C’mon Dutch people! Find your prostitutes like the rest of the world does! Stop bargaining with Apple commissions.
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 Still Unsatisfied With Apple's Rules Surrounding Dating Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To those posting "they should pull out of [insert market here], will you also support pulling out of the USA if/when this circumstance occurs there? If your answer is no, your logic is flawed.
dating in NL means prostitution. abd its controlled by bad people with deep pockets
People keep posting this, but Apple doesn't require IAP for offline "services".
This is because the Match Group (various online dating apps across the world and member of Epic's Coalition for App Fairness) filed a complaint.That's because Apple keeps coyly doing the bare minimum to comply with the technical interpretation of the order rather than addressing the intent of what the Dutch regulator is asking for.
Damn all the Apple fanboys over here.. insane.
The thing in the Netherlands is that we should be free to pick what service we would like to pay with on the internet. We even should always have an option to always pay after we received the product or service we bought online. Or the maximum of 50% upfront.
It’s not heavily enforced (or even widely known for that matter) though, so smaller players mostly don’t correctly execute these rules.
The ACM received a lot of complaints from people using dating apps on Apple devices that there is only one option to use for payment; only trough your Apple account.
The thing is, The ACM is now focussing on these datingapps, since thats where the complaints where coming from. Apple knows that when there is a “good” system in place for these dating apps, the other apps will soon also want that option.
Apple is simply half-assing their attempt at the iDeal (the most used service to pay online over here in the Netherlands) implementation.
The thing in the Netherlands is that we should be free to pick what service we would like to pay with on the internet. We even should always have an option to always pay after we received the product or service we bought online. Or the maximum of 50% upfront.
It’s not heavily enforced (or even widely known for that matter) though, so smaller players mostly don’t correctly execute these rules.
The ACM received a lot of complaints from people using dating apps on Apple devices that there is only one option to use for payment; only trough your Apple account.
The thing is, The ACM is now focussing on these datingapps, since thats where the complaints where coming from. Apple knows that when there is a “good” system in place for these dating apps, the other apps will soon also want that option.
Apple is simply half-assing their attempt at the iDeal (the most used service to pay online over here in the Netherlands) implementation.
Last edited:
You won't be free to pick the service you like to pay with. Developers will. This has very little to do with consumer benefits. This action was started with complaints from the Match Group. Not consumers.
It's about enabling large corporations to take control and money from Apple.
Last edited:
Okido sir. It’s just the dutch (and possibly even european) laws. If Apple wants our money they will have to follow our laws, it’s that simple.
And if I remember correctly, the way Apple implemented their current version; there’s still a cut going to Apple. So your point is kind of invalid.
Usually what happens is the gray-market thrives. Everybody (or most) that wants an iPhone will still get one. They will just pay more for them and the government will lose the ability to regulate them. EU governments will have a much harder time because of open cross-border trade and phone portability laws. Basically anything you can pop a SIM card in is supposed to work on any network as long as you provide some ID when you buy the SIM.
This tells anyone all they need to know about the merits. “Yes, they’ve done all the things, but I’m sure we still don’t like it for some reason… we’ve decided.”
Absolutely. No arguments there. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.
Not invalid at all. Alternative payment providers typically get around 3% or so from each transaction (with a wide variance.) That's why Apple offered to lower its commission by 3%.
Match Group specifically wants more control over pricing, so they can screw over consumers with deceptive pricing strategies such as variable pricing.
Perhaps the problem is that Apple knows that in the Netherlands they will be treated proportionally and according to the rule of law to the last extent.
In China they know they wouldn't even know what hit them and so they have no problem rolling over as fast as possible.
These articles always like to portray Apple as the bumbling giant that is always getting into trouble because of their own arrogance or even malice . In reality, Apple is a huge company that has a very good legal team and can afford to play the long game. They know that regulators and lawmakers always make noise because it's always in their political interest to do so. The real decisions are made in the courts. If Apple is still pushing back this late in the process, it means they believe they have the law on their side.
First of all, it’s a Mac/Apple site. Do you expect Apple haters here?
