But it’s voluntary, in that you’re not forced to be on the App Store. So “theft” is pushing it a bit.
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's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments is Insufficient, Fines Apple 5 Million Euros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it’s voluntary, in that you’re not forced to be on the App Store. So “theft” is pushing it a bit.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
It is but Apple doesn’t like to pay fines 😂 they’re going to find a way to get away with it.
If you're going to fine companies, make it hurt. 5 million isn't going to hurt any major company. Charge Apple, MS, Facebook, Twitter like 100 billion.
Apple will always try to be super clever interpreting juridiction and do whatever they can to make it as miserable as possible for developers to use alternate payment systems. So they get what they deserve.
People have no clue when they make the "theft" comment.
Consider ebooks sold through Amazon. Amazon currently controls around 80% of the ebook market in the United States. If you price your ebook from $2.99 to $9.99, Amazon takes a 30% commission. If you price your ebook outside of that range, Amazon takes a 65% commission.
So not only does Amazon have a dominant position in the market, they also have the so-called "high rates of commission" and use it for enforcing pricing control.
you can build a web app that shows up on the home screen and runs in a dedicated browser instance. this method was here ages ago. and it even can send notifications. no install or app store review required.
The Dutchies have a bug up their collective ass. They will get over it.
don't forget the extra they charge for downloaded bytes. the price really makes the mobile operators with their overpriced data packages blush
Yeah, basically they are expecting Apple to say: “Here, use my infrastructure to advertise and distribute your product, and while you make money, I’ll just sit here making nothing.”.
Actually $2.569 Trillion as of this entry. We can now round up to almost $3 Trillion and climbing. 😘
Why only dating apps! I wondered. - Turns out, if you were dating siri or something virtual (digital), then in-app commission is applicable. Since dating apps is all about people/human's then no commission is needed. Apple should be happy that nobody has sued it for this lapse, including the dutch regulators who saw this to be similar to uber or amazon apps, that do not pay any commission and the transactions are carried out by their own payment gateway options.
This only proves that the dutch regulation agrees with apple and its 30% commission for digital goods and services, I think thats a fine observation by the dutch authorities.
This only proves that the dutch regulation agrees with apple and its 30% commission for digital goods and services, I think thats a fine observation by the dutch authorities.
In the same way that you don't have to pay protection money to the mafia, you just have to leave, right?
Nonsensical comparison. Mafia "protection" involves them going to an existing business and demanding money not to ruin it. Obviously, developers did not have an existing App Store business prior to Apple's involvement. Apple created the operating system and the store. Then the developers made their own decision to release apps through the store.
Especially not for a tiny market like the Netherlands. Maybe a mid-sized market like Japan or a major market like U.S. and China, but I think Apple would probably rather just pay the fine than implement a precedence in this case.
Last edited:
Close down Dutch app store, some authorities dont seem to realise it does cost money to host/run an app store?
The problem with doing this is that the ruling is only limited to dating apps because a coalition of dating apps made the complaint. Any other sector making the same complaint (and they will, Spotify are just waiting for this to complete) will very likely succeed, and the ruling is on the basis of European competition law, so it is very likely the precedent of this will spread to dozens of other countries, even aside from forthcoming legislation mandating it.
And exiting the European market would cost Apple a lot (lot) more than closing down the app store entirely.
I'd also like to take a moment to laugh at anyone who downvoted my comment last week saying that Apple's approach here was clearly not going to work with competition regulators in the Netherlands (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-in-app-payment-options.2331585/post-30783001)
Or time for people to reevaluate their curious allegiances to brands and the big corporations behind them.
They wouldn't have a choice, right? When the prices go up, they simply do. Maybe consumers can reach out to their representatives and ask that they work in everyone's best interest and not just one industry.
Spotify already had to provide their financial records to the EU in their prior complaint about Apple. Less than 1% of their iOS subscriptions are actually subject to Apple's commission. Essentially, they lied to the EU when making their original complaint about commissions.
Consumers will be punished, no matter how this unfolds…..
Intresting responses here. I see three main catagories:
1) Finally someone is doing something
2) The fine is way to low
3) the dutch are crazy and should be punished
And its option 3 I genuinely do not understand. Whats with the punishing Dutch iPhone users? Is it protectionism of your favourite brand? So the Dutch government attacks your friend, you attack the Dutch governments friends? Explain this to me. I really would like to understand the logic.
(as for my opinion on this ruling. I really dont have one. I couldn't care less if Apple makes all the money or they have to share it around a bit.)
1) Finally someone is doing something
2) The fine is way to low
3) the dutch are crazy and should be punished
And its option 3 I genuinely do not understand. Whats with the punishing Dutch iPhone users? Is it protectionism of your favourite brand? So the Dutch government attacks your friend, you attack the Dutch governments friends? Explain this to me. I really would like to understand the logic.
(as for my opinion on this ruling. I really dont have one. I couldn't care less if Apple makes all the money or they have to share it around a bit.)
Theft. How do you figure it’s theft when customers volunteer to go and are knowingly paying for the product. Is your salary theft or an agreed upon exchange of money for service?
This is a voluntary arrangement. Apple volunteers to play in a specific market. Those customers volunteer to buy Apple products. If either side doesn’t like it they can go their separate ways. Nobody is forcing the Dutch to buy Apple and nobody is forcing Apple to support a Dutch anything.
Seems that if the price of doing business with Dutch dating lowers the desired profit margins, the solution is simple. Raise prices to accommodate or pull the apps all together and move along. God forbid human beings go back to interacting with other human beings to find a date.