They are doing exactly what they should be doing. They cannot allow politicians in an insignificant country to dictate how they run their store worldwide. If they want special treatment they will need to put up the effort to do so. Otherwise deactivate their store in the country and move one. There are quite a few products and services unavailable in Europe because they don’t make financial sense. If European countries or even the US make the App Store unprofitable it become a liability instead of a profitable asset. They will move on to a different platform.
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
They are doing exactly what they should be doing. They cannot allow politicians in an insignificant country to dictate how they run their store worldwide. If they want special treatment they will need to put up the effort to do so. Otherwise deactivate their store in the country and move one. There are quite a few products and services unavailable in Europe because they don’t make financial sense. If European countries or even the US make the App Store unprofitable it become a liability instead of a profitable asset. They will move on to a different platform.
The problem with having to Provide purchase links to the open web is these developers come to Apples App Store, use their resources and hosting to build a business and access to customers that Apple markets aggressive to acquire and keep them spending money on their platform. Now they they are established they want to take that access for free.
They will be shocked when they realize Apple has flipped the script and is aggressively developing next generation console quality games and Productivity Apps that rival MS while co-developing with smaller companies. This will be the Arcade and Apple One model.
Last edited:
Merely posting a definition of independent means nothing.
First, from what source does its authority to levy fines originate? Unfortunately the document you linked to doesn’t explain their basis for their alleged power. There has to be a legal basis. My guess is that this organization was promulgated by the government.
Is ACM a NGO?
Or is ACM simply a business?
Jeez, you never heard of “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich”?
Apples paid Tax has no weight. If they leave NL or EU, economically nobody will cry, except Apple, a few fanatics, and their shareholders.
Here again extra for you:
The Double Irish Dutch Sandwich finally explained
Google makes an announcement saying they are going to abandon the Double Irish Dutch Sandwich arrangement. Here's a Finshots explainer simplifying this.
finshots.in
And a cartoon and diagram, for easier understanding:
Last edited:
Let’s also not forget that you mean Apple shouldn’t make money on every item it sells?
The reason they don’t think like this is that it will immediately make developers “sell” free apps, and unlock all functionality via their own payment system, bypassing Apple’s cut.
The equivalence, I think, is putting empty soda cans in your local Walmart shop and handing them out for free (profiting from the impulse buy and the Walmart name) but not giving Walmart a cut - and then posting your van outside the parking lot where customers can fill their cans with your soda for a price you get 100% of.
There are two downsides to this: one for Apple (of which you could say “not my problem”), but also for me as a customer, because there will be a LOT of these external payment processors, whom I would trust less than Apple. Where is my kid’s “game subscription” being billed from? Can I cancel it easily? And the suggestion of “just make it an option” or “Apple can display a warning” will make the devs complain too because “now Apple implemented it but tries to scare people away from our option.”
I find it fascinating that it is exactly the dating apps who are the exception here: I think many of those are the most shady in their payment practices…
We shall have to see how the rest of the EU reacts although this is an isolated incident to one country, but the EU is used to fining large American tech corporations fines of billions of euros repeatedly. It certainly has no issue taking them head on if it is required to do so and has a case. I don't believe they have such a case against Apple yet, not sure if their investigation into the music app services has concluded yet for instance?
I don’t think you know what totalitarian means. And who is ‘we’?
That's an interesting way to interpret this.
Personally, I see two huge caveats to this:
1. If Apple is not proactive and doesn't change their policies themselves, those policies will be dictated to Apple and they may not be at all what Apple wishes they were and by that time, it will be too late. (For example, it's not unreasonable to think that exclusive app stores will be banned by regulators.)
2. This anti-change stance is costing Apple billions in developer, consumer, and regulator goodwill.
really well articulated, Tagbert. Agree fully that this is huge gamble for Apple, and may not be the smartest move.
Whatever action Apple takes will never be good enough for the sub-set of developers who have an axe to grind. They want to pay nothing to Apple. What regulators decide should happen will not be based on how Apple behaves. Apple has a duty to operate within the law and protect its revenue. And the ACM complaint isn’t even about Apple’s commission, it’s about the fact Apple are requiring Dutch dating app developers to pick between Apple IAP or 3rd party on behalf of the end user instead of letting the end user pick (which feels like the right solution since the complaint is that developers can’t pick a 3rd party payment processor, not that the end user can’t pick a 3rd party processor. It feels like the ACM are taking a complaint from app developers and asking Apple to make changes, and when Apple makes a change to satisfy the developers complaint the ACM then says the change must also satisfy another condition that wasn’t even originally complained about).
Its typical EU style legislation where a ruling is made but no guidance or information is given as to how to comply with it and companies just have to take a stab in the dark. GDPR was like that with lots of companies doing different things.
What about all the good will Apple are generating from standing up to developers who want to ruin the App Store as it currently stands?
