In the mission statement they refer to themselves as the The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. Its an official title for a government body not a descriptive
https://www.acm.nl/en/about-acm/mission-vision-strategy/our-mission
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.
Dutch Antitrust Watchdog Nears Draft Decision in App Store Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the mission statement they refer to themselves as the The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. Its an official title for a government body not a descriptive
https://www.acm.nl/en/about-acm/mission-vision-strategy/our-mission
justperry
macrumors G5
Yet the Dutch version has no The Netherlands in it, only ACM.
You know as well as me that some moron did this.
Example, it is
The Dutch government, not The Netherlands government
Dutch wooden shoes, not The Netherlands wooden shoes
Plenty of examples.
This was my last word on this, derailing the thread.
The world would definitely be a better place for one.
I genuinely do not see a need for an app for the likes FB or Instagram - I just don't see how it serves more function than a well designed PWA.
The same goes for multitudes of other businesses where the Apple or Android App, is nothing more than advertising rather than actually providing any real benefit.
You're wrong sorry.
Again Dutch is a descriptive, it is the name of a Government body like the department of education in America is called the 'US department of Education' not the 'American Department of Education'
If you want to be the grammar police at least get your facts straight.
So I'd have to almost quote-reply everyone, but *selling physical and digital are different* (even consignment for physical is different though obviously closer and there is reason most physical stores operate on the wholesale model). Regardless of which way you feel about this, arguing by analogy is generally weakened by the differences between the two things you are trying to relate and claim to be the same. It isn't a logical fallacy, but it is (often) a weak argument (except when I do it, in which case I'm sure it's awesome 😉).
No most developers would not prefer the wholesale model be applied to digital, that would kill indies.
No the $99 a year doesn't come close to paying for storage and content delivery for something like the App store. Increasing that to offset lost App store revenues would hurt indies.
No saying developers have the right to advertise in their own apps where you could get things cheaper isn't like forcing Target to advertise their competition, but at the same time recognizing that App stores and their products, especially those with in-app purchases, are more heavily entwined than Target and its products is important. Yes if apps like Spotify, which compete with an Apple service, offer subscriptions or IAP through the App store, then they have to give a platform that is also a competitor x% of their revenue unless the customers go through extra steps that Spotify isn't allowed to tell those customers about. There's no other way to sell to iOS customers in-app. The best they can do is offer a free app with just a login and no other explanation of how to sign up. Hardly a deal breaker, but it makes it more difficult for the iOS customer.
No neither Apple nor Google are unique in this in the grand scheme. Even with the differences between physical and digital, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all make money off of physical game sales regardless of where you buy them from (except used - see side note later). Also their digital stores and IAP are also walled gardens and have sold for awhile digital exclusives that you couldn't get physically. Further the new Sony/Microsoft consoles all come with digital-only versions to kill the physical market (side note: the primary intent of killing physical is not to stop Walmart or whoever from getting a cut, but to kill used games sales). And, no, not all consoles are sold as loss-leaders (e.g. Nintendo) and many that are sold as loss-leaders at the beginning of a console cycle are not loss-leaders by its end. So that argument doesn't apply either.
Yes Apple and Google exert an enormous amount of control over the mobile markets. Yes, they also essentially developed those markets and those market have been hugely beneficial to everyone, a rising tide that lifted all boats (including Epic and Spotify). Yes states have a right to examine what level of control is healthy for the long term of the markets and the economy regardless of how beneficial that control may have been at its beginning when those markets were small. Yes states can also screw this up. No, neither Epic nor Spotify are fighting against Apple and Google for "the little guy". No Apple and Google aren't really on the side of "the little guy" either. No the impact, positive or negative, on forcing devices to lose walled gardens or at least lowering the walls isn't clear. There are positives, but there are also negatives to almost every possible change. Further, as alluded to in the previous paragraph, despite Epic's claims to the contrary, such changes would invariably affect consoles too (and don't believe they haven't thought about that). Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but it would happen.
No, Epic's claims are unlikely to succeed in (US) court. Weirder things have happened of course, but I think they're hoping the case will put pressure on regulators and lawmakers in the US change the rules rather than a court ruling in their favor which is a longer shot. To wit: walled gardens are not intrinsically monopolies and in the US you have to prove a monopoly is harmful to consumers. The EU and other states have other variants on monopoly rules which might give Epic, and especially Spotify's, claims more potency in court, but even then I'm not sure. (Full disclosure I am not legally trained, this is my reading of people who are and the initial reaction of the presiding judge to each of Apple's and Epic's opening legal moves)
No most developers would not prefer the wholesale model be applied to digital, that would kill indies.
