Dutch Regulator Says Apple's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments is Insufficient, Fines Apple 5 Million Euros

[Sophisticatednut]

All Apple App Store apps use Apple’s IP. It doesn’t matter whether the payment for an app is made via Apple, PayPal or anyone else, those apps still use Apples IP and Apple will continue to license that IP based on a % of sales.

If developers don’t agree with that they can chose to stop developing for iOS.

False, not a single app uses copyrighted intellectual property or APIs in their apps that apple owns or licenses.

Only one thing is used and that is apple’s IAP mechanic because they aren’t allowed not to use it.
Do you not understand that APIs are located in the OS and not the application?

Not sure which part you're saying has zero proof, but just to provide some data for folks to use in their discussion:

App Revenue Data (2025)

App Revenue Key StatisticsMobile Ad SpendApp and Game RevenuesiOS App and Game RevenueGoogle Play App and Game RevenueGaming App RevenuesiOS Gaming App RevenueGoogle Play Gaming App RevenueApp RevenuesiOS App RevenueGoogle Play App RevenueApp Revenue by RegionSubscription App RevenueiOS...

www.businessofapps.com

View attachment 1949231

View attachment 1949232

Very interesting data. What I said he zero evidence is that iOS App Store have more revenue because the users trust the store or are more willing to spend money contrary to a disproportionate amount of available revenue per user. Just as Ferrari and BMW owner spend more money than cheap car owners completely separate from any correlation of trust

FYI - Amazon now has physical stores. (not even counting the entire Whole Foods enterprise they own)

Amazon Physical Stores | Find an Amazon store near you

At Amazon physical retail stores, like Amazon Books, Amazon 4-star, Amazon Go and Presented by Amazon, you can test drive devices, explore smart home products, browse books, toys, & games, or find delicious food on-the-go.

www.amazon.com

Interesting, didn’t know this considering we barely just had Amazon in Scandinavia. But then Amazon and apple have physical stores to sell goods.

 

[PlayUltimate]

That 30% cut is the STANDARD markup for any retail store. Go to a bookstore, a grocery store... any retail outlet. They purchase at cost, generally add 30% and then sell to consumers. Is that disgusting?

Apple invests MILLIONS into the app store economy every month. They are not just sitting on their hands collecting 30%. That money goes right back into the next year of great products and services.

I agree that in a digital marketplace, 30% is a bit high, but Apple did reduce that to 15%. Still wasn't good enough. Developers want the goods for free. Pressuring Apple to allow outside payment services will only increase costs for everyone. Just watch.

Agree. I can see a MASSIVE increase in the Dev program costs if the commission is lowered too much. Let's not forget that there was a time that Apple charged for OS updates.

 

[gnipgnop]

Ummmmm, you’re trying to reference a case that was decades ago? You’re joking, right? ????

Decades ago = legal precedent. As opposed to no legal precedent for claiming Apple's hardware can be viewed as a monopoly unto itself.

 

[mrochester]

False, not a single app uses copyrighted intellectual property or APIs in their apps that apple owns or licenses.

Only one thing is used and that is apple’s IAP mechanic because they aren’t allowed not to use it.
Do you not understand that APIs are located in the OS and not the application?

Very interesting data. What I said he zero evidence is that iOS App Store have more revenue because the users trust the store or are more willing to spend money contrary to a disproportionate amount of available revenue per user. Just as Ferrari and BMW owner spend more money than cheap car owners completely separate from any correlation of trust

Interesting, didn’t know this considering we barely just had Amazon in Scandinavia. But then Amazon and apple have physical stores to sell goods.

Apps use APIs to access certainly functionality of the device. Those APIs belong to Apple. They can license their use.

