Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm interested to see where this goes. The ACM's last reply seemed more about pride than competition. If this is about competition, why would they require Apple to offer Apple IAP? If this is about Dutch law, why would they force Apple to distribute the modified app in other countries?
Simple. Apple forcing IAP is anti competitive towards other solutions
And if developers need to make a separate app then users would need to use two apps. There is no reason to not allow developers to use apples IAP and 3d party solution in the same app.

There is no technological barrier preventing Apple from limiting it to be conditional code activated only if you are in Netherlands or have a Dutch credit card.
so no argument to force developers to make separate apps.
 
This is my primary issue with the DMA, Competition and Innovation Act, and Epic trial: iOS is not a product, it is a feature. These bills take the view that Apple has a monopoly because it ships a product in a commoditized market with a unique feature.
Well they do. iOS is a separate system from android and not compatible. Just like dvd and vhs are not compatible
Apple does not have a platform (iOS), Apple has a product (iPhone). Apple is not a software company, Apple is a hardware company. Apple does not license its OS, Apple has no OEMs. Apple should not be considered a peer company to Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, Apple should be considered a peer company to Samsung, Huawei, and BBK. And it should be regulated as such.
Sure, the biggest problem is that apple have argued that they license it to users. And they provide the iOS software to users under a license agreement.

Apple is a peer company toward competing Operating systems, not toward hardware as every hardware competitor uses android
Samsung makes phones that have styli, foldable displays, and a custom Android UI. Huawei makes phones without GMS and a custom Android fork. BBK makes phones (OnePlus) that cater to enthusiasts and are easy to root. Apple makes phones with an A-series chip, Lightening port, and custom operating system. These are all valid attempt to compete in a cutthroat, commoditized market. Apple should not be penalized or be held to different standards because it has invested billions of dollars into unique feature, especially when Apple is nowhere near market dominance- Samsung is currently the largest OEM, for a bit it was Huawei, and BBK is either ahead of or right behind Apple.
Apple is being investigated for their actions in the same way google is investigated in their android and google play store. In EU Apple iPhone is the biggest manufacturer in EU
6656F6C1-E140-42D4-AC5C-636605329091.jpeg

I have zero issue with regulation of Apple, but it needs to be fair. Examples:
Law 1: "No phone manufacturer can restrict third party software only to their proprietary store"- Fair? YES! This law applies equally to Apple, Samsung, BBK, and everyone else.
Law 2: "No digital platform owner may restrict third parties from having access to features that its own products and services can access"- Fair? NO! This law does not treat Apple equally.
Yes it does as this would cover the iOS AppStore such as how apple music is treated compared to Spotify.
Under this law, Samsung would be able to make a pair of headphones that work seamlessly with its Galaxy phones using special software, but if Apple wants to do the same with its iPhones, it must let others use the API to create their own products to compete with AirPods. This is not fair and puts Apple at a cost disadvantage compared to its smartphone peers. It must invest billions into its hardware to compete with them but is not allowed to recoup its investment without sharing its work with others for free.
AirPods and galaxy budds can’t be compatible as apple uses their own H1 chip no other manufacturer uses outside of beats studio. And there is a difference between software on the AppStore and hardware you can buy from anywhere and compete.
Any law that treats Apple like Google or Microsoft just because they both make operating systems is making a huge mistake that will only harm consumers. Apple's vertically integrated business model is key to their success. Viewing iOS as something separate from the iPhone itself is forcing Apple to the adopt the openness of being an OS vendor, a business model Apple is not interested in and in fact has failed at (90's). Rather than being penalized for successfully innovating in the smartphone space, Apple should be celebrated for creating unique features that enhance consumer choice.
We all agree on this. It still falls on how apple treats developers and competitors. Spotify didn’t complain untill apple provided Apple Music. Apple (according to EU commissions information) apple 30% cut have resulted in higher consumer prices with different services in order to compensate what apple takes.

Much of this is based on anti competitive actions that heavily support themselves by rent seeking will be easily separated if payment solutions for In app purchases will be possible and the ability to link to their homepage for cheaper prices.

