before even making a guess.
Come up with an alternative then! Don't cry me a river about how it's not fair only 2 companies have such control over the market. They took the risk! They could have easily failed and none of us would have what we have today. Apple was a Mom & Pop outfit when it stared in the 70's. 2 people in a garage. Is it not fair they get to enjoy the success from taking the risks they did? They broke no rules in doing so, why must we then punish? So smaller companies can have a chance? They have a chance the same as anyone else.
Instead we have governments making prix fix menus for the world.
Doesn't cap the earnings. It states that after a certain amount, your getting regulated by these rules. I believe 75 billion euro's was the number. You get classified differently. So at that point everything you did gets thrown out the window and you have to do it this way now. If your Apple in this instance. That iOS you wrote, re-write it so it works the way we (EU) want. You made too much, you're too big, so how you did it before no longer applies.
And no, it's not good. It's only good if you never intend and can prevent your business from making that much. Which is basically capping that business. As they would not want to cross that number hence having to then change their business because of how much they made.
If I'm Apple, an easy way round this is to cap how much I make in the EU. So I stay under it. I limit my services and how many/much I sell my devices for. I don't want to be a gatekeeper. I want to be just good enough to not be on this new list. I could raise prices so less people buy my stuff, but I still make good money. And I don't have to change a thing. Because being less popular in the EU is now a benefit. I slow roll any new products in the EU. That iPhone 14, yeah your going to get that in April of the following year. And there will only be X number sold. No matter the demand for it. I'll make up for it in other nations that don't have these ridiculous laws or artificial caps on earnings. I'll sell them a cheaper phone and flood the market. The SE will not be available in the EU for example, I'll sell it in South America or Africa.
Your point is well taken if that was the case. Method is an all natural cleaner. No chemicals. Who knows why it's not carried by Walmart. Maybe they couldn't agree on price, shelf space, competition with other brands they have deals with. Who knows. But, I have a choice of where to buy it.
The problem with these kinds of comparisons is that they are not equal situations. I remember on this site, the multiple complaints about cable TV bundling and high cost. Just give me the show I want and I'll pay for it. Now, many complain about how many streaming services there are and that they nickle and dime you. There is not always a perfect answer. We'll see how this plays out. Although some people seam highly agitated by all of this, I personally don't care one way or the other.
The problem with these kinds of comparisons is that they are not equal situations. I remember on this site, the multiple complaints about cable TV bundling and high cost. Just give me the show I want and I'll pay for it. Now, many complain about how many streaming services there are and that they nickle and dime you. There is not always a perfect answer. We'll see how this plays out. Although some people seam highly agitated by all of this, I personally don't care one way or the other.
Apple still has to follow the laws of the land they operate in. I own a bar. Doesn't mean I can do whatever I want
Right but sometimes it takes a court case to determine the “law”.
Truth! Also if your partner in your relationship isn't behaving exactly as you want. Get a divorce. Find someone else. Jeez
I guess you don’t like paying taxes… move to Dubai or some other low tax area then?