What’s the point in Appealing it’s only going to delay the inevitable
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Upholds Regulator's Case Against Apple Over App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s such a shame that all these governments are suddenly regulating apple’s app store
They all can’t be wrong?
They are all wrong.
Apple is god.
Business interests are more important than any other concerns.
If they are restrained in any way, innovation will grind to a halt and we may as well go back to the dark ages.
All of this is even in the Bible I'm pretty sure.
/s
Do these Courts not understand that Apple is above the law?
Do they not know who Apple is?
Apple should just buy the Netherlands! 😡
The statement by Apple is weird, the ruling does not forbid Apple from offering a payment system, it just says, Apple can't force developer to use only their payment system. All Apple has to do, is offering the best and most convient payment system and everyone is happy.
No, it does not. Just stop the gaslighting and bullshi||ing, Apple!
👉 How does being forced to “tell” my smartphone and/or operating system vendor which dating app service I’m using protect my privacy?
When I want to get to know date Dutch people through a dating app, that’s between me, the other Dutch person and the dating app.
Being forced to use a third-party payment processor that is able to aggregate huge amounts of data on me from other services they provide (e.g. name, email, my browsing habits, device purchases, geolocation, musical taste, contacts and calendar etc.) to pay for that “dating service” does not protect my privacy.
Quite the contrary: huge potential data aggregators like Apple should be the last to know about my transactions for dating services, if I want to protect my privacy.
Last edited:
At this point, if this is going to continue like that, Apple will have to make AppStore sorts of a premium club - increase developer license cost to 500$/year for all commercial/subscription apps, and special developer license that allows to post any links for out of AppStore – 2000$/year.
Alternatively, they can purge these “dating apps” away from the store. Anyway most of them are scam.
I don’t think ending AppStore and apps is a wise choice, but maybe we have finally reached that point because Safari has never been that powerful as it is now, as well as web apps would be a new frontier
No, they don’t “have to”.
They’re raking in profits in the billions from that business already - and already enjoy a competitive advantage with their store and in-app billing method being “bundled” / tied to the operating system.
Why would they?
There are enough “scammy” apps of all types on their store.
Including pay-to-win games targeting children.
Apple doesn’t have a problem with them, as long as it serves their bottom line.
Yes, which is why I said there is room for change.
But you also have to remember, 20+ years ago you didn’t have all these subscriptions taking all your hard (subjective) earned cash.
Okay. A little more time to come back to this:
Ever buy a gift card or subscription card from a Brick and Mortar store? Guess what they take a cut from sells generated in store.
Guess what came before the App Store, the web browser, and it worked just fine and still does for millions of business and people every day. Apple did NOT force anyone to join the App Store, they did not hold a gun or a knife, they didn’t threaten developer accounts. Every App on the App Store is because a developer 100% choose to be in the App Store.
I swear it makes me wonder how many people here have ever worked a day or more of their life in retail and truly understand the different retail models. Just for your info, the App Store is a consignment. The developer fee is nothing but a yearly security deposit saying you want access to Apple’s ecosystem (cause you can get a free account and access to the tools you just can’t publish to the store or get help).
Yes, there needs to be change, but all these cry babies have other alternatives (a web browser) to by pass any money, besides the yearly fee going to Apple. Netflix, Spotify etc have done just that for like a decade now and I don’t think not offering an in-app purchase option (until the recent changes) has hurt their bottom line.
The equivalent in App Store for your scenario is for apps that has a number on the buy button instead of "Get" (a.k.a. apps that costs money before being able to download). No one is contesting that because it's fine.
The part being contested are in-app purchases and that's more of after-sales charges. It's odd if a brick and mortar store can take a cut of after-sales charges because it was purchased in a particular store AND they can't put something in the software/manual saying there's an alternative place to buy the same after-sales component.
Services revenue is a really important part of Apple's business at this point. They have to fight government overreach in order to fulfil their fiduciary duty to investors.
Not all heroes wear capes, but this one does.
SUPER TIM is here!
Steal patented ideas .. ignore laws and court orders ... have your VP lie under oath..
Just please "fulfill your fiduciary duty to investors!?"
Not all heroes wear capes, but this one does.
SUPER TIM is here!
Steal patented ideas .. ignore laws and court orders ... have your VP lie under oath..
Just please "fulfill your fiduciary duty to investors!?"
I like it. SUPER TIM is a fair description. The value he's delivered to investors has gone beyond all my wildest expectations since we lost our visionary and founder.
Quite easily, it has to violate existing, higher laws. The UK had a great example of this with its RIPA (Regulatory Powers Act), which allowed "illegal" surveillance and monitoring of British citizens. The law was deemed illegal 3 times, whilst the UK was a member of the EU, by the European Court for Human Justice, because it violated the constitutional rights to privacy.
