One learns something new every day! I must admit, I took the reporting above at face value which almost ALWAYS yields inaccuracies and confusion
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
Apple needs this approach....
Dear customers, our sole employee who's an absolute master in coding and administering Dutch dating apps will be taking a sabbatical for three months to attend to the needs of his ailing cat. As such all similarly affected apps will be put on hiatus for review or updating until he returns. Note it may be lonnnnnnnnger than the anticipated three months which is fine with us because here at Apple, we put cats ahead of profit.
Dear customers, our sole employee who's an absolute master in coding and administering Dutch dating apps will be taking a sabbatical for three months to attend to the needs of his ailing cat. As such all similarly affected apps will be put on hiatus for review or updating until he returns. Note it may be lonnnnnnnnger than the anticipated three months which is fine with us because here at Apple, we put cats ahead of profit.
I personally don't think the calculus is any different from a brick and mortar store. If you sell a product in Wal-Mart or Target you have to account for the fact that you will not get 100% of the sale price. They have their markup as well. You have to price based on what you think your product is worth. If you NEED to make $9.99 a month on your subscription to make your service financially viable, then you need to set your price to accommodate that, which will result in a $12.99 cost or so to the customer. You see products everyday that are different prices in different stores, and Charmin isn't complaining that toilet paper is cheaper at Walmart. There are even apps dedicated to comparing prices amongst different stores. I'm not sure why digital stores should be treated differently. The issue will come down to Apple's services, which should also be forced to pay that 30%. I think that is more of an SEC / reporting issue than technical though.
So that whole “up to a maximum of 50 million euros until Apple complies.” is incorrect?
Apple fails to satisfy requirements set by ACM | ACM
Apple has failed to satisfy the requirements set by ACM regarding payment systems for dating-app providers. ACM has come to this conclusion following an investigation into Apple’s statements of January 15, 2022.
Everything being said in my previous post, I am all for a third party payment API for trusted partners, like Square, PayPal, etc.. that Apple can vet. You will still process through the App Store, Apple hands off the payment to the third party, Apple calculates their cut, and everything is still handled in one store, with security and all the features users expect (refunds, parental controls, subscription management).
Upon closer reading, I actually don’t see what they have a problem with. If a developer asks, they obtain the entitlement change they’re looking for. Is the expectation that the developer would do “nothing” and all the things they want would be magically provided? I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was their thinking… the ACM hasn’t actually had to create hardware, a secure OS, and an App Store. There’s no way for them to know or understand how all that works. And, if a developer wants to offer redirect or third-party payment, they have to have separate apps for those. Again, it’s a little more work for the developer, but it’s not unreasonable UNLESS the ACM’s intent to be especially unreasonable.
ACM wants Apple to stop abusing its dominant position and "orders Apple to put an end to the violation established by ACM. Apple must adjust its conditions in such a way that, with regard to their dating apps that they offer in the Dutch App Store, dating-app providers are able to choose themselves what market participant they want to process the payments for digital content and services sold within the app. [suspended], and, in addition, they must have the ability to refer within the app to other payment systems outside the app."
www.acm.nl
Summary of decision: abuse of dominant position Apple | ACM
The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The court has partially suspended the order subject to a penalty imposed by ACM on Apple. Apple does not have to comply with that part of the cease and desist order for the time being
Every country has marketplace competition laws and regulations. If a company wants to do business in that country then they have to follow that country's laws. If an individual or company believes another company is violating those rules then they have a right to petition the government for enforcement of those rules. Anti-competitive behavior is not typically from overtly evil companies whose executives sit in dark rooms smoking cigars while rubbing their mustaches
The purpose of proactive government intervention is to stop anti-competitive behavior before it does irreparable harm to marketplaces. America's history is replete with monopolies who at first only appeared to do harm to competitors, but then when all those competitors were driven out of business the company went on to do harm to consumers. This is the entire foundation for antitrust laws in the Western world. They did not come about by accident or whim. They came about from actual events in our history. Because history has a way of repeating itself.
I understand what you're saying. But you seem to be suggesting the process isn't open to abuse? The people that make the laws are just people like you and me. They are influenced by these lobbyists just as we can be influenced by someone giving us a better paid job etc..Every country has marketplace competition laws and regulations. If a company wants to do business in that country then they have to follow that country's laws. If an individual or company believes another company is violating those rules then they have a right to petition the government for enforcement of those rules. Anti-competitive behavior is not typically from overtly evil companies whose executives sit in dark rooms smoking cigars while rubbing their mustaches
The purpose of proactive government intervention is to stop anti-competitive behavior before it does irreparable harm to marketplaces. America's history is replete with monopolies who at first only appeared to do harm to competitors, but then when all those competitors were driven out of business the company went on to do harm to consumers. This is the entire foundation for antitrust laws in the Western world. They did not come about by accident or whim. They came about from actual events in our history. And history has a way of repeating itself.
