It’s not much and the Dutch know that Apple’s likely very willing to pay especially since it means they can keep the structure they created in response to the initial request.
Tinder already did that years ago and they're the ones that lead this complaint in the Netherlands. It's cynical at best.
An infrastructure they have no choice to use since Apple doesn't permit developers to distribute apps using their own or other third party's infrastructure.
Apple has competition, it’s called Android. MacOS has competition, it’s called Windows and Linux. I'm all for alternative pay,e t methods and always thought it stupid of Apple not to allow links to websites for purchases. That being said, Apple maintains the store, develops the API's, and should receive a percentage of sales.Would love to see the Dutch step up to the plate & announce that they are enacting New Law that will establish a Public Utility App Store, that competes head-on with Apple !
And, until that happens, that Sideloading (of iOS apps on iOS devices) MUST be supported by Apple!
Incorrect. This particular Dutch legal instrument (“dwangsom” or penalty) is not a fine and certainly not a ransom. Apple is still obliged to comply with the ruling. If the penalty is insufficient it can be increased or more severe instruments could be used to make Apple comply.
Ideally, but in general I don't think "the people" know what is in their best interests. So many people make terrible decisions managing their own lives because they are uninformed, misinformed, short-sighted, etc.
Incorrect. Developers can and do use the internet for payments and to provide web based apps. The reality is that anything that can be done in the App Store (search for info on developers/products, payments, apps) can also be done on the internet. The difference is that the App Store is using Apple's own IP and can provide some functions that aren't necessarily available through the internet.
That's true of the business world and government as well. Human nature doesn't change just because you put on a suit.
If the App Store (and possibly other stores with the same 30% fee, like Google Play) is your only market, it may make sense for you. But if you have a subscription service that's also available on desktop/web, it becomes more complicated. You either eat up the losses from Apple's 30% fee or pass on the extra cost to the customer. The latter leads to inconsistent pricing, and you are forbidden from telling users that there is another place where they can get it for a lower price.
? You pretty much described what Apple has allowed Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Target, Starbucks, Uber, Lyft, Bank of America, TD Ameritrade, Robinhood, Coinbase, etc. to do for many years now.
Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle were all highly successful moving 100% of payments involved with their App Store apps to the internet years ago. That all happened without any changes in laws and those are very mainstream kinds of apps that get used by the "typical" smartphone user. It should have failed if iPhone users were really that ignorant of other information sources etc, but they're not so...
And Apple could choose to not allow third-party native apps, but that would mean we'd all have to buy Android phones to use our favorite apps. You speak as if Apple's app APIs are some gift to developers given for free, when in fact they're an essential feature for Apple to have a competitive product in the market. It's curious how this "free access to IP" argument was a never a thing when it came to Mac apps. Would anyone buy a Mac without third-party apps? Why is it any different for smartphones?
It's not that, its about the capitalist principal really.
The Dutch and almost everywhere outside the US is already Android. Which, of course, raises an interesting question. With the masses of Android devices there, they’re targeting a really small number of users which would be affected by this action (small number of users to start with, and less than 100% of those use dating apps). Seems peculiar.
