Dutch Regulator Says Apple Shouldn't Force Dating Apps to Offer Separate App for Alternative Payments

[dk001]

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.

Kind of...
Mail and Browser can be set. Mail doesn't always work 100% - I also use ProtonMail.
None of the other default Apple apps can be set. Only these two.

We need more that can be set.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Or should we let the government decide which apps should be removed?

That is what seams to happen in China and Putin Russia. So it's not unprecedented in the App Store policies ... no one here arguing for Apple App Store policies seams to be shocked about that one.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

I have no idea what that has to do with shareholder greed or Apple. When have they left "very profitable markets because of minor adjustments in the middle to long run"?

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.

You seem to be confusing who you're responding to. I didn't say anything about side loading in the post you responded to.

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.

That is what seams to happen in China and Putin Russia. So it's not unprecedented in the App Store policies ... no one here arguing for Apple App Store policies seams to be shocked about that one.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I have no idea what that has to do with shareholder greed or Apple. When have they left "very profitable markets because of minor adjustments in the middle to long run"?


You seem to be confusing who you're responding to. I didn't say anything about side loading in the post you responded to.



I have no idea what you are getting at here.

I think the initial quote you took out of context was in to engage in reply to someone else. It’s only natural you seam confused.

Anyway you seam to equate “greed” with simply the desire of maximizing one’s investment. It is not considering the semantics used to arrive to such conclusion is highly incomplete.

Greed is to maximising investment returns as Gluttony is to Hunger. "Gluttony" in this context leads to unpredictable results otherwise predictable.

Some around here that looked like shareholders advocated for Apple positions inline with what I described. Granted, not all shareholders are greedy so your mileage may vary.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think the initial quote you took out of context was in to engage in reply to someone else. It’s only natural you seam confused.

Anyway you seam to equate “greed” with simply the desire of maximizing one’s investment. It is not considering the semantics used to arrive to such conclusion is highly incomplete.

Greed is to maximising investment returns as Gluttony is to Hunger. "Gluttony" in this context leads to unpredictable results otherwise predictable.

Some around here that looked like shareholders advocated for Apple positions inline with what I described. Granted, not all shareholders are greedy so your mileage may vary.

Nope. It quoted you in context. You've gone off on some weird tangents responding to arguments that I didn't make.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Nope. It quoted you in context. You've gone off on some weird tangents responding to arguments that I didn't make.

You might not remember but the quote taken was inline with a comment to a false dilemma being articulated.

Going off in my view is to start redefining the term I used to describe the impulse of one using false dilemmas as a counter argument.

Either comment on it without redefining common word semantics or leave it. If you comment in such a way I can only assume you know and understand the context as a whole. Otherwise is nothing but cheery picking for argument sake with the added fact that is badly argued. Which inevitably leads to weird misunderstandings and waste of argument band.

So I find it surprising that you quoted me in context. Maybe it’s due to something that you are not telling. Do you feel greedy as a shareholder? Do you find that to be a shareholder one’s needs to be greedy? What is going on?

Can we just agree that what was being articulated by Abazigual was indeed just a false dilemma and move on?

 

[BaldiMac]

You might not remember but it was a comment to a false dilemma being articulated.

In a tangent is to start redefining the term I used to describe the impulse of one using false dilemmas as a counter argument.

Like I said, I am aware of the context. I've reread your post and the post you responded to. I stand by what I said.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make in your more recent responses to me. You are saying that I am saying the opposite of what I said. Your point seems to be that the poster you originally responded to is posting out of greed which is an extremely weird assumption.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Your point seems to be that the poster you originally responded to is posting out of greed which is an extremely weird assumption.

Well sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one. Not weirder than using false dilemmas, recreating reality as a counter argument. Better than redefining the semantics of a well known word ... no?

I mean, counter arguing with assumptions that digital services will only stop complaining at 0% revenue share in comparison to todays 30/15% eternal, in exchange of simply permitting their customers to be able to install their apps, as the customers wish on their own smartphones ... what can we say to that?

 

[BaldiMac]

Well sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one. Not weirder than using false dilemmas, recreating reality as a counter argument. Better than redefining the semantics of the term.

Seems like the most obvious answer is they wanted to discuss this topic on this forum and posted a logical fallacy. It happens a lot around here.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Seems like the most obvious answer is they wanted to discuss this topic on this forum and posted a logical fallacy. It happens a lot around here.

Logical fallacies happen sometimes … mostly out of ignorance or lack of thought. Yet when a lot and frequent it becomes a communication tactic aimed to hide something. Ignorance and lack of thought is justified only for so long.

 

[I7guy]

Logical fallacies happen sometimes … mostly out of ignorance or lack of thought. Yet when a lot and frequent it becomes a tactic.

Sometimes they do occur however usually the fallout is due to wide differences of opinions in posters.

 

[Abazigal]

I don’t own any Apple shares, and Apple’s fortunes don’t really affect me financially one bit. Is being labelled a “Apple shareholder” the latest personal attack in a bid is discredit arguments made by people the critics don’t agree with these days?

Like our desire to see Apple profit somehow transcends all notions of good and evil, right and wrong?

What rubbish.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don’t own any Apple shares, and Apple’s fortunes don’t really affect me financially one bit. Is being labelled a “Apple shareholder” the latest personal attack in a bid is discredit arguments made by people the critics don’t agree with these days?

Like our desire to see Apple profit somehow transcends all notions of good and evil, right and wrong?

What rubbish.

Not at all. But owning stock can be a conflict of interest and blind some people.

 

[Abazigal]

Not at all. But owning stock can be a conflict of interest and blind some people.

Yeah, because arguing on Macrumours is somehow the most effective way of influencing Apple stock prices.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Free speech for people doesn’t equate to companies having the same right or representatives for the company.

