The question here is what can be deemed as substitutes. An issue like this came up during the Office Depot-OfficeMax-Staples merger proposal, are they a monopoly of office supplies stores? The answer is yes if you consider office supply stores as only brick and mortor locations, but no when you consider online options like Amazon or even different industries like general merchandisers like Walmart. The short answer is it can be anything the regulator or police state (since this is an EU country) deems it to be
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
You should look into the world outside the US.
The iPhone is far from being essential. There are countries where you can’t take part in the electronic economy without WhatsApp. The iPhone is nowhere near that essential in the US.The first Nokia cell phone was in 1987. The iPhone was in 2007. That was 20 years of Nokia becoming the largest cell phone company in the world. In 2004/2005, the iPhone hadn’t even started to be a thing, so let’s say 18 years. It’s been 15 since the iPhone and there are governments focused on removing the type of profit sharing that ensures that the next company is able to actually obtain the revenue to thrive and grow. With the number of companies and people that appear to be fed up with the status quo, there’s WAS ample opportunity for another company to begin work in another 3-5 years to create the next big thing. At this point, anyone that might have been incentivized to try, won’t be any longer.
I’m sure you’ll find articles making similar statements when there were rumors of the iPhone.
Looking at what existed at the time, seeing that as “all that is possible” and proclaiming that no one else can attain it, much less go beyond into areas not even conceived at the time. Another shift IS coming. And, if Apple and Google are sitting at the forefront of that? It’ll be because other companies that COULD have jumped forward were heavily disincentivized to do so. If the broader goal is maintaining the Apple/Google preeminence, they’re doing a good job!
Your definition of computing platform and my definition of computing platform appear to be very different. WhatsApp would seem to be a communication platform to me, but ok.You should look into the world outside the US.
The first Nokia cell phone was in 1987. The iPhone was in 2007. That was 20 years of Nokia becoming the largest cell phone company in the world. In 2004/2005, the iPhone hadn’t even started to be a thing, so let’s say 18 years. It’s been 15 since the iPhone and there are governments focused on removing the type of profit sharing that ensures that the next company is able to actually obtain the revenue to thrive and grow. With the number of companies and people that appear to be fed up with the status quo, there’s WAS ample opportunity for another company to begin work in another 3-5 years to create the next big thing. At this point, anyone that might have been incentivized to try, won’t be any longer.
I’m sure you’ll find articles making similar statements when there were rumors of the iPhone.
Nokia and the others were finally knocked off when Apple caused a paradigm shift to occurr. It’s not like Apple came in with the iPhone as just another also-ran competing with basically more of the same as what was already out there, but with a different brand logo. It was a completely revolutionary device that gave consumers a completely novel experience. It negated the need for a cellphone and completely eclipsed the “smartphones” that were available at the time. In fact an example we have of Apple quasi-releasing an also-ran device that wasn’t anything close to a paradigm shift was the Motorola ROKR just a couple years before the iPhone. It was a complete dud and didn’t displace anything. Anyone trying to launch a new smartphone platform these days would simply be launching another ROKR.
As for needing a profit sharing model to make an attempt at a paradigm shift worth the investment and resources, Apple didn’t need that incentive. The iPhone launched without the App Store. Steve Jobs didn’t originally even intend to have third-party apps running natively on the iPhone. His solution was to use web apps, which went over like a lead balloon.
Remembering Apple's 'sweet solution' for iPhone apps before the App Store - 9to5Mac
In the summer of 2007, developers were anxious to hear how they fit into the iPhone story. Steve Jobs told...
9to5mac.com
Seems we have evidence to the contrary on your claim that future potential paradigm shifters need some kind of guarantee of profit sharing with developers to make attempting such a thing worth it. Clearly Apple thought the project was worth pursuing just for the profits from hardware sales alone. And Google didn’t need that incentive either. You’ll see below that the Play Store (originally Android Market) also only passed 70% through to developers, but did not take any of the 30% for themselves. It went to carriers and billing fees.
Android Market: Now available for users
News and insights on the Android platform, developer tools, and events.
Last edited:
Who pays for the development of this common framework? Who pays for its continued maintenance and updates?
The issue here is that developers are trying to avoid paying Apple a commission, but those same developers are supposed to get free resources?
Apple's original model is the simplest, for developers and users. It's the regulators that are making it a mess.
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.
Digital marketplaces for software downloads aren‘t brick and mortar retail stores.
Services for digital app distribution existed years ago - and they didn’t charge 30 (unless operating as a restricted platform, such as gaming consoles or Apple).
And a large part of the issue causing the headwind they‘re facing is that they did not reduce it to 15% across the board - just selectively, to get goodwill and take some of the pressure out.
I still think, if it were 15% across the board, there would be few complaints - and the rate would be slightly above a competitive rate.
I’m guessing that’s mainly because you’re not aware of all the things WhatsApp enables. You should look into it then compare how essential that is to the iPhone. The iPhone doesn’t even come close.
The fact remains, there were 18 years of Nokia before even the idea of the iPhone started to come together. It’s been 15 years and there are governments working to ensure Apple remains the only non-Android option.
Apple are where they are today due to the profit sharing on the App Store. Developers made a LOT of money and, as the devs were successful, that fed back into Apple’s success which helped Apple to iteratively improve the hardware that people wanted to buy, that made devs money, that made Apple money. It’s a cycle of success that governments want to short circuit. And, just like there were folks that couldn’t envision anything coming after Nokia, there are folks today that can’t envision anything coming after the iPhone. They see it as the pinnacle of the world’s technological achievement. I’m confident it’s not, I’m confident there are people out there that can do better. However, without any form of easily accessible application repository (which is neither easy nor cheap) and allowing a way to effectively monetize the same, they’re just continuing to increase the likelihood that Google and Apple maintain their dominance.