 

[gnipgnop]

The bill passed out of committee 16-6 just days ago, after those new developments were long known. The fact that courts so far have found that Apple's actions haven't violated existing U.S. anti-trust laws is precisely one reason legislators may feel the need to press forward. Also, what's the chance a Democratic president vetoes a bipartisan bill that gets through both the Democratically-controlled House and Senate? Slim to none. If the bill fails it will be before it gets to the president's desk. It will fail in either the Senate or House first.

The Senate has 100 total votes. There are plenty of bipartisan sponsored bills that fail to pass after getting out of committee and many more that require significant changes to pass. As for Democratic presidents vetoing bipartisan bills, yes it does happen. Obama vetoed JASTA. Obama also vetoed other legislation that he didn't completely disagree with in terms of the general goals, but for the specific language. Example: The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act.

 

[vipergts2207]

The Senate has 100 total votes. There are plenty of bipartisan sponsored bills that fail to pass after getting out of committee and many more that require significant changes to pass. As for Democratic presidents vetoing bipartisan bills, yes it does happen. Obama vetoed JASTA. Obama also vetoed other legislation that he didn't completely disagree with in terms of the general goals, but for the specific language. Example: The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act.

You missed a key point. While the bill was bipartisan, neither the House nor the Senate were controlled by Democrats when JASTA was vetoed.

 

[gnipgnop]

You missed a key point. While the bill was bipartisan, neither the House nor the Senate were controlled by Democrats when JASTA was vetoed.

How is that a key point? The JASTA veto required heavy Democratic support to override the veto. GOP did not have 2/3 majority control of Congress.

 

[d4cloo]

Time to ban dating apps then from the Dutch App Store. Or just leave entirely.

This would only even further prove Apple is a monopoly (duopoly) because they can control an entire category, which is at the heart of the larger legal conflict.
Further, expect dating apps to sue Apple for loss in revenues and Apple not acting in their best interest.

 

[gnipgnop]

This would only even further prove Apple is a monopoly (duopoly) because they can control an entire category, which is at the heart of the larger legal conflict.

How can Apple be considered a monopoly when every app developer is free to sell their apps on multiple platforms? How did Spotify, Tinder, and Epic become billion dollar companies if Apple is preventing them from competing?

 

[vipergts2207]

How is that a key point? The JASTA veto required heavy Democratic support to override the veto. GOP did not have 2/3 majority control of Congress.

It’s a key point because without it, it misrepresents what I actually said. Parties don’t typically force their own presidents into vetoing legislation. It’s bad optics. Whoever controls Congress chooses what bills get brought up, and if the party in control of Congress/presidency wants to pass something, but are worried about a veto, they can work with the president to make it acceptable to them. That wasn’t the case with JASTA. Can you find any remotely recent examples where one party controlled the presidency and both halves of congress and the president vetoed a bill?

 

[AppliedMicro]

How can Apple be considered a monopoly when every app developer is free to sell their apps on multiple platforms?

How many App platforms are there in the Netherlands where they can sell their apps?
How many of them are economically relevant?

 

[mrochester]

How many App platforms are there in the Netherlands where they can sell their apps?
How many of them are economically relevant?

Not really Apple’s problem. That’s the Netherlands problem. Maybe they should put money into developing a smartphone, operating system and ecosystem to compete?

 

[vipergts2207]

Not really Apple’s problem. That’s the Netherlands problem. Maybe they should put money into developing a smartphone, operating system and ecosystem to compete?

Hmm, I can think of 50 million reasons why it does kind of seem to be at least partially Apple’s problem lol.

 

[mrochester]

Hmm, I can think of 50 million reasons why it does kind of seem to be at least partially Apple’s problem lol.

They are trying to solve the wrong problem.

The market desperately needs more mobile operating systems and ecosystems so that developers have customers in numerous different ecosystems and can more easily drop one ecosystem if they don’t like the terms the ecosystem operator has.

That would actually result in a more competitive market.

 

[vipergts2207]

They are trying to solve the wrong problem.