Governments regularly sides with consumer rights before a company’s right to “speech”. Governments always forces companies to express themselves against their own interests.

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.

And in what way will developers process fraudulent transactions when they aren’t the ones who process it?

For example 3D secure 2.0 provides transaction information from the bank that you verify with EU electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS)
And only banks can trigger this when you request a payment with MasterCard or visa.

And as always apple can still control the app before being uploaded. FYI fraud is still extremely common and easy to do with apples IAP.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yeah, because arguing on Macrumours is somehow the most effective way of influencing Apple stock prices.

Well it’s more that you can have an interest causing you to not be able to be impartial.

Nothing complicated

 

[Phone Junky]

Well it’s more that you can have an interest causing you to not be able to be impartial.

Like being a developer.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Absolutely and it has returned to bite them.

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.

Well partially, EU have explicitly passed the DMA to combat behavior like apple. Two of the clauses can force side loading or breakup apple the iPhone maker from apple the AppStore maker as separate entities if apple would continue to act anti competitive and try to circumvent regulations.

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.

We can already see the writing on the wall.
DMA(digital markets act) has been passed. DSA(digital service act) will soon be passed.

And the data shield have been ruled invalid by EUCJ based on privacy violations by the us government making it illegal to send EU citizens data to USA for processing. Ironically Edward Snowden is the one responsible for this after his leaks.

And EU wants to implement the same privacy policy that apple have in the AppStore as the next improvement to GDPR.

BaldiMac said:
It's not "greed" to want the best return on investment they can get.

It’s quite literally the definition of greed when you maximize it at the cost of others.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Like being a developer.

Well sure. Being a developer or apple stock owner can make you blind and fail to be impartial when your income depends on it.

 

[BaldiMac]

Free speech for people doesn’t equate to companies having the same right or representatives for the company.

As I said, the companies are made of individuals with free speech rights. Forcing a company necessarily involves forcing individuals.

Governments regularly sides with consumer rights before a company’s right to “speech”. Governments always forces companies to express themselves against their own interests.

They certainly do. I think that's wrong in most circumstances.

And in what way will developers process fraudulent transactions when they aren’t the ones who process it?

Because developers control the parameters that are passed to the payment processor.

And as always apple can still control the app before being uploaded. FYI fraud is still extremely common and easy to do with apples IAP.

Which takes us back to the point I made earlier. Apple would have to police transactions that it is not a party to. That doesn't seem practical.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As I said, the companies are made of individuals with free speech rights. Forcing a company necessarily involves forcing individuals.

This is great. A business is still different from a consumer. And should be treated as such.

They certainly do. I think that's wrong in most circumstances.

Agree to disagree.

Because developers control the parameters that are passed to the payment processor.


Which takes us back to the point I made earlier. Apple would have to police transactions that it is not a party to. That doesn't seem practical.

Why would apple need to police transactions? There already exist legally regulated payment solutions in EU.

There would be no difference if they use Apple Pay, PayPal, swish or apple IAP for what unlocks what in the app. Apple isn’t providing anything that other already do.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is great. A business is still different from a consumer. And should be treated as such.

Of course a business is different than a consumer. And a bug is different than a rock. That's not a rebuttal.

Why would apple need to police transactions? There already exist legally regulated payment solutions in EU.

Again, you're talking about the payment processor, not the app developer.

There would be no difference if they use Apple Pay, PayPal, swish or apple IAP for what unlocks what in the app. Apple isn’t providing anything that other already do.

Sigh. We're talking about the difference between an app offering Apple's IAP vs being allowed to offer alternatives to IAP. As you yourself pointed out, if the developer chose an alternative to IAP, Apple would still have the same responsibility to police the app for fraud, but without the ability to monitor for fraudulent transactions.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Well partially, EU have explicitly passed the DMA to combat behavior like apple. Two of the clauses can force side loading or breakup apple the iPhone maker from apple the AppStore maker as separate entities if apple would continue to act anti competitive and try to circumvent regulations.

Which is an insane, anti-consumer idea. I really doubt it will happen.

We can already see the writing on the wall.
DMA(digital markets act) has been passed. DSA(digital service act) will soon be passed.

DMA has not been passed yet. If/when it passes, we will see how things play out, but right now everything Apple is doing is 100% within their rights.

And the data shield have been ruled invalid by EUCJ based on privacy violations by the us government making it illegal to send EU citizens data to USA for processing.

Which is an insane idea that could essentially fracture the internet, and confirms my fears about DMA- that it’s a poorly thought out, anti-American piece of garbage as opposed to any kind of good faith “competition“ law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Of course a business is different than a consumer. And a bug is different than a rock. That's not a rebuttal.


Again, you're talking about the payment processor, not the app developer.


Sigh. We're talking about the difference between an app offering Apple's IAP vs being allowed to offer alternatives to IAP. As you yourself pointed out, if the developer chose an alternative to IAP, Apple would still have the same responsibility to police the app for fraud, but without the ability to monitor for fraudulent transactions.

I explicitly said apple would have zero responsibility over it.

The other payment solutions would be responsible for fraud.

Apple would be responsible for the app following the rules and aren’t fraudulent. This doesn’t include transactions.

 

[BaldiMac]

I explicitly said apple would have zero responsibility over it.

Nope. You said they would have the same responsibility that they do now and that they would have control of the app being uploaded.

The other payment solutions would be responsible for fraud.

Again, you are confusing the payment provider and the developer. Please stop. I'm not questioning the security of the transaction.

Apple would be responsible for the app following the rules and aren’t fraudulent. This doesn’t include transactions.

Exactly my point. As I said, they would be responsible for policing fraud without the ability to see the fraudulent transactions. More work, less pay.