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

[elvisimprsntr]

As Ive said before, "Dating" apps is a polite term for legal prostitution, which the Netherlands does not want to share the revenue with Apple. Government officials are likely the ones using said "Dating" apps, which they would like to prevent their significant others from finding out.

Also, government officials personal credit card is likely tied to their Apple ID, which their significant other will see a transaction for a "subscription" or "payment" listed under the App name. Or their government issued credit card is tied to their Apple ID, which they will have trouble submitting expenses for. The other theory is that government officials accept bribes from criminal organizations or lobbyists in the form of credits with said "Dating" apps, which they would like to "redeem"

 

[Tagbert]

You know, I agree with not having multiple app stores. We all knew about the walled garden before we bought the phones, and their curation is definitely a strong way to enforce privacy regs.

But third party payment systems? Eh....that's a tougher one. Apple monetizes their investment via the app store and rev shares. If app can use third party payment systems, then how does apple get paid for their development tools and other infrastructure? Maybe force a flat 'listing fee' for apps that offer third party payments? Or require a minimum price for the app itself?

Apple makes money on apps that are sold in the App Store. Apple is demanding a large cut of any payments done by third-party payment processors. Apple will still get a cut of payments done though their own payment system. Most apps will continue to use and offer Apple payments as they do work well for many apps and setting up third-party option is more work. Apple is not going to lose money on the App Store.

In addition, a large part of the value of the expensive phones that Apple sells is due to the availability of apps on the App Store. Whether Apple wants to acknowledge that value add or not.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Do you honestly not understand what they want Apple to do?

I mean, this isn't very complicated, but let me break it down for you:

The Dutch regulator has ordered Apple to give users multiple payment options.

Apple won't oblige and is instead forcing app developers to either choose to include Apple's own payment processor or an an outside party, but won't allow both.

It would seem the reason Apple is doing this is that they are counting on app developers not bothering to do all that work for a market as small as the Netherlands, thereby forcing the status quo to remain in place.

It's extremely complicated. This involves international politics, law, and business. It requires Apple's legal team to look at the wording of the new regulation, interpret it (not meaning into English, although that's part of it), pass along recommendations to management, etc. It then requires figuring out how to implement them and what those implementations mean for business long-term, not just in the Netherlands but worldwide. How Apple (and the Netherlands) handles this can have implications everywhere.

 

[Tagbert]

Quite fascinating that Apple is resisting (if not downright rejecting) so many of these policies set by regulators, because it is only driving up the tensions until Apple's App Store policies will be dictated by governments.

Surely it would make more sense for Apple to adopt a proactive stance on this topic and make most of the changes voluntarily and not once their hand is forced and they'll end up with whatever misguided law is applied to them?

Apple seems to be playing a game of "chicken" with regulators by dragging their feet and making the process for developers so painful and expensive (27% surcharge for third-party payments, really!?) that they expect no one to use the option.

The problem is that this only encourages regulators to pursue other regulations that will hurt Apple even more: alternate app stores, side-loading, regulations on fees that Apple can charge. If those regulations come about they will hurt Apple more and will likely not be written in a way that Apple would want. Apple seems to think that they can keep digging in on the small things and that they can avoid any of the more invasive regulations. That is a risky gamble.

 

[UBS28]

Just pull out of the Netherlands. There are plenty of sufficient payment options such as Mastercard, Visa or pre-paid cards to use in the App Store already. And people pay on Tinder their own website threw Safari also?

I guess the Dutch government needs to find money somehow after Dutch companies like Shell and Unilever are leaving the Netherlands.

 

[bunty]

Just some idle thoughts after waay too much coffee...

Apple should be calling them out on why specifically "dating" apps are being targeted, like a full page ad in newspapers and PSA's on TV publicly asking them why, but the risk there is dutch regulators ask for all apps to offer alternate payment methods.

Or, just alter the TOS of the app store in the Netherlands in such a way that Apple can ban all dating apps there saying they violate the TOS of the App Store.

As far as alternate payments go i wonder if Apple could just have a pop-up window required in each app affected saying something to users akin to "choose one-click secure and private ApplePay or other..." and when people click on "other" or whatever, another pop-up appears warning the user that they're "going to a 3rd party website, it's a security risk and may not private, your data may be compromised and you could be tracked, etc..." developers can have a web link there that just goes to their payment page on their website where people have to make an account, then pay, then go back and enter in the account credentials in the iOS app, etc... Just make it a hassle to use 3rd party payments, just make a whole lotta hoops to jump through to use 3rd party payment methods.