I’ve specifically mentioned “non-Android option” because I take into account its ad-driven nature. Any company NOT deriving their main source of funding from advertising will need to share the profit amongst the partners in order to thrive. Without that option, without the ability to drive their success from the success they create for others, few, if any, will even make the attempt.
So would you also agree that it’s disgusting for companies like Sony and Xbox to also charge developers 30% for games they publish on these respective platforms?
Heheh love it ❤️
Apple will let it run out till 50m, they are too high nosed, but after 50m it will become worse at step 2.
This is just the start, more fines will come from around the globe, and specially from the EU, it’s being prepared for companies abusing monopoly, duopoly and market power like Apple and Google.
Apple will let it run out till 50m, they are too high nosed, but after 50m it will become worse at step 2.
This is just the start, more fines will come from around the globe, and specially from the EU, it’s being prepared for companies abusing monopoly, duopoly and market power like Apple and Google.
So it’s the implementation of the mechanism that the Dutch regulator doesn’t like?
It’s going to be interesting to see what level Apple sets the commission as that may be a blueprint for other countries.
It’s going to be interesting to see what level Apple sets the commission as that may be a blueprint for other countries.
Just pull out all Apple business (hardware and online) out of the Extortionist countries.
Apple: "I see you hate everything we do. Fine. We'll do business elsewhere. Bye."
Sorry I'm late to this thread...
What do the Dutch want?
Apparently they made some demands... but Apple didn't satisfy those demands...
So... again... what do they want?
And more importantly... what can Apple do to eliminate the two or three articles about the App Store every week for the rest of our lives?!?!?
What do the Dutch want?
Apparently they made some demands... but Apple didn't satisfy those demands...
So... again... what do they want?
And more importantly... what can Apple do to eliminate the two or three articles about the App Store every week for the rest of our lives?!?!?
They want this, apparently…Sorry I'm late to this thread...
What do the Dutch want?
Apparently they made some demands... but Apple didn't satisfy those demands...
So... again... what do they want?
And more importantly... what can Apple do to eliminate the two or three articles about the App Store every week for the rest of our lives?!?!?
Apple's plan also appears to require developers to choose between offering a third-party in-app purchase option or being able to direct users to outside payment options, and the ACM says Apple must allow developers to offer both options.
Sideloading is only interesting for Piracy and Pipo who want to hack other pipes phone. so I think you want to pirate iOS apps instead of paying for themWould 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
Thanks!
So Apple says Dutch dating apps can use 3rd-party in-app purchase options *or* they can direct users to outside payment options.
But the Dutch want *both* options.
Alright. Seems simple enough.
Is there any reason Apple can't comply? And is this really that big of a deal?
?
Probably no real reason Apple can’t do it that way, just the regulator is not happy with the way Apple has so far proposed (in the EU we do things a strange way… we tell companies to change and threaten to fine them if they don’t. But we don’t actually tell them exactly how we want them to change, so we reserve the right to say ‘that’s not what we meant, here’s a fine’).
But the most interesting aspect of this is what level the commission is set at and what process Apple will use to collect it.
Last edited:
And I thought the whole reason developers were pushing for 3rd-party payments was to avoid Apple's cut.
I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they still have to give a commission to Apple.
unlikely nad there is no evidence to support apple will 100% entitled to its commission.
almost no app IS using iOS IPs. apps are calling functions iOS have built in, these are the APIs developers are allowed to use.
If it's only through digital means they yes, I agree with others that taking 30% on digital goods is disgusting. People use the argument that 30% is standard within the retail industry but what these people forget is that this is brick and mortar stores, stores that have to pay rent, service charges, utility charges, business taxes and other taxes, staff wages. Digital stores and companies that sell digital products do not have those issues therefore for them to put 30% on their digital goods and to say 'well, it's industry practice' is disgusting because no, it's not industry practice, it is industry practice with 'brick and mortar' stores, not digital ones.
Retail stores used to take way more than 30%, IIRC.
Would it be any better if instead of commission, Apple simply changed the term to “platform fee”? Apple had aggregated all these iPhone users and made it extremely easy for consumers to locate and download apps. The net result is that this allows the sale of more apps than if they were hosted on an external website that users had to make an effort to visit.
I feel that Apple does deserve something for its role in facilitating app sales between the developer and the end user. I don’t have a magic number for you, but off the top of my head, I would say to just waive the fee for non-gaming apps (since they make up only a very small percentage of app stores revenue in total), while retaining 30% for game.
You also have to remember that Apple doesn't have any huge upfront costs to be in the App Store.
Yes... you need to own a Macintosh... and you have to pay a $99 yearly membership fee. But that's it. Anyone can create an app for the App Store with a rather minimal investment.
And you only have to pay a fee when you actually sell something. That seems completely logical.
But... is 30% too much? Should it have been 15% all along? 10%?
I dunno.
But the fact is... Apple not charging huge upfront fees and instead taking a percentage from each purchase is the reason there are so many iOS developers.
It allows one-person developers *and* huge corporate developers to be on equal footing.
The real problem is Apple doesn’t wish to set a precedent by giving into rules in smaller markets. By doing so, developers operating in larger markets such as Epic will point to any new precedent and argue why it can’t be done worldwide. It undermines Apple’s case.