We have different views on this. It’s worse for the ecosystem, imo. But apple won’t have to deal with this issue.
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 Regulator Says Apple Shouldn't Force Dating Apps to Offer Separate App for Alternative Payments
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just am kind of flabbergasted at the “crap” floating around on this thread.
I have apps I can pay with AP, PP, CC, EC, etc… today. I do wish more apps had that ability.
So it can be done fairly(?) easily as it already exists.
Why all the angst and basically BS around implementing this for these apps? I am not seeing much of a technological barrier but rather a willingness barrier.
I have apps I can pay with AP, PP, CC, EC, etc… today. I do wish more apps had that ability.
So it can be done fairly(?) easily as it already exists.
Why all the angst and basically BS around implementing this for these apps? I am not seeing much of a technological barrier but rather a willingness barrier.
Well it’s clearly in the text. Apple IAP and a third party solution next to each other.
This is fair and not anti competitive. Nothing prevents apple from demanding their IAP is displayed next to the other solution.
Or they might just need to provide a link outside the store.
the model SquareSpace and other services are starting to use. Offer IAP marked up by 30%. Communicate to users that if you are happy paying the Apple tax no action is necessary, carry on and everyone is happy but if you'd rather save 30% and have better support, switch to direct billing and cancel the IAP subscription.
It’s 200% just a profit motive to not allow it. EU have the security and regulations in place to make it seamless and just as safe and more private as apples solution
Who said there was a tech barrier?
No, it's clearly in the text that Apple has to allow them both. Not that developers have to support them both. And, of course, what the ACM wants only applies to the Netherlands.
Fair? A government forcing a private company to create somthing they don't want to is not what I'd call fair. Personally, I'd consider a violation of free speech and expression.
You're missing that Apple will still be charging their commission if they are forced to allow third-party IAPs. You'll notice that the commission wasn't one of the ACM's complaints.
Rainbows and lollipops. No such "security and regulations" exist to prevent an app developer from maliciously inserting fraudulent IAP into their app. That would fall on Apple to prevent.
My bet is Apple is going to use all these worldwide scrutiny cases, and their services branch economic results, to just dump fodder/problematic developers/app sectors, and change their App Store model to come up with an app subscription service like Apple Arcade, depending on the apps you wanna use to present them as Apple Apps, or something similar. A lot will disagree, but to me things are pointing that way since they could argue developers are working with them to develop the service as a whole, not as a marketplace.
I don't think there should be too much worry about stolen card or identity theft - as long as developers stick to reliable vendors. But it will be another point of friction in the sales. Perhaps that won't necessarily be a bad thing for consumers in the long-term. Right now making digital purchases on Apple's platforms is incredibly simple and quick. Getting 70% of a sale is better than 0, especially when you're selling to Apple customers.
I do wonder, will any of the proposed laws and/or regulations require developers to pass a portion of their savings on to the consumer in the form of lower prices and discounted subscriptions?
I do wonder, will any of the proposed laws and/or regulations require developers to pass a portion of their savings on to the consumer in the form of lower prices and discounted subscriptions?
I would hope you are wrong.
If that was the case I would dump them in a heartbeat.
Mistakes? You're saying that macOS with sideloading is a mistake?! Can you possibly imagine a desktop computing OS without a proper file system? It would be laughed out of existence. The absolute beauty of macOS is the user access to the underlying *nix OS. And if you have access to that, and to the file system, then you have sideloading. The sheer amount of linux based tools a software dev like me uses on my Mac is extraordinary. I'm going off topic there, but the point is, the people who use macOS, would rather use Windows or Linux than macOS without sideloading, a proper files system, and access to the *nix base OS.
I can also assure you that a LOT of users are quite unhappy with the walled garden of iOS. A lot of them, like me, still choose iPhones, as even with those frustrating restrictions, it's still less annoying than Android. How do I know it's a LOT. By the sheer number of court cases all around the world against Apple and its lock in App Store. You are wrong to think it's not well on it's way to coming crumbling down.
Last edited by a moderator:
You didn’t know. There is no way you know the “state of happiness” of the hundreds and hundreds of millions of ios users.