 

[robco74]

Quite fascinating that Apple is resisting (if not downright rejecting) so many of these policies set by regulators, because it is only driving up the tensions until Apple's App Store policies will be dictated by governments.

Surely it would make more sense for Apple to adopt a proactive stance on this topic and make most of the changes voluntarily and not once their hand is forced and they'll end up with whatever misguided law is applied to them?

Actually, this is a smart move by Apple. Right now legislators on both sides of the pond are trying to curb the MANGA companies, but are mostly just engaging in political theatre. Apple is forcing them to create comprehensive legislation that will establish rules they can work with. Otherwise, this drags on for years. It also provides a nice PR shield for them, if consumers are unhappy, they can blame the government.

 

[I7guy]

Apple seems to be playing a game of "chicken" with regulators by dragging their feet and making the process for developers so painful and expensive (27% surcharge for third-party payments, really!?) that they expect no one to use the option.

The problem is that this only encourages regulators to pursue other regulations that will hurt Apple even more: alternate app stores, side-loading, regulations on fees that Apple can charge. If those regulations come about they will hurt Apple more and will likely not be written in a way that Apple would want. Apple seems to think that they can keep digging in on the small things and that they can avoid any of the more invasive regulations. That is a risky gamble.

Yes, apple seemingly want regulators to dictate the specific method they should open up alternative payments. Why? I don’t know.

 

[DaPizzaMan]

You know, I agree with not having multiple app stores. We all knew about the walled garden before we bought the phones, and their curation is definitely a strong way to enforce privacy regs.

But third party payment systems? Eh....that's a tougher one. Apple monetizes their investment via the app store and rev shares. If app can use third party payment systems, then how does apple get paid for their development tools and other infrastructure? Maybe force a flat 'listing fee' for apps that offer third party payments? Or require a minimum price for the app itself?

I don't understand this. Doesn't Apple charge a yearly $99 developer fee?

 

[Ubuntu]

WHAT THE HELL DO THEY WANT APPLE TO DO? Honestly, send them a note stating, step by step, what The Government Thy God wants Apple to do. Until then, screw it all, because nothing Apple does will be enough to stop additional fines, it seems...

Oh man, the amount of times I’ve wished the same of the app store review team ? getting a taste of their own medicine.

 

[justperry]

WHAT THE HELL DO THEY WANT APPLE TO DO? Honestly, send them a note stating, step by step, what The Government Thy God wants Apple to do. Until then, screw it all, because nothing Apple does will be enough to stop additional fines, it seems.

The ACM is not the government.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Quick question:

Who does Apple's payment processing?

Apple's isn't a bank... nor are they VISA/Mastercard/etc. So someone is processing payments for Apple. And they have since forever.

Moving the payment elsewhere isn't really what these developers are looking for anyway. They want to eliminate Apple's commission fee... which is MUCH higher than the payment fee.

Payment processors charge roughly 3% for their services. And this is backed up by Apple's reduction by 3% if developers use another payment processor. Google is doing a similar thing in South Korea... reducing their commission by 4% in that country.

Note that Apple and Google are still expecting to make a commission fee... now MINUS the the payment fee.

If developers truly wanted to pay less... they should have been fighting to lower Apple's or Google's commission fees... instead of trying to move the payment fees over to Stripe or PayPal or whoever. Again... the payment portion is tiny by comparison.

In the end... developers will always have payment fees... whether it's through Apple, Google, Stripe, PayPal, or whoever. Those are a constant. You can't run a business without credit card fees.

But if developers have a problem with platform fees... that's another argument altogether.

It's funny... when this whole "3rd-party payments" thing began... I knew exactly how it was gonna go. The platforms simply lowered their commission by exactly how much the payment portion was.

Now we know that Apple's 30% fee was always comprised of a 3% payment fee and 27% commission fee.

So I wonder if Dutch regulators will now try to breakup that 27% into even smaller portions.

 

[gaximus]

How are you supposed to offer a second payment option without submitting a new binary. How else do you expect to update the app. Does the government think a new Binary means an entirely new app? A new binary is just a new update to an existing app.

Edit: Article says a separate app, but I remember some article saying they only needed to submit a new binary, can't find it now, so I might have miss remembered.

 

[Sema]

Fine Apple 27% of their revenue and they will quickly understand what needs to be done.

