Not at all, it’s all based on existing laws. Civil law courts(every EU nation use it) can’t create laws by interpretation. And I think I posted to you in another comment that apple have been in court in December, and ACM was found correct in their judgement.
Well perhaps you should have checked the case then?
It’s extremely likely the commission and commissionaire are covered by the EU commissions currently ongoing probe against apple for anticompetitive practices. This is why it’s such a narrow judgment in order not to interfere.
Why would Apple not be entitled to that 27%? Under the previous method, Apple charged the developers 30% for in-app purchases. By developers using their own payment processor, Apple deducts the cost of the actual payment processor fee, which averages 2.5-3%, depending on the credit company. The rest is the commission for in-app purchasing, no different than the commission Apple charges for initial download and app purchase.
Because they removed themselves as the commissioner. This is a legal terminology they don’t have a right to a commission as they are out of the loop
First of that’s apple’s problem and nothing EU or ACM cares for. Whatever “cheating” means.
Perhaps not in the USA but it’s An important legal difference in EU.
Tell that to Netflix, Uber and Spotify etc
That’s apples problem they don’t have a good way to fix this. Even tho they could have a pay for what you use service.
The question is there anything being cheated? Because apple doesn’t have a right to an app’s revenue.
Simple. Apple competing with better services to convince developers to use their solution.
Easy, every app will have the same rights as the dating app. This is solved by DMA making this mandatory for all apps and not only dating apps
Why would they be? They aren‘t providing dating services, and neither have they created the in-app content. Apple are freeloading on other developers works by charging their commission (though we‘ve already had that in this thread).
It does matter, since Apple in their terms declare it as a charge for their services as a commissionaire themselves.
That we fully agree on
Apps are subsidising iPhone sales - whether they‘re free or not, and whether Apple charges a commission or not.
Company E releases a video streaming app where you can subscribe to channels in-app, using their own account and billing system. Yet they don’t have to pay a commission to Apple.
“Welcome to the EU where numeric values have no value!”
Got it all figured out? how to parcel off apples ip to those who have no vested stake? Thankfully in the US it will be an uphill battle.
Well what does a numerical value of 80% say about the market? If apple have 30% of the market or 80% of the market, you’d still don’t know anything of value. Is it good or bad? That’s is why a monopoly isn’t illegal even if you have 100% of the market. If no anti competitive actions was taken, no abuse of the market was made etc then nothing illegal was done.
Apple’s IP is completely safe. Notice how apple only talks about safety and privacy and not IP laws.
No it won’t. The pro-sideloading, open nfc supporters seem not to understand that forced sideloading and forced open nfc is giving apples property away, probably costing them billions.
NFC is licensed proprietary hardware AND software apple doesn’t own. But pay the rights owners a fee to include it.
Exactly. Thank you for supporting that point.
No, no, I get it. They created a system whereby any company can be attacked based on nothing more than “we don’t like it”… no value based details required.
Dominance isn’t illegal. But I can understand if USA prefers a numerical value for a blanket qualification hitting everyone indiscriminately instead of objectively measurable criteria instead targeting harmful results
And this is the problem you will never understand. You place no value whatsoever on the billions Apple spends on infrastructure, support, marketing, and vetting on the App Store. ALL apps get those services, free or otherwise. In order to pay for those services, Apple charges their 30%/15% fee, which benefits those apps that are truly free, both initially and post-purchase because they are subsidized by the paid apps. Apple chose to do it in the form of a percentage service charge for purchases, whether they be at the point of initial sale or afterwards in the form of in-app. Apple doesn't have to be a participant in whatever transaction or whatever payment processor is being used. They have a right to charge in order to even have these apps on their Store.
Hitting everyone indiscriminately and being able to provide data that “shows one’s work” is always better than hitting whomever one likes merely because it behooves them on a particular day. One helps to foster the idea of “meet these objective requirements, and you’re probably ok”. The other, “well, yes that’s what I said when you incorporated, but now I’ve changed my mind!” EU companies have to watch 27 separate backs, no wonder they restrict themselves to being smaller.
Preventing harmful business practice is has nothing to do with „attacking“ companies because you don’t like them. Neither the EU nor the Dutch despise Apple or Google - they just want them to refrain from employing certain business practices (like… forcing their payment systems on other companies that don’t have a real other than to be in the app store).
1. It is unsubstantiated that they’re spending „billions“ to run the app store.
So you're basically admitting you want a carve out and don't want the brothel apps to ever pay Apple a penny, yet still be hosted on the App Store. I don't know what other kind of arrangements Apple's made with other developers, but nobody freeloads unless they're totally free, and everyone accepted that going in. These brothels knew the conditions going in, but greased some politician pockets to save themselves millions of Euro by shafting Apple and the other developers.
www.theverge.com
Perhaps you should stop lying and read the complaints. They have a merit and google likely dropped the ball.Just in, Match are Suing google over the 30% now.
Whats interesting is that in this case a true zero commission alternative payment system exists via sideloading, and they have made a point of saying that basically side-loading ain't worth a crap! That you need to be on the Play/App store from a marketing standpoint.
That being the case both stores are well worth the commissions they are asking in marketing cost alone, and they darn well know it.
Match have really shown their colors here. They want both the technology and their product placement in App stores to be FREE. ACM is parroting these views.
Match Group is suing Google over Android’s in-app payment monopoly
Google’s billing policies come under fire yet again.
Developers where free to use a payment option of their choosing before 2020, untill google mandated their solution with a mandatory 15-30% cut
Lying ?
That’s google shooting them self’s in the foot. And can be argued as a way to deceive developers. They have a bigger case here than apple who honestly always enforced it
Sure thing, but this is something the courts don’t respect or take in to consideration. Not enforcing a policy= not a policy
This would be thrown out of court on the basis they did not enforce it voluntarily. And knowingly let everyone circumvent it.
Not sure why you feel the need to resort to referring them as „brothel“ apps.
No, I personally could totally live with Apple charging everyone the same, rather than discriminating particular services or apps/developers.
The ACM argued that they don’t have another realistic business choice (cause they‘d be severely disadvantaged without a native app and/or means of monetisation). And I pretty much to agree.
Regulatory authorities are rarely run by politicians (at least in Europe). Besides that, there‘s no reason not to believe that politicians could, as a matter of good judgement and conscience, conclude and believe that a duopoly as Google/Apple need to be regulated.
Again, there’s lots of developers that make money - and they don’t pay.
And what makes you believe it’s not an objective standard?
Anti competitive laws, abusing dominant position and being in a dominant position is objective standards.