Indeed, it seems pretty clear that that scenario makes it more likely to be a cash grab than my theorized scenario.
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
Indeed, it seems pretty clear that that scenario makes it more likely to be a cash grab than my theorized scenario.
Even if Apple is forced to open up the walled garden a little, nothing indicates that they will give users access to the iOS filesystem or UNIX terminal, so how exactly is allowing sideloading going to help you? You would still need to jailbreak for that.
I don't think some folks/gov't realize what they are trying to accomplish is not provided by existing solutions.
Apple's 30% includes everything one needs to get paid for the apps that are sold on the store, and for Apple to handle all taxes and advertising on the store, their commission, etc. Taking out that 3% creates a new set of issues. Apple will no longer "see" the transaction. As it is happening outside of its pervu. They don't know if you actually bought it or not. They will then have to square up with that developer at the end of each month (or whatever timeframe they choose), and verify each transaction against the clicks to buy something from the app (IAP). This will have many if not way too many false clicks (nothing purchased but, button pushed). Clicks that did end in a purchase. Clicks that ended in a purchase but, the purchaser wants a refund. Etc, etc, etc,...
I don't think this is just a secure purchase issue. We all get that many institutions can do this securely. But, it's not as simple as say "Stick bank processing company logo here" and all done. "Which", of what is MANY processing companies are going to be able to be behind that button? That button is now code connected to that app on the AppStore. And we all know what EPIC already did with said code. That can lead to not JUST a redirect of payment options. It can lead to execution of other code that it should NOT be able to do. Other security related issue, changing the app by the developer and not seen by Apple. Any of which having nothing to do with payments.
So, Apple thinks lets just make a new app (clone the existing with these mods), that is built "FOR THIS". You get to use the 3rd party option (ONLY), so there is no link back to the app for security reasons. If the developer decides to change the processor or what that LINK does (malicously) . Well, it can only do 1 thing now. You click pay for this link in the app, it brings up the 3rd party option, and that is all it can do. Maybe if Apple had more time, they would build something more elegant. Maybe if they care about doing this, they would build something more elegant. But, that too isn't what they want to do in the first place. So quick and dirty it is.
The bottom 2 are my opinions.
Apple's 30% includes everything one needs to get paid for the apps that are sold on the store, and for Apple to handle all taxes and advertising on the store, their commission, etc. Taking out that 3% creates a new set of issues. Apple will no longer "see" the transaction. As it is happening outside of its pervu. They don't know if you actually bought it or not. They will then have to square up with that developer at the end of each month (or whatever timeframe they choose), and verify each transaction against the clicks to buy something from the app (IAP). This will have many if not way too many false clicks (nothing purchased but, button pushed). Clicks that did end in a purchase. Clicks that ended in a purchase but, the purchaser wants a refund. Etc, etc, etc,...
I don't think this is just a secure purchase issue. We all get that many institutions can do this securely. But, it's not as simple as say "Stick bank processing company logo here" and all done. "Which", of what is MANY processing companies are going to be able to be behind that button? That button is now code connected to that app on the AppStore. And we all know what EPIC already did with said code. That can lead to not JUST a redirect of payment options. It can lead to execution of other code that it should NOT be able to do. Other security related issue, changing the app by the developer and not seen by Apple. Any of which having nothing to do with payments.
So, Apple thinks lets just make a new app (clone the existing with these mods), that is built "FOR THIS". You get to use the 3rd party option (ONLY), so there is no link back to the app for security reasons. If the developer decides to change the processor or what that LINK does (malicously) . Well, it can only do 1 thing now. You click pay for this link in the app, it brings up the 3rd party option, and that is all it can do. Maybe if Apple had more time, they would build something more elegant. Maybe if they care about doing this, they would build something more elegant. But, that too isn't what they want to do in the first place. So quick and dirty it is.
The bottom 2 are my opinions.
Last edited:
Why?
I can click in the app for one of my favorite fast food spots, order what I want, pay with the method I choose, and the food is delivered or I can go pick it up.
Why would this solution not work for these dating apps (payment)?
Is there some complexity I am missing?
For sideloading … I suspect that solution is still in development. Some of the alternate store code showed up in the current betas (2&3).