No the $99 a year doesn't come close to paying for storage and content delivery for something like the App store. Increasing that to offset lost App store revenues would hurt indies.
No saying developers have the right to advertise in their own apps where you could get things cheaper isn't like forcing Target to advertise their competition, but at the same time recognizing that App stores and their products, especially those with in-app purchases, are more heavily entwined than Target and its products is important. Yes if apps like Spotify, which compete with an Apple service, offer subscriptions or IAP through the App store, then they have to give a platform that is also a competitor x% of their revenue unless the customers go through extra steps that Spotify isn't allowed to tell those customers about. There's no other way to sell to iOS customers in-app. The best they can do is offer a free app with just a login and no other explanation of how to sign up. Hardly a deal breaker, but it makes it more difficult for the iOS customer.
No neither Apple nor Google are unique in this in the grand scheme. Even with the differences between physical and digital, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all make money off of physical game sales regardless of where you buy them from (except used - see side note later). Also their digital stores and IAP are also walled gardens and have sold for awhile digital exclusives that you couldn't get physically. Further the new Sony/Microsoft consoles all come with digital-only versions to kill the physical market (side note: the primary intent of killing physical is not to stop Walmart or whoever from getting a cut, but to kill used games sales). And, no, not all consoles are sold as loss-leaders (e.g. Nintendo) and many that are sold as loss-leaders at the beginning of a console cycle are not loss-leaders by its end. So that argument doesn't apply either.
Yes Apple and Google exert an enormous amount of control over the mobile markets. Yes, they also essentially developed those markets and those market have been hugely beneficial to everyone, a rising tide that lifted all boats (including Epic and Spotify). Yes states have a right to examine what level of control is healthy for the long term of the markets and the economy regardless of how beneficial that control may have been at its beginning when those markets were small. Yes states can also screw this up. No, neither Epic nor Spotify are fighting against Apple and Google for "the little guy". No Apple and Google aren't really on the side of "the little guy" either. No the impact, positive or negative, on forcing devices to lose walled gardens or at least lowering the walls isn't clear. There are positives, but there are also negatives to almost every possible change. Further, as alluded to in the previous paragraph, despite Epic's claims to the contrary, such changes would invariably affect consoles too (and don't believe they haven't thought about that). Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but it would happen.
No, Epic's claims are unlikely to succeed in (US) court. Weirder things have happened of course, but I think they're hoping the case will put pressure on regulators and lawmakers in the US change the rules rather than a court ruling in their favor which is a longer shot. To wit: walled gardens are not intrinsically monopolies and in the US you have to prove a monopoly is harmful to consumers. The EU and other states have other variants on monopoly rules which might give Epic, and especially Spotify's, claims more potency in court, but even then I'm not sure. (Full disclosure I am not legally trained, this is my reading of people who are and the initial reaction of the presiding judge to each of Apple's and Epic's opening legal moves)
Last edited:
Nuno Lopes
macrumors 65816
And the developers in turn supported their initiative by building tailored apps and digital services. Giving their contribution to Apple ability to sell even more iPhones and iPads.
Remove all third party apps from the App Store and what you have is a brick mostly. A a Marvell of technology but still a gimmick in practice without their contribution. Developers have bring a lot of innovation into the ecossystem, as Apple returns with innovation.
The score is a tie where no one owes anything to the other in terms of value. Now developer should pay for the cloud service Apple provides to deploy and update apps securely as well pay for development support . At market prices 30% revenue share over any and all digital goods sold, not to mention price fixing gags for the cloud service its indeed an abuse considering digital services need to be on both platforms to reach their customers, given the iPhone market share.
It is as simple as that!!
Last edited:
jlc1978
macrumors 604
So what you're saying is that it seems reasonable that if I sell items at (Walmart, amazon, etc), I should be allowed to have a sign or description saying "don't buy here, save 20% by buying direct at this website". I don't know of any store that would allow that. I guess all these other stores have gag orders too.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The 30% is for access to the entire infrastructure, free hosting and 1 billion active devices. All for only $99 for the development items/tech support with no infrastructure support costs. So I agree with sure "investigate Apple", but against government interference of a good model that benefits all. The $700 million that Epic made on this infrastructure is sure nothing to sneeze at.
And while we have no control over what happens, I expect a fractured environment for the app store, which doesn't help anybody.