Apple can still take a fee for the store and offer IAP and continue to convince developers to use it for their superior services etc

Remember that EU do not actually want to open upp side loading or force other apps when other solutions exist. USA seems more willing to do this if we look at the laws proposed and hard rhetoric used.

EU don’t care if apple is a monopoly as long as they don’t abuse it.
EU don’t care that Microsoft is 90% of the market. But did force alternative browsers to be allowed.
EU don’t care google have 99% of the android market, but fined them for forcing developers to use their solutions etc etc.

Look at EU vs google last 4 anti competitive investigations. Ending in google loosing but no call for breaking them up as they modified their behavior accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
As I said above, DMA does not make Apple follow the same rules as everybody else. It makes Apple follows special rules, while its competitors don't have to. Does the DMA stop Samsung from having the Galaxy Store or Huawei from having the App Gallery? No? Then why is Apple not allowed to have its App Store?
Apple would be forced to follow the same rules as other gatekeepers in their own way.
Depends does Samsung break any of the DMA clauses?
  • a) Prevents Gatekeepers to combine personal data coming from Core Platforms Services (CPS) with data collected through other services of the same Gatekeepers or from a third party. Also, it prevents end-users being signed-in to other services offered by the Gatekeepers. However, this can be done only if the choice has been presented to the end-user and consent given.
Amazon breached antitrust rules by using "non-public data" from their business-users in order to compete with them.
  • (b) “allow business users to offer the same products or services to end-users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the Gatekeeper”
This obligation derives from the cases on Microsoft Explorer and Google Android, where the European Commission forced them to allow end-users to uninstall pre-installed app from their core platforms services
  • (c) “allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper
The practice is currently investigated in the Apple App Store case.[8] The Commission considers that Apple does not let its competitors inform users about the possibility to buy their products on other platforms than the App store, at potential cheaper prices
  • (d) “refrain from preventing or restricting business users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers
This practice has already been prohibited in the case of Google Shopping and is currently investigated in the Amazon Buy Box case.[21] Mainly, it refers to self-preferencing own products at the expense of competitors in the search results of a certain market place.
  • (e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identification service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper
This can be seen as deriving from the conflict between Spotify and Apple on the restrictions imposed to use Spotify on Apple devices
  • (f) Prevents the bundling of different CPSs of the platform that are identified as gatekeeper.
This provision derives from the practices currently analysed in the Apple pay case.[8] By favouring its devices and its own method of payment - Apple Pay- at the expense of its competitors, Apple is currently scrutinized by the commission.
  • (g) “provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper.”
This article would help business-users of platforms, especially advertisers, to have access to the data related to the ads and publications posted on the Gatekeeper's platforms. Facebook and Google are potentially the main targets of this article, and maybe Amazon.
  • (k) “apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store,...”
This provision targets the store application of Gatekeepers (App store, Google Play),[3] and has the aim to protect the rights of app developers and of business-users.

 
Great. Software is a type of good. No one is arguing that fact. That doesn't mean it has to be treated the same as any other good. Like I said, you're taking a ruling out of context to prove something that we aren't discussing.
No, it’s not a type of good. It’s a good. Legally indistinguishable. There is no reason to treat it any differently.
If the Xbox was fraudulent, Walmart is certainly responsible for selling it. And it's a hit to their reputation.
No, you misinterpreted. If xbox have games that are fraudulent or morally questionable, then that’s on xbox and not Walmarts problem.
It's still an appeal to authority.
The relevant authority I would say. I can’t say what else can I use outside of court rulings with expertise in the laws
Comparing Apple to perfect isn't a practical standard. Your first link is about copycat apps. And your second link seems to be about fraudulent reviews.
It’s not about perfect. Its that developers regularly publish fraudulent apps that makes millions in profits and for months. Even with apple having access to transactions.

As I said. No evidence exist to support apples or your claim that they need access to transactions. So it is safe to assume that they only need to review the app.
 
Simple. Apple forcing IAP is anti competitive towards other solutions
Which has nothing to do with what I asked.