Not accurate: even if you compile apps yourself they’re limited to a few days per install, and the APIs they can call (even ones that don’t need to use Apple’s servers) are restricted.
Oh, I have! More than just a day.
I sold iTunes gift cards in a brick and mortar store, and we made a low single-digit percentage from such sales.
…and Microsoft has never forced anyone at gun- or knifepoint to use Windows (or Office).
Neither has Google forced anyone to use their search engine.
It’s just that certain businesses (developers) can’t choose to ignore them if they want to stay economically relevant.
It’s clearly more than that.
Just look at the Uber app: they’re making lots of use of Apple’s infrastructure without paying another dime.
They haven’t:
“Without Apple’s prior written approval or as permitted under Section 3.3.9(A) (In-App Purchase API), an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store, Custom App Distribution or TestFlight.”
Coming back to that:
They arguably even offer it (a best and most convenient payment system ) at a competitive price:
Apple Pay
Apple Pay is an easy way to pay in stores, online, and in apps. Use it to pay in full, over time, or with rewards. It’s safe, secure, and private.
www.apple.com
“An easy way to pay … in apps”. I agree.
And Apple are taking a fraction of one percent on such transactions - arguably a competitive rate.
I was curious about all the margins, fees, costs... so I asked an AI and got this:
And the Dutch ACM is only pursuing Apple? Clearly a lobby at work here. There's even more to gain for users if they would attack the wholesale prices the national fibre network providers (Delta, KPN) charge competing ISP's (who are basically forced to use their network).
| Cost Type | Digital Stores | Physical Stores | Supermarkets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commission/Margin | 12–30% | 20–30% | 10–20% |
| Payment Fees | 3% | 3% | 2.5–3% |
| Operational Costs | Low | High | Medium |
Key Takeaways
- Digital dominance: App stores achieve higher margins (50–62%) due to low overhead, despite commission rates similar to physical retail .
- Physical challenges: Gross margins (~55%) shrink to ~15% net profit after inventory and labor costs .
- Supermarket trade-offs: Lower margins but offset by volume and ancillary benefits (e.g., foot traffic) .
- Regional differences: Apple and Google offer reduced fees in the EU and for small developers, reflecting regulatory and competitive pressure
| Company/Processor | Typical Fee Structure (2025) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Mollie Payments | 1.8%–2.9% + €0.25 (EU cards, online) | Higher for non-EU cards, specific rates by country/volume |
| CCV | 1.8%–2.5% + €0.25 (EU cards, online) | Varies by plan and transaction type |
| Stripe | 1.4% + €0.25 (EU cards, online) | 2.9% + €0.25 for international cards |
| Adyen | Interchange++ (from 1.0%–2.9% + €0.10) | Pass-through pricing; varies by card and region |
| PayPal | 2.9% + €0.35 (online, EU) | Higher for cross-border/international |
| Square | 1.65%–2.75% (in-person), 2.9% + €0.30 (online) | US/EU rates; varies by channel |
| Worldline | 1.5%–2.5% + €0.20 | Varies by region and volume |
| Helcim | Interchange + 0.4% + $0.08 (in-person) | 0.5% + $0.25 (online); North America |
| SumUp | 1.69%–2.5% (in-person), 2.5% (online) | EU/UK focus |
| Klarna | 2.49%–3.29% + €0.35 (online) | BNPL and direct payments |
| Ingenico | 1.5%–2.5% + €0.20 | Varies by solution and region |
Industry Averages
- In-person card processing: 1.3%–2.7%
- Online card processing: 1.8%–3.5%
- American Express: 1.43% + $0.10 to 3.30% + $0.10 per transaction (higher than Visa/Mastercard)
- Interchange fees (set by card networks): 1.15%–2.95% + fixed fee, depending on card and region
Notes
- Actual fees depend on the merchant’s business type, monthly volume, region, and negotiation.
- Most providers offer custom pricing for large merchants or high volumes.
- Some providers (like Adyen) use “Interchange++” pricing, passing actual card network fees plus a markup.
- Flat-rate providers (like PayPal, Square) are often simpler but can be more expensive at scale.
And the Dutch ACM is only pursuing Apple? Clearly a lobby at work here. There's even more to gain for users if they would attack the wholesale prices the national fibre network providers (Delta, KPN) charge competing ISP's (who are basically forced to use their network).
Last edited:
But man, it's all for the sake of SeCuRiTy and uSeRs. You know, Apple is a NGO which operates just to cover their costs, while Tim is the biggest benefactor and EU/EpicGames are satanical and communistic institutions who want's to prevent Tim to help us.
Most us macrumors users with Stockholm syndrome be like:
Attachments
Last edited:
Why should government regulators leave apple alone if they find their business practices unjust