You are assuming the developer is trustworthy. We know the payment solutions mostly are. It’d be trivial for a developer to intercept cc numbers between their app and a third party. They are tokenised using Apple‘s payment system.
Yes. That is pretty standard assumption in normal day to day life. Developers, restaurants, supermarkets, shoe shops ... so on and so forth. Still people should adopt secure payment habits. Choose well known merchants, choose payment methods such as PayPal and Apple Pay, Enable 3D Secure, use on the fly debit / credit cards ...
Anyway I think it clear that Apple is on a collision trajectory like MS was. I find it incredible that the company is not ahead of this and behaving like a toddler. I can tell you this, the company seam to get in compliance faster with China and the Russians then does with democratic states. No problems in implementing changes there.
Last edited:
Well, China isn’t forcing Apple to give up their 30% cut, for one.
Like I said, I don’t see what Apple could do that would make the critics happy short of effectively removing their cut altogether and opening up the platform to 3rd party app stores. Even if they lowered it to 20% or 15% or even 10%, it’s only going to be a matter of time before developers feel even that is too much and start clamouring for it to be further lowered.
Which is why I still feel that the best option for Apple is to continue to fight, and continue to win, and let their legal victories stand as a symbol of Apple’s unassailable authority over iOS, to those who would challenge Apple’s supremacy. Very, very risky, but when the alternative is basically tantamount to ceding control over a critical aspect of your platform, what does Apple have to lose, really?
Not really. Most reputable payment solutions use similar measures to keep card and bank account numbers secure. Apple could also Pay right within the app, just as it can be used on the web.
There is the worry about some scammers publishing apps that take legitimate payments for items that aren't, with little recourse for the consumer. With alternate stores, Apple/Google can't keep these apps out, or easily pull them. Apple could pull the signing cert, but that's not very proactive. Apple/Google also can't enforce policies around user tracking as easily.
This isn't a move to help consumers though, as consumers aren't really the ones complaining. This is about how much value Apple provides vs how much value the developer provides, and whether or not app revenues are fairly split.
The risk is that legislation passes that does much worse things than losing control of the App Store. Plus destroying any goodwill they had with regulators because of privacy.
Actually, someone upthread quoted directly from the ACM’s website, which mentions that they’re a part of some Dutch government Ministry. So they literally are the same thing (or pretty close to it) as a US independent regulator. It’s more like the US’s SEC, which is a governmental regulator, than FINRA, which is a private regulator, or UL, which doesn’t have regulatory power but its electrical testing, licensing, and standards systems form an important part of electrical safety in the US.
A public regulator has enforcement powers that a private regulator doesn’t. In the US, this includes operating the court of appeals that has jurisdiction over appeals of regulatory decisions. A public regulator is a part of executive power that also exercises legislative power and judicial power. Being an independent regulator has nothing to do with public/private status, it has more to do with organizational structure within the ministry or department. It still has the full force of the Dutch government and legal system behind it in a way that a private regulator doesn’t.
To what end? You can only semi define default apps (2?) and anything else missing generates errors when something else attempts to call it.
I can see you are an expert in creating false dilemmas.
That is not very good for yourself if you actually believe in your false dilemmas.
If you don’t believe in it, it only works with relatively simple minded people … or people not familiar with the subject matter.
All this is a distraction driven by shareholders greed.
They aren’t already pleased with TC earnings … heheheh.
PS: Maybe the US and the EU should be more like China then. Than again maybe Apple would not have left the garage.
Last edited:
Again, you’re assuming the developer is trustworthy. We know other payment methods have reasonable security, it’s the manner in which they are called and presented. Right now, you have to use the Apple IAP for any purchases and to unlock any purchased content. When you are not using an Apple API call, you can present what looks like a 3rd party payment method to collect a payment before showing a “payment error” and presenting the real 3rd party payment processing screen - thus collecting users cc info.
This type of scenario is completely avoided with Apple’s payments because users never have to enter their credit card details and the developer never gets to see them either.
You can change default web browser, email and music apps and uninstall all apple apps. What exactly do you want to achieve that is currently favouring Apple’s own apps?
Calling shareholders greedy is like mocking grass for being green. It's not "greed" to want the best return on investment they can get.