And if developers need to make a separate app then users would need to use two apps. There is no reason to not allow developers to use apples IAP and 3d party solution in the same app.
No they wouldn't. Only the version with third-party payments would be available in the Netherlands. Apple doesn't want to offer IAP if third-party payments are available. Why force them to?

There is no technological barrier preventing Apple from limiting it to be conditional code activated only if you are in Netherlands or have a Dutch credit card.
so no argument to force developers to make separate apps.
There's also no argument to force Apple to distribute the code required by the ACM outside of the ACM's jurisdiction.
 
No, it’s not a type of good. It’s a good. Legally indistinguishable. There is no reason to treat it any differently.
That's like saying apple's and bananas are both fruits, so they must taste the same.
Medicine and pet rocks are both goods. They are both certainly treated differently in how they are sold.

No, you misinterpreted. If xbox have games that are fraudulent or morally questionable, then that’s on xbox and not Walmarts problem.
I didn't misinterpret. I rejected your analogy in order to make one that is more direct. You're trying to push the fraud down an extra level.

The relevant authority I would say. I can’t say what else can I use outside of court rulings with expertise in the laws
There's a reason prosecutors don't get to be judge and jury.

It’s not about perfect. Its that developers regularly publish fraudulent apps that makes millions in profits and for months. Even with apple having access to transactions.
Regularly? Millions? Source? And not just one, or two, or a few dozen. What percentage of fraudulent apps are Apple actually catching? Obviously, that's rhetorical. But from the numbers that Apple's published, it appears that they are catching a huge percentage.

As I said. No evidence exist to support apples or your claim that they need access to transactions. So it is safe to assume that they only need to review the app.
1. Just because you claim to be unaware of evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
2. You are aware of the evidence because you quoted a post in another thread with data from Apple where they claimed to have stopped $1.5 billion+ in fraudulent transactions, banned 3 million+ stolen credit cards, and banned 1 million+ accounts from ever transacting again. In one year.
 
Well they do. iOS is a separate system from android and not compatible. Just like dvd and vhs are not compatible
That does not make them separate markets.
Sure, the biggest problem is that apple have argued that they license it to users. And they provide the iOS software to users under a license agreement.
That is not at all relevant. The point is that iOS is not a standalone product Apple sells to competitors the way Google does. Apple sells iPhones. The iOS EULA is a feature of that phone.
Apple is a peer company toward competing Operating systems, not toward hardware as every hardware competitor uses android
iOS is not a product. Apple invested billions of dollars into a feature they thought would differentiate themselves in a commoditized market. It did. That does not make iOS its own category. Apple and Google license Android Auto and CarPlay to GM and Ford. Tesla writes its own infotainment OS for differentiation and to retain control. Tesla’s competitors are GM and Ford, not Apple and Google.
AirPods and galaxy budds can’t be compatible as apple uses their own H1 chip no other manufacturer uses outside of beats studio. And there is a difference between software on the AppStore and hardware you can buy from anywhere and compete.
Apple doesn‘t let anyone else use the U1 chip to make headphones as seamless as AirPods. They could, but don’t. They also keep the NFC chip for themselves and the EU wants them to be forced to open up, so they would probably make Apple open up U1 chip as well. Meanwhile, if Samsung builds a special way to connect their phone & headphones that will be OK, because they are not a “gatekeeper“. Why is that fair? They are both phone makers. Shouldn’t they have the same rights?
We all agree on this. It still falls on how apple treats developers and competitors. Spotify didn’t complain untill apple provided Apple Music. Apple (according to EU commissions information) apple 30% cut have resulted in higher consumer prices with different services in order to compensate what apple takes.
So if we agree that Apple is not an OS vendor why do you defend a law that effectively makes them one? As I said before, there are ways to write a law that would limit Apple’s problematic behavior without isolating them from their peers for special treatment. My proposed solution would only target IAP/App Store exclusivity as a general problem, instead of saying “well that’s fine, except when Apple does it because they are a gatekeeper“. Once you define Apple as a gatekeeper that opens up the door to further limitations on them beyond the App Store. This is highly problematic because Apple’s entire business model is based on vertical integration, total control at the expense of third parties, tying together their own proprietary devices and services, and limited compatibility with others. If Apple is just an OEM within a competitive market, that’s not a problem. If Apple is defined as their own market/platform, many things Apple does that make iOS great could be considered problematic. Apple will be forced to introduce friction points in their products and make them crappier for the sake of appeasing third parties who will now have the right to scream “Gatekeeper!” to regulators carte blanch. Consumers will be the ones who lose if Apple’s successful business model is made illegitimate. That may not be the intention of this law, but that will be its effect. That is why I wish Apple would just compromise with regulators before they pass horrible laws that will effectively destroy iOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaldiMac and I7guy
That does not make them separate markets.