I certainly appreciate the benefits of macOS and even Windows, but I think it's quite a reasonable argument to make that it was a mistake to allow arbitrary code to run at will. Malware and viruses have cost the economy trillions of dollars. Recent versions of macOS address this by requiring signed binaries by default.
Oh come on, viruses are an overblown problem, especially on Macs, and are only a problem for complete morons.
Dutch regulators tell Apple to change their ways... Apple does the bare minimum and/or doesn't fully comply.
This will go round and round. Back and forth. On and on. With more fines and penalties.
Maybe all these nations, governments, and regulators should just make a law that says:
"No platform can charge more than 10% for commission. PERIOD. End of story."
Quit pussyfootin' around. Otherwise this will keep going. On and on and on...
This will go round and round. Back and forth. On and on. With more fines and penalties.
Maybe all these nations, governments, and regulators should just make a law that says:
"No platform can charge more than 10% for commission. PERIOD. End of story."
Quit pussyfootin' around. Otherwise this will keep going. On and on and on...
Trillions????? On Macs? Are you holding your pinky finger to your mouth as you say this?
You (the royal you) also have no idea of what you don't know. Right? Don't know what you don't know!You have no idea what I know
But perhaps some citations listing numbers and reasons would be very helpful. Lawsuits aren't the barometer you think they are regarding "unhappiness." Additionally, with 1.8 billion devices, Apple will not please everybody...that's a given.
Last edited:
Indirectly. It's effectively the same thing. Do it this way, without any understanding on "how" that will work within Apple's, again I repeat APPLE's iOS. "just do it and make it work, let me know when your done. While I collect these fees while I wait".
It's always been on them to do what they want "legally". New rules, from those that understand very little. I say make them wait.
Right....... The have to figure out a way to shoe horn it into a system not built for it. So, yeah it's back to just do it this way already, and make it work...
If it costs more money to do business in said country. As Mark Cuban says "I'm out". Let the people complain to their governments that Apple is not available in their country anymore. Or not. Either way, I'm good with it.
Yeah, agreed. But, Apple disagree's and if they can they will try and "skirt" those rules to fit how they want it to work. Again, the rule is BS. I understand we have a culture difference of opinion on this, but its BS.
Well then there will be no war. If they don't care, it's a good time for Apple to walk away.
And ACM did not say apple can’t mandate IAP is included
Apple already demand IAP to be used.
And I’m sorry but companies doesn’t have free speech and expression in EU, they aren’t people. This American concept is exclusively American.
Well we will see. Depends on what other actions apple do. ACM didn’t mention the commission
Yes there is. It’s known as Payments Service Directive 2 (PSD2) including 3D Secure 2.0 requirement for strong customer authentication. This is something every bank and card provider in EU must implement.
Yep it will as long as apple tried to do the bare minimum as they interpret it.
it will never happen as some instances it’s justified. And this is standard procedure in EU. Regulators never diktats how something should be done, they provide clear guidelines and allow the company to implement what they perceived as justified, then the regulators will check if the proposed solution are sufficient.
Just as how a teacher gives you homework with questions to answer, they only check if the answer is correct, they never give you the answers.
Not at all, the directives are clear. Apple makes it more complicated than it is. And the regulators are very aware of how these things work, they are educated in the relevant fields
Nothings new. They just got discovered to have been breaking the rules and told to change accordingly to be in compliance. ACM have no problem waiting.
not at all, these are things implemented by EU banks and payment providers. There exist already solutions that was created for this system
We both agree. and people can complain however they want, regulators aren’t elected and are independent from the government. And it might trigger EU, and that will be fun.
The rules aren’t BS, it’s just anti competitive. And might be perceived as harsh from an American perspective.
Well that will start a war with EU and probably every member states regulatory body.
EU does not compromise on the single market, and is a very hard line. And will rather block apple than allow it to be threatened. UK tried and was punished hard
Fair enough
Yep. What's your point? They've legally done so for more than a decade.
I don't know where you get that from. Companies are made up of people with free speech rights in most countries in Europe. Government-forced speech and expression is wrong to me.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not worried about the security of the transaction. I'm worried about the developer processing fraudulent transactions.