Apple hasn't been slowly increasing their commission to milk every cent out of developers. In fact, they've lowered their commission for almost everyone. I think the number was 98% of developers qualify for 15% commission.
This isn't about "greedy" shareholders. As I've said before, it's about billion dollar corporations trying to take power from a trillion dollar corporation through lobbying and PR campaigns.
You could also avoid that by using another third-party like PayPal. Apple can also still require signing certs, and invalidate them for bad actors, just like they do on the Mac. I would argue that funneling payments through Apple is certainly more convenient for users. There won't be anymore double-tap, authenticate, then done - unless the developer uses Pay in the app, which many likely will.
However, for a jurisdiction like the EU, that enforces some censorship, removing Apple's position as gatekeeper presents other problems. Apple can be proactive and refuse apps or updates that violate guidelines, instead of waiting for problems to emerge, then taking action.
I don't think Apple needs to justify the fees. They charge a mark up for sure, but so does every premium brand. If Sony, MS, and Nintendo don't need to justify their commissions, neither does Apple.
Last edited:
Maps
Messages
etc...
There are a lot of apps much better than stock Apple or as good but have a far broader audience.
So Apple would be responsible for policing third-party payment systems that they don't want to allow because they'd be too difficult to police? Or should we let the government decide which apps should be removed? What are the other options?
An ironic condemnation, seeing how China is not the one pushing for the removal of the 30% cut here. Aside from the occasional app removal here and there, they have left Apple’s business model largely intact.
Well, if regulators find it agreeable, Apple could create a list of accepted providers that developers can use that have been vetted. It's no different than using Google Pay, PayPal, Amazon, or others on the Mac.
If Apple can't control which apps are on devices, another entity would need to step in and fill that void. It depends on how much latitude politicians are willing to give Apple when it comes to invalidating an app.
Really, it comes down to whether or not Apple will be required to allow alternate payment methods, if they will be required to allow competing stores, and/or if they will be compelled to allow sideloading. Right now Apple tries to keep out objectionable content, and maintain some level of consumer trust. If that is taken away, then others will need to step in and fill the void. Apple can't be held accountable if they are no longer allowed to act as a gatekeeper to the platform. Whoever writes the laws and/or regs will need to consider what they are doing very carefully.
If Apple can't control which apps are on devices, another entity would need to step in and fill that void. It depends on how much latitude politicians are willing to give Apple when it comes to invalidating an app.
Really, it comes down to whether or not Apple will be required to allow alternate payment methods, if they will be required to allow competing stores, and/or if they will be compelled to allow sideloading. Right now Apple tries to keep out objectionable content, and maintain some level of consumer trust. If that is taken away, then others will need to step in and fill the void. Apple can't be held accountable if they are no longer allowed to act as a gatekeeper to the platform. Whoever writes the laws and/or regs will need to consider what they are doing very carefully.
I’m still missing what the problem is. I can remove all of those apps right now and set other defaults. I currently use ProtonMail as my default email client and don’t have Mail installed. I can use any messaging app and use signal almost exclusively. Apple’s Messages can be removed. Apple’s Maps can be removed.
I'm glad you got the reference.
Ironic indeed: https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/apples-ugly-china-deal-mostly-bought-time-2021-12-08/
Last edited:
No it is not. How does the best return on investment go with the idea of leaving very profitable markets because of minor adjustments in the middle to long run? It looks a lot more like toddler greed.
It seams that Sideloading is in the US regulatory agenda rather than in the EU. It was in the US that a court order was issued to remove the in-app-purchase requirement from their policies and allowing web linking with no restrictions. You seam to be confusing continents.
According to some observations around here ... as I said ... maybe Apple should pack their Loop to China or Russia. Using a simple process of elimination over which Countries look more sympathetic with the current App Store in app purchase policies and the ones that do not ... those appear totally silent. Manufacturing is already there anyway.
Absolute nonsense of a stance. My way or the highway, John?. All because of not loosing face, if that is even in question.
@robco74, it depends on nothing of such sorts.
It just depends on how regulators and courts will see the practices and products are being interplayed by the company to step in markets that otherwise would have no foot on. Markets that if it wanted to be in them would need to compete with services head to head rather than leave it all to the leverage they have on the mobile market space and app install control.
Last edited: