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.
Discover how the Digital Markets Act ensures large online platforms in the EU behave fairly, and allows new players to enter the market, thus developing a fast evolving digital sector.
ec.europa.eu
nos.nl
