Ah this old lie.
User satisfaction surveys prove you wrong btw. But even if this was true, so what? Again developers don’t (and shouldn’t) have an inherent right to develop for the iPhone. It’s a choice, one that’s either worth it to them or not.
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 In-App Purchase Rules Are Anti-Competitive, Rules Dutch Antitrust Watchdog
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
User satisfaction surveys prove you wrong btw. But even if this was true, so what? Again developers don’t (and shouldn’t) have an inherent right to develop for the iPhone. It’s a choice, one that’s either worth it to them or not.
The difference being developers knew up front what the rules on IAP, third party stores and side loading were BEFORE they chose to develop on iOS. Apple didn’t spring it on them after the fact. But what countries like South Korea and the Netherlands are doing is the opposite, changing the rules of the game after the fact. So yeah, nice try but not the same, not even close.
I agree, but one of the benefits of choosing Apple, even though you're getting locked into a Walled Garden, is that I don't have to worry as much about scams when making in app purchases. Apple has refunded a lot of people their money, especially when kids were making IAP for thousands of dollars.
Yeah I agree
It’s one thing to restrict iOS to only running apps installed through the App Store, it’s their platform and everything
But asking for a 30% commission on sales of services they have no part in providing on top of essentially paying rent to stay on the App Store is borderline extortion.
Apple needs to change voluntarily or face regulation. Every WWDC they give this song and dance about how much they love developers and how grateful they are.
It’s time for their actions to reflect this.
The best part is In-App Purchases don’t even need to go away - in fact, I suspect most devs won’t even bother implementing their own system when StoreKit is so easy to use.
Apple’s IAP offering just needs to win relying on its own qualities rather than because it’s the only system you can use.
Simple as that
It’s one thing to restrict iOS to only running apps installed through the App Store, it’s their platform and everything
But asking for a 30% commission on sales of services they have no part in providing on top of essentially paying rent to stay on the App Store is borderline extortion.
Apple needs to change voluntarily or face regulation. Every WWDC they give this song and dance about how much they love developers and how grateful they are.
It’s time for their actions to reflect this.
The best part is In-App Purchases don’t even need to go away - in fact, I suspect most devs won’t even bother implementing their own system when StoreKit is so easy to use.
Apple’s IAP offering just needs to win relying on its own qualities rather than because it’s the only system you can use.
Simple as that
Only a fool doesn't realize that laws in a country may change at some point and I have no reason to believe Apple's governmental affairs team is that stupid. This is aside from the fact that as far as I'm aware, none of these rulings even involved new laws. The conclusions of the judges were all reached using existing laws already on the books.
Last edited:
You can’t have a discussion with an apple fanatic. They think you should pay apple 30% for air because Tim breaths it too
I know right use apples payment method if you want. Use 3rd party if you want. Not hard.
Good luck with that since it's pretty much like all of them, including the one you live in.
😂They best plan on going out of business. Ever major country in the world is about to play a game of smack down on this, and not just with Apple.
If that is the case then majority wins. It’s democracy.
If App Store is competitive, people will use App Store. Just like how it is on the Mac.
Maybe because people like Macs?
China.
And Uber?
Yes.
Canisters of Canadian air is sold in China for CAD$2 a pop.
The difference is that the big developers don’t want to subsidize the little ones. Just like Apple doesn’t want to subsidize the little ones in Qualcomm royalties, which is based on the final product value, not on chip price.
The antitrust guys.
That‘s naughty 😈
The who would cover the losses and failures?
Brilliant idea.
Close to 90% of that.
That’s a personal problem to me
No one said laws couldn’t change. Only a fool would put words in another persons mouth rather than addressing the point at hand.
No, it’s not a democracy, it’s Apples OS and Apples product. If they want to allow 3rd party stores, fine. If they don’t fine. You are creating a dictatorship of a vocal minority to force them to change. Don’t claim to be about user choice when you actually just want it your way.
In which case they can use a Mac and an Android. Many do. Even if Macs only worked with iPhones, you still have a choice of which products to buy. Just because it’s not the choice you want doesn’t mean someone has to give it to you.
The Dutch didn't change the law and neither did their competition watchdog.
They rather investigated and found Apple violating current competition law.
It's not uncommon at all in competition law that the "rules of the game" change only for particular companies - or only once a certain threshold (of market concentration or a company's market power) has been crossed.
We can force some to give that to me using, as the White House like to call it, everything in our toolbox.
Oh it’s the mighty antitrust mob vs. vested interests. The postmodern October Revolution is right on the horizon 😂
I did address your point. I said laws can be changed, Apple should know this. And the laws didn’t change in the first place. Is there something I missed?
Cool so you won’t mind if I force you to give me everything you own? No objections? Thanks.
And again, if you are forcing Apple to change you can’t claim you are in favor of user choice, your in favor of just getting what you want.
There’s nothing “antitrust” about it. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on smartphones.
Since the point was Apple not changing the rules after the fact, pointing out that rules can be changed after the fact is irrelevant. If I point out I was driving below the speed limit, therefore not speeding, arguing I was speeding because the speed limit could be changed is illogical. So yeah, you missed the point entirely.
You’re glossing over the second point which addresses that. The. Rules. Were. Not. Changed.
And regarding changing rules, your speeding analogy is pretty bad since Apple’s practices are ongoing and they can change them upon the occurrence of laws being changed. Your analogy is akin to the speed limit being lowered and you getting pulled over telling the cop, “yeah I know it’s 45 through here now, but I’ve always gone 55, like it used to be.”
Last edited:
No, let them run with it. Make everyone learn and use CURL to get their first browser... except you have to let them choose which terminal emulator to run, too, right? 🙄
It is their store. The same can be said about any other type of store that refuses to carry items that convey a message or support ideas that are counter to their values (or any number of reasons). They are not the government and are free to choose which speech they support and, to my point, that which they choose to not support.