That is not at all relevant. The point is that iOS is not a standalone product Apple sells to competitors the way Google does. Apple sells iPhones. The iOS EULA is a feature of that phone.

iOS is not a product. Apple invested billions of dollars into a feature they thought would differentiate themselves in a commoditized market. It did. That does not make iOS its own category. Apple and Google license Android Auto and CarPlay to GM and Ford. Tesla writes its own infotainment OS for differentiation and to retain control. Tesla’s competitors are GM and Ford, not Apple and Google.

Apple doesn‘t let anyone else use the U1 chip to make headphones as seamless as AirPods. They could, but don’t. They also keep the NFC chip for themselves and the EU wants them to be forced to open up, so they would probably make Apple open up U1 chip as well. Meanwhile, if Samsung builds a special way to connect their phone & headphones that will be OK, because they are not a “gatekeeper“. Why is that fair? They are both phone makers. Shouldn’t they have the same rights?

So if we agree that Apple is not an OS vendor why do you defend a law that effectively makes them one? As I said before, there are ways to write a law that would limit Apple’s problematic behavior without isolating them from their peers for special treatment. My proposed solution would only target IAP/App Store exclusivity as a general problem, instead of saying “well that’s fine, except when Apple does it because they are a gatekeeper“. Once you define Apple as a gatekeeper that opens up the door to further limitations on them beyond the App Store. This is highly problematic because Apple’s entire business model is based on vertical integration, total control at the expense of third parties, tying together their own proprietary devices and services, and limited compatibility with others. If Apple is just an OEM within a competitive market, that’s not a problem. If Apple is defined as their own market/platform, many things Apple does that make iOS great could be considered problematic. Apple will be forced to introduce friction points in their products and make them crappier for the sake of appeasing third parties who will now have the right to scream “Gatekeeper!” to regulators carte blanch. Consumers will be the ones who lose if Apple’s successful business model is made illegitimate. That may not be the intention of this law, but that will be its effect. That is why I wish Apple would just compromise with regulators before they pass horrible laws that will effectively destroy iOS.
Can’t blame apple. Billions of dollars are at stake. If it’s going to be forego the revenue now or forego the revenue later they are choosing the latter.

At least in the US there is the Supreme Court.
 
Can’t blame apple. Billions of dollars are at stake. If it’s going to be forego the revenue now or forego the revenue later they are choosing the latter.

At least in the US there is the Supreme Court.
Yeah how about they wait for a law that takes away their revenue in a few years and also constrains their entire wildly successful business model for the last two decades. Great idea.
 
Yeah how about they wait for a law that takes away their revenue in a few years and also constrains their entire wildly successful business model for the last two decades. Great idea.
Yep, could be some repercussions or backlash on government also in the form of the first Tuesday in November. People may find themselves out of a job. Government is going to screw millions of shareholders?
 
Yep, could be some repercussions or backlash on government also in the form of the first Tuesday in November. People may find themselves out of a job. Government is going to screw millions of shareholders?

Judging by the posts here, we could see some very varied reqs between the EU and US.
Be interesting to see just how this goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Can’t blame apple. Billions of dollars are at stake. If it’s going to be forego the revenue now or forego the revenue later they are choosing the latter.

At least in the US there is the Supreme Court.
There is a Supreme Court in every nation.

And EU have the European court of justice. The equivalent of the US federal Supreme Court.
 
Yep, could be some repercussions or backlash on government also in the form of the first Tuesday in November. People may find themselves out of a job. Government is going to screw millions of shareholders?
Do you think EU cares about google shareholders when they fined them 5 billion euros? If you break the law or harm the market that’s of little interest.

I guess US politicians will have a hard time
 
Which has nothing to do with what I asked.


No they wouldn't. Only the version with third-party payments would be available in the Netherlands. Apple doesn't want to offer IAP if third-party payments are available. Why force them to?
Because their users already have the app. There’s no reason not to allow Developers to use IAP outside of apple don’t like it, and as 3d party payments in the same app with an update.
There's also no argument to force Apple to distribute the code required by the ACM outside of the ACM's jurisdiction.
There is no code forced to be distributed.
That's like saying apple's and bananas are both fruits, so they must taste the same.
Medicine and pet rocks are both goods. They are both certainly treated differently in how they are sold.
Bananas and apples are both food and regulated as such. iPhones, TVs and software is all commercial goods and regulated as such. Medication is also commercial goods and regulated the hardest as everything else over its potential harm and social utility and can’t even sell it without price control.

There's a reason prosecutors don't get to be judge and jury.
That is why a judge already ruled on it.
Regularly? Millions? Source? And not just one, or two, or a few dozen. What percentage of fraudulent apps are Apple actually catching? Obviously, that's rhetorical. But from the numbers that Apple's published, it appears that they are catching a huge percentage.
I literally posted a source to you if you only read it. From apples numbers we only know ~5% are fraudulent. But we don’t know how many Afterwards. But it seems to be a 50/50 catch rate with the little information we have.
1. Just because you claim to be unaware of evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
2. You are aware of the evidence because you quoted a post in another thread with data from Apple where they claimed to have stopped $1.5 billion+ in fraudulent transactions, banned 3 million+ stolen credit cards, and banned 1 million+ accounts from ever transacting again. In one year.
1: it doesn’t matter if the evidence exist in a sealed document, it’s not my job to disprove positive claims.
2: compared to what? These numbers are meaningless without context.

That does not make them separate markets.

That is not at all relevant. The point is that iOS is not a standalone product Apple sells to competitors the way Google does. Apple sells iPhones. The iOS EULA is a feature of that phone.
It doesn’t matter. It’s how apple runs their AppStore. And it’s the only place to install iOS software for any idevice. The EULA is irrelevant
iOS is not a product. Apple invested billions of dollars into a feature they thought would differentiate themselves in a commoditized market. It did. That does not make iOS its own category. Apple and Google license Android Auto and CarPlay to GM and Ford. Tesla writes its own infotainment OS for differentiation and to retain control. Tesla’s competitors are GM and Ford, not Apple and Google.
And Tesla and GM etc are forced to allow anyone to install whatever hardware they want, whatever modifications they want and to repair it wherever they want. And anyone can produce hardware/software for any car owner to purchase and install. Are you saying apple should be treated similarly?
Apple doesn‘t let anyone else use the U1 chip to make headphones as seamless as AirPods. They could, but don’t. They also keep the NFC chip for themselves and the EU wants them to be forced to open up, so they would probably make Apple open up U1 chip as well. Meanwhile, if Samsung builds a special way to connect their phone & headphones that will be OK, because they are not a “gatekeeper“. Why is that fair? They are both phone makers. Shouldn’t they have the same rights?
Not at all, it’s for apps to be allowed to use the NFC chip. Not that apple must sell their U1 chip.
So if we agree that Apple is not an OS vendor why do you defend a law that effectively makes them one? As I said before, there are ways to write a law that would limit Apple’s problematic behavior without isolating them from their peers for special treatment. My proposed solution would only target IAP/App Store exclusivity as a general problem, instead of saying “well that’s fine, except when Apple does it because they are a gatekeeper“. Once you define Apple as a gatekeeper that opens up the door to further limitations on them beyond the App Store. This is highly problematic because Apple’s entire business model is based on vertical integration, total control at the expense of third parties, tying together their own proprietary devices and services, and limited compatibility with others. If Apple is just an OEM within a competitive market, that’s not a problem. If Apple is defined as their own market/platform, many things Apple does that make iOS great could be considered problematic. Apple will be forced to introduce friction points in their products and make them crappier for the sake of appeasing third parties who will now have the right to scream “Gatekeeper!” to regulators carte blanch. Consumers will be the ones who lose if Apple’s successful business model is made illegitimate. That may not be the intention of this law, but that will be its effect. That is why I wish Apple would just compromise with regulators before they pass horrible laws that will effectively destroy iOS.
I agree that targeting IAP/ AppStore exclusivity is best targeted. Such as disalloweing preferential treatment to their own services next to competing options in their store. Allow developers to use multiple IAP option next to each other. Link to their website for subscriptions for competitive prices etc etc.