The market desperately needs more mobile operating systems and ecosystems so that developers have customers in numerous different ecosystems and can more easily drop one ecosystem if they don’t like the terms the ecosystem operator has.

That would actually result in a more competitive market.

Just give it a little time. India’s on the case lol. Surely the market will finally show it’s willing to accommodate more than two platforms.

 

[BuffaloTF]

That report about long-distance rates dropping 40% was written in 1993, two years before VOIP was even invented.

That's because landlines are being phased out and are now a niche product. Niche product = higher prices. The technology has been supplanted by cellular and VOIP.

Can you provide some examples, adjusted for inflation of course?

Oil prices are set by an international cartel for which American oil companies are barred from participating in due to American antitrust law.

Electricity prices are down 17% since 1979 adjusted for inflation (link).

Price statistics of regulated vs unregulated industries prove otherwise.

What I’m saying is, long distance rates became zero. So it doesn’t matter what they were in 1993. The real competition came from non-traditional competitors, which have zeroed it out. And the prices for telephone service skyrocketed instantly. The long distance rates that get jammed down your throat as the reason? Utter nonsense. The heavy long distance users subsidized regular phone services. Who were those heavy users? Businesses. Businesses didn’t want to pay the rates. Businesses lobbied for the breakup. Businesses saved money. And the average joe paid out their noses after. The report you offer up about long distance rates dropping 40%? It also points out that local rates went up 53%. Long distance for the regular user was rare. So, who really benefitted?

Right Call? : 10 Years Later, AT&T; Split Favors Business

It's been a decade since the biggest company in the world agreed to break itself up in the most sweeping experiment in American industrial perestroika ever.

www.latimes.com

As for Standard Oil and Rockefeller. He retired in 1897. It was broken up in 1911. In 1912 he became the richest man in history, ever, still to this day with 900 million 1912ce dollars; because the breakup into 34 separate companies resulted in revenues and income HIGHER than the years before. 1 year. He is also the biggest philanthropist in history and died with an estate worth only 24 million in 1937ce money.

John D. Rockefeller Was the Richest Person To Ever Live. Period

Standard Oil, his company, is one of the biggest reasons we have anti-monopoly laws

www.smithsonianmag.com

And oil prices… the US is the largest producer in the world. We are and have been energy independent since Obama. In natural gas since W Bush. We just trade it as a commodity still. However, the one in control of any hyperbolic cartel… would be the US. We can shut off the worlds supply in literal days.

Teddy Roosevelt joked after the Standard Oil breakup that the Wall Street prayer became “oh sweet merciful providence, give us another dissolution.”

And for electricity. Prices have gone up. Here’s an academic article rather than some industry rub set up as a paid advertiser on google to draw clicks.

https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/21-095_7ae81c21-dc10-4fdd-8b76-bc392cfd1407.pdf

And airlines? Laughable comparison. The quality of service has plummeted to be worse than your average city bus. Overpriced for what it is, and comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Agree. I can see a MASSIVE increase in the Dev program costs if the commission is lowered too much. Let's not forget that there was a time that Apple charged for OS updates.

It’s in apples interest to have their OS up to date on as many devices as possible. Apple didn’t provide OS updates for free out of their good hearts. It’s making them money.

Apple will never increase the Dev cost because they literally earn more money with more developers as it sells more iPhones.

Apps use APIs to access certainly functionality of the device. Those APIs belong to Apple. They can license their use.

No they can’t because apple quite literally ship them in the OS. Only thing they can do is provide privilege roles stopping third party apps from using them, or banning such apps from being sold on the store. It’s impossible to license its use as developers never use them.

100% of all thing a happening on your device only happens because of available APIs.

Flash content can never be played on an iPhone because the API doesn’t exist. Windows apps can never be played because the API doesn’t exist. OS X specific functionality will never work because the APIs doesn’t exist.

They can only be used if the developer provide the APIs that are missing.