Second, nobody outside the Netherlands has a clue what iDeal is, so that means nothing to us. If Apple is allowing it, what’s the problem?
Third, from any outside observer, the Dutch government asked for two things: 1) Allow other payment services to be used, and 2) allow developers to submit only a single binary. From anyone looking in from the outside, Apple did exactly what they asked for. So what’s the problem and why is the government saying it isn’t enough? The article said nothing and the tweet said nothing about what was missing, so that’s what’s driving the comments here. Apple abided by both requirements, yet you’re saying they are half-assing it. How, if they met the requirements according to what was asked? It’s an honest question where you implied Apple was missing something but didn’t say what was missing. And neither did the Dutch government. Why would you expect us to criticize Apple when it seems they met both requirements? If the goal posts keep moving, why wouldn’t you expect us to have Apple to tell them to pound sand?
The article’s contents basically show Apple met all the requirements asked of it, but implied the Dutch government said, yeah, still not good enough because we want to add even more requirements we didn’t bother mentioning before and don’t even want to tell you what it is, so we’ll keep fining you. Now do you know why people are on Apple’s side here? If the situation was not presented fairly by this article, let us know how. As it is, the single binary requirement was tacked on since the original request was to allow other payment processors. There was never a mention of a single binary, so that was the first goal post moving. Now there’s another goal post moving. When Apple meets the next demand, will the goal post shift yet again?
Downloads on the app store do not need 27% to make profit especially when the app is using a different payment processor.
Apple wants to charge 27% on everything that someone else processes OUTSIDE OF APPLE entirely. Which is BS.
Its understandable to make money to pay for the downloads and get profit off that.
But the reality is 27% on all payments apple does not process? Thats some BS and thats the root of these issues.
Because apple is not processing those payments, and apple is not operating the services. The dating apps use their own servers and equipment and all apple does is process app downloads beyond that its all stuff the app dev pays for.
Also devs pay to list their app on the app store already lol. Apple could just charge a per download per MB size fee. But apple isnt doing that. They literally want to profit off of something others are doing just because its running on iOS. MS and google got slapped to ****ing hell for this already way back adn not even they do that.
On google if you use a 3rd party payment processor they don't charge a thing.
The difference is the process. In western countries there is the possibility to publicly criticize pending legislation or court rulings. In China, all that happens behind closed doors in private. In the west we only see the end result of Chinese negotiations. We never see the laws that were averted or the changes made to the ones that did pass during the negotiation process.
This was the elephant in the room. What else could they want?
Did they give Apple any hints? Is bigger than a mouse? Can you find it in a house? Can you find it anywhere? Alas, this is neither here nor there.
Com'on man, tell them what they need to fix. Don't give them vague specifications and get all pissy when it ain't what y'all wanted.
Maybe Apple should amend their rules so dating apps aren't allowed in the Dutch App Store. Can't break the rules if there aren't any dating apps 🤣
If one doesn’t know what the compliance conditions not met, how can you discuss this topic?
Of course they’re not. Politics won‘t be satisfied until iOS is another Android and Apple stops making any money on services, then it will be fair. As a user I am extremely worried that people who are in charge want to take a choice from me. I want to have a choice to use open or closed mobile system.
Do you know why Apple charges 30% for in-app payments? It’s because if they didn’t, Apple would never again earn a penny from any app on the app store. Think about it. If Apple only charged for initial purchase, every single app tomorrow would suddenly be free with in-app purchase to unlock its actual functionality. Apple would end up with nothing for every app. That is why Apple charges the 30%, to not allow developers to avoid paying Apple anything for a non-free app. Free apps stay free, but free apps that charge in-app are no longer free. That’s why they need to pay up. If they did what you want, they might as well close up shop and eliminate the App Store because their revenue would be zero from now on.
The 30% isn’t for Apple’s cost of processing payments. It’s about 2-3%, which is why they discounted the fee by 3%. The other 27% is for paying for costs of running the App Store.
If the cost of running the App Store is so much to contend with, why do you see record profitability?
Apple's App Store had gross sales around $64 billion last year and it's growing strongly again
The money that Apple makes from its App Store has become a flash point for critics of Apple that argue it has too much power.