That is why as I said before that MDA and their limits.

Example of the “don’ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:​


  • treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
This apple also does and will have to treat Spotify equally to Apple Music for example.
  • prevent consumers from linking up to businesses outside their platforms
This is anti steering apple does
  • prevent users from un-installing any pre-installed software or app if they wish so
This apple already allow and is good.

Examples of the “do’s” - Gatekeeper platforms will have to:​

  • allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations
This apple kind of already do, and might already fulfill the requirements
  • allow their business users to access the data that they generate in their use of the gatekeeper’s platform
This apple kind of do, might already fulfill the requirements
  • provide companies advertising on their platform with the tools and information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of their advertisements hosted by the gatekeeper
Apple already allow this
  • allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform
This apple doesn’t allow.

 
Because their users already have the app. There’s no reason not to allow Developers to use IAP outside of apple don’t like it, and as 3d party payments in the same app with an update.
They'll need to update the app either way to get the new functionality.

There is no code forced to be distributed.
That's obviously wrong. They are clearly requiring Apple distribute the dating apps with the third-party payment code outside of the Netherlands.

You're just making stuff up to dismiss arguments that don't fit your POV.

Bananas and apples are both food and regulated as such. iPhones, TVs and software is all commercial goods and regulated as such. Medication is also commercial goods and regulated the hardest as everything else over its potential harm and social utility and can’t even sell it without price control.
Truly dizzying how you can't see that you just countered your own point.

I literally posted a source to you if you only read it. From apples numbers we only know ~5% are fraudulent. But we don’t know how many Afterwards. But it seems to be a 50/50 catch rate with the little information we have.
Again, you just made up a number. I read your source. Nowhere did it allege 75,000 fraudulent apps on the App Store in one year.

1: it doesn’t matter if the evidence exist in a sealed document, it’s not my job to disprove positive claims.
2: compared to what? These numbers are meaningless without context.
1. It's not sealed. You quoted it in your post. Apple claimed to have stopped $1.5 billion in fraudulent transactions, 3 million stolen credit cards, and banned 1 million accounts from transacting.
2. Compared to the number of reported spam apps on the App Store. Which is minimal compared to the numbers Apple claims to have stopped.
 
Last edited:
And Tesla and GM etc are forced to allow anyone to install whatever hardware they want, whatever modifications they want and to repair it wherever they want. And anyone can produce hardware/software for any car owner to purchase and install. Are you saying apple should be treated similarly?
What the heck are you talking about? If you mean that Tesla and GM can’t legally stop you from modding you car, sure. Apple can’t either. You can jailbreak legally. They are already treated the same. What software is available for car owners to purchase and install anyways? (Although Tesla is planning an App Store.)
 
What the heck are you talking about? If you mean that Tesla and GM can’t legally stop you from modding you car, sure. Apple can’t either. You can jailbreak legally. They are already treated the same. What software is available for car owners to purchase and install anyways? (Although Tesla is planning an App Store.)
Exactly. Apple already has to follow the same rules as Tesla. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.