Last edited:
What the ACM is asking is simple, make both purchasing systems in dating apps available so the customer can chose but Apple is having none of it because they are saying the app developer has to make that decision when designing the app, the app developer either has to pick Apples pay system or a third party pay system, they cannot offer both and this is what the ACM is having a problem with. They are saying app developers are allowed to other both systems in their app and Apple is saying no, hence the fines.
It’s important to look at what the actual original complaint was. Was it that app developers couldn’t offer 3rd party payment processors or that users couldn’t choose between different payment processors ?
Apples proposed solution answers one of those but not the other.
If the problem is that app developers can’t offer 3rd party payment systems then Apples solution solves that. If the problem is that users can’t pick a 3rd party payment system then Apples solution doesn’t solve that.
If Apples solution needs to be to allow users to pick 3rd party payment options then that only works if the App developer actually allows the user to make that choice. So logically this legislation means that both apple and app developers need to make every conceivable option available to the end user so that neither apple or the app developer are denying the user that choice. If the purpose of the ruling is to make apple be forced to allow users to pick any payment option but developers can then limit that choice to their own preferred payment option then this legislation has solved nothing as far as user choice is concerned as it just moves control from apple to the app developer.
Last edited:
Honestly most pipo who support the ACM are only doing it because they have a hate on apples success. Apple is the one who make the Device and the Software so they should be the Gateway of payment since an outside way would open the way for illicit payments and scamms when its not controlled.
Apple should be allowed to Secure thair platform and that includes protecting their customers from fraudlent apps like dating apps
Apple should be allowed to Secure thair platform and that includes protecting their customers from fraudlent apps like dating apps
you are right. The Lawmakers are idiots who don't know how App Markets etc work. They enforcing Draconic Laws on some new technologies they thing which work like old market concepts while its complete different way today
That is not what the issue is about. The ACM is telling Apple that dating app developers must be allowed to offer consumers BOTH payment systems, Apples and app developers own. This is all about consumer choice, do they pick Apples payment system or do they pick the 3rd party payment system, but Apple is saying no to this because they are saying the app developer is to decide which payment system they provide to their customers, one or the other, not both and the ACM is telling Apple NO, it's both.
This is all about consumer choice, letting the consumer decide which payment system they want to use and not having Apple dictate which payment system is given to them.
Basically the ACM is saying it is the consumer who should decide what payment system they use, not Apple. I see nothing wrong with that argument.
There’s nothing wrong with that argument, but what if the consumer wants to use a payment system that isn’t offered by either apple or the developer? This legislation doesn’t solve the consumer choice issue. The legislation as it stands currently only solves the developer choice issue. Which is why it’s odd the ACM are mandating that end users be given the choice given their own legislation isnt to give users the choice of whatever payment system they want, just the ability to choose between two pre-determined options.
So basically your saying that because there is too much choice Apple should be able to dictate what that choice should be, yes?
No I’m saying the ACM legislation doesn’t give consumers a free choice of payment options so it’s odd they are mandating Apple give consumers the choice as opposed to just developers.
If the ACM are concerned with consumers having options then every conceivable payment option should to be available to consumers, not just what apple or the app developer decide. If the ACM are concerned with developers having options then Apples proposed solution already solves this.
I suspect Apples legal challenge will hinge on this. The complaint is from app developers but the remedy is not just for app developers. The remedy should be just for the complainant and not for parties who have no stake or complaint.
It is their platform after all.
But it’s been too long since the last “Apple vs the world” saga. My money’s still on Apple, and regardless of the outcome, this should be one hell of a ride.
That would be a good thing for the sake of the planet.
Imagine the decline in dick pics being sent to people who don't actually want them.
The politicians make tax laws that are advantageous to them, not necessarily the consumers or for the goodness of society. Hence all the loopholes.
Tax loopholes are the result of businesses not wanting to pay the right amount of tax so they hire numerous lawyers and tax accountants to find ways to not have to pay the right amount of tax. Governments devise tax's which is supposed to be fair to all and many many businesses and individuals (including politicians) pay the right amount of tax but then you also have many many more who do not want to pay the right amount of tax only the 'legal' amount of tax hence the team of lawyers and accountants employed by them to find ways on how to avoid paying the maximum amount of tax and only pay the minimum legal ammount.
The issue about Apple being a private company and thus not making tax laws, they certaianly do profit from it. The case with Ireland being a very good example. Their government gave Apple a huge huge tax incentive if they invested in the country of which they did. Many many years later others complained that what the Irish government did was basically state sponsoring Apple due to the extremely low rate of tax Apple was allowed to pay. It bascially amounted to $13 billion in lost tax to the EU but the EU lost because the tax benifits given to Apple by the Irish government was considered not a case of state sponsorship but a legal tax agreement, even though it was extremely generous.
just look at the leak of the Panama papers which showed thousands upon thousands of businesses and individuals using tax loopholes. When it comes to business there is no ethics or morals because using tax loopholes proves that. 'What is mine is mine' rings true in the business world and Apple is showing that with regards to the Dutch ACM, 'the app store is mine and I will do with it as I please'.