How can Apple be considered a monopoly when every app developer is free to sell their apps on multiple platforms? How did Spotify, Tinder, and Epic become billion dollar companies if Apple is preventing them from competing?

Because monopoly isn’t the issue, it’s the market threat that’s an issue. EU and USA works differently with completely different legal definitions. I believe in the Uk a monopoly is anything above 30% or so

Not really Apple’s problem. That’s the Netherlands problem. Maybe they should put money into developing a smartphone, operating system and ecosystem to compete?

Well the Netherlands just made it apple problem. Apple can take it or leave it, because Apple doesn’t have a right to their market.

 

[PC_tech]

Decades ago = legal precedent. As opposed to no legal precedent for claiming Apple's hardware can be viewed as a monopoly unto itself.

Sorry but no, it doesn’t, Apple isn’t the tiny little company it was decades ago, get real ???

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s the Netherlands problem. Maybe they should put money into developing a smartphone, operating system and ecosystem to compete?

Why spend billions of …what actually, public funds or subsidies?
When it‘s much easier to just regulate the market and its participants where they‘re acting anticompetively?

 

[Michael Scrip]

The way you make it sound is though Apple is doing the app developers a favour. Without the apps the iphone is nothing but just an everyday mobile phone. Apple needs developers to keep on developing apps for it's iOS platform because without those apps the iphone is nothing.

Yes... Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple.

That sounds like an equal partnership, right?

Imagine if Apple charged a 50% commission... since they're equal partners...

Actually the app developers hold all the cards...

Maybe that's why app developers get to keep 70% or 85% of every dollar that goes through the App Store.

Do you see that? Developers make more money than Apple on every sale.

It looks like Apple actually does value the developers.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes... Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple.

That sounds like an equal partnership, right?

Imagine if Apple charged a 50% commission... since they're equal partners...





Maybe that's why app developers get to keep 70% or 85% of every dollar that goes through the App Store.

Do you see that? Developers make more money than Apple on every sale.

It looks like Apple actually does value the developers.

It's not an equal partnership. If you amortize Apple's investment and contribution on facilitating the App Store across every developer, Apple's contribution is very small. Devs do almost all of the work when it comes to the investment put into any one app.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's not an equal partnership. If you amortize Apple's investment and contribution on facilitating the App Store across every developer, Apple's contribution is very small. Devs do almost all of the work when it comes to the investment put into any one app.

Ah... so developers keeping 70% or 85% of each sale should be fine then, huh...

Devs do more work... devs keep more money.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes... Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple.

That sounds like an equal partnership, right?

Imagine if Apple charged a 50% commission... since they're equal partners...

Lol developers don't need apple.
If apple imploded tomorrow, developers would just go to another platform or a replacement would fill their place.

BUT if developers disappeared, apple would implode overnight; or whenever their cash runs out. But if developers wants to grow, they need to develop for apple in order to not be outcompeted by other developers.

Maybe that's why app developers get to keep 70% or 85% of every dollar that goes through the App Store.

Do you see that? Developers make more money than Apple on every sale.

It looks like Apple actually does value the developers.

Apple doesn't value developers, it's an abusive relationship where apple uses the size of the market to get away with bad behavior, like every abusive relationship.

 

[vipergts2207]

Ah... so the developers keeping 70% or 85% of each sale is fine then, huh...

I don't have a problem with Apple collecting some commission. But it should be reflective of the actual investment they made into the app and it should be voluntary. As in something like a ~10% commission and sideloading should be allowed so that if a dev doesn't agree with Apple's terms, there's still a way to reach ~60% of U.S. consumers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If apple imploded tomorrow, developers would just go to another platform or a replacement would fill their place.

Ah... so there are other platforms.

And I thought Apple had some kind of crazy monopoly.

?

Apple doesn't value developers, it's an abusive relationship where apple uses the size of the market to get away with bad behavior, like every abusive relationship.

So what should the relationship be?

Can Apple charge a commission?