So you always have to ask yourself who is winning and who is losing in all of this? If consumers are who we are protecting why are the companies that are fighting apple generally companies who have no problem fleecing consumers anyway? You think it costs Epic $5 to give a kid a new Fortnite costume made of pixels? Do you think it costs Tinder $10 to allow you to super swipe? (I have no idea if any of that is accurate, its just a made up example).
The only thing that is fair in a game is that everyone knows the rules way in advance and the rules stay the same. Rules only change to benefit EVERYBODY, both winners and losers. You dont change the game midway because people are losing. Thats not it. Thats not fair at all.
The purpose of anti competitive has never been to act preemptively. I've never really seen that. All cases whether that be AT&T, Microsoft or the divide of investment banks from retail etc.. have all been in response to MAJOR irregularities in the market where one or more companies had inbuilt advantage that they did not earn or was acquired illegally.
Or, the damage to consumers was becoming terrible and destabilising and consumers needed to be protected from predators or the actual economy could collapse etc.. (2008 crash).
Basically this whole pre-emptive thing is bogus. There is no consumer outcry to change the Apple store or Apple business practices whatsoever. There is no illegal bullying of companies (i.e. Bill Gates at MS) or playing both sides of the market (Google in the ad space). There is literally nothing actually dishonest or illegal in Apple's business practice that I'm aware of.
Its just that they play hard and play to win. And they play for the long term.
And other companies just hate the success. Pure envy.
I doubt this will be the first category of apps that Apple is forced to make these kind of changes on. The App Store might eventually be a veritable ghost town if they take that route.
While 50 million Euros doesn't sound like much for a company the size of Apple I think it's wise to keep in mind that this is a fine for a single category of apps in a single small country. My guess is that's significantly more money than they get in return from dating apps in the Netherlands. If Apple takes this route on every category of apps in every country this comes up in, they'll eventually be looking at a very significant outlay in fines.
Last edited:
This does NOT seem hard to me. It should be very simple.
1) Use the convenient in-app purchase mechanism and pay Apple their cut
2) Provide a link/button that launches a browser window for payment like you might do for any other kind of online shopping.
I think the problem is that third parties want to integrate in-app payments without launching the web browser -- and that is what will confuse people and it is also what seems counter to the whole notion of having to pay something to the platform provider.
It should seem obvious to everyone that if you build a platform (like Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation or iOS) that you are entitled to money from those who develop for the platform. BUT it should also be obvious that linking out to the open web should always be allowed -- where third-parties can manage their own subscription mechanisms. Platform users should know clearly what is going on and to whom they are sending their payment.
Alternatively.... Apple could offer two tiers of developer accounts. The first tier would be as it is now (pay as you go via in-app payment) and the second would be an enterprise tier with a much higher annual renewal cost to cover Apple's costs and make them a fair amount of money, but otherwise leave the app developer to manage their own payments and customer support. Apps that use the second tier should be required to put their own customer support buttons and links in the app but also in the App Store and Apple should provide per-app support routing for the customer that directs them to Apple or the third party (paid for by the much higher developer account renewal fees).
1) Use the convenient in-app purchase mechanism and pay Apple their cut
2) Provide a link/button that launches a browser window for payment like you might do for any other kind of online shopping.
I think the problem is that third parties want to integrate in-app payments without launching the web browser -- and that is what will confuse people and it is also what seems counter to the whole notion of having to pay something to the platform provider.
It should seem obvious to everyone that if you build a platform (like Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation or iOS) that you are entitled to money from those who develop for the platform. BUT it should also be obvious that linking out to the open web should always be allowed -- where third-parties can manage their own subscription mechanisms. Platform users should know clearly what is going on and to whom they are sending their payment.
Alternatively.... Apple could offer two tiers of developer accounts. The first tier would be as it is now (pay as you go via in-app payment) and the second would be an enterprise tier with a much higher annual renewal cost to cover Apple's costs and make them a fair amount of money, but otherwise leave the app developer to manage their own payments and customer support. Apps that use the second tier should be required to put their own customer support buttons and links in the app but also in the App Store and Apple should provide per-app support routing for the customer that directs them to Apple or the third party (paid for by the much higher developer account renewal fees).
Last edited:
Everything is subject to abuse. Who do you think is more likely to have the money to pay lobbyists to influence outcomes and legislation and effect that abuse, a small company or a large one?
The purpose of antitrust laws is to protect competition in marketplaces. As you said previously, if a company is charging too much then consumers can take their money elsewhere. That's an entirely separate issue from companies using their dominance to illegally inhibit competition for their own benefit.
What rules have changed?
Microsoft acquired its original advantage fairly and legally. It sold a popular product at a fair price and gained a large customer base. It then used that position to start tying its products to illegally inhibit competition, after which the government sued for antitrust violations after other businesses started complaining about Microsoft's unfair practices. See where this is going? Had the government not intervened we'd all likely be using Windows machines and Internet Explorer (dear god).
With respect to Apple not being anti-competitive, the United States Congress disagrees.
So you are saying that since humans are not digital, there's no commission to collect. So the Dutch government is enforcing Apple's own rules regarding commissions...
But, isn't that an international crime? Dealing humans? So the Dutch government is in fact supporting human trafficking by your logic?