Nah multiple app stores means more competition which is always good for customers. Not buying Apples take on this 🙂
It is a monopoly by definition once it fits certain criteria. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet, all of them are still growing.
Monopoly isn't bad by definition. Monopolistic behaviour is. And whether the behaviour is monopolistic is subject to debate and trial in court.
I doubt you ever developed for their platform, given your statement "Offers developers world class documentation, premium support". Documentation is horrible, support is basically non existing. I bet you wear pink glasses. Very pink.
farmboy
macrumors 65816
I'm not familiar with any store that lets manufacturers promote other places to buy their products.
So, no, not reasonable at all the way you have stated it.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Not really good for consumers in this case, as it brings down the entire IOS environment. 🙂
Always? Really?
Let's say there are multiple app stores - and store B charges only 5%, so software vendors offer their wares there instead of the app store. So, now as a consumer, if I want an app, I have to by from store B.
But store B harvests your purchase data and offer it for sale to data warehouses, marketers etc. They bury that fact deep in the 32 page privacy agreement that nobody reads anyway. And store B doesn't do API checks or put any restrictions on how APIs are abused, so scammy apps use negative billing, trick users into buying things, etc. with weasel-wording, etc. without fear of rejection. How is this good for consumers?
farmboy
macrumors 65816
I'm not familiar with any store that lets manufacturers promote other places to buy their products.
So, no, not reasonable at all the way you have stated it.
Can’t decide if this is slippery slope or straw man. You completely made up about half of this with pure assumption on no basis whatsoever. The PC gaming marketplace is an example of an extremely healthy, good-for-consumers environment due to the existence of that competition. Steam would have comparatively no features if it had no competition from other game companies doing their own launchers. The fact that they try means more discounts for games, better thinner clients with power users features, a rock solid client that started life as a total piece of crap but is now one of the first 5 apps any gamer installs on their computer. And best of all, if you don’t like a decision made by Valve you can simply download Gog and bob’s your uncle
Let’s drop the old tired marketing talking points that apple brainwashed us into believing like how we’d have to give up security of privacy or whatever because the fact of the matter is I trust valve with my data way more than I trust Apple. The fact there’s competition keeps them accountable and keeps them responsive to customer demands. Don’t gotta try very hard if you’re the only one in the game do you.
Valve runs a much better and more interactive marketplace than apple ever will and that’s because they have to try to survive, whereas apple basically gets away with anything at this point and people will lap it up
No it doesn't. All it would do iis fragment the supply of apps. Developers would be swayed to leave Apple's store so that they can make an extra 10% somewhere else. Why would a developer leave the mass market of the Apple store to go to a smaller store just to give the consumer 10% off. The only reason to take that risk is to keep that extra 10% for themselves.
In the mean time for the consumers. All apps would no longer be on the Apple Store. so now when you look for an app, you must go hunting for it in a multitude of stores. Set up accounts in a multitude of stores, Give your CC# to who knows who, manually go to these stores to keep track of app updates, etc....
I choose iOs because I don't want to deal with the above. If multiple stores is important to some users, I do not understand why you choose iOs. Android is that way ->.
So you think because I dislike one part of iOS that I should switch entire operating systems? Are you trying to be insulting or is throwing everything out just how you deal with inconveniences?
Why is it insulting to state that if multiple stores is that important to you, there are options. Point being, you have a choice to decide the things that are important to you just like I did and just like every other product you go out a buy. Shouldn't I not be allowed to prefer not having to deal with the travesty of multiple stores. You are wanting to change something that's been set for a decade that I based my purchase on and you knew was that way when you purchased yours. That's what's insulting.
I just feel like wanting choice is more reasonable than wanting a lockdown. You’re taking away everyone else’s right to choose just because you happen to be in a situation that’s comfortable to you. Like nah
Funny how changing the App Store rules after the purchase would be insulting to you but apple literally does that all the time to developers with IAP policies, Sign In with Apple, etc and you people are on here defending them every single time lmao which side are you on exactly. I know the answer already that’s a rhetorical question
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
It depends on the pain point. Some people may view alternate app stores and sideloading as a showstopper issue. Others may not care.
The point is if you want the above and it is important, there are choices that let one do that.
I'm not taking away anyones right to choose. The product has been this way forever. Everyone who chooses iOS knows its a walled garden. You are the one that wants to enter into walled garden that everyone chose to enter freely and blow up the walls because "you" feel that you don't like the walls anymore.