 

[Sander]

Just saying: as a Dutch citizen I have no idea where this ACM’s beef came from. I read the original document (in Dutch) and it seriously sounds like some high-up guy has a son who can’t play Fortnite anymore and who soured the whole family’s opinion on Apple. ?‍♂️

 

[Okasian]

You know, I agree with not having multiple app stores. We all knew about the walled garden before we bought the phones, and their curation is definitely a strong way to enforce privacy regs.

But third party payment systems? Eh....that's a tougher one. Apple monetizes their investment via the app store and rev shares. If app can use third party payment systems, then how does apple get paid for their development tools and other infrastructure? Maybe force a flat 'listing fee' for apps that offer third party payments? Or require a minimum price for the app itself?

How do Apple get paid for their development tools and other infrastructure?

They could charge a yearly $99 price for their Apple Developer Program as it will be primarily the developer(s) who would be using and interacting with said development tools and other infrastructure.

 

[nastysailboat]

I think the penalties come too quick here. Charging it every week and stopping after just 10 weeks doesn't make sense.

Apple needs more time than a week to make the changes. Give them a month between each round of penalties. But also, don't stop doling out the penalties. And I'm not sure whether 5M Euros is an appropriate penalty. Whatever it is, it needs to be large enough for Apple to react, but not so large that Apple decides to just exit the market entirely rather than comply with the rules.

For real. At this point it makes more sense for apple to just pull the iPhone from there or at least the App Store. Until they can get it done.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Oh man... Where to start?
The weekly penalty seems odd - as if any global company can possibly move at the speed to adhere to something as potentially complex as this in a week's time. It's only made more odd by the Dutch regulators offering a max fine cap. Really? So there IS a price tag to allowing Apple to function as-is? Sounds fairly extortionist, to me. Regardless, it's likely easier for Apple to keep paying their monthly fee until they hit the max. Do Dutch regulators expect Apple to comply with their country-specific regulations for a handful of dating apps? Is the Dutch government really that bored? Seems Dutch citizens would have bigger fish to fry than dating app payment regulation? This is all too bizarre to be real. And yet...

 

[nastysailboat]

Just saying: as a Dutch citizen I have no idea where this ACM’s beef came from. I read the original document (in Dutch) and it seriously sounds like some high-up guy has a son who can’t play Fortnite anymore and who soured the whole family’s opinion on Apple. ?‍♂️

It does seem weird. Why just dating apps?

 

[Wildkraut]

I think the penalties come too quick here. Charging it every week and stopping after just 10 weeks doesn't make sense.

Apple needs more time than a week to make the changes. Give them a month between each round of penalties. But also, don't stop doling out the penalties. And I'm not sure whether 5M Euros is an appropriate penalty. Whatever it is, it needs to be large enough for Apple to react, but not so large that Apple decides to just exit the market entirely rather than comply with the rules.

Apple had many years to come to one's sense and fix that upfront, and this won't end at 50 mil for sure.
50 mil will be just a pause to reconsider new higher fines.

Apple sought and found it, and will have to accept the consequences!
This is just the start...

 

[ponzicoinbro]

Match ? Group ? Is ? A ? Monopoly.

Dating ? apps ? are ? a ? scam.

Join a hobby group, join a gym, go clubbing, go to dance classes. You will enjoy life much more and a monopolistic dating company won’t destroy your mind, take your data and take your money.

 

[I7guy]

Apple had many years to come to one's sense and fix that upfront, and this won't end at 50 mil for sure.
50 mil will be just a pause to reconsider new higher fines.

Apple sought and found it, and will have to accept the consequences!
This is just the start...

There was nothing to fix.

 

[bunty]

So there IS a price tag to allowing Apple to function as-is? Sounds fairly extortionist, to me.

I gotta wonder if Apple could just ask some courts over there if the actions by the Netherlands ACM/Gov't falls under their own country's extortion laws... I mean the fine(s) sure sound like "protection money" to me.

The more I think about it the more I think Apple should just shut down the App store in the Netherlands saying "Unfortunately we're unable to fully comply, securely, in the allotted time, therefore until further notice we're taking the App store down in the Netherlands until such time as we can comply with the new regulations" or something like that and just basically tell the Netherlands to stay tuned...

 

[mrochester]

Yes, apple seemingly want regulators to dictate the specific method they should open up alternative payments. Why? I don’t know.

Better for the regulators to lay down the exact rules than the current wishy washy approach they are expecting Apple to work in.

 

[Wildkraut]

There was nothing to fix.

That's what they probably said, too.
Well, it's their right to think that, but laws "thinks different" ?.