If a widget maker doesn't like Walmart's terms, there are countless other stores where they can try to sell their wares, including a direct to consumer model. With smartphone software, there exists a duopoly with Apple and Google. That situation does not exist in the retail environment. The fact that some folks don't realize this are the same exact folks who will continue to be surprised when Apple continues to get hit with fines like this, other penalties, or the enacting of new laws.
But its not small companies that have lead the charge over this is it? It's Spotify, Epic, Facebook, Microsoft etc.. Huge multinationals worth billions that are spending money to lobby these government workers who earn relatively meagre salaries in comparison to these big corporates.
They are using the "dominance" that they created fair and square! Thats where I take issue. Its like assembling a sports team where everyone is a rookie and on cheap wages, training them to be superstars and then someone saying, thats not fair that you keep winning, we need to dismantle your team. Its perverse.
Anti-competitive does not mean, its hard to compete with a company because they make excellent products. It means that your literally doing something that is unfair or illegal, or you have a built in advantage that you did not create that makes it difficult or impossible for you to compete.
The time when govt generally has to act is when whatever you made off your own back becomes a de-facto standard and essentially a natural monopoly (i.e. Windows).
Windows was a problem because it was literally 95% of the market and everyone had to use it. From governments to schools etc... At that point the govt had to act. Also they uncovered even more issues with MS that showed that the monopoly wasn't built on just having a great product. They literally forced, blackmailed OEM's!!! When has Apple done that? MS's behaviour was actually criminal.
I dont even think the EU would have told MS to split IE from Windows OS if a) they didnt already have a 95% monopoly b) they were trying deliberately to kill netscape and c) didnt force OEMs to not sell machines that didnt come with windows
In context, Apple is NO WHERE NEAR MS abuse of the market. MS's abuse affected ALL consumers since there was no choice. Thats why the governments in the USA and EU had to act.
Apple on its own built a curated market place and charge for it, allowing the vast majority of vendors to publish for free and then ones that make money give them 30% for having access to a succefull market place. 80% of the worlds mobile users DO NOT use this service.
Yet it's anti-competitive? Remember that the OS runs on its own hardware, just like consoles do, or Sonos systems do.
No one has to buy Apple hardware at all to live their lives. Yet its anti-competive ?? Its all bogus. There will be some very nice brown envelopes for various congress and EU law makers in a few years I bet.
Apple’s iPhone is not even dominant in that country, though. Do they mean Apple’s dominant position in Apple’s App Store?ACM wants Apple to stop abusing its dominant position and "orders Apple to put an end to the violation established by ACM. Apple must adjust its conditions in such a way that, with regard to their dating apps that they offer in the Dutch App Store, dating-app providers are able to choose themselves what market participant they want to process the payments for digital content and services sold within the app. [suspended], and, in addition, they must have the ability to refer within the app to other payment systems outside the app."
Summary of decision: abuse of dominant position Apple | ACM
The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The court has partially suspended the order subject to a penalty imposed by ACM on Apple. Apple does not have to comply with that part of the cease and desist order for the time being
You’ve got to love the Dutch, one of the tallest and happiest countries of the world, third largest investor in the US, renowned for their fight against water, famous for cheese, beer and windmills, and now they dare to take on apple.. history in the making!
I’m still scratching my head… dating apps? That’s how you want to force Apple to make changes to the app store? How about cloud gaming? Now that would be interesting.
You should read over the antitrust laws and precedents. They cover all the ground you're discussing. You may be surprised by what they contain. For example, simple market share percentages like you listed are only one of many metrics used by regulators to establish whether a company has a dominant position in the marketplace. You should also read the Apple section of the Congressional report I linked.
"ACM establishes that Apple enjoys a dominant position on the relevant market for appstore services on the mobile operating system iOS for dating-app providers."
Apple needs 3rd party apps just as app developers need Apple.
Apple should not be whining. They should act mature and be decent, play fair.
Focus on quality, pamper developers and money will follow.
Arrogantly focussing on money will eventually prove a loosing game...
Wish Jobs was still around. He seemed to better understand success starts with quality.
Focus on quality, pamper developers and money will follow.
Arrogantly focussing on money will eventually prove a loosing game...
Wish Jobs was still around. He seemed to better understand success starts with quality.
You’re getting the metaphors mixed I feel. Apple is the platform. You can’t goto Wal-mart, not like their terms and goto Wal-Mart in the next town over and negotiate with them separately. That is the difference. You want to be an Apple developer, these are the terms. Just like if you want to be in Wal-Mart, you agree to their terms. You are free to develop for Android, Windows, Steam, Epic or release your own PWA apps, just like you can goto Target, Dollar General or wherever else in retail.
If you look at the original verdict, this is not about the Dutch vs Apple but the Tinder parent company (MTCH Technology Services Limited en Meetic SAS) using the Dutch Courts to set a president...
The court btw destroyed Apples arguments around possible fraud, privacy, etc issues.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:12851 (Dutch)
The court btw destroyed Apples arguments around possible fraud, privacy, etc issues.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:12851 (Dutch)